[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 149 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12714-S12718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             STOP COUNTERFEITING IN MANUFACTURED GOODS ACT

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 278, S. 1699.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1699) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     provide criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit 
     marks.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill 
which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with an 
amendment.

                                S. 1699

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Stop 
     Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States economy is losing millions of dollars 
     in tax revenue and tens of thousands of jobs because of the 
     manufacture, distribution, and sale of counterfeit goods;
       (2) the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection estimates 
     that counterfeiting costs the United States $200 billion 
     annually;
       (3) counterfeit automobile parts, including brake pads, 
     cost the auto industry alone billions of dollars in lost 
     sales each year;
       (4) counterfeit products have invaded numerous industries, 
     including those producing auto parts, electrical appliances, 
     medicines, tools, toys, office equipment, clothing, and many 
     other products;
       (5) ties have been established between counterfeiting and 
     terrorist organizations that use the sale of counterfeit 
     goods to raise and launder money;
       (6) ongoing counterfeiting of manufactured goods poses a 
     widespread threat to public health and safety; and
       (7) strong domestic criminal remedies against 
     counterfeiting will permit the United States to seek stronger 
     anticounterfeiting provisions in bilateral and international 
     agreements with trading partners.

     SEC. 2. TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT MARKS.

       Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) Subsection (a) is amended by inserting after ``such 
     goods or services'' the following: ``, or intentionally 
     traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers, 
     wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, 
     containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or 
     packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit 
     mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to 
     cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive,''.
       (2) Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) The following property shall be subject to 
     forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall 
     exist in such property:
       ``(A) Any article bearing or consisting of a counterfeit 
     mark used in committing a violation of subsection (a).
       ``(B) Any property used, in any manner or part, to commit 
     or to facilitate the commission of a violation of subsection 
     (a).
       ``(2) The provisions of chapter 46 of this title relating 
     to civil forfeitures, including section 983 of this title, 
     shall extend to any seizure or civil forfeiture under this 
     section. At the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, the 
     court, unless otherwise requested by an agency of the United 
     States, shall order that any forfeited article bearing or 
     consisting of a counterfeit mark be destroyed or otherwise 
     disposed of according to law.
       ``(3)(A) The court, in imposing sentence on a person 
     convicted of an offense under this section, shall order, in 
     addition to any other sentence imposed, that the person 
     forfeit to the United States--
       ``(i) any property constituting or derived from any 
     proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the 
     result of the offense;
       ``(ii) any of the person's property used, or intended to be 
     used, in any manner or part, to commit, facilitate, aid, or 
     abet the commission of the offense; and
       ``(iii) any article that bears or consists of a counterfeit 
     mark used in committing the offense.
       ``(B) The forfeiture of property under subparagraph (A), 
     including any seizure and disposition of the property and any 
     related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be 
     governed by the procedures set forth in section 413 of the 
     Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 
     (21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d) of that section. 
     Notwithstanding section 413(h) of that Act, at the conclusion 
     of the forfeiture proceedings, the court shall order that any 
     forfeited article or component of an article bearing or 
     consisting of a counterfeit mark be destroyed.
       ``(4) When a person is convicted of an offense under this 
     section, the court, pursuant to sections 3556, 3663A, and 
     3664, shall order the person to pay restitution to the owner 
     of the mark and any other victim of the offense as an offense 
     against property referred to in section 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii).
       ``(5) The term `victim', as used in paragraph (4), has the 
     meaning given that term in section 3663A(a)(2).''.
       (3) Subsection (e)(1) is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) a spurious mark--
       ``(i) that is used in connection with trafficking in any 
     goods, services, labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, 
     emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, 
     hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature;
       ``(ii) that is identical with, or substantially 
     indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal 
     register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and 
     in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so 
     registered;
       ``(iii) that is applied to or used in connection with the 
     goods or services for which the mark is registered with the 
     United States Patent and Trademark Office, or is applied to 
     or consists of a label, patch, sticker, wrapper, badge, 
     emblem, medallion, charm, box, container, can, case, hangtag, 
     documentation, or packaging of any type or nature that is 
     designed, marketed, or otherwise intended to be used on or in 
     connection with the goods or services for which the mark is 
     registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; 
     and
       ``(iv) the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to 
     cause mistake, or to deceive; or''; and
       (B) by amending the matter following subparagraph (B) to 
     read as follows:
     ``but such term does not include any mark or designation used 
     in connection with goods or services, or a mark or 
     designation applied to labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, 
     badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, 
     cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or 
     nature used in connection with such goods or services, of 
     which the manufacturer or producer was, at the time of the 
     manufacture or production in question, authorized to use the 
     mark or designation for the type of goods or services so 
     manufactured or produced, by the holder of the right to use 
     such mark or designation.''.
       (4) Section 2320 is further amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Nothing in this section shall entitle the United 
     States to bring a criminal cause of action under this section 
     for the repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended 
     to deceive or confuse.''.

     SEC. 3. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       (a) Review and Amendment.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission, pursuant to its authority under 
     section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in 
     accordance with this section, shall review

[[Page S12715]]

     and, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines 
     and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of any 
     offense under section 2318 or 2320 of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Authorization.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     may amend the Federal sentencing guidelines in accordance 
     with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the 
     Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the 
     authority under that section had not expired.
       (c) Responsibilities of United States Sentencing 
     Commission.--In carrying out this section, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall determine whether the definition 
     of ``infringement amount'' set forth in application note 2 of 
     section 2B5.3 of the Federal sentencing guidelines is 
     adequate to address situations in which the defendant has 
     been convicted of one of the offenses listed in subsection 
     (a) and the item in which the defendant trafficked was not an 
     infringing item but rather was intended to facilitate 
     infringement, such as an anti-circumvention device, or the 
     item in which the defendant trafficked was infringing and 
     also was intended to facilitate infringement in another good 
     or service, such as a counterfeit label, documentation, or 
     packaging, taking into account cases such as U.S. v. Sung, 87 
     F.3d 194 (7th Cir. 1996).

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, counterfeiting threatens the American 
economy, our workers, and our consumers. I am pleased that the Senate 
has today taken an important step towards beating back that threat, by 
passing S. 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.'' 
Senator Specter is the principal cosponsor, and I know that he shares 
with me the conviction that this bill that will give law enforcement 
improved tools to fight counterfeit trademarks, and that it could work 
a significant change in the efforts to combat this type of theft. So 
are all our cosponsors, and I thank them: Senators Alexander, Bayh, 
Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, 
Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich.
  It is all too easy to think of counterfeiting as a victimless crime, 
a means of buying sunglasses or a purse that would otherwise strain a 
monthly budget. The reality, however, is far different. According to 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, counterfeiting costs the U.S. 
between $200 billion and $250 billion annually. In Vermont, companies 
like Burton Snowboards, Vermont Tubbs, SB Electronics, and Hubbardton 
Forge--all of which have cultivated their good names through pure hard 
work and creativity--have felt keenly the damage of intellectual 
property theft on their businesses. This is wrong. It is simply not 
fair to the businesses who innovate and to the people whose economic 
livelihoods depend on these companies.
  The threat posed by counterfeiting is more than a matter of 
economics. Inferior products can threaten the safety of those who use 
them. When a driver taps a car's brake pedals there should be no 
uncertainty about whether the brake linings are made of compressed 
grass, sawdust, or cardboard. Sick patients should not have to that 
they will ingest counterfeit prescription drugs and, at best, have no 
effect. The World Health Organization estimates that the market for 
counterfeit drugs is about $32 billion each year. Knock-off parts have 
even been found in NATO helicopters. What's more, according to 
Interpol, there is an identifiable link between counterfeit goods and 
the financing of terrorist operations.
  S. 1699 makes several improvements to the U.S. Code. The bill 
strengthens 18 U.S.C. 2318, the part of the criminal code that deals 
with counterfeit goods and services, to make it a crime to traffic in 
counterfeit labels or packaging, even when counterfeit labels or 
packaging are shipped separately from the goods to which they will 
ultimately be attached. Savvy counterfeiters have exploited this 
loophole to escape liability. This bill closes that loophole.
  The bill will also make counterfeit labels and goods, and any 
equipment used in facilitating a crime under this part of the code, 
subject to forfeiture upon conviction. Any forfeited goods or machinery 
would then be destroyed, and the convicted infringer would have to pay 
restitution to the lawful owner of the trademark. Finally, although the 
bill is tough, it is also fair. It states that nothing ``shall entitle 
the United States to bring a cause of action under this section for the 
repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or 
confuse.'' It is truly just the bad actors we want to punish.
  Those who profit from another's innovation have proved their 
creativity only at escaping responsibility for their actions. As 
legislators it is important that we provide law enforcement with the 
tools needed to capture these thieves. I am committed to this effort, 
and will continue to sponsor legislation that will support law 
enforcement in the protection of the intellectual property rights that 
are so important to the American economy and its creative culture.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to speak about S. 
1699, the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005, a bill 
I have sponsored with Senator Leahy and fifteen other cosponsors--
Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, 
Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow, and Voinovich.
  The Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act addresses a problem 
that has reached epidemic proportions as a result of a loophole in our 
criminal code: the trafficking in counterfeit labels. Criminal law 
currently prohibits the trafficking in counterfeit trademarks ``on or 
in connection with goods or services.'' However, it does not prohibit 
the trafficking in the counterfeit marks themselves. As such, there is 
nothing in current law to prohibit an individual from selling 
counterfeit labels bearing otherwise protected trademarks within the 
United States.
  This loophole was exposed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in 
United States v. Giles, 213 F.3d 1247--10th Cir. 2000. In this case, 
the United States prosecuted the defendant for manufacturing and 
selling counterfeit Dooney & Bourke labels that third parties could 
later affix to generic purses. Examining Title 18, section 2320, of the 
United States Code, the Tenth Circuit held that persons who sell 
counterfeit trademarks that are not actually attached to any ``goods or 
services'' do not violate the federal criminal trademark infringement 
statute. Since the defendant did not attach counterfeit marks to 
``goods or services,'' the court found that the defendant did not run 
afoul of the criminal statute as a matter of law. Thus, someone caught 
red-handed with counterfeit trademarks walked free.
  S. 1699 closes this loophole by amending Title 18, section 2320 of 
the United States Code to criminally prohibit the trafficking, or 
attempt to traffic, in ``labels, patches, stickers'' and generally any 
item to which a counterfeit mark has been applied. In so doing, S. 1699 
provides U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors with the means not only 
to prosecute individuals trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, 
but also individuals trafficking in labels, patches, and the like that 
are later applied to goods.
  Congress must act expeditiously to protect U.S. held trademarks to 
the fullest extent of the law. The recent ten count indictment of four 
Massachusetts residents of conspiracy to traffic in approximately $1.4 
million of counterfeit luxury goods in the case of U.S. v. Luong et 
al., 2005 D. Mass. underscores the need for this legislation. According 
to the indictment, law enforcement officers raided self-storage units 
earlier this year and found the units to hold approximately 12,231 
counterfeit handbags; 7,651 counterfeit wallets; more than 17,000 
generic handbags and wallets; and enough counterfeit labels and 
medallions to turn more than 50,000 generic handbags and wallets into 
counterfeits. Although the U.S. Attorneys Office was able to pursue 
charges of trafficking and attempting to traffic in counterfeit 
handbags and wallets, they could not bring charges for trafficking and 
attempting to traffic in the more than 50,000 counterfeit labels and 
medallions. As such, these defendants will escape prosecution that 
would have otherwise been illegal if they had only been attached to an 
otherwise generic bag. This simply does not make sense and had the Stop 
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005 been in effect at the 
time of indictment, U.S. prosecutors would have been able to bring 
charges against the defendants for trafficking and attempting to 
traffic in not only counterfeit goods, but also counterfeit labels.
  As Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher said, ``Those who 
manufacture and sell counterfeit goods steal business from honest 
merchants, confuse or

[[Page S12716]]

defraud honest consumers, and illegally profit on the backs of honest 
American workers and entrepreneurs.'' This point is underscored by the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection estimate that trafficking in 
counterfeit goods costs the United States approximately $200 to $250 
million annually. With each passing year, the United States loses 
millions of dollars in tax revenues to the sale of counterfeit goods. 
Further, each counterfeit item that is manufactured overseas and 
distributed in the United States costs American workers tens of 
thousands of jobs. With counterfeit goods making up a growing 5-7 
percent of wor1d trade, this is a problem that we can no longer ignore.
  To be sure, counterfeiting is not limited to the popular designer 
goods that we have all seen sold on comers of just about every major 
metropolitan city in the United States. Counterfeiting has a 
devastating impact on a broad range of industries. In fact, for almost 
every legitimate product manufactured and sold within the United 
States, there is a parallel counterfeit product being sold for no more 
than half the price. These counterfeit products range from children's 
toys to clothing to Christmas tree lights. More frightening are the 
thousands of counterfeit automobile parts, batteries, and electrical 
equipment that are being manufactured and placed into the stream of 
commerce with each passing day. I am told that the level of 
sophistication in counterfeiting has reached the point that you can no 
longer distinguish between the real and the counterfeit good or label 
with the naked eye. However, just because these products look the same 
does not mean that they have the same quality characteristics. The 
counterfeit products are not subject to the same quality controls of 
legitimate products, resulting in items that are lower in quality and 
likely to fall apart. In fact, counterfeit products could potentially 
kill unsuspecting American consumers.
  In addition to closing the ``counterfeit label loophole,'' the Stop 
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act strengthens the criminal code 
and provides heightened penalties for those trafficking in counterfeit 
marks. Current law does not provide for the seizure and forfeiture of 
counterfeit trademarks, whether they are attached to goods or not. 
Therefore, many times such counterfeit goods are seized one day, only 
to be returned and sold to an unsuspecting public. To ensure that 
individuals engaging in the practice of trafficking in counterfeit 
marks cannot reopen their doors, S. 1699 establishes procedures for the 
mandatory seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of counterfeit marks 
prior to a conviction. Further, it provides for procedures for the 
mandatory forfeiture and destruction of property derived from or used 
to engage in the trafficking of counterfeit marks.
  In crafting the language in Section 2(b)(I)(B) of this bill 
pertaining to the forfeiture authority of the U.S. Department of 
Justice, Senator Leahy and I discussed the scope of the facilitation 
language, which parallels the drug and money laundering forfeiture 
language in 21 U.S.C. 853 and 18 U.S.C. 982, respectively, and how it 
might relate to Internet marketplace companies, search engines, and 
ISPs. Specifically, we were aware of concerns regarding the potential 
misapplication of the facilitation language in Section 2(b)(1)(B) to 
pursue forfeiture and seizure proceedings against responsible Internet 
marketplace companies that serve as third party intermediaries to 
online transactions. To this end, I would like to make it clear for the 
record that this bill is not intended to apply to ``good actor'' 
Internet service providers that serve as third party intermediaries to 
online transactions and take demonstrable steps to prevent the exchange 
or trafficking of counterfeit goods on their networks.
  Does Senator Leahy agree?
  Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the Senator.
  Section 2(b)(1)(B) authorizes U.S. Attorneys to pursue civil in rem 
forfeiture proceedings against ``any property used, in any manner or 
part, to commit or to facilitate the commission of a violation of 
subsection (a).'' The intent of this language is to provide attorneys 
and prosecutors with the authority to bring a civil forfeiture action 
against the property of bad actors who are facilitating trafficking or 
attempts to traffic in counterfeit marks. The forfeiture authority in 
Section 2(b)(1)(B) cannot be used to pursue forfeiture and seizure 
proceedings against the computer equipment, website or network of 
responsible Internet marketplace companies, who serve solely as a 
third-party to transactions and do not tailor their services or their 
facilities to the furtherance of trafficking or attempts to traffic in 
counterfeit marks. However, these Internet marketplace companies must 
make demonstrable good faith efforts to combat the use of their systems 
and services to traffic in counterfeit marks. Companies must establish 
and implement procedures to take down postings that contain or offer to 
sell goods, services, labels, and the like in violation of this act 
upon being made aware of the illegal nature of these items or services.
  It is the irresponsible culprits that must be held accountable. Those 
who profit from another's innovation have proved their creativity only 
at escaping responsibility for their actions. As legislators it is 
important that we provide law enforcement with the tools needed to 
capture these thieves.
  It is also my understanding that the U.S. Sentencing Commission 
recently promulgated new Federal sentencing guidelines to count for the 
changes in how intellectual property crimes are committed. Could the 
Senator from Pennsylvania clarify for the Record why we have authorized 
the U.S. Sentencing Commission to further amend the Federal sentencing 
guidelines and policy statements for crimes committed in violation of 
Title 18, section 2318 or 2320, of the United States Code?
  Mr. SPECTER. As the Senator is aware, the Sentencing Commission has 
sought to update the Federal sentencing guidelines upon the periodic 
directive of Congress to reflect and account for changes in the manner 
in which intellectual property offenses are committed. The recent 
amendments to which you refer were promulgated by the Sentencing 
Commission pursuant to the authorization in the Family Entertainment 
and Copyright Act of 2005, also known as FECA. These amendments to the 
Federal sentencing guidelines, which took effect on October 24, 2005, 
address changes in penalties and definitions for intellectual property 
rights crimes, particularly those involving copyrighted pre-release 
works and issues surrounding ``uploading.'' For example, these 
guidelines provide for a 25-percent increase in sentences for offenses 
involving pre-release works. In addition, the Commission revised its 
definition of ``uploading'' to ensure that the guidelines are keeping 
up with technological advances in this area.
  I would like to make it clear for the record that the directive to 
the Sentencing Commission in Section 3 of S. 1699 is not meant as 
disapproval of the Commission's recent actions in response to FECA. 
Rather, Section 3 covers other intellectual property rights crimes that 
Congress believes it is time for the Commission to revisit. 
Specifically, Section 3 directs the Commission to review the 
guidelines, and particularly the definition of ``infringement amount,'' 
to ensure that offenses involving low-cost items like labels, patches, 
medallions, or packaging that are used to make counterfeit goods that 
are much more expensive, are properly punished. It also directs the 
Commission to ensure that the penalty provisions for offenses involving 
all counterfeit goods or services, or devices used to facilitate 
counterfeiting are properly addressed by the guidelines. As it did in 
response to the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 and FECA, I am 
confident that the Commission will ensure that the Federal sentencing 
guidelines provide adequate punishment and deterrence for these very 
serious offenses and I look forward to the Commission's response to 
this directive.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank Senator Specter for that clarification. As he is 
aware, we have received over a dozen letters in support of S. 1699, the 
Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005. I ask unanimous 
consent to have several of these letters printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S12717]]




                                   Lexmark International Inc.,

                                  Lexington, KY, November 4, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to the members of the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee to express Lexmark's strong 
     support for Senate Bill 1699 (the ``Stop Counterfeiting in 
     Manufactured Goods Act''), and to urge your support for its 
     passage. S. 1699 creates a much-needed deterrent targeting 
     traffickers in counterfeit labels and goods--illegal acts 
     which plague not only our business, but many others. S. 1699 
     amends 18 U.S.C. 2320 to strengthen the application of this 
     statute to include those who traffic in counterfeit labels 
     and goods, thus greatly helping our fight against 
     counterfeiters.
       Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of 
     control because it is seen as a lucrative, yet low risk, 
     crime that some even try to paint as a victimless crime. 
     Nothing could be farther from the truth--not only are the 
     illicit profits being funneled into other criminal 
     activities, but law abiding citizens around the world are 
     made victims when they unwittingly buy illegitimate products. 
     Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private 
     investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every 
     day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that 
     the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that 
     the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with 
     stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal, by 
     strengthening forfeiture and destruction remedies.
       Counterfeiting costs the United States billions of dollars 
     each year in lost intellectual property, revenues, profits 
     and ultimately, jobs. These criminals must be stopped, and 
     this bill seeks to take away some of the tools they use to 
     manufacture counterfeit goods. If S. 1699 is enacted into 
     law, it will also help the United States seek reciprocal 
     legislation abroad.
       I urge your personal support for S. 1699 both in Judiciary 
     Committee deliberations and in promotion of its passage in 
     the full Senate. Thank you for your consideration in 
     addressing this very serious problem.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                Patrick T. Brewer,
     Director, Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                  Zippo Manufacturing Company,

                                   Bradford, PA, November 2, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Ranking Democratic Member, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to express my absolute 
     support for Senate Bill 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in 
     Manufactured Goods Act'' S. 1699 creates a necessary 
     disincentive in the criminal code for traffickers in 
     counterfeit labels and goods. We urge you to endorse S. 1699 
     and promote its passage in the full Senate.
       First, the S. 1699 amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2320 will help 
     our fight against counterfeiters by strengthening the 
     application of this statute to those who traffic in 
     counterfeit labels and goods. We are pleased that S. 1699 
     recognizes the need to strengthen the effectiveness of 18 
     U.S.C. 2320.
       Second, S. 1699 strengthens forfeiture and destruction 
     remedies that are necessary to deter counterfeiting. 
     Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of 
     control because it is seen as a lucrative yet low risk crime. 
     Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private 
     investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every 
     day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that 
     the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that 
     the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with 
     stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal.
       Counterfeiting will continue to cost the U.S. hundreds of 
     billions of dollars each year if U.S. law does act as a 
     deterrent. This bill takes the very equipment out of the 
     hands of counterfeiters who would perpetuate the manufacture 
     of illicit goods. Once S. 1699 is enacted into law it will 
     allow the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as 
     it enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
       We ask you to support S. 1699 as written in your next 
     Executive Business meeting and promote its passage in the 
     full Senate. Thank you for attending to a serious problem 
     that undermines U.S. intellectual property.
           Sincerely,
                                             Charles Jeffrey Duke,
     Corporate Secretary and General Counsel.
                                  ____



                                                      WARNACO,

                                   New York, NY, November 2, 2005.
     Hon. Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
     Ranking Democratic Member, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to express my absolute 
     support for Senate Bill 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in 
     Manufactured Goods Act.'' S. 1699 creates a necessary 
     disincentive in the criminal code for traffickers in 
     counterfeit labels and goods. We urge you to endorse S. 1699 
     and promote its passage in the full Senate.
       First, the S. 1699 amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2320 will help 
     our fight against counterfeiters by strengthening the 
     application of this statute to those who traffic in 
     counterfeit labels and goods. We are pleased that S. 1699 
     recognizes the need to strengthen the effectiveness of 18 
     U.S.C. 2320.
       Second, S. 1699 strengthens forfeiture and destruction 
     remedies that are necessary to deter counterfeiting. 
     Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of 
     control because it is seen as a lucrative yet low risk crime. 
     Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private 
     investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every 
     day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that 
     the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that 
     the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with 
     stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal.
       Counterfeiting will continue to cost the U.S. hundreds of 
     billions of dollars each year if U.S. law does act as a 
     deterrent. This bill takes the very equipment out of the 
     hands of counterfeiters who would perpetuate the manufacture 
     of illicit goods. Once S. 1699 is enacted into law it will 
     allow the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as 
     it enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
       We ask you to support S. 1699 as written in your next 
     Executive Business meeting and promote its passage in the 
     full Senate. Thank you for attending to a serious problem 
     that undermines U.S. intellectual property.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doreen Small,
     Associate General Counsel.
                                  ____



                                     Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.,

                                   New York, NY, November 2, 2005.
     Hon. Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am the President and CEO of Rolex 
     Watch U.S.A., Inc., which as you may be aware, has been 
     battling counterfeiters for many years. I am writing to 
     express my absolute support for Senate Bill 1699, the ``Stop 
     Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act.'' S. 1699 creates a 
     necessary disincentive in the criminal code for traffickers 
     in counterfeit labels and goods. We urge you to endorse S. 
     1699 and promote its passage in the full Senate.
       First, the S. 1699 amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2320 will help 
     our fight against counterfeiters by strengthening the 
     application of this statute to those who traffic in 
     counterfeit labels and goods. We are pleased that S. 1699 
     recognizes the need to strengthen the effectiveness of 18 
     U.S.C. 2320.
       Second, S. 1699 strengthens forfeiture and destruction 
     remedies that are necessary to deter counterfeiting. 
     Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of 
     control because it is seen as a lucrative yet low risk crime. 
     Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private 
     investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every 
     day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that 
     the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that 
     the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with 
     stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal.
       Counterfeiting will continue to cost the U.S. hundreds of 
     billions of dollars each year if U.S. law does act as a 
     deterrent. This bill takes the very equipment out of the 
     hands of counterfeiters who would perpetuate the manufacture 
     of illicit goods. Once S. 1699 is enacted into law it will 
     allow the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as 
     it enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Allen Brill,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                    Vision Council of America,

                                 Alexandria, VA, November 2, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Ranking Democratic Member, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy, I am writing to express my absolute 
     support for Senate Bill 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in 
     Manufactured Goods Act''. S. 1699 creates a necessary 
     disincentive in the criminal code for traffickers in 
     counterfeit labels and goods. We urge you to endorse S. 1699 
     and promote its passage in the full Senate.
       First, the S. 1699 amendments to 18 U.S.C. 2320 win help 
     our fight against counterfeiters by strengthening the 
     application of this statute to those who traffic in 
     counterfeit labels and goods. We are pleased that S. 1699 
     recognizes the need to strengthen the effectiveness of 18 
     U.S.C. 2320.
       Second, S. 1699 strengthens forfeiture and destruction 
     remedies that are necessary to deter counterfeiting. 
     Unfortunately, counterfeiting continues to grow out of 
     control because it is seen as a lucrative yet low risk crime. 
     Intellectual property owners, their counsels, private 
     investigators and law enforcement fight counterfeiting every 
     day. We must be able to send a message to counterfeiters that 
     the theft of intellectual property is intolerable and that 
     the battle against counterfeiting will be fought with 
     stronger weapons. S. 1699 accomplishes that precise goal.
       Counterfeiting will continue to cost the U.S. hundreds of 
     billions of dollars each year if U.S. law does act as a 
     deterrent. This bill takes the very equipment out of the 
     hands of counterfeiters who would perpetuate the manufacture 
     of illicit goods. Once S. 1699 is enacted into law it will 
     allow the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as 
     it enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
       We ask you to support S. 1699 as written in your next 
     Executive Business meeting and promote its passage in the 
     full Senate.

[[Page S12718]]

     Thank you for attending to a serious problem that undermines 
     U.S. intellectual property.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Donna Van Green,
                                           Frame Division Liaison,

     Vision Council of America.
                                  ____



                                       The Timberland Company,

                                   Stratham, NH, November 2, 2005.
     Senator Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter and Senator Leahy: On behalf of the 
     more than 2,100 people employed in the U.S. by The Timberland 
     Company. I am writing to express my support for S. 1699, the 
     ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act'' which 
     creates necessary disincentives in the criminal code for 
     traffickers in counterfeit labels and goods. This bill is an 
     essential step toward protecting our trademark, our brand, 
     and our company's identity. I urge you to endorse this bill 
     and promote its passage in the full Senate.
       As you know, the elicit counterfeiting of legitimate 
     products is a serious problem, both internationally and in 
     the United States. This bill, which is similar to H.R. 32, 
     which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May, 
     will strengthen efforts to combat counterfeiting in the U.S. 
     in two very important ways. Specifically, S. 1699 would:
       Amend Title 18 of the United States Code to close the 
     loophole in the criminal trademark infringement statute, 
     which currently does not criminally prohibit the trafficking 
     of labels, patches, and stickers, and other counterfeit 
     marks; and
       Ensure that counterfeit goods and marks seized in violation 
     of this statute are properly disposed of and do not make 
     their way back on the street.
       Counterfeiting costs the U.S. hundreds of billions of 
     dollars each year, and will continue to do so if our laws do 
     not act as a deterrent. Not only would S. 1699 take the very 
     equipment out of the hands of counterfeiters who would 
     perpetuate the manufacture of illicit goods, it would allow 
     the U.S. to seek similarly strong legislation abroad as it 
     enters into trade negotiations with other countries.
       I appreciate this opportunity to address this critically 
     important issue, and I hope you will continue the fight 
     against elicit counterfeiting of U.S. products by supporting 
     S. 1699 and promoting its passage in the full Senate.
           Sincerely,

                                             Danette Wineberg,

                                                   Vice President,
                                    General Counsel and Secretary.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been very heartening to see such 
overwhelming support for this important bill. Counterfeiting is a 
threat to America. It wreaks real harm on our economy, our workers, and 
our consumers. This bill is a tough bill that will give law enforcement 
improved tools to fight this form of theft. The bill is short and 
straight-forward, but its impact should be profound and far-reaching.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senators 
Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, 
Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow and Voinovich for their 
co-sponsorship.
  I would also like to thank Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman 
of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Joe Knollenberg 
for their leadership in the House with regard to H.R. 32, 
counterfeiting legislation directly related to S. 1699. In January of 
this year, Representative Knollenberg introduced H.R. 32, the initial 
draft of the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005, in 
the House. When the bill was in Committee, he fostered negotiations 
between the Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 
the International Trademark Association to craft language nearly 
paralleling S. 1699. I commend to my colleagues the Housing Judiciary 
Committee Report on H.R. 32, as amended.
  Mr. LEAHY. Some of our most important legislation is produced not 
only when we reach across the aisle in the name of bipartisanship, but, 
when we work across chambers and reach true consensus. I would also 
like to thank Senators Alexander, Bayh, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, 
DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hatch, Kyl, Levin, Reed, Stabenow 
and Voinovich for their cosponsorship. Counterfeiting is a serious 
problem that does not lend itself to a quick and easy solution. This 
legislation is an important step towards fighting counterfeiting. I 
hope we can build on the success of this law.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and 
passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 1699), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________