[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1515-1537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. 
        Biden, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Helms, Mr. Schumer, and 
        Mr. Sessions):
  S. 2089. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 to modify procedures relating to orders for surveillance and 
searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


               the counterintelligence reform act of 2000

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation which would correct procedures under the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act. I offer this bill on behalf of Senator 
Torricelli, Senator Thurmond, Senator Biden, Senator Grassley, Senator 
Feingold, Senator Helms, Senator Schumer, and Senator Sessions.
  This is legislation which is designed to correct a very pressing 
problem. This bill refines the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to 
enable the appropriate investigations of espionage to avoid the very 
serious mistakes which were made during the investigation of Dr. Wen Ho 
Lee. The references to Dr. Lee's investigation are made only for the 
purpose of illustrating the procedural problems which this legislation 
is designed to correct. The determination as to whether or not Mr. Wen 
Ho Lee is guilty will remain for the court of competent jurisdiction 
where he has been indicted.
  There was information released into the public domain at Mr. Lee's 
bail hearing which underscores the tremendous importance of this 
particular case. Dr. Stephen Younger, assistant laboratory director for 
nuclear weapons at Los Alamos, testified at Dr. Lee's bail hearing on 
December 13, 1999, and said:

       These codes and their associated databases and the input 
     file, combined with someone that knew how to use them, could, 
     in my opinion, in the wrong hands, change the global 
     strategic balance.

  It is hard to have any item of greater importance than changing the 
global strategic balance.
  Dr. Younger further testified:

       They enable the possessor to design the only objects that 
     could result in the military defeat of America's conventional 
     forces . . . They represent the gravest possible security 
     risk to . . . the supreme national interest.

  Again, it is hard to find more forceful language as to the 
seriousness of this particular matter than the potential military 
defeat of America's conventional forces.
  During the course of this investigation, there were very serious time 
lapses while the FBI sought to get a warrant on Dr. Lee under the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  The FBI made the FISA request in June of 1997. It was refused by the 
Department of Justice on August 12, 1997, and then FBI Director Freeh 
sent FBI Assistant Director John Lewis to talk personally to Attorney 
General Reno. Attorney General Reno then appointed a Department of 
Justice subordinate named Daniel Seikaly, who reviewed the matter and 
rejected it. Attorney General Reno, as she conceded in testimony 
presented to the Judiciary Committee on June 8, 1999, did not follow

[[Page 1516]]

up on the matter, leaving this very important request rejected.
  The proposed legislation would require that when the Director of the 
FBI makes a request for a FISA warrant that the Attorney General 
personally must make the decision as to whether the FISA warrant 
request should be submitted to the court for action. The legislation 
further provides that when the Attorney General declines to submit the 
FISA application to the court, the rejection must be in writing. This 
would give the FBI Director a roadmap, so to speak, as to what 
additional information is necessary to have the warrant request 
submitted to the court.
  After the Department of Justice declined to submit the FISA warrant 
to the court, the FBI investigation of the case was inactive for some 
16 months. It took from August of 1997 to December of 1997 for the FBI 
Headquarters to send a letter regarding the FISA request to the FBI 
Albuquerque Field Office, where it lay dormant until November of 1998. 
From the time the FISA application was not forwarded to the court to 
the time the FBI office in Albuquerque finally acted, some 16 months 
elapsed. These 16 months were very crucial with respect to the 
activities of Dr. Lee.
  This legislation further provides that when the Attorney General 
rejects a FISA application in writing, the Director of the FBI has the 
obligation to personally supervise the matter.
  The Department of Energy then initiated a polygraph of Dr. Lee, in a 
very unusual way, that has since been criticized by the President's 
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The Department of Energy 
represented that Dr. Lee passed the polygraph when, in fact, he had 
not. The Secretary of Energy even made an announcement on national 
television to the effect that Dr. Lee had passed the polygraph when, in 
fact, he had not. That threw the FBI off course, thinking that a passed 
polygraph exonerated the suspect. This legislation provides that an 
agency such as the Department of Energy may not take action on a 
polygraph, that these matters are to be left to the FBI, which has the 
paramount authority to investigate these matters.
  The FBI then conducted another polygraph, but not until February 10, 
1999, some 6 weeks after the polygraph he allegedly passed. Even though 
Dr. Lee failed this second polygraph, no action was taken to terminate 
Dr. Lee until March 8. In the interim, he deleted many of the files 
that are in issue. These deletions took place on January 20, February 
9, 11, 12, and 17, all to the potential prejudice of the United States. 
Dr. Lee did not have a search warrant executed until April 9, which is 
a very long lapse before any official action had been taken.
  The legislation further provides that when a suspect is left in place 
for the purpose of the investigation, the FBI must make this request in 
writing and that to that agency. The agency, such as the Department of 
Energy, must then formulate a plan within 30 days to structure how that 
suspect will be left in place while minimizing the exposure of 
classified information to that person.
  One of the reasons given by the Department of Justice in declining to 
go forward with the FISA application was that Dr. Lee was not 
``currently engaged'' in objectionable activities--to use mild words. 
This bill changes that requirement to probable cause on the totality of 
the circumstances.
  That is a brief summary of what this legislation would do. It is the 
view of the sponsors of this bill that it is very important for it to 
move forward so that on pending espionage investigations we do not have 
the lapses that occurred in this very important case.
  I am pleased to note that all the members of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. I thank my 
colleague, Senator Torricelli, for his cooperation. Senator Thurmond, 
Senator Grassley, and Senator Sessions have all cosponsored among the 
Republican members, as have Senators Feingold and Schumer, in addition 
to Senator Torricelli. Senator Biden was consulted specially and is a 
cosponsor because he was the author of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act back in 1978. Senator Helms has asked to be added as a 
cosponsor, which he has.
  The subcommittee has had some substantial difficulty in ``birth'' 
pains; it has not really been born, to the extent that the subcommittee 
has not been funded. We have worked really from our own personal 
staffs. We have had three fellows and one detailee. We have completed a 
very lengthy detailed report, some 65 pages, which is the product of 
extraordinary work by Mr. Doman McArthur of my staff, in collaboration 
with Senator Torricelli's staff and the staffs of others. We have gone 
through the 65-page report with a fine-tooth comb to be sure that it is 
precise, exact, and does not make any disclosures as to any classified 
information.
  The subcommittee has deferred holding hearings on the Wen Ho Lee 
matter, which had been scheduled for December, at the specific request 
of Director Freeh. Director Freeh met with Torricelli and myself and 
requested that the hearings on Dr. Lee not go forward substantively, 
which might cause some problem with the pending prosecution. We do have 
hearings scheduled on the legislation for March 7, 8 and 21. I have 
already informed FBI Director Freeh of our intentions to proceed with 
those hearings, which will be on the substance as to how the act should 
be reformed. We have given notice to Director Freeh that we would 
appreciate his presence as a witness. He has said he would be glad to 
attend.
  That is a very brief statement of a very complex matter. It is my 
hope we will have the final clearance from the Department of Justice to 
be able to file the full 65-page report which will elaborate upon the 
brief summary which I have presented.
  I am delighted to yield to my very distinguished colleague from New 
Jersey, Senator Torricelli, the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter for yielding 
time to me. I also thank him for his perseverance and diligence in 
working on this issue over the course of the last several months.
  I also express particular thanks to Senator Biden who in reviewing 
this legislation made very important additions and allowed us to 
proceed on a bipartisan basis for what I think is an important and 
worthwhile change in the laws dealing with foreign intelligence 
surveillance.
  The origins of this legislation--part of the Judiciary Committee's 
oversight--is the question of how the Department of Justice handled 
allegations of Chinese espionage at our most important National 
Laboratories.
  The focus of this review, of course, had to do with the case of Dr. 
Wen Ho Lee, a scientist who was charged in December with 59 counts of 
illegally removing secrets from computer information at the Los Alamos 
Laboratory. It appears that Dr. Lee was the subject of interest or 
investigations for espionage for over 17 years. He was dealing with the 
most important weapons secrets possessed by his government critical to 
the security of the United States.
  It would be difficult for anyone in this Government to explain to the 
American people why, despite 17 years of investigation and some reasons 
for considerable doubt all during this time, he was permitted to 
continue with his job and retain access to highly classified 
information.
  Much is still to be learned about this case. A criminal case is 
proceeding and an investigation. That is for, in some instances, others 
to deal with. That does not mean we do not already know some things 
that can change the conduct in this Government and the laws under which 
we govern ourselves. We have learned through this investigation that 
this was all made possible by a series of procedural and investigative 
errors that gave Dr. Lee this opportunity to download this highly 
classified material to an unsecured computer.
  In truth, we do not yet know whether or not, when this unguarded 
material was in an unsecured computer, in fact it got to foreign agents 
or other interested parties other than people with

[[Page 1517]]

proper clearance in the U.S. Government. We do not know. We may never 
know. But we do know this after interviewing many witnesses and 
thousands of documents: There was a startling, almost unbelievable 
failure of coordination and communication between the Department of 
Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Energy in dealing with this 
matter, and only through that lack of coordination was an allegation of 
possible espionage able to lead to 17 years of continued access and the 
possibility that this information was compromised.
  As early as 1982, the FBI was aware that Dr. Lee was engaged in 
suspicious activities. Yet both at that time and in the years that 
followed there was no action taken to limit access to classified 
material. The Department of Energy detected Dr. Lee transferring an 
inordinate number of systems from a secured system to an unsecured 
system in 1993 and 1994. Personnel responsible for reporting that 
information failed to do so.
  In 1997, the FBI had an opportunity to stop Dr. Lee, but they were 
stymied by the denial of the Department of Justice of a request 
submitted by the FBI for a warrant to further investigate Dr. Lee. It 
is this failure that brings us here today.
  The evidence supporting a FISA request for their warrant was 
overwhelming. It had been building for years. No single piece of 
evidence may have been sufficient to warrant a criminal case, but they 
were more than sufficient to raise a proper level of suspicion to 
support the issuing of a warrant.
  Now we know that the request for this warrant, a FISA application, 
was never even considered by the Attorney General of the United States. 
When the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Freeh, 
sent a personal representative to meet with the Attorney General to 
express his concern about the warrant application, which he was right 
and proper to do, the Attorney General delegated the matter to a 
subordinate who was unfamiliar with the matter and who had never 
processed a similar request--no experience, no knowledge, no 
involvement--and the final disposition of the matter, therefore, was 
predictable. The request was denied. The warrant was not issued, and an 
opportunity potentially to either apprehend someone committing a 
criminal act or to have prevented further damage, if any occurred, was 
lost.
  Unfortunately, this problem was compounded in that when the FBI was 
denied this warrant, in my judgment, the matter should have been 
appealed but it was allowed to languish, and then further hampered by 
the Department of Energy which conducted a polygraph of Dr. Lee, and 
then, incredibly, unbelievably incorrectly concluded that he had passed 
the test.
  It is a series of compounded errors of procedure and judgment. It is 
difficult for the Congress to legislate good judgment for the proper 
execution of responsibilities. If we cannot do so, we can at least 
design the laws to provide for greater accountability.
  That is, indeed, what is being done by my colleagues. Under the 
legislation we are now introducing, Senator Specter and I have written 
amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide that 
upon the personal request of the Director of the FBI, the Attorney 
General must personally review the FISA requests--no subordinate, no 
uninformed associate. This is a matter of national security. The 
Attorney General has no greater responsibility than protecting the 
secrets of the U.S. Government. This matter belongs on the Attorney 
General's desk, and under this legislation that is where it will rest.
  There are those who may argue that making the Attorney General 
directly responsible will somehow provide an avalanche of work, that 
they will not be able to deal with all of these matters. Appropriately, 
the legislation has been designed so this provision is triggered only 
by the personal request from the Director of the FBI--no subordinate, 
no associate, no one else in the Government. So the number of cases 
will be extremely limited. But when asked by the Director of the FBI, 
one person, and one person in this Government alone, will have direct 
responsibility.
  Second, the legislation requires that if the Attorney General decides 
not to forward a FISA application to the court, that decision must be 
communicated in writing to the FBI Director along with specific 
recommendations as to what investigative steps should be undertaken to 
meet the probable cause requirements. Matters of national security on 
this level cannot fall in departmental cracks--not get lost somewhere 
between Justice and the FBI. This will ensure that in those cases when 
the Attorney General has personally rejected this request the reasons 
will be stated, the FBI will be told why and then given a chance to 
return having met the appropriate probable cause standard.
  Third, the legislation requires that the FBI Director must personally 
supervise the implementation of the Attorney General's recommendations 
to ensure once again that in the highest levels of the U.S. Government 
these unusual but critical cases of national security dealing with 
foreign espionage are dealt with not by subordinates, but that this 
Congress can hold people for which it has responsibility, oversight, 
and votes to confirm--such as the Attorney General and the FBI 
Director--directly accountable.
  I believe these are appropriate responses to what we have learned to 
date out of this investigation. But I conclude by saying both what this 
legislation is and what it is not.
  This legislation is not an attempt to lower the probable cause 
standard for what is required for a warrant and a FISA application. 
Probable cause is a standard of law. It should be taken seriously. The 
rights of no citizen should be violated by an intrusive or curious 
government. The standard remains.
  What is being changed here is accountability, not a lessening of 
civil liberties. We simply want to know that the standard which has 
always existed of probable cause will be used, that procedures will be 
followed, that people will be held accountable, not that the Government 
is any more or any less intrusive. The probable cause standard remains 
the cornerstone of American liberties to ensure that the Government has 
reason and merit as a matter of law to involve itself in the privacy of 
our citizens.
  I proudly offer this legislation with Senator Specter. I believe it 
is a good and appropriate response. I thank the Senator for his 
patience in the drafting. I listened to my colleagues, particularly on 
this side of the aisle, with relatively modest changes we have 
recommended, all of which the Senator has incorporated. I look forward 
to the committee and then the Senate enacting this legislation.
  Mr. BIDEN. FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 
is a very vital part of our arsenal to combat terrorism and espionage. 
For 20 years, it has enabled the FBI to keep track of major threats to 
our security while preserving the constitutional rights of Americans. 
Basically, it provides for a sort of super search warrant, allowing the 
FBI, under certain unique circumstances, to eavesdrop upon activities, 
after showing a probable cause to a Federal judge, without having to 
disclose this eavesdropping in ways that they would have to under a 
normal warrant for a wiretap or a physical search.
  FISA has been very useful to deal with terrorism, and also with 
espionage cases.
  Senator Specter has undertaken an effort to look into what may or may 
not have transpired at our National Laboratories in the celebrated case 
of Wen Ho Lee and others. This has been the subject of some very 
legitimate discussion, and occasionally some partisan discussion. But 
knowing Senator Specter as long as I have, I do not doubt his desire to 
look into these cases that have transpired, and the consequences of any 
leakage of classified information from any of our National 
Laboratories, for the primary purpose of seeing to it that it does not 
happen again, if in fact it did happen, as well as to determine what 
did happen.
  Senator Specter and Senator Torricelli have been looking into

[[Page 1518]]

these recent cases, especially, as I said, the case of Wen Ho Lee at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory. As a result of that inquiry, Senator 
Specter is proposing what I think is a very important series of 
sensible amendments to this act we call FISA. I am pleased to cosponsor 
this bill, having been an original author of that legislation in 1978, 
along with Birch Bayh and others.
  The initial bill with which Senator Specter approached me and others 
had a few areas where I thought it could be improved. I wish to 
publicly thank Senator Specter for agreeing to the changes I suggested 
in his proposed legislation.
  One of the dilemmas that exists, in the debate about whether the 
Attorney General and the Justice Department and/or the FBI were reading 
from the same page in the hymnal on how to investigate the Wen Ho Lee 
case, is the issue of whether the FBI communicated enough information 
to the Attorney General so that, under the reading of the FISA law, the 
Attorney General could conclude that there was sufficient reason to get 
a search or electronic surveillance court order. There has been a 
little bit of disagreement, at a minimum, between the FBI and the 
Justice Department as to who said what, when, and what request was made 
when. It has led to a serious political controversy. I think it has 
also led, as a consequence, on both sides of the aisle, to some 
posturing and partisanship about a significant national security issue.
  One of Senator Specter's most important ideas in this bill, one which 
is going to seem commonsensical to most Americans, is to make it clear 
that if something is of such consequence that the Director of the FBI 
believes there should be a FISA hearing and authority granted to allow 
the FBI to use invasive measures to eavesdrop upon conversations and/or 
get records, for example, from computer data and the like, if it is 
that important, the FBI Director can, under this new amendment to FISA, 
put that request in writing to the Attorney General and the Attorney 
General, whoever that may be, then has to personally sign off or not 
sign off, so we avoid this debate that is taking place now about 
whether second level people or third level people made the right 
judgment or wrong judgment, and whether or not there was any 
malfeasance.
  So this is a very practical solution. If this legislation had been in 
place 3 years ago, 5 years ago, there would be no doubt as to what 
happened. Had the FBI said this is critical and this is national 
security, the Attorney General personally would have had to say yes or 
no. That is where the record is unclear in the Wen Ho Lee case. This 
bill would eliminate such doubt in future similar cases if and when 
they arise, and they surely will arise.
  Section 2 of this bill permits the judge to consider the past 
activities of the target of an investigation--that is, the person upon 
whom they want to eavesdrop and/or whose records they want to secretly 
examine. So, for example, the Attorney General would be able to say, in 
a closed FISA hearing: Your Honor, not only do we think this is 
justified because of some current activity, but we can show you 
evidence that in 1991 they were engaged in this suspicious activity, in 
1993 they were engaged in that, in 1995 they were engaged in this, 
therefore lending greater credibility to the argument that a FISA court 
order should be issued by the judge.
  Again, in this Wen Ho Lee case, and other cases that Senator Specter 
has examined, there has been discussion of the fact that sometimes 
these folks had been under investigation before. Would that not lend 
greater weight to the need for this FISA request to be granted? So we 
clear that up in this legislation, rather than only allowing the 
target's current activity to be brought up.
  Section 3 of this proposal requires the FISA court to be told if the 
target of a proposed search or surveillance has a relationship with a 
Federal law enforcement or intelligence agency. This came up in this 
case as well. The case is being investigated. It turns out at some 
point one of the persons in the past had been also a source for the 
FBI. The FBI had gone to this person and said: Will you be a source for 
us, looking into the possibility of some illegal activity? Then that 
very person becomes the target, and that very person is never able to 
tell, nor does the FBI or the CIA say: By the way, Your Honor, we were 
working with them. That is why they went ahead and did the following.
  Up to now, when the Federal Government has asked for a FISA court 
judge to give this surveillance authority, it has not been required to 
say: By the way, Your Honor, this person in the past had worked with us 
as a source, as a person cooperating with us.
  This is a new and useful protection for Americans, because the 
conduct that might seem suspicious could be a result of what the law 
enforcement agency had actually asked them to do. It seems only fair to 
the target to be able to have that information known to the judge.
  This is typical of the Senator from Pennsylvania, that he looks out 
for individual rights as well as the interests of law enforcement.
  There are several other interesting provisions in this bill, 
including some to improve relations between the FBI and other agencies, 
and I am sure there will be further refinements in this bill when it is 
considered by the Judiciary Committee. The important thing is that 
Senator Specter is working, I think effectively and in a bipartisan 
manner, to ensure that his inquiry into the Wen Ho Lee case leads to 
useful changes and not just to partisan recriminations. I compliment 
him on that, because the purpose of oversight is not only to find out 
who struck John but, in the national interest, to find the best way to 
prevent something such as this from happening again. So I compliment 
him and again thank him for acceding to the more than several changes I 
asked for in this legislation.
  I think the amendments to existing law that this bill will enact are 
good amendments. I think America will be well served, and I would argue 
that the individual rights of Americans will be in no greater jeopardy 
after this passes than they ever were. They are protected; they will 
continue to be protected; and some of these changes will even help to 
further protect the rights of individual Americans.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Craig, 
        Mr. Bunning, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Conrad, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kerrey, 
        and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 2090. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose 
a 1 year moratorium on certain diesel fuel excise taxes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


           the america's transportation recovery act of 2000

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing America's 
Transportation Recovery Act of 2000 to address the skyrocketing prices 
of fuel which supports our Nation's truckers, farmers, public 
transportation, and other users. This bill would temporarily suspend 
the Federal excise tax on diesel fuel for 1 year, or until the price of 
crude oil is reduced to the December 31, 1999, price.
  I am pleased to be joined by many of my colleagues and add as 
original cosponsors to this bill both the majority leader, Senator 
Lott, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, as well as Senators 
Craig, Feinstein, Conrad, Bunning, Landrieu, and Kerrey of Nebraska.
  The current fuel crisis is an example of how a discussion leans 
toward economic factors and international price fixing rather than 
focusing on the daily effect on American people.
  Early this week, as Members know, nearly 300 truck drivers drove from 
all over the east coast--in fact, some from as far away as Texas--to 
rally at the steps of the Capitol. Their cause was the increasing price 
of diesel fuel, which is increasing their costs to the point that many 
may go out of business.
  I know the trucking life. I put myself through college by driving an 
18-wheeler. Just last December, I renewed my

[[Page 1519]]

CDC driver's license. Although I don't drive commercially anymore, it 
does keep me in touch with the working men and women in the trucking 
industry. Since I own a small rig, I know firsthand how the fuel crisis 
impacts those who depend on it because my fuel bills have doubled in 
the last year alone, as have theirs.
  When private citizens give their time to come to Washington, the 
issue is not about profit margins, stock prices, or other abstract 
matters; it is because they are fighting for their lives. Long-distance 
drivers, as Members probably know, need between 200 and 400 gallons of 
diesel every 24 hours. Add that to truck payments, permits, insurance, 
upkeep, road fees, and the many other costs for independent trucking, 
and many are barely scraping by. It is no wonder the price increase is 
putting so many out of business. The only way they can survive is to 
pass it on to the consumer. Most of them cannot do that because the 
small independents are, more often than not, subcontracting to other 
firms.
  At Tuesday's rally, one driver told me he knew of two men who had 
gone bankrupt in the last week alone. Any person viewing the television 
coverage of the rally could not help but be moved by the young couple 
living in their truck with two small children, both under the age of 3, 
because they could not make house payments. Yet another driver told me 
he had only $8 to his name and made it here for the rally.
  Many people think this probably does not affect them. Think about 
this: About 95 percent or more of everything in America, everything we 
buy, comes by truck. It may also be on a train, airplane, or ship, but 
from the point of origin to the point of delivery is often by truck. 
These people don't want handouts; they don't want food stamps; they 
don't want to be on welfare; they want to work. If those rigs stop 
rolling, very simply, the Nation stops rolling, too.
  These trucks don't run on solar energy, as was mentioned this morning 
in our Energy Committee hearing by Senator Craig, and they don't run on 
wind power; they run on diesel fuel. This problem extends to our 
farmers and ranchers. The increased costs to our farmers and ranchers, 
coupled with declining commodity prices, makes it very difficult for 
them to run a farm.
  In past Congresses, we have had to pass emergency agriculture relief 
packages which have allowed the smaller producers to receive enough 
assistance to get by financially one more year. Now, along with the 
truckers in public transportation, farmers will probably see future 
diesel prices nearing $2 a gallon as they go into this year's planting 
season.
  We cannot let this Nation come to a standstill because we are captive 
to foreign oil cartels. Not too many years ago, we fought a war in the 
Middle East to protect oil-producing countries from the Iraqi invasion. 
Our young men and women make up the bulk of the military might for many 
nations today. They put their lives on the line to protect some of the 
Arab countries against their own cousins, and now we are being repaid 
for our generosity by the rising cost of fuel from OPEC.
  Certainly, if there is anyone who thinks there is not a national 
security component to being 55-percent dependent on foreign oil, they 
need to think again. The fact that we are too dependent on foreign oil 
and we currently have no national energy policy is a point of 
discussion for another day.
  Right now, we face a crisis we need to do something about. That is 
why I and my colleagues are introducing this bill. This bill will 
temporarily suspend the excise tax on diesel fuel for 1 year, which is 
24.4 cents a gallon, in an effort to ease the burdens on so many 
Americans based on our lack of a national long-term energy policy. This 
will help primarily truckers, farmers, and public transportation but in 
the long run will help everybody. While it does not address the long-
term problem of our insufficient domestic oil supply, it will provide 
emergency temporary relief. I believe it is a modest and yet essential 
step.
  At a time when our citizens are being shaken down by a foreign oil 
cartel and then again by rising taxes, it is somewhat offensive to go 
through the same kind of a shakedown twice. The Government is currently 
running a surplus, taking in more tax money than we are spending. We 
will have several years of surplus money, and I am sure we can afford 
to give a short-term break to the hard-working Americans who deliver 
our food and take our children to and from school as well as pick up 
our garbage.
  This particular tax, as I understand, was never supposed to be 
permanent. It was imposed as a deficit reduction measure, and we simply 
do not have a deficit nor will we have in years to come. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation with prompt passage, to provide 
immediate relief for America's truckers, farmers, and other diesel fuel 
users.
  I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2090

       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 ``America's Transportation 
     Recovery Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. 1 YEAR MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN DIESEL FUEL EXCISE 
                   TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4081(d) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively,
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Diesel fuel.--The rate of tax specified in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A)(iii) with respect to diesel fuel shall be--
       ``(A) zero during the 1 year period beginning on the date 
     of the enactment of this paragraph, and
       ``(B) 4.3 cents per gallon after September 30, 2005.'', and
       (3) by striking ``clauses (i) and (iii) of subsection 
     (a)(2)(A)'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``subsections 
     (a)(2)(A)(i) and (a)(2)(A)(iii) with respect to kerosene''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subclause (I) of section 4041(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rate of tax on 
     certain buses) is amended by striking ``shall be 7.3 cents 
     per gallon (4.3 cents per gallon after September 30, 2005).'' 
     and inserting ``shall be--
       ``(aa) zero during the 1 year period beginning on the date 
     of the enactment of the American Transportation Recovery Act 
     of 2000,
       ``(bb) 7.3 cents per gallon after the end of the 1 year 
     period under item (aa), and before October 1, 2005, and
       ``(cc) 4.3 cents per gallon after September 30, 2005.''.
       (2) Section 4081(c)(6) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``(other than paragraph (5))'' after ``subsection''.
       (3) Section 6412(a)(1) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(the date of the enactment of the 
     American Transportation Recovery Act of 2000, in the case of 
     diesel fuel)'' after ``October 1, 2005'' both places it 
     appears,
       (B) by inserting ``(the date which is 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of such Act, in the case of diesel 
     fuel) after ``March 31, 2006'' both places it appears, and
       (C) by inserting ``(the date which is 3 months after the 
     date of the enactment of such Act, in the case of diesel 
     fuel) after ``January 1, 2006''.
       (4) Section 6427(f)(4) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``(during the 1 year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of the American Transportation Recovery Act of 
     2000, in the case of diesel fuel)'' after ``September 30, 
     2007''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this section.
       (2) Decrease in Crude Oil Prices.--If the Secretary of 
     Treasury determines that the average refiner acquisition 
     costs for crude oil are equal to or less than such costs were 
     on December 31, 1999, the amendments made by this section 
     shall cease to take effect and the Internal Revenue Code 
     shall be administered as if such amendments did not take 
     effect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2091. A bill to amend the Act that authorized construction of the 
San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project, California, to facilitate 
water transfers in the Central Valley Project; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


  The Construction of the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Projects

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to amend the

[[Page 1520]]

legislation that authorized construction of the San Luis Unit of the 
Central Valley Project in California. Enactment of this bill would 
allow water districts in the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley 
Project to supplement their federal water supplies with purchases of 
water from the State Water Project. At present, federal law prohibits 
the delivery of non-federal water to districts in the San Luis Unit 
until certain conditions are met.
  The San Luis Unit is the last component created by federal law in the 
Central Valley Project, which is the largest Bureau of Reclamation 
project in the United States. Water service to districts in the San 
Luis Unit is often curtailed because of limitations imposed in pumping 
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
  It is customary for water districts in the San Luis Unit to 
supplement their supplies through purchases on the open market. 
However, current federal law prohibits them from purchasing supplies 
from the State Water Project and having these delivered over federal 
facilities. Making such deliveries is relatively easy because state and 
federal project conveyance facilities are interconnected. Prohibiting 
purchase of state water for delivery over federal facilities limits the 
opportunities available for San Luis Unit districts to obtain as large 
a supplemental supply as they would like.
  Mr. President, this bill has already passed the House as H.R. 3077. 
It will impose no additional costs on the federal government. It 
contains provisions which assure that the additional water obtained by 
districts in the San Luis Unit cannot be used in a manner that would 
exacerbate current groundwater drainage problems. It is consistent with 
the provisions in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act that 
sought to encourage the exchange of water by willing sellers to provide 
additional supplies at reasonable cost to willing buyers. I urge the 
Senate to pass this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 2092. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to modify 
authorities relating to the use of pen registers and trap and trace 
devices, to modify provisions relating to fraud and related activities 
in connection with computers, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


                          high tech crime bill

 Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my 
friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, a high tech crime bill aimed at 
combating computer crime. For the past nine months I have been 
discussing with law enforcement and computer crime experts how best to 
address the growing threat that computer crimes pose to our 
increasingly networked society.
  Many of the best solutions are far-reaching and complex and will only 
be achieved through sustained and thoughtful hard work on an 
international level by both government and the private sector in the 
years ahead. There are, however, modes changes to existing laws that 
can be made now, which will serve as a significant first step in a 
much-needed effort to give law enforcement to tools they need to 
effectively fight cybercrime. The legislation that Senator Kyl and I 
are introducing today will, among other things, make the following 
changes to existing law.
  We must update our laws governing the use of what are called pen 
registers (which record the numbers dialed on a phone line) and trap 
and trace devices (which capture incoming electronic impulses that 
identify the originating number). These laws have become outdated and 
their procedures are too slow for the speed of criminals online.
  Under current law, investigators must obtain a trap and trace order 
in each jurisdiction through which an electronic communication is made. 
Thus, for example, to trace on online communication between two 
terrorists that starts at a computer in New York, goes through a server 
in New Jersey, bounces off a computer in Wisconsin, and then ends in 
San Francisco, investigators may be forced to go successively to a 
court in each jurisdiction for an order permitting the trace (not to 
mention having to approach each provider along the way). In the recent 
Denial of Service attacks, hackers utilized dozens or even hundreds of 
``zombie'' computers from which the attacks on specific sites were then 
launched. No doubt, these computers were located all over the country. 
and tracing them quickly under current law is therefore virtually 
impossible.
  This legislation will amend current law to authorize the issuance of 
a single order to completely trace an online communication to its 
source, regardless of how many intermediate sites it passes through. 
Law enforcement must still meet the exact same burden to obtain such an 
order; the only difference is that they will not have to repeat this 
process over and over each time a communication passes to a new carrier 
in a different Jurisdiction.
  One deficiency of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.C.C. 
Sec. 1030, is its requirement of proof of damages in excess of $5,000. 
In several cases, prosecutors have found that while computer intruders 
had attempted to harm computers vital to our critical infrastructures, 
such as telecommunications and financial services, damages of $5,000 
could not be proven. Nevertheless, these intrusions pose a great risk 
of harm to our country and must be prosecuted, punished, and deterred.
  The Schumer-Kyl bill will unambiguously permit federal jurisdiction 
at the outset of an unauthorized intrusion into critical infrastructure 
systems rather than having investigators wait for any damage 
assessment. Crimes that exceed the $5,000 limit will be prosecuted as 
felonies, while crimes below that amount will be defined as 
misdemeanors. The bill will also clarify that a $5,000 loss resulting 
from a computer attack may include the costs of responding to the 
offense, conducting a damage assessment, restoring a system to its 
original condition, and any lost revenue or costs incurred as a result 
of an interruption in service. The $5,000 requirement should not serve 
as a barrier to the prosecution of serious computer criminals who 
threaten our country's networks.
  This legislation will also modify a directive to the sentencing 
commission contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 
Act of 1999, which required a mandatory minimum sentence of six months' 
imprisonment for certain violations of section 1030. Computer 
intrusions that violate the statute vary in their severity and 
maliciousness. All violations should be punished, but under the current 
regime the mandatory imprisonment applies to some misdemeanor charges, 
even where the attack caused no damage. As a result, some prosecutors 
have declined to bring cases, knowing that the result would be 
mandatory imprisonment. We should insure that federal prosecutors are 
bringing cases under section 1030, but we also should insure that the 
sentences being meted out fit the crime.
  Often the most technologically savvy individuals are juveniles who 
have grown up with computers always at their fingertips. Unfortunately, 
certain juveniles are committing the most serious computer crimes and 
wreaking havoc on our critical infrastructures. For example, one 
juvenile hacker caused an airport in Worcester, Massachusetts to shut 
down for over six hours when its telecommunications connections were 
brought down. Similarly, two California teenagers broke into sensitive 
military computers, including those at Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory and the U.S. Air Force.
  As a longer term strategy, we need to do a better job of teaching our 
children from a very young age that, like anywhere else, certain 
conduct on the Internet is wrong and illegal. But we also need to send 
a clear message that crimes on the Internet will have real 
consequences. This legislation will amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1030 to give 
federal law enforcement authorities the power to investigate and 
prosecute juvenile offenders of computer crimes in appropriate cases. 
The bill will make juveniles fifteen years of age or older who commit 
the most serious violations of section 1030 eligible for federal 
prosecution in cases where the Attorney General certifies that such 
prosecution is

[[Page 1521]]

appropriate. In conjunction with the elimination of the six-month 
mandatory minimum, this legislation will provide a balanced, measured 
approach to juvenile hacking crimes.
  Again, these are just the first steps that should be taken in a very 
long battle against cybercrime that many of us will wage for years to 
come. And while we fight computer crime by modifying our criminal laws, 
we also should seek concomitant ways to fully protect the fundamental 
rights of innocent individuals on the Internet.
  I want to thank Senator Kyl for joining me in introducing this bill. 
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and 
Government Information, I know that he cares deeply about these issues 
and I look forward to working with him on this commonsense, bipartisan 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Dascle):
  S. 2093. A bill to amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century to ensure that full obligation authority is provided for the 
Indian reservation roads program; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


     the transportation equity act for the 21st century and Indian 
                           reservation roads

 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined 
by my colleagues Jeff Bingaman and Max Baucus  in introducing 
legislation to preserve precious dollars allocated by the Congress and 
the President for construction of Indian reservation roads.
  There is no doubt that the Indian reservation road system is the 
poorest in our nation, and every federal dollar allocated for improving 
this situation should be directed to our nation's Indian reservations. 
The lack of adequate roads and bridges is a chronic problem on Indian 
reservations, where unemployment averages 35 percent and more than half 
of American Indians live in hard poverty.
  Since 1982, when my Senate amendment added Indian roads to our 
federal highway trust fund accounts, all funds allocated for Indian 
roads have been used for that purpose. In ISTEA, which preceeded the 
enactment of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21), the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program reached a level of 
$191 million per year.
  Many of us in Congress worked hard to increase this IRR funding to 
$225 million in the first year of TEA-21 (FY 1998), and $275 million 
each year thereafter, through FY 2003. Unfortunately, a little noticed 
provision for Federal Lands Highways, placing an ``obligation 
limitation'' on the IRR program, has resulted in the transfer of funds 
intended for Indian reservations to be transferred to the 50 states.
  In FY 1998, the amount deducted for this transfer to states from the 
IRR program was $24.2 million. In FY 1999, it was $31.7 million; and in 
FY 2000, the obligation limitation resulted in a loss of $34.9 million 
that could have been used for Indian reservation road building.
  In all previous enacting legislation since 1982, federal funds 
intended for IRR programs have been used for IRR purposes. Only in TEA-
21 was this changed due to the application of the obligation limitation 
to Federal Lands Highways and the IRR program.
  Our bill will simply exclude the IRR program from this annual 
deduction that has totaled, in the past three years, more than $90 
million. This money, while helpful to many states, is more badly needed 
on Indian reservations and should be preserved for that purpose. By 
excluding the IRR program from this obligation limitation provision, we 
will be increasing federal funds for Indian roads without increasing 
the cost of the total program. We will be focusing the funds for Indian 
roads on Indian roads, as we have intended since the IRR program first 
became part of our federal highway trust fund in 1982.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in redirecting funds intended for 
Indian road construction to be dedicated to that purpose.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my good 
friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, to introduce 
this bill along with Senator Baucus. This bill assures that our Native 
American communities have the funding they need for critical 
transportation projects. Our bill will fund the Indian Reservation Road 
Program for the next three years with at least $275 million per year, 
the full amount authorized by Congress.
  Mr. President, since I came to the Senate in 1983, I've worked hard 
to promote economic development and create new jobs for my state of New 
Mexico. One thing I learned very quickly is that you can't expect to 
attract new industry unless you have the basic infrastructure to 
support residential and commercial needs. The most important 
infrastructure needs include transportation, power, communications, 
water and sewers. Without these basic services at affordable rates, 
opportunities to create good jobs will simply not develop.
  Today our country is fortunate to have one of the strongest economies 
in history. Our recent advances in job creation and economic growth are 
accomplishments that all Americans should be proud of. Unfortunately, 
as many of us know, some sectors of our nation continue to lag behind 
the wave of economic prosperity that has swept the nation. In 
particular, I remain concerned about our Native American communities. 
Unemployment rates today in Indian Country frequently top 30, 40, and 
even 50 percent. Mr. President, the nation must not stand by while 
Indian Country is literally being left behind. Perhaps more than any 
other community in America, the Tribes and Alaska Native Villages 
suffer from inadequate infrastructure.
  This year I am pleased to be working with President Clinton, Senators 
Daschle, Domenici, and others on a number of new programs and 
initiatives to help the Native American Communities enjoy the same 
level of economic prosperity as the rest of America. In this respect, 
the Tribes are no different than the rest of America--to promote their 
economic development basic infrastructure must first be in place. The 
President's initiative recognizes this fact. The bill we are 
introducing today addresses one element of that initiative--the need 
for basic transportation, including roads and transit. This bill will 
help promote transportation on every reservation in America by fully 
funding the Indian Reservation Roads Program.
  First established in 1928, the Indian Reservation Roads program is 
one of the ways America meets its special responsibility to help Native 
Americans achieve self sufficiency and self determination. The goal of 
the Indian Reservation Roads program is to provide safe and economic 
means of transportation throughout Indian Country. Over the years, the 
program has been reauthorized and modified to help meet the Tribes' 
needs for basic transportation infrastructure. Most recently, the 
program was reauthorized for six years in 1998. The program is playing 
a critical role in economic development, self-determination, and 
employment of Native Americans in 33 states, including the Alaska 
Native Villages.
  Currently, the reservation roads system comprises 25,700 miles of 
BIA- and Tribal-owned roads and 25,600 miles of state, county and local 
roads. There are also 740 bridges on the system and even one ferry boat 
in the state of Washington. These public roads and transit system are, 
of course, used by everyone, not just Native Americans. To give the 
Senate some perspective of the magnitude of this system, the 51,000 
total miles on the Indian Reservation Road system are more miles of 
public roads than there are in 15 states. If you consider only roads on 
the Federal Aid Highway system, the Indian road system has more miles 
than the state of California.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, many of the roads on the IRR system are 
among the worst in the nation. Of the 25,700 miles owned by BIA and 
Tribes, two thirds or 18,000 miles are not paved and 12,000 are 
unimproved dirt roads. Currently, 190 of the 740 bridges are listed as 
deficient, presenting serious safety concerns. The estimated backlog in 
road and bridge construction alone is $4 billion, and that doesn't even

[[Page 1522]]

start to include transit needs. When roads are as bad as these, people 
can't get to work, children in school buses can't get to school, and 
seniors can't get to their doctors or hospitals.
  Mr. President, in 1998, under the able guidance of the late Senator 
Chafee and Senator Baucus, Congress produced the Transportation Equity 
Act for the Twenty-First Century, or TEA-21. Through its many 
transportation programs, TEA-21 has already had major impacts on 
transportation, both highways and transit, in my state and around the 
country. The bill increased funding for state highway programs by an 
average of fifty percent above the levels in the previous six-year 
bill, ISTEA. Some states, because of population growth, are seeing 
increases of seventy, eighty and even ninety percent over the levels in 
ISTEA.
  Unfortunately, funding for the Indian Reservation Roads Program did 
not receive the same magnitude of increase as TEA-21 provided for the 
states.
  The full impact of TEA-21 on the Indian Road program has only 
recently become clear. In the last year of ISTEA, the program was 
funded at nearly $220 million. Now, under TEA-21, the authorization 
level was increased to $275 million, but for the first time, the 
program was subject to an obligation limitation, which reduces the 
funding this year by $35 million.
  Thus, despite the massive infusion of transportation funding to the 
states, funding for Indian Country was inexplicably left behind. While 
the states averaged a fifty percent increase in annual highway funding, 
the tribes got less than half that--only about a twenty percent 
increase. Mr. President, though TEA-21 strived for equity in funding, 
we fell short of equity when it came to Native Americans.
  Our bill is very simple. It provides a very narrow exemption to the 
obligation limitation in TEA-21 to assure that the full authorized 
amount, $275 million, is available to help meet critical transportation 
needs in Indian Country. The exemption would only apply to the 
remaining three years of TEA-21. A number of other programs in TEA-21 
already have this exemption, and I believe that Congress should make 
good on its commitment to the tribes to provide the Indian Road Program 
the full amount authorized. This increase in funding would bring the 
program roughly up to parity with the increase that the state highway 
programs are already receiving in TEA-21.
  Mr. President, I fully appreciate that a few Senators may have 
concerns about changing any aspect of the funding distribution in TEA-
21. However, I believe a strong argument can be made in this unique 
case. First, nobody can dispute the incredible needs for transportation 
infrastructure in Indian Country, which suffers, as I said, a backlog 
of at least $4 billion. Second, the effect of our bill on all other 
highway programs in TEA-21, including state highway funding, is truly 
minimal; its impact amounts to only about one-tenth of one percent. 
Third, this is an issue of basic fairness. This change would provide 
both the states and the IRR roughly the same 50 percent increase in 
their transportation funding above the levels in ISTEA. And finally, I 
believe we made a commitment to the tribes when we authorized funding 
of $275 million. Congress should make good on that commitment.
  In closing, I look forward to working with the distinguished Chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, and the 
Ranking Member, Senator Baucus, as well as with the Chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, Senator Voinovich, to 
correct this serious inequity in what is otherwise an outstanding 
transportation bill.
  Mr. President, state highway departments recognize how important this 
program is to both the tribes and the states. I recently received a 
letter from Mr. Pete K. Rahn, Secretary of the New Mexico State Highway 
and Transportation Department. In his letter, Secretary Rahn indicates 
his support for this bill. He goes on to say that the department 
recognizes that the bill will result in a slight reduction in the 
federal funds, which flow directly to the state of New Mexico. However, 
he continues, the department also recognizes that the benefit realized 
by the state as a whole, by the substantial increase in funds to the 
state's tribes for road improvements, far outweigh this reduction. I 
want to thank Secretary Rahn for expressing his support for this bill.
  I have a similar letter addressed to Senator Baucus from Connie Niva, 
Chair of the State of Washington Transportation Commission, along with 
a resolution in support of lifting the obligation limitation from the 
Indian Reservation Road Program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary 
Rahn, the letter and a resolution from the Washington Transportation 
Commission, letters from Mr. Kelsey A. Begaye, President of the Navajo 
Nation, and Mr. David McKinney, Executive Director of the Intertribal 
Transportation Association, and a resolution from the Affiliated Tribes 
of Northwest Indians be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          New Mexico State Highway


                                and Transportation Department,

                                  Santa Fe, NM, February 21, 2000.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: The purpose of this letter is to 
     indicate my support for the bill that you and Senators 
     Domenici and Baucus have introduced to exempt the Indian 
     Reservation Road Fund from the obligation limitation by 
     amending section 1102(b) of TEA-21 to include the IRR in the 
     list of exceptions.
       We recognize that this will result in a slight reduction in 
     the federal funds, which will flow directly to the state of 
     New Mexico. However, we also recognize that the benefit 
     realized by the state as a whole, by the substantial increase 
     in funds to the state's tribes for road improvements, far 
     outweighs this reduction.
       If you have any questions, or would like clarification on 
     these matters please contact Richard Montoya of my staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Pete K. Rahn,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

                                              State of Washington,


                                    Transportation Commission,

                                   Olympia, WA, February 18, 2000.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Ranking Minority Member, Senate Environment and Public Works 
         Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: The Washington State Transportation 
     Commission has adopted enclosed Resolution No. 600 supporting 
     Resolution #99-23 of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest 
     Indians (ATNI). The Commission joins with ATNI in 
     recommending that the United States Congress remove the 
     obligation ceiling limitation requirement of TEA-21 from the 
     Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program.
       This is an issue of vital concern to all tribes of 
     Washington State, and it is an issue of fundamental fairness. 
     When Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century (TEA-21) on June 9, 1998, it changes the way in 
     which obligation limits were set for the IRR Program. Instead 
     of having limits set at 100% of authorized levels as they 
     were under previous highway acts, limitation for the IRR 
     Program is now calculated similar to states. For tribes, the 
     change has removed $90 million from their total authorization 
     in the past three years, and an additional $120 million is 
     expected to be lost during the remainder of the authorization 
     period. While the total authorization for the state of 
     Washington is similarly reduced, states have the opportunity 
     to carry over unused authorizations to subsequent years. On 
     the other hand, the authorized amounts deducted from the IRR 
     Program are redistributed to states rather than back to the 
     program. For the state of Washington, there is a net outflow 
     of funding. More is lost from the IRR Program than the state 
     receives back in redistributed authorization.
       Thank you for considering this request of such great impact 
     to the tribes of our state. If you have any questions, please 
     call me.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Connie Niva,
     Chair.
                                  ____


  Resolution No. 600 of the Washington State Transportation Commission

       Whereas, the Washington State Transportation Commission 
     serves as the board of directors of the Washington State 
     Department of Transportation, providing oversight to ensure 
     the Department delivers quality transportation facilities and 
     services in a cost-effective manner; and,
       Whereas, the Washington State Transportation Commission 
     also proposes policies, plans and funding to the legislature 
     which will promote a balanced, inter-modal transportation 
     system which moves people and goods safely and efficiently; 
     and,

[[Page 1523]]

       Whereas, it is a policy objective of the Washington State 
     Transportation Commission to cooperate and coordinate with 
     public and private transportation partners so that systems 
     work together cost effectively; and,
       Whereas, there are 28 Indian tribal governments recognized 
     by the federal government within the state of Washington; 
     and,
       Whereas, these tribal governments develop and improve the 
     road systems for their communities with funding provided 
     under the federal Indian Reservation Roads program; and,
       Whereas, many state highways and local roads are linked 
     directly to tribal road systems, providing access to Indian 
     reservations, and recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     as public roads within the Indian Reservation Roads Program; 
     and,
       Whereas, it has been brought to the attention of the 
     Commission that under the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991, funding apportioned from the Highway 
     Trust Fund to the Indian Reservation Roads Program was not 
     subject to a limitation on obligations as is the case with 
     distributions to states from the fund; and,
       Whereas, the Commission further understands that funding 
     authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century now subjects distributions to the Indian Reservation 
     Roads Program to a limitation on obligations; and,
       Whereas, as a result of this change in law, some $90 
     million in obligation authority vitally needed to reverse the 
     deplorable condition of Indian Reservation Roads has been 
     lost to Indian tribal governments than would otherwise have 
     been distributed; and,
       Whereas, this change in law adversely impacts the Indian 
     Reservation Roads Program within the state of Washington; 
     and,
       Whereas, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians has by 
     resolution, recommended removal of the obligation ceiling 
     limitation requirement for the Indian Reservation Roads 
     Program.
       Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Washington State 
     Transportation Commission joins with the Affiliated Tribes of 
     Northwest Indians in recommending removal of the obligation 
     ceiling limitation requirement of TEA-21 from the Indian 
     Reservation Roads Program.
       Now, therefore, be it finally Resolved, That the Washington 
     State Transportation Commission supports Resolution #99-23 of 
     the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, adopted February 
     10, 1999, at their 1999 Winter Conference in Portland, 
     Oregon.
       Adopted this 17th day of February, 2000.
                                  ____



                                            The Navajo Nation,

                               Window Rock, AZ, February 23, 2000.
     Re proposed legislation for the indian reservations roads 
         program.

     Hon Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: I am submitting this letter on 
     behalf of the Navajo Nation in support of your efforts to 
     assist the Navajo Nation and Indian Country regarding the 
     Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program. Particularly, the 
     effort to correct the TEA-21, which has imposed an obligation 
     limitation on the IRR Program. The obligation limitation 
     would further underfund an important element in economic and 
     community development on the Navajo Nation and Indian 
     Country.
       I thank you in advance for your continued support on issues 
     affecting the Navajo Nation and Native Americans across the 
     United States. If you have any additional questions on the 
     IRR Program, please contact Mr. Paulson Chaco, Director of 
     Navajo Nation Department of Transportation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kelsey A. Begaye,
     President.
                                  ____

                                        Intertribal Transportation


                           Association, National Headquarters,

                                Stillwater, OK, February 18, 2000.
     Subject: Supporting Senator Bingaman's proposed legislation 
         for the Indian reservation roads (IRR) program.

     Mr. Dan Alpert,
     Office of Senator Bingaman,
     Washington, DC.
       The Intertribal Transportation Association is in support of 
     Senator Bingaman's proposed Legislation that will assure that 
     the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program is funded at the 
     fully authorized level for the remaining three years of TEA-
     21.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David McKinney,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


   Resolution No. 99-23 of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians

       Whereas, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) 
     are representatives of and advocates for national, regional, 
     and specific Tribal concerns; and
       Whereas, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians is a 
     regional organization comprised of American Indians in the 
     states of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, 
     northern California, and Alaska; and
       Whereas, the health, safety, welfare, education, economic 
     and employment opportunity, and preservation of cultural and 
     natural resources are primary goals and objectives of 
     Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; and
       Whereas, transportation impacts virtually every aspect of a 
     community, such as economic development, education, 
     healthcare, travel, tourism, planning, land use and 
     employment opportunities; and
       Whereas, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians is 
     aware that the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
     (TEA-21) has been signed into law by the U.S. President and 
     limits the obligation of Indian Reservation Road (IRR) 
     funding to 90%; and
       Whereas, the obligation ceiling limitation thus far has 
     eliminated over $58 million from the IRR program which will 
     lose another $31 million if the limitation is not removed in 
     the FY 2000 appropriations Act; and
       Whereas, this limitation is inconsistent with all prior 
     transportation Acts, and seriously impacts the ability of 
     Indian Tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to provide the 
     American Indian people with safe and decent access to health 
     care, education, employment, tourism, and economic 
     development; now
       Therefore be it resolved, the Affiliated Tribes of 
     Northwest Indians strongly recommends the U.S. Congress 
     remove the obligation limitation contained in TEA-21 for the 
     IRR program in its deliberations for the FY 2000 and 
     subsequent Department of Transportation Appropriations Acts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 2094. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
ensure that petroleum importers, refiners, and wholesalers accumulate 
minimally adequate supplies of home heating oil to meet reasonably 
foreseeable needs in the northeastern states; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                STABLE OIL SUPPLY (SOS) HOME HEATING ACT

 Mr. KENNEDY. 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. 2094

       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 ``Stable Oil Supply (SOS) Home 
     Heating Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) more than 35 percent of families in the northeastern 
     United States depend on oil to heat their homes each winter, 
     and most of those families have no practical alternative to 
     paying the going price for heating oil or seeking public or 
     private assistance to pay for heating oil;
       (2) consumers experienced sudden and dramatic increases in 
     prices for home heating oil during the winters of 1989, 1996, 
     and 1999, causing hardship to families and other people of 
     the United States, including people on fixed and low incomes, 
     people living in rural areas, the elderly, farmers, truckers 
     and the driving public, and governments that pay home heating 
     oil bills;
       (3) a substantial part of each sudden increase in home 
     heating oil prices has been caused by vastly inadequate 
     supplies of home heating oil accumulated during the summer, 
     fall, and winter months by importers, refiners, and 
     wholesalers; and
       (4) increased stability in home heating oil prices is 
     necessary to maintain the economic vitality of the Northeast.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to ensure that 
     minimally adequate stocks of home heating oil are accumulated 
     in the Northeast to meet reasonably foreseeable demand during 
     each winter while protecting consumers from sudden increases 
     in the price of home heating oil.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 152 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (15 
     U.S.C. 6232) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 
     (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), 
     (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), and (14);
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Home heating oil.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `home heating oil' means 
     distillate fuel oil.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `home heating oil' includes No. 
     1 and No. 2 diesel and fuel oils.'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(6) Northeast.--The term `Northeast' means the States of 
     Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
     Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
       ``(7) Primary heating oil inventory.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `primary heating oil inventory' 
     means a heating oil inventory held by an importer, refiner, 
     or wholesaler.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `primary heating oil inventory' 
     does not include any inventory held by a retailer for the 
     direct sale to an end user of home heating oil.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 1524]]

       ``(15) Wholesaler.--The term `wholesaler' means any person 
     that--
       ``(A) owns, operates, leases, or otherwise controls a bulk 
     terminal having a total petroleum storage capacity of 50,000 
     barrels or more;
       ``(B) stores home heating oil; and
       ``(C)(i) resells petroleum products to retail businesses 
     that market the petroleum products to end users; or
       ``(ii) receives petroleum products by tanker, barge, or 
     pipeline.
       ``(16) Winter season.--The term `winter season' means the 
     months of November through March.''.

     SEC. 4. HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE FOR THE NORTHEAST.

       Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (15 U.S.C. 
     6231 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 157 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 157A. VOLUNTARY PLANS FOR HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE.

       ``(a) Submission and Development of Voluntary Plans.--
     Importers, refiners, and wholesalers that hold primary 
     heating oil inventories for sale to markets in the Northeast, 
     acting individually or in 1 or more groups, should, for the 
     purposes of ensuring stability in energy fuel markets and 
     protecting consumers from dramatic swings in price--
       ``(1) develop voluntary plans, in consultation with 
     interested individuals from nonprofit organizations and the 
     public and private sectors, to maintain readily available 
     minimum product inventories of heating oil in the Northeast, 
     possibly in combination with the hedging of future 
     inventories, to mitigate the risk of severe price increases 
     to consumers and to reduce adverse impacts on the regional 
     and national economies; and
       ``(2) submit the voluntary plans to the Secretary not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(b) Certification and Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a plan 
     submitted under subsection (a)--
       ``(A) is likely to achieve the purposes of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall so certify, and the importer, refiner, or 
     wholesaler shall implement the plan; or
       ``(B) is not likely to achieve the purposes of this 
     section, the Secretary shall issue a statement explaining why 
     the plan does not appear likely to achieve those purposes.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 240 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report describing the findings and reasons for a 
     certification or failure to certify a plan under this 
     subsection.
       ``(c) Defense to Antitrust Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be available as a defense to 
     a civil or criminal action brought under the antitrust laws 
     (or any similar State law) with respect to an action taken to 
     develop and carry out a voluntary plan under subsection (a) 
     by an importer, refiner, or wholesaler the fact that--
       ``(A) the action is taken--
       ``(i) in the course of developing the voluntary plan; and
       ``(ii) in the course of carrying out the voluntary plan, if 
     the voluntary plan is certified by the Secretary under 
     subsection (b);
       ``(B) the action is not taken for the purpose of injuring 
     competition; and
       ``(C) the importer, refiner, or wholesaler is in compliance 
     with this section.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Except in the case of an action taken to 
     develop a voluntary plan, the defense provided in paragraph 
     (1) shall be available only if the person asserting the 
     defense demonstrates that the action was specified in, or 
     within the reasonable contemplation of, a voluntary plan 
     certified by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Burden of proof.--A person interposing the defense 
     under paragraph (1) shall have the burden of proof, except 
     that the burden shall be on the person against which the 
     defense is asserted with respect to whether an action is 
     taken for the purpose of injuring competition.
       ``(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     results of the implementation of all voluntary plans 
     certified under this section, including specific compliance 
     by importers, refiners, and wholesalers that serve the 
     Northeast market with respect to the adequacy of the home 
     heating oil supply.
       ``(e) Plan Adopted by Secretary.--If, by the date that is 
     240 days after the date of enactment of this section, for 
     each importer, refiner, and wholesaler in the Northeast, a 
     certified plan is not implemented in accordance with 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall adopt and implement a 
     plan in accordance with section 157B.

     ``SEC. 157B. HOME HEATING OIL RESERVE FOR THE NORTHEAST.

       ``(a) Establishment of Private Home Heating Oil Reserves.--
     If a certified plan described in section 157A is not 
     implemented in accordance with that section for each 
     importer, refiner, and wholesaler that stores home heating 
     oil for sale in the Northeast, not later than 300 days after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     establish a private home heating oil reserve for the 
     Northeast in accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Inventory.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall periodically monitor supply levels as 
     necessary to ensure that each importer, refiner, and 
     wholesaler of home heating oil that stores home heating oil 
     for sale in the Northeast shall have in inventory and readily 
     available to refiners in the Northeast a quantity of home 
     heating oil that the Secretary determines is equal to the 
     quantity that each importer, refiner, or wholesaler may 
     reasonably be expected to require to supply the needs of its 
     customers during the present or following winter season 
     without subjecting consumers to sudden price increases that 
     are due in part to inadequate buildup of heating oil 
     inventories.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not require any 
     importer, refiner, or wholesaler to store any product under 
     paragraph (1) in a quantity greater than 95 percent of the 
     average storage capacity for home heating oil reasonably 
     available to the importer, refiner, or wholesaler during the 
     preceding 2 years.
       ``(3) Increased inventory.--If the Secretary determines 
     that an inventory of home heating oil does not meet the 
     requirement of under paragraph (1), the Secretary may direct 
     an importer, refiner, or wholesaler to acquire, store, and 
     maintain in readily available inventories any quantity of 
     home heating oil that the Secretary determines to be 
     necessary to supply heating oil needs in the Northeast 
     without subjecting consumers to sudden price increases that 
     are due in part to inadequate buildup of heating oil 
     inventories.
       ``(4) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section, including 
     regulations that--
       ``(A) authorize civil penalties to enforce this section; 
     and
       ``(B) provide that the Secretary shall cooperate with State 
     energy authorities in carrying out this section.
       ``(c) Excess Inventory.--At the end of each winter season, 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall take appropriate and reasonable action to enable 
     importers, refiners, and wholesalers of home heating oil to 
     sell any remaining excess inventories of heating oil that the 
     importers, refiners, and wholesalers may have.
       ``(d) Implementation.--In implementing this section, the 
     Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     that the manner of implementation supports the maintenance of 
     an economically sound and competitive petroleum industry.
       ``(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     implementation of a plan under this section, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report describing the results of 
     the implementation of the plan, including specific compliance 
     by importers, refiners, and wholesalers in the Northeast with 
     respect to home heating oil supply buildup.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2095. A bill to provide for the safety of migrant seasonal 
agricultural workers; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


               the farm worker transportation safety act

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise to introduce legislation to 
give farm workers what so many of us take for granted--a safe commute 
to work.
  Today, many farm workers are still being transported to fields in 
crowded vans lacking basic safety equipment. There are reports of vans 
originally designed for 10 people, transporting up to 20 passengers 
with no access to seat belts. People should not have to put their lives 
at risk to travel to a job site.
  According to the latest United States Department of Labor statistics, 
farm occupations have the second highest work-related fatalities, and 
45 percent of these fatalities are vehicular related.
  Nationally, 533 farm workers were killed in transportation incidents 
between 1994 and 1998. And farm workers are 4 times more likely to be 
killed in on-the-job highway traffic accidents than a typical worker.
  The following are just a few of the recent accidents involving farm 
workers traveling in vehicles without seatbelts.
  Just two weeks ago, on February 10, 14 people were injured when a car 
ran a stop sign and crashed into a van carrying farm workers in Tulare 
County, California. Authorities cited the driver of the van three 
months ago for illegally transporting workers--but at the time of the 
accident, he still had not received certification to transport workers.
  On September 10, 1999, 13 people were injured south of Fresno when an 
unlicensed van driver failed to stop for a

[[Page 1525]]

posted stop sign and collided with another car. The van had seven 
seats--all with seatbelts--but four passengers were seated on the 
floor.
  On August 9, 1999, thirteen tomato field workers were killed when the 
van transporting them home slammed into a tractor-trailer truck in 
rural southwest Fresno County, California. Most of the victims in this 
horrific crash rode on three bare benches in the back of the van.
  On July 23, 1999, one man was killed and more than 40 people injured 
when a big-rig crashed into a Greyhound bus and a farm worker van on 
Highway 99 in Tulare County, California. The victim rode in the farm-
labor van, packed with 19 other passengers.
  This is a national problem which calls for Federal action. Farm 
workers live all over the country, and have work that frequently 
carries them across state lines.
  Unfortunately, existing Federal laws leave farm workers inadequately 
protected.
  Regulations issued under the Migrant and Season Agricultural Worker 
Protection Act (MSPA) prohibit transport of migrant workers unless the 
vehicles have adequate service brakes, parking brakes, steering 
mechanisms, windshield wipers, tires, and review mirrors. But, believe 
it or not, the law does not mandate seating positions or an operational 
seatbelt for each passenger.
  The Farm Worker Safety Transportation Act of 2000 will make it 
illegal to transport farm workers unless each passenger has a 
designated seat with an operational seatbelt. This applies no matter 
how the vans are purchased or modified.
  Federal law now requires vans manufactured with up to 10 passenger 
seats to have operational seatbelts for each seat. However, after a new 
van is sold to its first owner, the owner can legally remove the rear 
seats and install bare benches. Similarly, Federal law permits an 
individual to purchase a van with an empty cargo hold and install 
benches without seatbelts.
  The legislation will direct the Department of Transportation to 
develop interim seat and seatbelt standards for vans or trucks without 
seats that are converted for the transport of farm workers.
  After a seven-year transition period, the commercial vehicles that 
transport farm workers will have to meet the same seat and seatbelt 
standards as a new vehicles.
  A farm worker should have access to a safe commute whether he or she 
is traveling to a field in Arizona, California, Washington, or Florida.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this sensible, 
practical legislation that will save lives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAYH:
  S. 2096. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
an income tax credit to long-term caregivers; to the Committee on 
Finance.


 the caregivers assistance and resources enhancement (care) tax credit 
                                  act

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, America is aging--we are all living longer 
and generally healthier and more productive lives. In the next 30 
years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will double. For most 
Americans this is good news. However, for some families aging comes 
with unique financial obstacles. More and more middle income families 
are forced to choose between providing educational expenses for their 
children, saving for their own retirement, and providing medical care 
for their parents and grandparents. When a loved one becomes ill and 
needs to be cared for nothing is more challenging then deciding how the 
care they need should be provided. Today, I rise to make that decision 
easier and to strengthen one option for long-term care--caring for a 
loved one at home.
  The bill I introduce today, the Care Assistance and Resource 
Enhancement Tax Credit, provides caregivers with a $3,000 tax credit 
for the services they provide. I am introducing this bill in order to 
encourage families to take care of their loved ones, make it more 
affordable for seniors to stay at home and receive the care they need, 
and save the government billions of dollars currently spent on 
institutional care. Through this tax credit we accomplish all that 
while emphasizing family values.
  There are over 22 million people providing unpaid help with personal 
needs or household chores to a relative or friend who is at least 50 
years old. In Indiana alone, there are 568,300 caregivers. They do this 
work without any compensation. They do not send the government a bill 
for their services or get reimbursed for their expenses by a private 
company. They do it because they care. As a result of their compassion, 
the government saves billions of dollars. For example, the average cost 
of a nursing home is $46,000 a year. The government spent approximately 
$32 billion in formal home health care costs and $83 billion in nursing 
home costs. If you add up all the private sector and government 
spending on long-term care it is dwarfed by the amount families spend 
caring for loved ones in their homes. As a study published by the 
Alzheimers Association indicated, caregivers provide $196 billion worth 
of care a year.
  I held a field hearing in my state, Indiana, last August to discuss 
ways to make long-term care more affordable. At this hearing I heard 
from three caregivers who are providing care for a family member. Mrs. 
Linda McKinstry takes care of her husband who had been diagnosed with 
Alzheimers two years ago. Mr. and Mrs. Cahee are caregivers for Mr. 
Cahee's mother who also has Alzheimers. They all echoed the need for 
financial relief and support services. They spoke of the financial and 
emotional stress associated with taking care of a loved one. After 
hearing their stories, it became clear that their efforts are truly 
heroic and we should be doing all that we can at the federal level to 
provide the support they need to keep their families together.
  At a time when people are becoming skeptical of the government, 
Congress needs to help people meet the challenges they face in their 
daily lives. This tax credit does that. It will serve 1.2 million older 
Americans, over 500,000 non-elderly adults, and approximately 250,000 
children a year. I encourage you to take notice of the work done by 
caregivers and join me in supporting this legislation and giving 
caregivers the gratitude they deserve.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 2098. A bill to facilitate the transition to more competitive and 
efficient electric power markets, and to ensure electric reliability; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   electric deregulation legislation

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an electric 
deregulation bill, which it is my sincere hope will reduce the burdens 
on our electric ratepayers and consumers throughout this country by 
promoting competition and reliability in the electric power industry.
  First, let me say competition isn't the goal of the legislation. 
Instead, competition is the means to achieve the goal of assuring 
customers reliable and reasonably-priced electricity.
  We have seen the benefits of competition in other industries such as 
natural gas, telecommunications, trucking, and even in the airlines. In 
each case, competition reduced prices. That was the objective--to 
enhance supply and to encourage innovation.
  There is every reason to expect that competition in the electric 
industry will benefit consumers. The Department of Energy agrees. It is 
projecting consumer savings in the area of $20 billion per year. That 
is not hay. That would be a significant savings to the consumers in 
this country, particularly important at a time when we are seeing 
spiking rates in oil, high gasoline prices, high heating oil prices, 
and high diesel fuel prices, as noted by the trucking industry that 
recently demonstrated here in Washington, DC. Heating oil prices are 
spiraling in the Northeast corridor.
  We are talking about, through electric deregulation, trying to bring 
about consumer savings of $20 billion per year or more. Progress has 
already been

[[Page 1526]]

made in this area, both in retail competition and wholesale competition 
because there has been innovation. Twenty-four States have already 
adopted retail competition. That covers nearly 60 percent of our 
consumers. All other States are now giving it consideration. As a 
consequence of the innovation of the States, we are now seeing retail 
competition becoming a reality.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has created wholesale 
competition in the interstate market through Order 888.
  The legislative task we face--I, as chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, and my colleagues on that committee, both 
the minority and the majority--will be significant. We look forward to 
the task ahead. It will call for the examination of this bill, as a 
comprehensive bill, to try to address the various concerns, as well as 
take up the other bills.
  However, I recognize there will be certain areas on which we will not 
be able to reach agreement. We can set them aside and proceed on what 
we can agree on, then go back one more time and look at those items we 
are still hung up on to see if we can generate any consensus. At that 
point, we can see what we have. Hopefully, it will be still meaningful.
  As I said, the legislative task before the Senate is building on the 
progress that has been made with the States, not halting State progress 
on retail competition, and not interfering with the FERC process on 
wholesale competition.
  The question is: How do we get there from here? How do we move the 
electric power industry from regulation to competition? Some argue we 
should preempt the States; I don't think so. Some say that we should 
substitute FERC regulation for State regulation; I don't think so. 
Others have the theory that one size fits all; I don't think so.
  I think the States and the innovative attitudes coming out of the 
States indicate that one size does not fit all. We do not want to 
simply substitute one regulation for another. That is not deregulation. 
If that is done, it is just ``different'' regulation. Moreover, what 
may work in one State undoubtedly won't work in another State and the 
consumers would be harmed.
  To me, the answer is obvious. For consumers to enjoy the benefits of 
competition, we have to let the free market system work. We have seen 
that time and time again. We must stop having regulators pick the 
winners and losers, regulators making decisions that should be made in 
the marketplace.
  I have long said the best way to move toward market competition is to 
deregulate in those areas we can, streamline what we cannot deregulate, 
and facilitate States moving forward on retail competition.
  I would prefer deregulating the entire electric power industry. 
However, I recognize some regulation must remain because it is 
necessary to protect consumers. Traditionally, States have regulated 
retail matters directly affecting consumers and FERC has regulated 
matters in interstate commerce. The legislation I introduce today 
retains this traditional division of authority between the States and 
FERC.
  I believe that where regulation is necessary, it should be pursued by 
the unit of government that is closest to the consumer. The government 
that is closest to the citizen, is the government that will be the most 
responsive to citizens. Citizens go down to city hall; citizens will go 
down to the legislative body. That is where citizens are closest to 
their government, and those are the people to whom taxpayers can reach 
out and hold responsible--or wring their neck if necessary.
  I believe that FERC should only regulate that which cannot be 
regulated by States because it is in interstate commerce. I repeat 
that: In my opinion, as represented in this bill, FERC should regulate 
only that which cannot be regulated by States because it is in 
interstate commerce.
  I will highlight the important provisions of the legislation I have 
introduced today. One key element is the creation of a clear division 
of responsibility between the States and the Federal Government. States 
are responsible for retail matters affecting consumers in their State, 
including retail competition, and FERC is responsible for interstate 
matters, including wholesale competition. By creating this 
jurisdictional ``bright line,'' so to speak, I think we will clear up 
the current confusion in the jurisdiction that has resulted in 
litigation which is slowing down progress on competition. In the 
future, if there is a problem, we will know whom to hold responsible.
  Oftentimes in this business, accountability is pretty hard to find. 
We have designed this so we will be able to hold those responsible for 
their actions, and they will not be able to hide under a rock.
  This legislation also includes provisions that will protect electric 
reliability which is so important to consumers in our economy.
  I am pleased to say Senator Landrieu is joining me in this bipartisan 
legislation. The Senator from Louisiana has been very diligent in our 
Energy Committee.
  The legislation protects electric reliability in two ways: First, it 
creates a comprehensive, reliability organization that has clear 
enforcement authority. This will help in the short term. Second, by 
promoting competition, it ensures reliability over the long run, 
because the market will respond to consumer needs.
  The legislation also includes provisions to ensure that States and 
State public utility commissions will continue to be fully able to 
protect consumers.
  The legislation has provisions which will provide access to all 
interstate transmission lines, not just those covered by investor-owned 
utilities. Removing gaps in transmission access will promote 
competition in the wholesale power market.
  The legislation also addresses a number of other important issues 
including PURPA repeal, PUHCA repeal, assuring funding for nuclear 
power plant decommissioning, and authority to construct new 
transmission lines.
  There are other important issues that need to be addressed during the 
legislative process. For example, we need to look at ways to streamline 
and speed up the merger review process. Utilities are rightfully 
distressed that FERC's process is far too cumbersome, takes far too 
long to complete, and as a consequence is far too expensive. And these 
costs are just passed on to consumers. FERC is retained to do their 
analysis and make their decisions in a timely manner. These drawn out 
decisions, for all practical purposes, are simply allowing full 
employment for far too many lawyers.
  We also need to consider the creation of a universal service fund, 
similar to that which Congress included in the telecommunications 
legislation. This would help areas of the United States which do not 
yet have access to reliable and affordable electricity. Yes, there are 
regions in the United States where electricity is not taken for 
granted. My State of Alaska is one.
  There is a related tax issue which must also be addressed in the 
context of comprehensive legislation. That is the tax-exempt municipal 
bond issue, creating a level competitive playing field between 
investor-owned utilities and municipally-owned utilities.
  Because this is important to both municipally-owned and investor-
owned utilities, I will talk about the problem for a moment. First, 
under the U.S. Tax Code, municipally-owned utilities can issue tax-
exempt bonds to build new generation, transmission, and distribution 
facilities, but investor-owned utilities cannot issue tax-exempt bonds 
for these purposes. This gives municipally-owned utilities a taxpayer-
provided competitive advantage to the extent they are able to use the 
facilities built with tax-exempt bonds to compete against private power 
which cannot use tax-exempt bonds.
  On the flip side, under the Tax Code, municipal tax-exempt bonds are 
subject to a private-use limitation. This means that if municipal 
utilities go too far in competing against private utilities, if they 
exceed their ``private use'' limitation allowed by the IRS, their bonds 
are subject to retroactive taxation. This limits the ability of 
municipal utilities to compete in the market. I assume we will hear 
from them

[[Page 1527]]

on that. There has to be some equity in this process.
  The bottom line? We have a Tax Code that is not consistent with 
today's competitive environment. Both municipal utilities and private 
utilities are at risk. The issue must be addressed. It is not 
necessarily part of the legislation I am introducing today because the 
Tax Code issue is before the Finance Committee. I admit I am a member 
of that committee. Both the administration and Senator Gorton have 
legislative proposals pending before the Finance Committee.
  But I call, finally, upon industry--private power and public power--
to come and try to work out their differences on this and to bring 
Congress a compromise proposal that both sides can live with because it 
is something that simply has to be addressed. It is better to have the 
parties resolve it than have a dictate from the Congress.
  There are other issues of regional consideration that will need to be 
addressed as part of comprehensive legislation. We need to resolve the 
role of the Federal power marketing administrations in the marketplace, 
including the Bonneville Power Administration. We also need to address 
the role of one of the largest utilities in the United States, the TVA.
  I look forward to working with Senators from the Northwest--I see one 
on the floor--to address the Bonneville Power Administration issue, and 
the Senators from the South to address the Tennessee Valley Authority 
issue. I am convinced by promoting competition and protecting 
reliability this legislation will benefit the consumers, the economy, 
and our international competitors.
  I, again, thank Senator Landrieu of Louisiana for cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  To reiterate, I rise to introduce legislation to promote competition 
in the electric power industry. This legislation is bipartisan, it is 
cosponsored by Senator Landrieu.
  Let me first say that competition is not the goal of this 
legislation. Instead, competition is the means to achieve the goal of 
assuring consumers reliable and reasonably-priced electricity.
  We have seen great benefits from bringing competition to other 
industries such as natural gas, telecommunications, trucking and 
airlines. In each case, competition reduced prices, enhanced supply and 
encouraged innovation. There is every reason to expect that increased 
competition in the electric power industry will likewise benefit 
consumers. The Department of Energy agrees. It has projected consumer 
savings of $20 billion per year.
  Great progress has already been made in both retail competition and 
wholesale competition. To date, retail competition programs have been 
adopted by 24 States, which cover 60 percent of U.S. consumers. All of 
the remaining States are now considering what kind of retail program 
would best meet their local needs. Competition has been brought to the 
interstate wholesale market through the enactment of the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992 and FERC's subsequent issuance of Orders No. 888 and 889.
  So the legislative task facing Congress is to build on this progress, 
not to halt State progress on retail competition or to interfere with 
FERC progress on wholesale competition.
  The question is: How do we get there from here? How do we move the 
electric power industry from regulation to competition? Should we 
preempt the States and substitute Federal regulation for State 
regulation, as some argue? Or should we instead deregulate to allow the 
market to operate?
  To me the answer is obvious: Competition must be market-based, not 
government-run. We must stop having regulators pick winners and losers, 
making decisions that ought to be made by the marketplace. Substituting 
one regulator for another--Federal for State--is not deregulation. It's 
just different regulation. Creating a one-size-fits-all Federal 
solution may work in some States, but it will not work in all States. 
For the market to work and for consumers to enjoy the benefits of 
competition, we need to free the market from undue government 
interference.
  I have long said that the best way to move toward market competition 
is to deregulate what we can, streamline what we cannot deregulate, and 
to facilitate States moving forward on retail competition.
  While I would like to deregulate the entire electric power industry, 
I recognize that some regulation will remain necessary to protect 
consumers. Where regulation is necessary, I believe that it should be 
performed by the unit of government closest to the consumer. However, 
where the matter to be regulated is in interstate commerce, FERC must 
be the regulatory agency. Traditionally, States have regulated retail 
matters directly affecting consumers, and the FERC has regulated 
wholesale sales and transmission in interstate commerce. The 
legislation I am today introducing retains this traditional division of 
authority between the States and the FERC.
  I will now outline the key provisions of the legislation.
  One key element of this legislation is the creation of a clear 
division of authority between the States and the Federal government. 
The legislation makes it clear that States are responsible for retail 
matters affecting consumers in their State, and the FERC is responsible 
for interstate matters. Thus, States will continue to be responsible 
for retail competition, and the FERC will continue to be responsible 
for wholesale competition.
  This clarification is necessary because when the Federal Power Act 
was created in 1935, Congress did not foresee the current market and 
industry structure. As a result, there are now ambiguities as to the 
split in jurisdiction between the States and the Federal government. 
This has resulted in uncertainty and increasing litigation. Creating a 
jurisdictional ``bright line'' will help both States and the FERC move 
forward with their efforts to promote competition in their respective 
jurisdictions. Moreover, by creating clear lines of accountability, if 
things don't work right we will know exactly where to point the finger.
  Another major aspect of this legislation is that it will protect the 
reliability of our electric power system. The legislation does so in 
two different ways. First it creates a grid-wide reliability 
organization that is given the enforcement authority necessary to 
assure reliability. The language in the legislation is the industry-
supported North American Electric Reliability Council proposal, plus 
additional reliability provisions proposed by Western Governors, State 
public utility commissions and State energy officials. However, as much 
as this new organization will help ensure reliability, it is not the 
long-term solution. The real solution is to promote competition, and 
that can only be accomplished though comprehensive legislation such as 
this.
  This legislation also includes provisions to provide access to all 
interstate transmission lines, not just those owned by investor-owned 
utilities. Under the Federal Power Act, Federally-owned utilities, 
State-owned utilities, municipally-owned utilities and cooperatively-
owned utilities are all exempt from FERC's nondiscriminatory open 
access transmission program. These exempt utilities do not have to 
provide access to the transmission grid which adversely affects 
competition in the interstate wholesale power market. This legislation 
corrects that problem.
  Another important aspect of this legislation is its confirmation that 
States are not prevented from protecting consumers on a variety of 
retail matters such as: distribution system reliability; safety; 
obligation to serve; universal service; assured service to low-income, 
rural and remote consumers; retail seller performance standards; and 
protection against unfair business practices.
  There are similar provisions which confirm that States are not 
prevented from imposing a public interest charge to fund State programs 
such as: ensuring universal electric service, particularly for 
consumers located in rural and remote areas; environmental programs, 
renewable energy conservation

[[Page 1528]]

programs; providing recovery of industry transition costs; providing 
transition costs for electricity workers hurt by restructuring; and 
research and development on electric technologies.
  By including these provisions, my legislation will ensure that States 
and State public utility commissions are fully capable of protecting 
consumers and promoting the public interest.
  The legislation also contains a number of other important provisions 
including repeal of PURPA's mandatory purchase requirement, repeal of 
PUHCA and assuring funding for nuclear power plant decommissioning.
  One provision in this legislation that I expect to be controversial 
is eminent domain authority to construct new interstate transmission 
lines. The provisions of the bill make this construction authority 
available in situations where there is a regional transmission planning 
process that provides for full public input, and is reviewed and 
approved by the FERC; and the transmission project cannot otherwise be 
constructed either because the State does not have the necessary 
authority, or because the State has delayed action for more than one 
year; and the FERC, through a formal public process with all legal 
rights protected, finds that the new transmission line is in the public 
convenience and necessity.
  When authorizing this construction, the legislation gives the FERC 
full authority to impose any requirements that are necessary to protect 
the public interest.
  You might ask: Why include such a potentially controversial 
provision? There are three reasons.
  The first reason is supply. We must have transmission lines if we are 
going to get electricity to consumers and industry. It is a simple fact 
of physics that you can't move electricity without power lines.
  The second reason is market power. As you know, market power exists 
where there is more demand than an existing transmission line can 
handle--a bottleneck. There are two possible ways to address a 
bottleneck. The first is full regulation of the bottleneck transmission 
facility, with regulators picking the winners and losers. But that does 
not solve the problem, it just allocates the problem. The other is the 
free market approach. Let those who want to move their electric power 
to market build a new transmission line around the bottleneck--or at 
least have a credible threat to build if the owner of the bottleneck 
transmission line does not offer them a fair deal.
  The third reason is reliability. Based on events over that past 
several years, it is clear that we need to enhance our transmission 
system if we are going to meet consumer needs during peak periods of 
demand.
  For those who think eminent domain is a brand-new idea for energy 
facilities--it isn't. The Federal Power Act already gives Federal 
eminent domain for hydroelectric dams and their associated electric 
transmission lines. Similarly, the Natural Gas Act gives Federal 
eminent domain for interstate natural gas pipelines. If it works for 
interstate natural gas pipelines, it will work for interstate electric 
transmission lines.
  Turning now to regional transmission organizations, the legislation I 
am today introducing retains the RTO provisions that were in my draft 
bill. While Order No. 2000 has many good aspects--its voluntary nature, 
flexibility, open architecture and transmission incentives--it does 
have some serious deficiencies. I am especially concerned about two key 
issues.
  First, Order No. 2000 prohibits any active ownership of the RTO by a 
utility or market participant after a five year transition period. 
Oddly, this applies even to someone who only owns transmission. 
Clearly, this will discourage participation in RTOs by transmission 
owners.
  Second, by denying transmission owners the ability to design and file 
complete transmission rates with FERC, Order No. 2000 creates confusion 
at best, and at worst it may deny transmission owners their rights 
under law to recover all of their prudently incurred costs.
  If these and other deficiencies are not corrected, FERC Order No. 
2000 may be litigated for years, creating great uncertainty in RTO 
formation. In light of the increasing concerns about grid reliability, 
delay in RTO formation would be particularly troublesome as Order No. 
2000 makes RTOs directly responsible for short-term reliability.
  Let me mention some significant matters that need to be addressed 
during the legislative process.
  For example, there is the important issue of streamlining and 
speeding up the FERC merger review process. Utilities are rightfully 
distressed that FERC's process takes far too long and is much too 
cumbersome.
  We also need to consider the creation of a universal service fund--
similar to that which Congress included in the telecommunications 
legislation. This would help areas which do not have access to reliable 
and affordable electricity. And yes, there are regions of the United 
States where electricity is not taken for granted.
  Another controversial issue that we must deal with in the context of 
comprehensive legislation is the tax-exempt municipal bond issue, 
creating a level competitive playing field between investor-owned 
utilities and municipally-owned utilities. Under the U.S. Code 
municipally-owned utilities can issue tax-exempt bonds to build new 
generation, transmission and distribution facilities, but investor-
owned utilities cannot issue tax-exempt bonds for these purposes. This 
gives municipally-owned utilities a taxpayer-provided competitive 
advantage to the extent they are able to use facilities built with tax-
exempt bonds to compete against private power--who cannot use tax-
exempt bonds in the same way. But on the flip-side--under the tax code 
municipal tax-exempt bonds are subject to a ``private use'' limitation. 
This means that if municipal utilities go too far in competing against 
private utilities--if they exceed their ``private use'' limitation 
allowed by the IRS regulation--then their bonds are subject to 
retroactive taxation. This limits the ability of municipal utilities to 
compete in the market. The bottom line? We have a tax code that is not 
consistent with today's competitive environment, putting both municipal 
utilities and private utilities at risk.
  Although this issue must be addressed, it is not a part of the 
legislation I am introducing because it is a tax code issue that is now 
before the finance committee. Both the Administration and Senator 
Gorton have legislative proposals pending before the finance committee. 
I call upon the industry--private power and public power--to work out 
their differences and to bring Congress a compromise proposal--that 
both sides can live with.
  There are also a number of other regional issues that will need to be 
addressed as a part of comprehensive legislation. For example, we need 
to resolve the role of the Federal power marketing administrations in 
he marketplace--including the Bonneville Power Administration. We also 
need to address the role of one of the largest utilities in the United 
States--the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  I am convinced that by promoting competition in the electric power 
industry and by addressing the reliability issue, this legislation will 
benefit consumers, our economy and our international competitiveness. 
Like the Secretary of Energy, I believe that it is now time to move 
forward with legislation. I hope that my colleagues agree.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED:
  S. 2099. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 
the registration of handguns, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.


              handgun safety and registration act of 2000

 Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Handgun 
Safety and Registration Act of 2000, which would enable law enforcement 
agencies nationwide to more easily trace handguns used in crime, and 
provide background checks and registration by law enforcement of all 
primary and secondary transfers of handguns, including retail sales, 
Internet sales, gun shows, and all other private transfers.

[[Page 1529]]

This legislation is supported by Handgun Control, Inc., the Violence 
Policy Center, the NAACP, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
  Many Americans are unaware that there is a successful federal weapons 
registration system already in place under the 1934 National Firearms 
Act (NFA). The NFA requires registration of all machine guns, short-
barrel shotguns and short-barrel rifles, silencers, bombs, grenades, 
and other specialized weapons. The NFA is successfully and efficiently 
administered by the Department of the Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).
  The Handgun Safety and Registration Act would require the 
registration of all handguns under the NFA within one year of 
enactment. I know some of my colleagues may question why this bill is 
needed. First, the bill would help law enforcement more effectively 
trace handguns used in crime by making registration data available on-
line to state and local law enforcement agencies. Tracing methods used 
today are extremely cumbersome and favor the criminal over the police. 
When a gun used to commit a crime is recovered, a state or local law 
enforcement agency contacts ATF with the name of the manufacturer and 
the serial number of the handgun--if it has not been removed by the 
criminal. ATF in turn contacts the manufacturer, which provides the 
name of the wholesale or retail dealer to whom the handgun was sold. 
ATF then contacts the dealer to obtain the name of the individual or 
another retail dealer who purchased the handgun.
  All too often, this is where the trail goes cold, and another gun 
crime may go unsolved. If the individual handgun owner has sold the gun 
to another person in a private sale, there is no way for law 
enforcement to follow the path of the handgun without time-consuming 
detective work and a good deal of luck. Subsequent private transfers or 
gun show sales are similarly unrecorded, making law enforcement's job 
even more difficult. Even before the first retail sale, law enforcement 
is completely dependent upon the record keeping of gun manufacturers 
and gun dealers to follow the trail of a handgun from manufacture to 
criminal use. There is no law enforcement database of handgun 
production or sales in the United States. The Handgun Safety and 
Registration Act would give the advantage back to the police by making 
handgun registration data available to law enforcement in an easily 
accessible format.
  Mr. President, in addition to improving law enforcement's tracing 
capabilities, the Handgun Safety and Registration Act would help 
prevent handguns from ending up in the possession of people who are 
likely to commit gun crimes. The bill would require registration of all 
handguns, including those currently in private possession, and would 
make it a felony for any person to transfer a handgun to another 
individual without prior law enforcement approval. As it currently does 
for all NFA weapons, ATF would conduct a background check on the 
transferee through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the 
Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), and the National Law 
Enforcement Tracking System (NLETS). This would provide a clear 
incentive for all handgun owners and dealers to exercise great caution 
when they choose to sell or otherwise transfer a handgun to another 
person.
  It is my hope that by requiring registration of all handguns under 
the National Firearms Act, we can give law enforcement officials the 
tools to conduct faster and more reliable tracing of handguns used in 
crime, and prevent handguns from falling into criminal hands in the 
first place. The Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 would 
accomplish these goals without restricting in any way the possession or 
sale of hunting rifles or shotguns used by law-abiding sportsmen across 
the country.
  I encourage my Senate colleagues to support this important 
legislation as we seek effective ways to help law enforcement reduce 
gun violence in America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. EDWARDS (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 2100. A bill to provide for fire sprinkler systems in public and 
private college and university housing and dormitories, including 
fraternity and sorority housing and dormitories; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                      College Fire Prevention Act

 Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today with my colleagues Senator 
Lautenberg and Senator Torricelli, I introduce the College Fire 
Prevention Act. This measure would provide federal matching grants for 
the installation of fire sprinkler systems in college and university 
dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses.
  Mr. President, the tragic fire that occurred at Seton Hall University 
on Wednesday, January 19th of this year will not be long forgotten. 
Sadly, three freshman, all 18 years old, died. Fifty-four students, two 
South Orange firefighters and two South Orange police officers were 
injured. The dormitory, Boland Hall, was a six-story, 350 room 
structure built in 1952 that housed approximately 600 students. 
Astonishingly, the fire was contained to the third floor lounge of 
Boland Hall. This dormitory was equipped with smoke alarms but no 
sprinkler system.
  Unfortunately, the Boland Hall fire was not the first of its kind. 
And it reminded many people in North Carolina of their own tragic 
experience with dorm fires. In 1996, on Mother's Day and Graduation 
Day, a fire in the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity house at the University 
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill killed five college juniors and 
injured three others. This fraternity house was 70 years old. The 
National Fire Protection Association identified several factors that 
contributed to the tragic fire, including the lack of fire sprinkler 
protection.
  Sadly, there have been countless other dorm fires. On December 9, 
1997, a student died in a dormitory fire at Greenville College in 
Greenville, Illinois. The dormitory, Kinney Hall, was built in the 
1960s and had no fire sprinkler system. On January 10, 1997, a student 
died at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The dormitory, Ellington 
Hall, had no fire sprinkler system. On January 3, 1997, a student died 
in a dormitory fire at Central Missouri State University in 
Warrensburg, Missouri. On October 21, 1994, five students died in a 
fraternity house fire in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. The list goes on and 
on. In a typical year between 1980 and 1997, the National Fire 
Protection Association estimates there were an average of 1,800 fires 
at dormitories, fraternities, and sororities, involving 1 death, 69 
injuries, and 8.1 million dollars in property damage.
  So now we must ask, what can be done? What can we do to curtail these 
tragic fires from taking the lives of our children . . . our young 
adults? We should focus our attention on the lack of fire sprinklers in 
college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. Sprinklers save 
lives. Indeed, the National Fire Protection Association has never 
recorded a fire that killed more than 2 people in a public assembly, 
educational, institutional, or residential building where a sprinkler 
system was operating properly.
  Despite the clear benefits of sprinklers, many college dorms do not 
have them. New dormitories are generally required to have advanced 
safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements are 
rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings. In 1997, over 90 
percent of the campus building fires reported to fire departments 
occurred in buildings where there were smoke alarms present. However, 
only 28 percent of them had fire sprinklers present.
  At my state's flagship university at Chapel Hill, for example, only 
six of the 29 residence halls have sprinklers. A report published by 
The Raleigh News & Observer in the wake of the Seton Hall fire also 
noted that only seven of 19 dorms at North Carolina State University 
are equipped with the life-saving devices, and there are sprinklers in 
two of the 10 dorms at North Carolina Central University. At Duke 
University, only five of 26 dorms have sprinklers.

[[Page 1530]]

  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today authorizes the 
Secretary of Education, in consultation with the United States Fire 
Administration, to award grants, on a competitive basis, to States, 
private or public colleges or universities, fraternities, or sororities 
to assist them in providing fire sprinkler systems for their student 
housing and dormitories. These entities would be required to produce 
matching funds equal to one-half of the cost. This legislation 
authorizes $100 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
  In North Carolina, we decided to initiate a drive to install 
sprinklers in our public college and university dorms. The overall cost 
is estimated at $57.5 million. Given how much it is going to cost North 
Carolina's public colleges and universities to install sprinklers, I 
think it's clear that the $100 million that this measure authorizes is 
just a drop in the bucket. But my hope is that by providing this small 
incentive we can encourage more colleges to institute a comprehensive 
review of their dorm's fire safety and to install sprinklers. All they 
need is a helping hand. With this modest measure of prevention, we can 
help prevent the needless and tragic loss of young lives.
  Mr. President, parents should not have to worry about their children 
living in fire traps. When we send our children away to college, we are 
sending them to a home away from home where hundreds of other students 
eat, sleep, burn candles, use electric appliances and smoke. We must 
not compromise on their safety. As the Fire Chief from Chapel Hill 
wrote me: ``Parents routinely send their children off to college 
seeking an education unaware that one of the greatest dangers facing 
their children is the fire hazards associated with dormitories, 
fraternity and sorority houses and other forms of student housing. . . 
. The only complete answer to making student-housing safe is to install 
fire sprinkler systems.'' In short, the best way to ensure the 
protection of our college students is to install fire sprinklers in our 
college dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses. My proposal has 
been endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association and the 
College Parents of America. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
legislation, the letters of support and a partial list of fatal college 
fires be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2100

       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 ``College Fire Prevention 
     Act.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On Wednesday, January 19, 2000, a fire occurred at a 
     Seton Hall University dormitory. Three male freshmen, all 18 
     years of age, died. Fifty-four students, 2 South Orange 
     firefighters, and 2 South Orange police officers were 
     injured. The dormitory was a 6-story, 350-room structure 
     built in 1952, that housed approximately 600 students. It was 
     equipped with smoke alarms but no fire sprinkler system.
       (2) On Mother's Day 1996 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a 
     fire in the Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity House killed 5 college 
     juniors and injured 3. The 3-story plus basement fraternity 
     house was 70 years old. The National Fire Protection 
     Association identified several factors that contributed to 
     the tragic fire, including the lack of fire sprinkler 
     protection.
       (3) It is estimated that in a typical year between 1980 and 
     1997, there were an average of 1,800 fires at dormitories, 
     fraternities, and sororities, involving 1 death, 69 injuries, 
     and $8,100,000 in property damage.
       (4) Within dormitories the number 1 cause of fires is arson 
     or suspected arson. The second leading cause of college 
     building fires is cooking, while the third leading cause is 
     smoking.
       (5) The National Fire Protection Association has no record 
     of a fire killing more than 2 people in a completely fire 
     sprinklered public assembly, educational, institutional, or 
     residential building where the sprinkler system was operating 
     properly.
       (6) New dormitories are generally required to have advanced 
     safety systems such as fire sprinklers. But such requirements 
     are rarely imposed retroactively on existing buildings.
       (7) In 1997, over 90 percent of the campus building fires 
     reported to fire departments occurred in buildings where 
     there were smoke alarms present. However, only 28 percent had 
     fire sprinklers present.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 
     2005.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Program Authority.--The Secretary of Education, in 
     consultation with the United States Fire Administration, is 
     authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     States, private or public colleges or universities, 
     fraternities, or sororities to assist them in providing fire 
     sprinkler systems for their student housing and dormitories.
       (b) Matching Funds Requirement.--The Secretary of Education 
     may not award a grant under this section unless the entity 
     receiving the grant provides, from State, local, or private 
     sources, matching funds in an amount equal to not less than 
     one-half of the cost of the activities for which assistance 
     is sought.

     SEC. 5. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Award Basis.--In awarding grants under this Act the 
     Secretary of Education shall take into consideration various 
     fire safety factors and conditions that the Secretary 
     determines appropriate.
       (b) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--An entity that 
     receives a grant under this Act shall not use more than 4 
     percent of the grant funds for administrative expenses.

     SEC. 6. DATA AND REPORT.

       The Comptroller General shall--
       (1) gather data on the number of college and university 
     housing facilities and dormitories that have and do not have 
     fire sprinkler systems and other forms of built-in fire 
     protection mechanisms; and
       (2) report such data to Congress.
                                  ____

                                              Town of Chapel Hill,


                                              Fire Department,

                               Chapel Hill, NC, February 15, 2000.
     Sen. John Edwards,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Edwards, One of the most unrecognized fire 
     safety problems in America today is university and college 
     student housing. Parents routinely send their children off to 
     college seeking an education unaware that one of the greatest 
     dangers facing their children is the fire hazards associated 
     with dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses and other 
     forms of student housing. We in Chapel Hill experienced a 
     worst-case scenario, when in 1996 a fire in a fraternity 
     house on Mother's Day/Graduation Day claimed five young lives 
     and injured three more. We recognized the only complete 
     answer to making student-housing safe is to install fire 
     sprinkler systems.
       I have had the privilege of reading a draft copy of your 
     legislation creating a matching grants program for 
     universities, colleges and fraternity/sorority house who take 
     the lifesaving step of installing fire sprinkler systems. I 
     strongly urge you to introduce this legislation and I pledge 
     to assist your staff in promoting this important bill and 
     help to develop bi-partisan support for it. Your proposed 
     legislation is the only real solution to the fire threat in 
     student housing.
       After ten years of being responsible for fire protection at 
     the University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill, I am convinced 
     that where students reside, alarms systems are not enough, 
     clear exit ways are not enough, quick fire department 
     response is not enough and educational programs are not 
     enough. The only way you can insure fire safety for college 
     student housing is to place a fire sprinkler system over 
     them. Thank you for recognizing the magnitude of this threat 
     and for proposing the solution to it.
       Tell me how we can help.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Daniel Jones,
     Fire Chief.
                                  ____



                                   College Parents of America,

                                Washington, DC, February 15, 2000.
     Hon. John Edwards,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Edwards: College Parents of America (CPA) 
     would like to commend you on the introduction of grant 
     legislation to encourage public and private colleges, 
     universities, fraternities and sororities to install 
     sprinkler systems in all dormitories and other forms of group 
     housing.
       Today college parents represent an estimated 12 million 
     households. An additional 24 million households are currently 
     saving and otherwise preparing children for college. College 
     Parents of America is the only national membership 
     association dedicated to helping these parents prepare for 
     and put their children through college easily, economically 
     and safely.
       College Parents of America places a high priority on 
     ensuring safety in student housing. In fact, CPA is urging 
     parents and students during their college evaluation process 
     to make sure there are smoke alarms, sprinkler systems and 
     scheduled drills in all campus housing and classroom 
     buildings. While the financing and installation of smoke 
     alarms are relatively easy, funding is cited

[[Page 1531]]

     as a challenge in the installation of sprinkler systems in 
     many older residential buildings on the nation's campuses. 
     Your grant legislation will provide a vehicle for 
     institutions to ensure all student residential facilities 
     have adequate sprinkler safety systems. As a result, the 
     grant legislation will not only save millions of dollars 
     annually from property damage, but also save young lives.
       Please let me know how and when I can provide assistance. I 
     look forward to working together to pass this important piece 
     of legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Richard M. Flaherty.
                                  ____

                                                     National Fire


                                       Protection Association,

                                 Arlington, VA, February 23, 2000.
     Sen. John Edwards,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Edwards: On behalf of the National Fire 
     Protection Association (NFPA) and its 68,000 members, we are 
     pleased to support your legislative efforts to provide 
     federal assistance for the installation of fire sprinkler 
     systems in college and university housing and dormitories.
       Our statistics show that properly installed and maintained 
     fire sprinkler systems have a proven track record of 
     protecting lives and property in all types of occupancies. In 
     particular, the retrofitting of fire sprinkler systems in 
     college and university housing will greatly improve the 
     safety of these public and private institutions.
       Thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance in this 
     important initiative.
           Sincerely,

                                           Anthony R. O'Neill,

                               Vice President, Government Affairs.

    NFPA FIDO SUMMARY REPORT FATAL COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FRATERNITY AND
         SORORITY HOUSE FIRES REPORTED TO U.S. FIRE DEPARTMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date                      Location         Deaths  Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 24, 1973................  Auburn University,           1         0
                                 Auburn, AL.
February 23, 1974.............  Kents Hill School,           1         0
                                 Readfield, ME.
March 16, 1975................  Kappa Sigma                  1         1
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Burlington, VT.
July 22, 1975.................  Tank Hall MIT                1         0
                                 Dormitory,
                                 Cambridge, MA.
January 8, 1976...............  Alpha Rho Chi                2         6
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Columbus, OH.
April 5, 1976.................  Wilmarth Dorm,               1        27
                                 Skidmore College,
                                 Saratoga Springs, NY.
August 29, 1976...............  Kappa Sigma                  5         2
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Baldwin City, KS.
December 13, 1977.............  Providence College,         10        16
                                 Providence, RI.
January 14, 1978..............  Alpha Tau Omega              1         2
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 University Park, TX.
March 4, 1979.................  Slippery Rock State          1         3
                                 College, Slippery
                                 Rock, PA.
April 5, 1980.................  Sigma Alpha Epsilon          1         1
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Eugene, OR.
July 2, 1980..................  Dncer Hall University        1         0
                                 of North Iowa, Cedar
                                 Falls, IA.
September 20, 1981............  Davis Dormitory Texas        1         8
                                 College, Tyler, TX.
March 16, 1982................  Dormitory University         1         0
                                 of Chicago, Chicago,
                                 IL.
September 9, 1982.............  Phi Kappa Theta              1         8
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Philadelphia, PA.
September 18, 1982............  Dormitory Clark              1         3
                                 University,
                                 Worcester, MA.
May 28, 1983..................  Alpha Epsilon                1         1
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Bridgewater, MA.
December 11, 1983.............  Lambda Chi Alpha             1         1
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Austin, TX.
January 6, 1984...............  Pi Kappa Alpha               1         0
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Thibodaux, LA.
April 11, 1984................  Phi Gamma Delta              1         0
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Lexington, VA.
October 21, 1984..............  Zeta Beta Tau                1        30
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Bloomington, In.
December 20, 1984.............  Prometheus House (Pi         1         0
                                 Kappa Sigma),
                                 Geneseo, NY.
March 3, 1985.................  Alpha Tau Omega              1         1
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 San Jose, CA.
April 19, 1986................  Delta Kappa Epsilon          1         0
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Danville, KY.
November 29, 1986.............  Russell Apt. Building        1         1
                                 Busch Campus, N.
                                 Brunswick, NJ.
April 12, 1987................  Wesley College-              1         4
                                 Williams College.
September 8, 1990.............  Phi Kappa Sigma              3         2
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Berkeley, CA.
December 8, 1990..............  Lambda Chi Fraternity        1         4
                                 House, Erie PA.
February 13, 1992.............  Phi Kappa Theta              1         0
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 California, PA.
October 24, 1993..............  Alpha Xi Delta               1         2
                                 Sorority House,
                                 LaCrosse, WI.
October 21, 1994..............  Beta Sigma Delta             5         0
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Bloomsburg, PA.
May 12, 1996..................  Phi Gamma Delta              5         3
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Chapel Hill, NC.
October 19, 1996..............  Phi Delta Theta              1         0
                                 Fraternity House,
                                 Delaware, OH.
January 3, 1997...............  CMSU-Foster-Knox             1         0
                                 Hall, Warrensburg,
                                 MO.
January 10, 1997..............  Hannings Ln-UTM-             1         5
                                 Ellington Hall,
                                 Martin, TN.
February 20, 1997.............  Gramercy Park-School         1         0
                                 of Visual Arts,
                                 Brooklyn, NY.
December 9, 1997..............  Greenville College-          1         0
                                 Kinney Hall,
                                 Greenville, IL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table lists fatal college dormitory and fraternity and sorority
  houses fires and associated losses reported to the National Fire
  Protection Association's Fire Incident Data Organization. This listing
  should not be considered complete since only those incidents for which
  information was collected by the National Fire Protection Association
  were listed.
 
Revised: 3/99


  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my 
colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards, in introducing the 
College Fire Prevention Act.
  On Wednesday, January 19, 2000, a fire raged through a dormitory at 
Seton Hall University, claiming the lives of three students and 
injuring 58 others, including at least 54 students, two police officers 
and two firefighters. The dormitory, Boland Hall, was built in 1952, 
and although it was equipped with smoke detectors, it was not required 
to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system.
  Nothing is as painful as a senseless accident that takes the lives of 
young people. And unfortunately, the Seton Hall community is not alone 
in its grief. In fact, in the last decade, 18 young people lost their 
lives in dormitory fires. We must do all we can to prevent future 
tragedies. Students have a fundamental right to pursue an education in 
a safe, secure environment. Parents have a right to know that their 
children are protected from harm while on school property.
  That is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation to provide Federal matching grants for the installation of 
fire sprinkler systems in student housing. This bill authorizes the 
Secretary of Education, in consultation with the U.S. Fire 
Administration, to award grants to equip dormitories, sorority, and 
fraternity houses with fire sprinkler systems.
  I thank Senator Edwards for sponsoring this important legislation, 
and I look forward to working with him to ensure that student housing 
is as safe as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2102. A bill to provide to the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe a permanent 
land base within its aboriginal homeland, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                     timbisha shoshone homeland act

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join 
with my distinguished colleagues from California, Senator Feinstein and 
Senator Boxer, in introducing legislation that would provide a 
permanent land base for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe.
  For thousands of years the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe has lived in and 
around the area that is now Death Valley National Park. For many years, 
the Tribe sought unsuccessfully to obtain a base of trust land within 
its aboriginal homeland area. In 1994, when the Congress enacted the 
California Desert Protection Act, P.L. 103-433, it set in motion a 
process to address the need of the Tribe for a recognized land base. 
Section 705(b) of the Act provided that--

       The Secretary, in consultation with the Timbisha Shoshone 
     Tribe and relevant Federal agencies, shall conduct a study, 
     subject to the availability of appropriations, to identify 
     lands suitable for a reservation for the Timbisha Shoshone 
     Tribe that are located within the Tribe's aboriginal homeland 
     area within and outside the boundaries of Death Valley 
     National Monument and the Death Valley National Park as 
     described in part A of this subchapter.

  The study report, which finally was completed late in 1999, set forth 
recommendations for legislation that

[[Page 1532]]

would implement a comprehensive, integrated plan for a permanent 
Homeland for the Tribe. The legislation that we introduce today would 
give substance to those recommendations.
  Briefly, the bill provides for the transfer of several separate 
parcels of land, currently administered by the Department of the 
Interior and comprising approximately 7,500 acres, in trust for the 
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. These parcels include: 300 acres at Furnace 
Creek in Death Valley National Park encompassing the present Timbisha 
Village Site, subject to jointly developed land use restrictions 
designed to ensure compatibility and consistency with tribal and Park 
values, needs and purposes; 1,000 acres of land now managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management at Death Valley Junction, California, east of 
the Park; 640 acres of land now managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management in an area identified as Centennial, California, west of the 
Park; 2,800 acres of land now managed by the Bureau of Land Management 
and classified as available for disposal near Scotty's Junction, 
Nevada, northeast of the Park; and 2,800 acres now managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management and classified as available for disposal near 
Lida, Nevada, north of the Park.
  This legislation also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
purchase from willing sellers two parcels of approximately 120 acres of 
former Indian allotted lands in the Saline Valley, California, at the 
edge of the Park, and the 2,430 acre Lida Ranch near Lida, Nevada.
  The legislation would designate an area primarily in the western part 
of Death Valley National Park as the Timbisha Shoshone Natural and 
Cultural Preservation Area, within which low impact, environmentally 
sustainable, tribal traditional uses, activities and practices will be 
authorized subject to existing law and a jointly established management 
plan agreed upon by the Tribe, the National Park Service and the Bureau 
of Land Management.
  Mr. President, this legislation will at long last provide the 
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe with land on which its members can live 
permanently and govern their affairs in a modern community, and will 
formally recognize the Tribe's contributions to the history, culture, 
and ecology of the Death Valley National Park and the surrounding area.
  It will ensure that the resources within the Park are protected and 
enhanced by cooperative activities within the Tribe's ancestral 
homeland, and by partnerships between the Tribe and the National Park 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management, all of which will be 
consistent with the purposes and values for which the Park was 
established.
  Mr. President, the legislation we are introducing today is incomplete 
in that certain map references and specific acreage numbers are still 
being determined by the Department. However, these are minor concerns 
that will be addressed in the coming weeks. It is vitally important 
that this legislation be introduced so that a hearing can be scheduled 
and all interested parties will have the opportunity to review this 
measure prior to the hearing.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2105. A bill to amend chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, 
to prohibit the unauthorized destruction, modification, or alteration 
of product identification codes used in consumer product recalls, for 
law enforcement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                       anti-tampering act of 2000

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my good 
friend from Vermont, the distinguished Ranking Minority Member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, the ``Anti-Tampering Act of 
2000.'' In short, this bill prohibits tampering with product 
identification codes--a practice that threatens the health and safety 
of US consumers, frustrates legitimate forensic activities of law 
enforcement, and impairs manufacturers' ability to protect their 
distribution channels, thereby exposing them to significant product 
liability exposure.
  Let me take just a moment to explain the need for this bill. 
Manufacturers code their products in order to protect their consumers 
and to assist law enforcement in investigating consumer complaints, as 
well as in conducting recalls of tampered products. These codes assist 
the manufacturer and law enforcement in tracing goods back to a 
particular lot, batch or date of production. They include batch codes, 
expiration dates, lot numbers, and other information that one can 
typically see imprinted on the bottom or side of most products.
  Legitimate goods produced by manufacturers are obtained by 
``illegitimate decoders'', frequently by fraud, theft or false 
pretenses. These decoders then decode and otherwise tamper with product 
labeling to avoid detection so that they may sell these ill-gotten 
goods to unauthorized points of sale. The frightening aspect of this 
activity, Mr. President, is that a substantial portion of the US-made 
goods sold by illegitimate decoders have been adulterated or otherwise 
tampered with after manufacture, and present health and safety risks to 
consumers.
  Incredible as it may seem, thieves routinely tamper with product 
identification codes on stolen goods; counterfeiters affix fake codes 
on gray market goods that are then mixed with counterfeits; and 
distributors who have broken their distribution contracts with 
manufacturers typically obliterate product identification codes.
  Because gray market activity is largely lawful in the US, the 
diverters' distribution channels have been used by professional thieves 
and counterfeiters to traffic in their illegal merchandise. There 
appears to be a connection between counterfeit and decoded imports, and 
anti-counterfeiting enforcement efforts will be frustrated unless 
greater controls are placed on the importation of such decoded 
products. Regrettably, gray market networks are increasingly being used 
for the distribution and sale of counterfeit goods. Distributors have 
been found to sell counterfeit goods--from baby shampoo to infant 
formula to cosmetics and fragrances--purchased through gray market 
channels.
  In short, Mr. President, goods are decoded to hide evidence of 
fraudulent, unlawful conduct and to traffic in stolen, counterfeit, 
misbranded, out-of-date and unlawfully diverted merchandise.
  Let me offer you a few examples of the significant health and safety 
risks presented by this activity. As noted by the International Formula 
Council, product identification codes are, without question, the single 
most important factor in a successful recall. In recent years, this 
link between product coding and consumer protection has become 
increasingly evident. Following the Tylenol poisonings of 1982, product 
coding enabled Johnson & Johnson to identify the tainted production 
lots and issue a nationwide recall of potentially dangerous products. 
Similarly, the manufacturers of automobiles, toys, food products and 
other consumer goods have consistently relied upon product coding to 
identify and recall goods that fail to meet consumer quality and safety 
standards.
  Last year, the FDA used product codes to quickly identify a shipment 
of contaminated strawberries that had caused an outbreak of hepatitis 
in Michigan schools. More recently, the Slim Fast Corporation relied on 
product codes to identify and recall 192,000 cans of its ready-to-drink 
diet shakes because, according to the New York Times (Apr. 18, 1999), 
some of the cans might have been filled with a diluted cleaning 
solution. In addition, this summer, a leading manufacturer of infant 
formula used its product codes to identify and recall 7,000 cases of 
infant formula after a labeling error resulted in distribution of 
infant formula cans that may have contained an adult nutritional 
supplement that could have been harmful to infants. (USA Today, June 9, 
1999.)
  An undercover investigation by the Food and Drug Administration's 
Office of Criminal Investigation in New York involved wholesale 
purchases of expensive fertility drugs. Fraudulent code

[[Page 1533]]

numbers appeared on the counterfeit packaging containing these 
injectible products. Although laboratory analysis indicated the 
presence of the active ingredient in these products, the FDA was not 
able to determine the place or conditions of their manufacture because 
of the absence of legitimate batch code data.
  Fraudulent product identification coding has even been used in 
schemes involving bulk food products such as metric tons of frozen 
shrimp. For instance, a Florida indictment charged an importer with 
criminal offenses involving the repeated ``washing, mixing and 
soaking'' of putrid and decomposed shrimp in a solution containing 
copper sulfate, chlorine, lemon juice and other chemicals to conceal 
the inferiority of the product. Central to this scheme was the ``re-
coding'' of product lots as they were repeatedly rejected by buyers, 
chemically treated, and re-sold to others who did not know the 
products' history.
  In short, without product coding, the task of identifying and 
recalling defective goods becomes infinitely more difficult and often 
impossible, leaving consumers exposed to potential harm, illness and 
even death. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
there were 273 product recalls last year and, on average, one high 
profile recall each week.
  In addition to the health and safety risks presented by this conduct, 
Mr. President, there is an additional, equally significant public 
policy interest served by this bill: codes play a vital part in 
traditional law enforcement activities. They assist law enforcement in 
investigating criminal activity, and they further aid in tracking 
stolen goods. They play a critical role in certain criminal 
investigations, allowing law enforcement officers to pinpoint the 
location and in some cases--including the World Trade Center bombing--
the identity of the offender. In cases of stolen or tainted goods, 
product codes point to the source of the product and the site of the 
crime.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, there is no single federal statute that 
adequately addresses the problem of product identification code 
tampering of all consumer products. Federal law only applies to a 
limited category of consumer products. Moreover, federal law only 
applies if the decoder or tamperer exhibits criminal intent to harm the 
consumer. It does not address the vast majority of decoding cases that 
could result in harm to the consumer, but do not involve the specific 
intent to harm the consumer. Moreover, violations of current federal 
law result in only a misdemeanor.
  By criminalizing tampering with product identification codes, we hope 
to send a clear message to the professional criminals: We value the 
lives and well being of Americans and will not tolerate this conduct 
any more on our soil. You, the professional criminal, will persist in 
this activity at your economic and personal peril.
  Under the bill, tampering with product codes of pharmaceuticals, 
over-the-counter medicines consumer products, health and beauty aids, 
and other goods will constitute a criminal offense. Criminalizing this 
conduct will result in strengthened law enforcement tools, greater 
consumer protections and greater security for manufacturers' products.
  Mr. President, I believe it would be instructive to identify what 
this bill does not do, as there has been some misinformation about this 
measure. The bill does not restrict, prohibit, criminalize or otherwise 
impair lawful, arms-length diversion activity. In short, Mr. Chairman, 
the bill does not affect the legality or illegality of the gray market. 
It simply prohibits tampering with product identification codes. 
Diverters can continue to engage in parallel importing to the same 
extent after passage of this measure as they have in the past. However, 
to be clear, Mr. Chairman, they must do so without obliterating the 
product identification codes or affixing fake codes on the goods.
  Moreover, unintentional acts of decoding or other activities 
associated with decoded products are not subject to criminal or civil 
action, because the bill provides for a knowledge standard and 
protection for innocent violators. Thus, the innocent store clerk who 
merely scans merchandise at the check out counter and unwittingly 
permits the sale of decoded merchandise need not worry. Nor should 
either the innocent trucker who transports this merchandise or the 
innocent distributor who engages in distributing this merchandise to 
the retailer have cause for concern.
  Others have expressed concern that enactment of the bill will result 
in the end of discount retailers and discount prices. It is difficult 
to understand this objection. I cannot conceive why discounting would 
require altering the expiration dates or the source identifiers of the 
goods, unless all discounts are illegally diverted or are product that 
should be recalled. But risking the health and safety of American 
consumers, or selling them inferior or fake goods to keep alive a 
certain brand of ``discounting'' does not seem like much of a bargain 
to me. Discounts are routinely offered when inventories build up or 
styles change. Manufacturers and retailers will continue to discount 
when this bill is enacted. But consumers will have greater assurance 
that the discount they are receiving is not coming with an offsetting 
risk that the product is contaminated or defective.
  Finally, Mr. President, some argue that the bill's application to all 
products is unnecessarily broad. The bill's several important public 
policy goals require that it apply to all products. Let me explain why. 
The bill is intended to ensure effective and targeted product recalls, 
to enhance law enforcement investigations, and to protect American 
consumers and the legitimate businesses who serve them from the 
depredations of illegitimate diverters. Product recalls apply to all 
products and law enforcement investigations implicate all products. For 
instance, the codes on the batteries in the Olympic Park bombing in 
Atlanta, Georgia were used to exonerate the security guard then under 
suspicion in that case, Richard Jewell. The code on the microprocessor 
chip on the bomb in the Pan Am air crash linked the bombing to 
terrorists. And even on a more pedestrian level, the code on a crowbar 
in a recent New York burglary led police to the criminal.
  So, Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this important measure 
today. It enjoys the strong backing of the Coalition Against Product 
Tampering (CAPT). The CAPT is a coalition of private sector companies, 
consumer groups, unions and law enforcement agencies which are 
concerned about product decoding and product tampering and the role 
these activities play in fueling and supporting other criminal 
enterprises, including money laundering, organized retail theft, and 
counterfeiting. I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the 
CAPT's membership list be included in the record after my remarks. I 
have received numerous members of this group expressing their support 
for the legislation introduced today.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, law enforcement, consumer groups, 
unions, and others agree with me that intentional decoding of products 
threatens the health and safety of American consumers. According to the 
National Association of Manufacturers, manufacturers cannot conceive of 
a single legitimate reason to decode products. Nor can I. The ``Anti-
Tampering Act of 2000'' I am introducing today is a narrowly tailored 
approach to this problem and should be enacted.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-
section analysis of the legislation appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2105

       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 ``Antitampering Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OF PRODUCT 
                   IDENTIFICATION CODES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 65 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1365 the 
     following:

[[Page 1534]]



     ``Sec. 1365A. Tampering with product identification codes

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `consumer'--
       ``(A) means--
       ``(i) the ultimate user or purchaser of a good; or
       ``(ii) any hotel, restaurant, or other provider of services 
     that must remove or alter the container, label, or packaging 
     of a good in order to make the good available to the ultimate 
     user or purchaser; and
       ``(B) does not include any retailer or other distributor 
     who acquires a good for resale;
       ``(2) the term `flea market' means any location, other than 
     a permanent retail store, at which space is rented or 
     otherwise made available for the conduct of business of a 
     transient or limited vendor;
       ``(3) the term `good' means any article, product, or 
     commodity that is customarily produced or distributed for 
     sale, rental, or licensing in interstate or foreign commerce, 
     and any container, packaging, label, or component thereof;
       ``(4) the term `manufacturer' means--
       ``(A) the original manufacturer of a good; and
       ``(B) any duly appointed agent or representative of that 
     manufacturer acting within the scope of its agency or 
     representation;
       ``(5) the term `product identification code'--
       ``(A) means any visible number, letter, symbol, marking, 
     date (including an expiration date), or code that is affixed 
     to or embedded in any good, by which the manufacturer of the 
     good may trace the good back to a particular lot, batch, date 
     of production, or date of removal;
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) copyright management information (as defined in 
     section 1202(c) of title 17) conveyed in connection with 
     copies or phonorecords of a copyrighted work or any 
     performance or display of a copyrighted work;
       ``(ii) other codes or markings on the good; or
       ``(iii) a Universal Product Code; and
       ``(C) does not include any trademark or copyright notice by 
     itself or any item listed in subparagraph (A) that is affixed 
     to, superimposed on, or embedded in a trademark or copyright 
     notice;
       ``(6) the term `transient or limited vendor' does not 
     include a person who sells by sample, catalog, or brochure 
     for future delivery to the purchaser;
       ``(7) the term `Universal Product Code' means a 12-digit, 
     all numeric code that identifies the consumer package 
     consisting of--
       ``(A) a 1-digit number system character;
       ``(B) a 5-digit manufacturer identification number;
       ``(C) a 5-digit item code;
       ``(D) a 1-digit check number; and
       ``(E) the bar code symbol that encodes the 12-digit 
     Universal Product Code; and
       ``(8) the term `value' means the face, par, or market 
     value, whichever is the greatest.
       ``(b) Prohibited Acts.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (d) or as otherwise expressly authorized under any other 
     provision of Federal law, it shall be unlawful for any 
     person, other than the consumer or the manufacturer of a 
     good, knowingly and without the authorization of the 
     manufacturer--
       ``(1) to directly or indirectly alter, conceal, remove, 
     obliterate, deface, strip, or peel any product identification 
     code affixed to or embedded in a good and visible to the 
     consumer;
       ``(2) to directly or indirectly affix to or embed in a good 
     a product identification code that is visible to the consumer 
     and that is intended by the manufacturer for a different 
     good, such that the code no longer accurately identifies the 
     lot, batch, date of production, or date of removal of the 
     good;
       ``(3) to directly or indirectly affix to or embed in a good 
     any number, letter, symbol, marking, date, or code intended 
     to simulate a product identification code that is otherwise 
     visible to the consumer;
       ``(4) to import, reimport, export, sell, offer for sale, 
     hold for sale, distribute, or broker a good--
       ``(A) in a case in which the person knows that the product 
     identification code, which otherwise would be visible to the 
     consumer, has been altered, concealed, removed, obliterated, 
     defaced, stripped, peeled, affixed, or embedded in violation 
     of paragraph (1) or (2); or
       ``(B) in a case in which the person knows that the good 
     bears a number, letter, symbol, marking, date, or code in 
     violation of paragraph (3); or
       ``(5) to sell, offer for sale, or knowingly permit the sale 
     at a flea market of--
       ``(A) baby food, infant formula, or any other similar 
     product manufactured and packaged for sale for consumption by 
     a child who is less than 3 years of age; or
       ``(B) any food, drug, device, or cosmetic (as those terms 
     are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321));

     unless that person keeps for public inspection written 
     documentation identifying such person as an authorized 
     representative of the manufacturer or distributor of the 
     food, drug, device, or cosmetic.
       ``(c) Applicability.--The prohibitions set forth in 
     paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (b) shall apply to 
     visible product identification codes (or simulated product 
     identification codes in a case to which subsection (b)(3) 
     applies) affixed to, or embedded in, any good held for sale 
     or distribution in interstate or foreign commerce or after 
     shipment therein, including any good held in a United States 
     Customs Service bonded warehouse or foreign trade zone.
       ``(d) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) Universal product code codes.--Nothing in this 
     section prohibits a person from affixing a Universal Product 
     Code, security tag, or other legitimate pricing or inventory 
     code or other information required by Federal or State law, 
     if such code or information does not (or can be removed so as 
     not to) permanently alter, conceal, remove, obliterate, 
     deface, strip, or peel any product identification code.
       ``(2) Repackaging for resale.--Nothing in this section 
     prohibits a person from removing a good from a primary 
     package or container and repackaging the good in another 
     package or container, or from placing a good and its original 
     packaging within new packaging, if--
       ``(A) the good retains its original product identification 
     code, which has not been permanently altered, concealed, or 
     removed;
       ``(B) the repackaging is in full compliance with all 
     applicable Federal laws and regulations, including section 
     301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     331); and
       ``(C) a new package includes a label that clearly states--
       ``(i) that the good has been repackaged; and
       ``(ii) the name of the repacker.
       ``(e) Criminal Penalties.--Any person who willfully 
     violates this section--
       ``(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 1 year, or both;
       ``(2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 5 years, or both, if the total value of the good or 
     goods involved in the violation is greater than $10,000;
       ``(3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 10 years, or both, if--
       ``(A) the person acts with reckless disregard for the 
     health or safety of the public and under circumstances 
     manifesting extreme indifference to such risk; and
       ``(B) the violation threatens the health or safety of the 
     public;
       ``(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 20 years, or both, if--
       ``(A) the person acts with reckless disregard for the risk 
     that another person will be placed in danger of death or 
     bodily injury and under circumstances manifesting extreme 
     indifference to such risk; and
       ``(B) serious bodily injury to any individual results;
       ``(5) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any 
     term of years or for life, or both, if--
       ``(A) the person acts with reckless disregard for the risk 
     that another person will be placed in danger of death or 
     bodily injury and under circumstances manifesting extreme 
     indifference to such risk; and
       ``(B) the death of an individual results; and
       ``(6) with respect to any second or subsequent violation of 
     this section, be convicted of a felony, and be subject to 
     twice the maximum term of imprisonment that would otherwise 
     be imposed under this subsection, fined under this title, or 
     both.
       ``(f) Injunctions and Impounding, Forfeiture, and 
     Disposition of Goods.--
       ``(1) Injunctions and impounding.--In any prosecution under 
     this section, upon motion of the United States, the court 
     may--
       ``(A) grant 1 or more temporary, preliminary, or permanent 
     injunctions on such terms as the court determines to be 
     reasonable to prevent or restrain the alleged violation; and
       ``(B) at any time during the proceedings, order the 
     impounding, on such terms as the court determines to be 
     reasonable, of any good that the court has reasonable cause 
     to believe was involved in the violation.
       ``(2) Forfeiture and disposition of goods.--Upon conviction 
     of any person of a violation of this section, the court 
     shall--
       ``(A) order the forfeiture of any good involved in the 
     violation or that has been impounded under paragraph (1)(B); 
     and
       ``(B) either--
       ``(i) order the destruction of each good forfeited under 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) order the disposal of the good by delivery to such 
     Federal, State, or local government agencies as, in the 
     opinion of the court, have a need for such good, or by gift 
     to such charitable or nonprofit institutions as, in the 
     opinion of the court, have a need for such good; or
       ``(iii) order the return of the goods involved upon the 
     request of any interested party.
       ``(g) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person who is injured by a violation 
     of this section, or demonstrates the likelihood of such 
     injury, may bring a civil action in an appropriate district 
     court of the United States against the alleged violator.
       ``(2) Injunctions and impounding and disposition of 
     goods.--In any action under paragraph (1), the court may--
       ``(A) grant 1 or more temporary, preliminary, or permanent 
     injunctions upon the posting of a bond at least equal to the 
     value of the goods affected on such terms as the

[[Page 1535]]

     court determines to be reasonable to prevent or restrain the 
     violation;
       ``(B) at any time while the action is pending, order the 
     impounding of the goods affected--
       ``(i) if the court has reasonable cause to believe the 
     goods were involved in the violation;
       ``(ii) upon the posting of a bond at least equal to the 
     value of the goods affected; and
       ``(iii) on other terms such as the court determines to be 
     reasonable; and
       ``(C) as part of a final judgment or decree, in the court's 
     discretion--
       ``(i) order the destruction of any good involved in the 
     violation or that has been impounded under subparagraph (B);
       ``(ii) order the disposal of the good--

       ``(I) by delivery to such Federal, State, or local 
     government agencies as, in the opinion of the court, have a 
     need for such good; or
       ``(II) by gift to such charitable or nonprofit institutions 
     as, in the opinion of the court, have a need for such good, 
     if such disposition would not otherwise be in violation of 
     law, and if the manufacturer consents to such disposition; or

       ``(iii) order the return of the goods involved in the 
     violation to the manufacturer upon the request of any 
     interested party.
       ``(3) Damages.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in any 
     action under paragraph (1), the plaintiff shall be entitled 
     to recover--
       ``(i) the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff as a 
     result of the violation, and;
       ``(ii) any profits of the violator that are attributable to 
     the violation and are not taken into account in computing the 
     actual damages.
       ``(B) Statutory damages.--In any action under paragraph 
     (1), the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final 
     judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages 
     and profits described in subparagraph (A), an award of 
     statutory damages for any violation under this section in an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(i) not less than $500 and not more than $100,000, with 
     respect to each type of goods involved in the violation; and
       ``(ii) if the court finds that the violation threatens the 
     health and safety of the public, not less than $5,000 and not 
     more than $1,000,000, with respect to each type of good 
     involved in the violation.
       ``(C) Proof of damages.--In establishing the violator's 
     profits, the plaintiff shall be required to present proof 
     only of the violator's sales, and the violator shall be 
     required to prove all elements of cost or deduction claimed.
       ``(4) Costs and attorney's fees.--In any action under 
     paragraph (1), in addition to any damages recovered under 
     paragraph (3), the court in its discretion may award the 
     prevailing party its costs of the action and its reasonable 
     attorney's fees.
       ``(5) Repeat violations.--
       ``(A) Treble damages.--In any case in which a person 
     violates this section within 3 years after the date on which 
     a final judgment was entered against that person for a 
     previous violation of this section, the court, in an action 
     brought under this subsection, may increase the award of 
     damages for the later violation to not more than 3 times the 
     amount that would otherwise be awarded under paragraph (3), 
     as the court considers appropriate.
       ``(B) Burden of proof.--A plaintiff that seeks damages as 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall bear the burden of 
     proving the existence of the earlier violation.
       ``(6) Limitations on actions.--No civil action may be 
     commenced under this section later than 3 years after the 
     date on which the claimant discovers or has reason to know of 
     the violation.
       ``(7) Innocent violations.--In any action under paragraph 
     (1), the court in its discretion may reduce or remit the 
     total award of damages or award no damages in any case in 
     which the violator sustains the burden of proving, and the 
     court finds, that the violator was not aware and had no 
     reason to believe that the acts of the violator constituted a 
     violation.
       ``(h) Enforcement Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     enforce the requirements of this section.
       ``(2) Agency discretion.--The head of a department or 
     agency of the Federal Government (including the Commissioner 
     of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Agriculture) may 
     investigate any violation of this section involving a good 
     that is regulated by a provision of law administered by that 
     department or agency.
       ``(3) Customs service.--
       ``(A) In general.--The United States Customs Service 
     shall--
       ``(i) seize any good imported, reimported, or offered for 
     import into the United States in violation of subsection 
     (b)(4);
       ``(ii) promptly notify the manufacturer or duly appointed 
     agent or representative of the seizure; and
       ``(iii) destroy or dispose of the goods in accordance with 
     the procedures set forth in section 526(e) of Tariff Act of 
     1930 (19 U.S.C. 1526(e)).
       ``(B) Voluntary disclosures.--In order to assist the United 
     States Customs Service in carrying out its obligations under 
     this paragraph, any domestic or foreign manufacturer may 
     voluntarily record with the United States Customs Service--
       ``(i) its name and address;
       ``(ii) a description of its goods and product 
     identification codes; and
       ``(iii) such other information as may facilitate the 
     enforcement of this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1365 the 
     following:

``1365A. Tampering with product identification codes.''.
       (c) Regulatory Authority.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and the head of any other 
     department or agency of the Federal Government that the 
     Attorney General determines to be appropriate, shall issue 
     such rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement 
     section 1365A of title 18, United States Code, as added by 
     this section.

     SEC. 3. ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 2320(f) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``of title 18'' each place that term 
     appears;
       (2) by inserting ``tampering with product identification 
     codes (as defined in section 1365A),'' after ``involve''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``1365A,'' after 
     ``sections''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

              Supporters of the Anti-Tampering Act of 1999


             manufacturers and business trade associations

     3M
     Abott Laboratories
     American Home Products Corp.
     Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine (USA)
     Bose Corporation
     Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
     Chanel, Inc.
     Compar
     Converse Inc.
     Cosmair
     Estee Lauder, Inc.
     Ford Motor Company
     Giorgio
     Givenchy
     Intel Corporation
     International Business Machines Corp.
     John Paul Mitchell Systems
     Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
     Matrix Essentials
     Maytag Corporation
     Motorola, Inc.
     NEXXUS Products Co.
     Nocopi Technologies, Inc.
     Novartis
     Novell, Inc.
     O.C. Tanner Company
     Optical Security Inc.
     Oreck Corporation
     Pfizer Inc.
     Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.
     SICPA
     Stanley Works
     The Proctor & Gamble Company
     Warner-Lambert Co.
     American Academy of Pediatrics
     American College of Nurse-Midwives
     American Beauty Association
     American Health and Beauty Aids Institute
     American Home Appliances Association
     American Watch Association
     Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
     Coalition to Preserve the Integrity of American Trademarks
     Consumer Electronic Manufacturers Association
     Consumer Health Care Products Association
     Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association
     Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Inc.
     Grocery Manufacturers of America
     International Formula Council
     National Association of Beverage Importers
     National Association of Manufacturers
     National Association of Neonatal Nurses
     National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
     National Food Processors Association
     Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, Inc.


                       consumer groups and unions

     National Consumers League
     PACE, Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers 
         International Union, AFL-CIO
     Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO


                          u.s. law enforcement

     Construction Industry's Crime Prevention Program of Southern 
         California
     Fraternal Order of Police
     Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association
                                  ____


    The ``Anti-Tampering Act of 2000''--Section-by-Section Analysis


                         section 1. short title

       The bill may be cited as the ``Anti-Tampering Act of 
     2000.''

[[Page 1536]]




  section 2. unauthorized alteration of product identification codes 
                               prohibited

     Subsection (a). In general
       Section 2 of the bill amends Title 18 of the United States 
     Code to create a new section 1365A prohibiting for all goods 
     the intentional removal or alteration of product 
     identification codes, as well as the affixing of fake codes, 
     as follows:
       Section 1365A(a). Definitions. New section 1365A(a) of 
     Title 18 sets forth the definitions of the relevant terms 
     used in new section 1365A. By definition, the prohibitions 
     contained in the bill would not apply to the ultimate user or 
     purchaser of the good, to any hotel, restaurant or other 
     provider of services that alters the packaging in order to 
     make it available to the ultimate consumer, or any retailer 
     or distributor who acquires a good for resale.
       Under this subsection, the definition of product 
     identification code includes any visible number, letter, 
     symbol, marking, date (including an expiration date), or code 
     that is affixed to or embedded in any good by which the 
     manufacturer may trace the good back to a particular lot, 
     batch, date of production or date of removal. It specifically 
     excludes (1) copyright management information conveyed in 
     connection with copies or phonorecords of a copyrighted work 
     or encryption information, (2) any or all other codes or 
     markings on the good, (3) a Universal Product Code, and (4) 
     trademark or copyright notices, including notices that are 
     affixed to, superimposed on or embedded in product 
     identification codes.
       Section 1365A(b). Prohibited Acts. Section 1365A(b) sets 
     forth the activities that are prohibited. It seeks to target 
     and prohibit each phase of the decoding process--the act of 
     decoding, the affixing of fake codes, and the distribution of 
     the decoded or falsely coded product. The bill includes a 
     knowledge standard that applies throughout the decoding to 
     distribution process.
       Specifically, this subsection prohibits the intentional 
     alteration or removal of any visible product identification 
     code. It also prohibits the intentional affixing of any fake 
     or simulated code upon any good, label, container, packaging, 
     or component thereof. The prohibition does not apply to the 
     original manufacturer or the final consumer. This subsection 
     further prohibits the importation, re-importation, 
     exportation, sale, offering or holding for sale, 
     distribution, or brokering of goods or components thereof 
     whose product identification codes have been altered, 
     concealed, removed or falsified.
       In addition, this subsection prohibits selling, offering 
     for sale, or knowingly permitting the sale at flea markets of 
     certain products, including baby food, infant formula, and 
     other products covered by the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act, except by authorized representatives of the 
     manufacturer or distributor.
       Section 1365A(c). Applicability to Goods Held in Free Trade 
     Zones. Section 1365A(c) extends the prohibitions against 
     decoding and false coding to all goods held for sale or 
     distribution in interstate or foreign commerce, including 
     goods held in Customs bonded warehouses and free trade zones.
       Section 1365A(d). Exclusions. The bill excludes from 
     section 1365A the act of affixing genuine Universal Product 
     Codes, security tags or other legitimate pricing or inventory 
     codes that can be removed without damaging the product 
     identification code. It also excludes from section 1365A 
     certain types of repackaging activities. The bill will permit 
     the removal of shipping containers and the repackaging of 
     goods for the purpose of selling the goods in different 
     quantities. The exception would apply only if each retail 
     item retains its original product identification code, the 
     repackaging is in full compliance with all applicable laws 
     and regulations, and the new package includes a label stating 
     that the good has been repackaged and containing the name of 
     the repacker.
       Section 1365A(e). Criminal penalties. Section 1365A(e) 
     imposes criminal penalties on any person who knowingly and 
     willfully engages in decoding violations. This subsection 
     imposes fines pursuant to the schedule of fines set forth in 
     Title 18. A person violating the Act could be imprisoned up 
     to one year for the first offense; up to 5 years if the value 
     of the goods exceed $10,000; up to 10 years if the violation 
     threatens public health and safety; up to 20 years if the 
     violation results in bodily injury; and up to life 
     imprisonment if a death results from the violation. If there 
     are subsequent violations, the bill imposes twice the term of 
     imprisonment that would otherwise be imposed.
       Section 1365A(f). Injunctions and Impounding, Forfeiture, 
     and Disposition of Goods. This section authorizes the court 
     in its discretion, upon motion of the United States, to grant 
     injunctive relief to prevent or restrain the alleged 
     violation, and impound goods that the court has reasonable 
     cause to believe are involved in the violation. This section 
     also requires the court upon conviction to order the 
     forfeiture of any goods involved in the violation and either 
     the destruction, disposal or return of the goods involved.
       Section 1365A(g). Civil Remedies. Section 1365A(g) provides 
     consumers and manufacturers who are injured or threatened 
     with injury with a civil right of action against persons who 
     knowingly engage in decoding activities.
       Paragraph (2) further authorizes the court at its 
     discretion to issue injunctions, and to impound the goods in 
     the custody of the defendant. As part of a final judgment or 
     decree, the court may order the destruction, disposal or 
     return to the manufacturer of the goods involved in the 
     violation of this section. The goods may also be delivered to 
     a government agency or provided as gifts to charitable 
     institutions, if the manufacturer consents to the 
     disposition.
       Paragraph (3) sets forth the civil damages available to 
     persons injured or who can demonstrate the likelihood of 
     injury by violations of the Act. These damages include actual 
     damages and profits, or, upon election by the plaintiff, 
     statutory damages in an amount not less than $500 and not 
     more than $100,000 for each type of goods involved in the 
     violation. Available statutory damages are increased to not 
     less than $5,000 and not more than $1,000,000 in cases in 
     which the violation threatens the health and safety of the 
     public. In addition, paragraph (5) allows the civil plaintiff 
     to seek treble damages in the event of repeat violations made 
     within 3 years of the original violation. Paragraph (7) also 
     authorizes the court to reduce or eliminate the total damages 
     award, or award no damages, if the violator sustains the 
     burden of proving, and the court finds, that the violator was 
     not aware and had not reason to believe the acts of the 
     violator constituted a violation.
       Paragraph (4) provides that the court in its discretion may 
     award the prevailing party its costs and attorneys' fees.
       Paragraph (6) imposes a three-year statute of limitations 
     on the filing of a civil action. The limitation begins 
     running from the date on which the claimant discovers or has 
     reason to know of the violation.
       Section 1365A(h). Enforcement actions. Section 1365A(h) 
     requires the Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury to 
     enforce the requirements of this new section of Title 18. It 
     also authorizes the head of a department or agency of the 
     Federal Government (including the Secretary of Agriculture 
     and the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration) to 
     investigate alleged violations involving goods regulated by 
     their respective agencies.
       This section also requires Customs Service officials to 
     seize decoded products, notify the manufacturer of such 
     seizure, and destroy or dispose of such goods. In order to 
     facilitate this Customs seizure, the manufacturer would be 
     permitted to record with the Customs Service any relevant 
     information concerning product identification codes.
     Subsection (b). Conforming amendments
       Subsection (b) makes a conforming amendment to Title 18 to 
     include the title of new section 1365A in the table of 
     sections for chapter 65 of Title 18.
     Subsection (c). Regulatory authority
       Subsection (c) of the bill requires the Attorney General, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     FDA Commissioner, and the head of any other department or 
     agency of the Federal Government the Attorney General 
     determines appropriate, to issue regulations implementing new 
     section 1365A of Title 18 within six months of enactment.


           Section 3. Attorney General Reporting Requirements

       Section 3 of the bill requires the Attorney General to 
     include in his or her reports to Congress on the business of 
     the Department of Justice all actions taken by the Department 
     regarding product decoding.


                       Section 4. Effective date

       Section 4 of the bill states that the bill will become 
     effective six months after enactment.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am joining forces with my good friend 
Senator Hatch on a Judiciary Committee bill that would prohibit 
improper tampering with product identification codes.
  Manufacturers code their products in order to protect their consumers 
and to assist law enforcement in investigating consumer complaints, as 
well as in conducting recalls of tampered products. These codes assist 
the manufacturer and law enforcement in tracing goods back to a 
particular lot, batch or date of production. They include batch codes, 
expiration dates, lot numbers, and other information that one can 
typically see imprinted on the bottom or side of most products.
  This product identification codes are extremely important in terms of 
product recall. There were over 250 product recalls last year--
including two recent product recalls, one of ready-to-eat diet shakes 
and the other regarding the recall of 7,000 cases of infant formula. 
Also, product codes were of great help regarding the Tylenol poisonings 
of 1982 and the contaminated strawberry incident in Michigan in which 
school children became ill.
  Forensic experts have used product identification codes in 
investigating

[[Page 1537]]

numerous crimes including the bombing of the World Trade Center in New 
York City. Sometimes product codes are used to exonerate the innocent. 
For example, the product codes in the batteries involved in the Olympic 
Park, Atlanta, bombing helped exonerate the security guard, Richard 
Jewell, under suspicion in that case.
  Product codes have been fraudulently altered regarding medicines, 
fertility drugs, and even bulk frozen shrimp. This makes it very 
difficult to trade back these products and to determine their safety. 
This bill addresses those concerns.
  This bill contains significant improvements over a version introduced 
in the other body some time ago. Wholesalers were worried that they 
could not repackage goods--together into ``sale baskets''--to be sold 
at discount prices. This bill permits the resale of products at 
discounted prices. Each individual item would have to keep the original 
code but the prices could be changed depending on competitive market 
forces.
  It is important that manufacturers not be able to control prices by 
operation of this bill. Consumers interested in bargains need to be 
able to get the best bargain they can get. This bill does not prevent 
the reselling of overstocked, or other, goods to discount retailers.
  The bill also makes clear that any innocent alterations of product 
identification codes are not subject to the criminal provisions.
  The bill contains a provision unrelated to product identification 
codes which I want to discuss for a moment. The bill prohibits at flea 
markets the sale of baby food, infant formula, or similar products made 
for consumption of children under three years of age. It also prohibits 
the sale of drugs, medical foods, cosmetics, and medical devices as 
defined in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act at flea markets 
unless the seller keeps for public inspection written documentation 
identifying the seller person as an authorized representative of the 
manufacturer or distributor of the food, drug, device, or cosmetic.
  This appears to be a reasonable policy but I am very interested in 
the views of my colleagues on this matter as there may be other ways to 
achieve the goals of these flea market provisions. I intend to work 
closely with the Committee Chairman, Senator Hatch, and my other 
colleagues regarding this bill.

                          ____________________