[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 106 (Thursday, September 9, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9033-S9037]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Coleman):
  S. 2781. A bill to express the sense of Congress regarding the 
conflict in Darfur, Sudan, to provide assistance for the crisis in 
Darfur and for comprehensive peace in Sudan, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2781

       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 ``Comprehensive Peace in Sudan 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) JEM.--The term ``JEM'' means the Justice and Equality 
     Movement.
       (3) SLA.--The term ``SLA'' means the Sudanese Liberation 
     Army.
       (4) SPLM.--The term ``SPLM'' means the Sudan People's 
     Liberation Movement.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) A comprehensive peace agreement for Sudan, as 
     envisioned in the Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), and 
     in the Machakos Protocol of 2002, is in grave jeopardy.
       (2) Since 1989, the Government of Sudan has repeatedly 
     engaged in and sponsored orchestrated campaigns of attacking 
     and dislocating targeted civilian populations, disrupting 
     their ability to sustain themselves, and subsequently 
     restricting assistance to those displaced in a coordinated 
     policy of ethnic cleansing and Arabization that is most 
     recently evident in the Darfur region of Sudan.
       (3) In response to 2 decades of civil conflict in Sudan, 
     the United States has helped to establish an internationally 
     supported peace process to promote a negotiated settlement to 
     the war that has resulted in a framework peace agreement, the 
     Nairobi Declaration on the Final Phase of Peace in the Sudan 
     signed June 5, 2004.
       (4) At the same time that the Government of Sudan was 
     negotiating for a final countrywide peace, enumerated in the 
     Nairobi Declaration on the Final Phase of Peace in the Sudan, 
     it refused to engage in any discussion with regard to its 
     ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing in the region of Darfur.
       (5) It was not until the international community expressed 
     its outrage, through high level visits by Secretary of State 
     Colin Powell and others, and through United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 1556 of July 30, 2004, that the Government 
     of Sudan agreed to engage in talks to bring peace to the 
     Darfur region.
       (6) According to the Government of the United States and 
     United Nations officials, the Government of Sudan has engaged 
     in an orchestrated campaign, with the assistance of its Arab 
     Sudanese proxy militia, the

[[Page S9034]]

     Janjaweed, to remove a significant part of the ethnically 
     African population from North Darfur, West Darfur, and South 
     Darfur, Sudan.
       (7) The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 
     identified ``massive human rights violations in Darfur 
     perpetrated by the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed, 
     which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against 
     humanity''.
       (8) Evidence collected by international observers in the 
     Darfur region between January 2003 and September 2004 
     indicate a coordinated effort to target African Sudanese 
     civilians in a scorched earth policy, from both air and 
     ground, that has destroyed African Sudanese villages, killing 
     and driving away its people, while Arab Sudanese villages 
     have been left unscathed.
       (9) As a result of this coordinated campaign, which 
     Congress has declared to be genocide, reports indicate tens 
     of thousands of African Sudanese civilians killed, the 
     systematic rape of thousands of women and girls, the 
     destruction of hundreds of Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa villages 
     and other ethnically African populations, including the 
     poisoning of their wells and the plunder of crops and cattle 
     upon which they sustain themselves.
       (10) According to the United Nations High Commissioner for 
     Refugees, 1,400,000 people have been displaced in the Darfur 
     region of Sudan, of whom over 200,000 have been forced to 
     flee to Chad as refugees.
       (11) The Government of Sudan conducted aerial attack 
     missions and deadly raids across the international border 
     between Sudan and Chad in an illegal effort to pursue 
     Sudanese civilians seeking refuge in Chad.
       (12) In addition to the thousands of violent deaths 
     directly caused by ongoing Sudanese military and government 
     sponsored Janjaweed attacks in the Darfur region, the 
     Government of Sudan has restricted humanitarian and human 
     rights workers' access to the Darfur area, primarily through 
     bureaucratic and administrative obstruction in an attempt to 
     inflict the most devastating harm on those displaced from 
     their villages and homes without any means of sustenance or 
     shelter.
       (13) The Government of Sudan's continued support for the 
     Janjaweed and their obstruction of the delivery of food, 
     shelter, and medical care to the Darfur region--
       (A) is estimated to be causing 500 deaths each day; and
       (B) is projected to escalate to 2,400 deaths each day by 
     December 2004, so that even a best-case scenario will likely 
     result in the death of more than 320,000 people between April 
     1, 2004 and December 31, 2004.
       (14) The Government of Chad served an important role in 
     facilitating the Darfur humanitarian cease-fire (the 
     N'Djamena Agreement dated April 8, 2004) for the Darfur 
     region between the Government of Sudan and the 2 opposition 
     rebel groups in Darfur (the JEM and the SLA) although both 
     sides have violated it repeatedly.
       (15) The people of Chad have responded courageously to the 
     plight of over 200,000 Darfur refugees even though such 
     assistance has adversely affected their own means of 
     livelihood.
       (16) The cooperation and inclusion of all Sudanese is 
     essential to the establishment of peace and security 
     throughout all of Sudan.
       (17) The African Union has demonstrated renewed vigor in 
     regional affairs through its willingness to respond to the 
     crisis in Darfur, by convening talks between the parties and 
     deploying several hundred monitors and security forces to the 
     region, as well as by recognizing the need for a far larger 
     force with a broader mandate.
       (18) Despite the threat of international action expressed 
     through United Nations Security Council Resolution 1556 of 
     July 30, 2004, the Government of Sudan continues to obstruct 
     and prevent efforts to reverse the catastrophic consequences 
     that loom over Darfur.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE CONFLICT IN DARFUR, 
                   SUDAN.

       (a) Sudan Peace Act.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
     Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) remains relevant and 
     should be extended to include the Darfur region of Sudan.
       (b) Actions To Address the Conflict.--It is the sense of 
     Congress that--
       (1) a legitimate countrywide peace in Sudan will only be 
     possible if the principles of the Machakos Protocol of 2002 
     and the Nairobi Declaration on the Final Phase of Peace in 
     the Sudan signed June 5, 2004, negotiated with the SPLM, 
     apply to all of Sudan and to all of the people of Sudan, 
     including the Darfur region;
       (2) the parties to the N'Djamena Agreement (the Government 
     of Sudan, the SLA, and the JEM) must meet their obligations 
     under that Agreement to allow safe and immediate access of 
     all humanitarian assistance throughout the Darfur region and 
     must expedite the conclusion of a political agreement to end 
     the conflict in Darfur;
       (3) the United States should continue to provide 
     humanitarian assistance to the areas of Sudan to which the 
     United States has access and, at the same time, develop a 
     plan similar to that described in section 10 of the Sudan 
     Peace Act to provide assistance to the areas of Sudan to 
     which United States access has been obstructed or denied;
       (4) the international community, including African, Arab, 
     and Muslim nations, should immediately provide resources 
     necessary to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of 
     individuals at risk as a result of the Darfur crisis;
       (5) the United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes 
     should travel to Chad and the Darfur region immediately to 
     investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity to develop 
     a more accurate portrayal of the situation on the ground and 
     to better inform the report required in section 11(b) of the 
     Sudan Peace Act;
       (6) the United States and the international community 
     should--
       (A) provide all necessary means to assist in the immediate 
     deployment of a contingent of 4,200 African Union forces as 
     recommended by the United Nations and to sustain such forces; 
     and
       (B) work to increase the authorized level and expand the 
     mandate of such forces commensurate with the gravity and 
     scope of the problem in a region the size of France;
       (7) the President should use all means to facilitate a 
     comprehensive solution to the conflict in Sudan, including by 
     directing the United States Permanent Representative to the 
     United Nations to pursue a resolution of the United Nations 
     Security Council that--
       (A) condemns the actions of the Government of Sudan in 
     engaging in an orchestrated campaign of ethnic cleansing in 
     Darfur;
       (B) calls on the Government of Sudan to cease support of 
     ethnic cleansing and the killing of innocent civilians, 
     disarm the Janjaweed militias, prevent such militias from 
     harassing and killing civilians, and ensure immediate access 
     for all humanitarian assistance to all areas of Darfur;
       (C) calls on all parties to the conflict in the Darfur 
     region to permit unimpeded delivery of humanitarian 
     assistance directly to Darfur, in particular to allow such 
     assistance to cross directly from countries that border 
     Sudan;
       (D) calls on the Government of Sudan to provide all 
     assistance possible, including release of its strategic food 
     reserves, to respond to the Darfur crisis;
       (E) calls on the international community, particularly 
     those countries with strong economic ties to Sudan, to 
     expedite the provision of humanitarian assistance to Darfur;
       (F) authorizes the African Union Mission in Sudan (AUMIS) 
     now deploying to the Darfur region of Sudan, and calls for 
     the expansion of such force, and extension of the force's 
     mandate to include protection of civilians;
       (G) establishes an international commission of inquiry to 
     examine the actions and accountability of those responsible 
     for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Darfur 
     region; and
       (H) confirms the right of all displaced Sudanese to return 
     to their villages under safe and secure conditions;
       (8) an international commission of inquiry should be 
     established to conduct an investigation of atrocities in the 
     Darfur region and to preserve evidence of atrocities for use 
     in the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes and 
     crimes against humanity;
       (9) sanctions should be imposed on the assets and 
     activities of those Sudanese Government officials and other 
     individuals that are involved in carrying out the policy of 
     ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region;
       (10) the Government of the United States should not 
     normalize relations with Sudan, including through the lifting 
     of any sanctions, until the Government of Sudan agrees to, 
     and takes demonstrable steps to implement, peace agreements 
     for all areas of Sudan, including Darfur; and
       (11) Presidential Proclamation 6958 issued November 22, 
     1996, which suspends entry into the United States of members 
     of the Government of Sudan, officials of that Government, and 
     members of the Sudanese Armed Forces, should continue to 
     remain in effect and be strictly enforced.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO THE SUDAN PEACE ACT.

       (a) Assistance for the Crisis in Darfur and for 
     Comprehensive Peace in Sudan.--
       (1) In general.--The Sudan Peace Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 12. ASSISTANCE FOR THE CRISIS IN DARFUR AND FOR 
                   COMPREHENSIVE PEACE IN SUDAN.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Humanitarian assistance.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the President for assistance to address the 
     humanitarian and human rights crisis in the Darfur region and 
     its impact on eastern Chad, pursuant to the authority in 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2292), $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, in addition to any 
     other funds otherwise available for such purpose.
       ``(2) Additional assistance.--Subject to subsections (b) 
     and (c), there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President, for assistance for Sudan upon the conclusion of a 
     North-South peace agreement, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2005 in addition to any other funds otherwise available for 
     such purpose.
       ``(3) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     are authorized to remain available until expended, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law other than the 
     provisions in this section.
       ``(b) Requirement for Certification.--The assistance 
     authorized under subsection (a)(2) may be provided to the 
     Government of Sudan only if the President submits the 
     certification described in subsection (c).
       ``(c) Certification for the Government of Sudan.--The 
     certification referred to in

[[Page S9035]]

     subsection (b) is a certification submitted by the President 
     to the appropriate congressional committees that the 
     Government of Sudan has taken demonstrable steps to--
       ``(1) ensure that the armed forces of Sudan and any 
     associated militias are not attacking civilians or 
     obstructing human rights monitors or the provision of 
     humanitarian assistance;
       ``(2) demobilize and disarm militias supported or created 
     by the Government of Sudan;
       ``(3) allow full and unfettered access for the provision of 
     humanitarian assistance to all regions of Sudan, including 
     Darfur; and
       ``(4) cooperate fully with the African Union, the United 
     Nations, and all other observer, monitoring, and protection 
     missions mandated to operate in Sudan.
       ``(d) Suspension of Assistance.--If, on a date after the 
     President submits the certification described in subsection 
     (c), the President determines that the Government of Sudan--
       ``(1) has ceased taking the actions described in such 
     subsection, the President shall immediately suspend the 
     provision of any assistance to such Government until the date 
     on which the President certifies that the Government of Sudan 
     has resumed taking such actions; or
       ``(2) has not shown good faith in working to establish 
     sustainable peace in all parts of Sudan, including but not 
     limited to the Darfur region, the President may suspend all 
     assistance until such time as these expectations are met.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--Section 8 of the Sudan Peace 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended in the first sentence by 
     striking ``Sudan.'' and inserting ``Sudan, including the 
     conflict in the Darfur region.''.

     SEC. 6. OTHER RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Blocking of Assets.--On the date that is 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, if the President has not 
     submitted the certification described in subsection (c) of 
     section 12 of the Sudan Peace Act, as added by section 5, the 
     President shall, consistent with the authorities granted in 
     the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1701 et seq.), block the assets of appropriate senior 
     officials of the Government of Sudan.
       (b) Continuation of Restrictions.--Restrictions against the 
     Government of Sudan that were imposed pursuant to title III 
     and sections 508, 512, and 527 of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     2004 (Division D of Public Law 108-199; 118 Stat. 143) shall 
     remain in place until the President makes the certification 
     described in subsection (c) of section 12 of the Sudan Peace 
     Act, as added by section 5.

     SEC. 7. REQUIREMENT FOR REPORT.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the planned 
     United States response to a comprehensive peace agreement for 
     Sudan.
       (b) Content.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of the planned United States response to 
     a modified peace process between the Government of Sudan and 
     the SPLM that would account for the implementation of a peace 
     in all regions of Sudan, in particular Darfur; and
       (2) a contingency plan for extraordinary humanitarian 
     assistance should the Government of Sudan continue to 
     obstruct or delay the international humanitarian response to 
     the crisis in Darfur.
       (c) Form of Report.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     may be submitted in classified form.

     SEC. 8. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       Section 12 of the International Organizations Immunities 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 288f-2) is amended by striking ``Organization 
     of African Unity'' and inserting ``African Union''.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Lugar and I, along with 
several other colleagues, introduce a bill that is designed to increase 
pressure on the government of Sudan to stop its campaign of genocide in 
Darfur.
  There is now--at least in the U.S. Government--no dispute that 
genocide has occurred in Darfur. The Congress so stated by resolution 
in July. Today, in testimony to the Committee on Foreign Relations, the 
Secretary of State affirmed that ``genocide has been committed in 
Darfur'' and that the Government of Sudan and the janjaweed militia 
bear responsibility for it.
  The situation in Darfur is dire. As many as 50,000 black Africans 
have been killed. Sexual violence is routinely used as a weapon by the 
Sudanese-sponsored janjaweed militia. Over a million people are 
displaced from their homes. And, because the Sudanese government 
refused to allow unrestricted access to war-affected populations at the 
onset of this crisis--a crisis of the government's making--hundreds of 
thousands of people are likely to die by the end of the year.
  Unless we act quickly and decisively to stop the violence in Darfur, 
history is going to judge us harshly for our lack of action. It may 
already be too late to avoid the condemnation of future generations.
  On July 30, following UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's visit to 
Sudan, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1556. The 
resolution was, in my view, inadequate. It provided an arms embargo and 
travel ban against the janjaweed, but did little to pressure the very 
government sponsoring the militia. The resolution provided only a vague 
threat to apply the sanctions to the government of Sudan if it failed 
to take certain steps, including ending all restrictions on 
humanitarian workers, investigating and punishing human rights abuses, 
immediately beginning disarmament of the janjaweed, and resuming talks 
with the rebels. Sudan was given 30 days to comply.
  Sudan has not satisfied the conditions for the resolution. On 
September 2, the Secretary General's Special Representative to Sudan 
reported to the Security Council that the government of Sudan has not 
taken any steps to disarm the janjaweed or improve security of 
internally displaced persons.
  The administration's response was to propose a new draft UN 
resolution yesterday. Unfortunately, this resolution only delays a 
decision about whether or not to impose sanctions for another 30 days. 
It does not label what is happening in Khartoum as genocide, although 
it does call upon the Secretary General to establish a commission of 
inquiry into violations of international humanitarian law and human 
rights. It does not call for a chapter 7 peacekeeping mission in 
Darfur, and it does not call for an expansion of the mandate of the 
African Union Mission in Sudan.
  I believe the Congress must do its part to pressure the government of 
Sudan, and to provide additional tools to the Administration.
  On July 21, Senator DeWine and I introduced S. 2705, which was aimed 
at pressuring the government of Sudan to fulfill commitments it made to 
the UN. On July 22, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
Senator Lugar, also introduced a bill on Sudan, S. 2720. It had the 
same objective, though its provisions were different from the Biden-
DeWine bill in several respects.
  Over the recess, the chairman and I worked together to develop a 
joint bill. I believe it is important that the committee speak with one 
voice on the genocide in Darfur. I also recognize that this late in the 
congressional session, most legislation will require unanimous consent 
to pass. So I hope our joint effort will prove successful.
  The bill we introduce today authorizes $200 million in humanitarian 
assistance for Darfur. It holds out the promise of $100 million in 
assistance for Sudan in connection with a peace agreement between the 
government and rebels in the south, but only if the President certifies 
that Khartoum takes demonstrable steps that it has stopped attacking 
civilians, disarmed the janjaweed and allowed unfettered access to 
Darfur for humanitarian workers. If the President cannot make this 
certification within 120 days, the bill requires that the President 
block the assets of senior members of the government of Khartoum.
  The bill does not go as far as I would have liked. The Biden-DeWine 
bill provided additional resources to implement a north-south peace 
agreement as an incentive to the Khartoum government, and it provided 
for additional sanctions, including those sanctions already set forth 
in the Sudan Peace Act. But I have agreed to join with the chairman to 
take this intermediate action.
  I want to make clear that this bill should only be considered a first 
step. If the tragedy in Darfur continues, and if Khartoum continues to 
ignore the demands of the international community that it cease the 
violence in Darfur, I intend to introduce stronger legislation next 
year.
  Today the Secretary of State spoke clearly, for all the world to 
hear--genocide has occurred in western Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of 
lives are on the line. We cannot say we were not warned. We cannot say 
we did not know. We cannot say that we lacked the means to respond. We 
are obligated, by the Genocide Convention and our collective 
conscience, to act to assist the people suffering and to prevent 
further violence. Immediate support for the African Union is necessary, 
but

[[Page S9036]]

not sufficient to respond to the situation in Darfur. In addition, we 
need to press for a UN resolution that authorizes a multilateral force 
with a mandate to protect civilians. We also should look outside Africa 
for military and logistical assistance, rather than relying solely on 
the African Union.
  What is occurring in Darfur is a travesty. Our response has not been 
commensurate with the suffering there. It is imperative that the United 
States and the international community increase assistance to the 
displaced, and increase pressure on the government of Sudan to take 
action.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 2783. A bill to clarify conditions for the interceptions of 
computer trespass communications under the USA-PATRIOT Act; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Computer 
Trespass Clarification Act of 2004, which would amend and clarify 
section 217 of the USA-PATRIOT Act. Section 217 addresses the 
interception of computer trespass communications. This bill would 
modify existing law to more accurately reflect the intent of the 
provision, and also protect against invasions of privacy.
  Section 217 was designed to permit law enforcement to assist computer 
owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes 
of hacking. The original Department of Justice draft of the bill that 
later became the PATRIOT Act included this provision. A section-by-
section analysis provided by the Department on September 19, 2001, 
stated the following:
       Current law may not allow victims of computer trespassing 
     to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring 
     unauthorized attacks as they occur. Because service providers 
     often lack the expertise, equipment, or financial resources 
     required to monitor attacks themselves as permitted under 
     current law, they often have no way to exercise their rights 
     to protect themselves from unauthorized attackers. Moreover, 
     such attackers can target critical infrastructures and engage 
     in cyberterrorism. To correct this problem, and help to 
     protect national security, the proposed amendments to the 
     wiretap statute would allow victims of computer attacks to 
     authorize persons ``acting under color of law'' to monitor 
     trespassers on their computer systems in a narrow class of 
     cases.

  I strongly supported the goal of giving computer system owners the 
ability to call in law enforcement to help defend themselves against 
hacking. Including such a provision in the PATRIOT Act made a lot of 
sense. Unfortunately, the drafters of the provision made it much 
broader than necessary, and refused to amend it at the time we debated 
the bill in 2001. As a result, the law now gives the government the 
authority to intercept communications by people using computers owned 
by others as long as they have allegedly engaged in some unauthorized 
activity on the computer, and the owner gives permission for the 
computer to be monitored.
  Only people who have a ``contractual relationship'' with the owner 
allowing the use of a computer are exempt from the definition of a 
computer trespasser under section 217 of the PATRIOT Act. Many people--
for example, college students, patrons of libraries, Internet cafes or 
airport business lounges, and guests at hotels--use computers owned by 
others with permission, but without a contractual relationship. They 
could end up being the subject of government snooping if the owner of 
the computer gives permission to law enforcement.
  My bill would clarify that someone who has been given permission to 
use a computer by the owner or operator of that computer is not a 
computer trespasser. It would bring the existing computer trespass 
provision in line with the purpose of section 217 as expressed in the 
Department of Justice's initial explanation of the provision. Section 
217 was intended to target only a narrow class of people: unauthorized 
cyberhackers. It was not intended to give the government the 
opportunity to engage in widespread surveillance of computer users 
without a warrant.
  We don't know, of course, whether such surveillance is taking place. 
Unless criminal charges are brought against someone as a result of such 
surveillance, there would never be any notice at all that the 
surveillance has taken place. The computer owner authorizes the 
surveillance, and the FBI carries it out. There is no warrant, no court 
proceeding, no opportunity even for the subject of the surveillance to 
challenge the assertion of the computer owner that some unauthorized 
use of the computer has occurred.
  The Computer Trespass Clarification Act would modify the computer 
trespass provision to protect against abuse, while still maintaining 
its usefulness in cases of denial of service attacks and other forms of 
hacking.
  First, it would require that the owner or operator of the protected 
computer authorizing the interception has been subject to 
``communications activity that threatens the integrity or operation of 
such computer.'' In other words, the owner has to be the target of some 
kind of hacking.
  Second, the bill would clarify that to be excluded from the 
definition of computer trespasser, a person who has permission to use a 
computer does not need to have a contractual relationship granting that 
permission.
  Third, the bill limits the length of warrant-less surveillance to 96 
hours. This is twice as long as is allowed for an emergency wiretap. 
With four days of surveillance, it should not be difficult for the 
government to gather sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a 
warrant if continued surveillance is necessary.
  In addition, the bill would require the Attorney General to annually 
report on the use of Section 217 to the Senate and House Judiciary 
Committees. Section 217 is one of the provisions that is subject to the 
sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act and will expire at the end of 2005. 
We in the Congress need to do more oversight of the use of this and 
other provisions of the PATRIOT Act in order to evaluate their 
effectiveness.
  The computer trespass provision now in the law as a result of section 
217 of the PATRIOT Act leaves open the possibility for significant and 
unnecessary invasions of privacy. The reasonable and modest changes to 
the provision contained in this bill preserve the usefulness of the 
provision for investigations of cyberhacking, but reduce the 
possibility of abuse. We must continually seek to balance the need for 
effective tools to fight crime and terrorism and the civil liberties of 
our citizens. The Computer Trespass Clarification Act strikes the right 
balance and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  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. 2783

       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 ``Computer Trespass 
     Clarification Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 2510(21)(B) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``or other'' after ``contractual''; and
       (2) striking for ``for access'' and inserting ``permitting 
     access''.
       (b) Interception and Disclosure.--Section 2511(2)(i) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in clause (I), by inserting after ``the owner or 
     operator of the protected computer'' the following: ``is 
     attempting to respond to communications activity that 
     threatens the integrity or operation of such computer and 
     requests assistance to protect rights and property of the 
     owner or operator, and''; and
       (2) in clause (IV), by inserting after ``interception'' the 
     following: ``ceases as soon as the communications sought are 
     obtained or after 96 hours, whichever is earlier, unless an 
     interception order is obtained under this chapter, and''.
       (c) Report.--The Attorney General shall annually report to 
     the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives on the use of section 2511 of title 18, 
     United States Code, relating to computer trespass provisions 
     as amended by subsection (b).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2785. A bill to amend title 4 of the United States Code to 
prohibit the double taxation of telecommuters and others who work at 
home; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, together with my 
colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness 
Act of 2004.
  The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2004 will put an end to an 
outdated

[[Page S9037]]

legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in 
Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only 
offense is that they sometimes work from home.
  Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With 
the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile 
networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st 
century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work 
without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work 
from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not 
necessary at their primary place of work.
  Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, 
and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker 
productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so 
doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands 
of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income 
taxes.
  Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed 
in jeopardy because of current law in New York. Today, New York State 
requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned 
in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While 
there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' 
rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.
  New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by 
working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer 
must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform 
his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who 
works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still 
subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At 
the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York 
is subject to taxation by that State.
  This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes 
or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that 
part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's 
Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected 
by this unfair double taxation.
  This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, but it is an 
incentive for workers not to telecommute, when what we should be doing 
is providing an incentive to encourage telecommuting.
  Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve 
fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax 
Fairness Act of 2004 does this specifically by preventing a state from 
engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the 
taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. 
In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be 
double-taxed when telecommuting.
  Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would 
do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker 
is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the 
worker should pay taxes in that State.
  Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by 
having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. 
However, why should Connecticut, or any other State, be required to 
allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is 
working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of 
services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, 
police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair 
that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he 
or she uses.
  This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens 
from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers 
all over the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and 
businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that 
affect the way we live and work.
  I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this 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. 2785

       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 ``Telecommuter Tax Fairness 
     Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DOUBLE TAXATION OF TELECOMMUTERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 127. Prohibition on double taxation of telecommuters 
       and others who work at home

       ``(a) Physical Presence Required.--
       ``(1) In general.--In applying its income tax laws to the 
     salary of a nonresident individual, a State may only deem 
     such nonresident individual to be present in or working in 
     such State for any period of time if such nonresident 
     individual is physically present in such State for such 
     period and such State may not impose nonresident income taxes 
     on such salary with respect to any period of time when such 
     nonresident individual is physically present in another 
     State.
       ``(2) Determination of physical presence.--For purposes of 
     determining physical presence, no State may deem a 
     nonresident individual to be present in or working in such 
     State on the grounds that such nonresident individual is 
     present at or working at home for the nonresident 
     individual's convenience.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) State.--The term `State' includes any political 
     subdivision of a State, the District of Columbia, and the 
     possessions of the United States.
       ``(2) Income tax.--The term `income tax' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 110(c).
       ``(3) Income tax laws.--The term `income tax laws' includes 
     any statutes, regulations, administrative practices, 
     administrative interpretations, and judicial decisions.
       ``(4) Nonresident individual.--The term `nonresident 
     individual' means an individual who is not a resident of the 
     State applying its income tax laws to such individual.
       ``(5) Salary.--The term `salary' means the compensation, 
     wages, or other remuneration earned by an individual for 
     personal services performed as an employee or as an 
     independent contractor.
       ``(c) No Inference.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as bearing on--
       ``(1) any tax laws other than income tax laws,
       ``(2) the taxation of corporations, partnerships, trusts, 
     estates, limited liability companies, or other entities, 
     organizations, or persons other than nonresident individuals 
     in their capacities as employees or independent contractors,
       ``(3) the taxation of individuals in their capacities as 
     shareholders, partners, trust and estate beneficiaries, 
     members or managers of limited liability companies, or in any 
     similar capacities, and
       ``(4) the income taxation of dividends, interest, 
     annuities, rents, royalties, or other forms of unearned 
     income.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of such 
     chapter 4 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``127. Prohibition on double taxation of telecommuters and others who 
              work at home.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________