[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5218-S5237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 2094. A bill to amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 
1978 to enable the Secretary of the Interior to more effectively use 
the proceeds of sales of certain items; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


           FISH AND WILDLIFE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1998

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to amend the 
Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978.
  This bill will allow the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 
of Commerce to more effectively use proceeds from the sale of forfeited 
and abandoned wildlife items.
  Mr. President, there is a warehouse in Commerce City, Colorado, 
operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is filled with 
wildlife parts and products.
  It is the National Repository for items that have been forfeited or 
abandoned to the U.S. Government and are being held for disposition by 
the Service.
  Some of these items are quite unusual: mounted rhinoceros, coral 
jewelry, stuffed alligators, elephant foot footstools.
  Some of these items are endangered or otherwise protected by law, and 
it is illegal to import them into the United States.
  Those companies or individuals who were caught trying to do so either 
abandoned the items or they were forfeited to the U.S. Government 
through a legal process.
  The Service distributes these wildlife items to museums and to 
schools for conservation education programs around the country.
  Anyone who flew through Denver's old Stapleton Airport, for instance, 
might have seen a display in the main terminal reminding travelers 
about various laws regulating importation of wildlife and wildlife 
products.
  A similar display is being erected at Denver International Airport.
  In addition to the unusual wildlife specimens stored at the Service's 
Colorado Repository are some more familiar items such as leather boots, 
jackets, purses, watchbands, and sea shells.
  These are in the possession of the Service because, in many cases, 
the required foreign export permits were not obtained or the items were 
falsely identified.
  Although it is legal to possess and sell many of these wildlife 
items, there is, of course, a procedure for importing them. This 
includes obtaining the required foreign export permits prior to 
importation and properly declaring the items.
  If these procedures are not followed correctly, then the items can be 
seized.
  Abandonment or forfeiture actions are then initiated with title being 
transferred to the Government.
  Many times, however, the people who try to bring them in will just 
abandon them to the Service.
  These items are retained by the Service at the Commerce City facility 
until an appropriate disposition can be made.
  I want to take just a moment here to point out that the Repository in 
question is located on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal northeast of Denver.
  This inactive military facility is in the middle of a transformation 
from a Superfund site to the largest urban wildlife refuge in the 
country.
  The Arsenal, which once produced nerve agents and chemical weapons, 
is now a haven for eagles, migratory birds, deer, and other wildlife.
  I've been told that there is hope to one day introduce bison back 
into the 27 square mile facility.
  The old Arsenal will become a new gem in the National Wildlife Refuge 
System, and an excellent resource for the people of Colorado.
  A Service priority for disposing of these wildlife items is to 
utilize them in scientific and educational programs.
  There are, however, many items in the Repository inventory excess to 
the needs of these scientific and educational programs.
  Those excess items which are not given a high level of protection--
those that are not endangered, or marine mammals, or migratory birds--
can legally be sold on the open market.
  If these surplus items were sold by the Service at an auction, they 
would generate proceeds which could be used to offset operational costs 
of the Repository, thereby allowing for a more efficient use of 
appropriated funds by the Service and a saving of money for the tax 
payers.
  But there is a hitch. Current law mandates proceeds from the sale 
except for those that can be used for rewards, must be returned to the 
General Treasury.
  This sounds fine, until you consider the mechanics of holding an 
auction.
  An auctioneer charges a commission which is usually a percentage of 
the proceeds from a sale.
  Since the Service estimates that they have about one million-dollars 
worth of surplus wildlife items on hand, which is a 10 year backlog, 
they can expect to pay the auctioneer a commission of around 15 percent 
or about $150,000.
  Now, the budget for the Repository in Fiscal Year 1998 is $310,000 
with salaries alone costing 80 percent of that number. They simply 
cannot pay about half of their funding towards an auctioneer's 
commission, and that is what they would have to do under current law.
  Although a sale would bring in money, the majority of the proceeds 
would go to the General Treasury, and the Service would have to use 
money already in their operational budget to pay for the sale.
  Needless to say, there are not enough funds to pay the auctioneer's 
commission, so the auction does not take place and the wildlife 
property sits and decays.
  What this bill would do is allow the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Commerce Department, to 
keep the proceeds from the selling of wildlife products at an auction.
  The money would be used for very specific purposes.
  These purposes, except for one, are all related to the task of 
storing, shipping and disposing of the forfeited and abandoned items 
located around the country.
  The other uses of the funds I will explain in just a minute.
  This bill specifically says that the Services can use the proceeds of 
the sale for:
  (1) Shipping items from one location to another;
  (2) Storage and security of the items;
  (3) Appraisal of the items;
  (4) Sale of the items--this is necessary to pay an auctioneer's 
commission; and
  (5) Payment of any valid liens against the objects.
  As you can see, this will not allow the Services to establish a slush 
fund for their use.
  The bill requires the money may be used only to continue paying for 
rewards, storage and shipping of the property, and to facilitate the 
disposal of the items, thereby making them available for the people of 
the United States.
  The other use for the proceeds is very special.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers a program that 
provides for the distribution of dead eagles to Native Americans so 
they may be used for religious and cultural purposes.
  As you probably know, bald and golden eagles are highly protected and 
it is illegal for anyone to kill an eagle or possess an eagle carcass 
or its feathers.
  The way the program is set up, dead eagles are sent to the National 
Eagle Repository, which is also located on Rocky Mountain Arsenal in 
Commerce City, Colorado.
  There they are cataloged, processed, and shipped to Native Americans.
  Even though the Repository distributes about 1,000 eagles to Native 
Americans each year, there is currently about a three year wait to 
receive an eagle carcass. This is because of the limited number of 
eagles being received at the Repository.
  Most have been trapped, or electrocuted, or have collided with power 
lines and cars--they are not in very good shape.
  When an eagle is received by the Repository, attempts are made to 
match

[[Page S5219]]

the type of eagle with that being requested, i.e. bald or golden, 
immature or mature.
  Requests for individual feathers are also filled.
  The Repository is so concerned about customer service that they will 
replace any broken or missing feathers with whole ones from another 
bird.
  The cost to box and ship an eagle is about $50. This cost is absorbed 
by the Service rather than being passed on to the Native Americans.
  This bill will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to use the 
proceeds from an auction to assist the eagle program by paying for 
boxes, dry ice, and other costs associated with shipping the eagles.
  For instance, some of the proceeds could also be used to purchase 
chest freezers to be placed in regional collection points.
  This would be for short term storage of the eagles near where they 
are initially found.
  This would hopefully increase the number of eagles being sent to the 
Repository and subsequently increase the number being shipped to the 
Native Americans, thereby reducing the waiting period to receive an 
eagle.
  Before I close here, let me stress--the auctions will only be selling 
wildlife items that are legal to possess and sell in the U.S., items 
like boots, belts, wallets, purses, shell products, etc.
  These items have a valid place on the U.S. market.
  Items that have a higher scientific or educational value will be 
distributed to museums and schools.
  No products from endangered species, eagles, marine mammals, or 
migratory birds will be sold.
  The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act already gives the authority to 
sell those items that are surplus for scientific and educational needs.
  The Act is silent, however, as to what happens to the proceeds from 
the sale of abandoned items, so by default they go to the General 
Treasury.
  The Services are therefore precluded from being able to utilize these 
funds.
  If this bill is enacted, the proceeds from the sale of forfeited and 
abandoned items will aid in the shipping, storing, and disposing of 
wildlife products to scientific and educational programs and the 
distribution of eagles to Native Americans for religious and ceremonial 
purposes.
  I hope this bill can be moved quickly in the Senate.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill with 
my colleague Senator Allard. This bill represents a move towards 
efficient use of government funds, and support for the valuable 
programs carried out with those scarce funds. The bill would initially 
generate approximately $1 million for the Service through the sale of 
items derived from fish and wildlife that are currently stored by the 
Service. This money would be used to cover the costs of disposing of 
these items--which is now a financial drain on the Service--and to fund 
programs that loan these items to schools and Native American groups 
for educational and religious purposes.
  Each year, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) receives hundreds 
of thousands of items derived from fish, wildlife and plants, such as 
skins, furs, feathers, jewelry, etc. These items can be seized, 
forfeited or abandoned during enforcement of Federal wildlife laws, and 
they are eventually shipped to the National Wildlife Property 
Repository in Colorado. The Repository currently has about 150,000 
items, with about 50,000 items stored elsewhere.
  Under current law, the Service may dispose of fish, wildlife or other 
items forfeited or abandoned to the U.S. government, either by loan, 
gift, sale or destruction. There are certain restrictions on disposal 
of those items. For example, items made from threatened or endangered 
species, marine mammals and migratory birds cannot be sold according to 
the laws that apply to those particular species.
  Revenue from the sale of forfeited items go to the Service for 
certain program operations; however, revenue from the sale of abandoned 
items go to the General Treasury, and are not available to the Service. 
More than 90 percent of the fish and wildlife items are abandoned, so 
that the Service would receive very little revenue from sales of these 
items. Indeed, under current law, the costs of selling these items 
would outweigh any revenue, so that the Service has no incentive to 
sell them.
  The Service must further expend funds for the shipment, storage and 
disposal of the items that it acquires. In addition, the Service will 
make many of these items--those that cannot be sold under law--
available for Native American religious and ceremonial purposes, 
educational purposes, and research, but must expend its own funds to do 
so. The Repository was appropriated $310,000 for operations last year. 
After overhead, only $61,000 was available for disposal of these items.
  Disposal includes two programs in particular. The first, known as 
Cargo for Conservation, provides wildlife specimens to schools for 
educational programs. Under this program, the Service has distributed 
almost 400 educational kits to various organizations. The second 
program provides eagle carcasses and parts to Native Americans for 
religious and ceremonial purposes. Under this program, the Service has 
filled almost 1,500 requests for eagles, eagle parts and other raptors 
in 1997 alone, although there is currently a two year backlog in 
filling orders for some eagle carcasses.
  The bill would specifically amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement 
Act in two ways. First, it would authorize the deposit of proceeds from 
the sale of forfeited and abandoned items into Service accounts rather 
than into the general treasury. Second, it would expand the use of 
funds received through these sales to include costs incurred by 
shipping, storage and disposal of these items, as well as payment of 
any liens on these items.
  I would like to note that this bill does not change existing 
authority with respect to items that may be sold by the Service. It 
does not allow the sale of items derived from threatened and endangered 
species, marine mammals, or migratory birds. The Service already has 
authority to sell certain items for which it is lawful to do so. This 
bill merely allows the Service to keep revenues derived from any items 
it sells, and to use those revenues for certain programs. This is a 
bill representing efficient use of government funds.
  At the same time, this bill is not intended to imply that the Service 
should sell everything that it lawfully can in order to maximize 
profits. It is my understanding that the Service has no intention to 
sell items derived from sensitive species, including those that are 
candidates for listing as endangered or threatened. It is also my 
expectation that, in considering which items to sell, the Service would 
take into account the biological status of any species used for that 
item, and any implications that the sale may have for conservation 
efforts relating to that species. For example, any sale by the Service 
should not encourage new markets that may undermine protections 
elsewhere. Lastly, the Service should ensure that the sale of these 
items does not undermine enforcement efforts within the U.S.
  In summary, I am pleased to cosponsor this bill with Senator Allard. 
Our staffs have worked closely with each other and with the 
Administration in drafting this legislation, and I look forward to 
working on this bill in the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Graham, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Warner, Mr. Stevens, 
        Ms. Snowe, Ms. Collins, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
        Domenici):
  S. 2095. A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


 national fish and wildlife foundation establishment act amendments of 
                                  1998

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act 
of 1984. This legislation makes important changes in the Foundation's 
charter, changes that I believe will allow the Foundation to build on 
its fine record of providing funding for conservation of our nation's 
fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

[[Page S5220]]

  The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 1984, to 
bring together diverse groups to engage in conservation projects across 
America and, in some cases, around the world. Since its inception, the 
Foundation has made more than 2,300 grants totaling over $270 million. 
This is an impressive record of accomplishment. The Foundation has 
pioneered some notable conservation programs, including implementing 
the North American Waterfowl Management plan, Partners in Flight for 
neotropical birds, Bring Back the Natives Program, the Exxon Save the 
Tiger Fund, and the establishment of the Conservation Plan for Sterling 
Forest in New York and New Jersey, to name just a few.
  Mr. President, the Foundation has funded these programs by raising 
private funds to match federal appropriations on at least a 2 to 1 
basis. During this time of fiscal constraint this is an impressive 
record of leveraging federal dollars. Moreover, all of the Foundation's 
operating costs are raised privately, which means that federal and 
private dollars given for conservation is spent only on conservation 
projects.
  I am proud to count myself as one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of the 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In 1984, I, along with my 
colleagues Senators Howard Baker, George Mitchell, and John Breaux, saw 
the need to create a private, nonprofit group that could build public-
private partnerships and consensus, where previously there had only 
been acrimony and, many times, contentious litigation.
  The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has more than fulfilled the 
hopes of its original sponsors. It has helped to bring solutions to 
some difficult natural resource problems and is becoming widely 
recognized for its innovative approach to solving environmental 
problems. For example, when Atlantic salmon neared extinction in the 
U.S. due to overharvest in Greenland, the Foundation and its partners 
bought Greenland salmon quotas. I and many others in Congress want the 
Foundation to continue its important conservation efforts. So, today I 
am introducing amendments to the Foundation's charter that will allow 
it to do just that.
  Mr. President, this legislation is quite simple. It makes three key 
changes to current law. First, the bill would expand the Foundation's 
governing Board of Directors from 15 members to 25 members. This will 
allow a greater number of those with a strong interest in conservation 
to actively participate in, and contribute to, the Foundation's 
activities.
  The bill's second key feature authorizes the Foundation to work with 
other agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Department 
of Commerce, in addition to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. President, it is 
my view that the Foundation should continue to provide valuable 
assistance to government agencies within the Departments of the 
Interior and Commerce that may be faced with conservation issues. 
Finally, it would reauthorize appropriations to the Department of the 
Interior and the Department of Commerce through 2003.
  Mr. President, I believe that this legislation I introduce today will 
produce real conservation benefits and I strongly urge my colleagues to 
give the bill their support.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, nearly fourteen years ago President 
Reagan signed P.L. 98-244, an act to establish the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation as a charitable, nonprofit corporation of the 
United States specifically to further the conservation and management 
of the Nation's fish, wildlife, and plant resources. Since that time, 
the Foundation has funded more than 2,200 conservation projects through 
their partnership and challenge grant program.
  In the State of Idaho alone, the Foundation has funded nearly 100 
projects worth over $19,000,000. The good news is that they have done 
this work with only $5M of federal money. That is nearly a four to one 
contribution from the private sector. In addition, there have been many 
projects in adjacent States that benefit the Stat of Idaho.
  But the Foundation has had its share of controversy. A Foundation 
grant to the Pacific Rivers Council may have allowed the Pacific Rivers 
Council to use other resources to nearly shut down the economy of 
several counties in the State of Idaho. A federal judge shut down all 
permitted activities in our national forests when the Pacific Rivers 
Council brought suit against the United States Forest Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service for failure to consider cumulative 
impacts of permitted activities under the Endangered Species Act. The 
two agencies could not agree on the extent and nature of the 
consultations, so the Federal judge shut down all activities in our 
national forests until they were in compliance. Even the plaintiffs in 
the suit were surprised by the effect of their suit. They quickly 
joined the effort to reverse the injunction and to have the two Federal 
agencies agree on a solution.
  Since then the Foundation has implemented procedures into its grant 
contracts to prevent a recurrence of the devastating injunction 
triggered by the Pacific Rivers Council. The Foundation has repeatedly 
stated that ``it does not engage in lobbying or litigation and does not 
allow its grants to be used for those activities.''
  And, I recognize that the Foundation has provided grant monies to 
support studies of grizzly bears and wolves in the Pacific Northwest. 
However, in my review of those grants I am pleased to say that the 
grants have been used to discover basic biological information about 
these predators. The Foundation has produced educational materials, 
backed research on the impacts of human activities, improved sanitation 
and safety will bear-proof dumpsters, supported GIS mapping of bear 
habitats, and brought in non-federal partners.
  During the years I have been acquainted with the Foundation, I have 
found that they work with the entire spectrum of interests to leverage 
through private partners a limited amount of federal funding into 
significant monies for conservation.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today Senator Chafee, chairman of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, has introduced legislation to 
reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I support the 
Foundation and the activities it undertakes to further conservation and 
management of our nation's fish and wildlife resources.
  Created by Congress in 1984, the Foundation has forged a strong 
relationship between government and corporate stakeholders, fostering 
cooperation and coordination. It has been successful in bringing 
private sector involvement, initiative and technology to bear in 
solving conservation problems. With this reauthorization, the 
Foundation's record of providing real on-the-ground conservation will 
continue.
  Mr. President, all federal money appropriated to the National Fish 
and Wildlife Foundation must be matched by contributions from non-
federal sources: corporations, State and local government agencies, 
foundations and individuals. The Foundation's operating policy is to 
raise a match of at least 2 to 1, to maximize leverage for our federal 
funds. With the financial assistance of the private sector and the 
technical knowledge of the States, the Foundation can be both effective 
and responsive to conservation needs.
  All of the Foundation's projects are peer reviewed by agency staff, 
state resource officials, and other professionals in the natural 
resource field. No project is undertaken without the input and support 
of the local community and state interests. The Foundation has also 
initiated a process to solicit comments from members of Congress 
concerning grants in a member's district or state.
  Mr. President, one of the things that distinguishes the Foundation 
from other conservation groups is its results in the field. The 
Foundation has worked with over 700 agencies, universities, businesses 
and conservation groups, both large and small, over the last decade. 
These relationships have helped the Foundation become one of the most 
effective conservation organizations in the nation.
  In Mississippi, for example, the Foundation has supported local 
habitat restoration projects to help private landowners install water 
control structures to provide wintering habitat for migratory 
waterfowl. Our farmers have learned that it also benefits weed control, 
seed-bed preparation, prevention

[[Page S5221]]

of erosion--all at a lower cost. The Foundation has provided grants to 
assist private landowners in restoring bottomland hardwood habitats 
critical to migrating neotropical songbirds and other water-dependant 
wildlife species. These efforts are helping to maintain the state's 
original wetlands habitats.
  Activities of the Foundation do produce real on-the-ground 
conservation benefits for the resources of our nation. I ask that my 
colleagues join me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 2096. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Foilcat; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


        CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION FOR THE VESSEL ``FOILCAT''

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to 
direct that the vessel Foilcat, Official Number 1063892, be accorded 
coastwise trading privileges for a fixed duration and be issued a 
certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. 
Code.
  The Foilcat was originally constructed in Norway, in 1992, and is a 
hydrofoil vessel presently under renovation in a U.S. shipyard. It is 
84.2 feet in length and is expected to be less than 100 U.S.C.G. 
registered tons.
  The vessel is owned by Steven Loui of Honolulu, Hawaii. Mr. Loui 
would like to utilize his vessel to evaluate the use of hydrofoil 
technology in the establishment of a high speed ferry demonstration 
project. However, because the vessel was built in Norway, it did not 
meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United 
States.
  The Hawaiian islands are exposed to high and rough surf and it is 
incumbent that we utilize high speed technologies in order to overcome 
the impediments of high surf and transportation distance requirements. 
Foilcat utilizes advanced hydrofoil technologies enabling the vessel to 
travel at high speeds while also providing safe and comfortable 
passenger ferry service. Should this technology as applied in passenger 
ferry service, prove successful, a series of these types of vessels 
will be built in the U.S.--using U.S. workers. Mr. Loui is planning to 
invest almost three times the amount of the vessel's purchase price in 
repairs and upgrades in a U.S. shipyard. My reflagging request would be 
for a limited time period, which would provide adequate time to 
evaluate the use of this technology in the establishment of inter and 
intra-island passenger ferry service.
  The owner of the Foilcat is seeking a waiver of the existing law 
because he wishes to use the vessel to evaluate high speed technology 
in passenger ferry service. His desired intentions for the vessel's use 
will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is 
granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. 
documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I 
am introducing is to allow the Foilcat to engage in the coastwise trade 
and the fisheries of the United States.
  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. 2096

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LIMITED DURATION WAIVER OF COASTWISE TRADE LAWS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 12106 and 12108 
     of title 46, United States Code, section 8 of the Passenger 
     Vessel Act (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and section 27 of the 
     Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Secretary 
     of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation 
     with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise 
     trade for the vessel Foilcat, (United States Official Number 
     1063892).
       (b) Termination.--The certificate issued under subsection 
     (a) shall be in effect for the vessel Foilcat for the 
     period--
       (1) beginning on the date on which the vessel is placed in 
     service to initiate a high-speed marine ferry demonstration 
     project; and
       (2) ending on the last day of the 36th month beginning 
     after the date on which it became effective under paragraph 
     (1).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2097. A bill to encourage and facilitate the resolution of 
conflicts involving Indian tribes, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.


indian tribal conflict resolution, tort claims, and risk management act 
                                of 1998

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Indian Tribal 
Conflict Resolution, Tort Claims and Risk Management Act of 1998 to 
continue the discourse on matters involving Indian tribal governments 
such as providing a mechanism for the collection of legitimate state 
retail sales taxes and affording a remedy to those persons injured by 
the acts of tribal governments, or those acting on their behalf.
  By introducing this legislation, I am hopeful that tribal leaders, 
concerned parties, and those affected by the actions of tribal 
governments can find some common ground and craft innovative solutions 
to these issues which I believe will continue to hamper Indian tribes 
unless dealt with appropriately.
  It has been said that because of Indian tribal immunity from 
lawsuits, states have no enforcement mechanism to collect state retail 
taxes on transactions made to non-members. Similarly, opponents of 
tribal immunity charge that tribal immunity prevents injured persons 
from seeking legal recourse for their injuries.
  The Supreme Court has held that on retail sales made to non-members, 
Indian tribes are under a duty to collect and remit such state taxes. 
The Court made it clear that there are numerous remedies available to 
the states in such situations including suits against tribal officials; 
levying the tax at the wholesale level before goods enter reservation 
commerce; negotiating agreements with the tribes involved; and if these 
prove unworkable, then seeking congressional action.
  At least 18 states and numerous tribes have chosen the negotiations 
route to settling their differences short of litigation and acrimony. 
Testimony presented to the committee on March 11, 1998, revealed that 
there are approximately 200 intergovernmental agreements between Indian 
tribes and states providing for the collection and remittance by the 
tribes of state sales taxes on sales made to non-members.
  Rather than waive the immunity of all tribes--those who have chosen 
to deal with the issue of taxation through agreement and those who have 
not--the legislation I introduce today declares the policy of the 
United States to be the reaffirmation of the federal obligation to 
protect Indian tribes, people, and trust resources and property of 
Indian tribes. In fulfilling that obligation, the United States should 
make available the framework and machinery for the amicable settlement 
and resolution of disputes, including tax matters, involving states and 
Indian tribes.
  The achievement of mutual agreements is the major objective of this 
bill, and in addition to encouraging such agreements, this legislation 
provides for the creation of an ``Intergovernmental Alternative Dispute 
Resolution Panel'' to consider and render decisions on tax matters that 
cannot be resolved through negotiation.
  The panel will be composed of a five member team including 
representatives of the Departments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury; 
one representative of state governments; and one representative of 
tribal governments. Rather than create a ``new'' mediation framework, 
this bill relies on the existing Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
Service to provide mediation services for such situations.

  Title II of the bill is intended to provide a remedy in tort 
situations for those tribes that are not covered by the Federal Tort 
Claims Act, or covered by private secured liability insurance.
  This title would require the Secretary of Interior to obtain or 
provide tort liability insurance or equivalent coverage for each Indian 
tribe that receives tribal priority allocations from the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA).
  Because many, if not most, Indian tribes maintain some type of 
insurance coverage, the Secretary is obligated to determine the type 
and adequacy of coverage already provided in order to avoid duplicative 
or redundant coverage.
  Significantly, and as is the case with insurance policies now in 
place for

[[Page S5222]]

many tribal governments, the policy of insurance must contain a 
provision prohibiting the carrier from raising the defense of sovereign 
immunity with respect to any tort action filed involving the tribe. In 
this way, injured persons would be afforded a remedy. Such policies 
would also contain a provision precluding any waiver for pre-judgment 
interest or punitive damages.
  The Secretary would prescribe regulations governing the amount and 
nature of claims covered by such insurance policy, and would also set a 
schedule of premiums payable by any tribe that is provided insurance 
under this bill.
  Lastly, as Indian tribes have begun to re-develop their economies and 
are beginning to assert their influence, issues and matters have 
developed that should receive the attention of a full-time, 
intergovernmental body to review and analyze such situations.
  This legislation creates the ``Joint Tribal-Federal-State Commission 
on Intergovernmental Affairs'' to thoughtfully and deliberately 
consider matters such as law enforcement, civil and criminal 
jurisdiction, taxation, transportation, economic development, and 
related issues. Two years after enactment, the commission is required 
to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the 
President, the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Senate, and the 
Committee on Resources in the House of Representatives.
  Finally, let me say that I do not agree with those who suggest that 
the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity is an anachronism and one no 
longer deserving of protection. Several of the states, as well as the 
federal government, have chosen to waive their immunity from suit in 
very limited circumstances and under strict conditions.
  It is simply inaccurate to suggest that tribal governments are the 
last repository of immunity. Whether by limiting damage awards as some 
states have done, or eliminating entire classes of activities that will 
not trigger immunity waivers as the federal government has done in the 
Federal Tort Claims Act, the doctrine of immunity is alive and well in 
the United States.
  That there are issues that need to be dealt with I agree; that the 
way to address these issues is through involuntary, broad-based waivers 
of immunity, I disagree heartily. I call on the quiet, thoughtful, and 
reasonable people on both sides of these issues to craft solutions that 
respects Indian tribal governments and yet provides reasonable 
solutions for legitimate problems that do exist.
  Mr. President, I ask that the contents of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2097

       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 ``Indian Tribal Conflict 
     Resolution and Tort Claims and Risk Management Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Indian tribal sovereignty predates the formation of the 
     United States and the United States Constitution;
       (2) a unique legal and political relationship exists 
     between the United States and Indian tribes;
       (3) through treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and 
     course of dealing, the United States has recognized tribal 
     sovereignty and the unique relationship that the United 
     States has with Indian tribes;
       (4) Indian tribal governments exercise governmental 
     authority and powers over persons and activities within the 
     territory and lands under the jurisdiction of those 
     governments;
       (5) conflicts involving Indian tribal governments may 
     necessitate the active involvement of the United States in 
     the role of the trustee for Indian tribes;
       (6) litigation involving Indian tribes, that often requires 
     the United States to intervene as a litigant, is costly, 
     lengthy, and contentious;
       (7) for many years, alternative dispute resolution has been 
     used successfully to resolve disputes in the private sector, 
     and in the public sector;
       (8) alternative dispute resolution--
       (A) results in expedited decisionmaking; and
       (B) is less costly, and less contentious than litigation;
       (9) it is necessary to facilitate intergovernmental 
     agreements between Indian tribes and States and political 
     subdivisions thereof;
       (10) Indian tribes have made significant achievements 
     toward developing a foundation for economic self-sufficiency 
     and self-determination, and that economic self-sufficiency 
     and self-determination have increased opportunities for the 
     Indian tribes and other entities and persons to interact more 
     frequently in commerce and intergovernmental relationships;
       (11) although Indian tribes have sought and secured 
     liability insurance coverage to meet their needs, many Indian 
     tribes are faced with significant barriers to obtaining 
     liability insurance because of the high cost or 
     unavailability of such coverage in the private market;
       (12) as a result, Congress has extended liability coverage 
     provided to Indian tribes to organizations to carry out 
     activities under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.); and
       (13) there is an emergent need for comprehensive and cost-
     efficient insurance that allows the economy of Indian tribes 
     to continue to grow and provides compensation to persons that 
     may suffer personal injury or loss of property.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to enable 
     Indian tribes, tribal organizations, States and political 
     subdivisions thereof, through viable intergovernmental 
     agreements to--
       (1) achieve intergovernmental harmony; and
       (2) enhance intergovernmental commerce.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``Executive agency'' in section 105 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 1151 of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (4) Panel.--The term ``Panel'' means the Intergovernmental 
     Alternative Dispute Panel established under section 103.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Department of the Interior.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States 
     and the District of Columbia.
       (7) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 4(l) of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(l)).

     SEC. 4. DECLARED POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

       It is the policy of the United States--
       (1) to continue to preserve and protect Indian tribes, 
     Indian people, and trust resources and property of Indian 
     tribes; and
       (2) that the settlement of issues and disputes involving 
     Indian tribes and States or political subdivisions thereof, 
     through negotiation and accommodation, may be advanced by 
     making available full and adequate governmental facilities 
     for fact finding, conciliation, mediation, and voluntary 
     arbitration to aid and encourage Indian tribes, States, and 
     political subdivisions thereof--
       (A) to reach and maintain agreements; and
       (B) to make reasonable efforts to settle differences by 
     mutual agreement reached by such methods as may be provided 
     for in any applicable agreement for the settlement of 
     disputes.
                 TITLE I--INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS

     SEC. 101. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMPACT AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The consent of the United States is 
     granted to States and Indian tribes to enter into compacts 
     and agreements in accordance with this title.
       (b) Collection of Taxes.--Consistent with the United States 
     Constitution, treaties, and principles of tribal and State 
     sovereignty, and consistent with Supreme Court decisions 
     regarding the collection and payment of certain retail taxes 
     of a State or political subdivision thereof, the consent of 
     the United States is hereby given to Indian tribes, tribal 
     organizations, and States and States and Indian tribes may to 
     enter into compacts and agreements relating to the collection 
     and payment of certain retail taxes.
       (c) Filing.--Not later than 30 days after entering into an 
     agreement or compact under this section, a State or Indian 
     tribe shall submit a copy of the compact or agreement to the 
     Secretary. Upon receipt of the compact or agreement, the 
     Secretary shall publish the compact or agreement in the 
     Federal Register.
       (d) Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--An agreement or compact under this section 
     shall not affect any action or proceeding over which a court 
     has assumed jurisdiction at the time that the agreement or 
     compact is executed.
       (2) Prohibition.--No action or proceeding described in 
     paragraph (1) shall abate by reason of that agreement or 
     compact unless specifically agreed upon by all parties--
       (A) to the action or proceedings; and
       (B) to the agreement or compact.
       (e) Revocation.--An agreement or compact entered into under 
     this section shall be subject to revocation by any party to 
     that agreement or compact. That revocation shall take effect 
     on the earlier of--

[[Page S5223]]

       (1) the date that is 180 days after the date on which 
     notice of revocation is provided to each party to that 
     agreement or compact; or
       (2) any date that is agreed to by all parties to that 
     agreement or compact.
       (f) Revision or Renewal.--Upon the expiration or revocation 
     of an agreement or compact under this section, the parties to 
     such agreement or compact may enter into a revised agreement 
     or compact, or may renew that agreement or compact.
       (g) Effect of Renewal.--For purposes of this title, the 
     renewal of an agreement or compact entered into under this 
     title shall be treated as a separate agreement or compact and 
     shall be subject to the limitations and requirements 
     applicable to an initial agreement or compact.
       (h) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to--
       (1) except as expressly provided in this title, expand or 
     diminish the jurisdiction over civil or criminal matters that 
     may be exercised by a State or the governing body of an 
     Indian tribe; or
       (2) authorize or empower a State or tribal government, 
     either separately or pursuant to agreement, to expand or 
     diminish the jurisdiction exercised by the Government of the 
     United States to--
       (A) make criminal, civil, or regulatory laws; or
       (B) enforce those laws in Indian country.

     SEC. 102. INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS-PROCEDURES.

       (a) Good Faith Negotiations.--In negotiating a claim, the 
     parties shall conduct full and fair good faith negotiations 
     pursuant to this title, with the objective of achieving a 
     intergovernmental agreement or compact that meets the 
     requirement of this title.
       (b) Request for Negotiations.--
       (1) In general.--An Indian tribe or a State may request the 
     Secretary to initiate negotiations to address a claim covered 
     under this title.
       (2) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the parties 
     of any request made under paragraph (1).
       (3) Requests.--Any request made to the Secretary under this 
     subsection shall be in writing.
       (4) Participation as a prerequisite to invoke procedures 
     under section 103.--
       (A) In general.--A party may not file a claim under section 
     103 unless that party is available for, agrees to, and 
     participates in, negotiations under this section.
       (B) Notice.--Upon receipt of any request made pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, not later than 30 days 
     after such receipt, send a notice by registered mail, return 
     receipt requested, advising the parties that are subject to a 
     request made under paragraph (1), that no party may file a 
     claim under section 103 without having participated in 
     negotiations under this section.
       (c) Negotiations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall, in a manner 
     consistent with section 103, cause to occur and facilitate 
     negotiations that are subject to a request under subsection 
     (a).
       (2) Non-binding nature of negotiations.--Consistent with 
     the purposes of this title, the negotiations referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) be nonbinding; and
       (B) be facilitated by a mediator selected in accordance 
     with section 103.
       (3) Selection of mediator.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall select 3 mediators 
     from a list supplied by the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service and submit a list of these mediators to 
     the parties.
       (B) Challenges.--Each party may challenge the selection of 
     1 of the mediators listed by the Secretary under subparagraph 
     (A).
       (C) Selection.--After each party has had an opportunity to 
     challenge the list made by the Administrator under 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall select a mediator from 
     the list who is not subject to such a challenge.
       (4) Payment.--The expenses and fees of the mediator 
     selected under paragraph (3) in facilitating negotiations 
     under paragraph (1) shall be paid by the Secretary.
       (5) Reimbursement.--If a party that files a claim under 
     section 103 and that party is not the prevailing party in 
     that claim, that party shall reimburse the Secretary for any 
     fees and expenses incurred by the Secretary pursuant to 
     paragraph (4).
       (d) Procedures.--Negotiations conducted under this title 
     shall be subject to the following procedures:
       (1) Commencement.--Negotiations conducted under this 
     section shall commence as soon as practicable after the party 
     that receives notice under subsection (b)(4)(B) responds to 
     the Secretary.
       (2) Additional investigation, research, or negotiation.--
       (A) In general.--Each party that enters into negotiation 
     under this section and the Secretary may agree to additional 
     investigation, research, or analysis to facilitate a 
     negotiated settlement.
       (B) Payments.--The cost of the additional investigation, 
     research, or analysis referred to in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be borne by the party that undertakes that investigation, 
     research, or analysis, or causes that investigation, 
     research, and analysis.
       (3) Exchange of records and documentation.--Each party that 
     enters into negotiations under this section shall exchange, 
     and make available to the Secretary, any records, documents, 
     or other information that the party may have with regard to 
     transactions within the scope of the claims alleged that--
       (A) may be relevant to resolving the negotiations; and
       (B) are not privileged information under applicable law, or 
     otherwise subject to restrictions on disclosure under 
     applicable law.
       (4) Termination.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) Termination.--Except as provided in clause (i) and 
     subparagraph (B), negotiations conducted under this section 
     shall terminate on the date that is 1 year after the date of 
     the first meeting of the parties to conduct negotiations 
     under this section.
       (ii) Mutual agreement.--The period for negotiations under 
     clause (i) may be extended if the parties and the Secretary 
     agree that there is a reasonable likelihood that the 
     extension may result in a negotiated settlement.
       (B) Mutual agreement.--At any time during negotiations 
     under this section, the parties may mutually agree to 
     terminate the negotiations.
       (C) Fulfillment of certain requirements.--A party shall be 
     considered to have met the requirements described in 
     subsection (b)(4) in any case in which negotiations are 
     terminated by mutual agreement of the parties under 
     subparagraph (B).
       (e) Negotiated Settlements.--
       (1) In general.--A negotiated settlement of a claim covered 
     by this title reached by the parties under this section shall 
     constitute the final, complete, and conclusive resolution of 
     that claim.
       (2) Alternative dispute resolution.--Any claim, setoff, or 
     counterclaim (including any claim, setoff, or counterclaim 
     described in section 103(c)) that is not subject to a 
     negotiated settlement under this section may be pursued by 
     the parties or the Secretary pursuant to section 103.

     SEC. 103. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 
                   PANEL-ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--If negotiations conducted under section 
     103 do not result in a settlement, the Secretary may refer 
     the State and Indian tribe involved to the Panel established 
     under subsection (b).
       (b) Authority of Panel.--To the extent allowable by law, 
     the Panel may consider and render a decision on a referred to 
     the Panel under this section.
       (c) Taxation.--Any claim involving the legitimacy of a 
     claim for the collection or payment of certain retail taxes 
     owed by an Indian tribe to a State or political subdivision 
     thereof and shall include or admit of counterclaims, setoffs, 
     or related claims submitted or filed by the tribe in question 
     regarding the original claim.
       (d) Membership of the Panel.--
       (1) In general.--The Panel shall consist of--
       (A) 1 representative from the Department of the Interior;
       (B) 1 representative from the Department of Justice;
       (C) 1 representative from the Department of the Treasury;
       (D) 1 representative of State governments; and
       (E) 1 representative of tribal governments of Indian 
     tribes.
       (2) Chairperson.--The members of the Panel shall select a 
     Chairperson from among the members of the Panel.
       (e) Federal Mediation Conciliation Service.--
       (1) In general.--In a manner consistent with this title, 
     the Panel shall consult with the Federal Mediation 
     Conciliation Service (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Service'') established under section 202 of the National 
     Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 172).
       (2) Duties of service.--The Service shall, upon request of 
     the Panel and in a manner consistent with applicable law--
       (A) provide services to the Panel to aid in resolving 
     disputes brought before the Panel;
       (B) furnish employees to act as neutrals (as that term is 
     defined in section 571(9) of title 5, United States Code) in 
     resolving the disputes brought before the Panel; and
       (C) consult with the Administrative Conference of the 
     United States to maintain a roster of neutrals and 
     arbitrators.

     SEC. 104. JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Intergovernmental Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Jurisdiction.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the district courts of the United States shall have original 
     jurisdiction with respect to--
       (i) any civil action, claim, counterclaim, or setoff, 
     brought by any party to a agreement or compact entered into 
     in accordance with this title to secure equitable relief, 
     including injunctive and declaratory relief; and
       (ii) the enforcement of any agreement or compact.
       (B) Damages.--No action to recover damages arising out of 
     or in connection with an agreement or compact entered into 
     under this section may be brought, except as specifically 
     provided for in that agreement or compact.
       (2) Consent to suit.--Each compact or agreement entered 
     into under this title shall specify that the partner consent 
     to litigation to enforce the agreement, and to the extent 
     necessary to enforce that agreement, each party waives any 
     defense of sovereign immunity.

     SEC. 105. JOINT TRIBAL-FEDERAL-STATE COMMISSION ON 
                   INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.

       (a) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a tribal, 
     Federal, and State commission

[[Page S5224]]

     (to be known as the ``Tribal-Federal-State Commission'') 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Members.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be comprised of 
     representatives of Indian tribes, the States, and the Federal 
     Government.
       (2) Duties of the commission.--The Commission shall advise 
     the Secretary concerning issues of intergovernmental concern 
     with respect to Indian tribes, States, and the Federal 
     Government, including--
       (A) law enforcement;
       (B) civil and criminal jurisdiction;
       (C) taxation;
       (D) transportation;
       (E) economy development; and
       (F) other matters related to a matter described in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).
       (3) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for 
     the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission 
     shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same 
     manner as the original appointment.
       (4) Initial meeting.--No later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (5) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman.
       (6) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (7) Chairman and vice chairman.--The Commission shall 
     select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members.
       (8) Powers.--
       (A) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out the purposes of this section.
       (B) Information from federal agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out the provisions of this Act section. Upon request of the 
     Chairman of the Commission, the head of such department or 
     agency shall furnish such information to the Commission.
       (C)  Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (D) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (9) Commission personnel matters.--
       (A) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated for each day (including travel time) 
     during which such member is engaged in the performance of the 
     duties of the Commission. All members of the Commission who 
     are officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (B) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Commission shall prepare and submit to the President, the 
     Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     implementation of this title that includes any 
     recommendations that the Commission determines to be 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 106. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) In General.--With respect to any agreement or compact 
     between an Indian tribe and a State, the United States, upon 
     agreement of the parties and the Secretary, may provide 
     financial assistance to such parties for costs of personnel 
     or administrative expenses in an amount not to exceed 100 
     percent of the costs incurred by the parties as a consequence 
     of that agreement or compact, including any indirect costs of 
     administration that are attributable to the services 
     performed under the agreement or compact.
       (b) Assistance.--The head of each Federal agency may, to 
     the extent allowable by law and subject to the availability 
     of appropriations, provide technical assistance, material 
     support, and personnel to assist States and Indian tribes in 
     the implementation of the agreements or compacts entered into 
     under this title.
                   TITLE II--TORT LIABILITY INSURANCE

     SEC. 201. LIABILITY INSURANCE, WAIVER OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Tribal Priority Allocation Defined.--The term ``tribal 
     priority allocation'' means an allocation to a tribal 
     priority account of an Indian tribe by the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs to allow that Indian tribe to establish program 
     priorities and funding levels.
       (b) Insurance.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), not 
     later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall obtain or provide tort liability 
     insurance or equivalent coverage for each Indian tribe that 
     receives a tribal priority allocation from amounts made 
     available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the operation 
     of Indian programs.
       (2) Cost-effectiveness.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) ensure that the insurance or equivalent coverage is 
     provided in the most cost-effective manner available; and
       (B) for each Indian tribe referred to in paragraph (1), 
     take into consideration the extent to which the tort 
     liability is covered--
       (i) by privately secured liability insurance; or
       (ii) chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code (commonly 
     referred to as the ``Federal Tort Claims Act'') by reason of 
     an activity of the Indian tribe in which the Indian tribe is 
     acting in the same capacity as an agency of the United 
     States.
       (3) Limitation.--If the Secretary determines that an Indian 
     tribe, described in paragraph (1), has obtained liability 
     insurance in an amount and of the type that the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate by the date specified in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not be required to provide 
     additional coverage for that Indian tribe.
       (c) Requirements.--A policy of insurance or a document for 
     equivalent coverage under subsection (a)(1) shall--
       (1) contain a provision that the insurance carrier shall 
     waive any right to raise as a defense the sovereign immunity 
     of an Indian tribe with respect to an action involving tort 
     liability of that Indian tribe, but only with respect to tort 
     liability claims of an amount and nature covered under the 
     insurance policy or equivalent coverage offered by the 
     insurance carrier; and
       (2) not waive or otherwise limit the sovereign immunity of 
     the Indian tribe outside or beyond the coverage or limits of 
     the policy of insurance or equivalent coverage.
       (d) Prohibition.--No waiver of the sovereign immunity of a 
     Indian tribe under this section shall include a waiver of any 
     potential liability for--
       (1) interest that may be payable before judgment; or
       (2) exemplary or punitive damages.
       (e) Preference.--In obtaining or providing tort liability 
     insurance coverage for Indian tribes under this section, the 
     Secretary shall, to the greatest extent practicable, give 
     preference to coverage underwritten by Indian-owned economic 
     enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452), except that for the purposes of 
     this subsection, those enterprises may include non-profit 
     corporations.
       (f) Regulations.--To carry out this title, the Secretary 
     shall promulgate regulations that--
       (1) provide for the amount and nature of claims to be 
     covered by an insurance policy or equivalent coverage 
     provided to an Indian tribe under this title; and
       (2) establish a schedule of premiums that may be assessed 
     against any Indian tribe that is provided liability insurance 
     under this title.

     SEC. 202. STUDY AND REPORT TO CONGRESS

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Study.--In order to minimize and, if possible, 
     eliminate redundant or duplicative liability insurance 
     coverage and to ensure that the provision of insurance of 
     equivalent coverage under this title is cost-effective, 
     before carrying out the requirements of section 201, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive survey of the degree, 
     type, and adequacy of liability insurance coverage of Indian 
     tribes at the time of the study.
       (2) Contents of study.--The study conducted under this 
     subsection shall include--
       (A) an analysis of loss data;
       (B) risk assessments;
       (C) projected exposure to liability, and related matters; 
     and
       (D) the category of risk and coverage involved which may 
     include--
       (i) general liability;
       (ii) automobile liability;
       (iii) the liability of officials of the Indian tribe;
       (iv) law enforcement liability;
       (v) workers' compensation; and
       (vi) other types of liability contingencies.
       (3) Assessment of coverage by categories of risk.--For each 
     Indian tribe described in section 201(a)(1), for each 
     category of risk identified under paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary, in conducting the study, shall determine whether 
     insurance coverage other than coverage to be provided under 
     this title or coverage under chapter 171 of title 28, United 
     States Code, applies to that Indian tribe for that activity.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit a report to Congress concerning the 
     implementation of this title, that contains any legislative 
     recommendations that the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate to improve the provision of insurance of 
     equivalent coverage to Indian tribes under this title, or 
     otherwise achieves the goals and objectives of this title.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2098. A bill to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over 
public lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to 
preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal 
lands surrounding those public lands and acquired

[[Page S5225]]

lands; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                american land sovereignty protection act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of American public 
lands and private property rights, I am concerned about the setting 
aside of public lands by the federal government for international 
agreements and oversight. The absence of congressional oversight in 
such programs as the United Nations Biosphere Reserve is of special 
concern to me. The United Nations has designated 47 ``Biosphere 
Reserves'' in the United States which contain a total area greater than 
the size of my home state of Colorado. That is why today I introduce 
companion legislation to H.R. 901, the American Land Sovereignty 
Protection Act, introduced by Representative Don Young, to preserve 
American sovereignty and halt the extension of the executive branch 
into congressional constitutional authority.
  We are facing a threat to our sovereignty by the creation of these 
land reserves in our public lands. I also believe the rights of private 
landowners must be protected if these international land designations 
are made. Even more disturbing is the fact the executive branch elected 
to be a party to this ``Biosphere Reserve'' program without the 
approval of Congress or the American people. The absence of 
congressional oversight in this area is a serious concern.
  In fact most of these international land reserves have been created 
with minimal, if any, congressional input or oversight or public 
consultation. Congress must protect individual property owners, local 
communities, and State sovereignty which may be adversely impacted 
economically by any such international agreements.
  The current system for implementing international land reserves 
diminishes the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its 
constitutional power to make laws that govern lands belonging to the 
United States. The executive branch may be indirectly agreeing to terms 
of international treaties, such as the Convention of Biodiversity, to 
which the United States is not a party, and one which our country has 
refused to ratify.
  A ``Biosphere Reserve'' is a federally-zoned and coordinated region 
that could prohibit certain uses of private lands outside of the 
designated international area. The executive branch is agreeing to 
manage the designated area in accordance with an underlying agreement 
which may have implications on non-federal land outside the affected 
area. When residents of Arkansas discovered a plan by the United 
Nations and the administration to advance a proposed ``Ozark Highland 
Man and Biosphere Reserve'' without public input, the plan was 
withdrawn in the face of public pressure. This type of stealth tactic 
to accommodate international interests does not serve the needs and 
desires of the American people. Rather, it is an encroachment by the 
Executive branch on congressional authority.
  As policymaking authority is further centralized at the executive 
branch level, the role of ordinary citizens in the making of this 
policy through their elected representatives is diminished. The 
administration has allowed some of America's most symbolic monuments of 
freedom, such as the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall to be 
listed as World Heritage Sites. Furthermore the United Nations has 
listed national parks including Yellowstone National Park--our nation's 
first national park.
  Federal legislation is needed to require the specific approval of 
Congress before any area within the borders of United States is made 
part of an international land reserve. My bill reasserts Congress' 
constitutional role in the creation of rules and regulations governing 
lands belonging to the United States and its people.
  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. 2098

       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 ``American Land Sovereignty 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The power to dispose of and make all needful rules and 
     regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is 
     vested in the Congress under article IV, section 3, of the 
     Constitution.
       (2) Some Federal land designations made pursuant to 
     international agreements concern land use policies and 
     regulations for lands belonging to the United States which 
     under article IV, section 3, of the Constitution can only be 
     implemented through laws enacted by the Congress.
       (3) Some international land designations, such as those 
     under the United States Biosphere Reserve Program and the Man 
     and Biosphere Program of the United Nations Scientific, 
     Educational, and Cultural Organization, operate under 
     independent national committees, such as the United States 
     National Man and Biosphere Committee, which have no 
     legislative directives or authorization from the Congress.
       (4) Actions by the United States in making such 
     designations may affect the use and value of nearby or 
     intermixed non-Federal lands.
       (5) The sovereignty of the States is a critical component 
     of our Federal system of government and a bulwark against the 
     unwise concentration of power.
       (6) Private property rights are essential for the 
     protection of freedom.
       (7) Actions by the United States to designate lands 
     belonging to the United States pursuant to international 
     agreements in some cases conflict with congressional 
     constitutional responsibilities and State sovereign 
     capabilities.
       (8) Actions by the President in applying certain 
     international agreements to lands owned by the United States 
     diminishes the authority of the Congress to make rules and 
     regulations respecting these lands.
       (b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are the following:
       (1) To reaffirm the power of the Congress under article IV, 
     section 3, of the Constitution over international agreements 
     which concern disposal, management, and use of lands 
     belonging to the United States.
       (2) To protect State powers not reserved to the Federal 
     Government under the Constitution from Federal actions 
     designating lands pursuant to international agreements.
       (3) To ensure that no United States citizen suffers any 
     diminishment or loss of individual rights as a result of 
     Federal actions designating lands pursuant to international 
     agreements for purposes of imposing restrictions on use of 
     those lands.
       (4) To protect private interests in real property from 
     diminishment as a result of Federal actions designating lands 
     pursuant to international agreements.
       (5) To provide a process under which the United States may, 
     when desirable, designate lands pursuant to international 
     agreements.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN WORLD HERITAGE 
                   SITE LISTING.

       Section 401 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     Amendments of 1980 (Public Law 96-515; 94 Stat. 2987) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) in the first sentence, by--
       (A) striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject to 
     subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), the Secretary''; and
       (B) inserting ``(in this section referred to as the 
     `Convention')'' after ``1973''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary of the Interior may not nominate any 
     lands owned by the United States for inclusion on the World 
     Heritage List pursuant to the Convention, unless--
       ``(A) the Secretary finds with reasonable basis that 
     commercially viable uses of the nominated lands, and 
     commercially viable uses of other lands located within 10 
     miles of the nominated lands, in existence on the date of the 
     nomination will not be adversely affected by inclusion of the 
     lands on the World Heritage List, and publishes that finding;
       ``(B) the Secretary has submitted to the Congress a report 
     describing--
       ``(i) natural resources associated with the lands referred 
     to in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) the impacts that inclusion of the nominated lands on 
     the World Heritage List would have on existing and future 
     uses of the nominated lands or other lands located within 10 
     miles of the nominated lands; and
       ``(C) the nomination is specifically authorized by a law 
     enacted after the date of enactment of the American Land 
     Sovereignty Protection Act and after the date of publication 
     of a finding under subparagraph (A) for the nomination.
       ``(2) The President may submit to the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and the President of the Senate a proposal 
     for legislation authorizing such a nomination after 
     publication of a finding under paragraph (1)(A) for the 
     nomination.
       ``(e) The Secretary of the Interior shall object to the 
     inclusion of any property in the United States on the list of 
     World Heritage in Danger established under Article 11.4 of 
     the Convention, unless--
       ``(1) the Secretary has submitted to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the President of the Senate a 
     report describing--
       ``(A) the necessity for including that property on the 
     list;
       ``(B) the natural resources associated with the property; 
     and

[[Page S5226]]

       ``(C) the impacts that inclusion of the property on the 
     list would have on existing and future uses of the property 
     and other property located within 10 miles of the property 
     proposed for inclusion; and
       ``(2) the Secretary is specifically authorized to assent to 
     the inclusion of the property on the list, by a joint 
     resolution of the Congress after the date of submittal of the 
     report required by paragraph (1).''.
       ``(f) The Secretary of the Interior shall submit an annual 
     report on each World Heritage Site within the United States 
     to the Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives and of the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, that 
     contains for the year covered by the report the following 
     information for the site:
       ``(1) An accounting of all money expended to manage the 
     site.
       ``(2) A summary of Federal full time equivalent hours 
     related to management of the site.
       ``(3) A list and explanation of all nongovernmental 
     organizations that contributed to the management of the site.
       ``(4) A summary and account of the disposition of 
     complaints received by the Secretary related to management of 
     the site.''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION AND TERMINATION OF UNAUTHORIZED UNITED 
                   NATIONS BIOSPHERE RESERVES.

       Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 403. (a) No Federal official may nominate any lands 
     in the United States for designation as a Biosphere Reserve 
     under the Man and Biosphere Program of the United Nations 
     Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
       ``(b) Any designation on or before the date of enactment of 
     the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of an area in 
     the United States as a Biosphere Reserve under the Man and 
     Biosphere Program of the United Nations Educational, 
     Scientific, and Cultural Organization shall not have, and 
     shall not be given, any force or effect, unless the Biosphere 
     Reserve--
       ``(1) is specifically authorized by a law enacted after 
     that date of enactment and before December 31, 2000;
       ``(2) consists solely of lands that on that date of 
     enactment are owned by the United States; and
       ``(3) is subject to a management plan that specifically 
     ensures that the use of intermixed or adjacent non-Federal 
     property is not limited or restricted as a result of that 
     designation.
       ``(c) The Secretary of State shall submit an annual report 
     on each Biosphere Reserve within the United States to the 
     Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, that contains 
     for the year covered by the report the following information 
     for the reserve:
       ``(1) An accounting of all money expended to manage the 
     reserve.
       ``(2) A summary of Federal full time equivalent hours 
     related to management of the reserve.
       ``(3) A list and explanation of all nongovernmental 
     organizations that contributed to the management of the 
     reserve.
       ``(4) A summary and account of the disposition of the 
     complaints received by the Secretary related to management of 
     the reserve.''.

     SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS IN GENERAL.

       Title IV of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1 et seq.) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 404. (a) No Federal official may nominate, classify, 
     or designate any lands owned by the United States and located 
     within the United States for a special, including commercial, 
     or restricted use under any international agreement unless 
     such nomination, classification, or designation is 
     specifically authorized by law. The President may from time 
     to time submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and the President of the Senate proposals for legislation 
     authorizing such a nomination, classification, or 
     designation.
       ``(b) A nomination, classification, or designation, under 
     any international agreement, of lands owned by a State or 
     local government shall have no force or effect unless the 
     nomination, classification, or designation is specifically 
     authorized by a law enacted by the State or local government, 
     respectively.
       ``(c) A nomination, classification, or designation, under 
     any international agreement, of privately owned lands shall 
     have no force or effect without the written consent of the 
     owner of the lands.
       ``(d) This section shall not apply to--
       ``(1) agreements established under section 16(a) of the 
     North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4413); 
     and
       ``(2) conventions referred to in section 3(h)(3) of the 
     Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)).
       ``(e) In this section, the term `international agreement' 
     means any treaty, compact, executive agreement, convention, 
     bilateral agreement, or multilateral agreement between the 
     United States or any agency of the United States and any 
     foreign entity or agency of any foreign entity, having a 
     primary purpose of conserving, preserving, or protecting the 
     terrestrial or marine environment, flora, or fauna.''.

     SEC. 6. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 401(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     Amendments of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 470a-1(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``Committee on Natural Resources'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Resources''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2099. A bill to provide for enhanced Federal sentencing guidelines 
for counterfeiting offenses, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


           counterfeiting sentencing enhancement act of 1998

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Counterfeiting 
Sentencing Enhancement Act of 1998. My bill would tighten the 
sentencing guidelines' base offense level in recognition of the fact 
that advances in computer and printing technology have fundamentally 
changed the nature of counterfeiting. This bill would bring our 
nation's counterfeiting laws out of Gutenberg's printing press era and 
into the modern computer age.
  Counterfeiting of our nation's currency is a serious and growing 
problem. Incidents of computer generated counterfeiting have increased 
dramatically over the last three years. In 1995 only one half of one 
percent of counterfeit U.S. currency passed were computer generated.
  Today, just three short years later, computer generated counterfeits 
account for approximately 43 percent of the counterfeits passed.
  Traditional counterfeiters use offset printing production methods 
that require specialized equipment including printing presses, engraved 
printing press plates and green ink. These counterfeiters encounter a 
cumbersome process that is messy, is harder to conceal, and requires 
them to produce in large batches.
  However, a rapidly growing number of today's counterfeiters are using 
personal computers, scanners, digital imaging software, full color 
copiers, and laser and inkjet printers. They can also use the Internet 
to instantaneously transmit the computer images needed for 
counterfeiting. This technology, which is readily available and 
increasingly affordable, enables criminals to produce high-quality 
counterfeit currency in small batches and at a low cost. It is this 
ability for counterfeiters to easily produce in small batches that has 
rendered our sentencing guidelines outdated and less effective as a 
deterrent.
  Our sentencing guidelines under current law are based in a world 
where the realities of offset printing required counterfeiters to 
produce in rather large batches. That reality no longer exists. 
Basically, the more counterfeit currency a counterfeiter got caught 
with, the stiffer the sentence. Using computer technology, today's 
counterfeiters can simply print out smaller batches of counterfeit 
currency whenever they want to. This allows these criminals to 
effectively fly just under the radar of our sentencing guideline 
thresholds.
  The administration recently acknowledged the extent of the problem. 
In a March 5, 1998, letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Treasury 
Secretary Robert E. Rubin wrote that ``increases in computer 
counterfeiting cases represent not only a threat to our law 
enforcement interests, but also seriously threaten the integrity of our 
U.S. currency. Maintaining the stability and integrity of U.S. currency 
is essential to preserving the benefits derived from the dollar's 
status as a world currency.''

  In response to these enhanced counterfeiting techniques, the 
Department of Treasury has been redesigning our nation's currency to 
make it harder to counterfeit. In addition the Secret Service has 
stepped up its battle against counterfeiters, both at home and abroad. 
But more needs to be done. This bill is another important step to 
toughen the penalties for counterfeiting.
  Specifically, my bill strengthens the sentencing guidelines so that 
increases are based on offense levels determined by the amount of 
counterfeit bills produced and a point system based on the offender's 
prior criminal history. Under current law, the base offense begins with 
level 9 for convictions involving $2,000 in counterfeit currency or 
less. Increases in this level occur according to the amount of 
counterfeit bills over $2,000. Thus a defendant's guideline

[[Page S5227]]

range in counterfeiting cases depends largely on the amount of 
counterfeit inventory seized when the operation is shut down.
  Increases in sentencing are also determined by the prior criminal 
history of the offender. Points are added for such things as: prior 
imprisonment; offenses committed while on probation, parole, or 
supervised release; offenses committed less than two years from prior 
release; and other misdemeanor and petty offenses.
  Under current law at base offense level 9, seven points are needed 
for the imposition of a prison sentence of 12 to 18 months. Without 
these points for prior criminal history many offenders simply are being 
released on probation. I believe these sentencing guidelines are too 
lenient and fail to address the growing problem of counterfeiting.
  Therefore, my bill increases the base offense level in section 2B5.1 
of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by not less than two levels to 
level 11. Under my bill, an offender would need only four points to 
receive the same 12 to 18 month sentence which previously required 
seven points. This relates to all counterfeiting offenses to address 
the overall harm counterfeiting can have on the integrity of U.S. 
currency.
  Second, my bill adds a sentencing enhancement of not less than two 
levels for counterfeiting offenses that involve the use of computer 
printer or a color photocopying machine. This would place this new 
class of computer counterfeiters at an offense level of 13. Here, an 
offender would need zero points to receive the same 12 to 18 month 
sentence. The increase in my bill would provide for actual prison 
sentences in many of the cases where previous offenders were only 
receiving probation. I believe this legislation clearly addresses our 
growing problem with counterfeiters by imposing stricter sentencing 
penalties.
  Mr. President, counterfeiting threatens the very underpinnings of our 
economy, the American people's confidence in the integrity and value of 
our nation's currency, the U.S. dollar. The ``Counterfeiting Sentencing 
Enhancement Act of 1998'' will send a clear message to criminals who 
are even thinking about counterfeiting. I urge my colleagues to join in 
support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 2099

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR COUNTERFEITING OFFENSES.

       The United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the 
     Federal sentencing guidelines to provide--
       (1) a sentencing enhancement of not less than 2 levels, 
     with respect to the base level for offenses involving 
     counterfeit bearer obligations of the United States, as 
     described in section 2B5.1 of the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines; and
       (2) an additional sentencing enhancement of not less than 2 
     levels, with respect to any offense described in paragraph 
     (1) that involves the use of a computer printer or a color 
     photocopying machine.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Faircloth):
  S. 2100. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to increase 
public awareness concerning crime on college and university campuses; 
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                  campus crime disclosure act of 1998

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Campus Crime 
Disclosure Act of 1998. My legislation amends the Crime Awareness and 
Campus Security Act of 1990,
  Educational institutions were once safe havens where we sent our 
children. Unfortunately, today we are all aware of the increase in 
violence that has reached as far down as our elementary schools to our 
youngest and most innocent victims. I would note that just recently, in 
the rural Pennsylvania community of Edinboro, a young teenager 
lamentably shot a teacher to death at an 8th grade graduation dance and 
wounded other students. While there is much that Congress can do to 
reduce violence in our society and across all levels of educational 
institutions, my legislation is focused on our national commitment to 
improving public safety on college and university campuses, where young 
adults are often away from their homes for the first time and living in 
unfamiliar surroundings.
  The legislation I am introducing today builds upon the fine work of 
my distinguished colleagues, Representative Goodling of Pennsylvania 
and Senator Jeffords of Vermont, who as chairmen of the authorizing 
committees having jurisdiction over higher education, have included 
campus crime amendments in the legislation reauthorizing the Higher 
Education Act. However, I believe that their amendments to the 1990 
Campus Security Act do not go far enough. Accordingly, my legislation 
includes provisions which are not included in the reauthorization bill 
and are necessary to bring schools into full compliance with the law, 
such as a more detailed definition of ``campus'' and new civil 
penalties.
  Based on my experience as District Attorney of Philadelphia, and my 
frequent involvement with educators and college students, I know that 
safety on campuses is a very serious issue. I want to recognize one 
family in particular for helping keep me and my colleagues informed on 
the important issue of campus crime, Howard and Connie Clery, and their 
son Ben, of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania for their continued work on 
campus security policy. As my colleagues may know, in 1988, the Clerys' 
daughter, Jeanne, was beaten, raped and murdered by a fellow student in 
her campus dormitory room at Lehigh University. Soon after the tragedy, 
Howard and Connie began to work on getting campus safety laws passed in 
the States and the U.S. Congress. In fact, the campus security law 
enacted in 1990 is often referred to as the ``Clery Bill.'' The Clerys 
founded Security on Campus, Inc., which serves as a watchdog of campus 
crime policies and procedures administered by our nation's colleges and 
universities.
  Based on continued conversations with the Clerys, it became apparent 
to me that there was a critical need for Congressional oversight of how 
the Department of Education has implemented the 1990 Act and whether 
the Department's financial resources are adequate for enforcement of 
the reporting requirements. On the fifth of March of this year, I held 
a hearing on security on campus as chairman of the Senate Labor, Health 
and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, to 
examine the Department of Education's enforcement of campus crime 
reporting requirements. The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 
Education for the U.S. Department of Education, David Longanecker, 
testified that: ``Generally the issue of campus is one of the foremost 
difficult areas that we have found campuses are having a difficult time 
with, and it is a particular issue for an urban institution.'' 
Secretary Longanecker went on to say that sidewalks and public lands 
are excluded from the Department's current definition of campus. 
Further, testimony at the hearing showed that buildings which are used 
for commercial purposes where other parts are used for educational 
purposes do not fall within the Department's interpretation of 
``campus,'' which, my own personal view, is an incorrect one. As one of 
the authors of the 1990 law, I believe that the omission of such 
information violates the spirit of the law and is a disservice to 
parents and students, especially for parents who send their children to 
college in urban settings, where commercial property such as food shops 
and retail stores and city streets thread through the entire campus. I 
believe it is preposterous to suggest that if a student fell victim to 
a crime say on a sidewalk which he or she was using to get to class 
would go unreported.

  The Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998 clarifies the law as to what 
constitutes a college or university campus. From now on, institutions 
would have to report to parents, students, and other members of the 
general public a more precise assessment of the criminal activity on 
campus. Specifically, a campus will be interpreted to mean: any 
building or property owned and controlled by the institution or owned 
by a student organization recognized by the institution, any public 
property such as sidewalks, streets, parking facilities, and other 
thoroughfares that provide access to the facilities of the institution, 
and any property owned or

[[Page S5228]]

controlled by the institution that is not in close proximity to the 
campus must still be reported on. The bill also makes clear that all 
dormitories and residential facilities, whether on or off-campus, which 
are owned or operated by the institution, fall under the definition of 
campus.
  My legislation gives the Secretary of Education stronger enforcement 
authority. Should an institution fail to report crime data, the 
Department of Education can fine that institution up to $25,000. 
According to a study conducted by the General Accounting Office, 63 
institutions of higher education were in violation of the Crime 
Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. Yet, the Department of 
Education did not take any punitive action against these institutions. 
The inclusion of fines will provide the Department with the necessary 
tool to ensure that all schools fulfill the intention of the law.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the Campus Crime 
Disclosure Act of 1998 to enhance security on campus. The bill is 
urgently needed to steer the U.S. Department of Education in the right 
direction as it monitors crime on America's college campuses. Quite 
simply, everyone benefits from clear and accurate reporting of the 
risks facing college students.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record as well as a section-by-section analysis.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2100

       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 ``Campus Crime Disclosure Act 
     of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) According to the General Accounting Office, 63 
     institutions of higher education were in violation of the 
     amendments made by the Crime Awareness and Campus Security 
     Act of 1990 since the enactment of such Act in 1990. The 
     Department of Education has not taken punitive action against 
     these institutions.
       (2) The Department of Education's interpretation of the 
     statutory definition of campus has enabled institutions of 
     higher education to underreport the instances of crimes 
     committed against students.
       (3) In order to improve public awareness of crimes 
     committed on college and university campuses, it is essential 
     that Congress act to clarify existing law and to discourage 
     underreporting of offenses covered by the amendments made by 
     the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CRIME CATEGORIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 485(f)(1) of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
       ``(F) Statistics concerning the occurrence on campus, 
     during the most recent calendar year, and during the 2 
     preceding calendar years for which data are available, of 
     criminal offenses reported to campus security authorities or 
     local police agencies, and of referrals of persons for campus 
     disciplinary action, for the following:
       ``(i) Murder.
       ``(ii) Sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible.
       ``(iii) Robbery.
       ``(iv) Aggravated assault.
       ``(v) Burglary.
       ``(vi) Motor vehicle theft.
       ``(vii) Manslaughter.
       ``(viii) Larceny.
       ``(ix) Arson.
       ``(x) Liquor law violations, drug-related violations, and 
     weapons violations.'';
       (2) by striking subparagraph (H); and
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (I) as subparagraph (H).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 485(f) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of paragraph 
     (4), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(F) and (1)(H)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)(F)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(F) and 
     (1)(H)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(F)''.

     SEC. 4. TIMELY MANNER.

       Section 485(f)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1092(f)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Such reports shall be readily available to 
     students and employees through various mediums such as 
     resident advisors, electronic mail, school newspapers, and 
     announcement postings throughout the campus.''.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITION OF CAMPUS.

       Subparagraph (A) of section 485(f)(5) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(5)) is amended to 
     read as follows: ``(A) For purposes of this section the term 
     `campus' means--
       ``(i) any building or property owned or controlled by an 
     institution of higher education within the same reasonably 
     contiguous geographic area of the institution, including a 
     building or property owned by the institution, but controlled 
     by another person, such as a food or other retail vendor;
       ``(ii) any building or property owned or controlled by a 
     student organization recognized by the institution;
       ``(iii) all public property that is within the same 
     reasonably contiguous geographic area of the institution, 
     such as a sidewalk, a street, other thoroughfare, or parking 
     facility, that provides immediate access to facilities owned 
     or controlled by the institution;
       ``(iv) any building or property owned, controlled, or used 
     by an institution of higher education in direct support of, 
     or related to the institution's educational purposes, that is 
     used by students, and that is not within the same reasonably 
     contiguous geographic area of the institution; and
       ``(v) all dormitories or other student residential 
     facilities owned or controlled by the institution.''.

     SEC. 6. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1092) is amended further by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8)(A) The Secretary shall report to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress each institution of higher education 
     that the Secretary determines is not in compliance with the 
     reporting requirements of this subsection.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall provide to an institution of 
     higher education that the Secretary determines is having 
     difficulty, or is not in compliance, with the reporting 
     requirements of this subsection--
       ``(i) data and analysis regarding successful practices 
     employed by institutions of higher education to reduce campus 
     crime; and
       ``(ii) technical assistance.
       ``(9) For purposes of reporting the statistics described in 
     paragraph (1)(F), an institution of higher education shall 
     distinguish, by means of a separate category, any criminal 
     offenses, and any referrals for campus disciplinary actions, 
     that occur--
       ``(A) on publicly owned sidewalks, streets, or other 
     thoroughfares, or in parking facilities, that provide 
     immediate access to facilities owned by the institution and 
     are within the same reasonably contiguous geographic area of 
     the institution; and
       ``(B) in dormitories or other residential facilities for 
     students, or in other facilities affiliated with the 
     institution.''.

     SEC. 7. FINES.

       Section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1092(f)) is amended further by adding after paragraph 
     (9) (as added by section 6) the following:
       ``(10)(A) Upon determination, after reasonable notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, that an institution of higher 
     education--
       ``(i) has violated or failed to carry out any provision of 
     this subsection or any regulation prescribed under this 
     subsection; or
       ``(ii) has engaged in substantial misrepresentation of the 
     nature of the institution's activities under this subsection,
     the Secretary shall impose a civil penalty upon the 
     institution of not to exceed $25,000 for each violation, 
     failure, or misrepresentation.
       ``(B) Any civil penalty may be compromised by the 
     Secretary. In determining the amount of such penalty, or the 
     amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of the 
     penalty to the size of the institution of higher education 
     subject to the determination, and the gravity of the 
     violation, failure, or misrepresentation shall be considered. 
     The amount of such penalty, when finally determined, or the 
     amount agreed upon in compromise, may be deducted from any 
     sums owing by the United States to the institution 
     charged.''.
                                  ____


            The Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998--Summary

       The Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998 amends the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 to increase public awareness concerning 
     crime on college and university campuses.
       Section 1. Title: ``Campus Crime Disclosure Act of 1998.''
       Section 2. Findings.
       Section 3. Additional Crime Categories.
       Adds reporting requirements for offenses such as 
     manslaughter, larceny, arson, and for arrests or persons 
     referred for campus disciplinary action for liquor law 
     violations, drug-related violations, and weapons violations.
       Section 4. Definition of Campus.
       This section responds to the Department of Education's 
     interpretation of the 1990 campus crime reporting law by 
     modifying the definition of campus to include: any building 
     or property owned and controlled by the institution or by a 
     student organization recognized by the institution within the 
     contiguous area of the institution, any public property such 
     as sidewalks, streets, parking facilities, and other 
     thoroughfares that provide access to the facilities of the 
     institution, any building or property owned or controlled by 
     the institution that is not within the contiguous area but 
     used for educational purposes. The bill also makes clear that 
     all dormitories and residential facilities (on or off-campus) 
     which are owned or operated by the institution, fall under 
     the definition of campus.
       Section 5. Reporting Requirements.
       Adds three additional reporting requirements: (1) the 
     Secretary of Education must report back to Congress when 
     schools are

[[Page S5229]]

     found in noncompliance, (2) the Secretary shall provide 
     technical assistance to schools concerning compliance with 
     reporting requirements and the implementation of campus 
     security procedures, and (3) requires institutions to include 
     in their reported statistics: crimes committed on public 
     property such as streets and sidewalks and student 
     residences.
       Section 6. Fines.
       Mandates for the first time that the Secretary of Education 
     shall impose civil penalties of up to $25,000 on institutions 
     which fail to comply with the Act's reporting requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 2101. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
research and services with respect to lupus; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources.


             the lupus research and care amendments of 1998

 Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998. This legislation would 
authorize additional funds for lupus research and grants for state and 
local governments to support the delivery of essential services to low-
income individuals with lupus and their families. The National 
Institute of Health (NIH) spent about $33 million on lupus research 
last year. I believe that we need to increase the funds that are 
available for research of this debilitating disease.
  Lupus is not a well-known disease, nor is it well understood, yet at 
least 1,400,000 Americans have been diagnosed with lupus and many more 
are either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. More Americans have 
lupus than AIDS, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, sickle-cell anemia 
or cystic fibrosis. Lupus is a disease that attacks and weakens the 
immune system and is often life threatening. Lupus is nine times more 
likely to affect women than men. African-American women are diagnosed 
with lupus two to three times more often than Caucasian women. Lupus is 
also more prevalent among certain minority groups including Latinos, 
Native Americans and Asians.
  Because lupus is not well understood, it is difficult to diagnose, 
leading to uncertainty on the actual number of patients suffering from 
lupus. The symptoms of lupus make diagnosis difficult because they are 
sporadic and imitate the symptoms of many other illnesses. If diagnosed 
and with proper treatment, the majority of lupus cases can be 
controlled. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties in diagnosing 
lupus and inadequate research, many lupus patients suffer debilitating 
pain and fatigue. The resulting effects make it difficult, if not 
impossible, for individuals suffering from lupus to carry on normal 
everyday activities including work. Thousands of these debilitating 
cases needlessly end in death each year.
  Title I of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998 authorizes 
$45 million in grants starting in fiscal year 1999 to be earmarked for 
lupus research at NIH. This new authorization would amount to less than 
one-half of 1 percent of NIH's total budget but would greatly enhance 
NIH's research.
  Title II of the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1998 authorizes 
$40 million in grants to state and local governments as well as to 
nonprofit organizations starting in fiscal year 1999. These grants 
would support the delivery of essential services to low-income 
individuals with lupus and their families.
  I would urge all my colleagues, Mr. President, to join Senator 
Moseley-Braun, Senator Shelby, and myself in sponsoring this 
legislation to increase funding available to fight lupus.
                                 ______
                                 

    By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
                              Wellstone):

  S. 2102. A bill to promote democracy and good governance in Nigeria, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


          nigeria democracy and civil society empowerment act

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce a sorely needed piece 
of foreign policy legislation, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society 
Empowerment Act of 1998. As the Ranking Democrat of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Africa, I have long been concerned about the collapsing 
economic and political situation in Nigeria. Nigeria, with its rich 
history, abundant natural resources and wonderful cultural diversity, 
has the potential to be an important regional leader. But, sadly, it 
has squandered that potential and the good will of the world with 
repressive policies, human rights abuses and corruption.
  The legislation I am introducing today provides a clear framework for 
U.S. policy toward that troubled West African nation. The Nigeria 
Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act declares that the United 
States should encourage the political, economic and legal reforms 
necessary to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights in 
Nigeria and should aggressively support a timely and effective 
transition to democratic, civilian government for the people of 
Nigeria. I am pleased to have Senators Jeffords, Leahy and Wellstone 
join me as cosponsors of this legislation.
  This bill draws heavily from legislation introduced in the 104th 
Congress by the former chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, 
Senator Kassebaum. I joined 21 other Senators as a proud co-sponsor of 
that bill. A companion measure to my bill was introduced earlier this 
week in the House by the distinguished chair of the House International 
Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York, and a distinguished member 
of that Committee and of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Payne of 
New Jersey. I commend both of my House colleagues for their strong 
leadership on this important issue and I appreciate the opportunity to 
work with them toward passage of this legislation and the broader goal 
of a freer Nigeria.
  Mr. President, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment 
Act provides by law for many of the sanctions that the United States 
has had in place against Nigeria for a number of years. It includes a 
ban on most foreign direct assistance, a ban on the sale of military 
goods and military assistance to Nigeria, and a ban on visas for top 
Nigerian officials. It would allow the President to lift any of these 
sanctions if he is able to certify to the Congress that specific 
conditions, which I will call ``benchmarks,'' regarding the transition 
to democracy have taken place in Nigeria. These benchmarks include free 
and fair democratic elections, the release of political prisoners, 
freedom of the press, the establishment of a functioning independent 
electoral commission, access for international human rights monitors 
and the repeal of the many repressive decrees the Abacha regime has 
pressed upon the Nigerian people.
  This legislation also provides for $37 million in development 
assistance over three years to support democracy and governance 
programs and the activities of the U.S. Information Agency, and 
mandates a larger presence for the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. I want to emphasize that this bill authorizes no new 
money. All of these funds would come out of existing USAID and USIA 
appropriations. At the same time, the bill prohibits any U.S. resources 
from being used to support an electoral process in Nigeria until it is 
clear that any planned election will be free and legitimate.
  Importantly, my bill requires the President to impose additional 
sanctions at the beginning of 1999 if he cannot certify that a free and 
fair election has taken place by the end of 1998. These new sanctions, 
will include a ban on Nigerian participation in major international 
sporting events, an expansion of visa restrictions on Nigerian 
officials and the submission of a report that lists the senior 
officials that fall under such restrictions.
  Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report 
on corruption in Nigeria, including the evidence of corruption by 
government officials in Nigeria and the impact of corruption on the 
delivery of government services in Nigeria, on U.s. business interests 
in Nigeria, and on Nigeria's foreign policy. It would also require that 
the Secretary's report include information on the impact on U.S. 
citizens of advance fee fraud and other fraudulent business schemes 
originating in Nigeria.
  The intent of this legislation is two-fold. First, it will send an 
unequivocal message to the ruling military junta in Nigeria that it's 
continued disregard for democracy, human rights and the institutions of 
civil society in Nigeria

[[Page S5230]]

is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill is a call to action to the 
Clinton Administration which has yet to articulate a coherent policy on 
Nigeria that reflects the brutal political realities there.
  Nigeria has suffered under military rule for most of its nearly 40 
years as an independent nation. By virtue of its size, geographic 
location, and resource base, it is economically and strategically 
important both in regional and international terms. Nigeria is critical 
to American interests. But Nigeria's future is being squandered by the 
military government of General Sani Abacha. Abacha presides over a 
Nigeria stunted by rampant corruption, economic mismanagement and the 
brutal subjugation of its people.

  The abiding calamity in Nigeria occurs in the context of economic and 
political collapse. Nigeria has the potential to be the economic 
powerhouse on the African continent, a key regional political leader, 
and an important American trading partner, but it is none of these 
things. Despite its wealth, economic activity in Nigeria continues to 
stagnate. Even oil revenues are not what they might be, but they remain 
the only reliable source of economic growth, with the United States 
purchasing an estimated 41 percent of the output.
  Corruption and criminal activity in this military-controlled economic 
and political system have become common, including reports of drug 
trafficking and consumer fraud schemes that have originated in Nigeria 
and reached into the United States, including my home state of 
Wisconsin.
  After the military annulled the 1993 election of Moshood Abiola as 
Nigeria's president--through what was considered by many observers to 
be a free and fair election--Chief Abiola was thrown into prison, where 
he remains, as far as we know, on the pretext of awaiting trial. 
Reliable information about his situation and condition is difficult to 
obtain. Chief Abiola's wife, Kudirat, was detained by authorities last 
year and was later found murdered by the side of a road under 
circumstances that suggest the military may have been responsible.
  On October 1, 1995, General Abacha announced a so-called 
``transition'' program whose goal was the return of an elected civilian 
government in Nigeria by October 1998. But virtually none of the 
institutions essential to a free and fair election--an independent 
electoral commission, an open registration process, or open procedures 
for the participation of independent political parties, for example--
has been put into place in Nigeria. Repression continues; political 
prisoners remain in jail; the press remains muzzled; and the fruits of 
Nigeria's abundant natural resources remain in the hands of Abacha's 
supporters and cronies.
  Even this flawed transition process--which in its best days moved at 
a snail's pace--has now been completely destroyed by the recent 
announcement that the fifth of the five officially sanctioned parties 
has endorsed Gen. Abacha as their candidate. Now, what was to have been 
a competitive presidential election has become a circus referendum on 
Abacha himself. The general will allow an election so long as his name 
is the only one on the ballot. This is little more than a sorry joke on 
the premise of democracy!
  Any criticism of this so-called transition process is punishable by 
five years in a Nigerian prison. Reports from many international human 
rights organizations and our own State Department document years of 
similar brutality. Nigerian human rights activists and government 
critics are commonly whisked away to secret trials before military 
courts and imprisoned; independent media outlets are silenced; workers' 
rights to organize are restricted; and the infamous State Security 
[Detention of Persons] Decree #2, giving the military sweeping powers 
of arrest and detention, remains in force.
  Perhaps the most horrific example of repression by the Abacha 
government was the execution of human rights and environmental activist 
Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others in November 1995 on trumped-up charges. 
Since that barbaric spectacle, it appears the Abacha government has 
been working even harder to tighten its grip on the country, wasting no 
opportunity to subjugate the people of Nigeria.
  Late last year, retired Major General Musa Yar'Adua, a former 
Nigerian vice president and a prominent opponent of General Abacha, 
died in state custody under circumstances that remain shrouded in 
mystery. General Yar'Adua was one of 40 people arrested in 1995 during 
a government sweep and sentenced to 25 years in prison for an alleged 
coup plot widely believed to have been a pretext to silence government 
critics. Just a few weeks ago, we received the disturbing news that 
five Nigerians had been sentenced to death by a military tribunal amid 
other unproven accusations of coup-plotting.
  The Clinton Administration response to these events has been an 
earnest muddle at best, and rudderless at worst. I welcome recent 
efforts to complete the policy review process; in fact, I have been 
pushing for its completion for quite some time, because I feel the 
perceived ``lack'' of a policy with respect to Nigeria, for the past 
two years or so, has been dangerous.
  But, unfortunately, the long-awaited and oft-postponed principals' 
meeting on this issue, which finally took place in April, has not 
yielded any firm recommendations to the President. I have long urged 
the Administration to take the toughest stance possible in support of 
democracy in Nigeria, including a clear unequivocal statement that an 
electoral victory for Abacha would be totally illegitimate and 
unacceptable. The regime in Nigeria must know that anything less than a 
transparent transition to civilian rule will be met with severe 
consequences, including new sanctions as is mandated in this bill.
  So I was particularly disappointed to hear the President remark 
during his recent trip to Africa that General Abacha would be 
considered acceptable by the United States if he chose to run in the 
upcoming election as a civilian. My shock at that remark was tempered 
somewhat by the efforts of numerous administration officials who 
struggled to clarify the President's remarks. They insist that the U.S. 
objective is to support a viable transition to civilian rule in 
Nigeria, but my worst fears about that ominous remark by the President 
have now come true. Abacha and his cronies seem to believe that the 
United States would consider an Abacha victory in the upcoming 
elections to be a viable, sustainable outcome. Why else would the plan 
once touted as the basis for a democratic competitive presidential 
election be downgraded into a rigged referendum on Abacha himself? As 
planned now, the referendum will be one in which Abacha cannot lose and 
the people of Nigeria cannot win.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today represents an 
effort to demonstrate our horror at the continued repression in 
Nigeria, to encourage the ruling regime to take meaningful steps at 
reform, to support those Nigerians who have worked tirelessly and 
fearlessly for democracy and civilian rule and to move our own 
government toward a Nigeria policy that vigorously reflects the best 
American values.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope that we 
will be able to consider it soon in the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  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. 2102

       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 ``Nigerian Democracy and 
     Civil Society Empowerment Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.

         (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
         (1) The continued rule of the Nigerian military 
     government, in power since a 1993 coup, harms the lives of 
     the people of Nigeria, undermines confidence in the Nigerian 
     economy, damages relations between Nigeria and the United 
     States, and threatens the political and economic stability of 
     West Africa.
         (2) The transition plan announced by the Government of 
     Nigeria on October 1, 1995, which includes a commitment to 
     hold free and fair elections, has precluded the development 
     of an environment in which such elections would be considered 
     free and fair, nor was the transition plan itself developed 
     in a free and open manner or with the participation of the 
     Nigerian people.
         (3) The United States Government would consider a free 
     and fair election in Nigeria

[[Page S5231]]

     one that involves a genuinely independent electoral 
     commission and an open and fair process for the registration 
     of political parties and the fielding of candidates and an 
     environment that allows the full unrestricted participation 
     by all sectors of the Nigerian population.
         (4) In particular, the process of registering voters and 
     political parties has been significantly flawed and subject 
     to such extreme pressure by the military so as to guarantee 
     the uncontested election of the incumbent or his designee to 
     the presidency.
         (5) The tenure of the ruling military government in 
     Nigeria has been marked by egregious human rights abuses, 
     devastating economic decline, and rampant corruption.
         (6) Previous and current military regimes have turned 
     Nigeria into a haven for international drug trafficking rings 
     and other criminal organizations.
         (7) On September 18, 1997, a social function in honor of 
     then-United States Ambassador Walter Carrington was disrupted 
     by Nigerian state security forces. This culminated a campaign 
     of political intimidation and personal harassment against 
     Ambassador Carrington by the ruling regime.
         (8) Since 1993, the United States and other members of 
     the international community have imposed limited sanctions 
     against Nigeria in response to human rights violations and 
     political repression.
         (9) According to international and Nigerian human rights 
     groups, at least several hundred democracy and human rights 
     activists and journalists have been arbitrarily detained or 
     imprisoned, without appropriate due process of law.
         (10)(A) The widely recognized winner of the annulled June 
     6, 1993, presidential election, Chief Moshood K. O. Abiola, 
     remains in detention on charges of treason.
         (B) General Olusegun Obassanjo (rt.), who is a former 
     head of state and the only military leader to turn over power 
     to a democratically elected civilian government and who has 
     played a prominent role on the international stage as an 
     advocate of peace and reconciliation, remains in prison 
     serving a life sentence following a secret trial that failed 
     to meet international standards of due process over an 
     alleged coup plot that has never been proven to exist.
         (C) Internationally renowned writer, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and 8 
     other Ogoni activists were arrested in May 1994 and executed 
     on November 10, 1995, despite the pleas to spare their lives 
     from around the world.
         (D) Frank O. Kokori, Secretary General of the National 
     Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), who was 
     arrested in August 1994, and has been held incommunicado 
     since, Chief Milton G. Dabibi, Secretary General of Staff 
     Consultative Association of Nigeria (SESCAN) and former 
     Secretary General of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior 
     Staff Association (PENGASSAN), who was arrested in January 
     1996, remains in detention without charge, for leading 
     demonstrations against the canceled elections and against 
     government efforts to control the labor unions.
         (E) Among those individuals who have been detained under 
     similar circumstances and who remain in prison are Christine 
     Anyanwu, Editor-in-Chief and publisher of The Sunday Magazine 
     (TSM), Kunle Ajibade and George Mbah, editor and assistant 
     editor of the News, Ben Charles Obi, a journalist who was 
     tried, convicted, and jailed by the infamous special military 
     tribunal during the reason trials over the alleged 1995 coup 
     plot, the ``Ogoni 21'' who were arrested on the same charges 
     used to convict and execute the ``Ogoni 9'' and Dr. Beko 
     Ransome-Kuti, a respected human rights activist and leader of 
     the pro-democracy movement and Shehu Sani, the Vice-Chairman 
     of the Campaign for Democracy.
         (11) Numerous decrees issued by the military government 
     in Nigeria suspend the constitutional protection of 
     fundamental human rights, allow indefinite detention without 
     charge, revoke the jurisdiction of civilian courts, and 
     criminalize peaceful criticism of the transition program.
         (12) As a party to the International Covenant on Civil 
     and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human 
     and Peoples' Rights, and a signatory to the Harare 
     Commonwealth Declaration, Nigeria is obligated to grant its 
     citizens the right to fairly conduct elections that guarantee 
     the free expression of the will of the electors.
         (13) Nigeria has played a major role in restoring 
     elected, civilian governments in Liberia and Sierra Leone as 
     the leading military force within the Economic Community of 
     West African States (ECOWAS) peacekeeping force, yet the 
     military regime has refused to allow the unfettered return of 
     elected, civilian government in Nigeria.
         (14) Despite organizing and managing the June 12, 1993, 
     elections, successive Nigerian military regimes nullified 
     that election, imprisoned the winner a year later, and 
     continue to fail to provide a coherent explanation for their 
     actions.
         (15) Nigeria has used its military and economic strength 
     to threaten the land and maritime borders and sovereignty of 
     neighboring countries, which is contrary to numerous 
     international treaties to which it is a signatory.
         (b) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that the 
     United States should encourage political, economic, and legal 
     reforms necessary to ensure rule of law and respect for human 
     rights in Nigeria and support a timely and effective 
     transition to democratic, civilian government in Nigeria.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

         (a) International Cooperation.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that the President should actively seek the 
     cooperation of other countries as part of the United States 
     policy of isolating the military government of Nigeria.
         (b) United Nations Human Rights Commission.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that the President should instruct the 
     United States Representative to the United Nations Commission 
     on Human Rights (UNCHR) to use the voice and vote of the 
     United States at the annual meeting of the Commission--
         (1) to condemn human rights abuses in Nigeria; and
         (2) to press for the continued renewal of the mandate of, 
     and continued access to Nigeria for, the special rapporteur 
     on Nigeria, as called for in Commission Resolution 1997/53.
         (c) Special Envoy for Nigeria.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that, because the United States Ambassador to 
     Nigeria, a resident of both Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria, is the 
     President's representative to the Government of Nigeria, 
     serves at the pleasure of the President, and was appointed by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the President 
     should not send any other envoy to Nigeria without prior 
     notification of Congress and should not designate a special 
     envoy to Nigeria without consulting Congress.

     SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN 
                   NIGERIA.

         (a) Development Assistance.--
         (1) In general.--Of the amounts made available for fiscal 
     years 1999, 2000, and 2001 to carry out chapter 1 of part I 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et 
     seq.), not less than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, not 
     less than $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and not less than 
     $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 should be available for 
     assistance described in paragraph (2) for Nigeria.
         (2) Assistance described.--
         (A) In general.--The assistance described in this 
     paragraph is assistance provided to nongovernmental 
     organizations for the purpose of promoting democracy, good 
     governance, and the rule of law in Nigeria.
         (B) Additional requirement.--In providing assistance 
     under this subsection, the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development shall ensure that 
     nongovernmental organizations receiving such assistance 
     represent a broad cross-section of society in Nigeria and 
     seek to promote democracy, human rights, and accountable 
     government.
         (3) Grants for promotion of human rights.--Of the amounts 
     made available for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 under 
     paragraph (1), not less than $500,000 for each such fiscal 
     year should be available to the United States Agency for 
     International Development for the purpose of providing grants 
     of not more than $25,000 each to support individuals or 
     nongovernmental organizations that seek to promote, directly 
     or indirectly, the advancement of human rights in Nigeria.
         (b) USIA Information Assistance.--Of the amounts made 
     available for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 under 
     subsection (a)(1), not less than $1,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1999, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2000, and $2,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2001 should be made available to the United 
     States Information Agency for the purpose of supporting its 
     activities in Nigeria, including the promotion of greater 
     awareness among Nigerians of constitutional democracy, the 
     rule of law, and respect for human rights.
         (c) Staff Levels and Assignments of United States 
     Personnel in Nigeria.--
         (1) Finding.--Congress finds that staff levels at the 
     office of the United States Agency for International 
     Development in Lagos, Nigeria, are inadequate.
         (2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development should--
         (A) increase the number of United States personnel at 
     such Agency's office in Lagos, Nigeria, from within the 
     current, overall staff resources of such Agency in order for 
     such office to be sufficiently staffed to carry out 
     subsection (a); and
         (B) consider placement of personnel elsewhere in Nigeria.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT 
                   OF NIGERIA; PROHIBITION ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE 
                   FOR NIGERIA; REQUIREMENT TO OPPOSE MULTILATERAL 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR NIGERIA.

         (a) Prohibition on Economic Assistance.--
         (1) In general.--Economic assistance (including funds 
     previously appropriated for economic assistance) shall not be 
     provided to the Government of Nigeria.
         (2) Economic assistance defined.--As used in this 
     subsection, the term ``economic assistance''--
         (A) means--
         (i) any assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) and any assistance under 
     chapter 4 of part II of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.) 
     (relating to economic support fund); and
         (ii) any financing by the Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States, financing and assistance by the Overseas 
     Private Investment Corporation, and assistance by the Trade 
     and Development Agency; and
         (B) does not include disaster relief assistance, refugee 
     assistance, or narcotics control assistance under chapter 8 
     of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2291 et seq.).

[[Page S5232]]

         (b) Prohibition on Military Assistance or Arms 
     Transfers.--
         (1) In general.--Military assistance (including funds 
     previously appropriated for military assistance) or arms 
     transfers shall not be provided to Nigeria.
         (2) Military assistance or arms transfers.--The term 
     ``military assistance or arms transfers'' means--
         (A) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.) (relating to 
     military assistance), including the transfer of excess 
     defense articles under section 516 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2321j);
         (B) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) (relating to 
     international military education and training);
         (C) assistance under the ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'' under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2763); or
         (D) the transfer of defense articles, defense services, 
     or design and construction services under the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), including defense 
     articles and defense services licensed or approved for export 
     under section 38 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).
         (c) Requirement To Oppose Multilateral Assistance.--
         (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States executive director to each of the 
     international financial institutions described in paragraph 
     (2) to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose 
     any assistance to the Government of Nigeria.
         (2) International financial institutions described.--The 
     international financial institutions described in this 
     paragraph are the African Development Bank, the International 
     Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency, and 
     the International Monetary Fund.

     SEC. 6. EXCLUSION FROM ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED STATES OF 
                   CERTAIN NIGERIAN NATIONALS.

         Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of State shall deny a visa to, and the Attorney General shall 
     exclude from the United States, any alien who is--
         (1) a current member of the Provisional Ruling Council of 
     Nigeria;
         (2) a current civilian minister of Nigeria not on the 
     Provisional Ruling Council;
         (3) a military officer currently in the armed forces of 
     Nigeria;
         (4) a person in the Foreign Ministry of Nigeria who holds 
     Ambassadorial rank, whether in Nigeria or abroad;
         (5) a current civilian head of any agency of the Nigerian 
     government with a rank comparable to the Senior Executive 
     Service in the United States;
         (6) a current civilian advisor or financial backer of the 
     head of state of Nigeria;
         (7) a high-ranking member of the inner circle of the 
     Babangida regime of Nigeria on June 12, 1993;
         (8) a high-ranking member of the inner circle of the 
     Shonekan interim national government of Nigeria;
         (9) a civilian who there is reason to believe is 
     traveling to the United States for the purpose of promoting 
     the policies of the military government of Nigeria;
         (10) a current head of a parastatal organization in 
     Nigeria; or
         (11) a spouse or minor child of any person described in 
     any of the paragraphs (1) through (10).

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL MEASURES.

         (a) In General.--Unless the President determines and 
     certifies to the appropriate congressional committees by 
     December 31, 1998, that a free and fair presidential election 
     has occurred in Nigeria during 1998 and so certifies to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress, the President, effective 
     January 1, 1999--
         (1) shall exercise his authority under section 203 of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) 
     to prohibit any financial transaction involving the 
     participation by a Nigerian national as a representative of 
     the Federal Republic of Nigeria in a sporting event in the 
     United States;
         (2) shall expand the restrictions in section 6 to include 
     a prohibition on entry into the United States of any employee 
     or military officer of the Nigerian government and their 
     immediate families;
         (3) shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees listing, by name, senior Nigerian 
     government officials and military officers who are suspended 
     from entry into the United States under section 6; and
         (4) shall consider additional economic sanctions against 
     Nigeria.
         (b) Actions of International Sports Organizations.--It is 
     the sense of Congress that any international sports 
     organization in which the United States is represented should 
     refuse to invite the participation of any national of Nigeria 
     in any sporting event in the United States sponsored by that 
     organization.

     SEC. 8. WAIVER OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST NIGERIA IF CERTAIN 
                   REQUIREMENTS MET.

         (a) In general.--The President may waive any of the 
     prohibitions contained in section 5, 6, or 7 for any fiscal 
     year if the President makes a determination under subsection 
     (b) for that fiscal year and transmits a notification to 
     Congress of that determination under subsection (c).
         (b) Presidential Determination Required.--A determination 
     under this subsection is a determination that--
         (1) the Government of Nigeria--
         (A) is not harassing or imprisoning human rights and 
     democracy advocates and individuals who criticize the 
     government's transition program;
         (B) has established a new transition process developed in 
     consultation with the pro-democracy forces, including the 
     establishment of a genuinely independent electoral commission 
     and the development of an open and fair process for 
     registration of political parties, candidates, and voters;
         (C) is providing increased protection for freedom of 
     speech, assembly, and the media, including cessation of 
     harassment of journalists;
         (D) has released individuals who have been imprisoned 
     without due process or for political reasons;
         (E) is providing access for independent international 
     human rights monitors;
         (F) has repealed all decrees and laws that--
         (i) grant undue powers to the military;
         (ii) suspend the constitutional protection of fundamental 
     human rights;
         (iii) allow indefinite detention without charge, 
     including the State of Security (Detention of Persons) Decree 
     No. 2 of 1984; or
         (iv) suspend the right of the courts to rule on the 
     lawfulness of executive action; and
         (G) has unconditionally withdrawn the Rivers State 
     internal security task force and other paramilitary units 
     with police functions from regions in which the Ogoni ethnic 
     group lives and from other oil-producing areas where violence 
     has been excessive; or
         (2) it is in the national interests of the United States 
     to waive the prohibition in section 5, 6, or 7, as the case 
     may be.
         (c) Congressional Notification.--Notification under this 
     subsection is written notification of the determination of 
     the President under subsection (b) provided to the 
     appropriate congressional committees not less than 15 days in 
     advance of any waiver of any prohibition in section 5, 6, or 
     7, subject to the procedures applicable to reprogramming 
     notifications under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1).

     SEC. 9. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE OR 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUPPORT OR INFLUENCE ELECTION 
                   ACTIVITIES IN NIGERIA.

         (a) Prohibition.--
         (1) In general.--No department, agency, or other entity 
     of the United States Government shall provide any assistance 
     or other contribution to any political party, group, 
     organization, or person if the assistance or contribution 
     would have the purpose or effect of supporting or influencing 
     any election or campaign for election in Nigeria.
         (2) Person defined.--As used in paragraph (1), the term 
     ``person'' means any natural person, any corporation, 
     partnership, or other juridical entity.
         (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the prohibition 
     contained in subsection (a) if the President--
         (1) determines that--
         (A) the climate exists in Nigeria for a free and fair 
     democratic election that will lead to civilian rule; or
         (B) it is in the national interests of the United States 
     to do so; and
         (2) notifies the appropriate congressional committees not 
     less than 15 days in advance of the determination under 
     paragraph (1), subject to the procedures applicable to 
     reprogramming notifications under section 634A of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1).

     SEC. 10. REPORT ON CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA.

         Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, and annually for the next 5 years thereafter, 
     the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, and make available to 
     the public, a report on governmental corruption in Nigeria. 
     This report shall include--
         (1) evidence of corruption by government officials in 
     Nigeria;
         (2) the impact of corruption on the delivery of 
     government services in Nigeria;
         (3) the impact of corruption on United States business 
     interests in Nigeria;
         (4) the impact of advance fee fraud, and other fraudulent 
     business schemes originating in Nigeria, on United States 
     citizens; and
         (5) the impact of corruption on Nigeria's foreign policy.

     SEC. 11. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

         Except as provided in section 6, in this Act, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
         (1) the Committee on International Relations of the House 
     of Representatives;
         (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
         (3) the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Hatch, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2103. A bill to provide protection from personal intrusion for 
commercial purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    Personal Privacy Protection Act

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, along with the Chairman of the

[[Page S5233]]

Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and Senators Boxer and Kerry, I am 
introducing the Personal Privacy Protection Act. This legislation 
narrowly targets threatening and endangering harassment and privacy 
abuses undertaken by the stalker press.
  Freedom of the press is the bedrock of American Democracy. But there 
is something wrong when a person cannot visit a loved one in the 
hospital, walk their child to school, or be secure in the privacy of 
their own home without being dangerously chased, provoked, or 
trespassed upon by photographers trying to capture pictures of them to 
sell to the tabloids.
  When people find themselves in the public eye due to a personal 
tragedy or circumstances beyond their control, they should not be put 
into personal fear of bodily injury by tabloid media persistently 
chasing them. And just because a person makes their living on 
television or in the movies should not mean they forfeit all rights to 
personal privacy. There is a line between legitimate news gathering and 
invasion of privacy; between snapping a picture of someone in a public 
place and chasing them to the point where they fear for their safety; 
between reporting the news and trespassing on private property. 
Unfortunately, today that line is crossed more and more frequently by 
an increasingly aggressive cadre of fortune-seekers with cameras.
  I began the process of developing this legislation together with 
Senator Boxer more than a year ago, after meeting with members of the 
Screen Actors Guild and hearing about the abuses people suffer every 
day at the hands of the stalker press--photographers using telephoto 
lenses to peer into private homes, cars chasing them off the road, 
having their children stalked and harassed. The tragic death of 
Princess Diana last August brought the seriousness of the problem home 
with a blunt force that stunned the world.
  This legislation is narrowly drafted. It is not aimed at, nor would 
it affect, the overwhelming majority of those in the media, but is 
specifically aimed at abusive, threatening tactics employed by some who 
do not respect where the line is between what is public and what is 
private.
  The Personal Privacy Protection Act would do two basic things. First, 
it would make it a crime, punishable by a fine and up to a year in 
prison, to persistently follow or chase someone in order to photograph, 
film, or record them for commercial purposes, in a manner that causes a 
reasonable fear of bodily injury. Cases in which the persistent 
following or chasing actually caused serious bodily injury would be 
punishable by up to 5 years in prison, and where the actions caused 
death, by up to 20 years in prison. The legislation would also allow 
victims of such actions to bring a civil suit to recover compensatory 
and punitive damages and for injunctive and declaratory relief.

  Second, the legislation would allow civil actions to be brought 
against those who trespass on private property in order to photograph, 
film, or record someone for commercial purposes. In such cases, the 
bill would allow victims to bring suit in Federal court to recover 
compensatory and punitive damages and to obtain injunctive and 
declaratory relief.
  Furthermore, in certain specified circumstances, the bill would 
prevent ``technological trespass.'' Specifically, the legislation would 
allow a civil action where a visual or auditory enhancement device is 
used to capture images or recordings that could not otherwise have been 
captured without trespassing. This provision would apply only to images 
or recordings of a personal or familial activity, captured for 
commercial purposes, and only where the subject had a reasonable 
expectation of privacy. In such cases, the victim would be allowed to 
bring suit in Federal court to recover compensatory and punitive 
damages and to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. In the case of 
trespass or technological trespass, only a civil suit by the victim 
would be allowed; no criminal penalty would be prescribed.
  This legislation is needed because existing laws fail to protect 
against dangerous and abusive tactics. Although existing laws may cover 
some instances of abusive harassment or trespass by the stalker press, 
victims cannot be certain of protection. Existing state laws form at 
best a patchwork of protection, and courts often make an exception for 
activity undertaken ostensibly for ``news gathering'' purposes.
  For example, state and local harassment law are often not codified 
and may require exhaustive litigation to enforce. These vary from state 
to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and often do not apply 
in cases involving the media. Some statutes require proof of an intent 
to harass; and courts in some jurisdictions may allow a broad ``news 
gathering'' exception.
  Similarly, reckless endangerment statutes in some states prohibit 
recklessly engaging in conduct which creates a substantial risk of 
serious physical injury to another person. However, these laws are not 
uniform and their application is very spotty when it comes to dealing 
with abusive media practices.
  Federal, state, and local anti-stalking ordinances often contain 
loopholes and generally do not apply to activities undertaken for 
commercial purposes. The Federal anti-stalking ordinance and 28 of the 
49 state anti-stalking ordinances--including California's--require 
proof of the criminal intent to cause fear in order to prosecute.
  Existing state trespass laws may be insufficient to protect an owner 
from an invasion of privacy. For example, an Oregon Court of Appeals 
upheld a jury verdict for a TV news crew that filmed a police raid in 
executing a warrant to search the owner's home, despite the fact that 
the TV crew had entered the property without permission, because the 
jury found that the intrusion was not ``highly offensive' so as to 
invade the owner's privacy.

  Furthermore, existing trespass laws fail to protect against 
technological trespass using intrusive technology such as telephoto 
lenses and parabolic microphones aimed at bedrooms, living rooms, and 
fenced backyards in which people ought to have an expectation of 
privacy. Because trespass law requires actual physical invasion, it 
does not protect against such invasive tactics.
  In crafting this legislation, we worked with some of the most 
renowned Constitutional scholars and First Amendment advocates in the 
nation, including Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of Southern 
California Law School, Cass Sunstein of the Chicago School of Law, and 
Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School. At their recommendation, we took 
the approach of plugging loopholes in existing, long-recognized laws 
prohibiting harassment and trespassing, rather than creating new 
provisions out of whole cloth, in order to craft a constitutional bill 
that fully respects First Amendment and other constitutional rights. 
This bill does so. The Constitutional scholars concurred unanimously 
that this legislation is narrowly drafted to withstand constitutional 
challenge on First Amendment, federalism, or any other grounds.
  Mr. President, finally, I should mention that we worked closely with 
Representative Sonny Bono on this legislation prior to his untimely 
death, and it was Representative Bono's intention to introduce 
companion legislation in the House of Representatives. I am deeply 
saddened that he is not alive today to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in order to protect 
against invasive, harassing, and endangering behavior that can threaten 
any one of us who, for whatever reason, finds him or herself in the 
public spotlight. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record, along with the letters mentioned previously.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2103

       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 ``Personal Privacy 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

         (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
         (1) Individuals and their families have been harassed and 
     endangered by being persistently followed or chased in a 
     manner that puts them in reasonable fear of bodily injury, 
     and in danger of serious bodily injury or even death, by 
     photographers, videographers, and audio recorders attempting 
     to capture images or other reproductions of their private 
     lives for commercial purposes.

[[Page S5234]]

         (2) The legitimate privacy interests of individuals and 
     their families have been violated by photographers, 
     videographers, and audio recorders who physically trespass in 
     order to capture images or other reproductions of their 
     private lives for commercial purposes, or who do so 
     constructively through intrusive modern visual or auditory 
     enhancement devices, such as powerful telephoto lenses and 
     hyperbolic microphones that enable invasion of private areas 
     that would otherwise be impossible without trespassing.
         (3) Such harassment and trespass threatens not only 
     professional public persons and their families, but also 
     private persons and their families for whom personal 
     tragedies or circumstances beyond their control create media 
     interest.
         (4) Federal legislation is necessary to protect 
     individuals and their families from persistent following or 
     chasing for commercial purposes that causes reasonable fear 
     of bodily injury, because such harassment is not directly 
     regulated by applicable Federal, State, and local statutory 
     or common laws, because those laws provide an uneven 
     patchwork of coverage, and because those laws may not cover 
     such activities when undertaken for commercial purposes.
         (5) Federal legislation is necessary to prohibit and 
     provide proper redress in Federal courts for trespass and 
     constructive trespass using intrusive visual or auditory 
     enhancement devices for commercial purposes, because 
     technological advances such as telephoto lenses and 
     hyperbolic microphones render inadequate existing common law 
     and State and local regulation of such trespass and invasion 
     of privacy.
         (6) There is no right, under the first amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States, to persistently follow or 
     chase another in a manner that creates a reasonable fear of 
     bodily injury, to trespass, or to constructively trespass 
     through the use of intrusive visual or auditory enhancement 
     devices.
         (7) This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, do not 
     in any way regulate, prohibit, or create liability for 
     publication or broadcast of any image or information, but 
     rather use narrowly tailored means to prohibit and create 
     liability for specific dangerous and intrusive activities 
     that the Federal Government has an important interest in 
     preventing, and ensure a safe and secure private realm for 
     individuals against intrusion, which the Federal Government 
     has an important interest in ensuring.
         (8) This Act protects against unwarranted harassment, 
     endangerment, invasion of privacy, and trespass in an 
     appropriately narrowly tailored manner without abridging the 
     exercise of any rights guaranteed under the first amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States, or any other 
     provision of law.
         (9) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of 
     article I of the Constitution of the United States to enact 
     this Act.
         (10) Because this Act regulates only conduct undertaken 
     in order to create products intended to be and routinely 
     transmitted, bought, or sold in interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or persons who travel in interstate or foreign 
     commerce in order to engage in regulated conduct, the Act is 
     limited properly to regulation of interstate or foreign 
     commerce.
         (11) Photographs and other reproductions of the private 
     activities of persons obtained through activities regulated 
     by this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, are 
     routinely reproduced and broadcast in interstate and 
     international commerce.
         (12) Photographers, videographers, and audio recorders 
     routinely travel in interstate commerce in order to engage in 
     the activities regulated by this Act, and the amendments made 
     by this Act, with the intent, expectation, and routine result 
     of gaining material that is bought and sold in interstate 
     commerce.
         (13) The activities regulated by this Act, and the 
     amendments made by this Act, occur routinely in the channels 
     of interstate commerce, such as the persistent following or 
     chasing of subjects in an inappropriate manner on public 
     streets and thoroughfares or in airports, and the use of 
     public streets and thoroughfares, interstate and 
     international airports, and travel in interstate and 
     international waters in order to physically or constructively 
     trespass for commercial purposes.
         (14) The activities regulated by this Act, and the 
     amendments made by this Act, substantially affect interstate 
     commerce by threatening the careers, livelihoods, and rights 
     to publicity of professional public persons in the national 
     and international media, and by thrusting private persons 
     into the national and international media.
         (15) The activities regulated by this Act, and the 
     amendments made by this Act, substantially affect interstate 
     commerce by restricting the movement of persons who are 
     targeted by such activities and their families, often forcing 
     them to curtail travel or appearances in public spaces, or, 
     conversely, forcing them to travel in interstate commerce in 
     order to escape from abuses regulated by this Act, and the 
     amendments made by this Act.
         (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
         (1) to protect individuals and their families against 
     reasonable fear of bodily injury, endangerment, trespass, and 
     intrusions on their privacy due to activities undertaken in 
     connection with interstate and international commerce in 
     reproduction and broadcast of their private activities;
         (2) to protect interstate commerce affected by such 
     activities, including the interstate commerce of individuals 
     who are the subject of such activities; and
         (3) to establish the right of private parties injured by 
     such activities, as well as the Attorney General of the 
     United States and State attorneys general in appropriate 
     cases, to bring actions for appropriate relief.

     SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

         (a) In General.--Chapter 89 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1822. Harassment for commercial purposes

         ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
         ``(1) For commercial purposes.--
         ``(A) In general.--The term `for commercial purposes' 
     means with the expectation of sale, financial gain, or other 
     consideration.
         ``(B) Rule of construction.--For purposes of this 
     section, a visual image, sound recording, or other physical 
     impression shall not be found to have been, or intended to 
     have been, captured for commercial purposes unless it was 
     intended to be, or was in fact, sold, published, or 
     transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce, or unless the 
     person attempting to capture such image, recording, or 
     impression moved in interstate or foreign commerce in order 
     to capture such image, recording, or impression.
         ``(2) Harasses.--The term `harasses' means persistently 
     physically follows or chases a person in a manner that causes 
     the person to have a reasonable fear of bodily injury, in 
     order to capture by a visual or auditory recording instrument 
     any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical 
     impression of the person for commercial purposes.
         ``(b) Prohibition and Penalties.--Whoever harasses any 
     person within the United States or the special maritime and 
     territorial jurisdiction of the United States--
         ``(1) if death is proximately caused by such harassment, 
     shall be imprisoned not less than 20 years and fined under 
     this title;
         ``(2) if serious bodily injury is proximately caused by 
     such harassment, shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years 
     and fined under this title; and
         ``(3) if neither death nor serious bodily injury is 
     proximately caused by such harassment, shall be imprisoned 
     not more than 1 year, fined under this title, or both.
         ``(c) Cause of Action.--Any person who is legally present 
     in the United States and who is subjected to a violation of 
     this section may, in a civil action against the person 
     engaging in the violation, obtain any appropriate relief, 
     including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and 
     injunctive and declaratory relief. In any civil action or 
     proceeding to enforce a provision of this section, the court 
     shall allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees 
     as part of the costs. In awarding attorney's fees, the court 
     shall include expert fees as part of the attorney's fees.
         ``(d) Limitation on Defenses.--It is not a defense to a 
     prosecution or civil action under this section that--
         ``(1) no image or recording was captured; or
         ``(2) no image or recording was sold.
         ``(e) Use of Images.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to make the sale, transmission, publication, 
     broadcast, or use of any image or recording of the type or 
     under the circumstances described in this section in any 
     otherwise lawful manner by any person subject to criminal 
     charge or civil liability.
         ``(f) Limitation.--Only a person physically present at 
     the time of, and engaging or assisting another in engaging 
     in, a violation of this section is subject to criminal charge 
     or civil liability under this section. A person shall not be 
     subject to such charge or liability by reason of the conduct 
     of an agent, employee, or contractor of that person or 
     because images or recordings captured in violation of this 
     section were solicited, bought, used, or sold by that person.
         ``(g) Law Enforcement Exemption.--The prohibitions of 
     this section do not apply with respect to official law 
     enforcement activities.
         ``(h) Savings.--Nothing in this section shall be taken to 
     preempt any right or remedy otherwise available under 
     Federal, State or local law.''.
         (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 89 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

       ``1822. Harassment for commercial purposes.''.

     SEC. 4. PERSONAL INTRUSION FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

         (a) Definition of For Commercial Purposes.--
         (1) In general.--In this section, the term `for 
     commercial purposes' means with the expectation of sale, 
     financial gain, or other consideration.
         (2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of this section, 
     a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression 
     shall not be found to have been, or intended to have been, 
     captured for commercial purposes unless it was intended to 
     be, or was in fact, sold, published, or transmitted in 
     interstate or foreign commerce, or unless the person 
     attempting to capture such image, recording, or impression 
     moved in interstate or foreign commerce in order to capture 
     such image, recording, or impression.

[[Page S5235]]

         (b) Trespass for Commercial Purposes and Invasion of 
     Legitimate Interest in Privacy for Commercial Purposes.--
         (1) Trespass for commercial purposes.--It shall be 
     unlawful to trespass on private property in order to capture 
     any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical 
     impression of any person for commercial purposes.
         (2) Invasion of legitimate interest in privacy for 
     commercial purposes.--It shall be unlawful to capture any 
     type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical 
     impression for commercial purposes of a personal or familial 
     activity through the use of a visual or auditory enhancement 
     device, even if no physical trespass has occurred, if--
         (A) the subject of the image, sound recording, or other 
     physical impression has a reasonable expectation of privacy 
     with respect to the personal or familial activity captured; 
     and
         (B) the image, sound recording, or other physical 
     impression could not have been captured without a trespass if 
     not produced by the use of the enhancement device.
         (c) Cause of Action.--Any person who is legally present 
     in the United States who is subjected to a violation of this 
     section may, in a civil action against the person engaging in 
     the violation, obtain any appropriate relief, including 
     compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive and 
     declaratory relief. A person obtaining relief may be either 
     or both the owner of the property or the person whose visual 
     or auditory impression has been captured. In any civil action 
     or proceeding to enforce a provision of this section, the 
     court shall allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney's 
     fees as part of the costs. In awarding attorney's fees, the 
     court shall include expert fees as part of the attorney's 
     fees.
         (d) Limitation on Defenses.--It is not a defense to an 
     action under this section that--
         (1) no image or recording was captured; or
         (2) no image or recording was sold.
         (e) Use of Images.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to make the sale, transmission, publication, 
     broadcast, or use of any image or recording of the type or 
     under the circumstances described herein in any otherwise 
     lawful manner by any person subject to criminal charge or 
     civil liability.
         (f) Limitation.--Only a person physically present at the 
     time of, and engaging or assisting another in engaging in, a 
     violation of this section is subject to civil liability under 
     this section. A person shall not be subject to such liability 
     by reason of the conduct of an agent, employee, or contractor 
     of that person, or because images or recordings captured in 
     violation of this section were solicited, bought, used, or 
     sold by that person.
         (g) Law Enforcement Exemption.--The prohibitions of this 
     section do not apply with respect to official law enforcement 
     activities.
         (h) Savings.--Nothing in this section shall be taken to 
     preempt any right or remedy otherwise available under 
     Federal, State, or local law.

     SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

         If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
                                  ____



                             University of Chicago Law School,

                                      Chicago, IL, April 30, 1998.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Technology, Terrorism, and 
         Government Information Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: This is in response to a request 
     for my views on issues of federalism raised by the current 
     effort to prevent harassment and invasion of privacy by 
     certain photographers and journalists. In brief: From the 
     standpoint of the constitutional structure, I believe that 
     these efforts reflect an entirely legitimate exercise of 
     national power. I spell out those reasons in short compass 
     here.
       There can be no doubt that in its current form, the 
     proposal is constitutional under the commerce clause. Each of 
     the provisions is carefully drafted to apply if and only if 
     there is a clear nexus with interstate commerce. Thus under 
     existing law, the constitutional question is a simple one, 
     and there is no plausible basis for legal objection.
       The more plausible objection is not about technical law but 
     about the spirit of the federal structure. A critic might 
     claim that state law already protects against certain 
     harassing and invasive behavior, and that state law, 
     statutory or common, can easily be adapted to provide 
     stronger protections. Since the several states are generally 
     in the business of preventing against trespass and 
     threatening behavior, why should the federal government 
     intervene? Isn't this the kind of problem best handled at the 
     state level?
       These questions would be good ones if they are taken to 
     suggest that state law could, in theory, take care of many of 
     the underlying problems. But the questions are not good ones 
     if they are taken to suggest that in practice, state law 
     does, or will do, all that should be done. There are three 
     important points here.
       First, state law is both highly variable and in many places 
     ill-defined--a complex mixture of statutory and common law, a 
     mixture that does not, in many places, give a clear signal 
     against the kind of conduct that the proposed legislation 
     would ban. For example, the standards for reckless 
     endangerment are extremely variable. Nor is it at all clear 
     that most state trespass law prohibits the use of high-
     technology methods to get access to people's private 
     enclaves. In state court, the common law of trespass is in a 
     notorious and continuing state of flux. So long as the 
     commerce clause is satisfied, there is an entirely legitimate 
     national interest in giving a clear signal that certain 
     behavior is not to be tolerated amidst uncertain and 
     divergent state practices.
       Second, the national government often supplements or builds 
     on state law in order to give stronger deterrence. In many 
     states, for example, there are special laws protecting 
     against racial discrimination, environmental harm, or 
     uncompensated invasions of private property. But by itself, 
     this is not an argument that the national government should 
     not provide such measures as well. Congress often acts in 
     order to provide the kind of deterrence that national law--
     with the availability of federal prosecutors and federal 
     courts--is uniquely in a position to provide. The simple 
     truth is that harassing and invasive practices have not been 
     adequately deterred by state law and the national government 
     can provide further protection. So long as the commerce 
     clause is satisfied, this is a perfectly ordinary and 
     entirely acceptable exercise of national power.
       Third, it is important to see that the commercial 
     incentives for engaging in harassing or invasive behavior are 
     emphatically national incentives. If a photographer employed 
     by the National Enquirer chases a movie star or an ordinary 
     person in California, the potential profits are national, and 
     it is the national nature of the profits that makes such 
     behavior so likely. In addition, the nature of the harm tends 
     to involve interstate activity, with movement of people and 
     products across state lines to procure the relevant 
     photograph (when a photograph is involved). If both profits 
     and harms were limited to a single state, it might make more 
     sense to say that each state can handle the problem on its 
     own. But since both profits and harms are national in 
     character, it is far less likely that states are able to do 
     so, as actual practice has tended to show.
       I conclude that there is no legal objection to the bill 
     from the standpoint of federalism. I also conclude that the 
     bill fits well within proper practice from the standpoint of 
     maintaining Congress' limited place in the federal structure. 
     In short, this is a national problem calling for a national 
     response.
           Sincerely,
     Cass R. Sunstein.
                                  ____



                                           Harvard Law School,

                                  Cambridge, MA, December 7, 1997.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I have reviewed the draft 
     legislation entitled ``The Protection From Personal Intrusion 
     for Commercial Purposes Act,'' and wanted to write to express 
     my support for legislation. In my view, the legislation 
     represents a balanced and constitutional approach to an 
     increasingly important problem. It has been drafted, I 
     believe, to avoid jeopardizing First Amendment values, and 
     has a firm constitutional foundation in the Commerce Power, 
     and also, in my view, in Congress' Section Five power under 
     the Fourteenth Amendment.
       The draft bill proposes three changes to strengthen privacy 
     protections nationally. First, the statute establishes a 
     criminal penalty for harassing conduct engaged in for 
     commercial purposes. Second, the statute establishes a civil 
     penalty for trespass for commercial purposes. And third, the 
     statute establishes a civil penalty for invasions of 
     legitimate interests in privacy for commercial purposes. I 
     consider each provision briefly below.
     1. Harassment for commercial purposes
       The aim of this provision is to target the repeated and 
     intentional chasing or following of a person in order to 
     record impressions of that person for commercial purpose. The 
     statute would make such conduct criminal, and prescribes 
     enhanced penalties if death or serious bodily harm is 
     proximately caused by such conduct.
       A number of points about this provision are important to 
     consider.
       (1) The statute is targeting traditionally prohibited 
     conduct, though more narrowly than might ordinarily be 
     expected. The statute is more narrow first because it 
     addresses conduct engaged in for commercial purposes only, 
     and second because it targets chasing or following only for 
     purposes of recording visual and auditory impressions. Both 
     limitations might be said to raise problems of 
     underinclusiveness. In both cases, however, no constitutional 
     problem is presented.
       The first narrowing (to commercial purposes) is 
     jurisdictionally required, as the conduct aimed at here is 
     only that affecting interstate commerce. Even it Congress 
     could regulate more broadly, the choice to narrow the scope 
     of its regulation does not reveal any illegitimate content 
     based purpose in selectively proscribing speech conduct. See 
     generally Elena Kagan, The Changing Faces of First Amendment 
     Neutrality: R.A.V. v. St.

[[Page S5236]]

     Paul, Rust v. Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based 
     Underinclusion, 1992 Sup. Ct. Rev. 29. For the same reason, I 
     do not believe the second narrowing (to visual and auditory 
     impressions) raises any significant First Amendment concern.
       (2) This is a criminal statute, so one should expect the 
     courts to read the scope of proscribed conduct narrowly. That 
     means that the statute is likely to be applied only to people 
     who intentionally engage in this form of conduct. I believe 
     the statute makes that clear, since in the definition of 
     ``harasses,'' ``persistently'' modifies ``follows or 
     chases.'' That modifier will give courts adequate room to 
     narrow the statute to conduct that is properly within its 
     scope.
       (3) Finally, because the statute only punishes conduct 
     which proximately causes serious harm, the statute will not 
     penalize conduct which results in serious harm, but is 
     actually, or legally, ``caused'' by something else. By using 
     the term ``proximately,'' the statute again invites courts to 
     narrow the application of the statute to cases where the 
     legally relevant cause of the harm is the conduct being 
     regulated.
     2. Trespass for commercial purposes
       The second protection for privacy added by this bill is a 
     protection against trespass for commercial purposes. While 
     the protection of property has traditionally been a function 
     for state regulation, the proposed statute limits the 
     protection to trespasses engaged in for commercial purposes, 
     and by definition, commercial purposes affecting interstate 
     commerce.
       There is a long history of support for a provision such as 
     this, especially in the context of civil rights statutes. 
     Congress can well take note of a weakness in the patchwork of 
     state protection against trespass, and supplement such 
     protections with a federal statute. In my view, this statute 
     would fit that form.
     3. Invasions of legitimate interests in privacy for 
         commercial purposes
       The final section of this proposed bill protects against 
     the invasion of ``legitimate interests in privacy'' for 
     commercial purposes. While I believe this provision is 
     constitutional, it is the most innovative of the three, and 
     deserves special attention.
       The interesting aspect of this statute is its method for 
     specifying the type of invasion that is not permitted. The 
     baseline for the statute's protection is the common law 
     protection against trespass. Historically, trespass law was 
     the foundation of our privacy jurisprudence, and this statute 
     is faithful to that tradition.
       The innovation in the statute is to extend trespass law to 
     protect interests that are invaded simply because of 
     technological advances--advances that make it possible to 
     capture visual and auditory impressions that would not have 
     been capturable with older technologies. The statute protects 
     traditional interests against these new technologies.
       In a sense, the statute aims at translating our traditional 
     protections of privacy into a context where technology has 
     given eavesdroppers a power that they would not originally 
     have had.
       In my view, such an effort by Congress is important, and 
     laudable. It is important because we should not allow 
     constitutional rights to be hostage to technology. If 
     technology advances, jeopardizing our constitutional 
     protections, then it is appropriate to adjust rights to 
     compensate for changes in technology. See Lawrence Lessig, 
     Reading the Constitution in Cyberspace, 45 Emory L. J. 869, 
     871-75 (1996).
       More importantly, it is laudable that Congress take the 
     lead in this process. Of course historically, the Supreme 
     Court has also taken part in keeping the constitution up to 
     date, translating old provisions to take account of current 
     problems. But it has always done so with hesitation, since 
     the act of updating often requires political judgments that 
     it doesn't feel well positioned to make.
       Far better if those judgments are made by Congress. And in 
     my view, this proposed statute does just that. It represents 
     an effort by Congress to take the lead in the protection of 
     privacy against the threats that changing technology 
     presents. Whatever one's view about the Court doing the same, 
     it is emphatically the role of Congress to support this 
     tradition of translation.
       If there are other questions, I can answer, please don't 
     hesitate to contact me.
           With kind regards,
     Lawrence Lessig.
                                  ____

                                                              USC,


                                               The Law School,

                                   Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 26, 1997.
     Senator Diane Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: At the request of Mr. Richard Pfohl 
     of your staff, I have reviewed the proposed bill to prohibit 
     harassment for commercial purposes and to create a cause of 
     action for personal intrusion for commercial purposes. The 
     bill is narrowly written and does not violate the First 
     Amendment. Moreover, even in light of the Supreme Court's 
     decisions restricting the scope of Congress' commerce power, 
     the bill is likely to be upheld as within the scope of 
     congressional authority.
       At the outset, it is important to note that the bill does 
     not prohibit anything from being published or broadcast. Nor 
     does it create any liability for the publication or broadcast 
     of any image or information. Both parts of the bill expressly 
     state: ``Nothing in this section may be construed to make the 
     sale, transmission, publication, broadcast, or use of any 
     image or recording of the type or under the circumstances 
     described in this section in any otherwise lawful manner by 
     any person subject to criminal charge or civil liability.''
       These provisions are reinforced by sections in both parts 
     of the bill that limit liability to those ``physically 
     present at the time of, and engaging or assisting another in 
     engaging in violation of this section.'' No liability is 
     allowed ``because images or recordings captured in violation 
     of this section were solicited, bought, used, or sold by that 
     person.''
       I emphasize these provisions because they make it clear 
     that the bill does not restrict speech or create liability 
     for any publication or broadcast. Rather, the bill prohibits 
     and creates liability for specific dangerous and intrusive 
     activity. At most, the effect on the press is indirect in 
     limiting certain conduct in the gathering of information.
       In general, the Supreme Court has held that content-neutral 
     laws that have the effect of restricting speech must meet 
     intermediate scrutiny; that is, they must be shown to be 
     substantially related to an important government purpose. 
     Turner Broadcast System v. Federal Communication Commission, 
     114 S.Ct. 2445, 2458 (1994). Although I think that there is a 
     strong argument that the bill does not restrict speech at 
     all, even if a court found that it did, intermediate scrutiny 
     would be met. The government has an important interest in 
     stopping persistently physically following or chasing a 
     person ``in a manner that causes the person to have a 
     reasonable fear of bodily injury.'' This is simply an 
     extension of the prohibition of assaults; there is no First 
     Amendment right for the media to engage in an assault in 
     gathering information. Similarly, there is an important 
     interest in preventing trespass or intrusion on to private 
     property, physically or with technology. There is no First 
     Amendment right for the media to trespass in gathering 
     information.
       Although the Supreme Court has recognized that ``without 
     some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the 
     press could be eviscerated,'' Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 
     665, 681 (1972), the Court also consistently has refused to 
     find that the First Amendment provides the press any right to 
     violate the law in gathering information. The Court has 
     explained that ``the First Amendment does not guarantee the 
     press a constitutional right of special access to information 
     not available to the public generally.'' Id. at 684. No 
     member of the public has a right to commit an assault or a 
     trespass; nor can the press in gathering information. As the 
     Court declared in Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 
     132-33 (1937): ``The business of the Associated Press is not 
     immune from regulation because it is an agency of the press. 
     The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the 
     application of general laws. He has no special privilege to 
     invade the rights and liberties of others. He must answer for 
     libel. He may be punished for contempt of court. He is 
     subject to the anti-trust laws. Like others he must pay 
     equitable and nondiscriminatory taxes on his business. The 
     regulation here in question has no relation whatever to the 
     impartial distribution of news.''
       The Supreme Court expressly held that the press is not 
     exempt from general laws in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 
     U.S. 663 (1991). A newspaper published the identity of a 
     source who had been promised that his name would not be 
     disclosed. The Court rejected the argument that holding the 
     newspaper liable for breach of contract would violate the 
     First Amendment. The Court stressed that the case involved 
     the application of a general law that in no way was motivated 
     by a desire to interfere with the press. The Court said: 
     ``Generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment 
     simply because their enforcement against the press has 
     incidental effects on its ability to gather and report the 
     news. [E]nforcement of such general laws against the press is 
     not subject to stricter scrutiny than would be applied to 
     enforcement against other persons or organizations.'' Id. at 
     669-70.
       The bill prohibits anyone from persistently following 
     another in a manner that reasonably creates fear of bodily 
     injury or committing a trespass for purposes of capturing a 
     visual or auditory recording. There is no First Amendment 
     right to engage in such activity and no First Amendment basis 
     for an exemption to such a narrowly tailored law.
       The other possible constitutional challenge to the bill 
     would be on the ground that it exceeds the scope of Congress' 
     commerce clause authority. From 1936 until April 26, 1995, 
     the Supreme Court did not find one federal law 
     unconstitutional as exceeding the scope of Congress' commerce 
     power. Then in United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995), 
     the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Gun-Free 
     School Zones Act of 1990 which made it a federal crime to 
     have a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. After reviewing the 
     history of decisions under the commerce clause, the Court 
     identified three types of activities that Congress can 
     regulate under this power. First, Congress can ``regulate the 
     use of the channels of interstate commerce.'' Id. at 1629. 
     Second, the Court said that Congress may regulate persons or 
     things in interstate commerce and ``to protect the 
     instrumentalities of interstate commerce.'' 115 S.Ct. at 
     1629. Finally, the Court said that

[[Page S5237]]

     Congress may ``regulate those activities having a substantial 
     relation to interstate commerce.'' Id. at 1629-30.
       The bill is limiting to regulating commercial activity in 
     that it prohibits and creates liability for ``harrassment for 
     commercial purposes'' and ``trespass and invasion of 
     legitimate interest in privacy for commercial purposes.'' 
     Commercial purposes is defined as activity ``with the 
     expectation of sale, financial gain, or other 
     consideration.'' In Lopez, the Court emphasized the absence 
     of commercial activity in the law or its application.
       Moreover, the bill fits within the categories articulated 
     in Lopez. Through fact-finding, Congress should be able to 
     document that those who engaged in such activity are engaged 
     in interstate commerce. This, too, is different from Lopez, 
     where the Court stress the lack of any evidence linking the 
     prohibited conduct to interstate commerce.
       Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,
     Erwin Chemerinsky.
                                  ____



                             University of Chicago Law School,

                                       Chicago, IL, Nov. 24, 1997.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information 
         Subcommittee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: This letter is in response to your 
     request for my views on the constitutionally of the proposed 
     statute designed to protect against harassment and invasion 
     of privacy by exploitative photographers, sound recorders, 
     and film crews. The bill would create a new federal criminal 
     and civil offense and two additional grounds for federal 
     civil liability. I believe that the bill is constitutional as 
     drafted. Here is a brief analysis of the legal issues.
       The first question is whether the federal government has 
     the authority to enact a measure of this kind. The most 
     likely candidate is the commerce clause. Under the commerce 
     clause, the federal government does have this authority, 
     especially in light of the fact that the bill, as written, 
     requires a clear connection between the interstate commerce 
     and the harassing and invasive action. See the rules of 
     construction in sections 2 and 4. In fact this connection is 
     stronger than that in several of the cases in which the Court 
     has upheld congressional action under the commerce clause. 
     See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); United States v. 
     Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941). United States v. Lopez, 115 S. 
     Ct. 1624 (1995), is not to the contrary, for in that case, 
     Congress did not require any connection between interstate 
     commerce and the prohibited possession of firearms on or near 
     school property. It is conceivable that the bill might be 
     challenged in some cases in which a photographer did not move 
     in interstate commerce and did not sell anything in 
     interstate commerce but intended to do so (see the rules of 
     construction). But under the cases cited above, its probably 
     constitutional even under such circumstances, because the 
     photographer would be part of a ``class'' of participants in 
     interstate commerce.
       The second question is whether the bill violates the first 
     amendment. Here it is important to distinguish between a 
     constitutional challenge to the bill ``on its face'' and a 
     challenge to the bill ``as applied.'' I believe that a facial 
     challenge would fail. The bill is content neutral, see Turner 
     Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445 (1994); its 
     prohibitions apply regardless of the particular content of 
     the underlying material. This is especially important, since 
     the Court treats content-neutral restrictions more hospitably 
     than content-based restrictions. See id. Moreover, the bill 
     is directed at action, not at speech itself; speech itself is 
     left unregulated by the bill. In a way the constitutional 
     attack on the bill amounts to a claimed first amendment right 
     of access to private arenas and to information a right that 
     the Court has generally denied. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 
     U.S. 817 (1974); Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978); 
     Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
       To be sure, this is not the end of the matter: A content-
     neutral restriction on action may create constitutional 
     problems if the action would result in restrictions on the 
     production of speech, as this bill would undoubtedly do. 
     Imagine, for example, a law that defined ``trespass'' to 
     include any effort to take photographs near the White House 
     or the Supreme Court. Cf. United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 
     720 (1990). In assessing the validity of such a restriction, 
     some relevant questions are whether the restriction is 
     justified by sufficient government interests, whether there 
     are less restrictive alternatives for protecting those 
     interests, and whether the restriction on the production of 
     speech is small or large. See id. In most cases covered by 
     the bill, the restriction would be amply justified. If a 
     photographer has chased someone in such a way as to produce a 
     reasonable fear of bodily injury, the government has a strong 
     reason to provide protection, and the bill is a narrow 
     tailored means of doing so. Thus section 2, adding the new 
     criminal offense, seems on firm ground.
       Section 4 is designed to ensure that photographers do not 
     engage in trespasses, or the equivalent of trespasses, in 
     order to invade people's privacy without their consent. This 
     section is also supported by the strong government interest 
     in ensuring that people have a secure private realm, one into 
     which those using the channels of interstate commerce do not 
     enter without consent. In most of its applications, section 4 
     is also likely to be constitutional. Assume, for example, 
     that a photographer has trespassed into the private property 
     of a movie star in order to take pictures of a dinner or a 
     romantic encounter. Since the images are themselves 
     unregulated (see section 4(d)), the government almost 
     certainly has sufficient grounds to forbid this kind of 
     behavior, a trespass at common law. Although the Supreme 
     Court has subjected some common law rules to first amendment 
     limitations, it has never held that the law of trespass, even 
     though it restricts activity that would produce speech, 
     generally raises constitutional questions. Thus I conclude 
     that section 4 is constitutional in most of its likely 
     applications.
       There are some contexts in which harder questions might be 
     raised. Assume, for example, that a presidential candidate is 
     engaged in unlawful activity on private property, and that a 
     journalist and a photographer have used technological devices 
     in order to obtain a record of that activity. Under section 
     4(b)(2), there has been a kind of federal tort, giving rise 
     of compensatory and punitive damages. It is possible that the 
     special first amendment liability in such cases. Cf. New York 
     Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Thus a series of 
     cases might be imagined in which section 4, and conceivably 
     even section 2, would give rise to a reasonable 
     constitutional challenge as applied. This is true, however, 
     of a large range of generally permissible statutes; the 
     question for present purposes is whether the bill would be 
     constitutional on its face. I conclude that it would be.
       I hope that these brief remarks are helpful.
           Sincerely,
     Cass R. Sunstein.

                          ____________________