[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 91 (Friday, July 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6842-S6846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S6842]]
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 2872. A bill to improve the cause of action for misrepresentation 
of Indian arts and crafts; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


             indian arts and crafts enforcement act of 2000

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Bingaman and Kyl in introducing legislation that makes much-
needed amendment to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (the Act).
  In 1989 and 1990 I had the pleasure of working on legislation that 
became the 1990 Act which was enacted with two goals in mind: (1) to 
promote the market for Indian arts and crafts; and (2) to enforce the 
provisions of the Act to protect the integrity of authentic Indian 
goods and Indian artisans.
  Today's market for Indian-made goods is roughly $1 billion, but by 
some estimates half of that demand, or nearly $500 million, is 
satisfied by counterfeit goods, much of which is produced off-shore and 
imported illegally into the United States.
  The growing influx of inauthentic Indian arts and crafts has not only 
weakened the market and consumer confidence in Indian goods, but has 
also endangered traditional Indian customs and practices.
  Native communities are plagued by rampant unemployment and a stagnant 
economy, and the growing influx of inauthentic Indian arts and crafts 
continues to decimate one of the few forms of entrepreneurship and 
economic development on Indian reservations.
  In addition, this influx also erodes the propagation and practice of 
traditional beliefs and customs by Native people and must be stopped 
for that reason alone.
  Under the existing Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Board (``IACB'') 
is charged with not only promoting Indian arts and crafts, but also has 
a key role in the enforcement of the Act's civil and criminal 
provisions. In this role the IACB is required by law to work with the 
Department of justice to bring complaints against potential violators 
of the Act.
  As of July, 2000, neither the IACB nor the Department of Justice have 
produced the kind of enforcement results Congress intended when it 
enacted the 1990 Act. In fact, there has yet to be a single criminal or 
civil prosecution of the Act, with Indian tribes themselves being 
forced to take up the slack.
  The bill that I am introducing today, would improve enforcement of 
the Act by (1) enhancing the ability of the plaintiff to assess and 
calculate damages; (2) authorizing Indian arts and crafts organizations 
and individual Indians to bring suit for alleged violations of the Act; 
(3) authorizing a portion of the damages collected to reimburse the 
IACB for the costs of its role in investigating and bringing about the 
successful prosecution of the suit; and (4) requiring more precise 
definitions through the regulations process.
  This bill will provide the tools needed to stem the flow of these 
goods, protect legitimate Indian artisans, and eliminate the economic 
incentive to steal from Native people that which is theirs.
  I am hopeful that this legislation will signal a new day in the 
enforcement of the Act and encourage both the economic and cultural 
benefits of authentic Indian arts and crafts.
  I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. I thank the 
Chair and yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2872

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Arts and Crafts 
     Enforcement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL ACTION PROVISIONS.

       Section 6 of the Act entitled ``An Act to promote the 
     development of Indian arts and crafts and to create a board 
     to assist therein, and for other purposes'' (25 U.S.C. 305e) 
     (as added by section 105 of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-644; 104 Stat. 4664)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     directly or indirectly,'' after ``against a person who''; and
       (B) by inserting the following flush language after 
     paragraph (2)(B):

     ``For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), damages shall include any 
     and all gross profits accrued by the defendant as a result of 
     the activities found to violate this subsection.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) by an Indian arts and crafts organization on behalf 
     of itself, or by an Indian on behalf of himself or 
     herself.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``the amount recovered the amount'' and 
     inserting ``the amount recovered--
       ``(i) the amount''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) the amount for the costs of investigation awarded 
     pursuant to subsection (b) and reimburse the Board the amount 
     of such costs incurred as a direct result of Board activities 
     in the suit; and'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``subject to 
     subsection (f),'' after ``(2)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of the Indian Arts and Crafts Enforcement Act of 2000, the 
     Board shall promulgate regulations to include in the 
     definition of the term `Indian product' specific examples of 
     such product to provide guidance to Indian artisans as well 
     as to purveyors and consumers of Indian arts and crafts, as 
     defined under this Act.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 2873. A bill to provide for all right, title, and interest in and 
to certain property in Washington County, Utah, to be vested in the 
United States; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


   legislation regarding certain property in washington county, utah

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
will bring to a close the Federal acquisition of an important piece of 
private property in Washington County, Utah.
  As some of my colleagues are aware, in March of 1991, the desert 
tortoise was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered 
Species Act. Government and environmental researchers determined that 
the land immediately north of St. George, Utah, was prime desert 
tortoise habitat. Consequently, in February 1996, nearly five years 
after the listing, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 
issued Washington County a section 10 permit under the Endangered 
Species Act, and a habitat conservation plan [HCP] and an 
implementation agreement were adopted. Under the plan and agreement, 
the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] assumed an obligation to acquire 
private lands in the designated habitat area to form the Red Cliffs 
Reserve for the protection of the desert tortoise.
  One of the private land owners within the reserve is Environmental 
Land Technology, Limited [ELT], which had earlier acquired 
approximately 2,440 acres from the State of Utah for purposes of 
residential and recreational development. In the years preceding the 
adoption of the habitat conservation plan, ELT completed appraisals, 
cost estimates, engineering studies, site plans, surveys, utility 
layouts, right-of-way negotiations, staked out golf courses, and 
obtained water rights for the development of this land. Prior to the 
adoption of the HCP, it was not clear which lands the Federal and local 
governments would decide to set aside for the desert tortoise, although 
it was assumed that there was sufficient surrounding Federal lands to 
provide adequate habitat. However, in 1996, with the creation of the 
Red Cliffs Reserve, which included land belonging to ELT, all 
development efforts were halted.
  With assurances from the Federal Government that the acquisition of 
the ELT development lands was a high priority, the owner negotiated 
with, and entered into, an assembled land exchange agreement with the 
BLM in anticipation of intrastate land exchanges. The private land 
owner then began a costly process of identifying comparable Federal 
lands within the State that would be suitable for an exchange for its 
lands in Washington County. Over the last four years, BLM and the 
private land owners, including ELT have completed several exchanges, 
and the Federal Government has acquired, through those exchanges or 
direct purchases, nearly all of the Private property located within the 
reserve, except for approximately 1,516 acres of the ELT development 
land. However, with the creation of the Grand Staircase National 
Monument in September 1996,

[[Page S6843]]

and the subsequent land exchanges between the State of Utah and the 
Federal Government for the consolidation of Federal lands within the 
monument, there are no longer sufficient comparable Federal lands 
within Utah to complete the originally contemplated intrastate 
exchanges for the remainder of the ELT development land within the 
reserve.
  Faced with this problem, and in light of the high priority the 
Department of the Interior has placed on acquiring these lands, BLM 
officials recommended that the ELT lands be acquired by direct 
purchase. During the FY 2000 budget process, BLM proposed that $30 
million be set aside to begin acquiring the remaining lands in 
Washington County. Unfortunately, because this project involves 
endangered species habitat and the USFWS is responsible for 
administering activities under the Endangered Species Act, the Office 
of Management and Budget shifted the $30 million from the BLM budget 
request to the USFWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund 
budget request. Ultimately, however, none of those funds were made 
available for BLM acquisitions within the Federal section of the 
reserve. Instead, the funds in that account were made available on a 
matching basis for the use of individual States to acquire wildlife 
habitat. The result of this bureaucratic fumbling has resulted in 
extreme financial hardship for ELT.
  The development lands within the Red Cliffs Reserve are ELT's main 
asset. The establishment of the Washington County HCP has effectively 
taken this property from this private land owner and has prevented ELT 
from developing or otherwise disposing of the property. ELT has had to 
expend virtually all of its resources to hold the property while 
awaiting the compensation to which it is legally entitled. ELT has had 
to sell its remaining assets, and the private land owner has also had 
to sell assets, including his home, to simply hold the property. It is 
now impossible for him to hold the property any longer. This situation 
is made more egregious by the failure of the Department of the Interior 
to request any acquisition funding for FY 2001, even though this 
acquisition has been designated a high priority. Over the past several 
years, ELT has pursued all possible avenues to complete the acquisition 
of these lands. The private land owner has spent millions of dollars 
pursuing both intrastate and interstate land exchanges and has worked 
cooperatively with the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, all 
of these efforts have been fruitless thus far. Absent the enactment of 
this legislation, the land owner faces financial ruin. The failure of 
the government to timely discharge an acknowledged obligation has 
forced this private land owner to liquidate his business and personal 
assets and effectively carry the burden of a large portion of the Red 
Cliffs Reserve on his back. This is clearly not how the government 
should treat its citizens.
  The legislative taking bill that I am introducing today will finally 
bring this acquisition to a close. In my view, a legislative taking 
should be an action of last resort. But, if ever a case warranted 
legislative condemnation, this is it. This bill will transfer all 
right, title, and interest in the ELT development property within the 
Red Cliffs Reserve, including an additional 34 acres of landlocked real 
property owned by ELT which is adjacent to the land within the reserve, 
to the Federal Government. It provides an initial payment to ELT to pay 
off existing debts accrued in holding the property, and provides 90 
days during which ELT and the Department of the Interior can attempt to 
reach a negotiated settlement on the remaining value of the property. 
In the absence of a negotiated amount, the Secretary of the Interior 
will be required to bring an action in the Federal District Court for 
the District of Utah to determine a value for the land. Payment for the 
land, whether negotiated or determined by the court, will be made from 
the permanent judgment appropriation or any other appropriate account, 
or, at the option of the land owner, the Secretary of the Interior will 
credit a surplus property account, established and maintained by the 
General Services Administration, which the land owner can then use to 
bid on surplus government property.
  This legislation is consistent with the high priority the Department 
of the Interior has repeatedly placed on this land acquisition, and is 
a necessary final step towards an equitable resolution for this private 
land owner. The time for pursuing other options has long since expired. 
I encourage my colleagues to support the timely enactment of this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. Robb, Mr. Mack, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 2874. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the provision taxing policyholder dividends of mutual life insurance 
companies and to repeal the policyholders surplus account provisions; 
to the Committee on Finance.


             life insurance tax simplification act of 2000

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
simplify the taxation of life insurance companies under the Internal 
Revenue Code. This bill repeals two sections of the Code that no longer 
serve valid tax policy goals, section 809 and section 815.
  Section 809, which was enacted in 1984 as part of an overhaul of the 
taxation of life insurance companies, disallows a deduction for some of 
the dividends that mutual life insurance companies pay to their 
policyholders. It was enacted at a time when mutual life insurance 
companies were thought to be the dominant segment of the industry and 
was intended to ensure that stock life insurance companies were not 
competitively disadvantaged. Since that time, however, the number of 
mutual life insurance companies has dwindled while the number of stock 
life insurance companies has grown and the industry estimates that 
mutual life insurance companies will constitute less than ten percent 
of the industry within a few years. The section 809 tax has not been a 
significant component of the taxes paid by life insurance companies but 
it has been burdensome because of its unpredictable nature and 
complexity. Moreover, the original reason for its enactment no longer 
exists. Therefore, the bill would repeal section 809.
  Section 815 was enacted in 1959 along with other changes to the 
taxation of life insurance companies. The 1959 changes permitted life 
insurance companies to defer tax on one-half of their underwriting 
income so long as such income was not distributed to their 
shareholders. The tax deferred income was accounted for through 
``policyholder surplus accounts.'' In 1984, Congress revised the 
taxation of mutual and stock life insurance companies and as part of 
these revisions, stock life insurance companies were no longer 
permitted to defer tax on one half of their underwriting income or add 
to their policyholder surplus accounts. At the same time, Congress did 
not eliminate the existing policyholder surplus accounts or trigger tax 
on the accrued amounts but instead left them in place. Thus, the 
amounts in those accounts remain subject to tax only when a triggering 
event occurs (for example, direct or indirect distributions to 
shareholders). Since 1984, little revenue has been collected under this 
provision as companies avoid triggering events. The Administration 
recently has proposed taxing the amounts in the accounts, creating 
uncertainty for companies with these accounts. Finally, only life 
insurance companies that were in existence in 1984 even have these 
accounts. The bill would repeal this provision.
  Elimination of these complicated and outmoded provisions will provide 
greater certainty to the taxation of these companies and allow them to 
restructure their businesses to compete in the developing global 
financial services marketplace. While this bill is only a modest 
attempt to simplify the taxation of one sector of our economy, it 
represents a first step towards overall simplification of our Internal 
Revenue Code.
  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. 2874

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

[[Page S6844]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Life Insurance Tax 
     Simplification Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF DEDUCTIONS FOR MUTUAL LIFE 
                   INSURANCE COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 809 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to reductions in certain deductions of 
     mutual life insurance companies) is hereby repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsections (a)(2)(B) and (b)(1)(B) of section 807 of 
     such Code are each amended by striking ``the sum of (i)'' and 
     by striking ``plus (ii) any excess described in section 
     809(a)(2) for the taxable year,''.
       (2)(A) The last sentence of section 807(d)(1) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``section 809(b)(4)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (6)''.
       (B) Subsection (d) of section 807 of such Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Statutory reserves.--The term `statutory reserves' 
     means the aggregate amount set forth in the annual statement 
     with respect to items described in section 807(c). Such term 
     shall not include any reserve attributable to a deferred and 
     uncollected premium if the establishment of such reserve is 
     not permitted under section 811(c).''
       (3) Subsection (c) of section 808 of such Code is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(c) Amount of Deduction.--The deduction for policyholder 
     dividends for any taxable year shall be an amount equal to 
     the policyholder dividends paid or accrued during the taxable 
     year.''
       (4) Subparagraph (A) of section 812(b)(3) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``sections 808 and 809'' and inserting 
     ``section 808''.
       (5) Subsection (c) of section 817 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``(other than section 809)''.
       (6) Subsection (c) of section 842 of such Code is amended 
     by striking paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraph (4) 
     as paragraph (3).
       (7) The table of sections for subpart C of part I of 
     subchapter L of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 809.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF POLICYHOLDERS SURPLUS ACCOUNT PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 815 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to distributions to shareholders from pre-
     1984 policyholders surplus account) is hereby repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 801 of such Code is amended by striking 
     subsection (c).
       (2) The table of sections for subpart D of part I of 
     subchapter L of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 815.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Thurmond, 
        Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2875. A bill to amend titles 18 and 28, United States Code, with 
respect to United States magistrate judges; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                magistrate judge improvement act of 2000

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senators Hatch, Leahy, Thurmond, Torricelli, and Grassley, to introduce 
the Magistrate Judge Improvement Act of 2000. We are introducing this 
legislation because we believe that the modest reforms it seeks to make 
will greatly enhance the efficiencies and effectiveness of the Federal 
court system. In fact, the changes proposed by this legislation are 
based on recommendations made by the Judicial Conference and the 
Magistrate Judges Association, and this legislation has the strong 
support of both organizations. I do not believe that this legislation 
is controversial, and I encourage my colleagues to join in support of 
this initiative.
  Over the years, Congress has repeatedly recognized the important role 
that magistrate judges have in helping to ensure the smooth and 
efficient functioning of the federal judicial system. For example, 
Congress has deemed it appropriate to allow magistrate judges to have 
final disposition authority, with the consent of the parties, in civil 
and misdemeanor cases pending before a district court. This was done, 
in part, to help federal district courts better manage their dockets by 
providing litigants with a viable alternative that they could utilize 
in the resolution of their claims. Despite the fact that magistrate 
judges have been asked to play a greater role in adjudicating cases 
that had traditionally been tried before district courts, magistrates 
have not been granted the same powers that district courts enjoy to 
enforce their oral and written orders or even to maintain order in 
their courtrooms. The Magistrate Judge Improvement Act of 2000 seeks to 
correct this imbalance, while also making additional reforms that will 
greatly enhance the efficiencies provided by magistrate courts. In 
particular, this legislation will make three important, and common-
sense reforms.
  First: The bill will grant magistrate judges limited contempt 
authority in criminal and civil cases. Under current law, magistrate 
judges do not have any contempt authority at all, and are required to 
certify any instances of improper behavior to a district court judge 
for resolution. This lack of authority undermines the magistrate judges 
ability to ensure compliance with their orders, and to control 
disorderly behavior in their courtroom. By giving magistrate judges 
contempt authority, Congress will greatly enhance their ability to 
assist district courts in the application of federal law.
  Second: The bill will improve district court efficiency by empowering 
magistrate judges to handle all petty offense cases without the consent 
of the defendant. Current law already allows magistrate judges to try 
Class B misdemeanors charging a motor vehicle offense and all Class C 
misdemeanors and infractions without the consent of the defendant. By 
expanding this authority to encompass all Class B misdemeanors, instead 
of just those involving motor vehicle offenses, we will help reduce the 
dockets of the district courts as they will no longer be the primary 
forum for resolving a wide variety of relatively minor offenses.
  Third: The bill will grant magistrate judges the ability to enter 
sentences of incarceration in juvenile misdemeanor cases. Under current 
law, magistrate judges are empowered to try and sentence juvenile 
defendants accused of Class B and Class C misdemeanor offenses; 
however, they are precluded from entering sentences of imprisonment. 
This is an unusual lack of authority because magistrates are empowered 
under current law to order the pretrial detention of juvenile 
defendants who have committed felonies. This legislation remedies this 
situation by granting magistrate judges the ability to enter minimal 
sentences of incarceration in the misdemeanor cases they adjudicate. In 
addition, the legislation extends the scope of magistrate judge 
authority to ensure that they are empowered to preside over all classes 
of misdemeanor offenses, including Class A misdemeanors.
  As you can see, these are all sensible and reasonable reforms and 
their enactment into law will go a long way towards strengthening an 
important component of our Federal Judiciary. I urge my colleagues to 
join in support of this legislation, and I look forward to working with 
them in the hopes of getting this bill passed before Congress adjourns 
for the year. I ask that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2875

       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 ``Magistrate Judge Improvement 
     Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONTEMPT AUTHORITY.

       Section 636(e) of title 28, United States Code is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(e) Magistrate Judge Contempt Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--A United States magistrate judge serving 
     under this chapter shall have within the territorial 
     jurisdiction prescribed by his or her appointment the power 
     to exercise contempt authority as set forth in this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Summary criminal contempt authority.--A magistrate 
     judge shall have the power to punish summarily by fine or 
     imprisonment such contempt of the authority of that 
     magistrate judge constituting misbehavior of any person in 
     the presence of the magistrate judge so as to obstruct the 
     administration of justice. The order of contempt shall be 
     issued pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
       ``(3) Additional criminal contempt authority in civil 
     consent and misdemeanor cases.--In any case in which a United 
     States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the 
     parties under subsection (c) of this section, and in any 
     misdemeanor case proceeding before a magistrate judge under 
     section 3401 of title 18, the magistrate judge shall have the 
     power to punish by fine or imprisonment such criminal 
     contempt constituting disobedience or resistance to the 
     lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the 
     magistrate judge. Disposition of such contempt shall be 
     conducted upon notice and hearing pursuant to the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure.

[[Page S6845]]

       ``(4) Civil contempt authority in civil consent and 
     misdemeanor cases.--In any case in which a United States 
     magistrate judge presides with the consent of the parties 
     under subsection (c) of this section, and in any misdemeanor 
     case proceeding before a magistrate judge under section 3401 
     of title 18, the magistrate judge may exercise the civil 
     contempt authority of the district court. This paragraph 
     shall not be construed to limit the authority of a magistrate 
     judge to order sanctions pursuant to any other statute, the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Federal Rules of 
     Criminal Procedure.
       ``(5) Criminal contempt penalties.--The sentence imposed by 
     a magistrate judge for any criminal contempt set forth in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection shall not exceed 
     the penalties for a class C misdemeanor as set forth in 
     sections 3571(b)(6) and 3581(b)(8) of title 18.
       ``(6) Certification of other contempts to the district 
     judge.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon the commission of any act described 
     in subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) the magistrate judge shall promptly certify the facts 
     to a district judge and may serve or cause to be served upon 
     any person whose behavior is brought into question under this 
     paragraph an order requiring such person to appear before a 
     district judge upon a day certain to show cause why such 
     person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the 
     facts so certified; and
       ``(ii) the district judge shall hear the evidence as to the 
     act or conduct complained of and, if it is such as to warrant 
     punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the 
     same extent as for a contempt committed before a district 
     judge.
       ``(B) Acts described.--An act is described in this 
     subparagraph if it is--
       ``(i) in any case in which a United States magistrate judge 
     presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c) 
     of this section, or in any misdemeanor case proceeding before 
     a magistrate judge under section 3401 of title 18, an act 
     that may, in the opinion of the magistrate judge, constitute 
     a serious criminal contempt punishable by penalties exceeding 
     those set forth in paragraph (5) of this subsection; or
       ``(ii) in any other case or proceeding under subsection (a) 
     or (b), or any other statute--

       ``(I) an act committed in the presence of the magistrate 
     judge that may, in the opinion of the magistrate judge, 
     constitute a serious criminal contempt punishable by 
     penalties exceeding those set forth in paragraph (5);
       ``(II) an act that constitutes a criminal contempt that 
     occurs outside the presence of the magistrate judge; or
       ``(III) an act that constitutes a civil contempt.

       ``(7) Appeals of magistrate judge contempt orders.--The 
     appeal of an order of contempt issued pursuant to this 
     section shall be made to the court of appeals in any case 
     proceeding under subsection (c). The appeal of any other 
     order of contempt issued pursuant to this section shall be 
     made to the district court.''.

     SEC. 3. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AUTHORITY IN PETTY OFFENSE CASES.

       (a) Title 18, United States Code.--Section 3401(b) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``that is a class B'' and all that follows through 
     ``infraction''.
       (b) Title 28, United States Code.--Section 636(a) of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (4) 
     and (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) the power to enter a sentence for a petty offense; 
     and
       ``(5) the power to enter a sentence for a class A 
     misdemeanor in a case in which the parties have consented.''.

     SEC. 4. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AUTHORITY IN CASES INVOLVING 
                   JUVENILES.

       Section 3401(g) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The magistrate judge may, in a petty offense 
     case involving a juvenile, exercise all powers granted to the 
     district court under chapter 403 of this title.'';
       (2) in the second sentence by striking ``any other class B 
     or C misdemeanor case'' and inserting ``the case of any 
     misdemeanor, other than a petty offense,''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING:
  S. 2876. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to enhance privacy 
protections for individuals, to prevent fraudulent misuse of the social 
security account number, and to provide additional safeguards for 
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with 
representative payees, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


              PRIVACY AND IDENTITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that is designed to protect the privacy of all Americans from identity 
theft caused by theft or abuse of an individual's Social Security 
number (SSN).
  Mr. President, identity theft is the fastest growing financial crime 
in the nation, affecting an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 people 
annually. Allegations of fraudulent Social Security number use for 
identity theft increased from 26,531 cases in 1998 to 62,000 in 1999--
this is a 233 percent increase in just one year!
  In May of this year, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse released a 
report that found of the more than 75% of identity theft crimes that 
took place last year, ``true name'' fraud was involved. What is ``true 
name'' fraud?
  It is when someone uses your Social Security number to open new 
accounts in the victim's name. That means a common criminal can apply 
for credit cards, buy a car, obtain personal, business, auto or real 
estate loans, do just about anything in your name and you may not even 
know about it for months or even years. Across the country there are 
people who can tell you about losing their life savings or having their 
credit history damaged, simply because someone had obtained their 
Social Security number and fraudulently assumed their identity.
  My bill prohibits the sale of Social Security numbers by the private 
sector, Federal, State and local government agencies. My bill 
strengthens existing criminal penalties for enforcement of Social 
Security number violations to include those by government employees. It 
amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to include the Social Security 
number as part of the information protected under the law, enhances law 
enforcement authority of the Office of Inspector General, and allows 
Federal courts to order defendants to make restitution to the Social 
Security Trust Funds.
  Mr. President, I think that it is high time that we get back to the 
original purpose of the Social Security number. Social Security numbers 
were designed to be used to track workers and their earnings so that 
their benefits could be accurately calculated when a worker retires--
nothing else.
  My bill would also prohibit the display of Social Security numbers on 
drivers licenses, motor vehicle registration and other related 
identification records, like the official Senate ID Card.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this very important piece of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 2877. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a feasibility study on water optimization in the Burnt River basin, 
Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, 
Oregon; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


              IMPROVED WATER MANAGEMENT IN EASTERN OREGON

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation 
that will allow the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility 
study on ways to improve water management in the Malheur, Owyhee, 
Powder and Burnt River basins in northeastern Oregon. An earlier study 
by the Bureau identified a number of problems on these four Snake River 
tributaries, including high water temperatures and degraded fish 
habitat.
  These types of problems are not unique to these rivers; in fact, many 
rivers in the Pacific Northwest are in a similar condition. However, 
Oregon has a unique approach to solving these problems through the work 
of Watershed Councils. In these Councils, local farmers, ranchers and 
other stakeholders sit down together with the resource agencies to 
develop action plans to solve local problems.
  The Council members have the local knowledge of the land and waters, 
but they don't have technical expertise. The Bureau of Reclamation has 
the expertise to collect the kinds of water flow and water quality data 
that are needed to understand how the watershed works and how effective 
different solutions might be.
  One class of possible solutions includes small-scale construction 
projects, such as upgrading of irrigation systems and creation of 
wetlands to act as pollutant filters. This legislation would allow the 
Bureau of Reclamation to partner with the Watershed Councils in 
determining how such small-scale construction projects might benefit 
both the environment and the local economy.
  This bill authorizes a study; it does not authorize actual 
construction. It simply enables the Bureau to help find the most 
logical solution to resource management issues.

[[Page S6846]]

  I look forward to a hearing on this bill in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. I welcome my colleague, Mr. 
Smith, as an original co-sponsor of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2877

       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 ``Burnt, Malheur, Owyhee, and 
     Powder River Basin Water Optimization Feasibility Study Act 
     of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. STUDY.

       The Secretary of the Interior may conduct a feasibility 
     study on water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur 
     River basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, 
     Oregon.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

                          ____________________