[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]]
____________________