[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8571-S8582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE RONALD H. BROWN FEDERAL BUILDING DESIGNATION ACT OF 1997
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to honor and
remember a truly exceptional American, Ronald H. Brown. The bill would
designate the newly constructed Federal
[[Page S8572]]
building located at 290 Broadway in the heart of lower Manhattan as the
``Ronald H. Brown Federal Building.''
It is a fitting gesture to recognize the passing of this remarkable
American, and I would ask for my colleagues' support for this
legislation to place one more marker in history on Ron Brown's behalf.
Ron Brown had a great love for enterprise and industry as reflected
in his achievements as the first African-American to hold the office of
U.S. Secretary of Commerce. His was also a life of outstanding
achievement and public service: Army captain; vice president of the
National Urban League; partner in a prestigious law firm; chairman of
the National Democratic Committee; husband and father. And these are
but a few of the achievements that demonstrated Ron Brown's spirited
and sweeping pursuit of life.
To have held any one of these posts in the government, and in the
private sector, is extraordinary. To have held all of the positions he
did and prevail as he did, is unique. Ron Brown was tragically taken
from us too soon; we are diminished by his loss. I cannot think of a
more fitting tribute to this uncommon man.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ronald H. Brown Federal
Building Designation Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1108
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
The Federal building located at 290 Broadway in New York,
New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Ronald H.
Brown Federal Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in any law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the Federal building
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to
the ``Ronald H. Brown Federal Building.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 1110. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to place a
limitation on habeas corpus relief that prevents retrial of an accused;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE VICTIM PROTECTION ACT OF 1997
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the
Victim Protection Act of 1997.
I commend my colleague, Representative Joseph Pitts, for his
leadership in preparing this legislation which he is introducing today
in the House of Representatives.
This legislation arises from the case of Commonwealth versus Lisa
Michelle Lambert where the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania found a violation of the defendant's constitutional
rights and issued an order barring the defendant from a retrial.
The Congress has the authority to legislate under Article V of the
14th amendment which provides:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
This legislation is designed to prevent the U.S. District Courts from
ordering a remedy to bar a new trial.
This legislation respects the authority of the Federal courts to
uphold a defendant's constitutional rights in State court criminal
proceedings. It may well be that the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit will act to reverse the order barring a retrial.
Whatever action is taken in the case of Commonwealth versus Lisa
Michelle Lambert, the Federal habeas corpus law should be clear that
U.S. District Courts do not have the authority to bar a retrial.
Under our Federal system, it should be--and this bill will establish
the statutory authority--for the district attorney in Lancaster County
to make the judgment whether the unsuppressed evidence is sufficient
for a retrial. It would then be up to the court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County to make the first judicial judgment on the retrial
issues with appropriate appellate procedures in the Superior and
Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania.
This principled approach respects judicial independence.
When the District Court issued its opinion, there was an immediate
public outcry for impeachment. At that time, I said and I repeat today,
impeachment is not an appropriate response.
The appropropriate response is an appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit which will review the matter. A
further appropriate response is legislation to make the statute
explicit that the district court may not impose a remedy to bar a new
trial.
This bill would not affect the otherwise extensive authority of the
U.S. District Courts to protect rights where constitutional issues are
raised. Obviously, a statute could not deal with the defendant's
constitutional rights. That would require a constitutional amendment.
However, this bill on the issue of retrial is within the purview of
appropriate legislation pursuant to Article V of the 14th amendment.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 1111. A bill to establish a youth mentoring program; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
JUMP AHEAD ACT OF 1997
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, millions of young people in America
live in areas where drug use, violent and property crimes are a way of
life. Unfortunately, many of these same young people come from one-
parent homes, or from environments where there is no responsible,
caring adult supervision. These at-risk children are on the brink--
their lives could go in either a positive or destructive direction.
There is indisputable evidence, however, that at-risk children who have
responsible adult mentors choose the right path.
Mr. President, that is why today I am introducing legislation, the
JUMP Ahead Act of 1997, that will take mentoring in this country to the
next level to meet the needs of millions of at-risk youths and their
families.
All children and adolescents need caring adults in their lives, and
mentoring is one effective way to fill this special need for at-risk
children. The special bond of commitment fostered by the mutual respect
inherent in effective mentoring can be the tie that binds a young
person to a better future. Through a mentoring experience, adult
volunteers and participating youth make a significant commitment of
time and energy to develop relationships devoted to personal, academic,
or career development and social, artistic, or athletic growth.
Although in recent years there has been an increasing understanding
of the importance and benefits of mentoring, too few at-risk children
are being reached. It is reported that between 5 and 15 million
children in the U.S. could benefit from being matched with a mentor.
The status quo cannot meet this need.
As I rise today to talk about the value and importance of mentoring
to at-risk youth, we are in the midst of a crisis in the form of a
growing tide of juvenile crime. While overall crime rates have been
stabilizing and even decreasing in some areas, crime among our youth
has been on the rise. If trends continue, juvenile arrests for violent
crime will double by the year 2010.
In addition to juvenile crime, today's youth faces other serious
problems. Every day in America 2,795 teens get pregnant, 1,512
teenagers drop out of school, and 211 children are arrested for drug
use.
If we don't act quickly and decisively, we risk losing a whole
generation of young people. We need to save our kids.
Mr. President, that is why in 1992 I authored the Juvenile Mentoring
Program (JUMP). JUMP is administered by the Department of Justice's
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). JUMP is
targeted specifically at reducing juvenile delinquency and gang
participation, improving academic performance, and reducing the dropout
rate by introducing adult mentors as role models, counselors, and
friends for at-risk youth. Both local education agencies and public/
private non-profit organizations receive JUMP grants.
Since its enactment, JUMP has funded 93 separate mentoring programs
in over half the States in the Union. The competition for these JUMP
awards is great: Over 479 communities submitted applications for the
recent round of grants. JUMP grantees use a variety of program designs.
Mentors are law enforcement and fire department personnel, college
students, senior citizens, Federal employees, businessmen, and other
private citizens. The mentees are
[[Page S8573]]
of all races they come from urban, suburban, and rural communities, and
range in age from 5 to 20. Some are incarcerated or on probation, some
are in school, and some are dropouts. In its first year, JUMP helped to
keep thousands of at-risk young people in 25 States in school and off
the streets through one-to-one mentoring.
Mr. President, now is the time to take mentoring to the next level.
The JUMP Ahead Act enhances the basic successful structure of JUMP, and
increases awards to up to $200,000. It also increases authorized
funding to $50 million per year for 4 years, for a total of $200
million. This initiative will not only vastly increase the number of
mentoring programs able to receive grants, but it also creates a new
category of grants that will enable experienced national organizations
to provide needed technical assistance to emerging mentoring programs
nationwide. Also, the legislation mandates the Justice Department to
rigorously evaluate the program to document what is effective, and what
does not produce results. The increased funding allows the DOJ to award
grants to a wider group of applicants, allowing for greater diversity
and creativity. However, the high standards set by the JUMP program
still must be met by all grantees.
Mr. President, mentoring works. Not only is this confirmed by common
sense and life experience, but also by scientific study. Perhaps the
most well-known mentoring program is the world-renowned Big Brothers/
Big Sisters of America, a federation of more than 500 agencies that
serve children and adolescents. About one quarter of all JUMP grantees
are Big Brothers/Big Sisters affiliates. They have been providing
mentors to young people for over 90 years with wonderful results. And
now those results have been scientifically validated.
A carefully designed independent evaluation of mentoring programs
found tremendously positive results and that mentoring programs offer
great promise. Most noteworthy among those findings was that mentored
youth were 46 percent less likely to initiate drug use. An even
stronger effect was found for minority Little Brothers and Little
Sisters, who were 70 percent less likely to initiate drug use than
similar minority youth.
Additionally, Mr. President, mentored youth were 27 percent less
likely to initiate alcohol use, and minority Little Sisters were only
about one-half as likely to initiate alcohol use. The study also found
that mentored youth skipped half as many days of school, felt more
competent about doing schoolwork, skipped fewer classes, and showed
modest gains in their grade point averages. These gains were strongest
among Little Sisters, particularly minority Little Sisters.
Mr. President, effective mentoring programs require agencies that
take substantial care in recruiting, screening, matching, and
supporting volunteers. These are critical functions for an effective
mentoring program. The investment in comparison to the benefits to
individual kids and society as a whole is minimal; approximately $1,000
per child. Such a small price for such an enormous payoff.
Mr. President, experience and now research tells us that there is a
desperate need for a new, more positive approach to developing youth
policy and discouraging juvenile crime and violence. Mentoring has
proven to be one of the best way to get to kids before they get into
trouble. We have been talking for years about the need to provide our
children with a better future, to give our kids something to say
``yes'' to. JUMP was a great, but small, first step in the right
direction. Now it is time to take a giant leap--a JUMP Ahead.
In Washington, we talk easily about investing in our kids' future.
Whenever we want to build a highway or a bridge, we call it an
investment for the future. If we want to ratify trade treaties, we call
it an investment in our future. The same goes for everything from
cutting the deficit to building sophisticated defense systems to
sending probes to Mars.
Mr. President, there cannot be a more important investment in the
future of our country and our people than directly investing in saving
our kids. And that is what mentoring is all about. Mentoring works.
Effective mentoring programs can significantly reduce and prevent the
use of alcohol and drugs by young people, improve school attendance and
performance, improve peer and family relationships, and curb violent
behavior.
Mr. President, what greater investment can we make?
I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent
that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1111
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 ``JUMP Ahead Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) millions of young people in America live in areas in
which drug use and violent and property crimes are pervasive;
(2) unfortunately, many of these same young people come
from single parent homes, or from environments in which there
is no responsible, caring adult supervision;
(3) all children and adolescents need caring adults in
their lives, and mentoring is an effective way to fill this
special need for at-risk children. The special bond of
commitment fostered by the mutual respect inherent in
effective mentoring can be the tie that binds a young person
to a better future;
(4) through a mentoring relationship, adult volunteers and
participating youth make a significant commitment of time and
energy to develop relationships devoted to personal,
academic, or career development and social, artistic, or
athletic growth;
(5) rigorous independent studies have confirmed that
effective mentoring programs can significantly reduce and
prevent the use of alcohol and drugs by young people, improve
school attendance and performance, improve peer and family
and peer relationships, and reduce violent behavior;
(6) since the inception of the Federal JUMP program, dozens
of innovative, effective mentoring programs have received
funding grants;
(7) unfortunately, despite the recent growth in public and
private mentoring initiatives, it is reported that between
5,000,000 and 15,000,000 additional children in the United
States could benefit from being matched with a mentor; and
(8) although great strides have been made in reaching at-
risk youth since the inception of the JUMP program, millions
of vulnerable American children are not being reached, and
without an increased commitment to connect these young people
to responsible adult role models, our country risks losing an
entire generation to drugs, crime, and unproductive lives.
SEC. 3. JUVENILE MENTORING GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 288B of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The
Administrator shall'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) are intended to achieve 1 or more of the following
goals:
``(A) Discourage at-risk youth from--
``(i) using illegal drugs and alcohol;
``(ii) engaging in violence;
``(iii) using guns and other dangerous weapons;
``(iv) engaging in other criminal and antisocial behavior;
and
``(v) becoming involved in gangs.
``(B) Promote personal and social responsibility among at-
risk youth.
``(C) Increase at-risk youth's participation in, and
enhance the ability of those youth to benefit from,
elementary and secondary education.
``(D) Encourage at-risk youth participation in community
service and community activities.
``(E) Provide general guidance to at-risk youth.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Amount and Duration.--Each grant under this part
shall be awarded in an amount not to exceed a total of
$200,000 over a period of not more than 3 years.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999,
2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out this part.''.
SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department
of Justice may make grants to national organizations or
agencies serving youth, in order to enable those
organizations or agencies--
(1) to conduct a multisite demonstration project, involving
between 5 and 10 project sites, that--
(A) provides an opportunity to compare various mentoring
models for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness and
efficiency of those models;
(B) allows for innovative programs designed under the
oversight of a national organization or agency serving youth,
which programs may include--
(i) technical assistance;
(ii) training; and
(iii) research and evaluation; and
[[Page S8574]]
(C) disseminates the results of such demonstration project
to allow for the determination of the best practices for
various mentoring programs;
(2) to develop and evaluate screening standards for
mentoring programs; and
(3) to develop and evaluate volunteer recruitment
techniques and activities for mentoring programs.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. EVALUATIONS; REPORTS.
(a) Evaluations.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall enter into a
contract with an evaluating organization that has
demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, for the
conduct of an ongoing rigorous evaluation of the programs and
activities assisted under this Act or under section 228B of
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as amended by this Act).
(2) Criteria.--The Attorney General shall establish a
minimum criteria for evaluating the programs and activities
assisted under this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5667e-2) (as amended by this Act), which shall provide for a
description of the implementation of the program or activity,
and the effect of the program or activity on participants,
schools, communities, and youth served by the program or
activity.
(3) Mentoring program of the year.--The Attorney General
shall, on an annual basis, based on the most recent
evaluation under this subsection and such other criteria as
the Attorney General shall establish by regulation--
(A) designate 1 program or activity assisted under this Act
as the ``Juvenile Mentoring Program of the Year''; and
(B) publish notice of such designation in the Federal
Register.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Grant recipients.--Each entity receiving a grant under
this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as
amended by this Act) shall submit to the evaluating
organization entering into the contract under subsection
(a)(1), an annual report regarding any program or activity
assisted under this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5667e-2) (as amended by this Act). Each report under this
paragraph shall be submitted at such time, in such a manner,
and shall be accompanied by such information, as the
evaluating organization may reasonably require.
(2) Comptroller general.--Not later than 4 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
submit to Congress a report evaluating the effectiveness of
grants awarded under this Act and under section 228B of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as amended by this Act), in--
(A) reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation;
(B) reducing the school dropout rate; and
(C) improving academic performance of juveniles.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Conrad, and Mr.
Wellstone):
S. 1112. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint
coins in commemoration of native American history and culture; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
THE BUFFALO NICKEL COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT OF 1997
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, it gives me great personal pleasure to
introduce the Buffalo Nickel Commemorative Coin Act of 1997. I am also
pleased to add Senators Inouye, Conrad, and Wellstone as cosponsors of
this legislation.
For those of us old enough to remember or for those who have seen
one, the buffalo nickel holds a special place in history. This coin was
in general circulation from 1913 to 1938, and it featured an Indian
head design on one side with a buffalo design on the reverse.
The coin's history is an interesting one, and I would like to share
it with my colleagues. The artist who designed this coin, James Earle
Fraser, wanted to produce a coin which was truly unique and American. I
believe Mr. Fraser put it best himself when he said,
In designing the buffalo nickel, my first object was to
produce a coin which was truly American, and that could not
be confused with the currency of any other country. I made
sure, therefore, to use none of the attributes that other
nations had used in the past. And, in my search for symbols,
I found no motif within the boundaries of the United States
so distinctive as the American buffalo or bison.
According to historical sources, the Indian head on the nickel was
created by Mr. Fraser based upon three models: Iron Tail, an Oglala
Sioux; Two Moons, a Northern Cheyenne; and Big Tree, a Seneca Iroquois.
Supposedly all three Indians were performers appearing in wild-west
shows in New York City at the time they posed for Mr. Fraser.
As for the buffalo, historians generally agree that the model was
Black Diamond, a bull bison residing in the Central Park Zoo.
Unfortunately, after being immortalized on the buffalo nickel, Black
Diamond was slaughtered.
The end result was a coin which was, indeed, truly unique. It has
been roughly 60 years since the U.S. Bureau of the Mint ended
production of the buffalo nickel. The bill I am offering today would
direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a limited-edition
commemorative buffalo nickel coin to begin in the year 2000. I believe
it is fitting to reintroduce this beloved coin to new generations of
Americans.
These coins will also serve another important purpose appropriate to
its heritage. Profits from the sale of the coins will go to the
endowment and educational funds of the National Museum of the American
Indian. Authorized in 1989 by the National Museum of the American
Indian Act, Public Law 101-185, the museum is set to begin construction
in order to meet its scheduled opening date in the year 2002. The
facility, to be located on the Mall here in Washington, DC, will house
over 1 million artifacts and is expected to draw millions of visitors
each year. By contributing funds to the endowment and educational
programs of the museum, the buffalo nickel will be assisting with the
preservation of native artifacts and offer visitors to the museum the
opportunity to appreciate and learn more about native cultures.
The origins of this bill actually began some time ago when an
individual contacted my office with this idea. Following that, my
friend and former colleague, Tim Wirth, sent me a note saying he
thought it was a great idea, and since then I have received hundreds of
postcards from people across the country expressing their desire to see
the return of the buffalo nickel. With that, I am pleased to be able to
introduce this legislation, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues, the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, and the
U.S. Treasury in order to make the buffalo nickel a success.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1112
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 ``United States Buffalo Nickel
Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.
(a) Denominations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, during the 3-year period beginning on January 1, 2000,
the Secretary of the Treasury (hereafter in this Act referred
to as the ``Secretary'') shall mint and issue each year not
more than 1,000,000 5-cent coins, which shall--
(1) weigh 5 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 0.835 inches; and
(3) contain an alloy of 90 percent silver and 10 percent
copper.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of
title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act
shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.
The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting coins under
this Act only from stockpiles established under the Strategic
and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act.
SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.
(a) Design Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be based on the original 5-cent coin designed by
James Earle Fraser and minted from 1913 to 1938. Each coin
shall have on the obverse side a profile representation of a
Native American, and on the reverse side a representation of
a buffalo.
(2) Designations and inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act there shall be--
(A) a designation of the value of the coin;
(B) an inscription of the year; and
(C) inscriptions of the words ``United States of America'',
``Liberty'', and ``E Pluribus Unum''.
(b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the
Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Commission
of Fine Arts; and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.
[[Page S8575]]
SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.
(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States
Mint may be used to strike any particular combination of
denomination and quality of the coins minted under this Act.
(c) Termination of Minting Authority.--No coins may be
minted under this Act after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.
(a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be
sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coins;
(2) the surcharge provided in subsection (d) with respect
to such coins; and
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, and shipping).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders
for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of
such coins.
(2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders
under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
(d) Surcharges.--All sales shall include a surcharge of
$1.00 per coin.
SEC. 7. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
provision of law governing procurement or public contracts
shall be applicable to the procurement of goods and services
necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(b) Equal Employment Opportunity.--Subsection (a) does not
relieve any person entering into a contract under the
authority of this Act from complying with any law relating to
equal employment opportunity.
SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.
(a) Permissible Purposes.--All surcharges received by the
Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall
be paid promptly by the Secretary to the National Museum of
the American Indian for the purposes of--
(1) commemorating the tenth anniversary of the
establishment of the Museum; and
(2) supplementing the endowment and educational outreach
funds of the Museum.
(b) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall have the right to examine such books, records,
documents, and other data of the National Museum of the
American Indian as may be related to the expenditures of
amounts paid under subsection (a).
SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.
(a) No Net Cost to the Government.--The Secretary shall
take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that minting
and issuing coins under this Act will not result in any net
cost to the United States Government.
(b) Payment for Coins.--A coin shall not be issued under
this Act unless the Secretary has received--
(1) full payment for the coin;
(2) security satisfactory to the Secretary to indemnify the
United States for full payment; or
(3) a guarantee of full payment satisfactory to the
Secretary from a depository institution whose deposits are
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the
National Credit Union Administration Board.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. DeWine,
Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Warner):
S. 1113. A bill to extend certain temporary judgeships in the Federal
judiciary; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP LEGISLATION
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, I have studied
the recommendations of the Judicial Conference regarding the extension
of a number of temporary article III judgeships. I am offering this
bill along with Senators Durbin, Hatch, DeWine, Warner, and Hagel in
response to the Judicial Conference's recommendations.
Much anecdotal evidence and rhetorical commentary have been given, in
both the press and from this body, regarding the burdened and
overworked state of the Federal judiciary. My experiences do not bear
this out. I have been a member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight and the Courts for a number of years. In past
years, this committee was likely to take the Judicial Conference's
recommendations as given. Recently, in my role as chairman, I have
taken a more hands on approach to the appointment and extension of
judgeships in the Federal system. As part of this approach, I have held
hearings on this subject and I have made suggestions to the Judicial
Conference on ways to improve their surveys. In part, as a result of my
input, the Judicial Conference added a question to its Biennial
Judicial Survey that asks not only if the circuit or district has need
of additional judgeships, but also whether the circuit or district
might have too many judgeships for its current caseload. Because
caseloads in some districts will inevitably decline, this question
addresses a problem not previously considered. The purpose of the
question is to help the Judicial Conference decide, when faced with a
district that has a declining caseload, whether to reallocate resources
to another district or eliminate an unnecessary judgeship.
As I noted, I have studied various judiciary issues and have worked
with the judiciary to address some of these issues. From my studies and
from conversations I've had with those on the bench, it is obvious that
there is no judicial crisis looming on the horizon. However, changing
circumstances in some judicial districts do need to be addressed. That
is why I am proposing this bill. It addresses the needs of some of
these districts in a substantive, rational manner.
Biennially, the Judicial Conference makes judgeship recommendations
to Congress regarding the needs of the Federal courts. The Conference
sends the chief judge of each district a Biennial Judicial Survey that
they are to submit with the caseloads and weighted caseloads of the
district and report on the status of the district. This survey includes
information on how the district makes use of its senior and magistrate
judges and any recommendations that the chief judge may have regarding
additional judgeships or extension of judgeships in their district. The
Judicial Conference reviews this information and passes its
recommendations on to Congress for review.
For the 1996 survey, the Judicial Conference recommended that 12
districts with current or expired temporary judgeships either make or
add permanent positions or extend the temporary judgeships for an
additional 5 years. The Judicial Conference only made recommendations
for those districts which would have weighted caseloads in excess of
the 430 maximum recommended caseload per article III judge, should the
temporary position expire.
Weighted caseloads are the actual caseloads per district, weighted or
altered to reflect the difference in time and attention needed for
certain types of cases. For example, criminal cases, in general, are
more time consuming and thus are more heavily weighted. However,
prisoner petitions are generally easier to resolve because the petition
usually addresses issues previously addressed and resolved by the
court.
Based on this survey, the Judicial Conference recommended a permanent
judgeship position be added to the northern district of Alabama to
replace the temporary judgeship Congress allowed to expire last year.
In addition, the Conference would like to make the temporary judgeships
in the eastern district of California, northern district of New York,
eastern district of Virginia, and the southern district of Illinois
permanent. The survey indicated that the weighted caseload per article
III judge exceeded the recommended 430 maximum caseload per judge. The
Judicial Conference also recommended, based on this survey, that the
temporary judgeships in the districts of Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska,
eastern Missouri, central Illinois, and southern Ohio be extended for
another 5 years. The Biennial Judicial Survey indicated that these
districts would be above the recommended 430 weighted cases per article
III judge if the temporary judgeships were eliminated.
Based on my studies, most of the districts that currently have
temporary judgeships are able to show the need for the extension of
these judgeships. I used additional factors, not used in the Biennial
Judicial Survey, to arrive at my recommendations for the districts. My
investigation takes into consideration the cases handled by magistrate
and senior judges. These studies show that when these cases are
factored out, some districts fall below the recommended maximum
caseload of 430 cases per article III judge, even after expiration of
the temporary judgeships. In deference to the Judicial Conference, I
have given those districts the
[[Page S8576]]
benefit of the doubt on their need for an extension and have
recommended an extension of their temporary judgeships. My willingness
to accommodate the Judicial Conference recommendations underlines my
willingness to work with the judiciary to reach a reasonable compromise
when possible.
The Judicial Conference's recommendation for permanent status in the
districts of eastern California, northern New York, eastern Virginia,
and southern Illinois differs from my recommendation. After my review,
I do not believe the Conference's recommendation can be justified.
Among the factors I considered for extending permanent status for these
districts is whether the district showed a consistent increase in its
per judge caseload over the past several years. When plotted, caseloads
from most of these districts, show a roller coaster ride regarding the
number of cases filed per article III judge. Over the period tracked,
caseload increases were inconsistent and filings frequently decreased
compared to previous years. Additionally, the Judicial Conference does
not take into consideration, in the caseload statistics of each article
III judge, how many cases are performed or could be performed by
magistrate judges or senior judges. Cases, such as prisoner petitions
and Social Security cases could, in most instances, be performed by
magistrate judges. When prisoner petitions and Social Security cases
are weighted and removed from the weighted caseload total per article
III judge, the districts have a lower and much more representative
calculation of the actual caseload per article III judge. And these
figures don't even adjust for the consent cases the magistrate's
handle.
The data I have indicates that prisoner petitions and Social Security
cases are included in computing the judicial caseload figures used by
the Judicial Conference to calculate each article III judge's caseload.
For example, the eastern district of California commenced 1,747 cases
dealing purely with prisoner petitions in the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1996. In that district, magistrate judges resolved 1828
prisoner petition cases during that period. The difference in the
number of cases resolved during that period would be those cases
commenced in the prior year, but resolved in the current year.
Additionally, my study indicates that some of the district's surveyed
are not utilizing magistrate judges as effectively or efficiently as
other districts in the survey. This factor needs to be taken into
account prior to granting any additional or permanent article III
judgeships to these districts. It is, in part, such considerations that
led me not to recommend an additional permanent judgeship in Alabama,
contrary to the recommendation of the Judicial Conference. In addition,
Congress chose not to extend the temporary judgeship in that district
before it expired last year.
In calculating if districts are overburdened, weight must also be
given to the effective use of senior judges in those districts. My
studies took into consideration the district's use of senior judges.
Several districts surveyed make effective use of their senior judges
and this was taken into account when drafting this bill. Based on all
of the factors I have outlined, I believe this bill will keep the
judges in these districts from being overburdened and makes effective
use of the taxpayer's money.
Therefore, I recommend that the temporary judgeships in the eastern
district of California, the northern district of New York, the eastern
district of Virginia, the southern and central districts of Illinois,
the eastern district of Missouri, the northern district of Ohio, and
the districts of Hawaii, Nebraska, and Kansas be extended for another
5-year period.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1113
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.
Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-650; 104 Stat. 5101; 28 U.S.C. 133 note), as
amended by Public Law 104-60 (109 Stat. 635; 28 U.S.C. 133
note), is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1); and
(2) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting ``Except
with respect to the western district of Michigan and the
eastern district of Pennsylvania, the first vacancy in the
office of district judge in each of the judicial districts
named in this subsection, occurring 10 years or more after
the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the
temporary judgeship created by this subsection, shall not be
filled. The first vacancy in the office of district judge in
the western district of Michigan, occurring after December 1,
1995, shall not be filed. The first vacancy in the office of
district judge in the eastern district of Pennsylvania,
occurring 5 years or more after the confirmation date of the
judge named to fill the temporary judgeship created for such
district under this subsection, shall not be filled.''.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Hollings):
S. 1114. A bill to impose a limitation on lifetime aggregate limits
imposed by health plans; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
THE LIFETIME CAPS DISCRIMINATION PREVENTION ACT
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
with Senator Rockefeller that will ensure that health insurance
policies cover at least $10 million in lifetime benefits. This bill,
the Lifetime Caps Discrimination Prevention Act, will help fulfill the
promise of real health security and is an appropriate sequel to last
year's Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reform legislation. Through
our reform legislation, families can be spared the loss of their health
insurance when they need it the most.
All of us are at risk of incurring high-cost injuries or illnesses--
the very kind of situations that most people want covered by their
health insurance polices. A $1 million cap was adequate when it was
established by the insurance industry in the early 1970's. Since then,
however, inflation has sent medical costs skyrocketing, and today,
thousands of Americans have hit their payment ceiling. A majority of
those who exceed their lifetime limits must turn to public assistance.
While waiting for a determination of eligibility, many individuals are
forced to go without medical treatment. This legislation would keep
within the private sector those who most need health coverage and would
keep them off Medicaid.
Most of us assume that our health insurance will be there when we
need it most--when we are very sick. Unfortunately, many people do not
read the fine print in their insurance policies. The average lifetime
cost of care for a person who has a spinal cord injury and is
ventilator dependent--just like Christopher Reeve--is over $5 million.
For someone like Jim Brady, who had a severe head trauma injury, the
average cost is about $4 million, and that is in 1990 dollars. As
Christopher Reeve said, ``I didn't think it could happen to Superman.''
The Lifetime Caps Discrimination Prevention Act fulfills a promise of
real health security by raising the lifetime cap from the typical limit
of $1 million--a dollar figure selected in the 1970's--to $5 million in
1998, and then in 2002 to $10 million, which is the real dollar
equivalent today. Currently, the vast majority of health maintenance
organizations and approximately one-quarter of employer-sponsored
health plans have no aggregate lifetime limit. The Federal Employee
Health Benefit plans removed lifetime maximums in 1995. According to a
Price Waterhouse study, employers with a workforce of 250 employees
would experience a mere 1 percent increase in premiums. This is a small
price to pay for real health insurance security for people covered in
the group market. Our legislation excludes employers with fewer than 20
employees.
The Lifetime Caps Discrimination Prevention Act was originally
introduced as an amendment to the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance
legislation passed during the 104th Congress. The amendment enjoyed
strong bipartisan support, but it was defeated due to the strategy of
opposing amendments to that bill. We believe that this legislation is
worthy of reintroduction in the 105th Congress, and we are hopeful that
it will attract even broader
[[Page S8577]]
support as another step that can be taken in strengthening Americans'
health security. Over 150 national health-related groups, including the
American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the United
Cerebral Palsy Association, and the National Association of
Professional Insurance Agents, have expressed their support for our
efforts to increase lifetime limits on health insurance benefits.
The insurance industry standard of $1 million, adopted in 1970, was
right for those times but today is financially unrealistic. Today, the
time has come to protect thousands of individuals from suffering the
emotional, medical, and financial consequences of exceeding their caps
by adopting a new lifetime limit for health insurance coverage.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend, Senator
Jim Jeffords, of Vermont to introduce a bill that will help families
avoid an additional tragedy in their already traumatized lives. We are
introducing a bill to raise lifetime limits on insurance policies to
$10 million. But, first, I want to recognize and applaud Chairman
Jeffords' extraordinary leadership on this issue--last Congress and
this year. With his leadership, we will succeed in raising the lifetime
cap on health benefits to $10 million.
People buy health insurance to protect themselves and their families
when they get sick. They spend their lives paying for it. They count on
it. But each year, 1,500 people have their insurance taken away, just
when they need it most and for the very reason why they bought the
insurance in the first place, because they are gravely ill or in need
to extensive medical care or some other extraordinary reason.
These 1,500 people run into the lifetime limit on their health
insurance policy. When that happens, the insurance company won't spend
a single cent to help that person cope with his or her health care
costs. But the need for medical care continues. And the bills keep
coming.
The $1 million limit, first used by insurance companies to give their
customers peace of mind and security in the 1970's, is widely out-of-
date and hugely insufficient. According to Price Waterhouse, had the
limit kept pace with medical inflation, it would be more than $10
million today. In fact, a $1 million health insurance policy in 1970
would buy you about $100,000 in health benefits in 1997.
When a family runs into the lifetime limit, they have no choice but
to spend themselves into poverty in order to qualify for Medicaid. This
drains families of their assets, their self-esteem and costs Medicaid
several billion dollars in additional health care costs. Many people
have to give up everything--their house, their savings, and their kids'
education in order to get the medical care they need through Medicaid.
In my home State of West Virginia, Mike Davis hit his $1 million
lifetime cap in 1994. That was 14 years after his son Todd was hit by a
drunk driver, causing severe brain injury. Before Todd qualified for
Medicaid, his father received a $90,000 bill for his son's care--a bill
he's still struggling to pay.
This can happen to anyone. Catastrophic injury, chronic illness or
significant disability are arbitrary. They hit young and old, rich and
poor. You plan for routine illness, but no one plans for this kind of
illness or injury. At least if you have a health insurance policy
without a $1 million cap, you can get the medical treatment you need.
Most people don't even know if their insurance policy has a lifetime
cap. The insurance companies don't talk about them. The caps are stuck
in the fine print. People assume that if you buy insurance, you're
covered. Unfortunately, that's not the case. About 60 percent of
employer-sponsored health plans have lifetime caps.
Several modifications were made to this year's bill. We include an
exemption for small businesses. We give all businesses 2 years to
comply. We phase the cap in--first raising it to $5 million and then
lifting it to $10 million by the year 2002. We're talking about a
roughly 1 percent increase in premiums, according to Price-Waterhouse.
That's it.
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program doesn't allow
participating insurers to set lifetime limits on their basic health
insurance polices for Federal employees. Members of Congress don't have
lifetime caps. We know our health insurance will be there when we need
it. All Americans should have that same security.
Raising the cap is something we can and should do. It's the right
thing to do. It's good policy and it can save Medicaid up to $7 billion
over the next 7 years. Mr. President, the idea behind insurance is
simple: no matter how sick you are, you're covered. It's about basic
decency and fairness.
______
By Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Cochran, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 1115. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve
one-call notification process, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
COMPREHENSIVE ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION ACT
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I stand here today with my friend and
colleague Senator Daschle, the minority leader, to introduce an
important public safety bill. I am also joined by initial cosponsors
Senators Shelby, Rockefeller, Warner, Robb, Inhofe, Inouye, Cochran,
and Conrad.
The Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act is designed to protect a
very important component of America's infrastructure--our underground
infrastructure. With roots going back several Congresses, this
legislation enjoys widespread bipartisan support and is supported by
several members of the Senate's Committee for Commerce, Science and
Transportation--the committee of jurisdiction. This legislation
provides a public policy statement which is long overdue. The
legislation is still a work in progress and I look forward to working
with my colleagues across the aisle and on the Commerce Committee to
further fine-tune this bill as the process moves forward.
America's underground infrastructures contain many buried
communication and fiber optic cables, water and sewer pipes, electric
lines, and oil and gas pipelines. All too often people inadvertently
damage these facilities causing harmful consequences. Often a nick or a
bump which goes unreported can, over time, become a problem and have a
delayed harmful effect.
Mr. President, this bill is important because it will prevent some of
the damage to underground facilities that causes accidents across
America. These accidents often are caused by excavation without notice
or by inaccurate markings of our underground facilities. This damage to
the infrastructure may cause environmental harm and disrupt essential
services and even cause injuries and fatalities.
I am not here today to condemn those who excavate. I am here today to
say that one-call safety legislation is necessary because many
excavation accidents are preventable.
Mr. President, America needs a single, nationwide system to forward
excavators' toll free calls to the appropriate State or local one-call
center. To delay further is to unnecessarily jeopardize America's
underground infrastructure.
Let me make it clear this is not a new idea. It is a concept that has
been embraced by many States. Already 49 States have some form of a
one-call system on the State level. I am proud to say my State of
Mississippi has a one-call system; however, many of these systems can
be improved with Federal assistance. Our bill does that.
This bill uses an approach that will create uniform national
standards and provide grants to establish or improve State one-call
systems. This bill does not dictate how a one-call system should
operate or how a State's law should be written. On the contrary, it
requires input from States and stakeholders before developing
operational best practices and gives States the latitude to continue to
determine the details of its one-call statute. This analysis will serve
as the catalyst for a national effort to improve State one-call
programs.
Mr. President, the administration also recognizes the necessity for a
one-call safety statute. When the President introduced his method for
the reauthorization of America's Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, he included a one-call provision. Our bill is
different, but it is compatible. In addition to working with my initial
cosponsors during the drafting phase, I
[[Page S8578]]
have worked with the administration to address their concerns. We are
not done yet, but we are committed to continuing the dialog. The
introduction of our bill is the Senate's first step.
By introducing the legislation today, we hope the congressional
recess will be used by organizations and stakeholders who have an
interest in this policy to enter into the discussion. It is the desire
of the initial sponsors to include those with an interest in this
public safety policy in preparing the legislation for a committee
hearing.
This bill sets out broad minimum standards for State one-call
programs. There is flexibility for States to determine who will
participate and how enforcement will occur. The legislation is not
proscriptive. Rather, it identifies the goals. The foundation for our
approach is the understanding that the level of risk varies with each
type of excavation activity as well as the type of organization which
conducts the excavation work. The bill will offer State grants for
those States who want to participate. A study will also be conducted to
identify the best practices for one-call centers and to promote
adoption of the most successful solutions.
Mr. President, this bill is neither a mandate nor unfunded. I want to
repeat this. There is no mandate that every State must participate. We
are simply proposing the authorization of sufficient funds to study
State activities and to administer assistance to States wanting to
participate.
I expect those industries which place a premium on operational
convenience will recognize that one-call is responsible and a small
price to pay for ensuring safety of the public and environment. I am
optimistic that all affected parties will work in genuine partnership
with us to finalize the legislation rather than sit on the sidelines
and criticize.
Mr. President, the information highway offers many opportunities and
challenges for our society and culture but, it too can be put in a
peril by simple events. Just 2 weeks ago an article in the Washington
Post reported that for half a day the Internet and long distance
communications on one carrier were disrupted by a backhoe cutting
through a fiber optic cable.
Let us also not forget the death of an 84-year-old woman in
Indianapolis, IN last week where a blast leveled seven homes. The
Indianapolis Star/News said the explosion turned the quiet subdivision
``into a living Hell. The blast turned trees and utility poles into
impromptu candles and sent chunks of earth raining down as people ran
for their lives.'' I believe our legislation will play a part in
preventing this type of disaster.
Finally let's not forget the 1994 accident in Edison, NJ where there
was a much larger explosion. Significant property damage occurred and
again there was loss of life. This event prompted one of our former
colleagues and the senior Senator from New Jersey to actively work for
tougher laws governing America's infrastructure. Former New Jersey
Senator, Bill Bradley and Senator Frank Lautenberg were actively
involved in seeking a legislative solution and today's bill is a direct
result of their efforts.
I am convinced that this Congress will champion meaningful safety
reforms and leadership for America's underground infrastructure. It
will not be a traditional big government approach. It will help provide
adaptable, convenient, accountable, meaningful and overdue protection
for citizens.
I want to thank my colleagues for their attention, and I hope they
will join us as cosponsors.
Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text and summary
of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act be entered into the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill and summary were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1115
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 ``Comprehensive One-Call
Notification Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) unintentional damage to underground facilities during
excavation is a significant cause of disruptions in
telecommunications, water supply, electric power, and other
vital public services, such as hospital and air traffic
control operations, and is a leading cause of natural gas and
hazardous liquid pipeline accidents;
(2) excavation that is performed without prior notification
to an underground facility operator or with inaccurate
marking of such a facility prior to excavation can cause
damage that results in fatalities, serious injuries, harm to
the environment, and disruption of vital services to the
public; and
(3) protection of the public and the environment from the
consequences of underground facility damage caused by
excavations will be enhanced by a coordinated national effort
to improve one-call notification programs in each State and
the effectiveness and efficiency of one-call notification
systems that operate under such programs.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE-CALL PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subtitle III of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``CHAPTER 61. ONE-CALL NOTIFICATION PROGRAM
``Sec.
``6101. Purposes.
``6102. Definitions.
``6103. Minimum standards for State one-call notification programs.
``6104. Compliance with minimum standards.
``6105. Review of one-call system best practices.
``6106. Grants to States.
``6107. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 6101. Purposes
``The purposes of this chapter are--
``(1) to enhance public safety;
``(2) to protect the environment;
``(3) to minimize risks to excavators; and
``(4) to prevent disruption of vital public services,
by reducing the incidence of damage to underground facilities
during excavation through the adoption and efficient
implementation by all States of State one-call notification
programs that meet the minimum standards set forth under
section 6103.
``Sec. 6102. Definitions
``For purposes of this chapter--
``(1) One-call notification system.--The term `one-call
notification system' means a system operated by an
organization that has as one of its purposes to receive
notification from excavators of intended excavation in a
specified area in order to disseminate such notification to
underground facility operators that are members of the system
so that such operators can locate and mark their facilities
in order to prevent damage to underground facilities in the
course of such excavation.
``(2) State one-call notification program.--The term `State
one-call notification program' means the State statutes,
regulations, orders, judicial decisions, and other elements
of law and policy in effect in a State that establish the
requirements for the operation of one-call notification
systems in such State.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means a State, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
``(4) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
``Sec. 6103. Minimum standards for State one-call
notification programs
``(a) Minimum Standards.--A State one-call notification
program shall, at a minimum, provide for--
``(1) appropriate participation by all underground
operators;
``(2) appropriate participation by all excavators; and
``(3) flexible and effective enforcement under State law
with respect to participation in, and use of, one-call
notification systems.
``(b) Appropriate Participation.--In determining the
appropriate extent of participation required for types of
underground facilities or excavators under subsection (a), a
State shall assess, rank, and take into consideration the
risks to the public safety, the environment, excavators, and
vital public services associated with
``(1) damage to types of underground facilities; and
``(2) activities of types of excavators.
``(c) Implementation.--A State one-call notification
program also shall, at a minimum, provide for
``(1) consideration of the ranking of risks under
subsection (b) in the enforcement of its provisions;
``(2) a reasonable relationship between the benefits of
one-call notification and the cost of implementing and
complying with the requirements of the State one-call
notification program; and
``(3) voluntary participation where the State determines
that a type of underground facility or an activity of a type
of excavator poses a de minimis risk to public safety or the
environment.
``(d) Penalties.--To the extent the State determines
appropriate and necessary to achieve the purposes of this
chapter, a State one-call notification program shall, at a
minimum, provide for
``(1) administrative or civil penalties commensurate with
the seriousness of a violation by an excavator or facility
owner of a State one-call notification program;
``(2) increased penalties for parties that repeatedly
damage underground facilities because they fail to use one-
call notification systems or for parties that repeatedly fail
to provide timely and accurate marking after
[[Page S8579]]
the required call has been made to a one-call notification
system;
``(3) reduced or waived penalties for a violation of a
requirement of a State one-call notification program that
results in, or could result in, damage that is promptly
reported by the violator;
``(4) equitable relief; and
``(5) citation of violations.
``Sec. 6104. Compliance with minimum standards
``(a) Requirement.--In order to qualify for a grant under
section 6106, each State shall, within 2 years after the date
of the enactment of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification
Act of 1997, submit to the Secretary a grant application
under subsection (b).
``(b) Application.--
``(1) Upon application by a State, the Secretary shall
review that State's one-call notification program, including
the provisions for implementation of the program and the
record of compliance and enforcement under the program.
``(2) Based on the review under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall determine whether the State's one-call
notification program meets the minimum standards for such a
program set forth in section 6103 in order to qualify for a
grant under section 6106.
``(3) In order to expedite compliance under this section,
the Secretary may consult with the State as to whether an
existing State one-call notification program, a specific
modification thereof, or a proposed State program would
result in a positive determination under paragraph (2).
``(4) The Secretary shall prescribe the form of, and manner
of filing, an application under this section that shall
provide sufficient information about a State's one-call
notification program for the Secretary to evaluate its
overall effectiveness. Such information may include the
nature and reasons for exceptions from required
participation, the types of enforcement available, and such
other information as the Secretary deems necessary.
``(5) The application of a State under paragraph (1) and
the record of actions of the Secretary under this section
shall be available to the public.
``(c) Alternative Program.--A State may maintain an
alternative one-call notification program if that program
provides protection for public safety, the environment, or
excavators that is equivalent to, or greater than, protection
under a program that meets the minimum standards set forth in
section 6103.
``(d) Report--Within 3 years after the date of the
enactment of the Comprehensive One-call Notification Act of
1997, the Secretary shall begin to include the following
information in reports submitted under section 60124 of this
title--
``(1) a description of the extent to which each State has
adopted and implemented the minimum Federal standards under
section 6103 or maintains an alternative program under
subsection (c);
``(2) an analysis by the Secretary of the overall
effectiveness of the State's one-call notification program
and the one-call notification systems operating under such
program in achieving the purposes of his chapter;
``(3) the impact of the State's decisions on the extent of
required participation in one-call notification systems on
prevention of damage to underground facilities; and
``(4) areas where improvements are needed in one-call
notification systems in operation in the State.
The report shall also include any recommendations the
Secretary determines appropriate. If the Secretary determines
that the purpose of this chapter have been substantially
achieved, no further report under this section shall be
required.
``Sec. 6105. Review of one-call system best practices
``(a) Study of Existing One-call Systems.--Except as
provided in subsection (d), the Secretary, in consultation
with other appropriate Federal agencies, State agencies, one-
call notification system operators, underground facility
operators, excavators,and other interested parties, shall
undertake a study of damage prevention practices associated
with existing one-call notification systems.
``(b) Purpose of Study of Damage Prevention Practices.--The
purpose of the study is to assemble information in order to
determine which existing one-call notification systems
practices appear to be the most effective in preventing
damage to underground facilities and in protecting the
public, the environment, excavators, and public service
disruption. As part of the study, the Secretary shall at a
minimum consider--
``(1) the methods used by one-call notification systems and
others to encourage participation by excavators and owners of
underground facilities;
``(2) the methods by which one-call notification systems
promote awareness of their programs, including use of public
service announcements and educational materials and programs;
``(3) the methods by which one-call notification systems
receive and distribute information from excavators and
underground facility owners;
``(4) the use of any performance and service standards to
verify the effectiveness of a one-call notification system;
``(5) the effectiveness and accuracy of mapping used by
one-call notification systems;
``(6) the relationship between one-call notification
systems and preventing intentional damage to underground
facilities;
``(7) how one-call notification systems address the need
for rapid response to situations where the need to excavate
is urgent;
``(8) the extent to which accidents occur due to errors in
marking of underground facilities, untimely marketing or
errors in the excavation process after a one-call
notification system has been notified of an excavation;
``(9) the extent to which personnel engaged in marking
underground facilities may be endangered;
``(10) the characteristics of damage prevention programs
the Secretary believes could be relevant to the effectiveness
of State one-call notification programs; and
``(11) the effectiveness of penalties and enforcement
activities under State one-call notification programs in
obtaining compliance with program requirements.
``(c) Report--Within 1 year after the date of the enactment
of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1997, the
Secretary shall publish a report identifying those practices
of one-call notification systems that are the most and least
successful in--
``(1) preventing damage to underground facilities; and
``(2) providing effective and efficient service to
excavators and underground facility operators.
The Secretary shall encourage States and operators of one-
call notification programs to adopt and implement the most
successful practices identified in the report.
``(d) Secretarial Discretion--Prior to undertaking the
study described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall
determine whether timely information described in subsection
(b) is readily available. If the Secretary determines that
such information is readily available, the Secretary is not
required to carry out the study.
``Sec. 6106. Grants to States
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make a grant of
financial assistance to a State that qualifies under section
6104(b) to assist in improving--
``(1) the overall quality and effectiveness of one-call
notification systems in the State;
``(2) communications systems linking one-call notification
systems;
``(3) location capabilities, including training personnel
and developing and using location technology;
``(4) record retention and recording capabilities for one-
call notification systems;
``(5) public information and education;
``(6) participation in one-call notification systems; or
``(7) compliance and enforcement under the State one-call
notification program.
``(b) State Action Taken Into Account.--In making grants
under this section the Secretary shall take into
consideration the commitment of each State to improving its
State one-call notification program, including legislative
and regulatory actions taken by the State after the date of
enactment of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of
1997.
``(c) Funding for One-Call Notification Systems.--A State
may provide funds received under this section directly to any
one-call notification system in such State that substantially
adopts the best practices identified under section 6105.
``6107. Authorization of appropriations
``(a) For Grants to States.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary in fiscal year 1999 no more
than $1,000,000 and in fiscal year 2000 no more than
$5,000,000, to be available until expended, to provide grants
to States under section 6106.
``(b) For Administration.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be necessary
during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 to carry out
sections 6103, 6104, and 6105.
``(c) General Revenue Funding.--Any sums appropriated under
this section shall be derived from general revenues and may
not be derived from amounts collected under section 60301 of
this title.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The analysis of chapters for subtitle III of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:
``chapter 61--one-call notification program''.
(2) Chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
(A) by striking ``sections 60114 and'' in section 60105(a)
of that chapter and inserting ``section'';
(B) by striking section 60114 and the item relating to that
section in the table of sections for that chapter;
(C) by striking ``60114(c), 60118(a),'' in section
60122(a)(1) of that chapter and inserting ``60118(a),'';
(D) by striking ``60114(c) or'' in section 60123(a) of that
chapter;
(E) by striking ``sections 60107 and 60114(b)'' in
subsections (a) and (b) of section 60125 and inserting
``section 60107'' in each such subsection; and
(F) by striking subsection (d) of section 60125, and
redesignating subsections (e) and (f) of that section as
subsections (d) and (e).
____
Summary of the Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1997
sec. 1. short title
``Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1997''.
Sec. 2. Findings
Why the bill is important:
(1) damage to underground facilities is a leading cause of
accidents;
(2) excavation without notice or inaccurate marking can
cause injuries, environmental harm and disruption of
services;
[[Page S8580]]
(3) a national effort to improve state one-call programs
can enhance protection of the public and the environment.
sec. 3. Establishment of Program
Subsection (a)
Adds a new Chapter 61 (sections 6101-6107) to subtitle III
of title 49, United States Code:
6101. Purposes
(1) enhance public safety;
(2) protect the environment;
(3) minimize risks to excavators; and
(4) prevent disruption of vital services;
by reducing damage to underground facilities.
6102. Definitions
Defines ``state one-call notification program'' and ``one-
call notification system''.
6103. Minimum Standards for State One-Call Programs
(1) appropriate participation by all underground facility
operators;
(2) appropriate participation by all excavators;
(3) flexible and effective enforcement.
``Appropriate'' determined taking into consideration the
risk associated with the damage to types of facilities and
the type of excavation.
State must consider risk in provisions for enforcement.
Reasonable relationship between benefits and costs of
implementing and complying with one-call notification program
requirements.
Voluntary participation possible for de minimum risks.
Penalties:
(1) liability for administrative or civil penalty;
(2) increased penalties for repeated damage or repeated
inaccurate or untimely marking;
(3) reduced penalties for prompt reporting;
(4) equitable relief and mandamus actions;
(5) citation of violation.
6104. Compliance with Minimum Standards
A State may apply for a grant under section 6106 within two
years after the date of enactment. The application must
contain information specified by the Secretary of
Transportation. Secretary reviews each application and
determines whether the state one-call notification program
meets the minimum standards in order to qualify for the
grant. The grant application and the record of the
Secretary's actions are available to the public.
State may provide greater protection than minimum federal
standard.
Within three years the Secretary reports on State
compliance with the Act.
6105. Review of One-Call Systems Best Practices
If needed, Secretary conducts a study of best practices of
one-call notification systems in operation in the States.
Secretary reports on best practices and promotes adoption of
the most successful practices.
6106. Grants to States
The Secretary of Transportation may make a grant to a State
if the State qualifies by having a one-call notification
program meeting minimum standards. Secretary takes into
consideration a State's commitment to improvement in its one-
call notification program, including actions taken by the
State after enactment of this legislation. State may provide
funds directly to one-call notification systems that
substantially adopt best practices identified under section
6105.
6107. Authorization of Appropriations
Authorizes $1 million in fiscal year 1999 and $5 million in
fiscal year 2000 for grants to States to improve one-call
notification systems. Funds available until expended. Such
sums as are necessary may be appropriated for studies and
administration of the Act.
All funding must come from general revenues only; no
funding may be derived from pipeline user fees.
Subsection (b)
Strikes section 60114 of title 49, United States Code and
makes resulting conforming changes. Section 60114 relates to
one-call notification regulations of the Secretary of
Transportation and would be superseded by enactment of this
legislation.
______
By Mr. ROTH:
S. 1116. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax incentives for education; to the Committee on Finance.
education legislation
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the budget reconciliation package we have
passed--and again, I congratulate my colleagues on such a tremendous
bipartisan effort--that reconciliation package contains important
measures to promote education. A full 80 percent of the tax relief we
offered goes to a $500 credit for children and provisions that will
promote education.
As I mentioned in my statement, I strongly supported those measures
to help our young people--to help our families--pay for college. These
youth are our future, and investing in them is fundamental to keeping
that future bright and prosperous.
However, as I also mentioned earlier, I had hoped that we could have
gone further in promoting the educational aspects of the tax relief
bill.
There were a number of very innovative and very effective provisions
that were contained in the Senate Finance Committee bill, but that were
excluded during the conference.
For example, there was a provision to offer tax-free treatment for
State-sponsored prepaid tuition plans. There was a provision for a
permanent extension of employer provided education assistance. And
there was also a comprehensive education IRA. Unfortunately, these were
knocked out of the reconciliation package by the White House.
What I want to do now, Mr. President, is introduce these measures as
a bill--a bill that will expand education IRA's to permit families to
invest up to $2,000 per year toward education. These IRA's would permit
withdrawals for expenses incurred during elementary and secondary
school.
Second, this bill will allow employers to assist their employees' in
their graduate and undergraduate education without the employees having
that assistance taxed as income.
It will expand State-sponsored prepaid tuition and savings programs
to permit tax-free savings for educational needs. And finally, this
bill will allow universities to develop prepaid tuition and savings
programs that will permit tax-free savings for tuition, fees, book,
school, supplies, room, and board.
These are much needed tools to promote education. Over the past 15
years, tuition at a 4-year college has increased by 234 percent. The
average student loan has increased by 367 percent. In contrast, median
household income rose only 82 percent during this period, and the
consumer price index only rose 74 percent.
Our students--our families--need these resources to help them meet
the costs and realize the opportunities of quality education. And I
encourage my colleagues to support this effort.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1117. A bill to amend Federal elections law to provide for
campaign finance reform, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
campaign finance reform legislation
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the American people are suffering a crisis
of confidence when it comes to the way in which campaigns for Federal
office are financed. They no longer feel that they are in control of
who gets elected, or that those who do get elected are fully
accountable. Today, I am introducing a bill that will restore
Americans' confidence in their elected officials, and put elections
back into the hands of average citizens.
Last year, for the first time since coming to Congress, I had the
opportunity to watch Federal elections not as a candidate, but as a
citizen and a voter. And what I saw confirmed all the reasons I have
been a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform. What I saw was
vast sums of money and very little accountability. I saw attack ads
paid for with unlimited funds by out-of-State groups. And I saw
contributions from PAC's to Federal candidates climb 12 percent higher
than the record levels reached in the 1993-1994 election cycle.
And the 1996 elections were barely over when allegations of illegal
and improper activities began flying, centered around the issues of so-
called soft money and foreign influence peddling through campaign
contributions. Subpoenas are being issued at a faster pace than Ken
Griffey, Jr., hits home runs, and while it remains to be seen what the
results of congressional investigations will yield, it is clear that
these latest scandals only serve to further undermine public confidence
and underscore the importance of enacting meaningful and achievable
campaign finance reform this year.
It has often been said that perception is nine-tenths of reality, and
I believe this is the case with campaign financing. I happen to believe
that most elected officials are good people trying to do the people's
business with America's interests at heart. At the same time, as in any
walk of life, there are some people who abuse the system. And if there
is even the perception that elections are being bought and sold, then
the problem is serious and real--and the solution must be likewise.
[[Page S8581]]
And make no mistake, there is a pervasive perception that the system
is out of hand and in need of fixing. A poll taken last year by a major
newspaper in my home State, the Maine Sunday Telegram, showed that over
70 percent of respondents believe politicians listen more to special
interests than to individual voters. Findings like this are endemic of
a deep systemic problem, one that we cannot afford to ignore any
longer.
I have voted for major changes in the campaign finance system
throughout my career and introduced measures that I felt would make
real and positive changes. Today, I am introducing the Restoration of
America's Confidence in Elections Act, a comprehensive but realistic
approach to fixing our broken system.
One of the chief aims of my bill is to increase the impact of the
small, individual contributor in election campaigns so that we place
the campaign process in the hands of average Americans--rather than in
the hands of special interests. My bill will lower the amount of money
a PAC could contribute from $5,000 to the limit for individual
contributors, $1,000--a change which 70 percent of respondents to a
recent New York Times poll say they support. It will also encourage
small, individual contributors from a candidate's home State to
participate by providing the incentive of a tax credit in the amount of
the contribution, up to $100 for an individual or $200 in the case of a
joint return.
Soft money has also become a major issue, and for good reason. It is
money that skirts the intent of the law, and unaccounted for money
which influences Federal campaigns above and beyond legal limits. My
bill will close the soft money loophole by prohibiting national parties
from raising or spending any soft money on behalf of any Federal
candidates--and State parties could only spend hard money on behalf of
Federal candidates. In order to keep parties healthy, individuals could
contribute up to an aggregate amount of $20,000 to State party
grassroots funds, and the existing limits on aggregate contributions to
national parties by individuals and PAC's would be raised by $5,000
each. In that way, money is accounted for, parties can remain viable,
and the soft money chase is ended.
My bill also addresses the issue of candidates facing independently
wealthy opponents. As we all know, the amount of personal funds a
candidate spends on his or her campaign cannot be constitutionally
limited, but the playing field can and should be leveled. The
perception that an individual of means can buy their way to the top of
the American political arena certainly does nothing to inspire
confidence in our Government.
My bill would make it easier for a candidate facing a wealthy
opponent to compete by allowing that candidate to raise the necessary
funding through increased contribution limits, depending on the amount
the wealthy candidate spends of his or her own money. It would also
require candidates to declare the amount of personal money they intend
to spend, and encourage them to stick to their pledge by requiring
disclosure should they violate that pledge.
Any successful campaign finance reform bill must address the
realities of elections as we approach the new millennium. One of those
realities is the so-called issue advocacy or voter education ads. We
have all seen these ads: threatening music over provocative images
blatantly designed to influence voters to vote against a candidate. But
because these ads don't specifically say ``vote against candidate X''
there is currently no limit on how much can be spent on them, and no
accountability.
It is obvious to anyone the purpose of these ads: to skirt current
campaign finance laws that require that ads designed to influence
Federal elections be paid for with hard money, and disclosed to, and
regulated by, the Federal Election Commission. Under my bill, the law
would be changed in such a way to include these types of ads under hard
money limits and disclosure requirements. This would help limit the
attack ads and give the public the information they need about who is
paying for these ads and how much they are spending. An informed
electorate is the key to any democratic system of government, and my
bill will give people the information they need to make up their own
minds.
My bill also includes provisions to protect individuals from having
their money involuntarily collected and used for politics by a
corporation or labor organization. These provisions mirror those of
Senator Nickles' Paycheck Protection Act. This measure will require
prior authorization from workers before a corporation, national bank,
or labor union finances political activities with any money from dues
or from payments made as a condition of employment.
The legislation I am introducing will also close a conduit for
campaign money that should have been closed a long time ago. It will
ban contributions from all individuals not eligible to vote in U.S.
elections. After all, if a person cannot legally participate in a
Federal election by voting, why should they be able to participate with
their wallet?
And finally, my bill will close the loopholes and ambiguities that
exist about soliciting Federal soft money from Federal buildings or
with Federal equipment. Because I think everyone agrees that it is not
appropriate to raise political funds with taxpayer-financed equipment,
or from the very office that might have influence over the interests of
the potential donor.
These are all commonsense approaches to the problem--measures which I
believe the majority of Americans feel are sensible and long overdue.
The Restoration of Americans' Confidence in Elections Act addresses a
range of issues and does so in a way that does not single out any one
group, or any particular political affiliation. Because if we are to
pass meaningful reform, it will require that we all take our hits.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, and making a
historic statement that the old ways of doing business must be
relegated to the annals of history. Let's return elections to the
American people--and let's restore confidence in our Government.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1118. A bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund for
purposes of establishing a Community Recreation and Conservation
Endowment with certain escrowed oil and gas revenues; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
THE COMMUNITY RECREATION AND CONSERVATION ENDOWMENT ACT OF 1997
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community
Recreation and Conservation Endowment Act of 1997. My bill provides a
long-term funding source for the State-side matching grant program of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
Thank you to Senate appropriators for honoring my request to fund the
LWCF matching grants. The 1998 Interior appropriation bill ensures the
programs's short-term viability. I wish we could have earmarked more,
but I understand the challenges members face and thank them for their
accomplishment. Special thanks to Senators Ted Stevens and Slade
Gorton.
I am confident we can win on the Senate floor, in conference and with
the administration because the program is truly worthy.
The LWCF matching grants have helped build thousands of miles of
trails, protect thousands of acres of open space, and develop parks,
campgrounds, and recreation facilities in every State.
Every Federal dollar has been matched--we get two for the price of
one. Unfortunately, Congress and the administration defunded the
program 2 years ago.
That's too bad, given what candidate Bill Clinton said: ``I would
increase funding for several programs * * * and reinvigorate the Land
and Water Conservation Fund to make more funds available for the
acquisition of public outdoor open spaces''.
He also said, ``I would also make funds available from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund to help address critical infrastructure needs
in state and local facilities.''
The millions of Americans who benefit from the matching grants need
more than promises. Thankfully, the Interior appropriations bill saves
the program for the short term. I am here today to offer a long-term
solution.
At a recent hearing before the Senate parks subcommittee, former Park
Service Director Roger Kennedy said
[[Page S8582]]
that as long as there is competition between Federal and State programs
for LWCF appropriations, the State matching grants will lose. He
suggested a separate source of funds.
I am taking his advice to heart, and calling upon Congress to
establish a separate and permanent fund for State matching grants.
My legislation creates an $800 million permanent endowment to provide
LWCF matching grants to the States. Interest from that account will
help provide parks, campgrounds, trails, and recreation facilities for
millions of Americans. It will also help preserve open spaces for the
future.
Where does that money come from? On June 19, 1997, the Supreme Court
ruled the Federal Government retains title to lands underlying tidal
waters off Alaska's North Slope. As the result, the government will
receive $1.6 billion in escrowed oil and gas lease revenues.
This sum is twice the amount the Congressional Budget Office
estimated for the concurrent budget resolution. My bill places this
bonus $800 million in a permanent endowment account.
This new approach is consistent with the vision of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act and a promise made to the American people 30
years ago.
Our Government promised us that a portion of proceeds from offshore
oil and gas leases would fund outdoor recreation and conservation. My
bill makes good on that promise--permanently. It makes sure the State
grants are never forgotten again.
That sound we hear on the doors to this Chamber is opportunity
knocking. We must seize the opportunity and use those funds to renew
and reinvigorate the bipartisan vision of the LWCF.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this endeavor and support the
Community Recreation and Conservation Endowment Act of 1997.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 1119. A bill to amend the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act,
1930 to increase the penalty under certain circumstances for commission
merchants, dealers, or brokers who misrepresent the country of origin
or other characteristics of perishable agricultural commodities; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
FOOD SAFETY LEGISLATION
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in March of this year, over 200
schoolchildren in my State contracted the hepatitis A virus from food
served by the school lunch program. As news of the outbreak began to
pour in, the Michigan Department of Community Health and the Centers
for Disease Control went into action to determine the cause. They soon
found the culprit: Frozen strawberries sold to the school lunch program
by a San Diego company named Andrews and Williamson. Investigators also
discovered that some of the strawberries sold to the school lunch
program had been illegally certified as domestically grown when, in
fact, they had been grown in Mexico.
There does not currently exist a method for testing strawberries for
the hepatitis A virus. Thus, we may never know whether the strawberries
brought in from Mexico were the source of this pathogen. Given the
growing conditions that USDA investigators found at the farm, however,
the likelihood is strong.
And one thing we do know, Mr. President, is that these strawberries
should never have been served in the school lunch program in the first
place. By law, products sold to the school lunch program must be
certified as being domestically grown. Unfortunately, because the USDA
lacks the resources to effectively enforce this requirement, companies
have typically been trusted to do the right thing. Andrews and
Williamson chose to do something else. They chose to break the law by
misrepresenting their product's country-of-origin, and over 200 people
were poisoned as a result.
This dangerous incident, the poisoning of Michigan children by their
own school lunch program, compelled and received my immediate
involvement. Shortly after the outbreak, I called for, and was granted,
a hearing on the matter. I arranged to have officials from the CDC come
to my state to brief the families of those affected. During this
process I learned of the similar efforts being made by a private
organization called Safe Tables Our Priority [STOP]. Their assistance
throughout this process has been invaluable.
One of the first things I learned while studying this issue was that
a specific statute exists which states that misrepresenting the
country-of-origin of a perishable good is a crime. Unfortunately, the
penalty for such fraud is a $2,000 fine and possible loss of license; a
rather small price to pay for poisoning over 200 people.
Of course, this does not mean that A&W will walk away from this
incident without paying a price. After reviewing the case made by
investigators from the USDA, the U.S. Attorneys Office filed 47 charges
against A&W. The first charge is conspiracy to defraud the United
States. Counts two, three and four are for making false statements, and
counts five through forty-seven are for making false claims. For each
of these counts, the maximum penalty is 5 years and/or $250,000 per
count or $500,000 for a corporation.
I state these charges because they do not include any mention of the
specific crime which A&W is accused of violating, namely,
misrepresenting the country-of-origin for a perishable food. Well, Mr.
President, I intend to rectify this oversight. Today I am introducing
legislation which modifies current law such that an intentional
misrepresentation of the origin, kind or character of any perishable
commodity, the reckless disregard of the effects on the public safety
of such action, or violations which result in serious injury, illness
or death will constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of five years
imprisonment and/or a fine of $250,000 per count.
This change in law will ensure that individuals who intentionally
misrepresent their goods will now suffer the appropriate consequences
of their actions. The recent outbreaks of hepatitis A, Cyclospora and E
Coli demonstrate that a new commitment to food safety is sorely needed
in this country. I will continue working to see that Congress takes the
appropriate measures to assist the USDA, FDA and Centers for Disease
Control in their efforts to keep America's food supply the safest in
the world.
Mr. President, I ask consent that the full text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1119
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MISREPRESENTATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OR OTHER
CHARACTERISTICS OF PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES.
Section 2(5) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499b(5)), is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``If a court of competent jurisdiction finds
that a person has intentionally, or with reckless disregard,
engaged in a misrepresentation described in this paragraph
and the misrepresentation resulted in a serious bodily injury
(as defined in section 1365(g) of title 18, United States
Code) to, or death of, an individual, the person shall be
guilty of a Class D felony that is punishable under title 18,
United States Code.''
____________________