[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 3 (Thursday, January 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S226-S234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 1584. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration to reevaluate the equipment in medical kits carried on, 
and to make a decision regarding requiring automatic external 
defibrillators to be carried on, aircraft operated by air carriers, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


              THE AVIATION MEDICAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1998

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President--I rise today, along with my colleague 
Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, to introduce the Aviation Medical 
Assistance Act of 1998.

  Thirty years ago the first battery powered portable defibrillator was 
approved for use. A defibrillator is a medical device that electrically 
converts an abnormal heart rhythm to a normal rhythm. It can and does 
save lives. The time between the onset of abnormal rhythm and the 
application of electrical defibrillatory current is critical. If the 
time of first defibrillation is between five and six minutes after the 
onset of abnormal rhythm, the patient survival rate is greater than 40 
percent.
  One clear example is that of Graeme Seiber of Tennessee. As my 
colleagues may recall on September 14, 1995, Mr. Seiber went into full 
cardiac arrest as he stepped off an elevator in the Dirksen building, 
and collapsed in the corridor near my Senate office.
  After heroic actions by members of Senator Chafee's staff, I 
performed CPR on Mr. Seiber and when the Capitol Physician's Emergency 
Response

[[Page S227]]

Team arrived, I was able to insert a tube directly into Mr. Seiber's 
lungs to aid the flow of oxygen. But, most importantly, the team had a 
portable defibrillator that I used to shock his heart back into a 
normal rhythm. A team of emergency medical technicians arrived shortly 
thereafter, and Mr. Seiber was taken to George Washington University 
Hospital by ambulance.
  Because of the quick action of those involved and the use of a 
portable defibrillator, Graeme Seiber is alive today as one of a very 
small percentage of patients who actually survive sudden cardiac 
arrest.
  But that was in the United States Senate, which has a competent 
medical team that responds quickly with the proper medical equipment, 
like a defibrillator. What would have happened to Mr. Seiber if he 
suffered cardiac arrest in a setting in which medical care and a 
defibrillator was not readily available.
  This past May, my friend, colleague and fellow Tennessean, 
Representative Jimmy Duncan held a hearing before the House 
Subcommittee on Aviation, which he chairs, on the quality of medical 
kits used by the airlines. On November 6, 1997 Representative Duncan 
introduced the Aviation Medical Assistance Act to address concerns that 
arose from the hearing.
  The Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1997 directs the Administrator 
of the Federal Aviation Administration to reevaluate regulations 
regarding the medical equipment and flight attendant training for 
commercial airlines.
  To address the lack of information regarding fatalities on aircraft, 
the airlines would be required to make an effort to report monthly to 
the Administrator of the FAA over the course of a year regarding deaths 
on aircrafts.
  The bill also addresses the critical issue of liability arising from 
individuals assisting in an in-flight medical emergency. The bill 
declares that the individual rendering aid shall not be liable when 
attempting to provide medical assistance, except in the case of gross 
negligence or willful misconduct.
  Finally, the bill requires the FAA Administrator to decide whether or 
not to require automatic external defibrillators on aircraft and in 
airports. To their credit, two major airlines, Delta Airlines and 
American Airlines have already initiated a plan to equip their entire 
fleet with defibrillators and upgrade their medical equipment.
  It is critical that individuals who suffer cardiac arrest or other 
medical emergencies receive quick and proper attention to increase 
their odds of survival. It is my hope that this legislation will 
improve emergency medical care for all in-flight emergencies. I would 
like to thank Congressman Duncan for his leadership in the House of 
Representatives on this important issue. I am also grateful to Senator 
Dorgan for partnering with me on this potentially lifesaving 
legislation. I am proud to introduce the companion legislation in the 
Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1585. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal 
district judges in the State of Florida, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


               THE FLORIDA FEDERAL JUDGESHIP ACT OF 1998

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to introduce 
with my esteemed colleague and friend, Senator Graham, the Florida 
Federal Judgeship Act of 1998. This legislation will provide the Middle 
and Southern Districts of Florida with the judgeships which have been 
recommended for them by the Judicial Conference of the United States. 
The Middle District would receive three new permanent judgeships and 
one temporary judgeship (the highest number of new judgeships 
recommended for any district in the country), while the Southern 
District would receive two new permanent judgeships.

  I would not be introducing this bill if I did not believe there is a 
real need for increased judicial resources in Florida. The pressures 
upon our court system, particularly in the Middle District, are some of 
the most acute in the entire country. The Middle District currently 
contains 55% of Florida's population, projected to grow to two-thirds 
of the population by the year 2005; and yet this District has only one-
third of Florida's judges. This District also contains the federal 
correctional center at Coleman. When construction of this facility is 
completed in FY 1999, it will be the largest prison complex in the 
country. The increased prisoner petitions which come with this will 
stretch judicial resources even further.
  To add to the problem, a portion of the Middle District has been 
designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. While I am pleased 
that Florida will be receiving additional assistance in the war against 
drugs, we must also recognize and anticipate the increased demands that 
this will put upon this district as more criminals are apprehended and 
prosecuted.
  Both districts contain major tourist attractions in frequently 
visited cities, including Disney World, Universal Studios, and Busch 
Gardens in Tampa and Orlando and the international playground of South 
Beach in Miami. This heavy flow of both tourism and winter residents 
serve to make the needs of these two judicial districts unique in our 
nation.
  The statistics kept by the Administrative Office of the US Courts 
demonstrate the compelling need for new judges in these districts. The 
numbers for the latest twelve month period show that the Middle 
District ranks second in the nation in average cases (adjusted for 
complexity) filed per judge, with a crushing 855. The Southern District 
averages 605 per judge. To put this in perspective, the national 
average for this time period was 519. Clearly, both of these districts 
are in need of relief.
  I urge the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to consider and 
pass this legislation expeditiously. I would also like to take this 
opportunity to express my gratitude to Chairman Hatch for his swift 
consideration of all of the judicial nominees from Florida last year. 
The Southern and Middle Districts of Florida received three excellent 
new district judges, Donald Middlebrooks of West Palm Beach, Alan Gold 
of Miami, and Richard Lazzara of Tampa. In addition, Judge Stanley 
Marcus was nominated to the federal appeals court and confirmed by the 
full Senate in only six weeks. I know I speak for both Senator Graham 
and myself in saying that we are grateful for Chairman Hatch's 
responsiveness to the needs of these districts.
  It will not be possible to provide Floridians with a safe environment 
and access to justice unless there is a court system in place which can 
handle the demands of this dynamic and growing part of our country. 
This legislation is integral to providing that court system.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with my 
distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, in introducing the 
Florida Federal Judgeship Act of 1998.
  This legislation will create six additional U.S. District Court 
judgeships in Florida--two in the Southern District and four--three 
permanent and one temporary--in the fast-growing Middle District of 
Florida.
  Mr. President, make no mistake: Florida's federal courts are in the 
midst of a full-blown crisis. Currently, the Miami-based Southern 
District has sixteen judges. The Middle District, which also includes 
the Jacksonville, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, Sarasota, and Fort 
Myers metropolitan areas, has eleven.
  Because this number of judgeships is too small to meet the increasing 
demand of Florida's rapidly growing population, judges face 
overwhelming caseloads, and the public faces a denial of justice.
  Prosecutors and law-enforcement personnel are stymied in their 
efforts to mete out swift justice.
  Civil litigants are forced to endure unreasonable waits to bring 
their cases to resolution.
  Prominent legal and judicial officials all over Florida have told us 
that this is not a tenable situation.
  For example, Middle District U.S. Attorney Charles Wilson, whose 
office is responsible for bringing alleged criminals to trial, has said 
that the judicial shortage has a ``negative and severe'' effect on the 
work of federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials.
  Floridians are not alone in their concern about overcrowded court 
dockets.
  In September 1996, the Judicial Conference of the United States--the 
principal policy-making body of the Federal judiciary, which is chaired 
by the

[[Page S228]]

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and comprised 
of Federal judges from throughout the United States--asked Congress to 
create four new judgeships in the Middle District and two in the 
Southern--precisely what our legislation would authorize.
  Senator Mack and I are introducing our bill so that Congress can meet 
the urgent request of the Judicial Conference, and provide the 
additional judicial resources needed for these two U.S. District Courts 
to meet their increasing caseload.
  We are certain that many States have justifiable concerns about 
overcrowded Federal District Court dockets. I hope that this Congress 
this year will meet those needs by considering and adopting the 
recommendations that the Judicial Conference of the United States 
submitted to us almost a year and a half ago.
  But we also believe that the urgent nature of Florida's judicial 
crisis makes our State a special case.
  I am going to be saying some things about Florida of which I am not 
proud. They are not positive. But they happen to be the facts as to the 
circumstances that our Federal courts face.
  First, Florida has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the 
Nation.
  For the last several years, the Judicial Conference has proposed all 
recommendations for increased judgeship based on weighted filings--a 
number that takes into account both the total number of cases filed per 
judge and the level of case complexity.
  I would like to note that this is a retrospective look. The Judicial 
Conference looks at prior history, in terms of evaluating future needs. 
In the case of the State of Florida, because of the rapid growth, which 
I will soon detail, and because of the time required--a year and a half 
has already passed since the Judicial Conference did the calculations 
that I will soon review--Congress has not yet acted on its 
recommendation to authorize these additional positions. It would then 
require the process of actually filling those vacancies. So, there will 
be a gap of many months between the time that the numbers were 
calculated based on past history, as to what the need was, before 
relief in the form of an actual human being sitting at a bench to 
render justice will be in place.
  But looking back to the 1996 numbers, the Southern District's 
weighted filings stood at 588 per judge.
  This was 33 percent above the national average of 435 weighted filing 
per judge.
  In the Middle District, the story was even worse--623 weighted 
filings per judge, a figure that represented one of the highest in the 
entire nation.
  As a result, nearly 1,800 criminal defendants have cases pending in 
the Middle District.
  The story is even worse on the civil side of the docket, where more 
than 6,200 cases have yet to receive final disposition.
  In fact, the situation is so dire that Middle District Chief Judge 
Elizabeth Kovachevich has announced plans to shut down the Federal 
courthouses in Jacksonville and Orlando for 3 months this summer and 
recruit their judges, and any others from around the Nation who can 
spare the time, to tackle the growing civil case backlog in the Tampa 
Bay area.
  Innovative measures like this may help to alleviate the problem in 
the short-term.
  But the Florida caseload is not going to experience a slowdown in 
growth anytime soon, and the judicial backlog will get worse unless 
Congress takes preventative action for the long term.
  Second, this legislation recognizes that Florida's largest Federal 
judicial districts are responsible for a massive area that includes 
nearly 80 percent of Florida's 15 million residents.
  The Southern and Middle Districts combined jurisdiction stretches 
from Key West--the southernmost city in the continental United States--
north to include Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Melbourne, 
Fort Myers, Sarasota, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, and Jacksonville.
  Florida adds over 200,000 new permanent residents every year.
  Between 1980 and 1995, for example, the middle district grew by 52 
percent, and it is expected to increase even from this elevated new 
level by an additional 21 percent in the next decade.
  However, since 1990, the last time Congress approved more judges for 
Florida, our United States district courts have not received any 
additional resources from the Federal Government to cope with this 
growth.
  Third, this proposal will assist the work of law enforcement 
officials. If we are committed to assuring that criminals face 
punishment that is both just but swift, we must be willing to provide 
resources to all aspects of the judicial system.
  In both the southern and middle districts, drug prosecutions and 
other serious criminal cases make up a large percentage of the total 
case files. For example, both the southern and middle districts have 
been designated by this Congress as high-intensity drug trafficking 
areas. These antidrug zones generate a substantial number of lengthy 
multidefendant prosecutions, and the addition of judges will help law 
enforcement officials and prosecutors in their fight against drug 
crimes.
  In addition, the Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials 
throughout Florida, but especially in the southern and middle 
districts, are being forced to spend more time combating the cheats, 
the fly-by-night operators and the other criminals who are engaged in a 
systematic campaign to defraud and plunder our Medicare and other 
health care programs.
  Mr. President, as shocking as it is, it has been estimated that 
nearly 20 percent of all Medicare expenditures in the Southern District 
of Florida are lost to fraud. Nearly 30 percent of all Medicare fraud 
nationwide takes place in the State of Florida.
  In November of 1997, the new southern district U.S. Attorney Tom 
Scott pledged to create a comprehensive antifraud task force made up of 
local, State and Federal law enforcement officials to fight health care 
fraud. I am optimistic that this new effort will be successful in 
increasing the number of fraud offenders brought to justice. I am 
hopeful that it will deter others from entering this pernicious 
activity. But I am very concerned that unless the southern and middle 
districts have the adequate number of judges, many of these charlatans 
will not receive the swift and severe punishment they deserve.
  It is vital that we act quickly to resolve this crisis. Since 1991, 
filings have gone up 21 percent in the middle district; 30 percent in 
the southern district. Congress and the White House must be vigilant in 
their shared responsibility for recommending, nominating and confirming 
Federal judicial nominees.
  Mr. President, I commend Chairman Orrin Hatch, of the Judiciary 
Committee, and its membership, including our current Presiding Officer, 
for their recognition of the overcrowding problems facing Florida's 
Federal district courts.
  Last year, the Senate confirmed three Federal district judges--Donald 
Middlebrooks of West Palm Beach, Alan Gold of Miami, and Richard 
Lazzara of Tampa--to replace three judges who had retired or taken 
senior status. From late September of 1997, when Judge Lazzara was 
confirmed, until yesterday when the President nominated William P. 
Dimitrouleas of Fort Lauderdale and Judge Steven Mickle of Gainsville 
to fill openings in the Southern and Northern Districts of Florida, we 
had no judicial nominations pending before the Senate.
  Senator Hatch's and Members' leadership and understanding and their 
determination to address Florida's special needs are very much 
appreciated by the residents of our State.
  U.S. Federal district courts are the first stop for most citizens 
involved in the Federal judicial system. Most Federal cases are 
disposed of at the district court level. It is essential that these 
citizens have their claims heard in a timely manner.
  As the court caseload increases nationally, the Senate must be 
willing to expand judicial positions where they are needed.
  Our legislation is simple, sound and will serve the interest of 
America and will serve the interest of our State of Florida.
  I look forward to working with Senator Mack, with yourself and with 
the other members of the Judiciary Committee on this matter, Mr. 
President. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this 
much-needed legislation. For thousands of crime victims,

[[Page S229]]

for thousands of civil litigants in Florida's southern and middle 
judicial districts, justice delayed is rapidly becoming justice denied.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleague, 
Senator Mack, in introducing this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters which I have received--one 
from the middle district chief judge, Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich, and 
one from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for the 
Middle District of Florida, Mr. Charles Wilson--be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              U.S. District Court,


                                   Middle District of Florida,

                                     Tampa, FL, December 17, 1997.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

     Hon. Connie Mack,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senators Graham and Mack: Initially, I wish to 
     sincerely thank both of you for your respective 
     participations in several of the events scheduled in Tampa on 
     December 12, 1997. Each of you attended two of the four 
     activities, and it certainly was greatly appreciated, and 
     noted, by the other participants and attendees of those 
     respective celebrations. Your presence was a significant 
     contribution toward the success of that day.
       Further, your joint letter that was published in the Tampa 
     Tribune last week on December 12 produced great positive 
     reaction on this West Coast of Florida! The Accelerated Trial 
     Calendar is the ``last hurrah'' for Tampa/Fort Myers by the 
     eleven judges of the Middle District of Florida before senior 
     status claims two of our eleven by the year 2000. If we are 
     successful, we must be prepared to utilize the same tactic in 
     the future in Jacksonville and Orlando.
       Consistent with the foregoing, and our efforts to help 
     ourselves, we enclose a conservative statistical compilation 
     prepared by our Clerk's office in MD/FL, which graphically 
     demonstrates what would occur without the ATC, and, what will 
     happen when we go from eleven to nine active United States 
     District Judges. I remind you that our previous Tampa/Fort 
     Myers chart shows that as of October 31, 1997, our real 
     projections for July 1998, without the ATC, would have been 
     4,400 civil cases and 1,000 criminal cases pending, totaling 
     5,400 cases for the Tampa/Fort Myers judges!
       These next five years will see a congressional election, 
     with consequences in 1999, and, a presidential and 
     congressional election, with consequences in 2001. If this 
     district must wait for national political machinations, we 
     will collapse! Just the plans for H.I.D.T.A. in Tampa and 
     Orlando, during the next three years, and the funding for 
     same, will generate substantial multi-defendant, multi-month 
     prosecutions of persons ``targeted for federal sentencing 
     guideline implications;'' these are not in any of our present 
     calculations!
       I would hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee will 
     provide us with a hearing to answer any questions regarding 
     your proposed legislation to provide us with new judgeships 
     as soon as reasonably possible, perhaps in February 1998.
       With warmest personal regards, I am
           Sincerely yours,
                                         Elizabeth A. Kovachevich,
     Chief Judge, Middle District of Florida.
                                  ____



                                   U.S. Department of Justice,

                                          Tampa, FL, May 21, 1997.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

     Hon. Connie Mack,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senators Graham and Mack: You have requested comment 
     from the United States Attorney regarding the impact of the 
     shortage of resident District Court Judges on the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida. I write 
     to report that the impact is negative and severe.
       For our Criminal Division, the most direct effect of the 
     judicial shortage is the assignment of cases to visiting 
     judges for trial. Although visiting judges provide a great 
     service to the Middle District, the use of them for a 
     substantial number of criminal trials poses several problems. 
     First, the very fact that a case is transferred to a visiting 
     judge's docket often causes unnecessary delay. Secondly, I am 
     advised by Assistant United States Attorneys that visiting 
     judges are, understandably, not as well-versed in Eleventh 
     Circuit case law, requiring the expenditure of additional 
     time by both prosecution and defense attorneys in addressing 
     significant legal issues during the course of a case. 
     Finally, the Middle District of Florida is one of the leaders 
     in the country in the filing of multiple-defendant and 
     complex white collar crime litigation characterized by longer 
     trials. For example, last year, our office prosecuted 16 
     members of the Outlaws Motorcycle Gang for conspiracy, 
     racketeering and other offenses. The trial lasted for 
     eighteen weeks. During that period of time, the cases 
     assigned to the presiding judge accumulated without the 
     judicial attention that they would have ordinarily received. 
     Given our present prosecution priorities (i.e., drug 
     trafficking, violent  crime, health care fraud and 
     telemarketing fraud), we expect that the number of 
     multiple-defendant and sophisticated white collar criminal 
     cases will continue to increase in the future. In fact, 
     many such cases are awaiting trial at the present time.
       Thus far in Fiscal Year 1997, 32 per cent of criminal jury 
     trials (8/25) in the Tampa Division of the Middle District of 
     Florida were conducted by visiting judges. Another 20% of 
     these trials (5/25) were conducted by a judge on senior 
     status. In our Ft. Myers Division, where we presently have 
     seven criminal AUSAs but no resident district Court Judge, 
     fully 91% (10/11) of the criminal trials were conducted by a 
     visiting judge.
       Our Ft. Myers Division is most severely impacted by the 
     judicial shortage. Because of the absence of a resident 
     judge, Ft. Myers cases are assigned to Tampa judges. As a 
     result, some cases that should be tried in Ft. Myers are 
     moved to Tampa to accommodate the judges' busy schedules. 
     This includes many cases that are important to the citizens 
     in and around Ft. Myers. In fact, the bigger the case (and 
     thus the more local attention warranted by it) the more 
     likely it is to be transferred to Tampa for no other reason 
     than the Court's schedule. Transfers are also expensive. Even 
     for relatively insignificant hearings in a case, if there is 
     a disputed issue, all attorneys, parties and witnesses must 
     take an entire day to drive to Tampa and back. If a Ft. Myers 
     case is tried by a Tampa Judge in Tampa, my office must incur 
     the travel and accommodation expense of the Ft. Myers AUSA 
     originally assigned to the case.
       Our Civil Division is also impacted quite directly by the 
     shortage of Article III judges in our District. First, in 
     light of their heavy caseload, District Court judges 
     typically do not have the time to grant oral argument in 
     connection with sophisticated motions to dismiss or motions 
     for summary judgment in civil cases. The result is that the 
     judges take several months to decide motions that might 
     otherwise be disposed of quite promptly if oral argument were 
     heard. In those cases where the motions are meritorious, the 
     delay results in unnecessary expenditures on expert witnesses 
     and other pretrial matters, all to the great detriment of the 
     parties even if the correct result is ultimately reached. 
     Worse yet, meritorious motions are sometimes denied only to 
     have the court adopt the movant's legal position after trial 
     (the first time the judge has had a real chance to ponder the 
     case), suggesting that trial was in fact unnecessary. We 
     believe that these problems would be avoided by oral argument 
     in many instances, but we recognize that our overburdened 
     judiciary simply does not have the luxury to grant oral 
     argument very often.
       Second, the lack of a judge in Fort Myers has a serious 
     negative impact on civil cases there. By way of illustration, 
     we are presently prosecuting a complex ``fair housing'' case 
     in the Fort Myers Division. At one point the District Court 
     judge transferred the case to Tampa, notwithstanding that 
     numerous victims reside in south or southwest Florida and 
     would have been substantially inconvenienced by a Tampa 
     trial. On our motion, the case was transferred back to Fort 
     Myers, but it cannot be tried for many months. If a judge 
     were resident there, this case would probably have been tried 
     already.
       FInally, civil cases which for some reason are not reached 
     on the calendar of one of the visiting judges usually roll to 
     the next month in which a nonresident judge will be visiting, 
     as opposed to the next calendar month. This causes 
     significant unwarranted delay. For example, in a large 
     pending discrimination case, an opposing counsel who appears 
     particularly reluctant to go to trial was able to obtain a 
     continuance, thereby delaying the case not for one month, but 
     for approximately five. This phenomenon would also be 
     eliminated by additional judgeships.
       I hope the information supplied herein is helpful. If I can 
     be of further assistance, please let me know.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Charles R. Wilson,
                                                    U.S. Attorney.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. 
        Inouye):
  S. 1586. A bill to authorize collection of certain State and local 
taxes with respect to the sale, delivery, and use of tangible personal 
property; to the Committee on Finance.


          THE CONSUMER AND MAIN STREET PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
resolve a serious problem facing consumers and Main Street businesses 
in America. This problem allows consumers to be misled regarding their 
tax liabilities and puts Main Street businesses at a competitive 
disadvantage vis-a-vis out-of-State companies. The problem of which I 
speak is the loophole that allows companies to ship goods across State 
lines without collecting the taxes due on those goods.
  My bill, The Consumer and Main Street Protection Act of 1998, will 
give States the option if they choose, of removing this unfair 
advantage enjoyed by out-of-State companies. The legal effect will be 
to authorize a State or

[[Page S230]]

local jurisdiction to require out-of-State companies to collect use 
taxes on sales of personal property delivered into that State or local 
jurisdiction, if that State taxes its own citizens on retail sales.
  This bill does not create a new tax. Indeed, it doesn't create a tax 
at all. It merely deals with how existing taxes are collected. 
Specifically, it would allow States, if they choose, to shift the 
burden of collecting and remitting use taxes from the consumer to the 
company.
  At this point, I should clarify the meaning of the term ``use tax.'' 
A use tax is a tax on goods purchased in one jurisdiction for use in 
another jurisdiction. For example, goods purchased in Tennessee for use 
in Arkansas are subject to an Arkansas use tax. Use taxes are used to 
keep people from avoiding sales taxes. If a State doesn't have a use 
tax, its citizens can avoid paying sales taxes by making purchases in 
another State. By imposing a use tax equal to its sales tax, States can 
remove the incentive to engage in tax circumvention.
  Therefore, in the 45 States which presently have sales and use taxes, 
consumers are legally obligated to pay those taxes, whether the 
purchases are made at a local department store, via mail order, or over 
the internet. Unfortunately, catalog companies typically do not make 
their customers aware of this obligation--in fact, some mislead 
customers into believing that out-of-State purchases are ``tax free.'' 
This, of course, is patently false. The company may be exempt from 
collecting use taxes, but the customer is still liable for paying those 
taxes directly to the State revenue department on every out-of-State 
purchase.
  This situation causes three serious problems. First, consumers are 
often shocked to discover that their ``tax-free'' purchase is not 
really tax free. State revenue departments inform tens of thousands of 
consumers every year of this sad fact. The consumer finds he is liable 
for back taxes, interest and penalties.
  Second, Main Street retailers are placed in an unfair position vis-a-
vis mail order houses. This occurs because mail order products if no 
tax is collected, are cheaper than if bought in Main Street department 
stores. Not only do most mail order houses not collect use taxes, they 
don't tell their customers that they are legally liable to pay the tax.
  Third, State and local governments lose revenues because billions of 
dollars of the taxes are never collected. According to the Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, State and local governments 
lose over $3.3 billion a year for this reason. This occurs, even as 
mail order companies impose significant costs on State and local 
governments by sending an avalanche of catalogs and product packaging 
to municipal landfills. Every year over 3 million tons of third class 
mail, most of which is catalogs, goes to landfills in this country. 
This is not surprising considering the billions of catalogs which 
consumers receive in the mail every year. One company alone, Fingerhut, 
Inc., mails out nearly 500 million catalogs annually. With mail order 
sales growing by approximately 6 percent per year, this burden on State 
and local government will increase significantly in coming years.


                    THE BELLAS HESS AND QUILL CASES

  A short discussion of case law is in order to explain why this matter 
requires Congressional intervention. The Supreme Court has twice 
considered the question of whether a State may impose tax collections 
duties on an out-of-State mail order company. In 1967, the Court ruled 
in National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue that such a State 
action violated both the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause of 
the United States Constitution. Bellas Hess therefore made it 
impossible for Congress to craft a legislative solution to the problem: 
although the Commerce Clause is the exclusive domain of Congress, the 
Due Process Clause is not subject to Congressional discretion. As long 
as the due process holding from Bellas Hess remained good law, 
Congress' hands were tied.

  In 1992, however, the Supreme Court overruled the due process portion 
of Bellas Hess. In Quill Corporation versus North Dakota, the Court 
revisited the issue of mail order tax collection and, applying a more 
modern due process analysis, concluded that mail order activities now 
constitute a sufficient connection to the State to justify the tax 
collection requirement. In other words, a State's imposition of tax 
collection requirements on an out-of-State mail order company no longer 
offends due process.
  The Quill case therefore clears the way for Congress to act on this 
issue.
  Although Quill did not overrule the Commerce Clause portion of Bellas 
Hess, that holding does not preclude Congressional action. As I 
mentioned earlier, because the Commerce Clause grants Congress 
exclusive authority over interstate commerce, Congress may, if it 
chooses, grant the States the authority to require out-of-State tax 
collection. Indeed, the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged in Quill 
that ``Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent 
the States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to 
collect use taxes.''


             Protections Against Undue Burdens on Business

  In writing this bill, I have taken great care to insure that it does 
not place an undue burden on business--particularly small business. I 
have included four provisions designed to protect against an 
overburdensome effect: (1) De minimus provision--The Act expressly 
exempts any company whose total U.S. revenue is less than $3 million. 
The exemption will not apply, however, in any State where the company's 
revenue exceeds $100,000; (2) One-rate-per-State provision--In 
situations where an out-of-State company is subject to multiple local 
tax rates in a single State, the company will have the option of paying 
each applicable local rate or paying one standard rate, called an ``in-
lieu fee;'' (3) Filing frequency limitation--States may not require 
out-of-State companies to file tax returns more than once per quarter; 
(4) Mandatory information service--States must maintain a toll-free 
telephone service to provide out-of-State companies with necessary tax 
information and forms.


                       What The Bill Does Not Do

  The intent of this bill is not to injure the mail order industry. 
There are many fine mail order companies in America which offer many 
useful products, and I have no quarrel with any of them aside from 
their exemption from collecting use taxes. The intent of the bill is 
merely to insure that consumers are protected and Main Street 
businesses are treated equitably in relation to companies located out-
of-State.
  Let me repeat, this bill does not create a new tax. It merely allows 
for the fair and equitable collection of existing taxes. If the 
residents of a State do not wish to pay a use tax, then they can repeal 
that use tax. That is their prerogative. But if they choose to have a 
use tax, the Federal Government should allow them to enforce it. That 
is what this bill does--it authorizes the States to collect taxes 
fairly and evenly from all who conduct business in the State.
  Finally, this bill is not a preemption of the States' power to tax. 
In fact, States are not required to take any action as a result of this 
bill. They may completely ignore this legislation and continue their 
present tax collection methods. This bill merely grants the States a 
power presently denied under the Commerce Clause and imposes the 
limitations on that power which are necessary to insure that the 
resulting burden on out-of-State companies is not unreasonable.


                             Broad Support

  This measure has already gained extensive support. The legislation 
was crafted with the input of a broad-based coalition of business and 
governmental associations. They represent large constituencies in every 
State, all of which actively and vocally support the bill. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of these organizations 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


   SUPPORTERS OF THE CONSUMER AND MAIN STREET PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

                         Business Associations

       Home Furnishing International
       International Council of Shopping Centers
       Jewelers of America
       Marine Operators Association of America
       Marine Retailers Association of America
       National Floor Covering Association
       National Home Furnishings Association
       North American Retail Dealers Association

[[Page S231]]

       Performance Warehouse Association
       Computing Technology Industry Association
       National Association of Retail Druggists
       National Office Products Association
       National Small Business United
       International Home Furnishings Representatives Association


                State and Local Government Associations

       National Governors' Association
       National Conference of State Legislatures
       National Association of Counties
       National League of Cities
       U.S. Conference of Mayors
       Multistate Tax Commission
       Federation of Tax Administrators
       Government Finance Officers Association
       National Association of State Budget Officers
       National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and 
     Treasurers
       National Association of State Treasurers


                   Education and Labor Organizations

       AFL-CIO Public Employees Department
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees
       American Federation of Teachers
       National School Boards Association
       American Association of School Administrators
       National Education Association

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to 
carefully consider this issue. It is very important for the continued 
vitality of Main Street America, and I invite you to join in this 
effort to ensure fair competition in American business.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and outline be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1586

       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 ``Consumer and Main Street 
     Protection Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) merchandise purchased from out-of-State firms is 
     subject to State and local sales taxes in the same manner as 
     merchandise purchased from in-State firms,
       (2) State and local governments generally are unable to 
     compel out-of-State firms to collect and remit such taxes, 
     and consequently, many out-of-State firms choose not to 
     collect State and local taxes on merchandise delivered across 
     State lines,
       (3) moreover, many out-of-State firms fail to inform their 
     customers that such taxes exist, with some firms even falsely 
     claim that merchandise purchased out-of-State is tax-free, 
     and consequently, many consumers unknowingly incur tax 
     liabilities, including interest and penalty charges,
       (4) Congress has a duty to protect consumers from explicit 
     or implicit misrepresentations of State and local sales tax 
     obligations,
       (5) small businesses, which are compelled to collect State 
     and local sales taxes, are subject to unfair competition when 
     out-of-State firms cannot be compelled to collect and remit 
     such taxes on their sales to residents of the State,
       (6) State and local governments provide a number of 
     resources to out-of-State firms including government services 
     relating to disposal of tons of catalogs, mail delivery, 
     communications, and bank and court systems,
       (7) the inability of State and local governments to require 
     out-of-State firms to collect and remit sales taxes deprives 
     State and local governments of needed revenue and forces such 
     State and local governments to raise taxes on taxpayers, 
     including consumers and small businesses, in such State,
       (8) the Supreme Court ruled in Quill Corporation v. North 
     Dakota, 112 S. Ct. 1904 (1992) that the due process clause of 
     the Constitution does not prohibit a State government from 
     imposing personal jurisdiction and tax obligations on out-of-
     State firms that purposefully solicit sales from residents 
     therein, and that the Congress has the power to authorize 
     State governments to require out-of-State firms to collect 
     State and local sales taxes, and
       (9) as a matter of federalism, the Federal Government has a 
     duty to assist State and local governments in collecting 
     sales taxes on sales from out-of-State firms.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY FOR COLLECTION OF SALES TAX.

       (a) In General.--A State is authorized to require a person 
     who is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the State to 
     collect and remit a State sales tax, a local sales tax, or 
     both, with respect to tangible personal property if--
       (1) the destination of the tangible personal property is in 
     the State,
       (2) during the 1-year period ending on September 30 of the 
     calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the 
     taxable event occurs, the person has gross receipts from 
     sales of such tangible personal property--
       (A) in the United States exceeding $3,000,000, or
       (B) in the State exceeding $100,000, and
       (3) the State, on behalf of its local jurisdictions, 
     collects and administers all local sales taxes imposed 
     pursuant to this Act.
       (b) States Must Collect Local Sales Taxes.-- Except as 
     provided in section 4(d), a State in which both State and 
     local sales taxes are imposed may not require State sales 
     taxes to be collected and remitted under subsection (a) 
     unless the State also requires the local sales taxes to be 
     collected and remitted under subsection (a).
       (c) Aggregation Rules.--All persons that would be treated 
     as a single employer under section 52 (a) or (b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as one person 
     for purposes of subsection (a).
       (d) Destination.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     destination of tangible personal property is the State or 
     local jurisdiction which is the final location to which the 
     seller ships or delivers the property, or to which the seller 
     causes the property to be shipped or delivered, regardless of 
     the means of shipment or delivery or the location of the 
     buyer.

     SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF LOCAL SALES TAXES.

       (a) Uniform Local Sales Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Sales taxes imposed by local jurisdictions 
     of a State shall be deemed to be uniform for purposes of this 
     Act and shall be collected under this Act in the same manner 
     as State sales taxes if--
       (A) such local sales taxes are imposed at the same rate and 
     on identical transactions in all geographic areas in the 
     State, and
       (B) such local sales taxes imposed on sales by out-of-State 
     persons are collected and administered by the State.
       (2) Application to border jurisdiction tax rates.--A State 
     shall not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (1)(A) if, with respect to a local jurisdiction 
     which borders on another State, such State or local 
     jurisdiction--
       (A) either reduces or increases the local sales tax in 
     order to achieve a rate of tax equal to that imposed by the 
     bordering State on identical transactions, or
       (B) exempts from the tax transactions which are exempt from 
     tax in the bordering State.
       (b) Nonuniform Local Sales Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d), 
     nonuniform local sales taxes required to be collected 
     pursuant to this Act shall be collected under one of the 
     options provided under paragraph (2).
       (2) Election.--For purposes of paragraph (1), any person 
     required under authority of this Act to collect nonuniform 
     local sales taxes shall elect to collect either--
       (A) all nonuniform local sales taxes applicable to 
     transactions in the State, or
       (B) a fee (at the rate determined under paragraph (3)) 
     which shall be in lieu of the nonuniform local sales taxes 
     described in subparagraph (A).

     Such election shall require the person to use the method 
     elected for all transactions in the State while the election 
     is in effect.
       (3) Rate of in-lieu fee.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(B), 
     the rate of the in-lieu fee for any calendar year shall be an 
     amount equal to the product of--
       (A) the amount determined by dividing total nonuniform 
     local sales tax revenues collected in the State for the most 
     recently completed State fiscal year for which data is 
     available by total State sales tax revenues for the same 
     year, and

       (B) the State sales tax rate.
     Such amount shall be rounded to the nearest 0.25 percent.
       (4) Nonuniform local sales taxes.--For purposes of this 
     Act, nonuniform local sales taxes are local sales taxes which 
     do not meet the requirements of subsection (a).
       (c) Distribution of Local Sales Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d), a 
     State shall distribute to local jurisdictions a portion of 
     the amounts collected pursuant to this Act determined on the 
     basis of--
       (A) in the case of uniform local sales taxes, the 
     proportion which each local jurisdiction receives of uniform 
     local sales taxes not collected pursuant to this Act,
       (B) in the case of in-lieu fees described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), the proportion which each local jurisdiction's 
     nonuniform local sales tax receipts bears to the total 
     nonuniform local sales tax receipts in the State, and
       (C) in the case of any nonuniform local sales tax collected 
     pursuant to this Act, the geographical location of the 
     transaction on which the tax was imposed.

     The amounts determined under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall 
     be calculated on the basis of data for the most recently 
     completed State fiscal year for which the data is available.
       (2) Timing.--Amounts described in paragraph (1) (B) or (C) 
     shall be distributed by a State to its local jurisdictions in 
     accordance with State timetables for distributing local sales 
     taxes, but not less frequently than every calendar quarter. 
     Amounts described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be distributed by 
     a State as provided under State law.
       (3) Transition rule.--If, upon the effective date of this 
     Act, a State has a State law in effect providing a method for 
     distributing local sales taxes other than the method under 
     this subsection, then this subsection shall not apply to that 
     State until the 91st day following the adjournment sine die 
     of that State's next regular legislative session which 
     convenes after the effective date of this Act (or such 
     earlier date as State law may provide). Local sales taxes 
     collected pursuant to this Act prior to the application of 
     this subsection shall be distributed as provided by State 
     law.

[[Page S232]]

       (d) Exception Where State Board Collects Taxes.--
     Notwithstanding section 3(b) and subsections (b) and (c) of 
     this section, if a State had in effect on January 1, 1995, a 
     State law which provides that local sales taxes are collected 
     and remitted by a board of elected States officers, then for 
     any period during which such law continues in effect--
       (1) the State may require the collection and remittance 
     under this Act of only the State sales taxes and the uniform 
     portion of local sales taxes, and
       (2) the State may distribute any local sales taxes 
     collected pursuant to this Act in accordance with State law.

     SEC. 5. RETURN AND REMITTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--A State may not require any person subject 
     to this Act--
       (1) to file a return reporting the amount of any tax 
     collected or required to be collected under this Act, or to 
     remit the receipts of such tax, more frequently than once 
     with respect to sales in a calendar quarter, or
       (2) to file the initial such return, or to make the initial 
     such remittance, before the 90th day after the person's first 
     taxable transaction under this Act.
       (b) Local Taxes.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall 
     also apply to any person required by a State acting under 
     authority of this Act to collect a local sales tax or in-lieu 
     fee.

     SEC. 6. NONDISCRIMINATION AND EXEMPTIONS.

       Any State which exercises any authority granted under this 
     Act shall allow to all persons subject to this Act all 
     exemptions or other exceptions to State and local sales taxes 
     which are allowed to persons located within the State or 
     local jurisdiction.

     SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF STATE LAW.

       (a) Persons Required To Collect State or Local Sales Tax.--
     Any person required by section 3 to collect a State or local 
     sales tax shall be subject to the laws of such State relating 
     to such sales tax to the extent that such laws are consistent 
     with the limitations contained in this Act.
       (b) Limitations.--Except as provided in subsection (a), 
     nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit a State--
       (1) to license or regulate any person,
       (2) to require any person to qualify to transact intrastate 
     business, or
       (3) to subject any person to State taxes not related to the 
     sales of tangible personnel property.
       (c) Preemption.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     this Act shall not be construed to preempt or limit any power 
     exercised or to be exercised by a State or local jurisdiction 
     under the law of such State or local jurisdiction or under 
     any other Federal law.

     SEC. 8. TOLL-FREE INFORMATION SERVICE.

       A State shall not have power under this Act to require any 
     person to collect a State or local sales tax on any sale 
     unless, at the time of such sale, such State has a toll-free 
     telephone service available to provide such person 
     information relating to collection of such State or local 
     sales tax. Such information shall include, at a minimum, all 
     applicable tax rates, return and remittance addresses and 
     deadlines, and penalty and interest information. As part of 
     the service, the State shall also provide all necessary forms 
     and instructions at no cost to any person using the service. 
     The State shall prominently display the toll-free telephone 
     number on all correspondence with any person using the 
     service. This service may be provided jointly with other 
     States.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``compensating use tax'' means a tax imposed 
     on or incident to the use, storage, consumption, 
     distribution, or other use within a State or local 
     jurisdiction or other area of a State, of tangible personal 
     property;
       (2) the term ``local sales tax'' means a sales tax imposed 
     in a local jurisdiction or area of a State and includes, but 
     is not limited to--
       (A) a sales tax or in-lieu fee imposed in a local 
     jurisdiction or area of a State by the State on behalf of 
     such jurisdiction or area, and
       (B) a sales tax imposed by a local jurisdiction or other 
     State-authorized entity pursuant to the authority of State 
     law, local law, or both;
       (3) the term ``person'' means an individual, a trust, 
     estate, partnership, society, association, company (including 
     a limited liability company) or corporation, whether or not 
     acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity, and any 
     combination of the foregoing;
       (4) the term ``sales tax'' means a tax, including a 
     compensating use tax, that is--
       (A) imposed on or incident to the sale, purchase, storage, 
     consumption, distribution, or other use of tangible personal 
     property as may be defined or specified under the laws 
     imposing such tax, and
       (B) measured by the amount of the sales price, cost, charge 
     or other value of or for such property; and
       (5) the term ``State'' means any of the several States of 
     the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. In no event shall this Act apply to 
     any sale occurring before such effective date.


     OUTLINE OF THE CONSUMER AND MAIN STREET PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

       Effect: Congress would give states the authority to require 
     out-of-state sellers to collect the sales taxes due on goods 
     shipped into the state. Under current law, out-of-state 
     companies are exempt from collecting these taxes, even though 
     consumers must pay them. This places an inappropriate burden 
     on the consumer and places local retailers at a competitive 
     disadvantage.
       Not a New Tax: The Act does not create a new tax. It merely 
     deals with how existing taxes are collected, shifting the 
     burden of collecting those taxes from the consumer to the 
     company.
       Small Companies Exempted: A company will be exempt if its 
     nationwide sales are less than $3 million. The exemption will 
     not apply in any state where the company's sales exceed 
     $100,000.
       One Rate Per State: The Act will not require complicated 
     tax calculations. Rather than dealing with a variety of state 
     and local rates, companies will have the option of collecting 
     a single blended rate for each state into which products are 
     shipped.
       Filing Frequency: Under the Act, out-of-state companies 
     will only have to file tax returns once per quarter.
       Toll-Free Information Service: To utilize the Act, states 
     must establish a toll-free information service to provide 
     out-of-state companies with necessary information and forms.
       Distribution of Local Sales Taxes: State governments must 
     remit to local jurisdictions the appropriate local share of 
     taxes collected from out-of-state companies. To ensure this, 
     the Act requires states to distribute local taxes collected 
     out-of-state in the same proportion as local taxes collected 
     in-state. Distributions must occur at least once every 
     calendar quarter.

           Uncollected Sales Taxes on Mail Order Goods, 1994

                                                               Millions
Alabama...........................................................$48.6
Arizona............................................................44.4
Arkansas...........................................................19.6
California........................................................482.8
Colorado...........................................................47.9
Connecticut........................................................50.4
D.C.................................................................9.9
Florida...........................................................168.9
Georgia............................................................72.9
Hawaii..............................................................9.8
Idaho...............................................................9.7
Illinois..........................................................233.1
Indiana............................................................54.5
Iowa...............................................................28.3
Kansas.............................................................33.5
Kentucky...........................................................41.7
Louisiana..........................................................61.9
Maine..............................................................13.3
Maryland...........................................................60.1
Massachusetts......................................................69.0
Michigan..........................................................108.4
Minnesota..........................................................53.1
Mississippi........................................................28.0
Missouri...........................................................63.5
Nebraska...........................................................17.4
Nevada.............................................................17.4
New Jersey........................................................112.2
New Mexico.........................................................16.8
New York..........................................................359.4
North Carolina.....................................................71.1
North Dakota........................................................5.8
Ohio..............................................................116.3
Oklahoma...........................................................41.8
Pennsylvania......................................................145.0
Rhode Island.......................................................14.2
South Carolina.....................................................31.3
South Dakota........................................................7.3
Tennessee..........................................................68.8
Texas.............................................................235.2
Utah...............................................................16.8
Vermont.............................................................6.0
Virginia...........................................................59.9
Washington.........................................................76.2
West Virginia......................................................18.6
Wisconsin..........................................................46.6
Wyoming.............................................................4.4
                                                             __________
                                                             
      Total.....................................................3,301.5
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________


Source: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1591. A bill entitled the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act 
of 1998''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           THE BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT OF 1998

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Bulletproof 
Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, a bill to establish a matching 
grant program to help State, Tribal and local jurisdictions purchase 
armor vests for the use by law enforcement officers. I also am working 
with my colleague, Senator Leahy, on an expanded version of body armor 
legislation.
  There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our 
streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against 
violent criminals. As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the 
risks which law enforcement officers face everyday on the front lines 
protecting our communities.
  Today, more than ever, violent criminals have bulletproof vests and 
deadly

[[Page S233]]

weapons at their disposal. In fact, figures from the U.S. Department of 
Justice indicate that approximately 150,000 law enforcement officers--
or 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 state and local officers--do not 
have access to bulletproof vests.
  The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most 
important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can 
have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives 
of more than 1,500 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In 
fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers 
who do not wear bulletproof vests are 14 times more likely to be killed 
by a firearm than those officers who do wear vests. Simply put, 
bulletproof vests save lives.
  Unfortunately, many police departments do not have the resources to 
purchase vests on their own. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act 
of 1998 would form a partnership with state and local law enforcement 
agencies in order to make sure that every police officer who needs a 
bulletproof gets one. It would do so by authorizing up to $25 million 
per year for a new grant program within the U.S. Department of Justice. 
The program would provide 50-50 matching grants to state and local law 
enforcement agencies and Indian tribes to assist in purchasing 
bulletproof vests and body armor. To make sure that no police 
department is left out of the program, the matching requirement could 
be waived for those jurisdictions that cannot afford it.
  This bill is a companion to legislation introduced in the House of 
Representatives by Congressman Peter J. Visclosky from Indiana. That 
legislation already has over 200 cosponsors.
  This bill has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National Sheriffs' Association, the International Union of Police 
Associations, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Association of Police 
Organizations.
  While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a 
career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure 
that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a 
vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an 
officer can have and often means the difference between life and death.
  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. 1591

       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 ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
     Grant Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings--Congress finds that--
       (1) too many law enforcement officers die, while protecting 
     the public, as a result of gunshot wounds;
       (2) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law 
     enforcement officers in the United States were feloniously 
     killed in the line of duty;
       (3) more than 92 percent of such law enforcement officers 
     were killed by firearms;
       (4) the number of law enforcement officers who die as a 
     result of gunshot wounds has declined significantly since the 
     introduction of modern bulletproof material;
       (5) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet 
     resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000 
     law enforcement officers in the United States;
       (6) the number of law enforcement officers who were killed 
     in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law 
     enforcement officer in the United States has access to an 
     armor vest; and
       (7) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law 
     Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian 
     country has risen sharply, despite decreases in the national 
     crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety 
     crisis in Indian country.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to save lives of 
     law enforcement officers by helping State and local law 
     enforcement departments provide officers with armor vests.

     SEC. 3. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Grant Authorization.--The Director of the Bureau of 
     Justice Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, 
     units of local government, and Indian tribes to purchase 
     vests for use by law enforcement officers.
       (b) Uses of Funds.--Awards shall be distributed directly to 
     the State, unit of local government or Indian tribe and shall 
     be used for the purchase of not more than 1 armor vest for 
     each policy officer in a jurisdiction.
       (c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under 
     this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance 
     may give preferential consideration, where feasible, to 
     applications from jurisdictions that--
       (1) have the greatest need for armor vests based on the 
     percentage of officers in the department who do not have 
     access to a vest;
       (2) have a mandatory wear policy that requires on-duty 
     officers to wear armor vests whenever feasible; and
       (3) have a violent crime rate at or above the national 
     average as determined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (d) Minimum Amount.--Unless all applications submitted by 
     any State or unit of local government pursuant to subsection 
     (a) have been funded, each qualifying State or unit of local 
     government shall be allocated in each fiscal year pursuant to 
     subsection (a) not less than 0.25 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to 
     that subsection.
       (e) Maximum Amount.--A qualifying State or unit of local 
     government may not receive more than 5 percent of the total 
     amount appropriated in each fiscal year for grants pursuant 
     to subsection (a).
       (f) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a program 
     provided by a grant under subsection (a) may not exceed 50 
     percent, unless the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance determines a case of fiscal hardship and waives, 
     wholly or in part, the requirement under this subsection of a 
     non-Federal contribution to the costs of a program.
       (g) Allocation of Funds.--At least half of the funds 
     awarded under this program shall be allocated to units of 
     local government or Indian tribes with fewer than 100,000 
     residents.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATIONS.

       (a) State and Tribal Applications.--To request a grant 
     under this Act, the chief executive of a State shall submit 
     an application to the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance, signed by the Attorney General of the State 
     requesting the grant, or Indian tribe shall submit an 
     application to the Director, in such form and containing such 
     information as the Director may reasonably require.
       (b) Local Applications.--To request a grant under this Act, 
     the chief executive of a unit of local government shall 
     submit an application to the Director of the Bureau of 
     Justice Assistance, signed by the chief law enforcement 
     officer of the unit of local government requesting the grant, 
     in such form and containing such information as the Director 
     may reasonably require.
       (c) Renewal.--A State, unit of local government, or Indian 
     tribe is eligible to receive a grant under this Act every 3 
     years.
       (d) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance shall promulgate regulations to implement this 
     section (including the information that must be included and 
     the requirements that the States and units of local 
     government must meet) in submitting the applications required 
     under this section.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF PRISON INMATE LABOR.

       Any State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe that 
     receives financial assistance provided using funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may not 
     purchase equipment or products manufactured using prison 
     inmate labor.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) The term ``armor vest'' means--
       (A) body armor which has been tested through the voluntary 
     compliance testing program operated by the National Law 
     Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center of the National 
     Institute of Justice (NIJ), and found to comply with the 
     requirements of NIJ Standard 0101.03, or any subsequent 
     revision of such standard; or
       (b) body armor which exceeds the specifications stated in 
     subparagraph (A), and which the law enforcement officer's 
     agency or department permits the officer to wear on duty.
       (2) The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (3) The term ``qualifying State or unit of local 
     government'' means any State or unit of local government 
     which has submitted an application for a grant, or in which 
     an eligible entity has submitted an application for a grant, 
     which meets the requirements prescribed by the Director of 
     the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the conditions set out 
     in section 3.
       (4) Indian Tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the same 
     meaning as in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination 
     and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)).

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year to carry out this program.

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       In the case of any equipment or products that may be 
     authorized to be purchased with financial assistance provided 
     using funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     the assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.

[[Page S234]]



                          ____________________