[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 102 (Wednesday, September 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8105-S8114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 3005. A bill to require country origin labeling of all forms of
ginseng; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
ginseng truth in labeling act of 2000
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a package of
legislation (S. 3005 and S. Res. 348) that addresses the increased
amount of smuggled and mis-labeled ginseng entering this country.
This legislation provides for some common sense reforms that would
require country-of-origin labeling for ginseng products, and express
the Sense of the Senate that customs should put a stop to the flow of
smuggled ginseng into the United States. My legislation will push for
stricter enforcement of ginseng importation and allow consumers the
information they need to determine the origin of the ginseng they buy.
smuggling-labeling problem
Mr. President, Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng
for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes.
In America, ginseng is experiencing a newfound popularity, and I am
proud to say that my home state of Wisconsin is playing a central role
in ginseng's resurgence.
Wisconsin produces 97 percent of the ginseng grown in the United
States, and 85 percent of the country's ginseng is grown in Marathon
County.
The ginseng industry is an economic boon to Marathon County, as well
as an example of the high quality for which Wisconsin's agriculture
industry is known.
Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because
it is considered to be of the highest quality and because it has a
lower pesticide and chemical content.
With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and
growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's
ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead.
Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious
problem--smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is
considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go
to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as
``Wisconsin-grown.''
Here's how the switch takes place: Smugglers take Asian or Canadian-
grown ginseng and ship it to plants in China, allegedly to have the
ginseng sorted into various grades.
While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing
ginseng, smugglers often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng
with the Asian or Canadian ginseng considered inferior by consumers.
The smugglers know that while Chinese-grown ginseng has a retail
value of about $5-$6 per pound, while Wisconsin-grown ginseng is valued
at roughly $16-$20 per pound.
To make matters even tougher for Wisconsin's ginseng farmers, there
is no accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown,
other than testing for pesticides that are legal in Canada and China
but are banned in the United States.
And in some cases, smugglers can even find ways around the pesticide
tests. A recent ConsumerLab.com study confirmed that much of the
ginseng sold in the U.S. contained harmful chemicals and metals, such
as lead and arsenic.
And that's because the majority of Ginseng sold in the U.S.
originates from countries with lower pesticide standards, so it's
vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in
Wisconsin
consumer/producer impact
For the sake of ginseng farmers and consumers, the U.S. Senate must
crack down on smuggled and mislabeled ginseng.
Without adequate labeling, consumers have no way of knowing the most
basic information about the ginseng they purchase--where it was grown,
what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous
pesticides.
The country of origin labeling is a simple but effective way to
enable consumers to make an informed decision. And putting the U.S.
Senate on record in support of cracking down on ginseng smuggling is an
important first step toward putting an end to the illegal ginseng
trade.
The lax enforcement of smuggled ginseng also puts our producers on an
unfair playing field. The mixing of superior Wisconsin ginseng with
lower quality foreign ginseng root penalizes the grower and eliminates
the incentive to provide the consumer with a superior product.
Mr. President, we must give ginseng growers the support they deserve
by implementing country-of-origin labeling that lets consumers make in
formed choices about the ginseng that they consume.
We must ensure when ginseng consumers reach for a quality ginseng
product--such as Wisconsin grown ginseng--that they are getting the
real thing, not a cheap imitation.
______
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 3006. A bill to remove civil liability barriers surrounding
donating fire equipment to volunteer fire companies; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
[[Page S8106]]
the good samaritan volunteer firefighter assistance act
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the
Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2000. This bill
will assist our nation's volunteer firefighters, who daily risk their
lives to protect our families, friends and neighbors. The legislation I
am introducing will allow volunteer fire departments to accept much
needed fire-fighting supplies from manufacturers and others by limiting
the liability of companies and fire departments that donate certified
surplus equipment.
In the United States today, the local fire department is expected to
be protector of life, property and environmental safety concerns. Many
communities must rely on the capable and courageous men and women in
the local volunteer fire department to protect lives and safety. In
fact, 75 percent of firefighters in this country are volunteers. Most
volunteer departments serve small, rural communities and are quite
often the only fire fighting services available for these areas.
Unfortunately, one of the largest problems faced by volunteer fire
services is lack of sufficient resources. Too often, these departments
are struggling to provide their members with adequate protective
clothing, safety devices and training programs.
In my home state of Missouri, there are approximately 450 fire
departments throughout the state that have a budget of less than
$15,000 per year. Many have budgets under $7,000/year and there are
even some under $2,000/year. After paying insurance premiums, most
departments do not even have $5,000 in their operating budgets. This is
simply not enough money to purchase new and much needed fire-fighting
equipment. In addition, the cost of fire and emergency medical
apparatus and equipment has steadily increased over the past 20-30
years. Because of this, volunteer firefighters spend a large amount of
time raising money for new equipment; time that could be better spent
providing training to respond to emergencies.
Fire protection equipment is constantly improving and advancing with
new state-of-the-art innovation. Because industry is constantly
updating its fire protection, it is not unusual for plants and
factories to accumulate surplus fire equipment that is slightly dated,
but still effective, and most is almost new, or never used. Despite the
excellent condition of most of these surplus items, company attorneys
usually refuse to allow donations to fire departments, which
desperately need this equipment. Companies routinely destroy surplus
equipment to guarantee it will never be used by other firefighters.
Pressure bottles for breathing apparatus are cut in half and the
regulators buried. Protective fire coats are cut apart. Fire trucks are
broken up and sold for scrap. All of this is done to prevent any
liability from falling on corporate donors. Approximately $20 million
per year in surplus equipment is scrapped, while a lot of rural
departments go without the most basic supplies, such as protective
clothing. Tragically, each year millions of dollars worth of fire
equipment is destroyed instead of donated to these volunteer fire
departments.
Mr. President, it does not make sense that quality fire-fighting
tools are destroyed because of fear of liability by those who wish to
donate their unused equipment. According to some estimates, over
800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save state and local
governments $36.8 billion annually. We need to support the volunteer
fire departments, and Congress should start by removing liability
barriers that keep volunteer firefighters from receiving perfectly
safe, donated equipment. Under this bill a person who donates qualified
fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company will
not be liable in civil damages in any State or Federal Court for
personal injuries, property damage, or death proximately caused by a
defect in the equipment. In order to protect firefighters from faulty
donated equipment, this bill requires the equipment to be recertified
as safe by an authorized technician. The bill does not protect those
persons who act with malice, gross negligence, or recklessness in
making the donation; nor does it protect the manufacturer of the
donated equipment.
Mr. President, this bill is supported by a number of firefighting
organizations. In States that have removed liability barriers through
legislation similar to this, volunteer fire companies have received
millions of dollars in quality fire fighting equipment. For example, in
1997, the Texas state legislature passed a bill that limited the
liability of companies who donated surplus equipment to fire
departments. Prior to passage of this bill, companies in Texas had
refrained from donating their used equipment for fear of potential
lawsuits. Now, companies donate their surplus equipment to the Texas
Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to
volunteer fire departments. The donated equipment must meet all
original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments.
The program has already received in excess of six million dollars worth
of equipment for volunteer fire departments.
Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congressman Castle. I urge my Senate colleagues to
join me in ending the wasteful destruction of useful fire equipment,
saving taxpayer funds, and better equipping our volunteer firefighters
to save lives. I am proud to introduce this bill and look forward to
working to ensure that the federal government increases its commitment
to the men and women who make up our local volunteer fire
departments.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Specter, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Grams, Mr. Murkowski, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Fitzgerald):
S. 3007. A bill to provide for measures in response to a unilateral
declaration of the existence of a Palestinian state; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
unilateral palestinian statehood disapproval act of 2000
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lugar in
introducing the Unilateral Palestinian Statehood Disapproval Act. This
is cosponsored by Senators Moynihan, Specter, Inhofe, Santorum, Grams,
Collins and Murkowski.
We are now 7 days away from September 13. That is the day that the
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has set, in the past, as a
day when he would declare, unilaterally, Palestinian statehood. He has
recently said that he would reassess his intention to declare an
independent Palestinian state unilaterally. I am hopeful that he will.
But, nonetheless, I am concerned that neither he nor other senior
Palestinian leaders have repudiated the idea of a unilateral
declaration of statehood.
As part of the 1993 Oslo accords, the Israelis and Palestinians
committed to resolving all outstanding issues through negotiation.
Chairman Arafat reiterated this position on July 25 of this year, at
the conclusion of the last round of the Camp David negotiations when he
and Prime Minister Barak issued a statement agreeing on the importance
of ``avoiding unilaterally action that prejudiced the outcome of
negotiations.'' Indeed, one of the keys to the success of the peace
process thus far has been the commitment by each side to avoid any
unilateral action that would undermine the search for a mutually
satisfactory agreement.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would violate the
commitments of Oslo. A unilateral declaration of statehood would be a
grave blow to the peace process, one from which that process might not
be able to recover.
I believe very strongly, and my cosponsors do as well, that any
Palestinian state should be the result of negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians, not the result of the unilateral action of either
one side or the other.
It is my sincere hope that in the next few days, Mr. Arafat and
others in the Palestinian leadership will step back from the September
13 deadline and recommit themselves to the Oslo process and
negotiations with Israel.
This legislation is necessary, however, because should Mr. Arafat go
forward with the unilateral declaration, the repercussions for the
peace process and stability in the Middle East are, indeed, both
serious and severe. The United States must make it clear that
[[Page S8107]]
we will not recognize or condone a unilateral declaration and that the
United States will work to make sure the international community
neither accepts nor supports a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.
The legislation we introduce today would do the following:
It would state that the United States should not recognize any
unilaterally declared Palestinian state.
It would urge the President and the Secretary of State to use all
diplomatic means to work with other countries to deny recognition to
such a unilaterally declared state.
It would prohibit any direct U.S. assistance to a unilaterally
declared Palestinian state, except for humanitarian assistance or
cooperation on antiterrorism efforts.
It would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to oppose membership in
any international financial institution by a unilaterally declared
Palestinian state and oppose any financial assistance from these
institutions to such a state.
It would state the sense of the Congress that the President should
downgrade the status of the Palestinian office in the United States to
an information office.
It would also state the sense of the Congress that the President
should oppose Palestinian membership in the United Nations or any other
international organization, and that the United States should oppose
economic or other assistance to a unilaterally declared Palestinian
state, except for humanitarian or security assistance.
Finally, it would urge the President to expedite and upgrade the
ongoing review of strategic relations between the United States and
Israel.
We have included a Presidential national interest waiver authority so
that if the President deems that even with a unilateral declaration
that the peace process can move forward, the United States will have
the flexibility to continue that process.
I realize that it is a little unusual to say, but it is my sincere
hope that this legislation will never require action, let alone
implementation.
I have been a long-time supporter of the peace process and for a
peace agreement that provides security for Israel and leads to the
consensual establishment of a Palestinian state that will be a peaceful
neighbor of Israel. Since coming to the Senate, I have worked long and
hard as an advocate for peace in the Middle East and as a supporter of
the negotiations led by President Clinton, Secretaries Christopher and
Albright, and conducted so ably by Dennis Ross.
Because of this support, it is my sincere hope that Mr. Arafat will
not choose to heed those who have suggested that the Palestinian
Authority should unilaterally declare a Palestinian state on September
13. If Mr. Arafat is willing to continue to work within the context of
the peace process and stick to his commitments at Oslo and Camp David
not to take unilateral steps, then I believe the United States should
continue our partnership with the Palestinian people in search for
peace. Under such circumstances, there is no need for this legislation.
I was deeply disappointed that the last round of negotiations at Camp
David did not succeed in reaching an agreement. Prime Minister Barak
appeared to make every effort to reach out and extend the hand of peace
and placed items on the table for negotiation that no Israeli Prime
Minister was previously even willing to discuss with the Palestinian
leadership.
Although there is still a long way to go, I believe that if both
sides are sincere in their desire for peace, a negotiated settlement is
still possible, and it is my hope that Israel and its Palestinian
neighbors will once again find themselves at the negotiating table in
the not too distant future. I understand that Mr. Arafat, Prime
Minister Barak, and President Clinton will be meeting in New York this
week, and I hope the talks can get back on track. But if the
Palestinians should choose to endanger the peace process by a
unilateral declaration of statehood on September 13, the United States
must be clear what our policy should be.
The United States has a vital and an important role to play as an
honest broker in the region and as a guarantor of the peace process and
any peace that may result. It is precisely our role as an honest broker
that compels me to offer this legislation. If the Palestinians take
unilateral steps that undermine the peace process, the United States
must make it clear that we will neither condone nor support such
actions.
I urge my colleagues to join the Senator from Indiana and me in
sending a clear and compelling message in support of the Middle East
peace process. Unilateral actions are not acceptable to the United
States, and should the Palestinian Authority choose to break with the
peace process, the United States will act accordingly.
Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Specter may well
be coming to the floor to make some comments on this. If he does, I ask
unanimous consent that his comments be reflected directly following
mine and Senator Lugar's.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Feinstein and other
Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce the Unilateral
Palestinian Statehood Disapproval Act of 2000. I am pleased to be an
original co-sponsor of this legislation.
At the conclusion of the July round of negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinian Authority at Camp David, Prime Minister Barak and
Chairman Arafat issued a statement agreeing on the importance of
``avoiding unilateral action that prejudices the outcome of
negotiations.'' They both acknowledged that progress is best assured if
both parties refrain from unilateral actions that would have the effect
of undermining the peace process.
After the Camp David talks ended, Chairman Arafat announced that he
intended to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state by
September 13 if negotiations with Israel did not conclude in a
satisfactory manner by then. Such a statement is harmful to the
negotiations and would be disastrous to the peace process.
It is important for the Congress to be heard on this issue. A
unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is objectionable and
would create an unnecessary rupture in our ability to work with the
Palestinian Authority to advance the peace process. It is my hope that
Chairman Arafat will listen to the voices of other leaders in the Arab
world, and elsewhere, which have counseled caution and urged him to
refrain from these unilateral steps toward statehood.
Our legislation proposes several targeted limitations and
restrictions on the Palestinian Authority should they decide to declare
a Palestinian state in advance of a final agreement. It states that if
Chairman Arafat unilaterally declares a Palestinian state, the U.S.
should not recognize it, that we should work with our friends and
allies not to recognize any such state, and that we should downgrade
the Palestinian office in the United States to an information office.
The legislation places limitations on official U.S. assistance to a
unilaterally declared Palestinian state but provides exceptions for
cooperation on anti-terrorism and security matters. Our bill also urges
the President to oppose membership to a unilaterally declared
Palestinian state in the United Nations and to oppose any economic and
financial assistance from the U.N., affiliated agencies and
international financial institutions.
It is my hope that none of these restrictions will have to be
implemented. Because we want to insure that the President can use all
the tools available to him to assist the parties to succeed in the
peace negotiations, we included a presidential national interest waiver
authority on those provisions pertaining to economic and financial
assistance.
I hope my colleagues will agree to support this legislation and the
long-standing effort to construct a comprehensive peace in the Middle
East.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment
about the statements by Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat that there
may be a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood on September
13. That, in my judgment, would be a grave mistake, and the United
States and our allies ought to do everything in our power to prevent
Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority from making that
unilateral declaration of statehood.
[[Page S8108]]
When the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, there was an agreement
that all of the outstanding issues between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority would be negotiated with a solution. There have been very
extensive discussions, including recent talks at Camp David, which have
not produced that kind of an agreement and that has led Chairman Arafat
to raise the issue--perhaps more accurately called ``threat''--to have
a unilateral declaration of statehood on September 13.
I have cosponsored S. 3007, which was introduced today by the
distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, which calls for
action by the United States in the event that there is a unilateral
declaration of statehood. The bill contains provisions which would
articulate the policy of the United States not to recognize a
unilaterally declared Palestinian state, to extend diplomatic efforts
to deny recognition by working with the allies of the United States,
the European Union, Japan, and other countries, to downgrade the status
of the Palestinian office in the United States if there should be such
a unilateral declaration, to prohibit U.S. assistance to the
Palestinian Authority if there should be such a unilateral declaration,
to take steps to oppose Palestinian membership in the United Nations or
other international organizations, and to oppose Palestinian membership
in or assistance from the international financial institutions.
I believe this bill is an effective shot across the bow.
I wrote to Chairman Arafat on August 18 of this year, urging Chairman
Arafat to abandon any thoughts about a unilateral declaration of
statehood for the Palestinian Authority. I ask unanimous consent that
the full text of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion
of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of the letter which I wrote
to Chairman Arafat is contained in two paragraphs where I say:
. . . There is a strong feeling, both in the United States
Senate and the United States House of Representatives, as
well as that expressed by President Clinton, that there be no
such unilateral declaration of statehood.
There has been tremendous support in the Senate and House,
as well as from the President, for an overall peace
settlement and that Congressional support has included U.S.
contributions to implement such an accord. That Congressional
support would certainly be eroded by a unilateral declaration
of statehood.
I had urged Chairman Arafat in the past to avoid a unilateral
declaration of statehood when the possibility was raised that such a
unilateral declaration might be made back on May 4, 1999.
Chairman Arafat came to the United States on March 23, and I was
scheduled at that time to visit him in his hotel in Virginia, but
shortly before our scheduled appointment I found that Chairman Arafat
was visiting on the House side in the Capitol complex, and I had an
opportunity to invite Chairman Arafat to my Capitol office.
At that time, we had an extensive discussion where I urged him not to
make the unilateral declaration of statehood. He asked me at that time,
if he would refrain from that unilateral declaration of statehood,
whether I would make a statement saying it was a wise course of action,
giving recognition to the restraint of Chairman Arafat and the
Palestinian Authority. I said I would do so and that I would make a
statement on the floor of the Senate on May 5 if Chairman Arafat and
the Palestinian Authority, in fact, did not make a unilateral
declaration of statehood. I wrote Chairman Arafat to that effect on
March 31, 1999.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the
Congressional Record at the conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I made two statements for the
Congressional Record--one on April 26, 1999, which I incorporate by
reference, and another statement on May 4, 1999, when Chairman Arafat
and the Palestinian Authority did not make a unilateral declaration of
statehood.
The meeting I had with Chairman Arafat in my Capitol office was a
very interesting one and a very constructive one. One note which I had
referred to in one of my earlier statements on the floor is worth a
very brief reference. I have a very large poster which has a joint
picture of President Clinton with thumbs up and a picture of Chairman
Arafat right next to him making the V sign, obviously not taken
together but juxtaposed together on one large poster. It looks like a
campaign poster, almost as if the two men were running for political
office, which, of course, they were not.
I had accompanied President Clinton on his trip to Israel in December
of 1998. I saw the poster and thought it a nice item of memorabilia and
had it framed and put in my Capitol office. When Chairman Arafat saw
his picture on my wall, it did a good bit more than any of my
persuasive comments to establish an aura of goodwill in a complimentary
sense. He very much liked seeing his picture there. In fact, he wanted
to take a picture of the two of us standing in front of his picture,
which now stands beside the poster in my Capitol office.
I mention that because of the--I am searching for the right word.
``Congenial meeting'' might not be exactly right, but it was a
businesslike meeting where Chairman Arafat listened to my arguments
against a unilateral declaration of statehood.
When I recite this, I do not really mean to suggest my voice was the
determinative voice. I think that comported with what the Palestinian
Authority had in mind in any event. I think every extra bit of pressure
that can be brought ought to be brought. That is why I wrote to
Chairman Arafat earlier this year, on August 18, and that is why I am
supporting the bill introduced by the Senator from California, Mrs.
Feinstein, which would impose certain restraints and, in effect,
certain sanctions on the Palestinian Authority if they do make a
unilateral declaration of statehood. In my judgment, it would set back
the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority
substantially. I retain some optimism that the differences between
Israel and the Palestinian Authority may yet be reconciled.
I compliment the President and the Secretary of State for their very
extensive efforts to try to bring about that accord. I believe those
efforts should be continued and intensified. I also compliment Dennis
Ross of the State Department who has done so much in the negotiating
process with the parties.
While there are meetings underway at the United Nations, there may be
some occasion for the President to act further in consultation with
Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser
Arafat to try to bring about advances on the peace process and
ultimately an accord. But certainly a unilateral declaration of
statehood by the Palestinian Authority would be met with grave
opposition in this Chamber--I know that for a certainty--and I believe
also in the House of Representatives.
In conclusion, I urge Chairman Arafat and his colleagues in the
Palestinian Authority not to make a unilateral declaration of statehood
on September 13, or at any other time, but to continue the peace
process to try to work out outstanding differences in accordance with
the commitments made by the Palestinian Authority on the Oslo accord.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, March 31, 1999.
Chairman Yasser Arafat,
President of the National Authority,
Gaza City, GAZA, Palestinian National Authority.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for coming to my
Senate hideaway and for our very productive discussion on
March 23.
Following up on that discussion, I urge that the
Palestinian Authority not make a unilateral declaration of
statehood on May 4 or on any subsequent date. The issue of
the Palestinian state is a matter for negotiation under the
terms of the Oslo Accords.
I understand your position that this issue will not be
decided by you alone but will be submitted to the Palestinian
Authority Council.
When I was asked at our meeting whether you and the
Palestinian Authority would receive credit for refraining
from the unilateral declaration of statehood, I replied that
I would go to the Senate floor on May 5 or as soon thereafter
as possible and compliment your action in not unilaterally
declaring a Palestinian state.
[[Page S8109]]
I look forward to continuing discussions with you on the
important issues in the Mid-East peace process.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
Exhibit 2
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, August 18, 2000.
Chairman Yasser Arafat,
President of the National Authority,
Gaza City, GAZA, Palestinian National Authority.
Dear Chairman Arafat: On March 23, 1999, when you visited
my Senate Office in Washington, I urged you not to make a
unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, which had
been discussed as a possibility for May 4, 2000.
At that time, I told you that I would make a statement on
the Senate floor on May 5, 1999, praising your decision not
to declare statehood unilaterally if, in fact, you made that
decision. You did not declare statehood on May 4, 1999; and,
as promised, I made the statement on the Senate floor. For
your re-review, I enclose a copy of that statement.
Now, again, there is talk that there may be a unilateral
declaration of Palestinian statehood on September 13, 2000.
Again, I urge you not to make such a declaration, but to
continue negotiations to try to work out an overall agreement
with Israel.
I know that there is a strong feeling, both in the United
States Senate and the United States House of Representatives,
as well as that expressed by President Clinton, that there be
no such unilateral declaration of statehood.
There has been tremendous support in the Senate and House,
as well as from the President, for an overall peace
settlement and that Congressional support has included U.S.
contributions to implement such an accord. That Congressional
support would certainly be eroded by a unilateral declaration
of statehood.
If you do not make such a unilateral declaration of
Palestinian statehood on September 13, I will again speak on
the Senate floor in praise of your restraint.
Again, I urge you to renew discussions with Israel for an
overall settlement.
I look forward to our next meeting when you are in
Washington or I am in the Mideast.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Pennsylvania leaves
the floor, I want the Record to reflect the statements he has made are
bipartisan in nature. I underline and underscore the importance of the
statement of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think it would be very
unwise for Chairman Arafat to move unilaterally on establishing
statehood. I hope he will sit back and look at the great loss that will
take place if an agreement is not reached at this time.
I commend and applaud the Senator from Pennsylvania for his
statement.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Nevada for those very timely comments. It is important to have that
note of bipartisanship. May the Record further reflect, 20 minutes ago
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said he wanted to do
something sharp at 6 p.m., and the big hand is at the 12 and the little
hand is at the 6 in this instant.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if I knew when I asked the Senator from
Pennsylvania if he could be finished in 20 minutes that he was going to
be delivering such an important speech, I might have been reluctant to
ask him. I do commend him on that speech--not the brevity and coming in
on time, but the substance is very important.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for
those comments. We have worked together for many years and earlier
today on the Appropriations Committee, and I appreciate what he just
said.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 3008. A bill to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 to require, as a condition of receipt of Federal funding, that
States waive immunity to suit for certain violations of that Act, and
to affirm the availability of certain suits for injunctive relief to
ensure compliance with that Act; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
the older workers rights restoration act of 2000
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to
introduce legislation that will restore to state employees the ability
to bring claims of age discrimination against their employers under the
Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967. The Older Workers Rights
Restoration Act of 2000 seeks to provide state employees who allege age
discrimination the same procedures and remedies as those afforded to
other employees with respect to ADEA.
This legislation is needed to protect older workers like Professor
Dan Kimel, who has taught physics at Florida State University for
nearly 35 years. Despite his years of faithful service, in 1992,
Professor Kimel found that he was earning less in real dollars than his
starting salary. To add insult to injury, his employer was hiring
younger faculty out of graduate schools at salaries that were higher
than he and other long-service faculty members were earning. In 1995,
Professor Kimel and 34 colleagues brought a claim of age discrimination
against the Florida Board of Regents.
Dan Kimel and his colleagues brought their cases under the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (``ADEA''). In 1974, Congress
amended the ADEA to ensure that state employees, such as Dan Kimel has
full protection against age discrimination. I stand before you today
because this past January the Supreme Court ruled that Dan Kimel and
other affected faculty do not have the right to bring their ADEA claims
against their employer. The Court in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents,
held that Congress did not have the power to abrogate state sovereign
immunity to individuals under the ADEA. As a result of the decision,
state employees, who are victims of age discrimination, no longer have
the remedies that are available to individuals who work in the private
sector, for local governments or for federal government. Indeed, unless
a state chooses to waive its sovereign immunity or the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission decides to bring a suit, state workers now find
themselves with no federal remedy for their claims of age
discrimination. In effect, this decision has transformed older state
employees into second class citizens.
For a right without a remedy is no right at all. Employees should not
have to lose their right to redress simply because they happen to work
for a state government. And a considerable portion of our workforce has
been impacted. In Vermont, for example, the State is one of our largest
employers. We cannot and should not permit these state workers to lose
the right to redress age discrimination.
This legislation will resolve this problem. The Older Workers Rights
Restoration Act of 2000 will restore the full protections of the ADEA
to Dan Kimel and countless other state employees in federally assisted
programs. The legislation will do this by requiring the states to waive
their sovereign immunity as a condition of receiving federal funds for
their programs or activities. The Older Workers Rights Restoration Act
of 2000 follows the framework of many other civil rights laws,
including the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Under this
framework, immunity is only waived with regard to the program or
activity actually receiving federal funds. States are not obligated to
accept such funds; and if they do not they are immune from private ADEA
suits. The legislation also confirms that these employees may bring
actions for equitable relief under the ADEA.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
I ask unanimous consent 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. 3008
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 ``Older Workers Rights
Restoration Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Since 1974, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) has prohibited States from
discriminating in employment on the basis of age. In EEOC v.
Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld
Congress' constitutional authority to prohibit States from
discriminating in employment on the basis of age. The
prohibitions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 remain in effect and continue to apply to the States, as
the prohibitions have for more than 25 years.
(2) Age discrimination in employment remains a serious
problem both nationally and
[[Page S8110]]
among State agencies, and has invidious effects on its
victims, the labor force, and the economy as a whole. For
example, age discrimination in employment--
(A) increases the risk of unemployment among older workers,
who will as a result be more likely to be dependent on
government resources;
(B) prevents the best use of available labor resources;
(C) adversely effects the morale and productivity of older
workers; and
(D) perpetuates unwarranted stereotypes about the abilities
of older workers.
(3) Private civil suits by the victims of employment
discrimination have been a crucial tool for enforcement of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 since the
enactment of that Act. In Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents,
120 S. Ct. 631 (2000), however, the Supreme Court held that
Congress lacks the power under the 14th amendment to abrogate
State sovereign immunity to suits by individuals under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The Federal
Government has an important interest in ensuring that Federal
funds are not used to facilitate violation of, the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Private civil suits
are a critical tool for advancing that interest.
(4) As a result of the Kimel decision, although age-based
discrimination by State employers remains unlawful, the
victims of such discrimination lack important remedies for
vindication of their rights that are available to all other
employees covered under the Act, including employees in the
private sector, of local government, and of the Federal
Government. Unless a State chooses to waive sovereign
immunity, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
brings an action on their behalf, State employees victimized
by violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 have no adequate Federal remedy for violations of the
Act. In the absence of the deterrent effect that such
remedies provide, there is a greater likelihood that entities
carrying out federally funded programs and activities will
use Federal funds to violate the Act, or that the Federal
funds will otherwise subsidize or facilitate violations of
the Act.
(5) Federal law has long treated nondiscrimination
obligations as a core component of programs or activities
that are, in whole or part, assisted by Federal funds.
Federal funds should not be used, directly or indirectly, to
subsidize invidious discrimination. Assuring
nondiscrimination in employment is a crucial aspect of
assuring nondiscrimination in those programs and activities.
(6) Discrimination on the basis of age in federally
assisted programs or activities is, in contexts other than
employment, forbidden by the Age Discrimination Act of 1975
(42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.). Congress determined that it was not
necessary for the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 to apply to
employment discrimination because the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1974 already forbade discrimination in
employment by, and authorized suits against, State agencies
and other entities that receive Federal funds. In section
1003 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986 (42 U.S.C.
2000d-7), Congress required all State recipients of Federal
assistance to waive any immunity from suit for discrimination
claims arising under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. The
earlier limitation in the Age Discrimination Act of 1975,
originally intended only to avoid duplicative coverage and
remedies, has in the wake of the Kimel decision become a
serious loophole leaving millions of State employees without
an important Federal remedy for age discrimination resulting
in the use of such funds to subsidize or facilitate
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967.
(7) The Supreme Court has upheld Congress' authority to
condition receipt of Federal funds on acceptance by the
States or other recipients of conditions regarding or related
to the use of those funds, as in Cannon v. University of
Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979). The Court has further
recognized that Congress may require a State, as a condition
of receipt of Federal assistance, to waive the State's
sovereign immunity to suits for a violation of Federal law,
as in College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary
Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999). In the wake of
the Kimel decision, in order to assure compliance with, and
to provide effective remedies for violations of, the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 in State programs or
activities receiving Federal assistance, and in order to
ensure that Federal funds do not subsidize or facilitate
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, it is necessary to require such a waiver as a condition
of receipt of that Federal financial assistance.
(8) The waiver resulting from the acceptance of Federal
funds by 1 State program or activity under this Act will not
eliminate a State's immunity with respect to other programs
or activities that do not receive Federal funds; a State
waives sovereign immunity only with respect to Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 suits brought by
employees within the programs or activities that receive such
funds. With regard to those programs and activities that are
covered by the waiver, the State employees will be accorded
only the same remedies that were available to State employees
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 before
Kimel and that are accorded to all other covered employees
under the Act.
(9) The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that State
sovereign immunity does not bar suits for prospective
injunctive relief brought against State officials, as in ex
parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Clarification of the
language of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
will confirm that the Act authorizes such suits. The
injunctive relief available in such suits will continue to be
no broader than the injunctive relief that was available
under the Act before the Kimel decision, and that is
available to all other employees under that Act.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to provide to State employees in federally assisted
programs or activities the same rights and remedies for
practices violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 as are available to other employees under that Act,
and that were available to State employees prior to the
Supreme Court's decision in Kimel v. Florida Board of
Regents, 120 S. Ct. 631 (2000);
(2) to provide that the receipt of Federal funding for use
in a program or activity constitutes a State waiver of
sovereign immunity from suits by employees within that
program or activity for violations of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967; and
(3) to affirm that suits for equitable relief are available
against State officials in their official capacities for
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967.
SEC. 4. REMEDIES FOR STATE EMPLOYEES.
Section 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (29 U.S.C. 626) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g)(1)(A) A State's receipt or use of Federal financial
assistance in any program or activity of a State shall
constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th
amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought
by an employee of that program or activity under this Act for
equitable, legal, or other relief authorized under this Act.
``(B) In this paragraph, the term `program or activity' has
the meaning given the term in section 309 of the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6107).
``(2) An official of a State may be sued in the official
capacity of the official by any employee who has complied
with the procedures of subsections (d) and (e), for equitable
relief that is authorized under this Act. In such a suit the
court may award to the prevailing party those costs
authorized by section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C.
1988).''.
SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and
the application of such provision or amendment to another
person or circumstance shall not be affected.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--With respect to a
particular program or activity, section 7(g)(1) of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
626(g)(1)) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day,
after the date of enactment of this Act, on which a State
first receives Federal financial assistance for use in that
program or activity.
(b) Suits Against Officials.--Section 7(g)(2) of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C.
626(g)(2)) applies to any suit pending on or after the date
of enactment of this Act.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished
colleagues, Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy, as an original
cosponsor of the Older Workers Rights Restoration Act of 2000.
With advances in medicine and science, Americans are living longer
than ever before. This means that older Americans are also working
longer than ever before. We should ensure that those Americans who work
well into the golden years of their lives--including state employees--
can do so without fear of being denied a job, fired or overlooked for a
promotion based on their age.
Since enactment of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in 1967,
our Nation has come a long way in eliminating age discrimination in the
workplace. But the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Kimel
v. Florida Board of Regents threatens to turn back the clock on the
progress we've made. Under that decision, a state employee who has a
claim of employment discrimination based on age cannot bring a private
lawsuit against a state government under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act. The state government is immune from such suits. The
individual's only legal recourse is to file a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and hope that the EEOC takes the
case. But the EEOC has limited resources and only pursues a fraction of
the cases filed.
Mr. President, this result is unacceptable. Older American workers
[[Page S8111]]
make important contributions to their employers--both businesses and
governments, at the state and federal levels. Older Americans should be
able to work free of even a hint of discrimination. And older Americans
employed by state governments deserve the same protections against
discrimination on the job that other older Americans employed by
private businesses or the federal government enjoy.
This bill that we introduce today would do just that. It ensures that
state employees in federally assisted programs or activities have the
same rights and remedies for practices violating the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act as are available to other employees under that act
and that were available to state employees prior to the Supreme Court's
Kimel decision.
Mr. President, I have had a longstanding commitment to aging issues,
both as a U.S. Senator and, previously, as a Wisconsin State Senator.
In the U.S. Senate, I have served on the Special Committee on Aging. In
the Wisconsin state senate, I served for ten years as the chairman of
the Senate Committee on Aging. In fact, the first legislation I
introduced as a state senator was a bill to eliminate mandatory
retirement. That bill passed and was signed into law. As a result,
older Wisconsin residents have the right to work without being forced
to retire at a certain age.
I look forward to working with Senator Jeffords to move this
important legislation through the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join
us in taking this step toward restoring protections for state employees
against age discrimination.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 3010. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve
procedures for the determination of the inability of veterans to defray
expenses of necessary medical care, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
legislation for the benefit of land-rich cash poor veterans
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill which
would exclude the value of real property of a veteran, or a veteran's
spouse or dependent, in determining how a veteran's eligibility for
health care from the Department of Veterans Affair (VA) is classified.
The bill would also simplify eligibility determinations by eliminating
the annual self-reporting burden for veterans, and instead enable the
Department to obtain income information directly from the Internal
Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration.
The problem asset-rich, cash-poor veterans experience in gaining
eligibility for veterans pension and health care benefits was brought
to my attention late last year by one of my constituents, Larry
Sundall. Larry is one of Iowa's county veterans service officers. He
serves veterans in Emmet County, in northwest Iowa. In the course of
his work, he was finding that many of his farmer-veteran constituents
where in desperate straits with no, or little, income, but still could
not qualify for VA pension programs without selling their land. Because
of the value of their land, these veterans would also be classified in
Category 7 for purposes of health service eligibility in the event they
sought health care from the VA. Category 7 veterans can receive health
care services as long as the VA has sufficient funds. However, they are
required to pay co-payments for any health care they receive through
the VA because of the value of their land, even if they have no income
and are in debt to boot. If the administration and Congress don't
appropriate enough money, these Category 7 veterans will not be
eligible for health care services from the VA.
At Larry's urging, I decided to convene a meeting of interested
parties in Des Moines last April to talk over this issue. Because many
of his county veterans officials in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and
South Dakota were encountering constituents with similar problems, we
invited the associations of county veterans service officers from those
states to send a representative to participate. We invited the State
Veterans Affairs Officers from those states. VA staff from
headquarters, regional offices, and VISNs also participated. The
meeting was very useful and informative from my perspective, and I am
grateful to all who participated. As it happens, the VA's Health
Services Administration had already recognized the asset test as a
problem for veterans and had formed a task force to look into the
feasibility of eliminating the asset test. The Veterans Benefits
Administration had also begun to discuss the issue. In any case, VA
participants at the meeting agreed to convey the essentials of our
discussion to principal officials at VA headquarters.
The problem follows from a provision of Title 38 which holds that the
Secretary may deny benefits to a veteran ``. . . when the corpus of the
estate of the veteran . . . is such that under all the circumstances .
. . it is reasonable that some part of the corpus of such estates be
consumed for the veteran's maintenance''. In other words, if the income
and estate of a veteran are large enough, they should be used before
the veteran receives benefits from the VA. The law also states,
however, that liquidations of assets should be required only when it
can be done at ``no substantial sacrifice'' to the veteran. Regulations
implementing this provision of law contain essentially the same
language. The complications begin with a VA manual, 21-1, which lays
out criteria to be used by VA staff in adjudicating eligibility for
pension and health benefits. Under the criteria set out in M21-1, the
net worth of a veteran must be adjudicated when the veteran's income
and net worth is greater than $50,000. Ownership of $50,000 of farm
land or other real property does not automatically and inevitably mean
that adjudicators will declare a farmer veteran ineligible for these VA
programs. In principle, the $50,000 is just a threshold which is to
trigger adjudication of a veteran's claim for benefits, not to
automatically disqualify a veteran for benefits.
But there are two problems with the treatment of assets in the
schema. First is the $50,000 level. It's obviously much too low, even
as a trigger for adjudication. In Iowa currently, the average value of
an acre of farm land is $1,781. So a farm holding valued at $50,000
would average about 28 acres, clearly two small to be viable. A 40 acre
farm, at the current average value per acre, would be worth $71,240. A
more viable 80 acre farm would be valued at $142,480. It seems to me,
therefore, that the threshold triggering review of a farmer veteran's
income and assets should be raised to $150,000. But, second, and more
fundamentally, the law stipulates, as I noted earlier, that divestiture
of an estate should not involve ``substantial sacrifice''. It is
difficult for me to see that selling off the family farm, in many, if
not most, cases, the sole source of livelihood for a farm family, would
not involve substantial sacrifice. It thus seems inherently unrealistic
to require a veteran to liquidate land holdings in order to become
eligible for VA pension benefits or in order to pay co-payments for VA
health care services.
What the bill I am introducing today would do is eliminate completely
the asset test as a factor is establishing eligibility for health care
services. A veteran's income, however, would still be considered in
eligibility determinations. The bill would also permit the Secretary to
determine the attributable income of the veteran using income date from
the year preceding the prior year in the event that the Secretary is
unable to use prior year data. Finally, the bill would permit the
Secretary to use information obtained from the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Treasury for the
purpose of determining the attributable income of a veteran.
The VA estimates that this proposal should save the VA money, Mr.
President. They estimate that more than $11 million would be saved in
fiscal year 2001, growing to more than $13 million in fiscal year 2005.
I ask that the full text of the bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3010
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S8112]]
SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION OF
INABILITY TO DEFRAY EXPENSES OF NECESSARY
MEDICAL CARE.
(a) Exclusion of Certain Assets From Attributable Income
and Corpus of Estates.--Subsection (f) of section 1722 of
title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, except that such income shall not
include the value of any real property of the veteran or the
veteran's spouse or dependent children, if any, or any income
of the veteran's dependent children, if any''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the estates'' and all
that follows and inserting ``the estate of the veteran's
spouse, if any, but does not include any real property of the
veteran, the veteran's spouse, or any dependent children of
the veteran, nor any income of dependent children of the
veteran.''.
(b) Alternative Year for Determination of Attributable
Income.--That section is further amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(h) For purposes of determining the attributable income
of a veteran under this section, the Secretary may determine
the attributable income of the veteran for the year preceding
the previous year, rather than for the previous year, if the
Secretary finds that available data do not permit a timely
determination of the attributable income of the veteran for
the previous year for such purposes.''.
(c) Use of Income Information From Certain Other Federal
Agencies.--Section 5317 of that title is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection (f):
``(f) In addition to any other activities under this
section, the Secretary may utilize income information
obtained under this section from the Secretary of Health and
Human Services or the Secretary of the Treasury for the
purpose of determining the attributable income of a veteran
under section 1722 of this title, in lieu of obtaining income
information directly from the veteran for that purpose.''.
(d) Permanent Authority To Obtain Information.--(1) Section
5317 of that title, as amended by subsection (c), is further
amended by striking subsection (h).
(2) Section 6103(l)(7)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D)) is amended in the flush matter
at the end by striking the second sentence.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 3012. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to impose
criminal and civil penalties for false statements and failure to file
reports concerning defects in foreign motor vehicle products, and to
require the timely provision of notice of such defects, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
transportation information recall enhancement act
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, like so many Americans, I have been faced
with a barrage of confusing and frightening information about the
recent Firestone tire recall. I have a Ford Explorer, and it has
Firestone tires on it. My wife and I drive it and take our children and
our friends and others for rides in that vehicle. So I understand what
a lot of my fellow Vermonters are going through regarding this deadly
episode. It never should have happened.
But it is not just Explorer owners who are at risk--pedestrians,
joggers, bicyclists, and other cars could be hit by out-of-control
vehicles or by tire pieces.
The tires on my car are the same size and type as those covered by
the recall. But they were manufactured at a different plant--a North
Carolina plant. Even though employees of that plant have raised serious
concerns about quality control in that factory, the tires on my
Explorer are not eligible for the recall. But I have to tell you, I
look long at them each time I get into the vehicle, and it is in the
back of my mind every time I drive.
Even though they tell me that they are not yet the subject of a
recall, I wonder what tomorrow's news may bring.
The first foreign recall occurred on August 1999, but the Secretary
of Transportation apparently was not even informed of this by the
manufacturer until May of 2000--nearly a year after the fact. That is
outrageous. It is unacceptable. Worse yet, that kind of delay has
proven deadly. I don't even want to think about the lives that could
have been saved had there been quicker action, and had the
manufacturers been honest enough to notify the public immediately.
Even after the recall was issued, the deadly risk continues as
families have to wait to get replacement tires. I want to mention one
sad case. A grandfather, Gary Meek of Farmersville, California, was a
retired police officer. He, his wife and granddaughter, Amy, 13 years
old, were driving on August 16, a couple weeks ago, when a Firestone
tire on the Ford Explorer separated. His wife survived the crash, but
Mr. Meek and his granddaughter were killed. His widow has to carry on
with those awful memories.
I am going to introduce legislation today to mandate that the
Secretary of Transportation be immediately notified of defects in motor
vehicles or vehicle components--immediately after the foreign
manufacturer becomes aware of the dangerous defect or when the
manufacturer is notified about the defect by the foreign government.
This notification would be earlier in time than the beginning of a
foreign recall or any efforts to replace the defective product.
My bill also requires the manufacturer file a full report on the
circumstances regarding each defective vehicle or vehicle component.
The bill will impose stiff criminal penalties for false or misleading
statements, or efforts to coverup the truth, regarding these reports.
It also imposes criminal and civil penalties for other violations of
the bill. In other words, if tires are defective, or are going to be
recalled or replaced in some other country, they have to notify us--and
notify us accurately and truthfully.
One would think some of these foreign tire companies would feel a
moral duty to save lives. You would think that would be enough to
motivate them. One would think even the idea of huge fines might
motivate them. That doesn't seem to be enough. Maybe if they think they
will get a jail sentence if they don't notify us truthfully, maybe,
they will put the interests of the lives and safety of the public ahead
of the short-term gains of their own companies.
My bill, the Transportation Information Recall Enhancement Act,
requires notification of a foreign dangerous defect within 48 hours. It
requires even more detailed information filings a few days later. My
bill also requires notification of increases in deaths or serious
injuries in foreign countries regarding vehicles and vehicle components
that could prove deadly if they are on American soil.
Secretary Slater said in an interview that there should be a law
requiring that the United States be immediately notified of foreign
recalls. We are on the way to making that a reality. I will work with
any Senator, Republican or Democrat, on this issue so we can pass this
legislation or any other bill to get the job done in the next couple of
weeks.
It is incomprehensible to me how any corporate executives can live
with themselves when they withhold information that could have saved
people's lives. If they are going to conceal the truth or make false
statements, they should face criminal sanctions. Sometimes if a person
thinks they are going to end up in the slammer, they will pay a lot
more attention to the safety of people, rather than simply looking at
the balance sheet.
For example, we just received reports about Mitsubishi over the past
two decades. For 20 years, they routinely withheld information about
dangerous products which ended up in America and other countries. These
corporate officers should be forced to explain their inaction to the
families of those who have been injured using their products. Maybe
Americans should not buy any Mitsubishi products because they lied for
20 years. Criminal penalties are clearly needed. In the global economy
there has to be some compassion for the suffering that is sometimes
caused around the world. There seems to be almost a disconnect. The
President of Ford Motors, for example, when he heard that Congress was
going to question him, at first was unwilling to testify personally.
I think he heard an almost national outcry over that insolence and
disregard of the people of this country, insolence and arrogance that
kept him from realizing how concerned Americans were. Fortunately, he
changed his mind and found the time. I suspect the appropriate
congressional committees would have gotten a subpoena, and the result
would have been the same. He would have testified.
Every corporation has a right to sell their products. Every
corporation has a right to make a decent profit. They
[[Page S8113]]
ought to be able to do that. When they know they have a product that
can bring about death or injury, and especially when only they know it
and nobody else does, they ought to make those facts known. The law
should be very clear that they have to make it known. If they
manufacture a product in this country to sell both here and abroad, if
there are problems in the other country and the product is defective,
they should notify this country of that fact. They will lose some
business in the short term. In the long term, they will do better. The
American public will be secure, and the American public will not be
endangered.
What Firestone did, what Ford did, and for that matter, what
Mitsubishi did, was wrong. It was absolutely wrong. I want corporate
leaders never to do this again. I want a law that says if you provide
information to our government regarding defective products that is
false, misleading or untruthful that you are going to go to jail.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a summary of the bill
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 3012
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 ``Transportation Information
Recall Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in an interview with ABC News on September 3, 2000,
Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater stated that he
thinks there should be a law requiring that the United States
be immediately notified of a foreign recall, ``especially in
the global economy when you've got U.S. goods really being
used by individuals around the world. We should know when
there's a problem someplace else.'';
(2) as of the date of enactment of this Act, there is no
legal requirement for manufacturers of motor vehicles and
their components to notify United States agencies of a recall
issued in a foreign country;
(3) between August 1999 and spring 2000, Ford Motor Company
replaced Firestone tires on 46,912 vehicles in Saudi Arabia,
Thailand, Malaysia, and South America;
(4)(A) on May 2, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration opened a preliminary evaluation into Firestone
ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness AT tires after receiving 90
complaints, primarily from consumers in the Southeast and
Southwest, about tread separations or blowouts;
(B) as of September 2000, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration has received over 1,400 complaints,
including reports of more than 250 injuries and 88 deaths;
and
(C) some of the complaints date back to the early 1990s,
and 797 of the complaints report that a tire failure took
place between August 1, 1999, and August 9, 2000; and
(5)(A) on August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone announced a
United States recall of 6,500,000 ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness
AT tires; and
(B) that date was 3 months after the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration commenced its investigation and
nearly 9 months after Ford Motor Company initiated the
replacement of the tires in foreign countries.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to ensure that
defects in motor vehicles or replacement equipment in foreign
countries are quickly, accurately and truthfully reported to
the United States Secretary of Transportation in cases in
which--
(1) the motor vehicles or replacement equipment is
manufactured for export to the United States; or
(2) the motor vehicles or replacement equipment is
manufactured in the United States using a manufacturing
process that is the same as, or similar to, the manufacturing
process used in the foreign country, with the result that the
motor vehicles or replacement equipment manufactured in the
United States may also be defective.
SEC. 3. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES IN CONNECTION WITH
REPORTING OF DEFECTS IN FOREIGN MOTOR VEHICLE
PRODUCTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1036. Penalties in connection with reporting of
defects in foreign motor vehicle products
``(a) Definitions.--
``(1) Foreign motor vehicle product.--The term `foreign
motor vehicle product' means a motor vehicle or replacement
equipment that--
``(A) is manufactured in a foreign country for export to
the United States; or
``(B) is manufactured in a foreign country using a
manufacturing process that is the same as, or similar to, a
manufacturing process used in the United States for a motor
vehicle or replacement equipment.
``(2) Other terms.--The terms `defect', `manufacturer',
`motor vehicle', and `replacement equipment' have the
meanings given the terms in section 30102 of title 49.
``(b) Criminal Penalty.--A manufacturer of a foreign motor
vehicle product, or an officer or employee of such a
manufacturer, that, in connection with a report required to
be filed under section 30118(f) of title 49, willfully--
``(1) falsifies or conceals a material fact;
``(2) makes a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
``(3) makes or uses a false writing or document knowing
that the writing or document contains any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
``(c) Civil Penalty.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to any civil penalty that
may be assessed under chapter 301 of title 49, a manufacturer
that violates section 30118(f) of title 49 shall be subject
to a civil penalty of not more than $500,000 for each day of
the violation.
``(2) Compromise of penalty.--The Attorney General may
compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under
paragraph (1).
``(3) Determination of amount.--In determining the amount
of a civil penalty or compromise under this subsection, the
Attorney General shall consider--
``(A) the appropriateness of the penalty or compromise in
relation to the size of the business of the manufacturer
liable for the penalty; and
``(B) the gravity of the violation.
``(4) Deduction of amount of penalty.--The United States
Government may deduct the amount of the civil penalty imposed
or compromised under this section from any amount that the
Government owes the manufacturer liable for the penalty.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 47 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``1036. Penalties in connection with reporting of defects in foreign
motor vehicle products.''.
SEC. 4. REPORTING OF DEFECTS IN FOREIGN MOTOR VEHICLE
PRODUCTS.
Section 30118 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Reporting of Defects in Foreign Motor Vehicle
Products.--
``(1) Definition of foreign motor vehicle product.--The
term `foreign motor vehicle product' means a motor vehicle or
replacement equipment that--
``(A) is manufactured in a foreign country for export to
the United States; or
``(B) is manufactured in a foreign country using a
manufacturing process that is the same as, or similar to, a
manufacturing process used in the United States for a motor
vehicle or replacement equipment.
``(2) Reporting of defects.--
``(A) Initial report.--Not later than 48 hours after
determining, or learning that a government of a foreign
country has determined, that a foreign motor vehicle product
contains a defect that could be related to motor vehicle
safety, the manufacturer of the foreign motor vehicle product
shall report the determination to the Secretary.
``(B) Written report.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 5 days after the end of
the 48-hour period described in subparagraph (A), the
manufacturer shall submit to the Secretary a written report
that meets the requirements of clause (ii).
``(ii) Contents of written report.--A written report under
clause (i) shall contain--
``(I) a description of the foreign motor vehicle product
that is the subject of the report;
``(II) a description of--
``(aa) the determination of the defect by the government of
the foreign country or by the manufacturer of a foreign motor
vehicle product; and
``(bb) any measures that the government requires to be
taken, or the manufacturer determines should be taken, to
obtain a remedy of the defect;
``(III) information concerning any serious injuries or
fatalities possibly resulting from the defect; and
``(IV) such other information as the Secretary determines
to be appropriate.
``(3) Reporting of possible defects.--Upon making a
determination that there have been a significant number of
serious injuries or fatalities in a foreign country that
could have resulted from a defect in a foreign motor vehicle
product that could be related to motor vehicle safety (as
determined in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
Secretary), the manufacturer of the foreign motor vehicle
product shall report the determination to the Secretary in
such manner as the Secretary establishes by regulation.''.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on
the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
____
Summary
This Act will provide criminal penalties for making false or
misleading statements in notifications or reports made to the U.S.
Government regarding recalls or replacement actions regarding motor
vehicles and component parts. This criminal liability and the
[[Page S8114]]
requirements for providing notice is triggered when a foreign
government makes the manufacturer aware of the defect in motor vehicles
or replacement parts, even before it triggers recalls or replacement
actions.
This Act will help ensure accurate, truthful information and timely
notice regarding recalls or replacement actions concerning defective
motor vehicles or replacement equipment such as tires in foreign
countries are quickly reported to the United States Secretary of
Transportation where such vehicles are manufactured for export to the
United States or where the defective product or equipment is
manufactured in the United States in a manner that is similar to its
manufacture in the foreign country and thus may likewise be dangerous.
The notification must be provided to the Secretary within 48 hours of
when the foreign manufacturer learns or is notified of the defect by
the foreign government. Within 5 days of that 48-hour deadline, a more
detailed, accurate and truthful report must be provided to the
Secretary of Transportation describing the basis for actions taken and
providing information about serious injuries or fatalities related to
the defect.
In addition, even if a defect is not identified, the Secretary must
be notified each time there is a significant increase in deaths or
serious injuries in a foreign country related to vehicles or vehicle
components manufactured in foreign countries for export to the United
States or related to vehicles or components manufactured in the United
States using similar manufacturing processes (as are used in the
foreign country), as defined in regulations of the Secretary.
Failure to comply with these requirements, and any related
requirements set by the Secretary under the bill, shall result in a
civil money penalty of up to $500,000, per day. In addition, for
manufacturers or employees of foreign motor vehicle products
(manufacturing vehicles for export to the United States or using
manufacturing processes similar to that used in the United States) who
in reporting to the Secretary knowingly or willfully: falsifies,
conceals, or covers up a material fact; makes a materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes a false
writing or document, shall be imprisoned for up to 5 years and shall be
subject to criminal fines of up to $500,000 for corporations, or
$250,000 for individuals.
This Act shall be effective beginning six months after enactment.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY:
S.J Res. 51. A joint resolution authorizing special awards to
veterans of service as United States Navy Armed Guards during World War
I or World War II; to the Committee on Armed Services.
LEGISLATION TO HONOR NAVAL ARMED GUARD VETERANS
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to
provide a long overdue honor to a distinguished group of American
veterans. The United States Naval Armed Guard made heroic contributions
to our naval efforts in World War I and World War II and the time has
come for a grateful nation to recognize these brave veterans.
The Armed Guard consisted of the officers, gunners, radiomen,
signalmen and later medics and radarmen who were placed on cargo ships
to protect them from armed assault.
The U.S. Navy Armed Guard was first constituted during World War I
and armed gunners served on 384 ships. During World War II, the U.S.
Navy Armed Guard served on 6,236 merchant ships. 710 of these ships
were sunk and many more were damaged in combat. The Armed Guard has
144,970 men assigned to it before the war ended in 1945. 1,810 men were
killed during engagements with the enemy.
I am here today because the contributions to victories in the two
world wars of these fine patriots has never been recognized by our
Government or the Navy. I believe the Congress should act to honor
these veterans whose recognition is both deserved and long overdue.
The wartime contributions of these men were absolutely vital to the
safe delivery of cargos that took the war to our enemies. Many times
they stayed in the fight even as the decks of their ships were awash
and sinking. What is most notable is that other nations that now are
free because of the contributing sacrifices of the U.S. Navy Armed
Guards, have awarded special medals in recognition of the heroic
actions of the members of the U.S. Navy Armed Guard Special Force.
Mr. President, It is high time we did the right thing and recognized
these fine fighting men for their service. This legislation would honor
these men in a very fitting way. It will recognized former members of
the U.S. Armed Guard Special Force with a special medal that honors
them as American heroes. It will recognize the military character of
their service by awarding each of them at least one of the three World
War II campaign medals for service in the American, Asiatic-Pacific,
and Europe-Africa-Middle East theaters of war. Let's do the right thing
for this unrecognized group of American veterans who sacrificed so much
for their country. For more than fifty years, members of the Naval
Armed Guard have shared their wartime stories of sacrifice and
commitment with one another. Now is the time for all Americans to
acknowledge their service in a heart felt way.
I urge prompt Senate consideration and passage of this legislation.
____________________