Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 46 (Wednesday, April 12, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 46 (Wednesday, April 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2617-S2636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 2404. A bill to amend chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code,
to provide that any Federal law enforcement officer who is convicted of
a felony shall be terminated from employment; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

legislation regarding the removal of law enforcement officers convicted
of felonies

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on removing
federal law enforcement officers convicted of felonies.
Under my bill, any federal law enforcement officer, who is convicted
of a felony, would have to be removed from his or her position
immediately.
Mr. President, my colleagues must be wondering why the Senator from
Iowa is offering this legislation. Law enforcement officers convicted
of felonies are removed immediately. That's just common sense. Right?
Unfortunately, Mr. President, common sense does not always prevail in
the federal bureaucracy.
Common sense is in short supply at one very important place in the
Pentagon--the office of the Inspector General or DOD IG.
In October 1999, the Majority Staff on my Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight and the Courts issued a report on the DOD IG.
I placed the Majority Staff Report in the Record on November 2, 1999.
The Majority Staff Report substantiated allegations of misconduct by
senior officials at the Defense Criminal Investigative Service--or
DCIS--between 1993 and 1996.
DCIS is the criminal investigative branch in the DOD IG's office.
I would like to remind my colleagues that Mr. Donald Mancuso was the
Director of DCIS between 1988 and 1997. Today, Mr. Mancuso is the
Deputy DOD IG. He may be a candidate for nomination as the next DOD IG.
Some of the allegations examined in the Majority Staff Report
concerned one of Mr. Mancuso's top deputies--an agent by the name of
Mr. Larry J. Hollingsworth.
The Hollingsworth case is the driving force behind my bill.
Mr. Hollingsworth was the Director of Internal Affairs at DCIS from
April 1991 until his retirement in September 1996.
In July 1995, after a fellow agent recognized Mr. Hollingsworth's
photo in a law enforcement crime bulletin, Mr. Hollingsworth was
apprehended. His home was searched, and he confessed to filing a
fraudulent passport application.
Mr. Hollingsworth was convicted of a felony in U.S. District Court in
March 1996.
The authorities who investigated Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes believe
that he committed about 12 overt acts of fraud between 1992 and 1994.
Mr. President, can you imagine that?
While he was hammering rank and file agents for minor administrative
offenses as head of the Internal Affairs unit, Mr. Hollingsworth was
deeply involved in a criminal enterprise of his own.
The State Department agents who investigated the case were troubled
by Mr. Hollingsworth's actions. From past experience, they know
passport fraud is usually committed in furtherance of a more serious
crime. But that crime was never discovered.
While the full extent of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes remain a mystery,
this case has helped to shed a whole lot of light on Deputy IG Mancuso.
Mr. Mancuso personally approved a series of administrative actions
that kept a convicted felon in an employed status at DCIS for 6 months.
Mr. Hollingsworth confessed to passport fraud in July 1995. He was
convicted in March 1996 and then confined in jail. All this time--for
14 months, Mr. Mancuso kept Mr. Hollingsworth in an employed status at
DCIS until September 19,1996.
Mr. President, September 19, 1996 was the magic day. That was Mr.
Hollingsworth's 50th birthday.
That was the very first day he was eligible to retire. On that day,
he retired with full law enforcement benefits and Mr. Mancuso's
blessing.
Mr. Mancuso's generosity will eventually cost the taxpayers a big
chunk of money.
The Office of Personnel Management--OPM--estimated Mr.
Hollingsworth's annuity will cost the taxpayers at least $750,000.00
through the year 2008.
This is money Mr. Hollingsworth should never collect had Mr. Mancuso
exercised sound judgment under the law.
Mr. Mancuso could have removed Mr. Hollingsworth in March 1996 after
conviction or maybe even sooner.
Instead, Mr. Mancuso chose to personally protect Mr. Hollingsworth
until he reached his 50th birthday and could retire.
Mr Mancuso shielded Mr. Hollingsworth from the law for at least 6
months.
Under the law--5 U.S.C. 7513(b), Mr. Mancuso was authorized to remove
Mr. Hollingsworth after conviction--if not sooner.
Mr. President, I underscore the words authorized. DCIS was authorized
but not required to remove him.
Under the law, DCIS was granted discretionary authority to decide
when--or if--to remove him.
Mr. President, too much discretionary authority in a place so short
on common sense can lead to mistakes. The Hollingsworth case was a big
mistake.
If my bill had been in effect in 1996, Mr. Hollingsworth would have
been removed within 30 days of conviction.
My staff has consulted with OPM on this legislation.
OPM offered some constructive comments on how to strengthen it. Those
ideas are now in the bill.
OPM was unaware of any other instance where a federal law enforcement
agency had kept a convicted felon in an employed status for 6 months
after conviction.
However, OPM could not guarantee that this would never happen again.
The intent of my legislation should be crystal clear: To ensure that
personnel management decisions--like those taken by Mr. Mancuso in the
Hollingsworth case--are never repeated again.
Over the past 10 months, my staff has spoken with many rank and file
law enforcement officers about the special treatment given to Mr.
Hollingsworth.
Rank and file agents are universally disgusted by what happened.
They feel--as I do--that law enforcement officers, who are convicted
of felonies--should be removed from their posts immediately.
They don't want their badges tarnished by having one of their own,
who committed a felony, remain on the job--as Mr. Hollingsworth was
allowed to do.
That undermines morale in the ranks.
In closing, I would like to quote from a letter Mr. Mancuso wrote--on
official DOD stationery--to Judge Ellis on April 29, 1996.
Judge Ellis was preparing to sentence the convicted felon, Mr.
Hollingsworth.
Mr. Mancuso's statements to Judge Ellis were absurd. They were
outrageous.
This letter shows that Mr. Mancuso was totally blind to the
seriousness of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes.
In the letter, Mr. Mancuso asked the judge to consider extenuating
circumstances. He told the judge that Mr. Hollingsworth had taken a
half day's leave to file the fraudulent passport application. Mr.
Mancuso praised the convicted felon for this unselfish act. Can you
believe that?
This is what Mr. Mancuso said to Judge Ellis, and I quote: ``Mr.
Hollingsworth could have come and gone as he pleased,'' but he ``took
leave to commit a felony.''
In Mr. Mancuso's mind, the use of personal leave to commit a felony
was a sign of moral excellence.
Mr. Mancuso concluded with this telling remark:

[[Page S2618]]

To this day, there is no evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth
has ever done anything improper relating to his duties and
responsibilities as a DCIS agent and manager.

Mr. Mancuso's statement to Judge Ellis was misguided for two reasons:
First, incredible as it may seem, Mr. Mancuso--a sworn law
enforcement officer and current Deputy DOD IG--feels that it is OK for
law enforcement officers to commit crimes so long as the agents are off
duty.
Second, Mr. Mancuso's assertion about ``no evidence'' is flat wrong.
It's inaccurate.
On February 1, 2000, my staff discovered a DCIS file containing
information that refuted Mr. Mancuso's assertions to Judge Ellis about
no evidence. It shows that in August 1995, both DCIS and the State
Department did, in fact, have evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth had
engaged in criminal activity at his desk in DCIS headquarters.
How could the Pentagon's top criminal investigator be so blind to
evidence?
This file also contains other important revelations about Mr.
Mancuso's misconduct in the Hollingsworth case.
It contains documents that indicate Mr. Mancuso was communicating
with defense attorneys during the criminal court proceedings against
Mr. Hollingsworth.
For example, it contains a FAX transmittal memo addressed personally
to Mr. Mancuso from the defense attorney. Attached was a motion to
dismiss charges against Mr. Hollingsworth. But there was no court date
stamp or attorney signature on the document. And there were handwritten
notes on it. This was a rough draft.
Mr. President, this really bothers me.
Mr. Mancuso--the director of a federal law enforcement agency--was
furnished with a rough draft of a motion to dismiss felony charges that
the U.S. Attorney was attempting to prosecute.
That is unethical conduct.
The file contains other damaging documents.
They suggest that the current Director of DCIS, Mr. John Keenan,
returned 11 confiscated handguns to the convicted felon--Mr.
Hollingsworth--in direct contravention of a federal court judgment and
statutory law.
DCIS allegedly returned the guns to Mr. Hollingsworth on September
23, 1997, while he was still on supervised probation. This reckless act
could have put a probation officer in harm's way.
We also learned that Mr. Hollingsworth was under investigation by the
IRS in November 1983 for perjury. That very same month--November 1983,
he was hired by DCIS to be the agent in charge of the Chicago Field
Office.
The IRS concluded Mr. Hollingsworth had ``committed perjury during
rebuttal testimony.'' On December 5, 1983, the IRS referred the matter
to the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans for prosecution.
Mr. President, how could DCIS hire Mr. Hollingsworth under such
questionable circumstances?
I don't understand it.
Mr. President, Mr. Mancuso went to extraordinary lengths to protect a
convicted felon.
By doing what he did, Mr. Mancuso violated a trust that goes with the
high office he occupies. He violated the trust that goes with the badge
and gun he carries. In our democracy, when those sacred trusts are
violated, our only protection is the law.
In this case, the law provides too much discretionary authority. It
leaves the door wide open to abuse by irresponsible bureaucrats. We
need to close that door.
My bill will close the loophole that Mr. Mancuso exploited in such a
crafty way.
Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this important piece of legislation.
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeWine, and Mr.
Leahy):
S. 2406. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
provide permanent authority for entry into the United States of certain
religious workers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mother Teresa Religious Workers Act

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Mother Teresa
Religious Workers Act. This legislation will make permanent provisions
of the Immigration and Nationality Act that set aside 10,000 visas per
year for ``special immigrants.''
Up to 5,000 of these visas annually can be used for ministers of a
religious denomination. In addition, a related provision of the law
provides 5,000 visas per year to individuals working for religious
organizations in ``a religious vocation or occupation'' or in a
``professional capacity in a religious vocation or occupation.'' This
has allowed nuns, brothers, cantors, lay preachers, religious
instructors, religious counselors, missionaries, and other persons to
work at their vocations or occupations for religious organizations or
their affiliates.
The key component of the law will expire on September 30 of this year
unless Congress acts.
Under the law, a sponsoring organization must be a bona fide
religious organization or an affiliate of one, and must be certified or
eligible to be certified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code. Religious workers must have two years work experience to
qualify for an immigrant visa.
Prior to 1990, churches, synagogues, mosques, and their affiliated
organizations experienced significant difficulties in trying to gain
admission for a much needed minister or other individual necessary to
provide religious services to their communities. However, this
improvement in the law in 1990 was not made permanent and, as such, has
required reauthorization every two or three years, which has created
uncertainly among religious organizations.
Bishop John Cummins of Oakland has written:

Religious workers provide a very important pastoral
function to the American communities in which they work and
live, performing activities in furtherance of a vocation or
religious occupation often possessing characteristics unique
from those found in the general labor market. Historically,
religious workers have staffed hospitals, orphanages, senior
care homes and other charitable institutions that provide
benefits to society without public funding.

Bishop Cummins noted that,

The steady decline in native-born Americans entering
religious vocations and occupations, coupled with the
dramatically increasing need for charitable services in
impoverished communities makes the extension of this special
immigrant provision a necessity for numerous religious
denominations in the United States.

The sentiments expressed by Bishop Cummins are widely held. Indeed
this program has won universal praise in religious communities across
the nation. In the past, our office has received letters from religious
orders and organizations throughout the nation.
As a nation founded by people who came to these shores so they and
their children could worship freely, it is only appropriate that our
country welcome those who wish to help our religious organizations
provide pastoral and other relief to people around this nation.
That is why I have introduced the Mother Teresa Religious Workers
Act. The bill will eliminate the sunset provisions in current law and
extend permanently the religious workers provisions of the Immigration
and Nationality Act. It is clear that religious organizations' ability
to sponsor individuals who provide service to their local communities
should be a permanent fixture of our immigration law, just as it is for
those petitioning for close family members and skilled workers. No
longer should religious institutions have to worry about whether
Congress will act in time to renew the religious workers provisions. I
am pleased Senators Kennedy, DeWine, and Leahy are cosponsoring this
legislation.
Finally, I would like to close by reading a passage from a letter
sent to me in 1997. It's a letter that at the time helped convince me
of the need to move toward permanent extension of the religious workers
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The letter read as
follows:

Dear Senator Abraham: I am writing to ask you to help us in
solving a very urgent problem. My Sisters in New York have
told me that the law which allows the Sisters to apply for
permanent residence in the United States expires on September
30, 1997. Please, will you do all that you can to have that
law extended so that all Religious will continue to have the
opportunity to be permanent residents and serve the people of
your great country.
It means so much to our poor people to have Sisters who
understand them and their culture. It takes a long time for a
Sister to understand the people and a culture, so now our
Society wants to keep our Sisters in their mission countries
on a more long term basis. Please help us and our poor by
extending this law.

[[Page S2619]]

I am praying for you and the people of Michigan. My Sisters
serve the poor in Detroit where we have a soup kitchen and
night shelter for women. Let us all thank God for this chance
to serve His poor.
Signed: Mother Teresa.

My office received this letter only a few weeks before her death. In
honor of her great deeds for humanity I hope that this year we can
finally extend the religious workers provisions of the INA permanently.
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. 2406

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 ``Mother Teresa Religious
Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR ENTRY INTO UNITED STATES OF
CERTAIN RELIGIOUS WORKERS.

Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) is amended by
striking ``before October 1, 2000,'' each place it appears.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 2407. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with
respect to the record of admission for permanent residence in the case
of certain aliens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

DATE OF REGISTRY ACT OF 2000

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today along with the Senior Senator
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, to introduce the Date of Registry Act
of 2000.
The Date of Registry Act of 2000, complements similar legislation I
introduced last year in an effort to fix a terrible mistake made by the
Congress in 1996. Tucked into the massive piece of legislation known as
IIRA IRA, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996, was an obscure, but lethal, provision which stripped the
federal courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate legalization claims
against the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Most troubling is
the fact that this provision nullified legitimate claims based upon
substantiated evidence that the Immigration and Nationalization Service
had bypassed Congressional intent in denying benefits to certain
undocumented persons who have come to be known as the ``late amnesty''
class of immigrants. Through this limitation, Section 377 of IIRA IRA
has caused significant hardships, and denied due process and
fundamental fairness, for hundreds of thousands of hard working
immigrants, including several thousand in my home State of Nevada.
These are good, hard-working people who have been in the United States
and had been paying taxes for more than ten years, who suddenly lost
their jobs and the ability to support their families.
In an effort to repeal the limitation on judicial jurisdiction
imposed by Section 377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, I introduced S. 1552, the Legal Amnesty
Restoration Act of 1999. In addition to repealing Section 377, S. 1552
would also change the date of registry for those immigrants seeking
legalized, documented status in the United States from January 1, 1972,
to January 1, 1984. The legislation I am introducing today focuses on
this aspect of last year's legislation, and would change the date of
registry from January 1, 1972, to January 1, 1986.
The date of registry exists as a matter of public policy, with the
recognition that immigrants who have remained in the country
continuously for an extended period of time--in some cases, up to
thirty years--are highly unlikely to leave. Today, we must accept the
reality that many of the people living in the United States are
undocumented immigrants who have been here for quite a long time.
Consequently, many people living in this country do not pay their fair
share of taxes because they are unable to work legally. Furthermore,
the businesses who employ these undocumented persons also do not pay
their fair share of taxes. These are the facts, and coupled with the
knowledge that we can't simply solve this problem by wishing that it
will go away, is the reality we must face when considering our
immigration policies.
We last changed the date of registry in 1986, with the passage of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act, which changed the date to January
1, 1972. In doing so, the 99th Congress employed the same rationale I
have outlined above in support of a registry date change. Furthermore,
I have mirrored the 99th Congress in another, critical aspect, by
establishing an approximate fifteen-year differential between the date
of enactment and the updated date of registry.
Mr. President, I should note one more thing about the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986. That legislation which last changed the
date of registry was passed by a Democratic House of Representatives
and a Republican Senate, and was signed into law by President Reagan. I
mention these facts to highlight my hope that support for this
legislation will be bi-partisan and based upon our desire to ensure
fundamental fairness as a matter of public policy in this country.
Finally, the legislation I am introducing today builds upon the
fifteen year differential standard established in the 1986 reform
legislation by implementing a ``rolling registry'' date which would
sunset in five years without Congressional reauthorization. In other
words, on January 2002, the date of registry would automatically change
to January 1, 1987, thereby maintaining the fifteen year differential.
The date of registry would continue to change on a rolling basis
through January 1, 2006, when the date of registry would be January 1,
1991. Limiting this annual, automatic change to five years will allow
the Congress to examine both the positive and negative effects of a
rolling date of registry and make an informed decision on
reauthorization.
Mr. President, as I stated when I introduced S. 1552 last year, I
don't pretend that this legislation will solve all the problems of our
immigration and legalization procedures. However, we have an obligation
to face our problems, and the reality is that there are many, many
undocumented immigrants who live in this country who would be much more
productive contributors to American society if they were legal
residents, workers and taxpayers. We know this to be true, as evidenced
by the thousands of immigrants in Southern Nevada whose status had yet
to be adjusted, but were working legally and paying taxes--in some
instances for more than ten years--when their employment permits were
revoked as a result of the 1996 IIRA IRA legislation. I have met with
many of these people on several occasions and I have witnessed,
firsthand, their pain and genuine suffering. Good people who have
worked hard and paid their taxes in order to live the American dream
only to see their efforts turn into a nightmare.
As I stated when I introduced S. 1552 last year, I don't pretend that
my legislation will solve all the problems of immigration and
legalization policies. However, we must face these problems head on,
and that is precisely my intent in introducing this legislation today.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 2408. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on
behalf of the Congress to the Navajo Code Talkers in recognition of
their contributions to the Nation; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.

honoring the navajo code talkers act

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important
legislation, recognizing the heroic contributions of a group of Native
American soldiers who served in the Pacific theater during the second
World War. This legislation will authorize the President of the United
States to award a gold medal, on behalf of the Congress, to each of the
original twenty-nine Navajo Code Talkers, as well as a silver medal to
each man who later qualified as a Navajo Code Talker (MOS 642). These
medals are to express recognition by the United States of America and
its citizens of the Navajo Code Talkers who distinguished themselves in
performing a unique, highly successful communications operation that
greatly assisted in saving countless lives and in hastening the end of
the war in the Pacific.

It has taken too long to properly recognize these soldiers, whose
achievements have been obscured by twin veils

[[Page S2620]]

of secrecy and time. As they approach the final chapter of their lives,
it is only fitting that the nation pay them this honor. That's why I am
introducing this legislation today--to salute these brave and
innovative Native Americans, to acknowledge the great contribution they
made to the Nation at a time of war, and to finally give them their
rightful place in history.
With each new successive generation of Americans, blessed as we are
in this time of relative peace and prosperity, it is easy to forget
what the world was like in the early 1940's. The United States was at
war in Europe, and on December 7, 1941, we were faced with a second
front as the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor.
One of the intelligence weapons the Japanese possessed was an elite
group of well-trained English speaking soldiers, used to intercept U.S.
communications, then sabotage the message or issue false commands to
ambush American troops. Military code became more and more complex--at
Guadalcanal, military leaders complained that it took 2\1/2\ hours to
send and decode a single message.
The idea to use Navajo for secure communications came from Philip
Johnson. Johnson was the son of a missionary, raised on the Navajo
reservation, and one of the few non-Navajos who spoke their language
fluently. But he was also a World War I veteran, and knew of the
military's search for a code that would withstand all attempts to
decipher it. Johnson believed Navajo answered the military requirement
for an undecipherable code because Navajo is an unwritten language of
extreme complexity. In early 1942, he met with the Commanding General
of Amphibious Corps, Pacific Fleet, and his staff to convince them of
the value of the Navajo language as code. In one of his tests, he
demonstrated that Navajos could encode, transmit, and decode a three-
line English message in 20 seconds. Twenty-seconds!
Convinced, the Marine Corps called upon the Navajo Nation to support
the military effort by recruiting and enlisting Navajo men to serve as
Marine Corps Radio Operators. These Navajo Marines, who became known as
the Navajo Code Talkers, used the Navajo language to develop a unique
code to communicate military messages in the South Pacific. True to
Phillip Johnson's prediction, and the enemy's frustration, the code
developed by these Native Americans proved unbreakable and was used
throughout the Pacific theater.
Their accomplishment was even more heroic given the cultural context
in which they were operating:
The Navajos were second-class citizens and were discouraged from
using their own language; and
They were living on reservations, as many still are today, yet they
volunteered to serve, protect, and defend the very power that put them
there.
But the Navajo, a people subjected to alienation in their own
homeland, who had been discouraged from speaking their own language,
stepped forward and developed the most significant and successful
military code of the time:
This Code was so successful that military commanders credited the
Code in saving the lives of countless American soldiers and the
successful engagements of the U.S. in the battles of Guadalcanal,
Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. At Iwo Jima, Major Howard
Connor, 5th Marine Division signal officer, declared, ``Were it not for
the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' Major
Connor had six Navajo code talkers working around the clock during the
first 48-hours of the battle. Those six sent and received over 800
messages, all without error;
This Code was so successful that some Code Talkers were guarded by
fellow marines whose role was to kill them in case of imminent capture
by the enemy; and finally,
It was so successful that the Department of Defense kept the Code
secret for 23 years after the end of World War II, when it was finally
declassified.
And there, Mr. President, is the foundation of the problem.
If their achievements had been hailed at the conclusion of the war,
proper honors would have been bestowed at that time. But the Code
Talkers were sworn to secrecy, an oath they kept and honored, but at
the same time, one that robbed them of the very accolades and place in
history they so rightly deserved. Their ranks include veterans of
Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa; they gave their lives at
New Britain, Bougainville, Guam, and Peleliu. But, while the bodies of
their fallen comrades came home, simple messages of comfort from those
still fighting to relatives back home on the reservations were
prohibited by the very secrecy of the code's origin. And at the end of
the war, these unsung heroes returned to their homes on buses--no
parades, no fanfare, no special recognition for what they had truly
accomplished--because while the war was over, their duty--their oath of
secrecy--continued. The secrecy surrounding the code was maintained
until it was declassified in 1968--only then did a realization of the
sacrifice and valor of these brave Native Americans emerge from
history.
For the countless lives they helped save, for this contribution that
helped speed the Allied victory in the Pacific, I believe they
succeeded beyond all expectations.
Through the enactment of this bill, the recognition for the Navajo
Code Talkers will be delayed no longer, and they will finally take
their place in history they so rightly deserve.
To this end, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2408

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 ``Honoring the Navajo Code
Talkers Act''

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl
Harbor and war was declared by the Congress the following
day.
(2) The military code, developed by the United States for
transmitting messages, had been deciphered by the Japanese
and a search by U.S. Intelligence was made to develop new
means to counter the enemy.
(3) The United States government called upon the Navajo
Nation to support the military effort by recruiting and
enlisting twenty-nine (29) Navajo men to serve as Marine
Corps Radio Operators; the number of enlistees later
increased to over three-hundred and fifty.
(4) At the time, the Navajos were second-class citizens,
and they were a people who were discouraged from using their
own language.
(5) The Navajo Marine Corps Radio Operators, who became
known as the Navajo Code Talkers, were used to develop a code
using their language to communicate military messages in the
Pacific.
(6) To the enemy's frustration, the code developed by these
Native Americans proved to be unbreakable and was used
extensively throughout the Pacific theater.
(7) The Navajo language, discouraged in the past, was
instrumental in developing the most significant and
successful military code of the time. At Iwo Jima alone, they
passed over 800 error-free messages in a 48-hour period;
(a) So successful, that military commanders credited the
Code in saving the lives of countless American soldiers and
the successful engagements of the U.S. in the battles of
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa;
(b) So successful, that some Code Talkers were guarded by
fellow marines whose role was to kill them in case of
imminent capture by the enemy;
(c) So successful, that the code was kept secret for 23
years after the end of World War II.
(8) Following the conclusion of World War II, the U.S.
Department of Defense maintained the secrecy of the Navajo
code until it was declassified in 1968; only then did a
realization of the sacrifice and valor of these brave Native
Americans emerge from history.

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

(a) Presentation Authorized.--The President is authorized
to award to each of the original twenty-nine Navajo Codes
Talkers, or a surviving family member, on behalf of the
Congress, a gold medal of appropriate design, honoring the
Navajo Codes Talkers. The President is further authorized to
award to each man who qualified as a Navajo Code Talker (MOS
642), or a surviving family member, a silver medal with
suitable emblems and devices. These medals are to express
recognition by the United States of America and its citizens
in honoring the Navajo Code Talkers who distinguished
themselves in performing a unique, highly successful
communications operation that greatly assisted in saving
countless lives and in hastening the end of the World War II
in the Pacific.
(b) Design and Striking.--For the purposes of the award
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
(in this Act referred to as the `Secetary') shall strike

[[Page S2621]]

a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and
inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 4. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of
the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price
sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and
the cost of the gold medal.

SEC. 5. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS.

The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals
for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 6. FUNDING.

(a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to
be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise
Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of
the medals authorized by this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in
the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. Sarbanes) (by request):
S. 2409. A bill to provide for enhanced safety and environmental
protection in pipeline transportation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

pipeline safety and community protection act of 2000

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pipeline
Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000 on behalf of the
administration. Yesterday, Vice President Gore transmitted this
proposal to the Congress, and requested introduction and referral of
the bill to the appropriate committee. The purpose of this legislation
is to provide for enhanced safety and environmental protection in
pipeline transportation.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a
field hearing in Bellingham, Washington, last month on pipeline safety.
In addition, I expect the committee to hold another hearing on pipeline
safety reauthorization within the next month. Senator Murray has
introduced a pipeline safety bill and it is my understanding that an
additional pipeline safety bill is to be introduced by Chairman McCain
today. I am interested in reviewing all of the bills and look forward
to the committee's action on pipeline safety reauthorization in the
coming months.
Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2409

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES
CODE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pipeline
Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000''.
(b) Amendment of Title 49, United States Code.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or a repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of title 49, United States Code.
(c) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of title 49, United States Code; table
of contents.
Sec. 2. Additional pipeline protections.
Sec. 3. Community right to know and emergency preparedness.
Sec. 4. Enforcement.
Sec. 5. Underground damage prevention.
Sec. 6. Enhanced ability of states to oversee operator activities.
Sec. 7. Improved data and data availability.
Sec. 8. Enhanced investigation authorities.
Sec. 9. International authority.
Sec. 10. Risk management demonstration program.
Sec. 11. Support for innovative technology development.
Sec. 12. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PIPELINE PROTECTIONS.

(a) Section 60109 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Operator's Risk Analysis and Program for Integrity
Management.--
(1) General requirement.--Within 1 year after the
Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, establishes criteria under
subsection (a)(1) of this section, an operator of a natural
gas transmission pipeline facility or hazardous liquid
pipeline facility shall evaluate the risks to the operator's
pipeline facility in the areas identified by these criteria
and shall adopt and implement a program for integrity
management that reduces the risks in those areas.
``(2) Standards for program.--An operator shall include at
least the following in the program for integrity management:
``(A) internal inspection or another equally protective
method, such as pressure testing, that represents use of the
best achievable technology and that directly assesses the
integrity of the pipeline on a periodic basis that is
commensurate to the risk to people and the environment of the
pipeline being inspected;
``(B) clearly defined criteria for evaluating and acting on
the results of the inspection or testing done under
subparagraph (A);
``(C) an analysis on a continuing basis that integrates all
available information about the integrity of the pipeline or
the consequences of a release;
``(D) prompt actions to address integrity issues raised by
the analysis required by subparagraph (C);
``(E) measures that prevent and mitigate the consequences
of a release and, in the case of a release of a hazardous
substance or discharge of oil, are consistent with the
National Contingency Plan, including leak detection,
integrity evaluation, emergency flow restricting devices, and
other prevention, detection, and mitigation measures that are
appropriate for the protection of human health and the
environment; and
``(F) consideration of the consequences of hazardous liquid
releases.
``(3) Criteria for program standards.--
``(A) In deciding how frequently the inspection or testing
under paragraph (2)(A) must be conducted, an operator shall
take into account the potential for the development of new
defects, the operational characteristics of the pipeline,
including age, operating pressure, block valve location, and
spill history, the location of areas identified under
subsection (a)(1), any known deficiencies of the method of
pipeline construction or installation, and the possible flaw
growth of new and existing defects. In considering the
potential for development of new defects from outside force
damage, an operator shall consider information available
about current or planned excavation activities and the
effectiveness of damage prevention programs in the area.
``(B) An operator shall adopt standards under this section
that provide an equivalent minimum level of protection as
that provided by the applicable level established by national
consensus standards organizations.
``(C) An operator shall implement pressure testing and
other integrity management techniques in a manner that does
not increase environmental or safety risks, such as by use of
petroleum for pressure testing.
``(4) Authority for additional standards.--The Secretary
shall prescribe additional standards to direct an operator's
conduct of a risk analysis or adoption or implementation of a
program for integrity management. These standards shall
address the type or frequency of inspection or testing
required, the manner in which it is conducted, the criteria
used in analyzing results, the types of information sources
that must be integrated as well as the manner of integration,
the nature and timing of actions selected to address
integrity issues, and such other factors as appropriate to
assure that the integrity of the pipeline facility is
addressed and that appropriate mitigative measures are
adopted to protect areas identified under subsection (a)(1).
The Secretary may also prescribe standards that require an
owner or operator of a natural gas transmission or hazardous
liquid pipeline facility to include in the program of
integrity management changes to valves or the establishment
or modification of systems that monitor pressure and detect
leaks based on the risk analysis the operator conducts, and
the use of emergency flow restricting devices.
``(5) Monitoring implementation.--A risk analysis and
program for integrity management required under this section
shall be reviewed by the Secretary of Transportation as an
element of Departmental inspections, and the analysis and
program, as well as the records demonstrating implementation,
shall be made available to the Secretary on request under
section 60117.''.
(b) Section 60102 is amended--
(1) by striking ``facilities.'' in subsection (e)(2) and
inserting ``facilities, not including tanks incidental to
pipeline transportation.'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (f);
(3) by striking ``(1)'' in subsection (f);
(4) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
subsection (f)(1) (as such subsection was in effect before
its amendment by paragraph (3) of this subsection) as
paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively;
(5) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (j) and
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(6) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(m) Integrity Management Regulations.--
``(1) Not later than December 31, 2000, the Secretary shall
issue final regulations authorized by this section and
sections 60104, 60108, and 60109 for the implementation of an
integrity management program by operators of more than 500
miles of hazardous liquid pipelines.
``(2) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, the
Secretary shall issue final regulations that extend the
requirements imposed by the regulations described in
paragraph (1) to every operator of

[[Page S2622]]

a hazardous liquid pipeline or natural gas transmission
pipeline subject to the jurisdiction of this chapter. In the
event that the Secretary fails to fulfill this requirement
within two years, all the requirements imposed by the
regulations described in paragraph (1) shall, on the date
that is two years after the enactment of this subsection,
apply to every operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline or
natural gas transmission pipeline subject to the jurisdiction
of this chapter.
``(3) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000--
``(A) the Secretary shall complete an assessment and
evaluation of the effects on safety and the environment of
extending all of the requirements mandated by the regulations
described in paragraph (1) to additional areas;
``(B) the Secretary shall promptly make a Secretarial
determination as to the effect on safety and the environment
of extending the requirements imposed by the regulations
described in paragraph (1) to additional areas using the best
achievable technology; and
``(C) based on the determination described in subparagraph
(B), the Secretary shall promptly promulgate regulations that
would provide measurable improvements to safety or the
environment in these areas by extending regulatory
requirements at least as protective to these areas.''.
(f) Section 60118(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) striking ``title.'' in paragraph (3) and inserting
``title; and''; and
(3) adding at the end the following:
``(4) conduct a risk analysis and prepare and carry out a
program for integrity management for pipeline facilities in
certain areas as required under section 60109(c).''.
(g) Section 60104(b) is amended by striking ``adopted.''
and inserting ``adopted, unless the Secretary determines that
application of the standard is necessary for safety or
environmental protection.''.

SEC. 3. COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.

(a) Section 60116 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 60116. Community right to know

``(a) Public Education Programs.--
``(1) Each owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid
pipeline facility shall carry out a continuing program to
educate the public on the use of a one-call notification
system prior to excavation and other damage prevention
activities, the possible hazards associated with unintended
releases from the pipeline facility, the physical indications
that such a release may have occurred, what steps should be
taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release,
and how to report such an event.
``(2) Within 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, each
owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline
facility shall review its existing public education program
for effectiveness and modify the program as necessary. The
completed plan shall be reviewed by the Secretary of
Transportation as an element of Departmental inspections.
``(3) The Secretary may issue standards prescribing the
details of a public education program and providing for
periodic review of the effectiveness and modification as
needed. The Secretary may also develop material for use in
the program.
``(b) Liaison with State and Local Emergency Response
Entities.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, an
operator of a gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipeline
facility shall initiate and maintain liaison with the State
emergency response commissions, and local emergency planning
committees in the areas of pipeline right-of-way, established
under section 301 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001) in each State in
which it operates. An operator shall, when requested, make
available to the State emergency response commissions and
local emergency planning committees the information described
in section 60102(d), any program for integrity management
developed under section 60109(c), and information about
implementation of that program and about the risks the
program is designed to address. In a community without a
local emergency planning committee, the operator shall
maintain liaison with the local fire, police, and other
emergency response agencies.
``(c) Public Availability of Reports.--The Secretary shall
make available to the public a safety-related condition
report filed by an operator under section 60102(h) and a
report of a pipeline incident filed by an operator under this
chapter.
``(d) Access to Integrity Management Program Information.--
The Secretary shall prescribe requirements for public access
to integrity management program information prepared under
this chapter.
``(e) Availability of Maps.--
``(1) The owner or operator of each interstate gas pipeline
facility shall provide, at least annually, to the governing
body of each municipality in which the interstate gas
pipeline facility is located, a map identifying the location
of the facility.
``(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, and
annually thereafter, the owner or operator of each hazardous
liquid pipeline facility shall provide to the governing body
of each municipality in which the pipeline facility is
located, a map identifying the location of such facility.
``(f) Effectiveness of Public Safety and Public Education
Programs.--
``(1) The Secretary shall survey and assess the public
education programs under this section and the public safety
programs under section 60102(c) and determine their
effectiveness and applicability as components of a model
program. The survey shall include the methods by which
operators notify residents of the location of the facility
and its right of way, public information regarding existing
One-Call programs, and appropriate procedures to be followed
by residents of affected municipalities in the event of
accidents involving interstate gas pipeline facilities.
``(2) In issuing standards for public safety programs under
section 60102(a) or for public education programs under this
section, the Secretary shall consider the results of the
survey and assessment done under paragraph (1).
``(3) The Secretary may provide technical assistance to the
pipeline industry on developing public safety and public
education program content and best practices for program
delivery, and on evaluating the effectiveness of the
programs. The Secretary may also provide technical assistance
to State and local officials in applying practices developed
in these programs to their activities.''.
(d) Section 60102(c) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
(e) Section 60102(h)(2) is amended by striking
``authorities.'' and inserting ``officials, including the
local emergency responders, and appropriate on-scene
coordinators for the area contingency plan or sub-area
contingency plan.''.
(f) Section 60120(c) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Nothing in section 60116 shall be deemed to
impose a new duty on State or local emergency responders or
local emergency planning committees.''.
(g) The analysis for chapter 601 is amended by striking the
item relating to section 60116 and inserting the following:

``60116. Community right to know''.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) General Authority.--Section 60112 is amended--
(1) by striking all after ``if the Secretary'' in
subsection (a) and inserting ``decides that--
``(1) operation of the facility is or would be hazardous to
life, property, or the environment; or
``(2) the facility is or would be constructed or operated,
or a component of the facility is or would be constructed or
operated, with equipment, material, or a technique that the
Secretary decides is hazardous to life, property, or the
environment.'';
(2) by striking ``is hazardous'' in subsection (d) and
inserting ``is or would be hazardous''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Optional Waiver of Notice and Hearing Requirements.--
If the Secretary decides that a facility may present a hazard
under subsection (a)(1) or (2), the Secretary may waive the
notice and hearing requirements in subsection (a) and request
the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the United
States in an appropriate district court to obtain an order to
restrain the operator of the facility from such operation, or
to take such other action as may be necessary, or both.''.
(b) Civil Penalties.--Section 60122 is amended--
(1) by striking ``$25,000'' in subsection (a)(1) and
``$500,000'' and substituting ``$100,000'' and
``$1,000,000'', respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) ``The maximum
civil penalty for a related series of violations does not
apply to a judicial enforcement action under section 60120 or
60121.''; and
(3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Penalty Considerations.--In determining the amount of
a civil penalty under this section--
``(1) the Secretary shall consider--
``(A) the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the
violation, including adverse impact on the environment;
``(B) with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior violations, the ability to
pay, any effect on ability to continue doing business; and
``(C) good faith in attempting to comply; and
``(2) the Secretary may consider--
``(A) the economic benefit gained from the violation
without any discount because of subsequent damages; and
``(B) other matters that justice requires.''.
(c) Excavator Damage.--Section 60123(d) is amended--
(1) by striking ``knowingly and willfully'';
(2) by inserting ``knowingly and willfully'' before
``engages'' in paragraph (1); and
(3) striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the following:
``(B) a pipeline facility, is aware of damage, and does not
report the damage promptly to the operator of the pipeline
facility and to other appropriate authorities; or''.
(d) Civil Actions.--Section 60120(a)(1) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) On the request of the Secretary of Transportation,
the Attorney General may bring a civil action in an
appropriate district court of the United States to enforce
this chapter, including section 60112 of this chapter, or a
regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter. The
court may

[[Page S2623]]

award appropriate relief, including a temporary or permanent
injunction, punitive damages, and assessment of civil
penalties considering the same factors as prescribed for the
Secretary in an administrative case under section 60122.''.
(e) Citizen Suits.--Section 60121(a)(1) is amended by
striking the first sentence and ``However, the'' and
inserting: ``A person may bring a civil action in an
appropriate district court of the United States against a
person owning or operating a pipeline facility to enforce
compliance with this chapter or a standard prescribed or an
order issued under this chapter. The district court may
enjoin noncompliance and assess civil penalties considering
the same factors as prescribed for the Secretary in an
administrative case under section 60122. The''.

SEC. 5. UNDERGROUND DAMAGE PREVENTION.

(a) Section 60114 is amended by inserting after subsection
(b) the following:
``(c) Conformity with Chapter 61.--Regulations prescribed
by the Secretary under subsection (a) do not apply to a State
that has a One-Call notification program accepted by the
Secretary as meeting the minimum standards of section 6103 of
this title or approved by the Secretary as an alternative
program under section 6104(c) of this title.''.
(b) Section 60102(c) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or hazardous liquid pipeline facility''
before ``participate'' in paragraph (1); and
(2) striking paragraph (3).
(c) Section 60104 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) State One-Call Notification Laws.--Notwithstanding
subsection (c) of this section, a State may enforce a
requirement of a One-Call notification law that satisfies
sections 6103 or 6104(c) of this title, or section 60114(a)
of this chapter, against an operator of an interstate natural
gas pipeline facility or an interstate hazardous liquid
pipeline facility provided that the requirement sought to be
enforced is compatible with the minimum standards prescribed
under this chapter.''.
(d) Section 60123 is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:
``(e) Misdemeanor for Not Using One-Call.--A person shall
be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 1 year,
or both, if the person knowingly engages in an excavation
activity without first using an available one-call
notification system to establish the location of underground
facilities in the excavation area.''.

SEC. 6. ENHANCED ABILITY OF STATES TO OVERSEE OPERATOR
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Section 60106(a) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``If'';
(2) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs
(A) and (B); and
(3) adding at the end thereof the following:
``(2) If the Secretary accepts a certification under
section 60105 of this title, the Secretary may make an
agreement with a State authority authorizing it to
participate in the oversight of interstate pipeline
transportation. An agreement shall include a plan for the
State authority to participate in special investigations
involving new construction or incidents.
``(3) An agreement under paragraph (2) may also include a
program allowing for participation by the State authority in
other activities overseeing interstate pipeline
transportation that supplement the Secretary's program and
address issues of local concern, provided that the Secretary
determines that--
``(A) there are no significant gaps in the regulatory
jurisdiction of the State authority over intrastate pipeline
transportation;
``(B) implementation of the agreement will not adversely
affect the oversight of intrastate pipeline transportation by
the State authority;
``(C) the program allowing participation of the State
authority is consistent with the Secretary's program for
inspection; and
``(D) the State promotes preparedness and prevention
activities that enable communities to live safely with
pipelines.''.
(b) Section 60106(d) is amended by inserting after the
first sentence the following: ``In addition, the Secretary
may end an agreement for the oversight of interstate pipeline
transportation when the Secretary finds that there are
significant gaps in the regulatory authority of the State
authority over intrastate pipeline transportation, or that
continued participation by the State authority in the
oversight of interstate pipeline transportation is not
consistent with the Secretary's program or would adversely
affect oversight of intrastate pipeline transportation, or
that the State is not promoting activities that enable
communities to live safely with pipelines.''.
(c) State Grants.--Section 60107 is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(e) Special Investigation of Interstate Pipeline
Facilities.--
``(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the
Secretary may pay up to 100 percent of the cost of the
personnel, equipment, and activities of a State authority
acting as an agent of the Secretary in conducting a special
investigation involved in monitoring new construction or
investigating an incident, on an interstate gas pipeline
facility or an interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility.
``(2) This subsection shall become effective on October 1,
2001.''.

SEC. 7. IMPROVED DATA AND DATA AVAILABILITY.

(a) Report of Releases Exceeding 5 Gallons.--Section
60117(b) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``To'';
(2) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs
(A) and (B);
(3) inserting before the last sentence the following:
``(2) A person owning or operating a hazardous liquid
pipeline facility shall report to the Secretary each release
to the environment greater than five gallons of the hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide transported. This section applies to
releases from pipeline facilities regulated under this
chapter and from rural gathering lines not regulated under
this chapter. A report must include the location of the
release, fatalities and personal injuries, type of product,
amount of product release, causes of the release, extent of
damage to property and the environment, and the response
undertaken to clean up the release.
``(3) During the course of an incident investigation, a
person owning or operating a pipeline facility shall make
records, reports, and information required under subsection
(a) of this section or other reasonably described records,
reports, and information relevant to the incident
investigation available to the Secretary within the time
limits prescribed in a written request.''; and
(4) inserting ``(4)'' before ``The Secretary''.
(b) Penalty Authorities.--
(1) Section 60122(a) is amended by striking ``60114(c)''
and substituting ``60117(b)(3)''.
(2) Section 60123(a) is amended by striking ``60114(c)''
and substituting ``60117(b)(3)''.
(c) Section 60117 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(l) National Depository.--The Secretary shall establish a
national depository of data on events and conditions,
including spill histories and corrective actions for specific
incidents, that can be used to evaluate the risk of, and to
prevent, pipeline failures and releases. The Secretary may
establish the depository through cooperative arrangements,
and the Secretary shall make such information available for
use by State and local planning and emergency response
authorities and the public.''.

SEC. 8. ENHANCED INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES.

(a) Clarification of Authority.--Section 60117(c) is
amended by striking ``decide whether a person is complying
with this chapter and standards prescribed or orders issued
under this chapter'' and inserting ``carry out the duties and
responsibilities of this chapter. The Secretary may question
an individual about matters relevant to an investigation,
including such matters as the design, construction,
operation, or maintenance of the system, the individual's
qualifications, or the operator's response to an emergency''.
(b) Expenses of Investigation.--Section 60117, as amended
by section 7, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(m) Extraordinary Expenses of Incident Investigation.--
The Secretary may, by regulation, establish procedures to
recover the Secretary's costs incurred because of
investigation of incidents from the operators of the pipeline
facilities involved in the incidents. These costs may include
travel costs and contract support for the investigation and
monitoring of the corrective measures. All sums collected
shall be deposited into the Pipeline Safety Fund and shall be
available, to the extent and in the amount provided in
advance in appropriations acts, to reimburse the Secretary
for the costs of investigation and monitoring of the
incidents. Such amounts are authorized to be appropriated to
be available until expended.''.

SEC. 9. INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY.

Section 60117, as amended by section 8, is further amended
by adding at the end the following subsection:
``(n) Global Sharing of Environmental and Safety
Information.--Subject to guidance and direction of the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Transportation is
directed to support international efforts to share
information about the risks to the public and the environment
from pipelines and the means of protecting against those
risks. The extent of support should include a consideration
of the benefits to the public from an increased understanding
by the Secretary of technical issues about pipeline safety
and environmental protection and from possible improvement in
environmental protection outside the United States.''.

SEC. 10. RISK MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

Section 60126(a) is amended by adding at the end the
following paragraph:
``(3) Continuation of individual project.--Without regard
to any recommendations made with respect to the risk
management demonstration program under subsection (e) of this
section, the Secretary may, by order, allow the continuation
of an individual project begun under this program beyond the
termination of the program, provided the Secretary finds
that--
``(A) the pipeline operator has a clear and established
record of compliance with respect to safety and environmental
protection;
``(B) the project is achieving superior levels of public
safety and environmental protection; and
``(C) the continuation would not extend the project more
than four years from the date of the initial approval of the
project.''.

SEC. 11. SUPPORT FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.

Section 60117, as amended by section 9, is further amended
by adding at the end the following subsection:

[[Page S2624]]

``(o) Support for Innovative Technology Development.--
``(1) To the extent and in the amount provided in advance
in appropriations acts, the Secretary of Transportation shall
participate in the development of alternative technologies--
``(A) in fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, to--
``(i) identify outside force damage using internal
inspection devices; and
``(ii) monitor outside-force damage to pipelines; and
``(B) In fiscal year 2002 and thereafter, to inspect
pipelines that cannot accommodate internal inspection devices
available on the date of the enactment of the Pipeline Safety
and Community Protection Act of 2000.
``(2) The Secretary may support such technological
development through cooperative agreements with trade
associations, academic institutions, or other qualified
organizations.''.

SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Section 60125 is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a), (b), (c)(1), and (d) and
inserting the following:
``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--To carry out this chapter
and other pipeline-related damage prevention activities of
this title (except for section 60107), there are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Transportation--
``(1) $30,118,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2002,
2003, and 2004.
``(b) State Grants.--
``(1) Not more than the following amounts may be
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 60107:
``(A) $17,019,000 for fiscal year 2001.
``(B) Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2002,
2003, and 2004.''; and
(2) redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague,
Senator Hollings, in introducing, by request, the Pipeline Safety and
Community Protection Act of 2000 proposed and announced yesterday by
Vice President Gore. This legislation is an important step forward in
improving safety and environmental protection in oil and gas pipelines.
Mr. President, last Friday night, the State of Maryland experienced a
major oil spill--one its worst spills in many years. More than 110,000
gallons of No. 2 oil leaked from a pipe at Pepco's Chalk Point
Generating Station into Swanson Creek in Prince Georges County. Bad
weather and high winds exacerbated the problem and spread the spill
into the Patuxent River. It has now affected some 8 miles of shoreline,
acres of sensitive wetland habitat, and dozens of wildlife in three
counties along the Patuxent.
Six federal agencies--EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety
Board--are on site coordinating clean-up activities and investigations
into the causes of the leak. The Maryland Departments of the
Environment and Natural Resources have taken steps to protect and
rehabilitate impacted wildlife and to restrict harvesting in clam and
oyster beds in the area. Pepco crews and contractors have recovered
more than 70,000 gallons of the spilled oil. But recovering or cleaning
up the remaining oil will be much more difficult and its cumulative
impact on the environment will not be known for months, if not years.
The Federal and State agencies have an important responsibility to
ensure that Pepco does everything possible to clean up the spill and
remediate the environmental and economic damage. But an aggressive
clean-up effort must be accompanied with a comprehensive program to
prevent such spills from occurring in the first place. While the
precise cause of this oil leak is not yet known and is still under
investigation, steps can and must be taken to help detect problems
before pipelines fail and to minimize the environmental and other
consequences of a failure.
The Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act being introduced
today would reauthorize and enhance the U.S. Department of
Transportation's pipeline safety program by increasing inspection and
testing of pipeline integrity. It would require pipeline operators to
take extra precautions in populated or environmentally sensitive areas,
such as the area where the Pepco spill occurred. It would strengthen
enforcement authorities by expanding penalties for violations and
compliance monitoring by Federal and State investigators. It would
expand research into new technologies for monitoring pipelines and
detecting leaks. Finally, it would strengthen Community-Right-to-Know
and reporting requirements on releases and authorize additional funding
for the Department's and State pipeline safety activities.
Mr. President, this legislation is strongly supported by the State of
Maryland and represents a constructive step forward in enhancing safety
and environmental protection in pipeline transportation. I look forward
to working with the members of the Commerce Committee as they consider
this and other proposals to reauthorize the pipeline safety program.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (by request):
S. 2410. A bill to increase the authorization of appropriations for
the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

authorization increase for the reclamation safety of dams act

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate
reference, legislation submitted by the administration to increase the
authorization of appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety
of Dams program. Let me emphasize that I am introducing this
legislation at the request of the administration. Neither I nor any
other member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has taken
a position on the merits of the legislation at this time. I understand
some water users have expressed concerns with this legislation, and I
want to assure them that the Water and Power Subcommittee, to which
this bill will be referred, will have a hearing on the legislation so
that they can make their concerns a part of the record and address them
in the legislative process. Ensuring the safety of dams under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation is very important but is must
be done in a way that ensures safety at Reclamation facilities while
not causing undue financial hardship for project beneficiaries. I ask
unanimous consent that the letter of transmittal from the
administration and a section-by-section of the legislation that the
administration prepared be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation,

Washington, DC, August 5, 1999.
Hon. Albert Gore,
President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is draft legislation to
increase by $380,000,000 the authorized cost ceiling for the
Bureau of Reclamation's dam safety program authorized program
authorized in Public Law 95-578 and Public Law 98-404. I
would appreciate your assistance in seeing that this
legislation is introduced, referred to the appropriate
Congressional Committee for consideration, and enacted.
The Bureau of Reclamation's dam safety program is designed
to ensure that its facilities are operated in a safe and
reliable condition. The purpose of the program is to protect
the public, property and natural resources downstream of
Reclamation structures.
The Bureau of Reclamation expends approximately $60 million
per year for dam safety purposes and estimates that the
existing $650,000,000 cost ceiling will be exceeded in Fiscal
Year 2001. The enclosed legislation is necessary to continue
funding this important program.
In addition to increasing the authorized cost ceiling, the
legislation would make a few important changes to the dam
safety program. Under existing law, irrigators are required
to pay a portion of the dam safety costs within 50 years
without interest. The draft bill would amend the statute to
charge interest on the dam safety costs allocated for
irrigation purposes, This makes irrigation repayment terms
for dam safety activities consistent with municipal and
industrial water supply.
Existing law also requires the Bureau of Reclamation to
send a dam modifications report to Congress for dam safety
work costing more than $750,000. The report must rest before
Congress for 60 legislative days prior to Reclamation
obligating funds for dam safety construction, The attached
legislation would raise the threshold for a Congressional
report to $1.2 million, reduce to 30 calendar days the time
required for a dam safety modification report to rest in
Congress prior to Reclamation commencing dam safety repair
work.
A section-by-section analysis of the legislation also is
attached. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
A similar package has been transmitted to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives. If you have any questions
concerning this

[[Page S2625]]

legislation, please contact James Hess, Acting Chief,
Congressional and Legislative Affairs Group for the Bureau of
Reclamation, at 202-208-5840.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this proposal from the
standpoint of the administration's program.
Sincerely,
Eluid L. Martinez,
Commissioner.
Enclosure

Section-By-Section Analysis

Section (A)(1). Makes Federal dam safety assistance
unavailable for costs incurred because the operating entity
does not adequately maintain the structure.
Section 1(A)(2)(a). Makes the additional $380 million
authorized to be appropriated by Section 1(B)(1) subject to
the 15 percent reimbursability requirement.
Section 1(A(2)(b). Strikes the existing provision that
limits repayment of the costs allocated to irrigation to the
irrigators' ability to pay.
Section 1(A)(2)(c)-(d). Renumbers the subsections of
existing Section 4.
Section 1(A)(2)(e). Existing law requires that dam safety
costs allocated to certain purposes, including municipal,
industrial, and power, but not including irrigation, be
repaid with interest. This provision includes irrigation
costs among those to be repaid with interest. Furthermore,
costs allocated to irrigation under this Act should be repaid
by the irrigators without assistance from power revenues.
Section 1(A)(2)(f). Explicitly provides that costs
allocated under this Act to project purposes will be repaid
with interest and without regard to water users' ability to
pay, thereby eliminating any assistance from power users to
water users.
Section 1(A)(3). Authorizes the Secretary to use monies
received pursuant to a repayment contract at any time prior
to completion of the dam safety construction work.
Section 1(B)(1). Authorizes the appropriation of an
additional $380 million (indexed for inflation) for dam
safety.
Section 1(B)(2). Increases to $1,200,000 (indexed for
inflation) the threshold amount of triggering when the Bureau
of Reclamation must send a modification report to Congress
prior to obligating funds for dam safety construction.
Existing law requires a report for any obligation exceeding
$750,000.
Section 1(B)(3). Reduces from 60 legislative days to 30
calendar days the time that a dam safety modification report
must lie before Congress before the Bureau of Reclamation can
obligate funds for dam safety construction.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Conrad,
Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerrey,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Levin, and Mr.
Jeffords)
S. 2411. A bill to enhance competition in the agricultural sector and
to protect family farms and ranches and rural communities from unfair,
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices by agribusinesses, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.

farmers and ranchers fair competition act of 2000

Mr. DASCHLE. 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. 2411

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Farmers
and Ranchers Fair Competition Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Prohibitions against unfair practices in transactions involving
agricultural commodities.
Sec. 5. Reports of the Secretary on potential unfair practices.
Sec. 6. Plain language and disclosure requirements for contracts.
Sec. 7. Report on corporate structure.
Sec. 8. Mandatory funding for staff.
Sec. 9. General Accounting Office study.
Sec. 10. Authority to promulgate regulations.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Congressional Joint Economic Committee data suggests
that over the last 15 years, agribusiness profits have come
almost exclusively out of producer income, rather than from
increased retail prices. Given the lack of market power of
producers, this data raises the question of whether the trend
has been a natural market development or is instead a sign of
market failure.
(2) Most economists agree that in the last 15 years the
real market price for a market basket of food has increased
by approximately 3 percent, while the farm value of that food
has fallen by approximately 38 percent. Over that period,
marketing costs have decreased by 15 percent, which should
have narrowed rather than widened the gap.
(3) There is significant concern that increasingly
vertically integrated multinational corporations, especially
those that own broad biotechnology patents, may be able to
exert unreasonable and excessive market power in the future
by acquiring companies that own other broad biotechnology
patents.
(4) The National Association of Attorneys General is very
concerned with the high degree of economic concentration in
the agricultural sector and the great potential for
anticompetitive practices and behavior. They estimate the top
4 meat packing firms control over 80 percent of steer and
heifer slaughter, over 55 percent of hog slaughter, and over
65 percent of sheep slaughter. Increased concentration in the
dairy procurement and processing sector is also raising
significant concerns.
(5) In the grain industry, United States Department of
Agriculture reports that the top 4 firms controlled 56
percent of flour milling, 73 percent of wet corn milling, 71
percent of soybean milling, and 62 percent of cotton seed oil
milling.
(6) Moreover, the figures in paragraphs (4) and (5)
underestimate true levels of concentration and potential
market power because they fail to reflect the web of
unreported and difficult to trace joint ventures, strategic
alliances, interlocking directorates, and other partial
ownership arrangements that link many large corporations.
(7) Concentration of market power also has the effect of
increasing the transfer of investment, capital, jobs, and
necessary social services out of rural areas to business
centers throughout the world. Many individuals representing a
wide range of expertise have expressed concern with the
potential implications of this trend for the greater public
good.
(8) The recent increase in contracting for the production
or sale of agricultural commodities, such as livestock and
poultry, is a cause for concern because of the significant
bargaining power the buyers of these products or services
wield over individual farmers and ranchers.
(9) Transparent, freely accessible, and competitive markets
are being supplanted by transfer prices set within vertically
integrated firms and by the increasing use of private
contracts.
(10) Agribusiness firms are showing record profits at the
same time that farmers and ranchers are struggling to survive
an ongoing price collapse and erratic price trends.
(11) The efforts of farmers and ranchers to improve their
market position is hampered by--
(A) extreme disparities in bargaining power between
agribusiness firms and the hundreds of thousands of
individual farmers and ranchers that sell products to them;
(B) the rapid increase in the use of private contracts that
disrupt price discovery and can unfairly disadvantage
producers;
(C) the extreme market power of agribusiness firms and
alleged anticompetitive practices in the industry;
(D) shrinking opportunities for market access by producers;
and
(E) the direct and indirect impact these factors have on
the continuing viability of thousands of rural communities
across the country.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) enhance fair and open competition in rural America,
thereby fostering innovation and economic growth;
(2) permit the Secretary to take actions to enhance the
bargaining position of family farmers and ranchers, and to
promote the viability of rural communities nationwide;
(3) protect family farms and ranches from--
(A) unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices
or devices;
(B) false or misleading statements;
(C) retaliation related to statements lawfully provided;
and
(D) other unfair trade practices employed by processors and
other agribusinesses; and
(4) permit the Secretary to take actions to enhance the
viability of rural communities nationwide.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural
commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of
the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
(2) Agricultural cooperative.--The term ``agricultural
cooperative'' means an association of persons engaged in the
production, marketing, or processing of an agricultural
commodity that meets the requirements of the Act of February
18, 1922, ``An Act to authorize association of producers of
agricultural products'' (7 U.S.C. 291 et seq.; 42 Stat. 388)
(commonly known as the ``Capper-Volstead Act'').
(3) Broker.--The term ``broker'' means any person engaged
in the business of negotiating sales and purchases of any
agricultural commodity in interstate or foreign commerce for
or on behalf of the vendor or the purchaser, except that no
person shall be considered a broker if the person's sales of
such commodities are not in excess of $1,000,000 per year.
(4) Commission merchant.--The term ``commission merchant''
means any person engaged in the business of receiving in
interstate or foreign commerce any agricultural commodity for
sale, on commission, or for or on behalf of another, except
that no person

[[Page S2626]]

shall be considered a commission merchant if the person's
sales of such commodities are not in excess of $1,000,000 per
year.
(5) Dealer.--The term ``dealer'' means--
(A) any person (except an agricultural cooperative) engaged
in the business of buying, selling, or marketing agricultural
commodities in wholesale or jobbing quantities, as determined
by the Secretary, in interstate or foreign commerce, except--
(i) no person shall be considered a dealer with respect to
sales or marketing of any agricultural commodity of that
person's own raising provided such sales or marketing of such
agricultural commodities do not exceed $10,000,000 per year;
and
(ii) no person shall be considered a dealer who buys,
sells, or markets less than $1,000,000 per year of such
commodities; and
(B) an agricultural cooperative which sells or markets
agricultural commodities of its members' own production if
such agricultural cooperative sells or markets more than
$1,000,000 of its members' production per year of such
commodities.
(6) Processor.--The term ``processor'' means--
(A) any person (except an agricultural cooperative) engaged
in the business of handling, preparing, or manufacturing
(including slaughtering) of an agricultural commodity or the
products of such agricultural commodity for sale or marketing
in interstate or foreign commerce for human consumption
except--
(i) no person shall be considered a processor with respect
to the handling, preparing, or manufacturing (including
slaughtering) of an agricultural commodity of that person's
own raising provided such sales or marketing of such
agricultural commodities do not exceed $10,000,000 per year;
and
(ii) no person who handles, prepares, or manufactures
(including slaughtering) an agricultural commodity in an
amount less than $1,000,000 per year shall be considered a
processor; and
(B) an agricultural cooperative which processes
agricultural commodities of its members' own production if
such agricultural cooperative processes more than $1,000,000
of its members' production of such commodities per year.
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST UNFAIR PRACTICES IN TRANSACTIONS
INVOLVING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

(a) Prohibitions.--It shall be unlawful in, or in
connection with, any transaction in interstate or foreign
commerce for any dealer, processor, commission merchant, or
broker--
(1) to engage in or use any unfair, unreasonable, unjustly
discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in the
marketing, receiving, purchasing, sale, or contracting for
the production of any agricultural commodity;
(2) to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person or locality or subject any
particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable
disadvantage in connection with any transaction involving any
agricultural commodity;
(3) to make any false or misleading statement in connection
with any transaction involving any agricultural commodity
that is purchased or received in interstate or foreign
commerce, or involving any production contract, or to fail,
without reasonable cause, to perform any specification or
duty, express or implied, arising out of any undertaking in
connection with any such transaction or production contract;
(4) to retaliate against or disadvantage, or to conspire to
retaliate against or disadvantage, any person because of
statements or information lawfully provided by such person to
any person (including to the Secretary or to a law
enforcement agency) regarding alleged improper actions or
violations of law by such dealer, processor, commission
merchant, or broker (unless such statements or information
are determined to be libelous or slanderous under applicable
State law);
(5) to include as part of any new or renewed agreement or
contract a right of first refusal, or to make any sale or
transaction contingent upon the granting of a right of first
refusal, until 180 days after the General Accounting Office
study under section 8 is complete; or
(6) to offer different prices contemporaneously for
agricultural commodities of like grade and quality (except
commodities regulated by the Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.)) unless--
(A) the commodity is purchased in a public market through a
competitive bidding process or under similar conditions which
provide opportunities for multiple competitors to seek to
acquire the commodity;
(B) the premium or discount reflects the actual cost of
acquiring a commodity prior to processing; or
(C) the Secretary has determined that such types of offers
do not have a discriminatory impact against small volume
producers.
(b) Violations.--
(1) Complaints.--Whenever the Secretary has reason to
believe that any dealer, processor, commission merchant, or
broker has violated any provision of subsection (a), the
Secretary shall cause a complaint in writing to be served on
that person or persons, stating the charges in that respect,
and requiring the dealer, processor, commission merchant, or
broker to attend and testify at a hearing to be held not
sooner than 30 days after the service of such complaint.
(2) Hearing.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may hold hearings, sign and
issue subpoenas, administer oaths, examine witnesses, receive
evidence, and require the attendance and testimony of
witnesses and the production of such accounts, records, and
memoranda, as the Secretary deems necessary, for the
determination of the existence of any violation of this
subsection.
(B) Right to hearing.--A dealer, processor, commission
merchant, or broker may request a hearing if the dealer,
processor, commission merchant, or broker is subject to
penalty for unfair conduct, under this subsection.
(C) Respondents rights.--During a hearing the dealer,
processor, commission merchant, or broker shall be given,
pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary, the
opportunity--
(i) to be informed of the evidence against such person;
(ii) to cross-examine witnesses; and
(iii) to present evidence.
(D) Hearing limitation.--The issues of any hearing held or
requested under this section shall be limited in scope to
matters directly related to the purpose for which such
hearing was held or requested.
(3) Report of finding and penalties.--
(A) In general.--If, after a hearing, the Secretary finds
that the dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker
has violated any provisions of subsection (a), the Secretary
shall make a report in writing which states the findings of
fact and includes an order requiring the dealer, processor,
commission merchant, or broker to cease and desist from
continuing such violation.
(B) Civil penalty.--The Secretary may assess a civil
penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation of
subsection (a).
(4) Temporary injunction and finality and appealability of
an order.--
(A) Temporary injunction.--At any time after a complaint is
filed under paragraph (1), the court, on application of the
Secretary, may issue a temporary injunction, restraining to
the extent it deems proper, the dealer, processor, commission
merchant, or broker and such person's officers, directors,
agents, and employees from violating any of the provisions of
subsection (a).
(B) Appealability of an order.--An order issued pursuant to
this subsection shall be final and conclusive unless within
30 days after service of the order, the dealer, processor,
commission merchant, or broker petitions to appeal the order
to the court of appeals for the circuit in which such person
resides or has its principal place of business or the
District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
(C) Delivery of petition.--The clerk of the court shall
immediately cause a copy of the petition filed under
subparagraph (B) to be delivered to the Secretary and the
Secretary shall thereupon file in the court the record of the
proceedings under this subsection.
(D) Penalty for failure to obey an order.--Any dealer,
processor, commission merchant, or broker which fails to obey
any order of the Secretary issued under the provisions of
this section after such order or such order as modified has
been sustained by the court or has otherwise become final,
shall be fined not less than $5,000 and not more than
$100,000 for each offense. Each day during which such failure
continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
(5) Records.--
(A) In general.--Every dealer, processor, commission
merchant, and broker shall keep for a period of not less than
5 years such accounts, records, and memoranda (including
marketing agreements, forward contracts, and formula pricing
arrangements) and fully and correctly disclose all
transactions involved in the business of such person,
including the true ownership of the business.
(B) Failure to keep records or allow the secretary to
inspect records.--Failure to keep, or allow the Secretary to
inspect records as required by this paragraph shall
constitute an unfair practice in violation of subsection
(a)(1).
(C) Inspection of records.--The Secretary shall have the
right to inspect such accounts, records, and memoranda
(including marketing agreements, forward contracts, and
formula pricing arrangements) of any dealer, processor,
commission merchant, and broker as may be material to the
investigation of any alleged violation of this section or for
the purpose of investigating the business conduct or
practices of an organization with respect to such dealer,
processor, commission merchant or broker.
(c) Compensation for Injury.--
(1) Establishment of the family farmer and rancher claims
commission.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint 3 individuals
to a commission to be known as the ``Family Farmer and
Rancher Claims Commission'' (in this subsection referred to
as the ``Commission'') to review claims of family farmers and
ranchers who have suffered financial damages as a result of
any violation of this section as determined by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (b)(3).
(B) Term of service.--The member of the Commission shall
serve 3-year terms which may be renewed. The initial members
of the Commission may be appointed for a period of less than
3 years, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Review of claims.--

[[Page S2627]]

(A) Submission of claims.--Family farmers and ranchers
damaged as a result of a violation of this section as
determined by the Secretary, pursuant to subsection (c)(3)
may preserve the right to claim financial damages under this
section by filing a claim pursuant to regulations promulgated
by the Secretary.
(B) Determination.--Based on a review of such claims, the
Commission shall determine the amount of damages to be paid,
if any, as a result of the violation.
(C) Review.--The decisions of the Commission under this
paragraph shall not be subject to judicial review except to
determine that the amount of damages to be paid is consistent
with the published regulations of the Secretary that
establish the criteria for implementing this subsection.
(3) Funding.--
(A) In general.--Funds collected from civil penalties
pursuant to this section shall be transferred to a special
fund in the Treasury, shall be made available to the
Secretary without further appropriation, and shall remain
available until expended to pay the expenses of the
Commission and the claims described in this subsection.
(B) Authorization of appropriation.--In addition to the
funds described in subparagraph (A), there are authorized to
be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
(4) No preclusion of private claims.--By filing an action
under this subsection, a family farmer or rancher is not
precluded from bringing a cause of action against a dealer,
processor, commission, merchant, or broker in any court of
appropriate jurisdiction.
(d) Authority of the Secretary.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary
and the Attorney General shall develop and implement a plan
to enable, where appropriate, the Secretary to file civil
actions, including temporary injunctions, to enforce orders
issued by the Secretary under this Act.

SEC. 5. REPORTS OF THE SECRETARY ON POTENTIAL UNFAIR
PRACTICES.

(a) Filing Premerger Notices With the Secretary.--No
dealer, processor, commission merchant, broker, operator of a
warehouse of agricultural commodities, or other agricultural
related business shall merge or acquire, directly or
indirectly, any voting securities or assets of any other
dealer, processor, commission merchant, broker, operator of a
warehouse of agricultural commodities, or other agricultural
related business unless both persons (or in the case of a
tender offer, the acquiring person) file notification
pursuant to rules promulgated by the Secretary if--
(1) any voting securities or assets of the dealer,
processor, commission merchant, broker, operator of a
warehouse of agricultural commodities or other agricultural
related business with annual net sales or total assets of
$10,000,000 or more are being acquired by a dealer,
processor, commission merchant, broker, or operator of a
warehouse of agricultural commodities, or other agricultural
related business which has total assets or annual net sales
of $100,000,000 or more; and
(2) any voting securities or assets of a dealer, processor,
commission merchant, broker, operator of a warehouse of
agricultural commodities, or other agricultural related
business with annual net sales or total assets of
$100,000,000 or more are being acquired by any dealer,
processor, commission merchant, broker, operator of a
warehouse of agricultural commodities, or agriculture related
business with annual net sales or total assets of $10,000,000
or more and as a result of such acquisition, if the acquiring
person would hold--
(A) 15 percent or more of the voting securities or assets
of the acquired person; or
(B) an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and
assets of the acquired person in excess of $15,000,000.
(b) Review of the Secretary.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary may conduct a review of any merger or acquisition
described in subsection (a).
(2) Exception.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of any
merger or acquisition described in subsection (a) upon a
request from a member of Congress.
(c) Access to records.--The Secretary may request any
information including any testimony, documentary material, or
related information from a dealer, processor, commission
merchant, broker, or operator of a warehouse of agricultural
commodities, or other agricultural related business,
pertaining to any merger or acquisition of any agriculture
related business.
(d) Purpose of Review.--
(1) Findings.--The review described in subsection (a) shall
make findings whether the merger or acquisition could--
(A) be significantly detrimental to the present or future
viability of family farms or ranches or rural communities in
the areas affected by the merger or acquisition, pursuant to
standards established by the Secretary; or
(B) lead to a violation of section 4(a) of this Act.
(2) Remedies.--The review may include a determination of
possible remedies regarding how the parties of the merger or
acquisition may take steps to modify their operations to
address the findings described in paragraph (1).
(e) Report of Review.--
(1) Preliminary report.--After conducting the review
described in this section, the Secretary shall issue a
preliminary report to the parties of the merger or
acquisition and the Attorney General or the Federal Trade
Commission, as appropriate, which shall include findings and
any remedies described in subsection (d)(2).
(2) Final report.--After affording the parties described in
paragraph (1) an opportunity for a hearing regarding the
findings and any proposed remedies in the preliminary report,
the Secretary shall issue a final report to the President and
Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, as
appropriate, with respect to the merger or acquisition.
(f) Implementation of the Report.--Not later than 120 days
after the issuance of a final report described in subsection
(e), the parties of the merger or acquisition affected by
such report shall make changes to their operations or
structure to comply with the findings and implement any
suggested remedy or any agreed upon alternative remedy and
shall file a response demonstrating such compliance or
implementation.
(g) Confidentiality of Information.--Information used by
the Secretary to conduct the review pursuant to this section
provided by a party of the merger or acquisition under review
or by a government agency shall be treated by the Secretary
as confidential information pursuant to section 1770 of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2276), except that the
Secretary may share any information with the Attorney
General, the Federal Trade Commission, and a party seeking a
hearing pursuant to subsection (e)(2) with respect to
information relating to such party. The report issued under
subsection (e) shall be available to the public consistent
with the confidentiality provisions of this subsection.
(h) Penalties.--
(1) In general.--After affording the parties an opportunity
for a hearing, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty not
to exceed $300,000 for the failure of a person to comply with
the requirements of subsections (a) and (f). Such hearing
shall be limited to the issue of the amount of the civil
penalty.
(2) Failure to follow an order.--If after being assessed a
civil penalty in accordance with paragraph (1) a person
continues to fail to meet the applicable requirements of
subsections (a) and (f), the Secretary may, after affording
the parties an opportunity for a hearing, assess a further
civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each day such person
continues such violation. Such hearing shall be limited to
the issue of the additional civil penalty assessed under this
paragraph.

SEC. 6. PLAIN LANGUAGE AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONTRACTS.

(a) In General.--Any contract between a family farmer or
rancher and a dealer, processor, commission merchant, broker,
operator of a warehouse of agricultural commodities, or other
agricultural related business shall--
(1) be written in a clear and coherent manner using words
with common and everyday meanings and shall be appropriately
divided and captioned by various sections;
(2) disclose in a manner consistent with paragraph (1)--
(A) contract duration;
(B) contract termination;
(C) renegotiation standards;
(D) responsibility for environmental damage;
(E) factors to be used in determining performance payments;
(F) which parties shall be responsible for obtaining and
complying with necessary local, State, and Federal government
permits; and
(G) any other contract terms the Secretary determines is
appropriate for disclosure; and
(3) not contain a confidentiality requirement barring a
party of a contract from sharing terms of such contract
(excluding trade secrets as applied in the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.)) for the purposes of
obtaining legal or financial advice or for the purpose of
responding to a request from Federal or State agencies.
(b) Penalties.--
(1) In general.--After affording the parties an opportunity
for a hearing, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty not
to exceed $100,000 for the failure of a person to comply with
the requirements of this section. Such hearing shall be
limited to the issue of the amount of the civil penalty.
(2) Failure to follow an order.--If after being assessed a
civil penalty in accordance with paragraph (1), a person
continues to fail to meet the applicable requirements of this
section, the Secretary may, after affording the parties an
opportunity for a hearing, assess a further civil penalty not
to exceed $100,000 for each day such person continues such
violation. Such hearing shall be limited to the issue of the
amount of the additional civil penalty assessed under this
paragraph.
(c) Implementation.--The requirements imposed by this
section shall be applicable to contracts entered into or
renewed 60 days or subsequently after the date of enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 7. REPORT ON CORPORATE STRUCTURE.

(a) In General.--A dealer, processor, commission merchant,
or broker with annual sales in excess of $100,000,000 shall
annually file with the Secretary, a report which describes,
with respect to both domestic and foreign activities; the
strategic alliances; ownership in other agribusiness firms or
agribusiness-related firms; joint ventures; subsidiaries;
brand names; and interlocking boards of directors with other
corporations, representatives, and agents that lobby Congress
on behalf of such dealer, processor,

[[Page S2628]]

commission merchant, or broker, as determined by the
Secretary. This subsection shall not be construed to apply to
contracts.
(b) Penalties.--
(1) In general.--After affording the parties an opportunity
for a hearing, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty not
to exceed $100,000 for the failure of a person to comply with
the requirements of this section. Such a hearing shall be
limited to the issue of the amount of the civil penalty
(2) Failure to follow an order.--If after being assessed a
civil penalty in accordance with paragraph (1) a person
continues to fail to meet the applicable requirements of this
section, the Secretary may, after affording the parties an
opportunity for a hearing, assess a further civil penalty not
to exceed $100,000 for each day such person continues such
violation. Such hearing shall be limited to the amount of the
additional civil penalty assessed under this paragraph.

SEC. 8. MANDATORY FUNDING FOR STAFF.

Out of the funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, the Secretary of Treasury shall provide to the
Secretary of Agriculture $7,000,000 in each of fiscal years
2002 through 2006, to hire, train, and provide for additional
staff to carry out additional responsibilities under this
Act, including a Special Counsel on Fair Market and Rural
Opportunity, additional attorneys for the Office of General
Counsel, investigators, economists, and support staff. Such
sums shall be made available to the Secretary without further
appropriation and shall be in addition to funds already made
available to the Secretary for the purposes of this section.

SEC. 9. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY.

The Comptroller General of the United States, in
consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary, the
Federal Trade Commission, the National Association of
Attorney's General, and others, shall--
(1) study competition in the domestic farm economy with a
special focus on protecting family farms and ranches and
rural communities and the potential for monopsonistic and
oligopsonistic effects nationally and regionally; and
(2) provide a report to the appropriate committees of
Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act on--
(A) the correlation between increases in the gap between
retail consumer food prices and the prices paid to farmers
and ranchers and any increases in concentration among
processors, manufacturers, or other firms that buy from
farmers and ranchers;
(B) the extent to which the use of formula pricing,
marketing agreements, forward contracting, and production
contracts tend to give processors, agribusinesses, and other
buyers of agricultural commodities unreasonable market power
over their producer/suppliers in the local markets;
(C) whether the granting of process patents relating to
biotechnology research affecting agriculture during the past
20 years has tended to overly restrict related biotechnology
research or has tended to overly limit competition in the
biotechnology industries that affect agriculture in a manner
that is contrary to the public interest, or could do either
in the future;
(D) whether acquisitions of companies that own
biotechnology patents and seed patents by multinational
companies have the potential for reducing competition in the
United States and unduly increasing the market power of such
multinational companies;
(E) whether existing processors or agribusiness have
disproportionate market power and if competition could be
increased if such processors or agribusiness were required to
divest assets to assure that they do not exert this
disproportionate market power over local markets;
(F) the extent of increase in concentration in milk
processing, procurement and handling, and the potential risks
to the economic well-being of dairy farmers, and to the
National School Lunch program, and other Federal nutrition
programs of that increase in concentration;
(G) the impact of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures
among dairy cooperatives on dairy farmers, including impacts
on both members and nonmembers of the merging cooperatives;
(H) the impact of the significant increase in the use of
stock as the primary means of effectuating mergers and
acquisitions by large companies;
(I) the increase in the number and size of mergers or
acquisitions in the United States and whether some of such
mergers or acquisitions would have taken place if the merger
or acquisition had to be consummated primarily with cash,
other assets, or borrowing; and
(J) whether agricultural producers typically appear to
derive any benefits (such as higher prices for their products
or any other advantages) from right-of-first-refusal
provisions contained in purchase contracts or other deals
with agribusiness purchasers of such products.

SEC. 10. AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS.

The Secretary of Agriculture shall have the authority to
promulgate regulations to carry out the responsibilities of
the Secretary under this Act.
______

By Mr. McCain:
S. 2412. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize
appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal
years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National
Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000. This bill proposes
to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through
fiscal year 2003.
The NTSB is an independent agency charged with determining the
probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation
safety. Among its many duties, the Board investigates accidents,
conducts safety studies, and evaluates the effectiveness of other
government agencies' programs for preventing transportation accidents.
In my view, the NTSB is one of our nation's most critical governmental
agencies and I want to commend its excellent work.
Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than
110,000 aviation accidents, at least 10,000 other accidents in the
surface modes and issued more than 11,000 safety recommendations. The
Board's commitment to accident investigation and the development of
safety recommendations to prevent accidents from recurring is indeed
admirable. The NTSB staff works tirelessly, and in many cases, under
the least desirable circumstances.
The NTSB's authorization expired last September. The Board has
submitted a reauthorization proposal and the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing last year to
review the Board's request. The reauthorization legislation I am
introducing is intended to provide the Board with the resources
necessary to carry out its important safety investigatory duties and
provide further assistance to the Board in its efforts to fulfill its
mission.
The legislation would authorize the Board for Fiscal years 2000-2003.
As the Board requested, the bill would provide significant funding
increases over the level currently authorized. The Chairman of the
Board has testified that these funds are necessary in order to insure
that the NTSB continues to make timely and accurate determinations of
the probable causes of accidents, formulate realistic and feasible
safety recommendations, and respond to the families of victims of
transportation disasters in a professional and compassionate manner
following those tragedies. The legislation also would raise the Board's
emergency fund to the level commensurate to that which has been
appropriated in recent years.
The bill includes language requested by the Safety Board to require
the withholding from public disclosure of voice and video recorder
information for all modes of transportation comparable to the
protections already statutorily provided for cockpit voice recorders
(CVRs). This provision would be an important step in ensuring that
railroad, maritime, and motor vehicle recorders are properly protected
from unwarranted disclosure or alternative use.

The bill provides the Board with authority to establish reasonable
rates of overtime pay for its employees directly involved in accident-
related work both on-scene and investigative. This authority was
requested in acknowledgment of the extensive time spent by NTSB staff
in carrying out their duties and the Board's inability under current
law to more fairly compensate these employees. I want to remind my
colleagues that the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard
already have been provided authority by Congress to administer similar
personnel payment matters.
The Board's budget has dramatically increased over the years and this
measure includes a number of financial accountability provisions.
Currently, the NTSB is one of the few agencies of the Federal
Government not required to have a Chief Financial Office (CFO). While
the Board on its own initiative does have a CFO, this bill would make
that position permanent. The legislation also statutorily authorizes
the Chairman to establish annual travel budgets to govern Board Member
non-accident travel. After concerns were raised last year over
excessive Board Member travel by myself and others, the Chairman
established annual budgets and procedures governing non-accident-
related travel. His actions were an important step in addressing fiscal
accountability at the Board and I believe

[[Page S2629]]

they should be continued in the future. Further, the bill would give
the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation the authority
to review the financial management and business operations of the Board
to determine compliance with applicable Federal laws, rules, and
regulations.
I have only taken time today to highlight a few sections of the bill.
But I assure my colleagues that there are other provisions in the
legislation designed to give the Safety Board the necessary tools to
continue to fulfill its critical safety mission.
Mr. President. I urge my colleagues' support of this measure and look
forward to bringing it to the full Senate for consideration in the near
future.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Thurmond,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Coverdell, Mr.
Robb, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Reid):
S. 2413. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 to clarify the procedures and conditions for the award of
matching grants for the purchase of armor vests; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

bulletproof vest partnership grant act of 2000

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are
introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, a bill
to expand an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and
local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for the use by law enforcement
officers. This bill represents another in a series of law enforcement
legislative initiatives on which I have had the privilege to work with
my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. The Senator brings
to the table invaluable experience in this area, from his distinguished
service as a State's attorney in Vermont, a nationally recognized
prosecutor, and as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. We are pleased to be joined in this effort by the
distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator
Hatch, and Senators Thurmond, Bingaman, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Coverdell,
Robb, Schumer, Reed, and Reid.
Two years ago, Congress passed and the President signed into law the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-181), which we
were privileged to introduce. This highly successful Department of
Justice grant program has already funded 92,000 new bulletproof vests
for police officers across the country.
There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our
streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against
violent criminals. As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the
risks which law enforcement officers face every day on the front lines
protecting our communities.
Today, more than ever, violent criminals have bulletproof vests and
deadly weapons at their disposal. In fact, figures from the U.S.
Department of Justice indicate that approximately 150,000 law
enforcement officers--or 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 state and
local officers--do not have access to bulletproof vests.
The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most
important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can
have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives
of more than 1,500 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In
fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers
who do not wear bulletproof vests are 14 times more likely to be killed
by a firearm than those officers who do wear vests. Simply put,
bulletproof vests save lives.
Unfortunately, many police departments do not have the resources to
purchase vests on their own. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act
of 2000 would continue the partnership with state and local law
enforcement agencies to make sure that every police officer who needs a
bulletproof vest gets one. It would do so by authorizing up to $50
million per year for the grant program within the U.S. Department of
Justice. In addition, the program would provide 50-50 matching grants
to state and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes with
under 100,000 residents to assist in purchasing bulletproof vests and
body armor. Finally, this bill will make the purchase of stabproof
vests eligible for grant awards.
While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a
career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure
that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a
vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an
officer can have and often means the difference between life and death.
The United States Senate can help, and I urge our colleagues to support
prompt passage of this legislation.
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. 2413

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed
in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law
enforcement officer in the United States had the protection
of an armor vest;
(2) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law
enforcement officers in the United States were killed in the
line of duty;
(3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the
risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not
wearing an armor vest is 14 times higher than for officers
wearing an armor vest;
(4) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet-
resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000
law enforcement officers in the United States; and
(5) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian
country has risen sharply, despite a decrease in the national
crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety
crisis in Indian country''.

SEC. 3. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR
VESTS.

(a) Matching Funds.--Section 2501(f) of part Y of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796ll(f) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The portion'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The portion'';
(2) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and all that follows
through the period at the end of the first sentence and
inserting ``subsection (a)--
``(A) may not exceed 50 percent; and
``(B) shall equal 50 percent, if--
``(i) such grant is to a unit of local government with
fewer than 100,000 residents;
``(ii) the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance
determines that the quantity of vests to be purchased with
such grant is reasonable; and
``(iii) such portion does not cause such grant to violate
the requirements of subsection (e).''; and
(3) by striking ``Any funds'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Indian assistance.--Any funds''.
(b) Allocation of Funds.--Section 2501(g) of part Y of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Allocation of Funds.--Funds available under this part
shall be awarded, without regard to subsection (c), to each
qualifying unit of local government with fewer than 100,000
residents. Any remaining funds available under this part
shall be awarded to other qualifying applicants.''.
(c) Applications.--Section 2502 of part Y of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796ll-1) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Applications in Conjunction With Purchases.--If an
application under this section is submitted in conjunction
with a transaction for the purchase of armor vests, grant
amounts under this section may not be used to fund any
portion of that purchase unless, before the application is
submitted, the applicant--
``(1) receives clear and conspicuous notice that receipt of
the grant amounts requested in the application is uncertain;
and
``(2) expressly assumes the obligation to carry out the
transaction, regardless of whether such amounts are
received.''.
(d) Definition of Armor Vest.--Section 2503(1) of part Y of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-2(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``means body armor'' and inserting the
following: ``means--
``(A) body armor'';
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) body armor that has been tested through the voluntary
compliance testing program, and found to meet or exceed the
requirements of NIJ Standard 0115.00, or any revision of such
standard;''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(23)
of title I of the Omnibus

[[Page S2630]]

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3793(a)(23)) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, and $50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2004''.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senior Senator from
Colorado in introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of
2000. We worked together closely and successfully with the Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress to pass the Bulletproof
Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 into law. I am pleased that Senator
Hatch is again an original cosponsor of this bill. I am also pleased
that Senators Schumer, Reid of Nevada, Sarbanes, Robb, Bingaman,
Thurmond, Coverdell, and Reed of Rhode Island are joining us as
original cosponsors.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than 40
percent of the 1,182 officers killed by a firearm in the line of duty
since 1980 could have been saved if they had been wearing body armor.
Indeed, the FBI estimates that the risk of fatality to officers while
not wearing body armor is 14 times higher than for officers wearing it.
To better protect our Nation's law enforcement officers, Senator
Campbell and I introduced the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of
1998. President Clinton signed our legislation into law on June 16,
1998 (public law 105-181). The law created a $25 million, 50 percent
matching grant program within the Department of Justice to help state
and local law enforcement agencies purchase body armor for fiscal years
1999-2001.
In its first year of operation, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Program funded 92,000 new bulletproof vests for our Nation's
police officers, including 361 vests for Vermont police officers.
Applications are now available at the program's web site at http://
vests.ojp.gov/ for this year's funds. The entire process of submitting
applications and obtaining federal funds is completed through this web
site.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 builds on the
success of this program by doubling its annual funding to $50 million
for fiscal years 2002-2004. It also improves the program by
guaranteeing jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 residents receive
the full 50-50 matching funds because of the tight budgets of these
smaller communities and by making the purchase of stab-proof vests
eligible for grant awards to protect corrections officers and sheriffs
who face violent criminals in close quarters in local and county jails.
More than ever before, police officers in Vermont and around the
country face deadly threats that can strike at any time, even during
routine traffic stops. Bulletproof vests save lives. It is essential
that we update this law so that many more of our officers who are
risking their lives everyday are able to protect themselves.
In the last Congress, we created the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Program in part in response to the tragic Drega incident along
the Vermont and New Hampshire border. On August 19, 1997, Federal,
State and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New
Hampshire had cornered Carl Drega, after hours of hot pursuit. This
madman had just shot to death two New Hampshire state troopers and two
other victims earlier in the day. In a massive exchange of gunfire with
the authorities, Drega lost his life.
During that shootout, all federal law enforcement officers wore
bulletproof vests, while some state and local officers did not. For
example, Federal Border Patrol Officer John Pfeifer, a Vermonter, who
was seriously wounded in the incident. If it was not for his
bulletproof vest, I would have been attending Officer Pfeifer's wake
instead of visiting him, and meeting his wife and young daughter in the
hospital a few days later. I am relieved that Officer John Pfeifer is
doing well and is back on duty today.
The two New Hampshire state troopers who were killed by Carl Drega
were not so lucky. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. Protective
vests might not have been able to save the lives of those courageous
officers because of the high-powered assault weapons used by this
madman. We all grieve for the two New Hampshire officers who were
killed. Their tragedy underscore the point that all of our law
enforcement officers, whether federal, state or local, deserve the
protection of a bulletproof vest. With that and lesser-known incidents
as constant reminders, I will continue to do all I can to help prevent
loss of life among our law enforcement officers.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 will provide state
and local law enforcement agencies with more of the assistance they
need to protect their officers. Our bipartisan legislation enjoys the
endorsement of many law enforcement organizations, including the
Fraternal Order of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association. In my
home State of Vermont, the bill enjoys the strong support of the
Vermont State Police, the Vermont Police Chiefs Association and many
Vermont sheriffs, troopers, game wardens and other local and state law
enforcement officials.
Since my time as a State prosecutor, I have always taken a keen
interest in law enforcement in Vermont and around the country. Vermont
has the reputation of being one of the safest states in which to live,
work and visit, and rightly so. In no small part, this is due to the
hard work of those who have sworn to serve and protect us. And we
should do what we can to protect them, when a need like this one comes
to our attention.
Our Nation's law enforcement officers put their lives at risk in the
line of duty everyday. No one knows when danger will appear.
Unfortunately, in today's violent world, even a traffic stop may not
necessarily be ``routine.'' Each and every law enforcement officer
across the Nation deserves the protection of a bulletproof vest.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that each and
every law enforcement agency in Vermont and across the Nation can
afford basic protection for their officers.
______

By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 2414. A bill to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the
sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States
and countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution
and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and
assistance to victims of trafficking; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill today. I
would like to thank my colleague, Senator Brownback, for his superb
work. It is called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.
Basically, this is legislation I am doing together with Senator
Brownback. We are very hopeful we will have strong support in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, starting with the chairman.
The long and the short of it, colleagues, is, though, it is hard to
believe, in the year 2000, there are maybe 50,000 women and children
trafficked to our country, maybe as many as 2 million worldwide.
It is a dark, dark feature of this new world economy, where women and
children are basically responding to ads, going to other countries,
believing they will find employment; and they are forced into
prostitution, they are forced into labor, and the conditions are
absolutely atrocious.
It is unbelievable what has happened to these women and children.
Therefore, we put an emphasis on, No. 1, prevention, to make sure that
through AID we get information out to people in other countries, so
women and children are not entrapped in this way.
No. 2, we want to make sure there are alternatives, such as good
microloan programs, like NGOs for women.
No. 3, we put an emphasis on how we can provide some protection,
which has to do with making sure if women step forward they are not
automatically deported. There would be an extension of their visa so
they would be able to speak out without worrying about being deported
from our country. We would make sure there is treatment for women who
have gone through this living hell.
Finally, there would be prosecution. Making it crystal clear to those
who are engaged in trafficking, you are going to be hit with stiff
financial penalties.
Senator Feinstein, who is on the floor, has been a strong supporter
of trying to do something about this, and to make sure that if you are
going to traffic a child under the age of 14 for

[[Page S2631]]

forced prostitution, you are going to serve a life sentence in prison.
We are going to call on the international community to take this
seriously. I believe there will be strong support in the Senate. It
would be a powerful and important human rights piece of legislation.
I am proud to introduce this legislation today. I think we can move
it in committee. I think we can have strong bipartisan support. I thank
Senator Brownback, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, and others for
their interest.
Mr. President, I am here today to introduce legislation to help end
the horrific crime of trafficking in persons, particularly women and
children, for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor.
This egregious human rights violation--and we must acknowledge
trafficking in persons as the gross human rights abuse that it is--is a
worldwide problem that must be confronted in domestic legislation as we
continue to fight it on the international front.
At this very moment the administration is involved in negotiations in
Vienna to strengthen international efforts to combat trafficking. We
too must do our part. We need to enact a comprehensive trafficking bill
into law in this Congress. Senator Brownback and I have worked together
closely to develop the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and
we agree on every provision of the bill except for one. We are here
together today to introduce separate trafficking bills but to relay to
you the truly bipartisan effort this has been. Senator Brownback, I
look forward to continuing this effort as our respective bills move
through the committee and to the floor.
Despite increasing governmental and international interest,
trafficking in persons continues to be one of the darkest aspects of
globalization of the world economy, becoming more insidious and more
widespread everyday. It is not just a problem that takes place on
distant shores, as many of us have been led to believe. A recent CIA
analysis of the international trafficking of women to the United States
reports that as many as 50,000 women and children each year are brought
into the United States and forced to work as prostitutes, forced
laborers, and servants. Others credibly estimate that the number is
probably much higher than that.
In a hearing last week, I heard the almost unbelievable testimony of
several women who had been victims of trafficking. But, I say almost
unbelievable because I heard the truth directly from the mouths of
those who have been hurt the most. One victim trafficked for sex from
Mexico to Florida at the age of 14 told,

Because I was a virgin, the men decided to initiate me by
raping me again and again, to teach me how to have sex * * *
Because I was so young, I was always in demand with the
customers. It was awful. Although the men were supposed to
wear condoms, some didn't so I eventually became pregnant and
was forced to have an abortion.

I am here today to say that one victim is one too many. We have a
serious problem that must be addressed.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 is a comprehensive
bill that addresses the three P's of trafficking: it aims to prevent
trafficking in persons, provides protection and assistance to those who
have been trafficked, and provides for tough prosecution and punishment
of those responsible for trafficking.
This bill addresses the underlying problems which fuel the
trafficking industry by promoting public awareness campaigns, and
initiatives to enhance economic opportunity, such as microcredit
lending programs and skills training, for those most susceptible to
trafficking. It provides for the establishment of programs designed to
assist in the safe reintegration of victims into their community, and
ensures that such programs address the physical and mental health needs
of trafficking victims. In fact, the trauma that results from being
trafficked is not unlike that of someone who has been tortured, and
victims of trafficking deserve similar assistance.
This bill also provides immigration relief and allows victims of
trafficking the time necessary to bring charges against those
responsible for their condition. In the United States, many trafficking
victims are deported for not having the appropriate legal documents
when, in fact, it is often the trafficker who has given the victim
false documents, or held the victim's identifying documents so that he
or she could not move freely. This bill addresses this unintended
result of the law. This measure enhances our existing legal structures,
criminalizing all forms of trafficking in persons and establishing
punishment which is commensurate with the heinous nature of this crime.
It provides for sentences of up to life in prison for those criminals
involved in trafficking children.

Those criminals who are involved in trafficking, from the lowest to
the highest levels, should not expect to go unpunished in the United
States or abroad, and neither should governments whose governments
might be complicit in trafficking. This bill requires an expansion of
reporting on trafficking in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices, including a separate list of countries of origin, transit or
destination for a significant number of trafficking victims which are
not meeting minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. This
bill provides for sanctions against counties which do not meet these
minimum standards. It also authorizes the Secretary of State to publish
a list of foreign persons involved in trafficking, and authorizes the
President to take tough action against any person on that list.
A similar bill to our bills is moving through the House. Both that
bill, H.R. 3244, and the bills that we are introducing today, are
bipartisan efforts that deserve our full consideration. Senator
Brownback and I have worked hard to create a bill that is comprehensive
and addresses both of our concerns, and both of us are equally
committed to the fight against trafficking. We disagree, however, on a
small but significant part of the strategy in this fight: the use of
mandatory versus discretionary sanctions against countries which do not
meet the minimum standards for elimination of trafficking.
While Senator Brownback believes a system of mandatory sanctions will
better facilitate our goal to eliminate trafficking, after much
research into the effect of a mandatory sanctions requirement, I
believe a discretionary sanctions approach, allowing for a more
targeted use of sanctions, together with a requirement for the delivery
to Congress of a separate list of countries involved in trafficking, is
the better approach.
Trafficking exploits poor women and booms in societies undergoing
severe economic distress. To impose economic sanctions in trafficking
legislation that cuts off a broad range of bilateral and multilateral
assistance programs designed to improve the economy of specific nations
is to cause harm to the very people who might be helped by the
legislation.
For example, I don't believe we can justify cutting off funding
designed to foster economic reform so that those most susceptible to
trafficking such as women and children, can find work; or cutting off
funding for programs that increase professionalism and independence in
the judicial system so that traffickers can be held accountable; or
even cutting off programs designed to provide training and technical
assistance to countries which are generally making an effort to combat
trafficking. This is what could happen to certain countries which are
known to have a severe trafficking problem, under a mandatory sanctions
regime. I don't believe we justify cutting off child survival and
disease programs which counter the spread of HIV and AIDS, a
significant problem among women trafficked into the sex industry, to
countries in which sex trafficking is a large problem such as the
Philippines and Bangladesh. These are just a couple of examples of the
problems created by a sanctions regime that is too broad. A more
targeted, discretionary sanctions approach to sanctions is, I think,
clearly the way to go.

By requiring a list of countries involved in trafficking who do not
meet minimum standards for the elimination of it, we can closely
monitor the progress of countries in their fight against trafficking.
Trafficking in persons is a complicated issue that almost always
involves larger criminal elements. Those countries which are truly
committed to ending this gross human rights abuse, and are cooperating
in the global battle against it, should not

[[Page S2632]]

fear the list since they will not be put on it. Those countries which
are not doing their share should expect that the President of the
United States will use his discretion to impose targeted sanctions, and
I for one will do all I can to see that our government imposes
appropriate sanctions against those governments whose officials are
complicit in this terrible crime.
Sanctions can be an important deterrent. However, in my opinion broad
mandatory sanctions within the context of trafficking are not useful. A
discretionary sanctions regime that allows the President--who is, in
fact, better positioned to understand the varying dynamics and extent
of the trafficking problem from country to country--to impose specific,
targeted, and workable sanctions against trafficking countries is a
more sound approach.
I hope my colleagues will take a look at both of these trafficking
bills and cosponsor one or the other as they move forward. These bills
are identical except for the sanctions provision, and both provide the
same broad and comprehensive assistance to trafficking victims and to
countries working to combat trafficking.
Since my wife and I began working on this issue several years ago, I
have met with trafficking victims, after-care providers, and human
rights advocates from around the world who have reminded me again and
again of the horrible nature of this crime. We must intensify our work
to eliminate trafficking in persons. We must focus our energy on this
bipartisan effort to see the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
move quickly through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and get
passed into law this year. The many victims of trafficking deserve no
less.
______

By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Kerry):
S. 2415. A bill to amend the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
of 1994 and other sections of the Truth in Lending Act to protect
consumers against predatory practices in connection with high cost
mortgage transactions, to strengthen the civil remedies available to
consumers under existing law, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

predatory lending consumer protection act of 2000

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Predatory
Lending Consumer Protection Act with Senators Dodd, Kerry, and Schumer.
This legislation is a companion to an identical bill being introduced
by Representative LaFalce in the House of Representatives, along with a
number of his colleagues.
Representative LaFalce has demonstrated his strong commitment to a
banking system that takes into consideration the credit needs of all
Americans, including those that have been traditionally locked out of
the market or are less sophisticated. I thank him for his leadership.
Homeownership is the American Dream. It is the opportunity for all
Americans to put down roots and start creating equity for themselves
and their families. Homeownership has been the path to building wealth
for generations of Americans; it has been the key to ensuring stable
communities, good schools, and safe streets.
The predatory lending industry plays on these hopes and dreams to
cheat people of their hard-earned wealth. These lenders target working
and lower income families, the elderly, and, often, uneducated
homeowners for their abusive practices. To my mind, nothing can be more
cynical.
Let me briefly describe how predatory lenders operate. They target
people with a lot of equity in their homes; they underwrite the
property without regard to the ability of the borrower to pay the loan
back. They make their money by charging extremely high origination
fees, and by ``packing'' other products into the loan, including
upfront premiums for credit life insurance, or credit unemployment
insurance, and others, for which they get significant commissions but
are of no value to the homeowner.
The premiums for these products get financed into the loan, greatly
increasing the loan's total balance amount, sometimes by as much as 50
percent. As a result, the borrower is likely to find himself in extreme
financial distress.
Then, when the trouble hits, the predatory lender will offer to
refinance the loan. Unfortunately, another characteristic of these
loans is that they have prepayment penalties. So, by the time the
refinancing occurs, with all the fees repeated and the prepayment
penalty included, the lender/broker makes a lot of money from the
transaction, and the owner has been stripped of his or her equity and,
oftentimes, his or her home.
The problem is, most of these practices, while unethical and clearly
abusive, are legal. There is a widening sense that this is a serious
problem. Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve Board has recognized
this as an increasing problem, as have the other banking regulators.
For example, the FDIC is considering raising capital standards for all
subprime lending; the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has published
an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) asking for information
and views on these very practices; HUD Secretary Cuomo and Treasury
Secretary Summers have convened a Task Force on this issue. Both Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac have developed a number of products that are
intended to reach out to homeowners with somewhat impaired credit in
order to bring them into the financial mainstream. These companies have
also announced that they will not buy loans with single premium credit
insurance financed into the loan, one of the problems highlighted by
this legislation.
Clearly, there is already some action to address the problem of
predatory lending. But we need to do more. This legislation will outlaw
the most abusive practices, and enable the marketplace to eliminate the
others. This is a very important point. Let me give you an example. The
bill prohibits the financing of more than 3% of a loan in fees for high
cost loans, because it is the financing of fees and premiums on
extraneous products that literally strip the equity out of a person's
home. However, the bill would not prohibit additional fees from being
charged, so we are not regulating profit.
We want to make sure that the loan is affordable to the borrower.
Tying the lender's return to the loan's successful repayment is the
best way to assure this. Now, some people have raised concerns that
limiting the financing of fees will push up interest rates. This may be
true, but it is also better to see the return to the lender reflected
in the interest rate because it is much easier for people to shop on
the basis of the interest rate. As a result, the market will help to
keep rates down. Moreover, higher rate mortgages can always be
refinanced as borrower's credit standing improves.
Mr. President, this legislation has the support of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, the American Association of Retired People,
the National Consumer Law Center, the Self-Help Credit Union of North
Carolina, Consumers Union, Consumers Federation, ACORN, the National
Association of Consumer Advocates, U.S. PIRG and others.
I want to make clear that this bill is aimed at predatory practices.
There are many people who may have had some credit problems who still
need access to affordable credit. They may only be able to get subprime
loans, which charge higher interest rates. Clearly, to get the credit,
they will have to pay somewhat higher rates because of the greater risk
they represent. We want them to be able to get these loans.
But these families should not be stripped of their home equity
through financing of extremely high fees, credit insurance, or
prepayment penalties. They should not be forced into constant
refinancing, losing more and more of the wealth they've taken a
lifetime to build to a new set of fees each and every time.
This legislation will keep credit available, while discouraging or
prohibiting these worst practices. The bill allows lenders to recover
the costs of making their loans, while always leaving the door open to
borrowers to repair their credit and move to lower cost loans.
Taken as a whole, predatory lending practices represent a frontal
assault on homeowners all over America. Today,

[[Page S2633]]

we are coming to their defense. We must stop the American dream of
homeownership from being distorted into a nightmare by these
unscrupulous practices. We want to ensure that all borrowers, whether
in the prime or subprime market, are treated fairly and responsibly.
That is what this legislation is intended to do, and I urge my
colleagues' consideration and support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of
the legislation be printed in the Record.

S. 2415

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 ``Predatory Lending Consumer
Protection Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS IN TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

(a) High Cost Mortgages.--
(1) In general.--The portion of section 103(aa) of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(aa)) that precedes
paragraph (2) of such section is amended to read as follows:
``(aa) Mortgage Referred to in This Subsection.--
``(1) Definition.--
``(A) In general.--A mortgage referred to in this
subsection means a consumer credit transaction--
``(i) that is secured by the consumer's principal dwelling,
other than a reverse mortgage transaction; and
``(ii) the terms of which are described in at least 1 of
the following subclauses:

``(I) The transaction is secured by a first mortgage on the
consumer's principal dwelling and the annual percentage rate
on the credit, at the consummation of the transaction, will
exceed by more than 6 percentage points the yield on Treasury
securities having comparable periods of maturity on the 15th
day of the month immediately preceding the month in which the
application for the extension of credit is received by the
creditor;
``(II) The transaction is secured by a junior or
subordinate mortgage on the consumer's principal dwelling and
the annual percentage rate on the credit, at the consummation
of the transaction, will exceed by more than 8 percentage
points the yield on Treasury securities having comparable
periods of maturity on the 15th day of the month immediately
preceding the month in which the application for the
extension of credit is received by the creditor.
``(III) The total points and fees payable on the
transaction will exceed the greater of 5 percent of the total
loan amount or $1,000.

``(B) Introductory rates not taken into account.--If the
terms of any consumer credit transaction that is secured by
the consumer's principal dwelling offer, for any initial or
introductory period, an annual percentage rate of interest
which--
``(i) is less than the annual percentage rate of interest
which will apply after the end of such initial or
introductory period; or
``(ii) in the case of an annual percentage rate which
varies in accordance with an index, which is less than the
current annual percentage rate under the index which will
apply after the end of such period,

the annual percentage rate of interest that shall be taken
into account for purposes of subclauses (I) and (II) of
subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be the rate described in clause
(i) or (ii) of this subparagraph rather than any rate in
effect during the initial or introductory period.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--Section 103(aa)(2)
of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(aa)(2)) is
amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
(b) Points and Fees.--Section 103(aa)(4) of the Truth in
Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(aa)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) all compensation paid directly or indirectly by a
consumer or a creditor to a mortgage broker;'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F);
and
(3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following new subparagraphs:
``(C) each of the charges listed in section 106(e) (except
an escrow for future payment of taxes and insurance);
``(D) the cost of all premiums financed by the lender,
directly or indirectly, for any credit life, credit
disability, credit unemployment or credit property insurance,
or any other life or health insurance, or any payments
financed by the lender, directly or indirectly, for any debt
cancellation or suspension agreement or contract, except
that, for purposes of this subparagraph, insurance premiums
or debt cancellation or suspension fees calculated and paid
on a monthly basis shall not be considered financed by the
lender;
``(E) any prepayment penalty (as defined in section
129(c)(5)) or other fee paid by the consumer in connection
with an existing loan which is being refinanced with the
proceeds of the consumer credit transaction; and''.
(c) High Cost Mortgage Lender.--
(1) In general.--Section 103(f) of the Truth in Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1602(f)) is amended by striking the last sentence
and inserting ``Any person who originates 2 or more mortgages
referred to in subsection (aa) in any 12-month period, any
person who originates 1 or more such mortgages through a
mortgage broker or acted as a mortgage broker between
originators and consumers on more than 5 mortgages referred
to in subsection (aa) within the preceding 12-month period,
and any creditor-affiliated party shall be considered to be a
creditor for purposes of this title.''.
(2) Creditor-affiliated party defined.--Section 103 of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(cc) Creditor-Affiliated Party.--The term ``creditor-
affiliated party'' means--
(1) any director, officer, employee, or controlling
stockholder of, or agent for, a creditor;
(2) in the case of a creditor which is an insured
depository institution, any other person who has filed or is
required to file a change-in-control notice with the
appropriate Federal banking agency under section 7(j) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and
(3) any shareholder, consultant, joint venture partner, and
any other person, including any independent contractor (such
as an attorney, appraiser, or accountant), who participates
in the conduct of the affairs of, or controls the lending
practices of, a creditor, as determined (by regulation or on
a case-by-case) by the appropriate Federal agency under
subsection (a) or (c) of section 108 with respect to the
creditor.''.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH COST
CONSUMER MORTGAGES.

(a) Additional Disclosures.--Section 129(a)(1) of the Truth
in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(a)(1)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) `The interest rate on this loan is much higher than
most people pay. This means the chance that you will lose
your home is much higher if you do not make all payments
under the loan.'.
``(E) `You may be able to get a loan with a much lower
interest rate. Before you sign any papers, you have the right
to go see a credit and debt counseling service and to consult
other lenders to find ways to get a cheaper loan.'.
``(F) `If you are taking out this loan to repay other
loans, look to see how many months it will take to pay for
this loan and what the total amount is that you will have to
pay before this loan is repaid. Even though the total amount
you will have to pay each month for this loan may be less
than the total amount you are paying each month for those
other loans, you may have to pay on this loan for many more
months than those other loans which will cost you more money
in the end.' ''.
(b) Prepayment Penalty Provisions.--Section 129(c) of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(c)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(c) Prepayment Penalty Provisions.--
``(1) No prepayment penalties after end of 24-month
period.--A mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) may not
contain terms under which a consumer must pay any prepayment
penalty for any payment made after the end of the 24-month
period beginning on the date the mortgage is consummated.
``(2) No prepayment penalties if more than 3 percent of
points and fees were financed.--Subject to subsection (l)(1),
a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) may not contain
terms under which a consumer must pay any prepayment penalty
for any payment made at or before the end of the 24-month
period referred to in paragraph (1) if the creditor financed
points or fees in connection with the consumer credit
transaction in an amount equal to or greater than 3 percent
of the total amount of credit extended in the transaction.
``(3) Limited prepayment penalty for early repayment under
certain circumstances.--Subject to paragraph (2), the terms
of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) may contain
terms under which a consumer must pay a prepayment penalty
for any payment made at or before the end of the 24-month
period referred to in paragraph (1) to the extent the sum of
total amount of points or fees financed by the creditor, if
any, in connection with the consumer credit transaction and
the total amount payable as a prepayment penalty does not
exceed the amount which is equal to 3 percent of the total
amount of credit extended in the transaction.
``(4) Construction.--For purposes of this subsection, any
method of computing a refund of unearned scheduled interest
is a prepayment penalty if it is less favorable to the
consumer than the actuarial method (as that term is defined
in section 933(d) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992).
``(5) Prepayment penalty defined.--The term `prepayment
penalty' means any monetary penalty imposed on a consumer for
paying all or part of the principal with respect to a
consumer credit transaction before the date on which the
principal is due.''.
(c) All Balloon Payments Prohibited.--Section 129(e) of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(e)) is amended by
striking ``having a term of less than 5 years''.
(d) Assessment of Ability to Repay.--Section 129(h) of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(h)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Consumer.--A creditor'' and inserting
``Consumer.--

[[Page S2634]]

``(1) Prohibition on patterns and practices.--A creditor'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Case-by-case assessments of consumer ability to pay
required.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to the prohibition in
paragraph (1) on engaging in certain patterns and practices,
a creditor may not extend any credit in connection with any
mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) unless the creditor
has determined, at the time such credit is extended, that 1
or more of the resident obligors, when considered
individually and collectively, will be able to make the
scheduled payments under the terms of the transaction based
on a consideration of their current and expected income,
current obligations, employment status, and other financial
resources, without taking into account any equity of any such
obligor in the dwelling which is the security for the credit.
``(B) Regulations.--The Board shall prescribe, by
regulation the appropriate format for determining a
consumer's ability to pay and the criteria to be considered
in making any such determination.
``(C) Resident obligor.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `resident obligor' means an obligor for whom the
dwelling securing the extension of credit is, or upon the
consummation of the transaction will be, the principal
residence.
``(3) Verification.--The requirements of paragraphs (1) and
(2) shall not be deemed to have been met unless any
information relied upon by the creditor for purposes of any
such paragraph has been verified by the creditor
independently of information provided by any resident
obligor.''.
(e) Requirements Relating to Home Improvement Contracts.--
Section 129(i) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.
1639(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Improvement Contracts.--A creditor'' and
inserting ``Improvement Contracts.--
``(1) In general.--A creditor''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Affirmative claims and defenses.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, any assignee or holder, in any
capacity, of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) which
was made, arranged, or assigned by a person financing home
improvements to the dwelling of a consumer shall be subject
to all affirmative claims and defenses which the consumer may
have against the seller, home improvement contractor, broker,
or creditor with respect to such mortgage or home
improvements.''.
(f) Clarification of Rescission Rights.--Section 129(j) of
the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(j)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(j) Consequence of Failure to Comply.--
``(1) In general.--If, in the case of a mortgage referred
to in section 103(aa)--
``(A) the mortgage contains a provision prohibited by this
section or does not contain a provision required by this
section; or
``(B) a creditor or other person fails to comply with the
provisions of this section, whether by an act or omission,
with regard to such mortgage at any time,

the consummation of the consumer credit transaction resulting
in such mortgage shall be treated as a failure to deliver the
material disclosures required under this title for the
purpose of section 125.
``(2) Rule of application.--In any application of section
125 to a mortgage described in section 103(aa) under
circumstances described in paragraph (1), paragraphs (2) and
(4) of section 125(e) shall not apply or be taken into
account.''.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH COST CONSUMER
MORTGAGES.

(a) Single Premium Credit Insurance.--Section 129 of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections
(s) and (t), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j), the following new
subsection:
``(k) Single Premium Credit Insurance.--
``(1) In general.--The terms of a mortgage referred to in
section 103(aa) may not require, and no creditor or other
person may require or allow--
``(A) the advance collection of a premium, on a single
premium basis, for any credit life, credit disability, credit
unemployment, or credit property insurance, and any analogous
product; or
``(B) the advance collection of a fee for any debt
cancellation or suspension agreement or contract,

in connection with any such mortgage, whether such premium or
fee is paid directly by the consumer or is financed by the
consumer through such mortgage.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not be
construed as affecting the right of a creditor to collect
premium payments on insurance or debt cancellation or
suspension fees referred to in paragraph (1) that are
calculated and paid on a regular monthly basis, if the
insurance transaction is conducted separately from the
mortgage transaction, the insurance may be canceled by the
consumer at any time, and the insurance policy is
automatically canceled upon repayment or other termination of
the mortgage referred to in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Restriction on Financing Points and Fees.--Section 129
of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by
inserting after subsection (k) (as added by subsection (a) of
this section) the following new subsection:
``(l) Restriction on Financing Points and Fees.--
``(1) Limit on amount of points and fees that may be
financed.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection
(c), no creditor may, in connection with the formation or
consummation of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa),
finance, directly or indirectly, any portion of the points,
fees, or other charges payable to the creditor or any third
party in an amount in excess of the greater of 3 percent of
the total loan amount or $600.
``(2) Prohibition on financing certain points, fees, or
charges.--No creditor may, in connection with the formation
or consummation of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa),
finance, directly or indirectly, any of the following fees or
other charges payable to the creditor or any third party:
``(A) Any prepayment fee or penalty required to be paid by
the consumer in connection with a loan or other extension of
credit which is being refinanced by such mortgage if the
creditor, with respect to such mortgage, or any affiliate of
the creditor, is the creditor with respect to the loan or
other extension of credit being refinanced.
``(B) Any points, fees, or other charges required to be
paid by the consumer in connection with such mortgage if--
``(i) the mortgage is being entered into in order to
refinance an existing mortgage of the consumer that is
referred to in section 103(aa); and
``(ii) if the creditor, with respect to such new mortgage,
or any affiliate of the creditor, is the creditor with
respect to the existing mortgage which is being
refinanced.''.
(c) Creditor Call Provision.--Section 129 of the Truth in
Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting after
subsection (l) (as added by subsection (b) of this section)
the following new subsection:
``(m) Creditor Call Provision.--
``(1) In general.--A mortgage referred to in section
103(aa) may not include terms under which the indebtedness
may be accelerated by the creditor, in the creditor's sole
discretion.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply when
repayment of the loan has been accelerated as a result of a
bona fide default.''.
(d) Prohibition on Actions Encouraging Default.--Section
129 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended
by inserting after subsection (m) (as added by subsection (c)
of this section) the following new subsection:
``(n) Prohibition on Actions Encouraging Default.--No
creditor may make any statement, take any action, or fail to
take any action before or in connection with the formation or
consummation of any mortgage referred to in section 103(aa)
to refinance all or any portion of an existing loan or other
extension of credit, if the statement, action, or failure to
act has the effect of encouraging or recommending the
consumer to default on the existing loan or other extension
of credit at any time before, or in connection with, the
closing or any scheduled closing on such mortgage.''.
(e) Modification or Deferral Fees.--Section 129 of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting
after subsection (n) (as added by subsection (d) of this
section) the following new subsection:
``(o) Modification or Deferral Fees.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
creditor may not charge any consumer with respect to a
mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) any fee or other
charge--
``(A) to modify, renew, extend, or amend such mortgage, or
any provision of the terms of the mortgage; or
``(B) to defer any payment otherwise due under the terms of
the mortgage.
``(2) Exception for modifications for the benefit of the
consumer.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any
fee imposed in connection with any action described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) if--
``(A) the action provides a material benefit to the
consumer; and
``(B) the amount of the fee or charge does not exceed--
``(i) an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the total loan
amount; or
``(ii) in any case in which the total loan amount of the
mortgage does not exceed $60,000, an amount in excess of
$300.''.
(f) Consumer Counseling Requirements.--Section 129 of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting
after subsection (o) (as added by subsection (e) of this
section) the following new subsection:
``(p) Consumer Counseling Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--A creditor may not extend any credit in
the form of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) to any
consumer, unless the creditor has provided to the consumer,
at such time before the consummation of the mortgage and in
such manner as the Board shall provide by regulation, all of
the following:
``(A) All warnings and disclosures regarding the risks of
the mortgage to the consumer.
``(B) A separate written statement recommending that the
consumer take advantage of available home ownership or credit
counseling services before agreeing to the terms of any
mortgage referred to in section 103(aa).
``(C) A written statement containing the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of

[[Page S2635]]

counseling agencies or programs reasonably available to the
consumer that have been certified or approved by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, a State housing
finance authority (as defined in section 1301 of the
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act
of 1989), or the agency referred to in subsection (a) or (c)
of section 108 with jurisdiction over the creditor as
qualified to provide counseling on--
``(i) the advisability of a high cost loan transaction; and
``(ii) the appropriateness of a high cost loan for the
consumer.
``(B) Complete and Updated Lists Required.--Any failure to
provide as complete or updated a list under paragraph (1)(C)
as is reasonably possible shall constitute a violation of
this section.''.
(g) Arbitration.--Section 129 of the Truth in Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting after subsection (p)
(as added by subsection (f) of this section) the following
new subsection:
``(q) Arbitration.--
``(1) In general.--A mortgage referred to in section
103(aa) may not include terms which require arbitration or
any other nonjudicial procedure as the method for resolving
any controversy or settling any claims arising out of the
transaction.
``(2) Post-controversy agreements.--Subject to paragraph
(3), paragraph (1) shall not be construed as limiting the
right of the consumer and the creditor to agree to
arbitration or any other nonjudicial procedure as the method
for resolving any controversy at any time after a dispute or
claim under the transaction arises.
``(3) No waiver of statutory cause of action.--No provision
of any mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) or any
agreement between the consumer and the creditor shall be
applied or interpreted so as to bar a consumer from bringing
an action in an appropriate district court of the United
States, or any other court of competent jurisdiction,
pursuant to section 130 or any other provision of law, for
damages or other relief in connection with any alleged
violation of this section, any other provision of this title,
or any other Federal law.''.
(h) Prohibition on Evasions.--Section 129 of the Truth in
Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting after
subsection (q) (as added by subsection (g) of this section)
the following new subsection:
``(r) Prohibitions on Evasions, Structuring of
Transactions, and Reciprocal Arrangements.--
``(1) In general.--A creditor may not take any action--
``(A) for the purpose or with the intent to circumvent or
evade any requirement of this title, including entering into
a reciprocal arrangement with any other creditor or affiliate
of another creditor or dividing a transaction into separate
parts, for the purpose of evading or circumventing any such
requirement; or
``(B) with regard to any other loan or extension of credit
for the purpose or with the intent to evade the requirements
of this title, including structuring or restructuring a
consumer credit transaction as another form of loan, such as
a business loan.
``(2) Other actions.--In addition to the actions prohibited
under paragraph (1), a creditor may not take any action which
the Board determines, by regulation, constitutes a bad faith
effort to evade or circumvent any requirement of this section
with regard to a consumer credit transaction.
``(3) Regulations.--The Board shall prescribe such
regulations as the Board determines to be appropriate to
prevent circumvention or evasion of the requirements of this
section or to facilitate compliance with the requirements of
this section.''.

SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO RIGHT OF RESCISSION.

(a) Timing of Waiver by Consumer.--Section 125(a) of the
Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1635(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) Except as otherwise provided'' and
inserting ``(a) Right Established.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Timing of election of waiver by consumer.--No
election by a consumer to waive the right established under
paragraph (1) to rescind a transaction shall be effective
if--
``(A) the waiver was required by the creditor as a
condition for the transaction;
``(B) the creditor advised or encouraged the consumer to
waive such right of the consumer; or
``(C) the creditor had any discussion with the consumer
about a waiver of such right during the period beginning when
the consumer provides written acknowledgement of the receipt
of the disclosures and the delivery of forms and information
required to be provided to the consumer under paragraph (1)
and ending at such time as the Board determines, by
regulation, to be appropriate.''.
(b) Noncompliance With Requirements as Recoupment in
Foreclosure Proceeding.--Section 130(e) of the Truth in
Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1640(e)) is amended by inserting after
the 2d sentence the following new sentence: ``This subsection
also does not bar a person from asserting a rescission under
section 125, in an action to collect the debt as a defense to
a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure after the expiration of
the time periods for affirmative actions set forth in this
section and section 125.''.

SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL LIABILITY PROVISIONS.

(a) Increase in Amount of Civil Money Penalties For Certain
Violations.--Section 130(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (15
U.S.C. 1640) is amended--
(1) in (2)(A)(iii), by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting
``$10,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking `` lesser of $500,000
or 1 percentum of the net worth of the creditor'' and
inserting ``the greater of--
``(i) the amount determined by multiplying the maximum
amount of liability under subparagraph (A) for such failure
to comply in an individual action by the number of members in
the certified class; or
``(ii) the amount equal to 2 percent of the net worth of
the creditor.''.
(b) Statute of Limitations Extended For Section 129
Violations.--Section 130(e) of the Truth in Lending Act (15
U.S.C. 1640(e)) (as amended by section 5(b) of this Act) is
amended--
(1) in the 1st sentence, by striking ``Any action'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in the subsequent sentence,
any action''; and
(2) by inserting after the 1st sentence the following new
sentence: ``Any action under this section with respect to any
violation of section 129 may be brought in any United States
district court, or in any other court of competent
jurisdiction, before the end of the 3-year period beginning
on the date of the occurrence of the violation.''.

SEC. 7. AMENDMENT TO FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.

Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681s-2) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e) Duty of Creditors With Respect to High Cost
Mortgages.--
``(1) In general.--Each creditor who enters into a consumer
credit transaction which is a mortgage referred to in section
103(aa), and each successor to such creditor with respect to
such transaction, shall report the complete payment history,
favorable and unfavorable, of the obligor with respect to
such transaction to a consumer reporting agency that compiles
and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis at
least quarterly, or more frequently as required by regulation
or in guidelines established by participants in the secondary
mortgage market, while such transaction is in effect.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
terms `credit' and `creditor' have the same meanings as in
section 103.''.

SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall
publish regulations implementing this Act, and the amendments
made by this Act, in final form before the end of the 6-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
____

Summary of the ``Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2000''

Definition of ``High Cost'' Mortgage: the legislation
tightens the definition of a ``high cost mortgage,'' for
which certain consumer protections are triggered. The new
definition, which amends the ``Home Ownership Equipment
Protection Act,'' is as follows: First mortgages that exceed
Treasury securities by six (6) percentage points; second
mortgages that exceed Treasury securities by eight (8)
percentage points; or mortgages where total points and fees
payable by the borrower exceed the greater of five percent
(5%) of the total loan amount, or $1,000. The bill revises
the definition of points and fees to be more inclusive.
The following key protections are triggered for high cost
mortgages only:
Restrictions on financing of points and fees. The bill
restricts a creditor from directly or indirectly financing
any portion of the points, fees or other charges greater than
3% of the total sum of the loan, or $600. The lender cannot
finance prepayment penalties or points paid by the consumer
if the originator of the loan is refinancing the loan.
Moreover, the lender or any affiliated creditor cannot
finance points and fees for the refinancing of a loan they
originated.
Limitation on the payment of prepayment penalties. The bill
prohibits the lender from imposing prepayment penalties after
the initial 24 month period of the loan. During the first 24
months of a loan, prepayment penalties are limited to the
difference in the amount of closing costs and fees financed
and 3% of the total loan amount.
Prohibition on balloon payments. The bill prohibits the use
of balloon payments.
Limitation on single premium credit insurance. The bill
would prohibit upfront payment or financing of credit life,
credit disability or credit unemployment insurance on a
single premium basis. However, borrowers are free to purchase
such insurance with the regular mortgage payment on a
periodic basis, provided that it is a separate transaction
that can be canceled at any time.
Extension of liability for home improvement contract loans.
The bill would make parent companies and officers of lenders,
or subsequent holders of loans by a contractor, liable for
HOEPA violations if the contractor goes out of business to
avoid liability.
Limitation on mandatory arbitration clauses. The bill
prohibits mortgages from including terms which require
arbitration or other non-judicial settlement as the sole
method of settling claims or disputes arising under the loan
agreement.
Prohibition on requiring rescission of rights. The bill
prohibits a creditor from requiring or encouraging a borrower
to sign an election not to exercise the three-day right to

[[Page S2636]]

rescind or cancel a credit transaction at the same time that
the borrowers receives notice of the right of rescission.
Other provisions in the bill:
Increase statutory damages in individual civil actions and
class actions. The maximum amount that can be awarded in
individual actions is increased to $100,000. The maximum
amount that can be awarded in a class action is the greater
of: (1) the maximum amount of the liability available for an
individual action multiplied by the number of members or (ii)
percent of the net worth of the creditor.
Require that as a condition for making a high cost loan, a
creditor make a determination at the time the loan is
consummated, that the borrower will be able to make the
schedule payments to repay the loan obligation.
Prohibit a lender from making a high cost loan unless it
certifies that it has provided the borrower with certain
information regarding the risks associated with high cost
loans and the availability of home ownership counseling.
Require additional disclosures related to the risks
associated with high cost mortgages.
Prohibit a creditor/lender from: (i) recommending or
encouraging default on an existing loan or other debt prior
to, or in connection with, a closing on a high cost loan,
(ii) including any provision which permits the creditor, in
its sole discretion, to accelerate the indebtedness under the
loan, or (iii) charging a borrower any fee to modify a high-
cost loan or defer payment due under such high cost loan
unless it provides a material benefit to the borrower.
Require that a creditor annually report both favorable and
unfavorable payment history of borrowers to credit bureaus.

____________________