[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 91 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8234-S8245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAHAM of Florida:
S. 1289. A bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after Paul Wellstone; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to give due recognition to a
colleague whose tragic passing is still fresh in our thoughts. Senator
Paul Wellstone served 12 honorable years in the Senate for the State of
Minnesota before suddenly perishing with his dear wife, Sheila, their
daughter, Marcia, three of his staffers, and two pilots in a plane
crash last October.
The bill I am proposing today seeks to rename the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis, MN, after Paul
Wellstone. His distinguished record of service for veterans clearly
demands such distinction. Indeed last October, just weeks before the
crash that took his life, Senator Wellstone proclaimed on the Senate
floor, ``It has been a labor of love for me working with veterans.''
Paul Wellstone served our Nation's veterans with passion and
commitment as a distinguished member of the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. His legacy includes the many veterans today whose
lives have been turned around due to his unyielding service on their
behalf, such as veterans who are or have been homeless; veterans who
are now receiving treatment for their service-related disabilities from
exposure to radiation from atomic and nuclear weapons testing; and
veterans who suffer from symptoms associated with Persian Gulf War
Syndrome.
Year after year, Senator Wellstone rose in this very chamber to try
to increase the VA health care budget. In 2000, the Senator was part of
an effort to secure the largest one year increase ever for veterans'
health care benefits. In 2001, Paul Wellstone successfully pushed
through an amendment to the Budget Resolution that provided $17 billion
over 10 years to boost health care funding for veterans. And just last
June, Senator Wellstone fought to include $417 million for veterans'
health care in the Supplemental Appropriations Bill for FY 2002.
In recognition of his tireless advocacy, he was awarded a number of
distinctions by various veterans' service organizations, including: the
1995 Legislator of the Year Award from the Vietnam Veterans of America;
the 1995 Patriot Award from the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the
Congressional Leadership Award from the Forgotten 216th; the 1997
Distinguished Citizen Award from the Minnesota Veterans of Foreign
Wars; the 2002 Distinguished Science Award from the Disabled American
Veterans; the 2002 Legislative Leadership Award from the National
Coalition for Homeless Veterans; and the Vanguard Award for Legislative
Achievement by the Non-Commissioned Officers Association.
George Washington once remarked, ``The willingness with which our
young people are likely to serve in any war,
[[Page S8235]]
no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they
perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by
their nation.'' Senator Wellstone knew this all too well and worked to
make the Department of Veterans Affairs a more responsive organization.
The Minneapolis VA Medical Center was a source of great pride for
Paul. He once described the facility as having become ``the pride and
joy of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and more important, of
veterans throughout the region.'' The naming of the Paul Wellstone
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center will forever honor his
commitment to our veterans by distinguishing the very institution that
carries on his ``labor of love.'' Mr. President, this is only a small
mark of the appreciation that we all owe to an individual who served
veterans with such compassion and conviction.
Finally, I thank Frederick ``Rock'' Rochelle--a past President of the
St. Paul Chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America--for working with
me on this legislation to honor the memory of Paul Wellstone. I have
compiled a list of statements made by friends and colleagues in
remembrance of Senator Wellstone.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the above
mentioned list of statements be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill and list of statements was ordered
to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Friends and Colleagues Remember Senator Paul Wellstone
``As a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee,
Senator Wellstone was a tireless crusader for America's
veterans, an issue of paramount importance to him. I greatly
respected and admired him for his passion, his character and
his commitment for the causes in which he believed.''--
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi
``His unwavering support year after year of adequate
funding for veterans health care, in particular, was
something we could always count on. Similarly, he championed
the cause of homeless veterans to ensure that they were not
forgotten and that their needs were addressed by the nation
they served. Though not a veteran himself, he brought energy
and commitment to issues important to veterans and their
families. He was a fighter and leading voice and, if ever
there was a true friend of America's veterans, Senator
Wellstone was it.''--W.G. ``Bill'' Kilgore, national
commander of AMVETS
``Senator Wellstone has been a strong and vocal supporter
of veterans' issues. His leadership will be missed, and all
veterans are grateful for his passionate support over the
years.''--Thomas H. Corey, national president of Vietnam
Veterans of America
``The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States are
stunned and saddened by the untimely death of Senator Paul
Wellstone and his family. When it came to advocacy on behalf
of America's veterans, he was second to none. He constantly
and consistently crusaded and championed for the many issues
that were of vital interest to our veteran population. He was
tenacious in his efforts to assure passage of legislation
that would provide for those veterans suffering from
radiation exposure, Gulf War illness and those in need of VA
health care. He will be sorely missed. Our veterans have lost
a true hero. Our hearts and prayers are with the Wellstone
family.''--Ray Sisk, Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign
Wars
``I always knew on Veterans Day that I would see the
senator on that day. We would always go out to the veterans
hospital. I would be there, and I never had any doubt that
when I got there Senator Wellstone would be there. He was a
great advocate for veterans and veteran causes and veterans
benefits.''--Former Minneosta Governor Jesse Ventura
``The last speech he gave on the Senate floor, I was there.
He said, `You can call me soft if you want, but I care about
veterans in this country.' That was Paul Wellstone. He is
someone that looked out for those who didn't have someone
representing them and he wasn't afraid. He traveled a road
that was less traveled, but he traveled that road with his
shoulders back.''--Sen. Harry Reid
``Paul Wellstone was one of the most courageous men I have
ever known. He was a distinguished member of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee, and he fought hard for those who
fought for our country.''--Former Sen. Max Cleland
``Paul and I shared many of the same passions in the
Senate. We fought together side by side in the fight to save
our steel industry and together we were committed to
providing our nation's veterans with the benefits they
deserve. That was his style. He took on the toughest battles,
the ones that required years of effort and diligence, and he
always made a difference.''--Sen. Jay Rockefeller
``Paul was a caring, persistent and passionate advocate for
veterans, children, the mentally ill, working families, and
all those who too often feel that no one in Washington hears
their voice. Paul Wellstone was their voice; he was their
champion.''--Sen. Daniel Akaka
``Senator Wellstone believed deeply in causes that
transcended political lines, partisanship and ideology. I had
the privilege of working with him on legislation to end
homelessness among our nation's veterans. In our battle to
see this legislation enacted, time and time again we were
called up on to confront our own parties and colleagues. Each
and every time Paul Wellstone proved that his first concern
was to help those less fortunate than himself, even if it put
his political career at risk.''--Rep. Christopher Smith
``Paul Wellstone was my closest friend in the Senate. He
was the most principled public servant I've ever known. Paul
truly had the courage of his convictions and his convictions
were based on the principles of hope, compassion, the Good
Samaritan, helping those left on the roadside of life. His
courage is an example for all.''--Sen. Tom Harkin
``Paul Wellstone was the soul of the Senate. He was one of
the most noble and courageous men I have ever known. He was a
gallant and passionate fighter, especially for the less
fortunate. I am grateful to have known Paul and Sheila as
dear and close friends.''--Sen. Tom Daschle
``He didn't look ahead to the next election; he looked
ahead to the next generation. The women of the Senate called
him our Galahad. He supported us and fought with us for child
care, access to health care, and better schools.''--Sen.
Barbara Mikulski
``In his public service and private friendship, Paul
Wellstone embodied the Hebrew ideal of `tikkun olam,' which
means `to repair the world.' He was one of the most
passionate and principled people I've ever known. I feel
privileged to have worked with him.''--Sen. Joe Lieberman
``Paul Wellstone had a passion for justice that was evident
to all of his colleagues. Throughout his life, Paul was a
fighter for the good cause. His passion for justice was only
matched by his charm, wit and kindness to his political
friends and foes alike.''--Sen. John McCain
``He was a man of enormous ability but most of all, he was
a caring person. He was really a special person, a very
unique man.''--Sen. Ted Kennedy
``He was a model and an inspiration to all of us who
followed in his footsteps. He was my close personal friend
and political ally for over 20 years. I will miss him
terribly.''--Sen. Mark Dayton
``As fellow members of the Senate health and education
committee, I saw firsthand how passionate Paul could be on
the issues that were important to him. Paul had a remarkable
ability to maintain good relations with colleagues with whom
he disagreed.''--Sen. Jeff Sessions
``Paul Wellstone was a passionate public servant who was
committed to helping average Americans. His enormous energy,
determination and passion made him one of our most respected
senators. America will miss a great senator, and I will miss
a good friend.''Sen. Bill Nelson.
``He unfailingly represented his views eloquently and
emphatically. Paul Wellstone was a courageous defender of his
beliefs.''--Former Sen. Jesse Helms
``He was the pied piper of modern politics--so many people
heard him and wanted to follow him in his fight. His loss is
monumental. I loved his passion, his spirit, and his zest for
making peoples' lives better. This is sad beyond any
words.''--Sen. John Kerry
``His only interest in power was to help the powerless. He
was a happy warrior in the tradition of another great
Minnesota senator, Hubert Humphrey. He loved people and he
loved campaigning.''--Sen. Patrick Leahy
``Paul Wellstone loved politics and never shied away from a
fight for what he believed. I admired that quality greatly.
We didn't always agree on issues, but we always walked away
from the debate as friends. We enjoyed and respected each
other. I'll miss him. This is a great loss.''--Sen. Chuck
Grassley
``Nothing was trivial to Paul and no person was
unimportant. He was a thoughtful, sensitive, and caring with
people as he was astute and serious about ideas.''--Sen. Herb
Kohl
``The people of Minnesota, America and the world have lost
a friend and a champion of working families, the poor, the
disenfranchised and the disabled. Paul's public life was a
profile in courage. He spoke, stood and voted on his
principles, even at the risk of his political career.''--
Former President Bill Clinton
``He was a profoundly decent man, a man of principle, a man
of conscience. His passing is a loss not only for his family,
friends and constituents, but also for friends of the United
Nations.''--UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
``Paul Wellstone was a stand-up guy. He used the power of
his office for good. His memory will forever be a blessing to
all of us who knew him. And his work will continue to be a
blessing to countless thousands of people across the globe
who never met him, but whose lives will be forever bettered
by his work.''--Secretary of State Colin Powell
``He loved his job because it was the best way he could
serve the people of his state and his country. To cite one
example among many, Paul was by far the biggest and most
energetic champion of quality mental health coverage for all
Americans who need it. We worked with him closely on this
issue and on behalf of the mental health community has
passing leaves us with an irreplaceable loss.''--Former Vice
President Al Gore
[[Page S8236]]
``Paul Wellstone was one of the most valiant public
servants I have ever known. He had a very good mind, but he
also had an honest mind. And he served what be believed in,
no matter what the challenge.''--Former President Walter
Mondale
``Many noted changes in his manner and method after years
in Washington, but not much changed at the core of the man.
He remained an idealist and an optimist. He laughed easily,
often at himself and his 5-foot-5 stature. He always
remembered to thank the cooks and servers at a banquet, and
to greet the guards at office doors. He remembered names with
a facility that reminded old-timers of Hubert Humphrey.
Indeed, Wellstone had Humphrey's zeal for politics, policy
and--most of all--people.''--Minneapolis Star Tribune.
____
S. 1289
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
MEDICAL CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, AS PAUL
WELLSTONE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
MEDICAL CENTER.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center located
in Minneapolis, Minnesota, shall after the date of the
enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Paul
Wellstone Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''.
Any reference to such medical center in any law, regulation,
map, document, or other paper of the United States shall be
considered to be a reference to the Paul Wellstone Department
of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1290. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
an additional advance refunding of tax-exempt bonds issued for the
purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or
distribution assets; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that
would improve the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by allowing an
additional advanced refunding of tax exempt bonds issued for the
purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or
distribution assets. This bill will give municipal utilities additional
flexibility in refinancing their debts, so they can respond to
favorable market conditions. I ask that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objections, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1290
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL ADVANCE REFUNDING OF ELECTRICITY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 149 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to advance refunding)
is amended by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8)
and by inserting after paragraph (7) the following new
paragraph:
``(7) Special rule for certain electricity bonds.--
``(A) General rule.--In the case of a bond described in
subparagraph (B), one additional advance refunding after the
date of the enactment of this paragraph shall be allowed
under paragraph (3)(A)(i) if the requirements of subparagraph
(C) are met.
``(B) Bond described.--A bond is described in this
subparagraph if such bond is issued as part of an issue the
net proceeds of which are used to finance the costs of
electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets
owned by the issuer or by a consortium of State or local
governments which includes the issuer and which jointly own
such assets.
``(C) Requirements.--The requirements of this subparagraph
are met with respect to any advance refunding of a bond
described in subparagraph (B) if--
``(i) no advance refundings of such bond would be allowed
under any provision of law after the date of the enactment of
this paragraph,
``(ii) the advance refunding bond is the only other
outstanding bond with respect to the refunded bond, and
``(iii) the requirements of section 148 are met with
respect to all bonds issued under this subsection.
``(D) Inapplicability to certain bonds.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply with respect to a bond described in section
1400L(e).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to advance refunding bonds issued after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 1291. A bill to authorize the President to impose emergency import
restrictions on archaeological or ethnological materials of Iraq until
normalization of relations between the United States and the Government
of Iraq has been established; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Emergency
Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2003, the EPIC
Antiquities Act of 2003. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me as
an original cosponsor of this important legislation. The EPIC
Antiquities Act of 2003 authorizes the President to impose immediate
emergency import restrictions on the archaeological and ethnological
materials of Iraq. The purpose of this bill is simple--to close a legal
loophole which could allow looted Iraqi antiquities to be brought into
the United States. Allow me to explain how this might happen.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, former President Bush
issued Executive Orders 12722 and 12744, which declared a national
emergency with respect to Iraq. Those orders imposed economic sanctions
against Iraq, including a complete trade embargo which automatically
prohibited trade in Iraqi antiquities as of that time. The United
Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 661 on August 6, 1990,
which also imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions imposed
under the Executive Orders are spelled out in the Iraqi Sanctions
Regulations. These regulations are administered by the Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC.
Now until recently, the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations continued to
restrict trade with Iraq, including trade in Iraqi antiquities.
However, on May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution
1483, which lifted most sanctions on Iraq. Resolution 1483 also
provided that Member States should establish a prohibition on trade in
archaeological, cultural, historical, religious, and rare scientific
items of Iraq, that may have been illegally removed from the country
since the adoption of Resolution 661 back in 1990. On May 23, 2003,
OFAC implemented UN Resolution 1483 and issued a General License which
lifted most of our trade sanctions with respect to Iraq. Importantly,
OFAC's general license continues to ban trade in looted Iraqi
antiquities. However, this legal structure that is currently in place
is vulnerable to a potential loophole.
It is important to recognize that the legal authority for OFAC's
continuing restrictions on trade in Iraqi antiquities derives from the
Executive Orders issued in 1990, which are themselves premised upon the
existence of emergency conditions with respect to Iraq. It is possible
that once an interim government is in place, the President may
determine that emergency conditions no longer exist with respect to
Iraq and relations between the United States and Iraq will be
normalized. At that point, the legal authority for the OFAC
restrictions will be terminated. This bill is designed to bridge a
potential gap in the protections afforded Iraqi antiquities by allowing
the President to impose emergency import restrictions without delay.
These emergency restrictions would be authorized for an interim period
to extend beyond any termination of the OFAC restrictions, and would
remain in place until such time as other, more lengthy, legal
mechanisms for the protection of cultural antiquities can be completed.
I will elaborate on these other legal mechanisms in a moment.
If Congress does not act to provide the means for establishing the
interim ban on trade contained in this bill, the door may be opened to
imports of looted Iraqi antiquities into the United States. Already the
press has reported allegations that European auction houses have traded
in looted Iraqi antiquities. The last thing that we in Congress want to
do is to fail to act to prevent trade in looted Iraqi artifacts here in
the United States.
The stopgap authority in this bill derives from legislation
implementing the U.N. Convention on the protection of cultural
property. This bill amends the Convention on Cultural Property
Implementation Act, Implementation Act, to allow the President to
impose immediate emergency import restrictions with respect to Iraqi
antiquities. The Implementation Act already authorizes the President to
restrict imports of cultural antiquities, but there is a somewhat
lengthy process called for under the Implementation Act before the
President may impose such restrictions. Since we passed the
Implementation Act in 1983, we have imposed import restrictions on
archaeological
[[Page S8237]]
or ethnological materials from ten countries to assist in the
protection of their cultural property.
Unfortunately, the Implementation Act does not address the unique
conditions that prevail in Iraq today. Normally, under the
Implementation Act a country formally requests that the United States
prohibit stolen or illegally exported cultural antiquities from
entering into the United States. The State Department will then publish
a Federal Register notice announcing the request. Following
publication, a Cultural Property Advisory Committee will investigate
and review the request and report its recommendation to the President.
With the benefit of the Committee's report, the President can then
proceed to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the foreign country. In
the past, this entire process has taken at least a year before import
restrictions are put in place.
There are two major deficiencies with the current process which
necessitate the bill we are introducing today. First, the
Implementation Act requires a foreign government to make a formal
request to the United States. Right now, there is no Government of Iraq
to request such a bilateral agreement with the United States. The
second problem is that, even if there were an Iraqi Government in place
to make such a request, the administrative process called for under the
Implementation Act just takes too long given the present
circumstances--although the extent of looting of museums, libraries,
and archaeological sites in Iraq may not be as great as was first
feared, the fact remains that such looting has occurred and that
illicit trade in such antiquities could spread if there is even a
temporary lifting of import restrictions.
Now granted, the Implementation Act does authorize the President to
impose emergency import restrictions even before a bilateral agreement
is finalized. However, before the President can do so, all of the other
administrative processes under the Implementation Act must be
completed; this includes a three month period for the preparation of a
report to the President by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee.
Again, the problem here is that the normal process for imposing even
emergency import restrictions could take too long.
If the Administration were to normalize relations between the United
States and the next Government of Iraq, thereby terminating the OFAC
import restrictions, it is possible that looted Iraqi antiquities could
begin entering the United States while we sit and wait for a possible
bilateral agreement to be finalized. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003
solves this problem. This legislation provides a uniquely and narrowly
tailored amendment to the Implementation Act which closes the potential
legal loophole between the time when relations are normalized and the
time when we can undertake and complete the normal processes for the
protection of cultural antiquities contained in the Implementation Act.
By extending the President's authority under the Implementation Act
for an interim period, this bill is narrowly designed to meet the
unique circumstances in Iraq today. The EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003
provides that this extension of the President's authority will
terminate one year after relations are normalized, or by September 30,
2004, so that the next Iraqi Government can determine for itself
whether to seek a bilateral agreement with the United States, and if
so, the President can negotiate such an agreement with the benefit of
input from the Cultural Property Advisory Committee--as envisioned by
the Implementation Act. In short, our bill does not seek to supplant
the established process for protecting cultural antiquities under the
Implementation Act; instead, it permits an extra guarantee of
protection for Iraq's cultural antiquities in the short term while Iraq
completes its transition back into the community of nations.
I thank Senator Baucus for his support, and I hope our colleagues can
also support this important and timely bill. I hope we are able to move
this legislation quickly, perhaps as part of the Miscellaneous Trade
and Technical Corrections Act of 2003, which is waiting for full Senate
approval.
As we work to reestablish the free flow of trade with a liberated
Iraq, I believe it is very important that we in Congress remain mindful
of the need to take steps to protect Iraq's cultural heritage. Our bill
will ensure that going forward we continue to adhere to the full spirit
of Resolution 1483 and avoid any break in the protections afforded to
Iraqi antiquities. Our bill also provides an important signal of our
commitment to preserving Iraq's resources for the benefit of the Iraqi
people. It is time to close the potential gap in protections, and pass
the EPIC Antiquities Act of 2003.
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. 1291
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 ``Emergency Protection for
Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
(a) Authority.--The President may exercise the authority of
the President under section 304 of the Convention on Cultural
Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2603) with respect to
any archaeological or ethnological material of Iraq as if
Iraq were a State Party under that Act, except that, in
exercising such authority, subsection (c) of such section
shall not apply.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``archaeological
or ethnological material of Iraq'' means cultural property of
Iraq and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural,
rare scientific, or religious importance illegally removed
from the Iraq National Museum, the National Library of Iraq,
and other locations in Iraq, since the adoption of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 661 of 1990.
SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
The authority of the President under section 2 shall
terminate upon the earlier of--
(1) the date that is 12 months after the date on which the
President certifies to Congress that normalization of
relations between the United States and the Government of
Iraq has been established; or
(2) September 30, 2004.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 1292. A bill to establish a servitude and emancipation archival
research clearinghouse in the National Archives; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today on the 138th anniversary of
the day that Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers
arrived in Galveston, TX. They brought the news that the war had ended
and that the enslaved were now free. Since its origin in 1865, the
observance of June 19th as African American Emancipation Day, or
Juneteenth, is the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery.
It took two and a half years after the effective date of the
Emancipation Proclamation set forth by President Lincoln for the news
of freedom to arrive in Texas. Of course, this kind of delay in finding
out about new national policy, especially a bold new initiative set
forth by Executive Order, would be absurd in our present society. We
are now part of the information age and access to the most up-to-date
news is commonplace. Unfortunately, African Americans who attempt to
trace their genealogy face undue delay in obtaining the necessary
documents to try and piece together their unique heritage. For this
reason, I am proposing the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research
Clearinghouse, SEARCH, Act of 2003. This bill establishes a national
database within the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA,
housing various documents that would assist those in search of a
history that because of slavery, can not easily be found in the most
commonly searched registered and census records.
Traditionally, someone researching their genealogy would try looking
up wills and land deeds; however, enslaved African Americans were
prohibited from owning property. In fact, African Americans were
considered property, so the name of former slave owners would have to
be identified with the hopes that the owner kept record of pertinent
information, such as births and deaths. In most cases, If records
exist, many African Americans were not associated with last names, thus
making them more difficult to trace. With slaves not being listed by
name, this also precludes the use of the most popular and major source
of genealogical research, the United States
[[Page S8238]]
Census. Even the use of letters, diaries, and other first-person
recordings of slave simply do not exist because slaves could not
legally learn to read or write.
We may think after 1865, African Americans could then begin to use
traditional genealogical records like voter registrations and school
records. However, African Americans did not immediately begin to
participate in may of the privileges of citizenship, including voting
and attending school. Discrimination meant the prevention of African
American siting on juries or owning businesses. Segregation meant
segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, clubs, and fraternal
organizations. Therefore, many of the records were also segregated. For
example, some telephone directories in South Carolina did not include
African Americans in the regular alphabetical listing, but at the end
of the book. An African American must maneuver these distinctive
nuances in order to conduct proper genealogical research. In my own
State of Louisiana, descendants of the 9th Calvary Regiment and the
25th Infantry Regiment, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, would have to
know to look in the index of the United States Colored Troops and not
the index of the State Military Regiments.
Abraham Lincoln said, ``a man who cares nothing about his past can
care little about his future.'' In 1965, Alex Haley stumbled upon the
names of his maternal great-grandparents while going through post-Civil
War records at the National Archives here in Washington, D.C. This
discovery led to an 11-year journey that resulted in the milestone of
literary history, Roots. By providing $5 million for the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish and
maintain a national database, the SEARCH Act proposes to significantly
reduce the time and painstaking efforts of those African Americans who
truly care about their American past, and care enough to contribute to
the American future. This bill also seeks to authorize $5 million for
States, colleges, and universities to preserve, catalogue, and index
records locally.
In a democracy, records matter. The mission of NARA is to ensure that
anyone can have access to the records that matter to them. The SEARCH
Act of 2003 helps to fulfill that mission by helping African Americans
to navigate the genealogical process, given the circumstances unique to
the African American experience. No longer should any American have to
wait to find out about information leading to freedom.
I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Juneteenth this year
by passing this measure, and 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. 1292
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 ``Servitude and Emancipation
Archival Research ClearingHouse Act of 2003'' or the ``SEARCH
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF DATABASE.
(a) In General.--The Archivist of the United States shall
establish, as a part of the National Archives, a national
database consisting of historic records of servitude and
emancipation in the United States to assist African Americans
in researching their genealogy.
(b) Maintenance.--The database established by this Act
shall be maintained by the National Historical Publications
and Records Commission.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated--
(1) $5,000,000 to establish the national database
authorized by this Act; and
(2) $5,000,000 to provide grants to States and colleges and
universities to preserve local records of servitude and
emancipation.
______
By Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Grassley,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Edwards):
S. 1293. A bill to criminalize the sending of predatory and abusive
e-mail; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with Senators Leahy,
Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, and Edwards, the Criminal Spam
Act of 2003. This legislation, which enjoys bipartisan support, targets
the most egregious types of spammers--those who hijack computer systems
and those who use other fraudulent means to send unsolicited commercial
electronic mail.
Over the course of the past several years, the amount of unsolicited
commercial email, or spam, has grown at an exponential rate. During a
recent Senate hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, Brightmail Inc., a provider of spam filtering software
that serves six of the ten largest U.S. Internet service providers,
estimated that in April 2003, 46 percent of all email traffic was spam.
This figure represented a nearly five fold increase in spam in merely
18 months. At the same hearing, America Online testified that on any
given day, it blocks approximately 2.3 billion spam messages.
This tremendous growth rate is due in large part to sophisticated
spammers who use abusive tactics to send millions of email messages
quickly, at an extremely low cost. By using deceptive methods, these
spammers conceal their identities, evade Internet service provider
filters, and exploit the Internet by advertising and promoting
pornographic web sites, illegally pirated software, questionable health
products, pyramid schemes and other ``get rich quick'' or ``make money
fast'' scams. The extraordinary volume of spam generated by their
schemes imposes significant costs on Internet users, threatens to
disrupt Internet services, and undermines the public's confidence in
online commerce.
A recent study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission demonstrates
the alarming frequency with which spammers are using the Internet to
conceal their true identities and the electronic paths of their
messages. This study found that 40 percent of email messages contain
indicia of falsity in the body of the message; approximately 33 percent
contain indicia of falsity in the ``from'' lines of the spam; 22
percent contain indicia of falsity in the ``subject'' line; and some 66
percent contain at least one form of deception.
The Criminal Spam Act of 2003 targets fraudulent and deceptive spam
by enhancing the ability of federal law enforcement authorities to
prosecute and punish the most egregious wrongdoers. Specifically, the
Act makes it a crime to hack into a computer, or to use a computer
system that the owner has made available for other purposes, as a
conduit for bulk commercial email. The Act also prohibits sending bulk
commercial email that conceals the true source, destination, routing or
authentication information of the email, or is generated from multiple
email accounts or domain names that falsify the identity of the actual
registrant.
The Act subjects violators to stiff criminal penalties of up to 5
years' imprisonment where the offense is committed in furtherance of
any felony, or where the defendant has previously been convicted of a
similar Federal or state offense, and up to 3 years' imprisonment where
other aggravating factors exist. It also contains criminal forfeiture
provisions and directs the Sentencing Commission to consider
enhancements for offenders who obtain email addresses through illegal
means, such as harvesting.
The strong deterrent effect of the legislation is further enhanced by
civil enforcement provisions that authorize the Department of Justice
and aggrieved Internet service providers to bring suit for violations
of the Act. In appropriate cases, courts may grant injunctive relief,
impose civil fines, and award damages of up to $25,000 per day of
violation, or between $2 and $8 per email initiated in violation of the
Act.
Recognizing that spammers can send their fraudulent and deceptive
messages from any location in the world, the Act directs the Department
of Justice and the Department of State to work through international
fora to gain the cooperation of other countries in investigating and
prosecuting spammers worldwide and to report to Congress about their
efforts and any recommendations for addressing international predatory
spam.
The Criminal Spam Act represents an important legislative step toward
curbing predatory and abusive commercial email. However, broader
legislative measures, coupled with technological
[[Page S8239]]
solutions, are also needed. Any effective solution to the spam problem
requires cooperative efforts between the government and the private
sector, as well as the assistance of our international partners.
Recent years have witnessed extraordinary technological advances.
These innovations, and electronic communications in particular, have
significantly increased the efficiencies, productivity and conveniences
of our modern world. The abusive practices of fraudulent spammers
threaten to choke the lifeblood of the electronic age. This is a
problem that warrants swift but deliberative legislative action. I am
committed to working with my colleagues in both Houses to address the
spam problem on all fronts.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Section-by-Section Analysis
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE
This bill may be cited as the ``Criminal Spam Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST PREDATORY AND ABUSIVE COMMERCIAL EMAIL
This section targets the four principal techniques that
spammers use to evade filtering software and hide their
trails. It creates a new federal crime that prohibits hacking
into a computer, or using a computer system that the owner
has made available for other purposes, to send bulk
commercial email. It also prohibits sending bulk commercial
email that either conceals the true source, destination,
routing and authentication information of the email, or is
generated from multiple email accounts or domain names that
falsify the identity of the actual registrant. Penalties
range from up to 5 years' imprisonment where the offense was
committed in furtherance of any felony, or where the
defendant was previously convicted of a similar federal or
state offense, and up to 3 years' imprisonment where other
aggravating factors exist. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is
directed to consider sentencing enhancements for offenders
who obtained email addresses through improper means, such as
harvesting.
In addition, this section provides for civil enforcement by
the Department of Justice and aggrieved Internet service
providers against spammers who engage in the conduct
described above. In appropriate cases, courts may grant
injunctive relief, impose civil penalties, and award damages.
SEC. 3. REPORT AND SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INTERNATIONAL SPAM.
Recognizing that an effective solution to the spam problem
requires the cooperation and assistance of our international
partners, this section asks the Administration to work
through international fora to gain the cooperation of other
countries in investigating and prosecuting spammers
worldwide, and to report to Congress about its efforts.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing, with
Senators Hatch, Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, and Edwards, the
Criminal Spam Act of 2003. This bill is designed to counter the most
objectionable forms of email marketing. In an effort to clear
electronic channels for legitimate communications, the bill targets
those spammers who deceive Internet Service Providers, ``ISPs'', and
email recipients into thinking that messages come from someone other
than a spammer--a ploy many spammers use to increase the likelihood
that their unwanted ads will evade filtering software and be opened.
Without a doubt, spam is a serious problem today, one that is
threatening to undermine the vast potential of the Internet to foster
the free exchange of information and commerce. Businesses and
individuals currently wade through tremendous amounts of spam in order
to access email that is of relevance to them--and this is after ISPs,
businesses, and individuals have spent time and money blocking a large
percentage of spam from reaching its intended recipients.
Email users are having the online equivalent of the experience of the
woman in the Monty Python skit, who seeks to order a spam-free
breakfast at a restaurant. Try as she might, she cannot get the
waitress to bring her the meal she desires. Every dish in the
restaurant comes with Spam; it's just a matter of how much. There's
``egg, bacon and Spam''; ``egg, bacon, sausage and Spam''; ``Spam,
bacon, sausage and Spam''; ``Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon and Spam'';
``Spam, sausage, Spam, Spam, Spam, bacon, Spam, tomato and Spam''; and
so on. Exasperated, the woman finally cries out: ``I don't like Spam! .
. . I don't want ANY Spam!''
Individuals and businesses are reacting similarly to electronic spam.
A Harris poll taken late last year found that 80 percent of respondents
view spam as ``very annoying,'' and fully 74 percent of respondents
favor making mass spamming illegal. They are fed up.
ISPs are doing their best to shield customers from spam, blocking
billions of spam each day, but the spammers are winning the battle.
Millions of unwanted, unsolicited commercial emails are received by
American businesses and individuals each day, despite their own,
additional filtering efforts. A recent study by Ferris Research
estimates that spam costs U.S. businesses $8.9 billion annually as a
result of lost productivity and the need to purchase more powerful
servers and additional bandwidth; to configure and run spam filters;
and to provide help-desk support for spam recipients. The costs of spam
are significant to individuals as well, including time spent
identifying and deleting spam, inadvertently opening spam, installing
and maintaining anti-spam filters, tracking down legitimate messages
mistakenly deleted by spam filters, and paying for the ISPs' blocking
efforts.
And there are other less prominent but equally important costs of
spam. It may introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan Horses into personal
and business computer systems, including those that support our
national infrastructure. It is also fertile ground for deceptive trade
practices. The FTC recently estimated that 96 percent of the spam
involving investment and business opportunities, and nearly half of the
spam advertising health services and products, and travel and leisure,
contains false or misleading information.
This rampant deception has the potential to undermine Americans'
trust of valid information on the Internet. Indeed, it has already
caused some Americans to refrain from using the Internet to the extent
that they otherwise would. For example, some have chosen not to
participate in public discussion forums, and are hesitant to provide
their addresses in legitimate business transactions, for fear that
their email addresses will be harvested for junk email lists. And they
are right to be concerned. The FTC found spam arriving at its computer
system just nine minutes after posting an email address in an online
chat room.
At a recent FTC forum on spam, experts agreed that the issue is ripe
for Federal action. Some 30 States now have anti-spam laws, but the
nature of email makes it difficult to discern where any given piece of
spam originated, and, thus, what State has jurisdiction and what State
law applies. This may explain why spammers continue to flout State
laws. For example, several States require that spam begin the subject
line with ``ADV,'' but the FTC has found that only 2 percent of spam
contains this label.
Technology will undoubtedly play a key role in fighting spam.
However, a technological solution to the problem is not predicted in
the foreseeable future. In addition, given the adroitness with which
spammers adapt to anti-spam technologies, the development and
implementation of technological fixes to spam entail constant vigilance
and substantial financial investment. This raises the question: Why
should individuals and businesses be forced to invest large amounts of
time and money in buying, installing, and maintaining generation after
generation of anti-spam technologies?
I have often said that the government should regulate the Internet
only when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, spammers have caused
this to be one of those times. Congress needs to address the spam
problem quickly and prudently, and the Criminal Spam Act, by targeting
the most injurious types of spam, is a good start.
The bill that Senator Hatch and I introduce today would prohibit the
four principal techniques that spammers use to evade filtering software
and hide their trails.
First, our bill would prohibit hacking into another person's computer
system and sending bulk spam from or through that system. This would
criminalize the common spammer technique of obtaining access to other
people's email accounts on an ISP's email network, whether by password
theft or by inserting a ``Trojan horse'' program--that is, a program
that unsuspecting users
[[Page S8240]]
download onto their computers and that then takes control of those
computers--to send bulk spam.
Second, the bill would prohibit using a computer system that the
owner makes available for other purposes as a conduit for bulk spam,
with the intent of deceiving recipients as to the spam's origins. This
prohibition would criminalize another common spammer technique--the
abuse of third parties' ``open'' servers, such as email servers that
have the capability to relay mail, or Web proxy servers that have the
ability to generate ``form'' mail. Spammers commandeer these servers to
send bulk commercial email without the server owner's knowledge, either
by ``relaying'' their email through an ``open'' email server, or by
abusing an ``open'' Web proxy server's capability to generate form
emails as a means to originate spam, thereby exceeding the owner's
authorization for use of that email or Web server. In some instances
the hijacked servers are even completely shut down as a result of tens
of thousands of undeliverable messages generated from the spammer's
email list.
The bill's third prohibition targets another way that outlaw spammers
evade ISP filters: falsifying the ``header information'' that
accompanies every email, and sending bulk spam containing that fake
header information. More specifically, the bill prohibits forging
information regarding the origin of the email message, the route
through which the message attempted to penetrate the ISP filters, and
information authenticating the user as a ``trusted sender'' who abides
by appropriate consumer protection rules. The last type of forgery will
be particularly important in the future, as ISPs and legitimate
marketers develop ``white list'' rules whereby emailers who abide by
self-regulatory codes of good practices will be allowed to send email
to users without being subject to anti-spamming filters. There is
currently substantial interest among marketers and email service
providers in ``white list'' technology solutions to spam. However, such
``white list'' systems would be useless if outlaw spammers are allowed
to counterfeit the authentication mechanisms used by legitimate
emailers.
Fourth and finally, the Criminal Spam Act prohibits registering for
multiple email accounts or Internet domain names, and sending bulk
email from those accounts or domains. This provision targets deceptive
``account churning,'' a common outlaw spammer technique that works as
follows. The spammer registers, usually by means of an automatic
computer program, for large numbers of email accounts or domain names,
using false registration information, then sends bulk spam from one
account or domain after another. This technique stays ahead of ISP
filters by hiding the source, size, and scope of the sender's mailings,
and prevents the email account provider or domain name registrar from
identifying the registrant as a spammer and denying his registration
request. Falsifying registration information for domain names also
violates a basic contractual requirement for domain name registration.
Penalties for violations of these provisions are tough but measured.
Recidivists and those who send spam in furtherance of another felony
may be imprisoned for up to five years. Large-volume spammers, those
who hack into another person's computer system to send bulk spam, and
spam ``kingpins'' who use others to operate their spamming operations
may be imprisoned for up to three years. Other offenders may be fined
and imprisoned for no more than one year. Convicted offenders are also
subject to forfeiture of proceeds and instrumentalities of the offense.
In addition to these criminal penalties, offenders are also subject
to civil enforcement actions, which may be brought by either the
Department of Justice or by an ISP. Civil remedies are important as a
supplement to criminal enforcement for several reasons. First, bringing
cases against outlaw spammers is very resource intensive because of the
extensive forensic work involved in building a case; providing for
civil enforcement will allow ISPs to assemble evidence to make
prosecutors' jobs easier. Second, although criminal prosecutions are a
critical deterrent against the most egregious spammers, the Justice
Department is unlikely to prosecute all outlaw spam cases; civil
enforcement, backed by strong financial penalties, will serve as a
second layer of deterrence. Third, criminal penalties may not be
appropriate in all cases, as for example in the case of teenagers hired
by professional outlaw spammers to send out email for them; civil
enforcement gives the Justice Department a more complete and refined
range of tools to address specific outlaw spam problems.
That describes the main provisions of our bill. In addition, because
commercial email can be, and is being, sent from all over the world
into the virtual mailboxes of Americans, the bill directs the
Administration to report on its efforts to achieve international
cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of outlaw spammers.
Again, the purpose of the Criminal Spam Act is to deter the most
pernicious and unscrupulous types of spammers--those who use trickery
and deception to induce others to relay and view their messages.
Ridding America's inboxes of deceptively delivered spam will
significantly advance our fight against junk email. But the Criminal
Spam Act is not a cure-all for the spam pandemic.
The fundamental problem inherent to spam--its sheer volume--may well
persist even in the absence of fraudulent routing information and false
identities. In a recent survey, 82 percent of respondents considered
unsolicited bulk email, even from legitimate businesses, to be
unwelcome spam. Given this public opinion, and in light of the fact
that spam is, in essence, cost-shifted advertising, it may be wise to
take a broader approach to our fight against spam.
One approach that has achieved substantial support is to require all
commercial email to include an ``opt out'' mechanism, that is, a
mechanism for consumers to opt out of receiving further unwanted spam.
At the recent FTC forum, several experts expressed concerns about this
approach, which permits spammers to send at least one piece of spam to
each email address in their database, while placing the burden on email
recipients to respond. People who receive dozens, even hundreds, of
unwanted emails each day would have little time or energy for anything
other than opting-out from unwanted spam.
According to one organization's calculations, if just one percent of
the approximately 24 million small businesses in the U.S. sent every
American just one spam a year, that would amount to over 600 pieces of
spam for each person to sift through and opt-out of each day. And this
figure may be conservative, as it does not include the large businesses
that also engage in on-line advertising.
A second possible approach to spam--a national ``Do Not Spam''
registry--raises a different but no less difficult set of concerns. The
two FTC Commissioners who testified last month at the Senate Commerce
Committee's hearing on spam both questioned the potential of a national
registry to alleviate the spam problem. Although this approach would
place a smaller burden on consumers than would an opt-out system, it
would entail immense costs, complexity, and delay, all of which work in
the spammers' favor.
A third way of attacking spam--and one that was favored by many
panelists and audience members at the FTC forum--is to establish an
opt-in system, whereby bulk commercial email may only be sent to
individuals and businesses who have invited or consented to it. This
approach has strong precedent in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, TCPA, which Congress passed to eliminate similar cost-
shifting, interference, and privacy problems associated with
unsolicited commercial faxes. The TCPA's ban on faxes containing
unsolicited advertisements has withstood First Amendment challenges in
the courts, and was adopted by the European Union in July 2002.
I have discussed three possible approaches to the spam problem, and
there are several others, some of which have already been codified in
state law. I encourage the consideration of all these anti-spam
approaches in the weeks and months to come.
Reducing the volume of junk commercial email, and so protecting
legitimate Internet communications, will
[[Page S8241]]
not be easy. There are important First Amendment interests to consider,
as well as the need to preserve the ability of legitimate marketers to
use email responsibly. If Congress does act, it must get it right, so
as not to exacerbate an already terribly vexing problem.
The Criminal Spam Act is a first step in countering spam. If we can
shut down the spammers who use deception to evade filters and confuse
consumers, we will give the next generation of anti-spam technologies a
chance to do their work. Our bill targets the most egregious offenders,
it provides a much-needed federal cause of action, and it allows the
states to continue to serve as a ``laboratory'' for tough anti-spamming
regulation. I urge its speedy enactment into law.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Pryor):
S. 1294. A bill to authorize grants for community telecommunications
infrastructure planning and market development, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
help rural and underserved communities across the country get connected
to the information economy.
Today I am introducing the Community Telecommunication Planning Act
of 2003. I am proud to have Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Kennedy, Leahy,
and Pryor as original cosponsors. This bill will give small and rural
communities a new tool to attract high speed services and economic
development.
Representative Inslee from my home State, along with several other
members, will soon introduce a companion bill in the House. I
appreciate him working with me to meet this challenge.
I am especially proud of how this legislation came about. For the
last four years, I've been working with a group of community leaders in
Washington State to find ways to help communities get connected to
advanced telecommunications services.
I want to take a moment to thank the members of my Rural
Telecommunication Working Group for their hard work on this bill. The
members include: Brent Bahrenburg, Gregg Caudell, Dee Christensen, Dave
Danner, Louis Fox, Tami Garrow, Larry Hall, Rod Fleck, Ray King, Dale
King, Terry Lawhead, Dick Llarman, Jim Lowery, Jim Miller, Joe Poire,
Skye Richendrfer, Ted Sprague, Jim Schmit, and Ron Yenney.
We met as a working group, and we held forums around the State that
attracted hundreds of people. We've tapped the ideas of experts,
service providers and people from across the State who are working to
get their communities connected. The result is this legislation, which
I am proud to say is part of Washington State's contribution to our
national effort to connect all parts of our country to the Internet.
The bill was originally introduced in the 107th Congress. I was able
to attach a version of it to the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, the
provision was removed during Conference.
This bill addresses a real need in many communities. While urban and
suburban areas have strong competition between telecommunications
providers, many small and rural communities are far removed from the
services they need.
We must ensure that all communities have access to advanced
telecommunications like high speed internet access and the wireless
Internet. Just as yesterday's infrastructure was built of roads and
bridges, today our infrastructure includes advanced telecom services.
Advanced telecommunications can enrich our lives through activities
like distance-learning, and they can even save lives through efforts
like telemedicine. The key is access. Access to these services is
already turning some small companies in rural communities into
international marketers of goods and services.
Unfortunately, many small and rural communities are having trouble
getting the access they need. Before communities can take advantage of
some of the help and incentives that are out there, they need to work
together and got through a community planning process. Community plans
identify the needs and level of demand, create a vision for the future,
and show what all the players must do to meet the telecom needs of
their community for today and tomorrow. These plans take resources to
develop, and my bill would provide those funds.
Providers say they're more likely to invest in an area if it has a
plan that makes a business case for the costly infrastructure
investment. Communities want to provide them with that plan, but they
need help developing it. Unfortunately, many communities get struck on
that first step. They don't have the resources to do the studies and
planning required to attract service. So the members of my Working
Group came up with a solution: have the Federal Government provide
competitive grants that local communities can use to develop their
plans. I took that idea and put it into this bill.
After determining what services they need, communities must then go
out and make a market case to providers. That is why I've added
``market development'' to the list of allowable uses of grant funding.
While this bill deals with new technology, it's really just an
extension of the infrastructure support the federal government
traditionally provides to communities.
The Federal Government already provides money to help communities
plan other infrastructure improvements--everything from roads and
bridges to wastewater facilities. Because today's economic
infrastructure includes advanced telecom services, I believe the
Federal Government should provide similar support for local technology
infrastructure.
In summary, this bill would provide rural and underserved communities
with grant money for creating community plans, technical assessments
and other analytical work, and it would allow these communities to use
the funding to market these plans to providers.
With these grants, communities will be able to turn their desire for
access into real access that can improve their communities and
strengthen their economies. This bill can open the door for thousands
of small and rural areas across our country to tap the potential of the
information economy.
I urge the Senate to support this bill, and I look forward to working
with my colleagues to see it passed.
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. 1294
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 ``Community Telecommunications
Planning Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLANNING GRANTS.
(a) Authority To Make Grants.--Each Secretary concerned
may, using amounts authorized to be appropriated by the
applicable paragraph of subsection (g), make grants to
eligible entities described in subsection (b) for the
community telecommunications infrastructure planning and
market development purposes described in subsection (c).
(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity eligible for a grant
under this section is any local or tribal government, local
non-profit entity, cooperative, public utility, or other
public entity that proposes to use the amount of the grant
for the community telecommunications infrastructure planning
and market development purposes described in subsection (c).
(c) Community Telecommunications Infrastructure Planning
and Market Development.--Amounts from a grant made under this
section shall be used for purposes of facilitating the
development of a telecommunications infrastructure and market
development plan for a locality by various means, including--
(1) by encouraging the involvement in the development of
the plan of interested elements of the community concerned,
including the business community, governments,
telecommunications providers, and secondary and, where
applicable, post-secondary educational institutions and their
students;
(2) by enhancing the focus of the development of the plan
on a wide range of telecommunications needs in the community
concerned, including needs relating to local business,
education, health care, and government;
(3) by enhancing the identification of a wide range of
potential solutions for such needs through advanced
telecommunications infrastructure; and
(4) by any other means that the Secretary concerned
considers appropriate.
[[Page S8242]]
(d) Grant Priority for Planning for Rural and Underserved
Areas.--In making grants under this section, each Secretary
concerned shall give priority to eligible entities that
propose to use the grants for community telecommunications
infrastructure planning and market development for rural
areas or underserved areas.
(e) Administration.--Each Secretary concerned shall
establish such administrative requirements for grants under
this section, including requirements for applications for
such grants, as such Secretary considers appropriate.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means any county
having a population density of less than 300 people per
square mile as determined in the 2000 decennial census.
(2) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means each of the following:
(A) The Secretary of Commerce.
(B) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(C) The Secretary of Education.
(3) Underserved area.--The term ``underserved area'' means
any census tract as determined in the 2000 decennial census
which is located in--
(A) an empowerment zone or enterprise community designated
under section 1391 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(B) the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone established
under section 1400 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(C) a renewal community designated under section 1400E of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(D) a low-income community designated under section 45D of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(g) Authorizations of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for purposes of making grants under this
section--
(1) for the Department of Commerce--
(A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and
each subsequent fiscal year;
(2) for the Department of Agriculture--
(A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and
each subsequent fiscal year; and
(3) for the Department of Education--
(A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(B) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and
each subsequent fiscal year.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Talent):
S. 1297. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect
to the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court
over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today the ``Protect the
Pledge Act of 2003.'' The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag has been an
integral part of this Nation's identity since its early days. It was
first written by a Baptist minister in 1892 as part of the
commemoration of the 400th Anniversary of the discovery of America. For
over a century, children and adults have recited this Pledge in
schools, in government and military ceremonies, and on other formal
occasions. It represents a promise of loyalty to the Flag itself, to
the country it represents, and to the government that unites all fifty
states. Perhaps more importantly, for many people, its recitation
represents as essential element of what it means to be an American.
In United States v. Newdow, the Ninth Circuit jeopardized the
integrity of the Pledge of Allegiance. It held that a school district's
policy of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge violates the First
Amendment Establishment Cause because it includes the phrase ``under
God.'' This decision is simply wrong. It claims that the American flag
symbolizes monotheism. It does no such thing. The Pledge represents our
country, our independence, our government--simply, it represents
liberty and justice for all. While the phrase ``under God'' undeniably
has some religious connotation, it is a term of art with de minimus
theological significance. It is not intended to establish a national
religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religious beliefs. The
thirty-one words of the Pledge of Allegiance, however, are worthy of
reverence and respect. To eliminate the phrase ``under God'' would be
equivalent to depicting the flag with forty-nine stars or twelve
stripes. It changes the constitution of our American identity.
The ``Protect the Pledge Act of 2003'' prevents further judicial
encroachment by eliminating federal jurisdiction of claims that the
recitation of the Pledge violates the First Amendment. By passing this
legislation, Congress is exercising its Constitutional duty to preserve
the separation of powers. When the judiciary has oversteps its
boundaries, as it has done in Newdow, Congress must act to protect the
sanctity of the Pledge of Allegiance. This bill represents a reasoned
response to Newdow. By limiting its scope to federal jurisdiction, it
leaves open a potential remedy in state court, thereby obviating any
due process concerns.
I am hopeful that my colleagues in both Houses will work
expeditiously, on a bi-partisan basis, to enact this important
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1297
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 ``Protect the Pledge Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. JURISDICTION LIMITATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 99 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1632. Jurisdiction limitation
``No court established by Act of Congress shall have
jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (`I pledge
allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.') violates the
first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1632. Jurisdiction limitation.''.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1298. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 to ensure the humane slaughter of non-ambulatory livestock, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Downed Animal
Protection Act, a bill to provide for the humane treatment, handling,
and euthanasia of non-ambulatory, downed, livestock unable to stand or
walk unassisted.
Farm animals such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and
other equines that are too severely distressed and sick to move without
assistance are often not handled humanely. Due to the extra effort and
cost to individually feed and water non-ambulatory livestock, these
animals routinely endure very poor conditions. In most cases, the level
of suffering of downed animals is so severe that the most humane
solution is to euthanize them as soon as possible. It is important to
note that non-ambulatory livestock comprise a tiny fraction, less than
one percent, of all animals at stockyards.
The humane euthanasia of non-ambulatory livestock would also protect
human health. Many of the downed animals that survive in the stockyard
are slaughtered for human consumption. A large majority of these non-
ambulatory animals are contaminated with fecal matter, the main cause
of Salmonella. U.S. citizen groups, such as the Parents of Sickened
Children, have called for improved regulations to stop sickness and
death from preventable diseases like Salmonella.
I commend responsible and conscientious livestock organizations and
producers such as the United Stockyards Corporation, the Minnesota
Livestock Marketing Association, the National Pork Producers Council,
the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, and the Independent Cattlemen's
Association of Texas for their efforts to address the issue of downed
animals. However, the need for stronger legislation to ensure that non-
ambulatory animals do not enter our food chain is evident, particularly
with the recent discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy BSE, in
Canada.
The Downed Animal Protection Act will remove the incentive for
sending non-ambulatory livestock to stockyards, thereby reducing the
risk that these animals will be processed for human consumption and
discouraging their inhumane treatment at farms and ranches. My bill
will complement the industry's current efforts to address this problem
and make the issue of downed animals a priority.
My legislation would set a uniform national standard, thereby
removing
[[Page S8243]]
any unfair advantage that might result from different standards
throughout the industry. Furthermore, no additional bureaucracy will be
needed as a consequence of my bill because inspectors regularly visit
stockyards and slaughter facilities to enforce existing regulations.
Thus, the additional burden on the agency and stockyard operators will
be insignificant.
As I stated before, this bill will stop the inhumane and improper
treatment of downed animals while also helping to ensure that our food
supply remains safe. I encourage my colleagues to support this
important legislation. 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. 1298
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 ``Downed Animal Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL SLAUGHTER PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY
LIVESTOCK.
(a) In General.--Section 10815 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1967) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (f);
(2) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered entity.--The term `covered entity' means--
``(A) a stockyard;
``(B) a market agency;
``(C) a dealer;
``(D) a slaughter facility; and
``(E) an establishment.
``(2) Establishment.--The term `establishment' means an
establishment that is covered by the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
``(3) Humanely euthanize.--The term `humanely euthanize'
means to kill an animal by mechanical, chemical, or other
means that immediately renders the animal unconscious, with
this state remaining until the death of the animal.
``(4) Nonambulatory livestock.--The term `nonambulatory
livestock' means any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses,
mules, or other equines, that are unable to stand and walk
unassisted.
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``(b) Humane Treatment, Handling, and Disposition.--The
Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the
humane treatment, handling, and disposition of nonambulatory
livestock by covered entities, including a requirement that
nonambulatory livestock be humanely euthanized.
``(c) Humane Euthanasia.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), when an animal
becomes nonambulatory, a covered entity shall immediately
humanely euthanize the nonambulatory livestock.
``(2) Disease testing.--Paragraph (1) shall not limit the
ability of the Secretary to test nonambulatory livestock for
a disease, such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.
``(d) Movement.--
``(1) In general.--A covered entity shall not move
nonambulatory livestock while the nonambulatory livestock are
conscious.
``(2) Unconsciousness.--In the case of any nonambulatory
livestock that are moved, the covered entity shall ensure
that the nonambulatory livestock remain unconscious until
death.
``(e) Inspections.--It shall be unlawful for an
establishment to pass through inspection any nonambulatory
livestock.'';
(3) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by inserting ``this section and'' after ``enforcing'';
and
(ii) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting ``this
section''; and
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by inserting ``this section or'' after ``violates'';
and
(ii) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting ``this
section''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by subsection (a) take effect on the date
that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
promulgate final regulations to implement the amendments made
by subsection (a).
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 1299. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide trade
readjustment and development enhancement for America's communities, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``TRADE for
America's Communities Act'' in recognition of the critical need to
provide economic development assistance to communities, across this
Nation, that have been negatively impacted by trade. I am pleased to be
joined by Senator Murkowski in offering this critical legislation.
We are faced with a challenge to a U.S. trade program from the
international community and with communities that are being left behind
in an era of global commerce. Congress must make the difficult
decisions to turn these two challenges into opportunities for this
Nation. In 1999, I supported the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset
Act, authored by Senator DeWine, that used the revenue from
countervailing and antidumping tariff duties to provide assistance to
the firms that were affected by unfair trade. I supported that bill
because it introduced an important policy principle: that the revenue
from unfair trade should be used to help those hurt by trade.
Unfortunately, that act ran afoul of our international commitments.
In January, the World Trade Organization ruled that this program was in
violation of our Antidumping Agreement, and the President requested
Congress repeal that program in order to bring the United States into
compliance. While I cannot support a full repeal of this program, I
believe the bill we are introducing today will bring the United States
into compliance with our international obligations, while maintaining
the principle that this money be used to help those hurt by trade.
In fact, the TRADE for America's Communities Act builds upon the
strong foundation and principles of Senator DeWine's program and it is
my hope that other proponents of the CDSOA will support our efforts to
address the needs of these communities. While it is necessary to live
up to our international agreements, it is just as imperative that we
live up to our responsibilities to the fishing towns, mining towns and
mill towns of America where jobs have been lost.
With the momentum provided by the passage of Trade Promotion
Authority, the President has put forth an agenda on a bilateral,
regional and global basis that promotes the liberalization of trade. As
the President has argued, this policy agenda creates new opportunities
for prosperity and growth.
At the same time, we must never forget that opportunities of market
access, improved consumer choice, and availability of manufacturing
inputs, come with the price of transitions, dislocations, and shifts in
the U.S. economy. These dynamic changes that are outgrowths from trade
are similar to technological advances in productivity that leave
workers out of jobs, or plants out of operation. However, while
technological advances are the initiative of private enterprise, trade
liberalization is the chosen policy of government. Free trade creates
opportunities, but it also creates responsibilities that this
government must embrace just as firmly as it embraces free trade.
The bill we are introducing today address these issues by giving the
Department of Commerce the revenue from these tariffs, which currently
goes to corporations, to provide technical assistance to communities
that have been negatively impacted by trade, to develop strategic plans
that would focus on creating and retaining jobs in a community and
promote economic diversification. Once the strategic plans have been
approved by the Department of Commerce, grants would be available,
based on the needs of the community, to implement economic development
projects, improve the local infrastructure, support the establishment
of small businesses, and attract new businesses.
In small towns, where the livelihood of the local economy depends on
one industry, one plant, or one company, that is suffering under trade
liberalization, it can cause devastation when that steel mill, paper
mill, or textile mill shuts down. In towns like East Millinocket, ME,
where Great Northern Paper went bankrupt, or in Waterville, Maine,
where Hathaway shut down their plant and moved shirt production
overseas, local economies were sent into disarray. That is just part of
the reason I was so adamant in my support last year for improvements in
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Congress did the right thing when we expanded TAA training and
benefits in the Trade Act of 2002, but one of the complaints leveled
against TAA was the concern over what these workers would be able to do
with their new
[[Page S8244]]
training in small towns that had few jobs to offer. The ``TRADE for
America's Communities Act'' seeks to answer those concerns by ensuring
that in towns where there may be few opportunities left, this
government takes the first step towards providing hope through economic
adjustment assistance.
The ``TRADE for America's Communities Act'' would lay the groundwork
for an America where no community is left behind in the march towards a
free and open global economy. As the Finance Committee continues its
work on trade legislation and the numerous trade agreements being
proposed by this Administration, I look forward to the opportunity to
address the economic development needs of these communities.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL:
S. 1300. A bill to prohibit a health plan from contracting with a
pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) unless the PBM satisfies certain
requirements, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Prescription
Drug Consumer Information Act. I believe this legislation will
dramatically improve the way in which prescription drug benefits are
provided to our Nation's 40 million senior citizens through the
Medicare program.
The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act is intended to provide
some assurances that the billions of dollars being spent on this new
prescription drug benefit for Medicare is going as far as possible. The
Act is focused primarily on the practices of pharmacy benefit managers,
the private companies that would most likely administer the new
prescription drug benefit called for under the Prescription Drug
Benefits Bill.
PBMs have come to dominate the prescription drug benefit market and
subsequently, have been the target of criticism by the employers and
health plans that contract with them. The source of the controversy has
been the cost cutting practices of PBMs, which have allowed them to
make prescription drug coverage more affordable. However, the fact that
drug prices continue to rise in the face of these cost-cutting efforts,
has led some to question PBM practices in the private sector. As we
move forward in providing prescription drug coverage within a
government-operated program as large as Medicare it is critical that
there be adequate safeguards in place. My bill would provide greater
scrutiny and auditing of PBMs contracting with the government and also
provide some consumer protections for all Americans who purchase
prescription drugs.
The market share of prescription drug benefits managed by PBMs has
grown enormously in recent years. Currently, 90 percent of Americans
with prescription drug coverage have their benefits administered by a
PMB. Of that 90 percent, nearly 70 percent of those people are served
by one of the four major PBM companies. PBMs provide benefits to nearly
200 million Americans, including 65 percent of the Nation's senior
population. PBMs have become as powerful in the delivery of
prescription drug services as the manufacturers which produce
medications.
As PBMs have come to dominate the market, they are increasingly
drawing the attention of State lawmakers struggling with skyrocketing
prescription drug costs for state workers and large programs like
Medicaid. As States focus on reducing pharmaceutical costs, suspicions
are growing among state lawmakers and health department officials that
the ``behind-closed-doors'' practices of PBMs are responsible for some
of the escalating costs of prescription drugs. In 2002, Georgia become
the first State to regulate PBMs by requiring they be licensed as
pharmacies. This year, 19 States have introduced legislation to
regulate or license PBMs.
At issue are the rebates, discounts and other savings that PBMs
negotiate with drug manufacturers in exchange for giving their
medications ``preferred'' status on the PBMs list of available drugs.
Those contracts are a primary source of revenue for the PBMs and for
the drug manufacturers who see use of their products increase as the
PBM steers its massive consumer base toward the preferred drug.
However, because PBMs are so secretive about their arrangements with
manufacturers, it is difficult for PBM clients to know if a significant
portion of the rebates are being passed back to them as the PBM
promises.
PBMs also negotiate lower prices with pharmacies but fail to share
those savings with consumers, particularly on generic drugs. A recent
Wall Street Journal investigation found that for one drug fluoxetine, a
generic of Prozac, PBMs were buying the drug from the pharmacy for
about 30 cents a pill. However, most of the PBMs clients were paying
$1.06 a pill based on the average markup formula. The PBM was pocketing
the difference, which was 76 cents per pill. Multiply that by the
number of fluoxetine pills dispensed by the PBMs and it is clear that
these private companies are getting rich while consumers continue to
pay unnecessarily high drug prices. This may be in the best interests
of the PBMs shareholders, but it is a disservice to its customers,
which turn to PBMs in an attempt to save money and lower drug costs.
Efforts to better understand the PBM industry have reinforced this
attitude of secrecy and backroom deals. Last year, Senator Dorgan
requested a General Accounting Office study of whether PBMs were
sharing the savings achieved through rebates and discounts with the
members of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Unfortunately,
the study provided us with little understanding of how the PBM industry
operates because GAO was denied access to the financial documents of
the PBM companies. GAO had no way of fulfilling its obligation of
reporting to Congress because the PBMs refused to disclose any
information about rebates, discounts and other savings generated by
FEHBP.
Yet, these same companies want the federal government to hand them
billions of dollars for a new Medicare drug benefit without providing
any accounting of how that money was spent. Allowing the PBMs to
operate a government program in such secrecy is outrageous and would
set a terrible policy precedent.
The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act would improve this
system with a five-part approach. First, the Act would eliminate
potential conflicts of interest by prohibiting cross ownership of
pharmaceutical manufacturing companies and PBMs. Second, it would
contain costs by requiring that any PBM contracting with Medicare
provide any cost savings negotiated with a pharmacy back to the PBM
client, be that client an employer, a health plan or the government.
Third, it would require all pharmacies to disclose the retail cost of
a prescription drug upon request by a consumer. Several States,
including Washington State, Montana, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island,
along with the Virgin Islands, currently require pharmacies to make
retail prices available to consumers. This provision is desperately
needed across the country. A 2002 survey conducted by the Washington
State Attorney General's Office found that retail prices on
prescriptions could vary as much as $25 within a city and within a
pharmacy chain. All consumers should be able to comparison shop for the
best price amongst pharmacies in their area but they cannot do that if
they do not know the retail price of various drugs.
Fourth, the amendment would require PBMs on an annual basis to make
public the percent of rebate received from the manufacturer that is
passed back to the client, such as an employer, health plan or the
government. The amendment does not require full public disclosure of
the PBMs' negotiations with manufacturers because I realize that such a
requirement could damage their ability to get good deals from the
manufacturer. This disclosure does not have to take an all or nothing
approach. The Act allows the PBM to keep private the specifics of their
contracts, but at the same time provides senior citizens some assurance
that they are benefiting from the savings achieved in those contracts.
Finally, my bill would strengthen the audit requirements for PBMs
administering the Medicare drug benefit to ensure that PBMs are passing
those rebates and other savings along to consumers. One of the problems
for employers and health plans using PBMs now is that it is difficult
for them to
[[Page S8245]]
confirm that the PBM is meeting its contractual obligations to pass on
a portion of its savings. Auditing provisions in my bill include
complete disclosure of the amounts and types of rebates. The results of
the audit would not become public, to ensure the PBMs ability to
continue to negotiate discounted prices. This approach strikes a fair
balance between the PBMs rights as private companies and the duty the
PBMs have to share any savings generated by the new benefit with
Medicare recipients.
Together, these provisions will ensure that senior citizens and the
government are getting the most out of every dollar spent on a Medicare
prescription drug benefit and that other consumers who purchase
prescription drugs are armed with information before spending their
hard-earned money. Consumers should have some assurance that the
private companies providing prescription drug insurance are not running
up costs and cutting down coverage in an attempt to boost their own
bottom lines. The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act provides
those assurances and protections.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1301. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
video voyeurism in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, and of other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with the Senator from
New York, Mr. Schumer, to introduce the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act
of 2003. Our legislation would criminalize the appalling practice of
filming or photographing victims without their knowledge or consent
under circumstances violating their privacy.
Video voyeurism encompasses what is referred to as ``upskirting'' or
``downshirting.'' As the terms imply, this subset of video voyeurism
involves the use of a tiny, undetectable camera to film up the skirt or
down the shirt of an unsuspecting target, most often a woman. One of my
constituents from Ohio became the victim of this shocking invasion of
privacy while she was innocently enjoying a church festival with her
16-month old daughter. I would like to read you what she told the
Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper in an article published on October 10,
2000:
As I crouched down to put the baby in my stroller, I saw a
video camera sticking out of his bag, taping up my dress. . .
. It rocked my whole sense of security.
According to an ABCNEWS.com article that also published this story,
this particular perpetrator had surreptitiously filmed a total of 13
women that day. Sadly, this is not an isolated event. The widespread
availability of low-cost, high-resolution cameras has lead to an
increase in the number of high-profile cases of ``video-voyeurism'' all
over our country. Reports of women being secretly videotaped through
their clothing at shopping malls, amusement parks, and other public
places are far too common.
The impact of video voyeurism on its victims is greatly exacerbated
by the Internet. As a result of Internet technology, the pictures that
a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a
matter of seconds. A State representative from Ohio, Representative Ed
Jerse, stated it best when he told ABC News that when a woman's picture
is posted on the Web, her privacy ``could be violated millions of
times.''
Fortunately, my home State of Ohio has enacted a law that
specifically targets video voyeurism. But Ohio is one of only a few
States that have such a law. That means that in most areas around the
country, victims of this practice are not only deprived of their
security and their privacy but are left without any recourse against
their perpetrator. As the defense attorney for one video voyeur aptly
observed, ``the criminal law necessarily lags behind technology and
human ingenuity.''
Our Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003 seeks to close the gap in
the law and ensure that video voyeurs will be punished for their acts.
Our bill would make it a crime to videotape, photograph, film, or
otherwise electronically record the naked or undergarment-clad
genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual
without that individual's consent. This bill would help ensure that
when a person has a reasonable expectation that he or she will not be
videoed, filmed, or photographed as I have just described, that
expectation of privacy will be recognized in and protected by the law.
Additionally, our bill would make certain that perpetrators of video
voyeurism are punished, by imposing a sentence of a fine or
imprisonment for up to 1 year.
Importantly, however, the mens rea requirements included in this bill
guarantee that only those who are truly guilty of this crime will be
punished. To be charged with video voyeurism, an actor must intend to
capture the prohibited image and must knowingly do so.
In closing, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Video
Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2003. This legislation would help safeguard
the privacy we all take for granted and would help ensure that our
criminal law reflects the realities of our rapidly changing technology.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed at the
conclusion of my remarks.
S. 1301
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 ``Video Voyeurism Prevention
Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.
(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 87 the following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 88--PRIVACY
``Sec.
``1801. Video voyeurism.
``Sec. 1801. Video voyeurism
``(a) Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, having the intent to
capture an improper image of an individual, knowingly does so
under circumstances violating the privacy of that individual,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both.
``(b) In this section--
``(1) the term `captures', with respect to an image, means
videotapes, photographs, films, or records by any electronic
means;
``(2) the term `improper image', with respect to an
individual, means an image, captured without the consent of
that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals,
pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;
and
``(3) the term `under circumstances violating the privacy
of that individual' means under circumstances in which the
individual exhibits an expectation that the improper image
would not be made, in a situation in which a reasonable
person would be justified in that expectation.''.
(b) Amendment to Part Analysis.--The table of chapters at
the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 87
the following new item:
1801''.vacy..........................................................
____________________