[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.

                          ____________________