[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 42 (Tuesday, April 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2723-S2730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2132. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
the establishment of medical emergency preparedness centers in the 
Veterans

[[Page S2724]]

Health Administration, to provide for the enhancement of the medical 
research activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce 
legislation that would establish four medical emergency preparedness 
research centers within the Department of Veterans Affairs. These 
centers would make the most of VA's expertise in basic and clinical 
research to shape new strategies for coping with, or preventing, the 
medical crisis that could result from a terrorist attack against the 
American people.
  The threats posed by biological, chemical, radiological, and 
incendiary weapons demand that we prepare immediately, using our 
existing national resources as efficiently as possible. Although many 
of my colleagues know that VA operates the Nation's largest integrated 
healthcare system, fewer may know that VA manages the largest health 
professionals training program in the United States. VA's clinical 
research programs investigate both cutting-edge technology and best 
medical practices, and included over 15,000 projects last year.
  Through its reach, its educational programs, and its research 
capacity, VA stands ready to make a significant contribution to 
protecting veterans and the public from the medical consequences of a 
terrorist attack. Only a few weeks ago, VA researchers announced that 
they have developed the most promising drug yet to protect the public 
should a terrorist deliberately release smallpox virus. I remain 
confident that this is only the first of many such scientific 
breakthroughs by VA scientists.
  VA already plays a key role in supporting Federal disaster 
preparedness, including maintaining pharmaceutical stockpiles, jointly 
administering the National Disaster Medical System, serving as primary 
medical back-up to the Department of Defense, and sharing medical 
personnel and supplies with communities whose own resources are 
overwhelmed. The legislation that I propose today would add another 
dimension to VA's role in emergency preparedness by acknowledging its 
expertise in developing clinical approaches to public health.
  The centers authorized by this legislation would foster research by 
VA scientists and clinicians in the diagnosis, prevention, and 
treatment of illnesses or injuries that might arise from the use of 
terrorist weapons. These centers would encourage cooperation between VA 
researchers and professionals at affiliated schools of medicine and 
public health to bring new findings and ideas as quickly as possible to 
the Nation's caregivers. The legislation that I have proposed would 
promote fruitful collaboration between VA, academic, and other Federal 
researchers, so that we can integrate research, public health, and 
domestic security efforts expeditiously.
  The legislation I introduce today also makes two changes in law which 
affect VA's non-profit research corporations. These two changes are 
technical in nature and are designed to clarify existing provisions of 
law: one clarifies that research corporation employees are covered 
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, FTCA, and the other provision 
clarifies that VA Medical Centers may enter into contracts or other 
forms of agreements with nonprofit research corporations to provide 
services to facilitate VA research and education.
  On the issue of FTCA coverage, a recent Department of Justice opinion 
determined that physicians employed by the VA-affiliated nonprofit 
research did not enjoy FTCA coverage, despite the fact that they have 
VA appointments. Prior to this opinion, the understanding was that the 
corporations' employees were covered, subject to a certification that 
their activities were within the scope of government work. Since 
research corporations were authorized in 1988, not a single suite has 
been filed against a corporation employee. Nevertheless, it is critical 
that employees working on VA approved research and education be 
protected. It is estimated that nationwide, the corporations have 
1,500-2,000 research employees.
  These non-profit research corporations have been placed in a 
difficult spot. Corporations must decide whether to take their chances 
that the FTCA will cover a suit despite the Department of Justice 
provision, as the VA General Counsel believes; to reduce their 
activities by only hiring employees with access to private sector 
insurance; to use funds normally devoted to supporting research to buy 
an expensive blanket insurance policy; or to close down entirely. The 
better choice, is to be explicit in providing FTCA coverage to 
corporation employees engaged in activities that further VA's research 
and education missions.
  The second change relates to contracts between VA Medical Centers and 
research corporations. Many times, VA Medical Centers need help to 
provide services which are ancillary to research, such as travel 
coordination, technical services, and conference management.
  I believe that a precedent for such contracts already exists. VA 
Medical Centers can enter into agreements with closely affiliated 
universities. For more than 50 years, the VAMCs and universities have 
contracted with each other for goods and services. In my view, we need 
to bring this kind of thinking to the non-profit research corporations.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2132

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

     SECTION 1. MEDICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CENTERS IN VETERANS 
                   HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--(1) Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     7320 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 7320A. Medical emergency preparedness centers

       ``(a) The Secretary shall establish and maintain within the 
     Veterans Health Administration four centers for research and 
     activities on medical emergency preparedness.
       ``(b) The purposes of each center established under 
     subsection (a) shall be as follows:
       ``(1) To carry out research on the detection, diagnosis, 
     prevention, and treatment of injuries, diseases, and 
     illnesses arising from the use of chemical, biological, 
     radiological, or incendiary or other explosive weapons or 
     devices, including the development of methods for the 
     detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of such 
     injuries, diseases, and illnesses.
       ``(2) To provide to health-care professionals in the 
     Veterans Health Administration education, training, and 
     advice on the treatment of the medical consequences of the 
     use of chemical, biological, radiological, or incendiary or 
     other explosive weapons or devices.
       ``(3) Upon the direction of the Secretary, to provide 
     education, training, and advice described in paragraph (2) to 
     health-care professionals outside the Department through the 
     National Disaster Medical System or through interagency 
     agreements entered into by the Secretary for that purpose.
       ``(4) In the event of a national emergency, to provide such 
     laboratory, epidemiological, medical, or other assistance as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate to Federal, State, and 
     local health care agencies and personnel involved in or 
     responding to the national emergency.
       ``(c)(1) Each center established under subsection (a) shall 
     be established at an existing Department medical center, 
     whether at the Department medical center alone or at a 
     Department medical center acting as part of a consortium of 
     Department medical centers for purposes of this section.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall select the sites for the centers 
     from among competitive proposals that are submitted by 
     Department medical centers seeking to be sites for such 
     centers.
       ``(3) The Secretary may not select a Department medical 
     center as the site of a center unless the proposal of the 
     Department medical center under paragraph (2) provides for--
       ``(A) an arrangement with an accredited affiliated medical 
     school and an accredited affiliated school of public health 
     (or a consortium of such schools) under which physicians and 
     other health care personnel of such schools receive education 
     and training through the Department medical center;
       ``(B) an arrangement with an accredited graduate program of 
     epidemiology under which students of the program receive 
     education and training in epidemiology through the Department 
     medical center; and
       ``(C) the capability to attract scientists who have made 
     significant contributions to innovative approaches to the 
     detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of injuries, 
     diseases, and illnesses arising from the use of chemical, 
     biological, radiological, or incendiary or other explosive 
     weapons or devices.
       ``(4) In selecting sites for the centers, the Secretary 
     shall--

[[Page S2725]]

       ``(A) utilize a peer review panel (consisting of members 
     with appropriate scientific and clinical expertise) to 
     evaluate proposals submitted under paragraph (2) for 
     scientific and clinical merit; and
       ``(B) to the maximum extent practicable, ensure the 
     geographic dispersal of the sites throughout the United 
     States.
       (d)(1) Each center established under subsection (a) shall 
     be administered jointly by the offices within the Department 
     that are responsible for directing research and for directing 
     medical emergency preparedness.
       ``(2) The Secretary and the heads of the agencies concerned 
     shall take appropriate actions to ensure that the work of 
     each center is carried out--
       ``(A) in close coordination with the Department of Defense, 
     Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Homeland 
     Security, and other departments, agencies, and elements of 
     the Federal Government charged with coordination of plans for 
     United States homeland security; and
       ``(B) in accordance with any applicable recommendations of 
     any joint interagency advisory groups or committees 
     designated to coordinate Federal research on weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       ``(e)(1) Each center established under subsection (a) shall 
     be staffed by officers and employees of the Department.
       ``(2) Subject to the approval of the head of the department 
     or agency concerned and the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management, an officer or employee of another 
     department or agency of the Federal Government may be 
     detailed to a center if the detail will assist the center in 
     carrying out activities under this section. Any detail under 
     this paragraph shall be on a non-reimbursable basis.
       ``(f) In addition to any other activities under this 
     section, a center established under subsection (a) may, upon 
     the request of the agency concerned and with the approval of 
     the Secretary, provide assistance to Federal, State, and 
     local agencies (including criminal and civil investigative 
     agencies) engaged in investigations or inquiries intended to 
     protect the public safety or health or otherwise obviate 
     threats of the use of a chemical, biological, radiological, 
     or incendiary or other explosive weapon or device.
       ``(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     center established under subsection (a) may, with the 
     approval of the Secretary, solicit and accept contributions 
     of funds and other resources, including grants, for purposes 
     of the activities of such center under this section.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 73 of 
     title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 7320 the following new item:

``7320A. Medical emergency preparedness centers.''.

       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs amounts for the centers established under section 
     7320A of title 38, United States Code (as added by subsection 
     (a)), $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
       (2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by paragraph 
     (1) is not authorized to be appropriated for the Veterans 
     Health Administration for Medical Care, but is authorized to 
     be appropriated for the Administration separately and solely 
     for purposes of the centers referred to in that paragraph.
       (3) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, $5,000,000 shall be 
     available for such fiscal year for each center referred to in 
     that paragraph.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON RESEARCH CORPORATIONS.

       (a) Restatement and Enhancement of Authority on 
     Availability of Funds.--Section 7362 of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (2) by striking the second sentence of subsection (a); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection (b):
       ``(b)(1) Any funds, other than funds appropriated for the 
     Department, that are received by the Secretary for the 
     conduct of research or education and training may be 
     transferred to and administered by a corporation established 
     under this subchapter for the purposes set forth in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Funds appropriated for the Department are available 
     for the conduct of research or education and training by a 
     corporation, but only pursuant to the terms of a contract or 
     other agreement between the Department and such corporation 
     that is entered into in accordance with applicable law and 
     regulations.''.
       (b) Treatment of Corporations as Affiliated Institutions 
     for Sharing of Health-Care Resources.--Section 8153(a)(3) of 
     that title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
     subsections (D), (E), and (F), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(C) If the health-care resource required is research or 
     education and training (as that term is defined in section 
     7362(c) of this title) and is to be acquired from a 
     corporation established under subchapter IV of chapter 73 of 
     this title, the Secretary may make arrangements for 
     acquisition of the resource without regard to any law or 
     regulation (including any Executive order, circular, or other 
     administrative policy) that would otherwise require the use 
     of competitive procedures for acquiring the resource.'';
       (3) in subparagraph (D), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(A) or (B)'' and inserting ``(A), (B), or (C)''; and
       (4) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(A)'' and inserting ``(A) or (B)''.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF RESEARCH CORPORATION PERSONNEL UNDER 
                   FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT AND OTHER TORT CLAIMS 
                   LAWS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 73 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     7364 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 7364A. Coverage of employees under certain Federal 
       tort claims laws

       ``(a) An employee of a corporation established under this 
     subchapter who is described by subsection (b) shall be 
     considered an employee of the government, or a medical care 
     employee of the Veterans Health Administration, for purposes 
     of the following provisions of law:
       ``(1) Section 1346(b) of title 28.
       ``(2) Chapter 171 of title 28.
       ``(3) Section 7316 of this title.
       ``(b) An employee described in this subsection is an 
     employee who--
       ``(1) has an appointment with the Department, whether with 
     or without compensation;
       ``(2) is directly or indirectly involved or engaged in 
     research or education and training that is approved in 
     accordance with procedures established by the Under Secretary 
     for Health for research or education and training carried out 
     with Department funds; and
       ``(3) performs such duties under the supervision of 
     Department personnel.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 73 of that title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 7364 the following new 
     item:

``7364A. Coverage of employees under certain Federal tort claims 
              laws.''.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 2133. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Dichlorobenzidine 
Dihydrochloride; to the Committee on Finance.
 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and 
colleague, Senator Voinovich, to introduce legislation that would 
temporarily suspend the import duty on Dichlorobenzidine, DCB.
  DCB is a chemical used to produce organic pigments for printing ink. 
It is reacted with other materials to form various yellow organic 
pigments. These yellow pigments are used extensively by the printing 
ink industry because yellow is one of the three primary colors used in 
printing and is used in nearly all color printing applications. DCB 
also is used to produce certain red and orange pigments.
  The U.S. printing ink industry is facing increasingly aggressive 
competition from low-cost foreign producers. Despite its widespread 
use, DCB is no longer produced in the United States and is unlikely to 
be produced here in the foreseeable future. Domestic manufacturers of 
synthetic organic pigments must import all of the DCB required for 
their production of yellow pigment. These imports are currently subject 
to high duties despite the fact that there is no longer a domestic DCB 
industry to protect.
  Our duty suspension bill would help U.S. producers remain competitive 
in the global market, and it would remove unnecessary costs on U.S. 
pigment, ink, and printing industries and on millions of consumers of 
printed products.
  Though our bill is quite simple, its effects would be widespread. It 
would suspend the duty on DCB, therefore eliminating a significant and 
unnecessary cost for U.S. pigment producers. That action, by itself, 
would have a significant positive impact on our domestic industry
  I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislative 
effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Nickles, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Warner, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Craig):
  S. 2134. A bill to allow American victims of state sponsored 
terrorism to received compensation from blocked as-sets of those 
states; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be joined by 
my Republican colleague, Senator George Allen of Virginia, in 
introducing the Terrorism Victim's Access to Compensation Act of 2002. 
Senators Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Schumer, Nickles,

[[Page S2726]]

Clinton, Warner, Mikulski, Burns, and Craig are also original co-
sponsors of this much-needed, bipartisan legislation.
  The war against terrorism must be fought and won on multiple fronts. 
And we cannot forget that terrorist acts are ultimately stories of 
human tragedy. The dedicated, professional woman from Iowa, Kathryn 
Koob, seeking to build cross-cultural ties between the Iranian people 
and the American people only to be held captive for 444 days in the 
U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The teenage boy from Iowa, Taleb Subh, visiting 
family in Kuwait, terrorized by Saddam Hussein at the outbreak of the 
Persian Gulf War. The U.S. aid worker from Virginia, Charles Hegna, 
tortured and killed in 1984 by Iranian-backed hijackers in order ``to 
punish'' the United States. These are only a few of the people we know; 
Americans in all 50 States have suffered. What do we say to these 
families, the wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters?
  We believe that those who sponsor as well as those who commit these 
inhumane acts must pay a price. In 1996, the Congress passed a 
significant law without partisan divide, and with the support of the 
U.S. State Department. This law allows Americans to pursue justice in 
U.S. Federal courts. The idea behind this law is to make the terrorists 
and their sponsors pay an immediate price for attacks against Americans 
abroad. For example, the money of foreign sponsors of terrorism and 
their agents that we hold here in the United States could be used to 
compensate innocent Americans who are victimized by their attacks for 
their pain, suffering and losses. Make the bad guys pay.
  This law only applies to ``terrorist states'', currently a list of 
seven foreign governments officially designated as state sponsors of 
terrorism (i.e. Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, and 
Cuba). It is those state sponsors of international terrorism, not the 
American taxpayer, who must be compelled to pay these costs first and 
foremost.
  Currently, the U.S. Treasury Department lawfully controls at least 
$3.7 billion in blocked or frozen assets of these seven state sponsors 
of terrorism. But officials of the U.S. Treasury and State Departments 
oppose using these funds to compensate American victims of terrorism 
who have brought lawsuits in Federal courts, won their cases on the 
merits, and secured court-ordered judgments and compensation awards 
against the rogue governments that are responsible for the attacks upon 
them and their families. To summarize, these American victims have been 
encouraged to pursue justice in U.S. Federal courts, have complied with 
existing U.S. law, but have been denied what little justice they were 
encouraged to pursue. Unelected bureaucrats, instead, want American 
taxpayers apparently to foot the bill for what could amount to hundreds 
of millions of dollars. In fact, in the pending case involving the 53 
Americans taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 and held in 
captivity for 444 days and their families, U.S. Justice and State 
Department attorneys have gone into Federal court in recent months to 
have their lawsuit dismissed in its entirety, thus de facto siding with 
the Government of Iran.
  This policy is wrong-headed and counterproductive for at least three 
reasons.
  First, paying American victims of terrorism from the blocked and 
frozen assets of these rogue governments and their agents will really 
punish and impose a heavy cost on those aiding and abetting the 
terrorists; this tougher policy will provide a new, powerful 
disincentive for any foreign government to continue sponsoring 
terrorist attacks on Americans, while also discouraging any regimes 
tempted to get into the ugly business of sponsoring future terrorist 
attacks.
  Second, making the state sponsors actually lose billions of dollars 
will more effectively deter future acts of terrorism than keeping their 
assets blocked or frozen in perpetuity in pursuit of the delusion that 
long-standing, undemocratic, brutish governments like those in Iran and 
Iraq can be moderated.
  Third, the American wives, husbands, sons, and daughters will have a 
sense of justice, they will have the public condemnation by the U.S. 
Government and statement of guilt, but they will have also made those 
terrorists responsible for the attacks and their sponsors pay a price.
  In his last days in office, former President Clinton signed a law 
endorsing a policy of paying American victims of terrorism from blocked 
assets, while simultaneously signing a waiver of the means to make this 
policy work. But the Bush administration hasn't registered an opinion 
yet on this crucial test of our nation's resolve to fight state-
sponsored terrorism. That is why we are pushing bipartisan legislation 
to establish two new policy cornerstones in our Nation's war against 
terrorism. First, we seek to require that compensation be paid from the 
blocked and frozen assets of the state sponsors of terrorism in cases 
where American victims of terrorism secure a final judgment in our 
Federal courts and are awarded compensation accordingly. Second, we 
will provide a level playing field for all American victims of state-
sponsored terrorism who are pursuing redress by providing equal access 
to our federal courts.
  American victims of state-sponsored terrorism deserve and want to be 
compensated for their losses from those who perpetrated the attacks 
upon them. The Congress should clear the way for them to get some 
satisfaction of court-ordered judgments and, in so doing, deter future 
acts of state-sponsored terrorism against innocent Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2134

       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 ``Terrorism Victim's Access to 
     Compensation Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that:
       (1) The war against international terrorism must be fought 
     and won on multiple fronts.
       (2) The state sponsors of international terrorism 
     (including their agencies and instrumentalities) are 
     ultimately responsible for the damages, pain, and suffering 
     inflicted upon Americans who are victimized by terrorist 
     acts. It is the state sponsors, not the American taxpayer, 
     who must be compelled to pay those costs.
       (3) The Secretary of the Treasury lawfully controls 
     billions of dollars in blocked assets of several governments 
     which the President and the Department of State have 
     determined to be state sponsors of international terrorism 
     and responsible for multiple terrorist attacks on United 
     States citizens abroad.
       (4) There have been multiple Federal lawsuits brought since 
     1996 by American victims of state sponsored terrorism abroad 
     and final judgments and financial awards in some of those 
     cases have been paid appropriately by using some of the 
     blocked assets of state sponsors of terrorism. Additional 
     cases are still pending.
       (5) Paying victims of state sponsored terrorism from the 
     blocked assets of state sponsors of acts of terrorism 
     (including their agencies and instrumentalities) will punish 
     those entities, deter future acts of terrorism, and provide a 
     powerful incentive for any foreign government to stop 
     sponsoring terrorist attacks on Americans.
       (6) There must be a level playing field for all American 
     victims of state sponsored terrorism who are pursuing redress 
     in the Federal courts and compensation from the blocked 
     assets of state sponsors of terrorism (including their 
     agencies and instrumentalities).

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       Considering the policy set forth in this Act, the 
     Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and in 
     the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 
     2000, it is the sense of Congress that it should be the 
     policy of the United States--
       (1) to use the blocked assets of state sponsors of acts of 
     terrorism (including their agencies and instrumentalities) 
     that are under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to pay court-ordered judgments and awards made to United 
     States nationals harmed by such acts; and
       (2) to provide equal access to all United States victims of 
     state sponsored terrorism who have secured judgments and 
     awards in Federal courts against state sponsors of terrorism 
     (including their agencies and instrumentalities) and that 
     those judgments and awards be paid by state sponsors of 
     terrorism (including their agencies and instrumentalities) 
     from any of their blocked assets controlled by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury.

[[Page S2727]]

     SEC. 4. SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS FROM BLOCKED ASSETS OF 
                   TERRORISTS, TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, AND STATE 
                   SPONSORS OF TERRORISM.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), in 
     every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against 
     a terrorist party on a claim for compensatory damages for an 
     act of terrorism, or a claim for compensatory damages brought 
     pursuant to section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States 
     Code, the blocked assets of any terrorist party, or any 
     agency or instrumentality of a terrorist party, shall be 
     available for satisfaction of the judgment.
       (b) Presidential Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon determining 
     on an asset-by-asset basis that a waiver is necessary in the 
     national security interest, the President may waive the 
     requirements of subsection (a) in connection with (and prior 
     to the enforcement of) any judicial order directing 
     attachment or satisfaction in aid of execution of judgment, 
     or execution of judgment, against any property subject to the 
     Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna 
     Convention on Consular Relations.
       (2) Exception.--A waiver under this subsection shall not 
     apply to--
       (A) property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 
     Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that 
     has been used for any nondiplomatic purpose (including use as 
     rental property), and the proceeds of such use; or
       (B) any asset subject to the Vienna Convention on 
     Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations that is sold or otherwise transferred for value to 
     a third party, and the proceeds of such sale or transfer.
       (c) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Blocked assets.--The term ``blocked assets'' means 
     assets seized or blocked by the United States in accordance 
     with law.
       (2) Property and assets subject to vienna conventions.--The 
     terms ``property subject to the Vienna Convention on 
     Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations'' and ``asset subject to the Vienna Convention on 
     Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations'' mean any property or asset, respectively, the 
     attachment in aid of execution or execution of which may, for 
     the limited purpose of satisfying a judgment under subsection 
     (a), breach an obligation of the United States under the 
     Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna 
     Convention on Consular Relations, as the case may be.
       (3) Terrorist party.--The term ``terrorist party'' means a 
     terrorist, a terrorist organization, or a foreign state 
     designated as a state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) 
     of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2405(j)) or section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) (including any agency or 
     instrumentality of that state).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 2135. A bill to amend title X of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a 5-year extension of the authorization for appropriations 
for certain Medicare rural grants; to the Committee on Finance.
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural 
Hospital Access and Improvement Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined 
by Senators Grassley, Daschle, Thomas, Conrad, Jeffords, Rockefeller, 
Bingaman, Harkin, Johnson, and Roberts in sponsoring this important 
legislation.
  Simply put, this bill is about keeping small hospitals open in rural 
areas. It's about preserving access to quality health care for farmers 
and ranchers and their families. It's about protecting the health of 
folks who live in small towns and hamlets across our Nation.
  I think these are goals that every one of us can agree on.
  But the fight to preserve access to health care in rural America has 
never been an easy one. Hospitals in rural areas constantly struggle 
with the difficulties of operating in a low-volume environment. Their 
emergency rooms might see two or three patients a day. Or some days, 
none at all. They lack the economies of scale that urban and suburban 
facilities enjoy. They have a hard time hiring health professionals. 
And with every passing year, they face a growing regulatory burden that 
takes time and energy away from patients.
  In the face of all these obstacles, many small, rural communities 
have confronted the unthinkable: losing their hospital altogether. I 
have no doubt that I speak for the vast majority of Senators when I say 
we should never let this happen. We should never allow a community to 
go without the health care services it needs to stay healthy. To borrow 
from the flight director of Apollo 13, I suggest that failure is not an 
option.
  This was the message that Congress sent fives years ago, when it took 
two giant strides towards helping rural communities keep their 
hospitals. First, it passed legislation allowing small hospitals in 
rural and frontier areas to become Critical Access Hospitals, or CAHs. 
CAHs are reimbursed by Medicare based on their actual costs, not fixed 
or limited payments. They can organize their staff and facilities based 
on their patients' needs, not on rules made for large, urban 
facilities. In short, they are given flexibility to adapt to the unique 
challenges of providing health care in rural areas.
  This concept was a perfect fit for rural America. In the past five 
years, over 500 facilities have converted to CAH status. By taking 
advantage of the CAH option, these hospitals have remained open and 
continue to serve patients. This success is not surprising. After all, 
the Critical Access Hospital concept was modeled on a demonstration 
project that had already been working for years in hospitals across 
Montana.
  The second step Congress took in 1997 was to authorize $25 million a 
year for the Rural Hospital Flexibility Grant Program, or, as I like to 
call it, the Flex grant. This program awards grants to States to help 
hospitals convert to CAH status. Already, over 1,000 health care 
facilities have been assisted by these funds. In my State nearly half 
of our hospitals, about two dozen facilities, have converted to CAH 
status. About a dozen more are on the way.

  Now the Senate has an opportunity to renew its commitment to rural 
health care. The legislation I have introduced today would reauthorize 
the Flex grant at a level of $40 million a year. This would continue 
the work that we have already begun, by helping hundreds more rural 
hospitals covert to CAH status.
  In the latest count, nearly 600 hospitals across the Nation were 
eligible to become CAHs, but have not yet converted. By increasing the 
size of the Flex grant program, Congress can reach out to these 
facilities. At the same time, Congress will continue its support for 
existing CAHs by providing technical assistance and helping them access 
capital for their physical plants. These funds will also advance the 
important process of coordinating between emergency medical services 
providers and other health care providers in rural areas. In the wake 
of September 11 and the bioterrorist attacks of last fall, this work 
must move forward without delay.
  I want to thank my colleagues for their support of the Critical 
Access Hospital program and the Flex grant over the past five years. 
Through their efforts, over 500 rural communities have kept their 
hospitals up and running. Now, I hope they will continue this work by 
supporting the Rural Hospital Access and Improvement Act of 2002 an 
reauthorizing the Flex grant at a level of $40 million a year.
 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to 
introduce the Rural Hospital Access and Improvement Act of 2002, along 
with Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, in 
addition to other distinguished colleagues with an interest in rural 
health care. This legislation reauthorizes the Medicare Rural Hospital 
Flexibility program, known as the ``flex'' program, which has become a 
key component in stabilizing rural health care delivery networks.
  The ``flex'' program was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
to improve access to essential health care services through the 
establishment of Critical Access Hospitals, (CAHs), rural health 
networks and rural emergency medical services. To date, flex grants 
have provided assistance to 1,170 rural hospitals for technical 
assistance and education, 881 rural emergency medical services projects 
and 557 communities for needs assessment and community development 
activities. As a result, almost 600 hospitals that were on the verge of 
closing have been certified as Critical Access Hospitals. Over half of 
CAHs serve counties that are designated as a Health Professional 
Shortage Area. It is quite obvious that this innovative program works 
and merits continued congressional support.

[[Page S2728]]

  In my State of Wyoming, the South Big Horn County Hospital District 
has been certified as a Critical Access Hospital and several more are 
interested in converting to CAH status. Additionally, my State has used 
flex grant dollars to shore up rural emergency medical services in many 
of our frontier communities.
  The bill I am introducing today with several of my colleagues will 
continue to build upon the early success of this program by increasing 
the annual funding authorization from $25 million to $40 million. 
Additional funding is necessary to expand quality improvement 
initiatives within network development plans, enhance the development 
of rural emergency medical services and continue technical support to 
Critical Access Hospitals. I strongly urge all my colleagues to 
cosponsor this important rural health care legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2136. A bill to establish a memorial in the State of Pennsylvania 
to honor the passengers and crewmembers of Flight 93 who, on September 
11, 2001, gave their lives to prevent a planned attack on the Capitol 
of the United States; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
   Mr. SPECTER, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2136

       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 ``Flight 93 National Memorial 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) on September 11, 2001, passengers and crewmembers of 
     United Airlines Flight 93 courageously gave their lives to 
     prevent a planned attack on the Capital of the United States;
       (2) thousands of people have visited the crash site since 
     September 11, 2001, drawn by the heroic action and sacrifice 
     of the passengers and crewmembers aboard Flight 93;
       (3) many people in the United States are concerned about 
     the future disposition of the crash site, including--
       (A) grieving families of the passengers and crewmembers;
       (B) the people of the region where the crash site is 
     located; and
       (C) citizens throughout the United States;
       (4) many of those people are involved in the formation of 
     the Flight 93 Task Force, a broad, inclusive organization 
     established to provide a voice for all parties interested in 
     and concerned about the crash site;
       (5) the crash site commemorates Flight 93 and is a profound 
     symbol of American patriotism and spontaneous leadership by 
     citizens of the United States;
       (6) a memorial of the crash site should--
       (A) recognize the victims of the crash in an appropriate 
     manner; and
       (B) address the interests and concerns of interested 
     parties; and
       (7) it is appropriate that the crash site of Flight 93 be 
     designated as a unit of the National Park System.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to establish a memorial to honor the passengers and 
     crewmembers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 
     2001;
       (2) to establish the Flight 93 Advisory Commission to 
     assist in the formulation of plans for the memorial, 
     including the nature, design, and construction of the 
     memorial; and
       (3) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
     administer the memorial, coordinate and facilitate the 
     activities of the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, and provide 
     technical and financial assistance to the Flight 93 Task 
     Force.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Flight 
     93 Advisory Commission established by section (4)(b).
       (2) Crash site.--The term ``crash site'' means the site in 
     Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where 
     United Airlines Flight 93 crashed on September 11, 2001.
       (3) Memorial.--The term ``Memorial'' means the memorial to 
     the passengers and crewmembers of United Airlines Flight 93 
     established by section 4(a).
       (4) Passenger or crewmember.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``passenger or crewmember'' means 
     a passenger or crewmember aboard United Airlines Flight 93 on 
     September 11, 2001.
       (B) Exclusions.--The term ``passenger or crewmember'' does 
     not include a terrorist aboard United Airlines Flight 93 on 
     September 11, 2001.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) Task Force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Flight 
     93 Task Force.

     SEC. 4. MEMORIAL TO HONOR THE PASSENGERS AND CREWMEMBERS OF 
                   FLIGHT 93.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established as a unit of the 
     National Park System a memorial at the crash site to honor 
     the passengers and crewmembers of Flight 93.
       (b) Advisory Commission.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Flight 93 Advisory Commission''.
       (2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of--
       (A) the Director of the National Park Service; and
       (B) 14 members, appointed by the Secretary, from among 
     persons recommended by the Task Force.
       (3) Term; vacancies.--
       (A) Term.--A member of the Commission shall be appointed 
     for the life of the Commission.
       (B) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission--
       (i) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
       (ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.
       (4) Meetings.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall meet at the call of 
     the Chairperson or a majority of the members.
       (B) Frequency.--The Commission shall meet not less than 
     quarterly.
       (C) Notice.--Notice of meetings and the agenda for the 
     meetings shall be published in--
       (i) newspapers in and around Somerset County, Pennsylvania; 
     and
       (ii) the Federal Register.
       (D) Open meetings.--Meetings of the Commission shall be 
     subject to section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
       (5) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum.
       (6) Chairperson.--The Commission shall select a Chairperson 
     from among the members of the Commission.
       (7) Duties.--The Commission shall--
       (A) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to the Secretary and Congress a report that 
     contains recommendations for the planning, design, 
     construction, and long-term management of the memorial;
       (B) advise the Secretary on--
       (i) the boundaries of the memorial; and
       (ii) the development of a management plan for the memorial;
       (C) consult with the Task Force, the State of Pennsylvania, 
     and other interested parties, as appropriate;
       (D) support the efforts of the Task Force; and
       (E) involve the public in the planning and design of the 
     memorial.
       (8) Powers.--The Commission may--
       (A) make expenditures for services and materials 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section;
       (B) accept donations for use in carrying out this section 
     and for other expenses associated with the memorial, 
     including the construction of the memorial;
       (C) hold hearings and enter into contracts, including 
     contracts for personal services;
       (D) by a vote of the majority of the Commission, delegate 
     any duties that the Commission determines to be appropriate 
     to employees of the National Park Service; and
       (E) conduct any other activities necessary to carry out 
     this Act.
       (9) Compensation.--A member of the Commission shall serve 
     without compensation, but may be reimbursed for expenses 
     incurred in carrying out the duties of the Commission.
       (10) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the 
     dedication of the memorial.
       (c) Duties of the Secretary.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) administer the memorial as a unit of the National Park 
     Service in accordance with--
       (A) this Act; and
       (B) the laws generally applicable to units of the National 
     Park System;
       (2) provide advice to the Commission on the collection, 
     storage, and archiving of information and materials relating 
     to the crash or the crash site;
       (3) consult with and assist the Commission in--
       (A) providing information to the public;
       (B) interpreting any information relating to the crash or 
     the crash site;
       (C) conducting oral history interviews; and
       (D) conducting public meetings and forums;
       (4) participate in the development of plans for the design 
     and construction of the memorial;
       (5) provide to the Commission--
       (A) assistance in designing and managing exhibits, 
     collections, or activities at the memorial;
       (B) project management assistance for design and 
     construction activities; and
       (C) staff and other forms of administrative support;
       (6) acquire from willing sellers the land or interests in 
     land for the memorial by donation, purchase with donated or 
     appropriated funds, or exchange; and
       (7) provide the Commission any other assistance that the 
     Commission may require to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2137. A bill to facilitate the protection of minors using the 
Internet from

[[Page S2729]]

material that is harmful to minors, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I want to introduce a very 
important piece of legislation, the Family Privacy Protection Act. Let 
me just take a few minutes to explain this bill to my colleagues.
  In this age of high-technology, we are blessed with many things that 
our ancestors did not have. Cell phones and e-mail allow us to 
communicate quickly. Advances in medical science are allowing our 
citizens to live much longer and healthier lives. And advances in 
computers and other equipment help make workers and businesses many 
times more productive. However, technology is a double-edged sword. 
Sometimes the bad comes with the good. This fact hit home in the most 
tragic way when it was learned that the September 11 hijackers had 
communicated through e-mail and cell phones.
  As frightening as this is, it is not the only example of the problems 
associated with advances in technology. There are day-to-day issues 
that must be resolved. For instance, technology has exposed our 
citizens to breaches of privacy that could never have taken place 
before the days of the Internet and other advances.
  Former Chief Justice Earl Warren once said, ``The fantastic advances 
in the field of communication constitute a grave danger to the privacy 
of the individual.'' If Chief Justice Warren were alive today to offer 
his remarks, he might substitute the word ``technology'' for 
``communication.'' Let me give one example of an incident which 
highlights this fact.
  In the early 1990's, a shocking thing happened to a family in Monroe, 
Louisiana. Monroe is a relatively small city, at least by the standards 
of most parts of the country, but it is the largest city in the 
northeastern section of my state. I want to talk about a family who 
lives in Monroe, the Wilsons. Susan Wilson was just an average woman 
with an average family.
  Unfortunately, something terrible happened, which tore apart the 
quiet life of this family. A family friend, a former deacon at the 
Wilson's church, did something despicable. While the Wilson's weren't 
home, this man broke into their house and planted a video camera in 
their bathroom. The Wilson's eventually learned that, for almost 2 
years, video cameras had been filming everything in their bathroom. 
This man filmed all of their private moments for the past years for his 
own sick and twisted purposes.
  But even then, the family's nightmare wasn't over. You see, 
under Louisiana state law, and the law of most States, there was no 
crime under which this man could be charged for filming the family 
without their consent. Although he was eventually charged with 
unauthorized entry, there was no way to punish this man for the more 
serious crime he committed.

  The State legislature remedied this in 1999, passing a law making 
video voyeurism a crime. This was thanks in large part to Susan Wilson, 
who spoke with the media, testified before committees--in short, give 
up her privacy and put her life on public display, doing everything she 
had to do to call attention to this problem. In short, she has 
sacrificed so that women such as herself will not have to experience 
the pain of watching the individuals who devastated their lives walk 
away virtually untouched by the law.
  And she continues to make this sacrifice to this day. There was even 
a recent movie detailing Susan's story, some of my colleagues may have 
seen it. It aired February 6 on Lifetime, starring Angie Harmon. It was 
a very compelling, though obviously disturbing, film, and if my 
colleagues have not seen it I would urge them to do so.
  Since the law was passed in Louisiana, several individuals have been 
prosecuted under it. Let me just give a couple of examples. Two years 
ago, a New Orleans man was arrested under the law after a video camera 
was found in his neighbor's air conditioning vent. In nearby Marrero 
just a couple of months before, a man was arrested for allegedly 
pointing a video camera in someone's window. And just before that, a 
man was arrested under the video voyeurism law and charged with 
videotaping a woman during intercourse and then trying to sell the 
tape. And, just over a month ago in Lafayette, LA, a man was charged 
for undressing a sleeping woman and videotaping her in his apartment.
  This law has also be used in conjunction with laws already on the 
books, to give police another tool with which to charge offenders. For 
instance, last year in Slidell, LA, a man was charged with seven counts 
of video voyeurism in addition to various pornography-related charges. 
And in Leesville, LA, a year ago, three people, including a Sheriff's 
deputy, were arrested and charged with video voyeurism and juvenile 
pornography.
  Louisiana is not the only State to pass this law, or to charge 
offenders with violating it. A principal in Arkansas was charged with 
the crime, although the charges were later dropped. And in Milwaukee, a 
man was arrested late last year and charged with videotaping guests in 
his house while they showered and undressed.
  These are terrible crimes; they are a violation of privacy, and more. 
They strike at the very heart of one of our most cherished personal 
freedoms, the right to live our lives free of the fear of people 
watching us perform the most regular of tasks, bathing, getting 
dressed, or sleeping.
  In the past, someone who looked in another person's window at night 
was called a ``Peeping Tom.'' We are not dealing with people looking in 
windows anymore, we are dealing with technologies like video cameras 
small enough to fit in an air conditioning vent. In the past, that 
person looking in the window could be caught by police and charged with 
a crime. Unfortunately, for the person who plants the camera in the air 
conditioning duct, as things stand now, except for a few states that 
have passed this type of legislation, that person can at best only be 
charged with a crime like unlawful entry.

  This brings me to the first provision of the legislation that I am 
introducing today. I met with Susan last year, and promised her I would 
introduce Federal legislation addressing this crime. Currently, only 
five states have laws dealing with video voyeurism. This is one of the 
reasons I am here today to introduce my legislation, the Family Privacy 
Protection Act.
  This measure contains several important provisions, but the first one 
I want to focus on today is the video voyeurism section. This bill will 
make it a Federal crime to film someone in these circumstances without 
their consent. The bill provides exceptions for legitimate purposes 
such as police investigations and security; but the bottom line is that 
this legislation would hold these individuals responsible for their 
actions.
  Actress Judy Garland, speaking of her lack of privacy, once said, 
``I've never looked through a keyhole without finding someone was 
looking back.'' How frightening it would be for all of our citizens to 
feel this way; that they are not safe from prying eyes in their own 
home.
  The video voyeurism component, while important, is only one part of 
this bill. This bill also contains a provision to protect children from 
Internet websites with pornographic material. A recent study showed 
that 31 percent of children aged 10-17 who used the Internet have 
accidentally come across a pornographic website. That includes 75 
percent ages 15-17.
  One of the problems is that companies and individuals who have 
websites make money from ``hits'' by Internet users. It doesn't matter 
whether someone intentionally visits a website or does so on accident, 
it still counts as a ``hit''. So some of these companies that set up 
pornographic websites specifically choose names that will cause people 
to accidentally find them. Let me give a quick example. As I'm sure all 
of my colleagues know, the web address for the White House is 
www.whitehouse.gov. But if you make a mistake--and it's not a difficult 
mistake, I know many people who have made it, and type a slightly 
different address, www.whitehouse.com, you will access a different site 
altogether, a pornographic website. While I'm sure these companies are 
not targeting children specifically, they inevitably come across these 
inappropriate sites.
  I have already mentioned some statistics on how many children have 
accidentally visited inappropriate

[[Page S2730]]

websites. I just want to share a few examples. An 11-year-old boy was 
searching for game sites, typed in ``fun.com'', and a pornographic site 
came up. A 15-year-old boy was looking for info on cars, did a search 
for ``escort'', and an escort service site came up.
  And, in one of the most disturbing examples that I came across, in 
one instance a 15-year-old boy was doing a report on wolves, and found 
a site on bestiality. I just want my colleagues to imagine for a moment 
this happening to their son or daughter. I think we can all agree that 
this is something that we need to be concerned about.

  The American people are certainly concerned about it. In the same 
Kaiser study, 84 percent of the American people worry about the 
availability of pornography online, and 61 percent say the government 
should regulate it. Sixty-one percent. And I am certain that number is 
much higher among parents.
  That is why I believe this legislation is so important. I understand 
that these websites are protected by the First Amendment. This bill 
does not intrude upon these sites' right to free speech. Instead, it 
would set up a whole new domain name for pornographic material. A 
domain name, as my colleagues know, is the three letters at the end of 
the web address. Dot-com, dot-gov, dot-org, dot-net--these are all 
domain names. My legislation would instruct the Internet Corporation 
for Assigned Names and Numbers to set up a new domain name for 
pornographic websites. The owners of these sites would have 12 months 
to move their sites to the new domain.
  This is a very simple yet effective method of protecting our children 
from these sites. A new domain would make ``filter'' programs, which 
screen out these pornographic sites, much more effective. It would 
eliminate mistakes like the whitehouse dot-gov, dot-com, problem that I 
mentioned earlier. And, I firmly believe this bill passes First 
Amendment tests for freedom of speech.
  I understand that some people will not agree with me, saying that 
this bill does not go far enough and that this type of material should 
be banned altogether. But the First Amendment to the Constitution 
protects even material of this kind, whether or not we may agree with 
it. My bill would not infringe on the right of free speech, but would 
simply restrict where this type of speech could be presented on the 
Internet. As one of my constituents from Louisiana said, ``We need to 
put it where the people who want to see it can get to it, and the ones 
who don't want to see it don't have to.'' That is all this provision 
does.
  Finally, a similar provision in the bill provides protection for 
children from pornographic e-mails. This language is very similar to a 
bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California. I wanted to take a second to 
acknowledge Congresswoman Lofgren for her efforts, and I hope to work 
with her on this initiative.
  In short, the bill would require that e-mail advertisements be 
clearly labeled as containing sexually oriented material. We are all 
familiar with receive e-mails with subjects that say ``Lose weight 
now'' or ``You have won!'' that in reality contain pornographic 
material. Many of us simply delete these e-mails without look at them, 
knowing them to be deceptive or junk. However, it is easy to be fooled. 
I have received letters from several constituents who were offended, 
and rightly so, after opening falsely labeled e-mails.
  As you can imagine, children are particularly vulnerable to this type 
of deceptive e-mail. In a study done for Congress by the Crimes Against 
Children Research Center, 25 percent of children studied were exposed 
to unwanted sexual pictures in the previous year. Of these exposures, 
28 percent occurred by opening or clicking on an e-mail.

  There is one case that upsets me in particular. A 12-year-old girl, a 
little girl who collects Beanie Babies, received an e-mail with a 
subject line saying ``Free Beanie Babies.'' As you can imagine, this 
excited little girl quickly opened the e-mail, only to be confronted 
with pictures of naked people. Again, I'd like my colleagues to stop 
for a moment and imagine that this was their child.
  Let me just conclude with a few more facts. The Kaiser study also 
looked at the consequence on these children from encountering these 
pornographic websites and e-mails. Fifty-seven percent of those age 15-
17 who were studied believed that exposure to online pornography could 
have a serious impact on those under 18. And 76 percent of children 
surveyed by Kaiser said that pornography that kids can see is a ``big 
problem.''
  I just want to add that I am hopeful that, in the future, we can take 
even stronger steps to address the problem of pornographic e-mails. 
However, at the moment, this bill will at least ensure that Internet 
users, particularly children, know that an e-mail contains sexually 
oriented material before opening it.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important 
legislation. It is intended to protect our most vulnerable citizens, 
our children, while protecting the right of individuals to free speech. 
I believe this is something that we can all support.

                          ____________________