[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5387-5406]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 5387]]

          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2404. A bill to amend chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, 
to provide that any Federal law enforcement officer who is convicted of 
a felony shall be terminated from employment; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


legislation regarding the removal of law enforcement officers convicted 
                              of felonies

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on removing 
federal law enforcement officers convicted of felonies.
  Under my bill, any federal law enforcement officer, who is convicted 
of a felony, would have to be removed from his or her position 
immediately.
  Mr. President, my colleagues must be wondering why the Senator from 
Iowa is offering this legislation. Law enforcement officers convicted 
of felonies are removed immediately. That's just common sense. Right?
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, common sense does not always prevail in 
the federal bureaucracy.
  Common sense is in short supply at one very important place in the 
Pentagon--the office of the Inspector General or DOD IG.
  In October 1999, the Majority Staff on my Subcommittee on 
Administrative Oversight and the Courts issued a report on the DOD IG.
  I placed the Majority Staff Report in the Record on November 2, 1999.
  The Majority Staff Report substantiated allegations of misconduct by 
senior officials at the Defense Criminal Investigative Service--or 
DCIS--between 1993 and 1996.
  DCIS is the criminal investigative branch in the DOD IG's office.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that Mr. Donald Mancuso was the 
Director of DCIS between 1988 and 1997. Today, Mr. Mancuso is the 
Deputy DOD IG. He may be a candidate for nomination as the next DOD IG.
  Some of the allegations examined in the Majority Staff Report 
concerned one of Mr. Mancuso's top deputies--an agent by the name of 
Mr. Larry J. Hollingsworth.
  The Hollingsworth case is the driving force behind my bill.
  Mr. Hollingsworth was the Director of Internal Affairs at DCIS from 
April 1991 until his retirement in September 1996.
  In July 1995, after a fellow agent recognized Mr. Hollingsworth's 
photo in a law enforcement crime bulletin, Mr. Hollingsworth was 
apprehended. His home was searched, and he confessed to filing a 
fraudulent passport application.
  Mr. Hollingsworth was convicted of a felony in U.S. District Court in 
March 1996.
  The authorities who investigated Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes believe 
that he committed about 12 overt acts of fraud between 1992 and 1994.
  Mr. President, can you imagine that?
  While he was hammering rank and file agents for minor administrative 
offenses as head of the Internal Affairs unit, Mr. Hollingsworth was 
deeply involved in a criminal enterprise of his own.
  The State Department agents who investigated the case were troubled 
by Mr. Hollingsworth's actions. From past experience, they know 
passport fraud is usually committed in furtherance of a more serious 
crime. But that crime was never discovered.
  While the full extent of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes remain a mystery, 
this case has helped to shed a whole lot of light on Deputy IG Mancuso.
  Mr. Mancuso personally approved a series of administrative actions 
that kept a convicted felon in an employed status at DCIS for 6 months.
  Mr. Hollingsworth confessed to passport fraud in July 1995. He was 
convicted in March 1996 and then confined in jail. All this time--for 
14 months, Mr. Mancuso kept Mr. Hollingsworth in an employed status at 
DCIS until September 19,1996.
  Mr. President, September 19, 1996 was the magic day. That was Mr. 
Hollingsworth's 50th birthday.
  That was the very first day he was eligible to retire. On that day, 
he retired with full law enforcement benefits and Mr. Mancuso's 
blessing.
  Mr. Mancuso's generosity will eventually cost the taxpayers a big 
chunk of money.
  The Office of Personnel Management--OPM--estimated Mr. 
Hollingsworth's annuity will cost the taxpayers at least $750,000.00 
through the year 2008.
  This is money Mr. Hollingsworth should never collect had Mr. Mancuso 
exercised sound judgment under the law.
  Mr. Mancuso could have removed Mr. Hollingsworth in March 1996 after 
conviction or maybe even sooner.
  Instead, Mr. Mancuso chose to personally protect Mr. Hollingsworth 
until he reached his 50th birthday and could retire.
  Mr Mancuso shielded Mr. Hollingsworth from the law for at least 6 
months.
  Under the law--5 U.S.C. 7513(b), Mr. Mancuso was authorized to remove 
Mr. Hollingsworth after conviction--if not sooner.
  Mr. President, I underscore the words authorized. DCIS was authorized 
but not required to remove him.
  Under the law, DCIS was granted discretionary authority to decide 
when--or if--to remove him.
  Mr. President, too much discretionary authority in a place so short 
on common sense can lead to mistakes. The Hollingsworth case was a big 
mistake.
  If my bill had been in effect in 1996, Mr. Hollingsworth would have 
been removed within 30 days of conviction.
  My staff has consulted with OPM on this legislation.
  OPM offered some constructive comments on how to strengthen it. Those 
ideas are now in the bill.
  OPM was unaware of any other instance where a federal law enforcement 
agency had kept a convicted felon in an employed status for 6 months 
after conviction.
  However, OPM could not guarantee that this would never happen again.
  The intent of my legislation should be crystal clear: To ensure that 
personnel management decisions--like those taken by Mr. Mancuso in the 
Hollingsworth case--are never repeated again.
  Over the past 10 months, my staff has spoken with many rank and file 
law enforcement officers about the special treatment given to Mr. 
Hollingsworth.
  Rank and file agents are universally disgusted by what happened.
  They feel--as I do--that law enforcement officers, who are convicted 
of felonies--should be removed from their posts immediately.
  They don't want their badges tarnished by having one of their own, 
who committed a felony, remain on the job--as Mr. Hollingsworth was 
allowed to do.
  That undermines morale in the ranks.
  In closing, I would like to quote from a letter Mr. Mancuso wrote--on 
official DOD stationery--to Judge Ellis on April 29, 1996.
  Judge Ellis was preparing to sentence the convicted felon, Mr. 
Hollingsworth.
  Mr. Mancuso's statements to Judge Ellis were absurd. They were 
outrageous.
  This letter shows that Mr. Mancuso was totally blind to the 
seriousness of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes.
  In the letter, Mr. Mancuso asked the judge to consider extenuating 
circumstances. He told the judge that Mr. Hollingsworth had taken a 
half day's leave to file the fraudulent passport application. Mr. 
Mancuso praised the convicted felon for this unselfish act. Can you 
believe that?
  This is what Mr. Mancuso said to Judge Ellis, and I quote: ``Mr. 
Hollingsworth could have come and gone as he pleased,'' but he ``took 
leave to commit a felony.''
  In Mr. Mancuso's mind, the use of personal leave to commit a felony 
was a sign of moral excellence.
  Mr. Mancuso concluded with this telling remark:

       To this day, there is no evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth 
     has ever done anything improper relating to his duties and 
     responsibilities as a DCIS agent and manager.

  Mr. Mancuso's statement to Judge Ellis was misguided for two reasons:
  First, incredible as it may seem, Mr. Mancuso--a sworn law 
enforcement officer and current Deputy DOD IG--feels

[[Page 5388]]

that it is OK for law enforcement officers to commit crimes so long as 
the agents are off duty.
  Second, Mr. Mancuso's assertion about ``no evidence'' is flat wrong. 
It's inaccurate.
  On February 1, 2000, my staff discovered a DCIS file containing 
information that refuted Mr. Mancuso's assertions to Judge Ellis about 
no evidence. It shows that in August 1995, both DCIS and the State 
Department did, in fact, have evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth had 
engaged in criminal activity at his desk in DCIS headquarters.
  How could the Pentagon's top criminal investigator be so blind to 
evidence?
  This file also contains other important revelations about Mr. 
Mancuso's misconduct in the Hollingsworth case.
  It contains documents that indicate Mr. Mancuso was communicating 
with defense attorneys during the criminal court proceedings against 
Mr. Hollingsworth.
  For example, it contains a FAX transmittal memo addressed personally 
to Mr. Mancuso from the defense attorney. Attached was a motion to 
dismiss charges against Mr. Hollingsworth. But there was no court date 
stamp or attorney signature on the document. And there were handwritten 
notes on it. This was a rough draft.
  Mr. President, this really bothers me.
  Mr. Mancuso--the director of a federal law enforcement agency--was 
furnished with a rough draft of a motion to dismiss felony charges that 
the U.S. Attorney was attempting to prosecute.
  That is unethical conduct.
  The file contains other damaging documents.
  They suggest that the current Director of DCIS, Mr. John Keenan, 
returned 11 confiscated handguns to the convicted felon--Mr. 
Hollingsworth--in direct contravention of a federal court judgment and 
statutory law.
  DCIS allegedly returned the guns to Mr. Hollingsworth on September 
23, 1997, while he was still on supervised probation. This reckless act 
could have put a probation officer in harm's way.
  We also learned that Mr. Hollingsworth was under investigation by the 
IRS in November 1983 for perjury. That very same month--November 1983, 
he was hired by DCIS to be the agent in charge of the Chicago Field 
Office.
  The IRS concluded Mr. Hollingsworth had ``committed perjury during 
rebuttal testimony.'' On December 5, 1983, the IRS referred the matter 
to the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans for prosecution.
  Mr. President, how could DCIS hire Mr. Hollingsworth under such 
questionable circumstances?
  I don't understand it.
  Mr. President, Mr. Mancuso went to extraordinary lengths to protect a 
convicted felon.
  By doing what he did, Mr. Mancuso violated a trust that goes with the 
high office he occupies. He violated the trust that goes with the badge 
and gun he carries. In our democracy, when those sacred trusts are 
violated, our only protection is the law.
  In this case, the law provides too much discretionary authority. It 
leaves the door wide open to abuse by irresponsible bureaucrats. We 
need to close that door.
  My bill will close the loophole that Mr. Mancuso exploited in such a 
crafty way.
  Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. 
        Leahy):
  S. 2406. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide permanent authority for entry into the United States of certain 
religious workers; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  Mother Teresa Religious Workers Act

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Mother Teresa 
Religious Workers Act. This legislation will make permanent provisions 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act that set aside 10,000 visas per 
year for ``special immigrants.''
  Up to 5,000 of these visas annually can be used for ministers of a 
religious denomination. In addition, a related provision of the law 
provides 5,000 visas per year to individuals working for religious 
organizations in ``a religious vocation or occupation'' or in a 
``professional capacity in a religious vocation or occupation.'' This 
has allowed nuns, brothers, cantors, lay preachers, religious 
instructors, religious counselors, missionaries, and other persons to 
work at their vocations or occupations for religious organizations or 
their affiliates.
  The key component of the law will expire on September 30 of this year 
unless Congress acts.
  Under the law, a sponsoring organization must be a bona fide 
religious organization or an affiliate of one, and must be certified or 
eligible to be certified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code. Religious workers must have two years work experience to 
qualify for an immigrant visa.
  Prior to 1990, churches, synagogues, mosques, and their affiliated 
organizations experienced significant difficulties in trying to gain 
admission for a much needed minister or other individual necessary to 
provide religious services to their communities. However, this 
improvement in the law in 1990 was not made permanent and, as such, has 
required reauthorization every two or three years, which has created 
uncertainly among religious organizations.
  Bishop John Cummins of Oakland has written:

       Religious workers provide a very important pastoral 
     function to the American communities in which they work and 
     live, performing activities in furtherance of a vocation or 
     religious occupation often possessing characteristics unique 
     from those found in the general labor market. Historically, 
     religious workers have staffed hospitals, orphanages, senior 
     care homes and other charitable institutions that provide 
     benefits to society without public funding.

  Bishop Cummins noted that,

       The steady decline in native-born Americans entering 
     religious vocations and occupations, coupled with the 
     dramatically increasing need for charitable services in 
     impoverished communities makes the extension of this special 
     immigrant provision a necessity for numerous religious 
     denominations in the United States.

  The sentiments expressed by Bishop Cummins are widely held. Indeed 
this program has won universal praise in religious communities across 
the nation. In the past, our office has received letters from religious 
orders and organizations throughout the nation.
  As a nation founded by people who came to these shores so they and 
their children could worship freely, it is only appropriate that our 
country welcome those who wish to help our religious organizations 
provide pastoral and other relief to people around this nation.
  That is why I have introduced the Mother Teresa Religious Workers 
Act. The bill will eliminate the sunset provisions in current law and 
extend permanently the religious workers provisions of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act. It is clear that religious organizations' ability 
to sponsor individuals who provide service to their local communities 
should be a permanent fixture of our immigration law, just as it is for 
those petitioning for close family members and skilled workers. No 
longer should religious institutions have to worry about whether 
Congress will act in time to renew the religious workers provisions. I 
am pleased Senators Kennedy, DeWine, and Leahy are cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  Finally, I would like to close by reading a passage from a letter 
sent to me in 1997. It's a letter that at the time helped convince me 
of the need to move toward permanent extension of the religious workers 
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The letter read as 
follows:

       Dear Senator Abraham: I am writing to ask you to help us in 
     solving a very urgent problem. My Sisters in New York have 
     told me that the law which allows the Sisters to apply for 
     permanent residence in the United States expires on September 
     30, 1997. Please, will you do all that you can to have that 
     law extended so that all Religious will continue to have the 
     opportunity to be permanent residents and serve the people of 
     your great country.
       It means so much to our poor people to have Sisters who 
     understand them and their culture. It takes a long time for a 
     Sister to understand the people and a culture, so now our 
     Society wants to keep our Sisters in their mission countries 
     on a more long term

[[Page 5389]]

     basis. Please help us and our poor by extending this law.
       I am praying for you and the people of Michigan. My Sisters 
     serve the poor in Detroit where we have a soup kitchen and 
     night shelter for women. Let us all thank God for this chance 
     to serve His poor.
       Signed: Mother Teresa.

  My office received this letter only a few weeks before her death. In 
honor of her great deeds for humanity I hope that this year we can 
finally extend the religious workers provisions of the INA permanently.
  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. 2406

       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 ``Mother Teresa Religious 
     Workers Act''.

     SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR ENTRY INTO UNITED STATES OF 
                   CERTAIN RELIGIOUS WORKERS.

       Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) is amended by 
     striking ``before October 1, 2000,'' each place it appears.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2407. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with 
respect to the record of admission for permanent residence in the case 
of certain aliens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                      DATE OF REGISTRY ACT OF 2000

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today along with the Senior Senator 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, to introduce the Date of Registry Act 
of 2000.
  The Date of Registry Act of 2000, complements similar legislation I 
introduced last year in an effort to fix a terrible mistake made by the 
Congress in 1996. Tucked into the massive piece of legislation known as 
IIRA IRA, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996, was an obscure, but lethal, provision which stripped the 
federal courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate legalization claims 
against the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Most troubling is 
the fact that this provision nullified legitimate claims based upon 
substantiated evidence that the Immigration and Nationalization Service 
had bypassed Congressional intent in denying benefits to certain 
undocumented persons who have come to be known as the ``late amnesty'' 
class of immigrants. Through this limitation, Section 377 of IIRA IRA 
has caused significant hardships, and denied due process and 
fundamental fairness, for hundreds of thousands of hard working 
immigrants, including several thousand in my home State of Nevada. 
These are good, hard-working people who have been in the United States 
and had been paying taxes for more than ten years, who suddenly lost 
their jobs and the ability to support their families.
  In an effort to repeal the limitation on judicial jurisdiction 
imposed by Section 377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, I introduced S. 1552, the Legal Amnesty 
Restoration Act of 1999. In addition to repealing Section 377, S. 1552 
would also change the date of registry for those immigrants seeking 
legalized, documented status in the United States from January 1, 1972, 
to January 1, 1984. The legislation I am introducing today focuses on 
this aspect of last year's legislation, and would change the date of 
registry from January 1, 1972, to January 1, 1986.
  The date of registry exists as a matter of public policy, with the 
recognition that immigrants who have remained in the country 
continuously for an extended period of time--in some cases, up to 
thirty years--are highly unlikely to leave. Today, we must accept the 
reality that many of the people living in the United States are 
undocumented immigrants who have been here for quite a long time. 
Consequently, many people living in this country do not pay their fair 
share of taxes because they are unable to work legally. Furthermore, 
the businesses who employ these undocumented persons also do not pay 
their fair share of taxes. These are the facts, and coupled with the 
knowledge that we can't simply solve this problem by wishing that it 
will go away, is the reality we must face when considering our 
immigration policies.
  We last changed the date of registry in 1986, with the passage of the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act, which changed the date to January 
1, 1972. In doing so, the 99th Congress employed the same rationale I 
have outlined above in support of a registry date change. Furthermore, 
I have mirrored the 99th Congress in another, critical aspect, by 
establishing an approximate fifteen-year differential between the date 
of enactment and the updated date of registry.
  Mr. President, I should note one more thing about the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act of 1986. That legislation which last changed the 
date of registry was passed by a Democratic House of Representatives 
and a Republican Senate, and was signed into law by President Reagan. I 
mention these facts to highlight my hope that support for this 
legislation will be bi-partisan and based upon our desire to ensure 
fundamental fairness as a matter of public policy in this country.
  Finally, the legislation I am introducing today builds upon the 
fifteen year differential standard established in the 1986 reform 
legislation by implementing a ``rolling registry'' date which would 
sunset in five years without Congressional reauthorization. In other 
words, on January 2002, the date of registry would automatically change 
to January 1, 1987, thereby maintaining the fifteen year differential. 
The date of registry would continue to change on a rolling basis 
through January 1, 2006, when the date of registry would be January 1, 
1991. Limiting this annual, automatic change to five years will allow 
the Congress to examine both the positive and negative effects of a 
rolling date of registry and make an informed decision on 
reauthorization.
  Mr. President, as I stated when I introduced S. 1552 last year, I 
don't pretend that this legislation will solve all the problems of our 
immigration and legalization procedures. However, we have an obligation 
to face our problems, and the reality is that there are many, many 
undocumented immigrants who live in this country who would be much more 
productive contributors to American society if they were legal 
residents, workers and taxpayers. We know this to be true, as evidenced 
by the thousands of immigrants in Southern Nevada whose status had yet 
to be adjusted, but were working legally and paying taxes--in some 
instances for more than ten years--when their employment permits were 
revoked as a result of the 1996 IIRA IRA legislation. I have met with 
many of these people on several occasions and I have witnessed, 
firsthand, their pain and genuine suffering. Good people who have 
worked hard and paid their taxes in order to live the American dream 
only to see their efforts turn into a nightmare.
  As I stated when I introduced S. 1552 last year, I don't pretend that 
my legislation will solve all the problems of immigration and 
legalization policies. However, we must face these problems head on, 
and that is precisely my intent in introducing this legislation today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2408. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on 
behalf of the Congress to the Navajo Code Talkers in recognition of 
their contributions to the Nation; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                  honoring the navajo code talkers act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important 
legislation, recognizing the heroic contributions of a group of Native 
American soldiers who served in the Pacific theater during the second 
World War. This legislation will authorize the President of the United 
States to award a gold medal, on behalf of the Congress, to each of the 
original twenty-nine Navajo Code Talkers, as well as a silver medal to 
each man who later qualified as a Navajo Code Talker (MOS 642). These 
medals are to express recognition by the United States of America

[[Page 5390]]

and its citizens of the Navajo Code Talkers who distinguished 
themselves in performing a unique, highly successful communications 
operation that greatly assisted in saving countless lives and in 
hastening the end of the war in the Pacific.
  It has taken too long to properly recognize these soldiers, whose 
achievements have been obscured by twin veils of secrecy and time. As 
they approach the final chapter of their lives, it is only fitting that 
the nation pay them this honor. That's why I am introducing this 
legislation today--to salute these brave and innovative Native 
Americans, to acknowledge the great contribution they made to the 
Nation at a time of war, and to finally give them their rightful place 
in history.
  With each new successive generation of Americans, blessed as we are 
in this time of relative peace and prosperity, it is easy to forget 
what the world was like in the early 1940's. The United States was at 
war in Europe, and on December 7, 1941, we were faced with a second 
front as the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor.
  One of the intelligence weapons the Japanese possessed was an elite 
group of well-trained English speaking soldiers, used to intercept U.S. 
communications, then sabotage the message or issue false commands to 
ambush American troops. Military code became more and more complex--at 
Guadalcanal, military leaders complained that it took 2\1/2\ hours to 
send and decode a single message.
  The idea to use Navajo for secure communications came from Philip 
Johnson. Johnson was the son of a missionary, raised on the Navajo 
reservation, and one of the few non-Navajos who spoke their language 
fluently. But he was also a World War I veteran, and knew of the 
military's search for a code that would withstand all attempts to 
decipher it. Johnson believed Navajo answered the military requirement 
for an undecipherable code because Navajo is an unwritten language of 
extreme complexity. In early 1942, he met with the Commanding General 
of Amphibious Corps, Pacific Fleet, and his staff to convince them of 
the value of the Navajo language as code. In one of his tests, he 
demonstrated that Navajos could encode, transmit, and decode a three-
line English message in 20 seconds. Twenty-seconds!
  Convinced, the Marine Corps called upon the Navajo Nation to support 
the military effort by recruiting and enlisting Navajo men to serve as 
Marine Corps Radio Operators. These Navajo Marines, who became known as 
the Navajo Code Talkers, used the Navajo language to develop a unique 
code to communicate military messages in the South Pacific. True to 
Phillip Johnson's prediction, and the enemy's frustration, the code 
developed by these Native Americans proved unbreakable and was used 
throughout the Pacific theater.
  Their accomplishment was even more heroic given the cultural context 
in which they were operating:
  The Navajos were second-class citizens and were discouraged from 
using their own language; and
  They were living on reservations, as many still are today, yet they 
volunteered to serve, protect, and defend the very power that put them 
there.
  But the Navajo, a people subjected to alienation in their own 
homeland, who had been discouraged from speaking their own language, 
stepped forward and developed the most significant and successful 
military code of the time:
  This Code was so successful that military commanders credited the 
Code in saving the lives of countless American soldiers and the 
successful engagements of the U.S. in the battles of Guadalcanal, 
Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. At Iwo Jima, Major Howard 
Connor, 5th Marine Division signal officer, declared, ``Were it not for 
the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' Major 
Connor had six Navajo code talkers working around the clock during the 
first 48-hours of the battle. Those six sent and received over 800 
messages, all without error;
  This Code was so successful that some Code Talkers were guarded by 
fellow marines whose role was to kill them in case of imminent capture 
by the enemy; and finally,
  It was so successful that the Department of Defense kept the Code 
secret for 23 years after the end of World War II, when it was finally 
declassified.
  And there, Mr. President, is the foundation of the problem.
  If their achievements had been hailed at the conclusion of the war, 
proper honors would have been bestowed at that time. But the Code 
Talkers were sworn to secrecy, an oath they kept and honored, but at 
the same time, one that robbed them of the very accolades and place in 
history they so rightly deserved. Their ranks include veterans of 
Guadalcanal, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa; they gave their lives at 
New Britain, Bougainville, Guam, and Peleliu. But, while the bodies of 
their fallen comrades came home, simple messages of comfort from those 
still fighting to relatives back home on the reservations were 
prohibited by the very secrecy of the code's origin. And at the end of 
the war, these unsung heroes returned to their homes on buses--no 
parades, no fanfare, no special recognition for what they had truly 
accomplished--because while the war was over, their duty--their oath of 
secrecy--continued. The secrecy surrounding the code was maintained 
until it was declassified in 1968--only then did a realization of the 
sacrifice and valor of these brave Native Americans emerge from 
history.
  For the countless lives they helped save, for this contribution that 
helped speed the Allied victory in the Pacific, I believe they 
succeeded beyond all expectations.
  Through the enactment of this bill, the recognition for the Navajo 
Code Talkers will be delayed no longer, and they will finally take 
their place in history they so rightly deserve.
  To this end, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2408

       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 ``Honoring the Navajo Code 
     Talkers Act''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl 
     Harbor and war was declared by the Congress the following 
     day.
       (2) The military code, developed by the United States for 
     transmitting messages, had been deciphered by the Japanese 
     and a search by U.S. Intelligence was made to develop new 
     means to counter the enemy.
       (3) The United States government called upon the Navajo 
     Nation to support the military effort by recruiting and 
     enlisting twenty-nine (29) Navajo men to serve as Marine 
     Corps Radio Operators; the number of enlistees later 
     increased to over three-hundred and fifty.
       (4) At the time, the Navajos were second-class citizens, 
     and they were a people who were discouraged from using their 
     own language.
       (5) The Navajo Marine Corps Radio Operators, who became 
     known as the Navajo Code Talkers, were used to develop a code 
     using their language to communicate military messages in the 
     Pacific.
       (6) To the enemy's frustration, the code developed by these 
     Native Americans proved to be unbreakable and was used 
     extensively throughout the Pacific theater.
       (7) The Navajo language, discouraged in the past, was 
     instrumental in developing the most significant and 
     successful military code of the time. At Iwo Jima alone, they 
     passed over 800 error-free messages in a 48-hour period;
       (a) So successful, that military commanders credited the 
     Code in saving the lives of countless American soldiers and 
     the successful engagements of the U.S. in the battles of 
     Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa;
       (b) So successful, that some Code Talkers were guarded by 
     fellow marines whose role was to kill them in case of 
     imminent capture by the enemy;
       (c) So successful, that the code was kept secret for 23 
     years after the end of World War II.
       (8) Following the conclusion of World War II, the U.S. 
     Department of Defense maintained the secrecy of the Navajo 
     code until it was declassified in 1968; only then did a 
     realization of the sacrifice and valor of these brave Native 
     Americans emerge from history.

[[Page 5391]]



     SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--The President is authorized 
     to award to each of the original twenty-nine Navajo Codes 
     Talkers, or a surviving family member, on behalf of the 
     Congress, a gold medal of appropriate design, honoring the 
     Navajo Codes Talkers. The President is further authorized to 
     award to each man who qualified as a Navajo Code Talker (MOS 
     642), or a surviving family member, a silver medal with 
     suitable emblems and devices. These medals are to express 
     recognition by the United States of America and its citizens 
     in honoring the Navajo Code Talkers who distinguished 
     themselves in performing a unique, highly successful 
     communications operation that greatly assisted in saving 
     countless lives and in hastening the end of the World War II 
     in the Pacific.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For the purposes of the award 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (in this Act referred to as the `Secetary') shall strike a 
     gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions, 
     to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 4. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such 
     regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price 
     sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, 
     materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and 
     the cost of the gold medal.

     SEC. 5. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS.

       The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals 
     for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. FUNDING.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of 
     the medals authorized by this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in 
     the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. Sarbanes) (by request):
  S. 2409. A bill to provide for enhanced safety and environmental 
protection in pipeline transportation, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


          pipeline safety and community protection act of 2000

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pipeline 
Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000 on behalf of the 
administration. Yesterday, Vice President Gore transmitted this 
proposal to the Congress, and requested introduction and referral of 
the bill to the appropriate committee. The purpose of this legislation 
is to provide for enhanced safety and environmental protection in 
pipeline transportation.
  The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a 
field hearing in Bellingham, Washington, last month on pipeline safety. 
In addition, I expect the committee to hold another hearing on pipeline 
safety reauthorization within the next month. Senator Murray has 
introduced a pipeline safety bill and it is my understanding that an 
additional pipeline safety bill is to be introduced by Chairman McCain 
today. I am interested in reviewing all of the bills and look forward 
to the committee's action on pipeline safety reauthorization in the 
coming months.
  Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2409

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Pipeline 
     Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000''.
       (b) Amendment of Title 49, United States Code.--Except as 
     otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, 
     or a repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
     provision of title 49, United States Code.
       (c) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of title 49, United States Code; table 
              of contents.
Sec. 2. Additional pipeline protections.
Sec. 3. Community right to know and emergency preparedness.
Sec. 4. Enforcement.
Sec. 5. Underground damage prevention.
Sec. 6. Enhanced ability of states to oversee operator activities.
Sec. 7. Improved data and data availability.
Sec. 8. Enhanced investigation authorities.
Sec. 9. International authority.
Sec. 10. Risk management demonstration program.
Sec. 11. Support for innovative technology development.
Sec. 12. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PIPELINE PROTECTIONS.

       (a) Section 60109 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Operator's Risk Analysis and Program for Integrity 
     Management.--
       (1) General requirement.--Within 1 year after the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, establishes criteria under 
     subsection (a)(1) of this section, an operator of a natural 
     gas transmission pipeline facility or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility shall evaluate the risks to the operator's 
     pipeline facility in the areas identified by these criteria 
     and shall adopt and implement a program for integrity 
     management that reduces the risks in those areas.
       ``(2) Standards for program.--An operator shall include at 
     least the following in the program for integrity management:
       ``(A) internal inspection or another equally protective 
     method, such as pressure testing, that represents use of the 
     best achievable technology and that directly assesses the 
     integrity of the pipeline on a periodic basis that is 
     commensurate to the risk to people and the environment of the 
     pipeline being inspected;
       ``(B) clearly defined criteria for evaluating and acting on 
     the results of the inspection or testing done under 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) an analysis on a continuing basis that integrates all 
     available information about the integrity of the pipeline or 
     the consequences of a release;
       ``(D) prompt actions to address integrity issues raised by 
     the analysis required by subparagraph (C);
       ``(E) measures that prevent and mitigate the consequences 
     of a release and, in the case of a release of a hazardous 
     substance or discharge of oil, are consistent with the 
     National Contingency Plan, including leak detection, 
     integrity evaluation, emergency flow restricting devices, and 
     other prevention, detection, and mitigation measures that are 
     appropriate for the protection of human health and the 
     environment; and
       ``(F) consideration of the consequences of hazardous liquid 
     releases.
       ``(3) Criteria for program standards.--
       ``(A) In deciding how frequently the inspection or testing 
     under paragraph (2)(A) must be conducted, an operator shall 
     take into account the potential for the development of new 
     defects, the operational characteristics of the pipeline, 
     including age, operating pressure, block valve location, and 
     spill history, the location of areas identified under 
     subsection (a)(1), any known deficiencies of the method of 
     pipeline construction or installation, and the possible flaw 
     growth of new and existing defects. In considering the 
     potential for development of new defects from outside force 
     damage, an operator shall consider information available 
     about current or planned excavation activities and the 
     effectiveness of damage prevention programs in the area.
       ``(B) An operator shall adopt standards under this section 
     that provide an equivalent minimum level of protection as 
     that provided by the applicable level established by national 
     consensus standards organizations.
       ``(C) An operator shall implement pressure testing and 
     other integrity management techniques in a manner that does 
     not increase environmental or safety risks, such as by use of 
     petroleum for pressure testing.
       ``(4) Authority for additional standards.--The Secretary 
     shall prescribe additional standards to direct an operator's 
     conduct of a risk analysis or adoption or implementation of a 
     program for integrity management. These standards shall 
     address the type or frequency of inspection or testing 
     required, the manner in which it is conducted, the criteria 
     used in analyzing results, the types of information sources 
     that must be integrated as well as the manner of integration, 
     the nature and timing of actions selected to address 
     integrity issues, and such other factors as appropriate to 
     assure that the integrity of the pipeline facility is 
     addressed and that appropriate mitigative measures are 
     adopted to protect areas identified under subsection (a)(1). 
     The Secretary may also prescribe standards that require an 
     owner or operator of a natural gas transmission or hazardous 
     liquid pipeline facility to include in the program of 
     integrity management changes to valves or the establishment 
     or modification of systems that monitor pressure and detect 
     leaks based on the risk analysis the operator conducts, and 
     the use of emergency flow restricting devices.
       ``(5) Monitoring implementation.--A risk analysis and 
     program for integrity management required under this section 
     shall be reviewed by the Secretary of Transportation as an 
     element of Departmental inspections, and the analysis and 
     program, as well as the records demonstrating implementation, 
     shall be made available to the Secretary on request under 
     section 60117.''.

[[Page 5392]]

       (b) Section 60102 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``facilities.'' in subsection (e)(2) and 
     inserting ``facilities, not including tanks incidental to 
     pipeline transportation.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (f);
       (3) by striking ``(1)'' in subsection (f);
       (4) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     subsection (f)(1) (as such subsection was in effect before 
     its amendment by paragraph (3) of this subsection) as 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively;
       (5) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (j) and 
     redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (6) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(m) Integrity Management Regulations.--
       ``(1) Not later than December 31, 2000, the Secretary shall 
     issue final regulations authorized by this section and 
     sections 60104, 60108, and 60109 for the implementation of an 
     integrity management program by operators of more than 500 
     miles of hazardous liquid pipelines.
       ``(2) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, the 
     Secretary shall issue final regulations that extend the 
     requirements imposed by the regulations described in 
     paragraph (1) to every operator of a hazardous liquid 
     pipeline or natural gas transmission pipeline subject to the 
     jurisdiction of this chapter. In the event that the Secretary 
     fails to fulfill this requirement within two years, all the 
     requirements imposed by the regulations described in 
     paragraph (1) shall, on the date that is two years after the 
     enactment of this subsection, apply to every operator of a 
     hazardous liquid pipeline or natural gas transmission 
     pipeline subject to the jurisdiction of this chapter.
       ``(3) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000--
       ``(A) the Secretary shall complete an assessment and 
     evaluation of the effects on safety and the environment of 
     extending all of the requirements mandated by the regulations 
     described in paragraph (1) to additional areas;
       ``(B) the Secretary shall promptly make a Secretarial 
     determination as to the effect on safety and the environment 
     of extending the requirements imposed by the regulations 
     described in paragraph (1) to additional areas using the best 
     achievable technology; and
       ``(C) based on the determination described in subparagraph 
     (B), the Secretary shall promptly promulgate regulations that 
     would provide measurable improvements to safety or the 
     environment in these areas by extending regulatory 
     requirements at least as protective to these areas.''.
       (f) Section 60118(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) striking ``title.'' in paragraph (3) and inserting 
     ``title; and''; and
       (3) adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) conduct a risk analysis and prepare and carry out a 
     program for integrity management for pipeline facilities in 
     certain areas as required under section 60109(c).''.
       (g) Section 60104(b) is amended by striking ``adopted.'' 
     and inserting ``adopted, unless the Secretary determines that 
     application of the standard is necessary for safety or 
     environmental protection.''.

     SEC. 3. COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.

       (a) Section 60116 is amended to read as follows:

     Sec.  60116. Community right to know

       ``(a) Public Education Programs.--
       ``(1) Each owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility shall carry out a continuing program to 
     educate the public on the use of a one-call notification 
     system prior to excavation and other damage prevention 
     activities, the possible hazards associated with unintended 
     releases from the pipeline facility, the physical indications 
     that such a release may have occurred, what steps should be 
     taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release, 
     and how to report such an event.
       ``(2) Within 1 year after the date of enactment of the 
     Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, each 
     owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline 
     facility shall review its existing public education program 
     for effectiveness and modify the program as necessary. The 
     completed plan shall be reviewed by the Secretary of 
     Transportation as an element of Departmental inspections.
       ``(3) The Secretary may issue standards prescribing the 
     details of a public education program and providing for 
     periodic review of the effectiveness and modification as 
     needed. The Secretary may also develop material for use in 
     the program.
       ``(b) Liaison with State and Local Emergency Response 
     Entities.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment of the 
     Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, an 
     operator of a gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipeline 
     facility shall initiate and maintain liaison with the State 
     emergency response commissions, and local emergency planning 
     committees in the areas of pipeline right-of-way, established 
     under section 301 of the Emergency Planning and Community 
     Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001) in each State in 
     which it operates. An operator shall, when requested, make 
     available to the State emergency response commissions and 
     local emergency planning committees the information described 
     in section 60102(d), any program for integrity management 
     developed under section 60109(c), and information about 
     implementation of that program and about the risks the 
     program is designed to address. In a community without a 
     local emergency planning committee, the operator shall 
     maintain liaison with the local fire, police, and other 
     emergency response agencies.
       ``(c) Public Availability of Reports.--The Secretary shall 
     make available to the public a safety-related condition 
     report filed by an operator under section 60102(h) and a 
     report of a pipeline incident filed by an operator under this 
     chapter.
       ``(d) Access to Integrity Management Program Information.--
     The Secretary shall prescribe requirements for public access 
     to integrity management program information prepared under 
     this chapter.
       ``(e) Availability of Maps.--
       ``(1) The owner or operator of each interstate gas pipeline 
     facility shall provide, at least annually, to the governing 
     body of each municipality in which the interstate gas 
     pipeline facility is located, a map identifying the location 
     of the facility.
       ``(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000, and 
     annually thereafter, the owner or operator of each hazardous 
     liquid pipeline facility shall provide to the governing body 
     of each municipality in which the pipeline facility is 
     located, a map identifying the location of such facility.
       ``(f) Effectiveness of Public Safety and Public Education 
     Programs.--
       ``(1) The Secretary shall survey and assess the public 
     education programs under this section and the public safety 
     programs under section 60102(c) and determine their 
     effectiveness and applicability as components of a model 
     program. The survey shall include the methods by which 
     operators notify residents of the location of the facility 
     and its right of way, public information regarding existing 
     One-Call programs, and appropriate procedures to be followed 
     by residents of affected municipalities in the event of 
     accidents involving interstate gas pipeline facilities.
       ``(2) In issuing standards for public safety programs under 
     section 60102(a) or for public education programs under this 
     section, the Secretary shall consider the results of the 
     survey and assessment done under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) The Secretary may provide technical assistance to the 
     pipeline industry on developing public safety and public 
     education program content and best practices for program 
     delivery, and on evaluating the effectiveness of the 
     programs. The Secretary may also provide technical assistance 
     to State and local officials in applying practices developed 
     in these programs to their activities.''.
       (d) Section 60102(c) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
       (e) Section 60102(h)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``authorities.'' and inserting ``officials, including the 
     local emergency responders, and appropriate on-scene 
     coordinators for the area contingency plan or sub-area 
     contingency plan.''.
       (f) Section 60120(c) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Nothing in section 60116 shall be deemed to 
     impose a new duty on State or local emergency responders or 
     local emergency planning committees.''.
       (g) The analysis for chapter 601 is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 60116 and inserting the following:

``60116. Community right to know''.

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) General Authority.--Section 60112 is amended--
       (1) by striking all after ``if the Secretary'' in 
     subsection (a) and inserting ``decides that--
       ``(1) operation of the facility is or would be hazardous to 
     life, property, or the environment; or
       ``(2) the facility is or would be constructed or operated, 
     or a component of the facility is or would be constructed or 
     operated, with equipment, material, or a technique that the 
     Secretary decides is hazardous to life, property, or the 
     environment.'';
       (2) by striking ``is hazardous'' in subsection (d) and 
     inserting ``is or would be hazardous''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Optional Waiver of Notice and Hearing Requirements.--
     If the Secretary decides that a facility may present a hazard 
     under subsection (a)(1) or (2), the Secretary may waive the 
     notice and hearing requirements in subsection (a) and request 
     the Attorney General to bring suit on behalf of the United 
     States in an appropriate district court to obtain an order to 
     restrain the operator of the facility from such operation, or 
     to take such other action as may be necessary, or both.''.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 60122 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000'' in subsection (a)(1) and 
     ``$500,000'' and substituting ``$100,000'' and 
     ``$1,000,000'', respectively; and
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) ``The maximum 
     civil penalty for a related

[[Page 5393]]

     series of violations does not apply to a judicial enforcement 
     action under section 60120 or 60121.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Penalty Considerations.--In determining the amount of 
     a civil penalty under this section--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the 
     violation, including adverse impact on the environment;
       ``(B) with respect to the violator, the degree of 
     culpability, any history of prior violations, the ability to 
     pay, any effect on ability to continue doing business; and
       ``(C) good faith in attempting to comply; and
       ``(2) the Secretary may consider--
       ``(A) the economic benefit gained from the violation 
     without any discount because of subsequent damages; and
       ``(B) other matters that justice requires.''.
       (c) Excavator Damage.--Section 60123(d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``knowingly and willfully'';
       (2) by inserting ``knowingly and willfully'' before 
     ``engages'' in paragraph (1); and
       (3) striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) a pipeline facility, is aware of damage, and does not 
     report the damage promptly to the operator of the pipeline 
     facility and to other appropriate authorities; or''.
       (d) Civil Actions.--Section 60120(a)(1) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1) On the request of the Secretary of Transportation, 
     the Attorney General may bring a civil action in an 
     appropriate district court of the United States to enforce 
     this chapter, including section 60112 of this chapter, or a 
     regulation prescribed or order issued under this chapter. The 
     court may award appropriate relief, including a temporary or 
     permanent injunction, punitive damages, and assessment of 
     civil penalties considering the same factors as prescribed 
     for the Secretary in an administrative case under section 
     60122.''.
       (e) Citizen Suits.--Section 60121(a)(1) is amended by 
     striking the first sentence and ``However, the'' and 
     inserting: ``A person may bring a civil action in an 
     appropriate district court of the United States against a 
     person owning or operating a pipeline facility to enforce 
     compliance with this chapter or a standard prescribed or an 
     order issued under this chapter. The district court may 
     enjoin noncompliance and assess civil penalties considering 
     the same factors as prescribed for the Secretary in an 
     administrative case under section 60122. The''.

     SEC. 5. UNDERGROUND DAMAGE PREVENTION.

       (a) Section 60114 is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (b) the following:
       ``(c) Conformity with Chapter 61.--Regulations prescribed 
     by the Secretary under subsection (a) do not apply to a State 
     that has a One-Call notification program accepted by the 
     Secretary as meeting the minimum standards of section 6103 of 
     this title or approved by the Secretary as an alternative 
     program under section 6104(c) of this title.''.
       (b) Section 60102(c) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or hazardous liquid pipeline facility'' 
     before ``participate'' in paragraph (1); and
       (2) striking paragraph (3).
       (c) Section 60104 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) State One-Call Notification Laws.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (c) of this section, a State may enforce a 
     requirement of a One-Call notification law that satisfies 
     sections 6103 or 6104(c) of this title, or section 60114(a) 
     of this chapter, against an operator of an interstate natural 
     gas pipeline facility or an interstate hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility provided that the requirement sought to be 
     enforced is compatible with the minimum standards prescribed 
     under this chapter.''.
       (d) Section 60123 is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``(e) Misdemeanor for Not Using One-Call.--A person shall 
     be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, 
     or both, if the person knowingly engages in an excavation 
     activity without first using an available one-call 
     notification system to establish the location of underground 
     facilities in the excavation area.''.

     SEC. 6. ENHANCED ABILITY OF STATES TO OVERSEE OPERATOR 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Section 60106(a) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``If'';
       (2) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B); and
       (3) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(2) If the Secretary accepts a certification under 
     section 60105 of this title, the Secretary may make an 
     agreement with a State authority authorizing it to 
     participate in the oversight of interstate pipeline 
     transportation. An agreement shall include a plan for the 
     State authority to participate in special investigations 
     involving new construction or incidents.
       ``(3) An agreement under paragraph (2) may also include a 
     program allowing for participation by the State authority in 
     other activities overseeing interstate pipeline 
     transportation that supplement the Secretary's program and 
     address issues of local concern, provided that the Secretary 
     determines that--
       ``(A) there are no significant gaps in the regulatory 
     jurisdiction of the State authority over intrastate pipeline 
     transportation;
       ``(B) implementation of the agreement will not adversely 
     affect the oversight of intrastate pipeline transportation by 
     the State authority;
       ``(C) the program allowing participation of the State 
     authority is consistent with the Secretary's program for 
     inspection; and
       ``(D) the State promotes preparedness and prevention 
     activities that enable communities to live safely with 
     pipelines.''.
       (b) Section 60106(d) is amended by inserting after the 
     first sentence the following: ``In addition, the Secretary 
     may end an agreement for the oversight of interstate pipeline 
     transportation when the Secretary finds that there are 
     significant gaps in the regulatory authority of the State 
     authority over intrastate pipeline transportation, or that 
     continued participation by the State authority in the 
     oversight of interstate pipeline transportation is not 
     consistent with the Secretary's program or would adversely 
     affect oversight of intrastate pipeline transportation, or 
     that the State is not promoting activities that enable 
     communities to live safely with pipelines.''.
       (c) State Grants.--Section 60107 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(e) Special Investigation of Interstate Pipeline 
     Facilities.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, the 
     Secretary may pay up to 100 percent of the cost of the 
     personnel, equipment, and activities of a State authority 
     acting as an agent of the Secretary in conducting a special 
     investigation involved in monitoring new construction or 
     investigating an incident, on an interstate gas pipeline 
     facility or an interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility.
       ``(2) This subsection shall become effective on October 1, 
     2001.''.

     SEC. 7. IMPROVED DATA AND DATA AVAILABILITY.

       (a) Report of Releases Exceeding 5 Gallons.--Section 
     60117(b) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``To'';
       (2) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B);
       (3) inserting before the last sentence the following:
       ``(2) A person owning or operating a hazardous liquid 
     pipeline facility shall report to the Secretary each release 
     to the environment greater than five gallons of the hazardous 
     liquid or carbon dioxide transported. This section applies to 
     releases from pipeline facilities regulated under this 
     chapter and from rural gathering lines not regulated under 
     this chapter. A report must include the location of the 
     release, fatalities and personal injuries, type of product, 
     amount of product release, causes of the release, extent of 
     damage to property and the environment, and the response 
     undertaken to clean up the release.
       ``(3) During the course of an incident investigation, a 
     person owning or operating a pipeline facility shall make 
     records, reports, and information required under subsection 
     (a) of this section or other reasonably described records, 
     reports, and information relevant to the incident 
     investigation available to the Secretary within the time 
     limits prescribed in a written request.''; and
       (4) inserting ``(4)'' before ``The Secretary''.
       (b) Penalty Authorities.--
       (1) Section 60122(a) is amended by striking ``60114(c)'' 
     and substituting ``60117(b)(3)''.
       (2) Section 60123(a) is amended by striking ``60114(c)'' 
     and substituting ``60117(b)(3)''.
       (c) Section 60117 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(l) National Depository.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     national depository of data on events and conditions, 
     including spill histories and corrective actions for specific 
     incidents, that can be used to evaluate the risk of, and to 
     prevent, pipeline failures and releases. The Secretary may 
     establish the depository through cooperative arrangements, 
     and the Secretary shall make such information available for 
     use by State and local planning and emergency response 
     authorities and the public.''.

     SEC. 8. ENHANCED INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Clarification of Authority.--Section 60117(c) is 
     amended by striking ``decide whether a person is complying 
     with this chapter and standards prescribed or orders issued 
     under this chapter'' and inserting ``carry out the duties and 
     responsibilities of this chapter. The Secretary may question 
     an individual about matters relevant to an investigation, 
     including such matters as the design, construction, 
     operation, or maintenance of the system, the individual's 
     qualifications, or the operator's response to an emergency''.
       (b) Expenses of Investigation.--Section 60117, as amended 
     by section 7, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(m) Extraordinary Expenses of Incident Investigation.--
     The Secretary may, by regulation, establish procedures to 
     recover the Secretary's costs incurred because of 
     investigation of incidents from the operators of the pipeline 
     facilities involved in the incidents. These costs may include 
     travel costs and contract support for the investigation and 
     monitoring of the corrective measures. All sums collected 
     shall be deposited into the Pipeline Safety Fund and shall be 
     available, to the extent and in the amount provided in 
     advance in appropriations acts, to

[[Page 5394]]

     reimburse the Secretary for the costs of investigation and 
     monitoring of the incidents. Such amounts are authorized to 
     be appropriated to be available until expended.''.

     SEC. 9. INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY.

       Section 60117, as amended by section 8, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following subsection:
       ``(n) Global Sharing of Environmental and Safety 
     Information.--Subject to guidance and direction of the 
     Secretary of State, the Secretary of Transportation is 
     directed to support international efforts to share 
     information about the risks to the public and the environment 
     from pipelines and the means of protecting against those 
     risks. The extent of support should include a consideration 
     of the benefits to the public from an increased understanding 
     by the Secretary of technical issues about pipeline safety 
     and environmental protection and from possible improvement in 
     environmental protection outside the United States.''.

     SEC. 10. RISK MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       Section 60126(a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following paragraph:
       ``(3) Continuation of individual project.--Without regard 
     to any recommendations made with respect to the risk 
     management demonstration program under subsection (e) of this 
     section, the Secretary may, by order, allow the continuation 
     of an individual project begun under this program beyond the 
     termination of the program, provided the Secretary finds 
     that--
       ``(A) the pipeline operator has a clear and established 
     record of compliance with respect to safety and environmental 
     protection;
       ``(B) the project is achieving superior levels of public 
     safety and environmental protection; and
       ``(C) the continuation would not extend the project more 
     than four years from the date of the initial approval of the 
     project.''.

     SEC. 11. SUPPORT FOR INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 60117, as amended by section 9, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following subsection:
       ``(o) Support for Innovative Technology Development.--
       ``(1) To the extent and in the amount provided in advance 
     in appropriations acts, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     participate in the development of alternative technologies--
       ``(A) in fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, to--
       ``(i) identify outside force damage using internal 
     inspection devices; and
       ``(ii) monitor outside-force damage to pipelines; and
       ``(B) In fiscal year 2002 and thereafter, to inspect 
     pipelines that cannot accommodate internal inspection devices 
     available on the date of the enactment of the Pipeline Safety 
     and Community Protection Act of 2000.
       ``(2) The Secretary may support such technological 
     development through cooperative agreements with trade 
     associations, academic institutions, or other qualified 
     organizations.''.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Section 60125 is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a), (b), (c)(1), and (d) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Gas and Hazardous Liquid.--To carry out this chapter 
     and other pipeline-related damage prevention activities of 
     this title (except for section 60107), there are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Transportation--
       ``(1) $30,118,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2002, 
     2003, and 2004.
       ``(b) State Grants.--
       ``(1) Not more than the following amounts may be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 60107:
       ``(A) $17,019,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       ``(B) Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2002, 
     2003, and 2004.''; and
       (2) redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, 
Senator Hollings, in introducing, by request, the Pipeline Safety and 
Community Protection Act of 2000 proposed and announced yesterday by 
Vice President Gore. This legislation is an important step forward in 
improving safety and environmental protection in oil and gas pipelines.
  Mr. President, last Friday night, the State of Maryland experienced a 
major oil spill--one its worst spills in many years. More than 110,000 
gallons of No. 2 oil leaked from a pipe at Pepco's Chalk Point 
Generating Station into Swanson Creek in Prince Georges County. Bad 
weather and high winds exacerbated the problem and spread the spill 
into the Patuxent River. It has now affected some 8 miles of shoreline, 
acres of sensitive wetland habitat, and dozens of wildlife in three 
counties along the Patuxent.
  Six federal agencies--EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety 
Board--are on site coordinating clean-up activities and investigations 
into the causes of the leak. The Maryland Departments of the 
Environment and Natural Resources have taken steps to protect and 
rehabilitate impacted wildlife and to restrict harvesting in clam and 
oyster beds in the area. Pepco crews and contractors have recovered 
more than 70,000 gallons of the spilled oil. But recovering or cleaning 
up the remaining oil will be much more difficult and its cumulative 
impact on the environment will not be known for months, if not years. 
The Federal and State agencies have an important responsibility to 
ensure that Pepco does everything possible to clean up the spill and 
remediate the environmental and economic damage. But an aggressive 
clean-up effort must be accompanied with a comprehensive program to 
prevent such spills from occurring in the first place. While the 
precise cause of this oil leak is not yet known and is still under 
investigation, steps can and must be taken to help detect problems 
before pipelines fail and to minimize the environmental and other 
consequences of a failure.
  The Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act being introduced 
today would reauthorize and enhance the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's pipeline safety program by increasing inspection and 
testing of pipeline integrity. It would require pipeline operators to 
take extra precautions in populated or environmentally sensitive areas, 
such as the area where the Pepco spill occurred. It would strengthen 
enforcement authorities by expanding penalties for violations and 
compliance monitoring by Federal and State investigators. It would 
expand research into new technologies for monitoring pipelines and 
detecting leaks. Finally, it would strengthen Community-Right-to-Know 
and reporting requirements on releases and authorize additional funding 
for the Department's and State pipeline safety activities.
  Mr. President, this legislation is strongly supported by the State of 
Maryland and represents a constructive step forward in enhancing safety 
and environmental protection in pipeline transportation. I look forward 
to working with the members of the Commerce Committee as they consider 
this and other proposals to reauthorize the pipeline safety program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (by request):
  S. 2410. A bill to increase the authorization of appropriations for 
the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


     authorization increase for the reclamation safety of dams act

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate 
reference, legislation submitted by the administration to increase the 
authorization of appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety 
of Dams program. Let me emphasize that I am introducing this 
legislation at the request of the administration. Neither I nor any 
other member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has taken 
a position on the merits of the legislation at this time. I understand 
some water users have expressed concerns with this legislation, and I 
want to assure them that the Water and Power Subcommittee, to which 
this bill will be referred, will have a hearing on the legislation so 
that they can make their concerns a part of the record and address them 
in the legislative process. Ensuring the safety of dams under the 
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation is very important but is must 
be done in a way that ensures safety at Reclamation facilities while 
not causing undue financial hardship for project beneficiaries. I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter of transmittal from the 
administration and a section-by-section of the legislation that the 
administration prepared be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 5395]]


                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                        Bureau of Reclamation,

                                   Washington, DC, August 5, 1999.
     Hon. Albert Gore,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is draft legislation to 
     increase by $380,000,000 the authorized cost ceiling for the 
     Bureau of Reclamation's dam safety program authorized program 
     authorized in Public Law 95-578 and Public Law 98-404. I 
     would appreciate your assistance in seeing that this 
     legislation is introduced, referred to the appropriate 
     Congressional Committee for consideration, and enacted.
       The Bureau of Reclamation's dam safety program is designed 
     to ensure that its facilities are operated in a safe and 
     reliable condition. The purpose of the program is to protect 
     the public, property and natural resources downstream of 
     Reclamation structures.
       The Bureau of Reclamation expends approximately $60 million 
     per year for dam safety purposes and estimates that the 
     existing $650,000,000 cost ceiling will be exceeded in Fiscal 
     Year 2001. The enclosed legislation is necessary to continue 
     funding this important program.
       In addition to increasing the authorized cost ceiling, the 
     legislation would make a few important changes to the dam 
     safety program. Under existing law, irrigators are required 
     to pay a portion of the dam safety costs within 50 years 
     without interest. The draft bill would amend the statute to 
     charge interest on the dam safety costs allocated for 
     irrigation purposes, This makes irrigation repayment terms 
     for dam safety activities consistent with municipal and 
     industrial water supply.
       Existing law also requires the Bureau of Reclamation to 
     send a dam modifications report to Congress for dam safety 
     work costing more than $750,000. The report must rest before 
     Congress for 60 legislative days prior to Reclamation 
     obligating funds for dam safety construction, The attached 
     legislation would raise the threshold for a Congressional 
     report to $1.2 million, reduce to 30 calendar days the time 
     required for a dam safety modification report to rest in 
     Congress prior to Reclamation commencing dam safety repair 
     work.
       A section-by-section analysis of the legislation also is 
     attached. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
       A similar package has been transmitted to the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives. If you have any questions 
     concerning this legislation, please contact James Hess, 
     Acting Chief, Congressional and Legislative Affairs Group for 
     the Bureau of Reclamation, at 202-208-5840.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the presentation of this proposal from the 
     standpoint of the administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                Eluid L. Martinez,
                                                     Commissioner.
       Enclosure

                      Section-By-Section Analysis

       Section (A)(1). Makes Federal dam safety assistance 
     unavailable for costs incurred because the operating entity 
     does not adequately maintain the structure.
       Section 1(A)(2)(a). Makes the additional $380 million 
     authorized to be appropriated by Section 1(B)(1) subject to 
     the 15 percent reimbursability requirement.
       Section 1(A(2)(b). Strikes the existing provision that 
     limits repayment of the costs allocated to irrigation to the 
     irrigators' ability to pay.
       Section 1(A)(2)(c)-(d). Renumbers the subsections of 
     existing Section 4.
       Section 1(A)(2)(e). Existing law requires that dam safety 
     costs allocated to certain purposes, including municipal, 
     industrial, and power, but not including irrigation, be 
     repaid with interest. This provision includes irrigation 
     costs among those to be repaid with interest. Furthermore, 
     costs allocated to irrigation under this Act should be repaid 
     by the irrigators without assistance from power revenues.
       Section 1(A)(2)(f). Explicitly provides that costs 
     allocated under this Act to project purposes will be repaid 
     with interest and without regard to water users' ability to 
     pay, thereby eliminating any assistance from power users to 
     water users.
       Section 1(A)(3). Authorizes the Secretary to use monies 
     received pursuant to a repayment contract at any time prior 
     to completion of the dam safety construction work.
       Section 1(B)(1). Authorizes the appropriation of an 
     additional $380 million (indexed for inflation) for dam 
     safety.
       Section 1(B)(2). Increases to $1,200,000 (indexed for 
     inflation) the threshold amount of triggering when the Bureau 
     of Reclamation must send a modification report to Congress 
     prior to obligating funds for dam safety construction. 
     Existing law requires a report for any obligation exceeding 
     $750,000.
       Section 1(B)(3). Reduces from 60 legislative days to 30 
     calendar days the time that a dam safety modification report 
     must lie before Congress before the Bureau of Reclamation can 
     obligate funds for dam safety construction.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Conrad, 
        Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerrey, 
        Mr. Baucus, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Levin, and Mr. 
        Jeffords)
  S. 2411. A bill to enhance competition in the agricultural sector and 
to protect family farms and ranches and rural communities from unfair, 
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices by agribusinesses, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


           farmers and ranchers fair competition act of 2000

  Mr. DASCHLE. 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. 2411

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Farmers 
     and Ranchers Fair Competition Act of 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Prohibitions against unfair practices in transactions involving 
              agricultural commodities.
Sec. 5. Reports of the Secretary on potential unfair practices.
Sec. 6. Plain language and disclosure requirements for contracts.
Sec. 7. Report on corporate structure.
Sec. 8. Mandatory funding for staff.
Sec. 9. General Accounting Office study.
Sec. 10. Authority to promulgate regulations.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congressional Joint Economic Committee data suggests 
     that over the last 15 years, agribusiness profits have come 
     almost exclusively out of producer income, rather than from 
     increased retail prices. Given the lack of market power of 
     producers, this data raises the question of whether the trend 
     has been a natural market development or is instead a sign of 
     market failure.
       (2) Most economists agree that in the last 15 years the 
     real market price for a market basket of food has increased 
     by approximately 3 percent, while the farm value of that food 
     has fallen by approximately 38 percent. Over that period, 
     marketing costs have decreased by 15 percent, which should 
     have narrowed rather than widened the gap.
       (3) There is significant concern that increasingly 
     vertically integrated multinational corporations, especially 
     those that own broad biotechnology patents, may be able to 
     exert unreasonable and excessive market power in the future 
     by acquiring companies that own other broad biotechnology 
     patents.
       (4) The National Association of Attorneys General is very 
     concerned with the high degree of economic concentration in 
     the agricultural sector and the great potential for 
     anticompetitive practices and behavior. They estimate the top 
     4 meat packing firms control over 80 percent of steer and 
     heifer slaughter, over 55 percent of hog slaughter, and over 
     65 percent of sheep slaughter. Increased concentration in the 
     dairy procurement and processing sector is also raising 
     significant concerns.
       (5) In the grain industry, United States Department of 
     Agriculture reports that the top 4 firms controlled 56 
     percent of flour milling, 73 percent of wet corn milling, 71 
     percent of soybean milling, and 62 percent of cotton seed oil 
     milling.
       (6) Moreover, the figures in paragraphs (4) and (5) 
     underestimate true levels of concentration and potential 
     market power because they fail to reflect the web of 
     unreported and difficult to trace joint ventures, strategic 
     alliances, interlocking directorates, and other partial 
     ownership arrangements that link many large corporations.
       (7) Concentration of market power also has the effect of 
     increasing the transfer of investment, capital, jobs, and 
     necessary social services out of rural areas to business 
     centers throughout the world. Many individuals representing a 
     wide range of expertise have expressed concern with the 
     potential implications of this trend for the greater public 
     good.
       (8) The recent increase in contracting for the production 
     or sale of agricultural commodities, such as livestock and 
     poultry, is a cause for concern because of the significant 
     bargaining power the buyers of these products or services 
     wield over individual farmers and ranchers.
       (9) Transparent, freely accessible, and competitive markets 
     are being supplanted by transfer prices set within vertically 
     integrated firms and by the increasing use of private 
     contracts.
       (10) Agribusiness firms are showing record profits at the 
     same time that farmers and ranchers are struggling to survive 
     an ongoing price collapse and erratic price trends.

[[Page 5396]]

       (11) The efforts of farmers and ranchers to improve their 
     market position is hampered by--
       (A) extreme disparities in bargaining power between 
     agribusiness firms and the hundreds of thousands of 
     individual farmers and ranchers that sell products to them;
       (B) the rapid increase in the use of private contracts that 
     disrupt price discovery and can unfairly disadvantage 
     producers;
       (C) the extreme market power of agribusiness firms and 
     alleged anticompetitive practices in the industry;
       (D) shrinking opportunities for market access by producers; 
     and
       (E) the direct and indirect impact these factors have on 
     the continuing viability of thousands of rural communities 
     across the country.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) enhance fair and open competition in rural America, 
     thereby fostering innovation and economic growth;
       (2) permit the Secretary to take actions to enhance the 
     bargaining position of family farmers and ranchers, and to 
     promote the viability of rural communities nationwide;
       (3) protect family farms and ranches from--
       (A) unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices 
     or devices;
       (B) false or misleading statements;
       (C) retaliation related to statements lawfully provided; 
     and
       (D) other unfair trade practices employed by processors and 
     other agribusinesses; and
       (4) permit the Secretary to take actions to enhance the 
     viability of rural communities nationwide.

      SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of 
     the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
       (2) Agricultural cooperative.--The term ``agricultural 
     cooperative'' means an association of persons engaged in the 
     production, marketing, or processing of an agricultural 
     commodity that meets the requirements of the Act of February 
     18, 1922, ``An Act to authorize association of producers of 
     agricultural products'' (7 U.S.C. 291 et seq.; 42 Stat. 388) 
     (commonly known as the ``Capper-Volstead Act'').
       (3) Broker.--The term ``broker'' means any person engaged 
     in the business of negotiating sales and purchases of any 
     agricultural commodity in interstate or foreign commerce for 
     or on behalf of the vendor or the purchaser, except that no 
     person shall be considered a broker if the person's sales of 
     such commodities are not in excess of $1,000,000 per year.
       (4) Commission merchant.--The term ``commission merchant'' 
     means any person engaged in the business of receiving in 
     interstate or foreign commerce any agricultural commodity for 
     sale, on commission, or for or on behalf of another, except 
     that no person shall be considered a commission merchant if 
     the person's sales of such commodities are not in excess of 
     $1,000,000 per year.
       (5) Dealer.--The term ``dealer'' means--
       (A) any person (except an agricultural cooperative) engaged 
     in the business of buying, selling, or marketing agricultural 
     commodities in wholesale or jobbing quantities, as determined 
     by the Secretary, in interstate or foreign commerce, except--
       (i) no person shall be considered a dealer with respect to 
     sales or marketing of any agricultural commodity of that 
     person's own raising provided such sales or marketing of such 
     agricultural commodities do not exceed $10,000,000 per year; 
     and
       (ii) no person shall be considered a dealer who buys, 
     sells, or markets less than $1,000,000 per year of such 
     commodities; and
       (B) an agricultural cooperative which sells or markets 
     agricultural commodities of its members' own production if 
     such agricultural cooperative sells or markets more than 
     $1,000,000 of its members' production per year of such 
     commodities.
       (6) Processor.--The term ``processor'' means--
       (A) any person (except an agricultural cooperative) engaged 
     in the business of handling, preparing, or manufacturing 
     (including slaughtering) of an agricultural commodity or the 
     products of such agricultural commodity for sale or marketing 
     in interstate or foreign commerce for human consumption 
     except--
       (i) no person shall be considered a processor with respect 
     to the handling, preparing, or manufacturing (including 
     slaughtering) of an agricultural commodity of that person's 
     own raising provided such sales or marketing of such 
     agricultural commodities do not exceed $10,000,000 per year; 
     and
       (ii) no person who handles, prepares, or manufactures 
     (including slaughtering) an agricultural commodity in an 
     amount less than $1,000,000 per year shall be considered a 
     processor; and
       (B) an agricultural cooperative which processes 
     agricultural commodities of its members' own production if 
     such agricultural cooperative processes more than $1,000,000 
     of its members' production of such commodities per year.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST UNFAIR PRACTICES IN TRANSACTIONS 
                   INVOLVING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

       (a) Prohibitions.--It shall be unlawful in, or in 
     connection with, any transaction in interstate or foreign 
     commerce for any dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker--
       (1) to engage in or use any unfair, unreasonable, unjustly 
     discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device in the 
     marketing, receiving, purchasing, sale, or contracting for 
     the production of any agricultural commodity;
       (2) to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or 
     advantage to any particular person or locality or subject any 
     particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable 
     disadvantage in connection with any transaction involving any 
     agricultural commodity;
       (3) to make any false or misleading statement in connection 
     with any transaction involving any agricultural commodity 
     that is purchased or received in interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or involving any production contract, or to fail, 
     without reasonable cause, to perform any specification or 
     duty, express or implied, arising out of any undertaking in 
     connection with any such transaction or production contract;
       (4) to retaliate against or disadvantage, or to conspire to 
     retaliate against or disadvantage, any person because of 
     statements or information lawfully provided by such person to 
     any person (including to the Secretary or to a law 
     enforcement agency) regarding alleged improper actions or 
     violations of law by such dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker (unless such statements or information 
     are determined to be libelous or slanderous under applicable 
     State law);
       (5) to include as part of any new or renewed agreement or 
     contract a right of first refusal, or to make any sale or 
     transaction contingent upon the granting of a right of first 
     refusal, until 180 days after the General Accounting Office 
     study under section 8 is complete; or
       (6) to offer different prices contemporaneously for 
     agricultural commodities of like grade and quality (except 
     commodities regulated by the Perishable Agricultural 
     Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.)) unless--
       (A) the commodity is purchased in a public market through a 
     competitive bidding process or under similar conditions which 
     provide opportunities for multiple competitors to seek to 
     acquire the commodity;
       (B) the premium or discount reflects the actual cost of 
     acquiring a commodity prior to processing; or
       (C) the Secretary has determined that such types of offers 
     do not have a discriminatory impact against small volume 
     producers.
       (b) Violations.--
       (1) Complaints.--Whenever the Secretary has reason to 
     believe that any dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker has violated any provision of subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall cause a complaint in writing to be served on 
     that person or persons, stating the charges in that respect, 
     and requiring the dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker to attend and testify at a hearing to be held not 
     sooner than 30 days after the service of such complaint.
       (2) Hearing.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may hold hearings, sign and 
     issue subpoenas, administer oaths, examine witnesses, receive 
     evidence, and require the attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses and the production of such accounts, records, and 
     memoranda, as the Secretary deems necessary, for the 
     determination of the existence of any violation of this 
     subsection.
       (B) Right to hearing.--A dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, or broker may request a hearing if the dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker is subject to 
     penalty for unfair conduct, under this subsection.
       (C) Respondents rights.--During a hearing the dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker shall be given, 
     pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary, the 
     opportunity--
       (i) to be informed of the evidence against such person;
       (ii) to cross-examine witnesses; and
       (iii) to present evidence.
       (D) Hearing limitation.--The issues of any hearing held or 
     requested under this section shall be limited in scope to 
     matters directly related to the purpose for which such 
     hearing was held or requested.
       (3) Report of finding and penalties.--
       (A) In general.--If, after a hearing, the Secretary finds 
     that the dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker 
     has violated any provisions of subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall make a report in writing which states the findings of 
     fact and includes an order requiring the dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker to cease and desist from 
     continuing such violation.
       (B) Civil penalty.--The Secretary may assess a civil 
     penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation of 
     subsection (a).
       (4) Temporary injunction and finality and appealability of 
     an order.--
       (A) Temporary injunction.--At any time after a complaint is 
     filed under paragraph (1), the court, on application of the 
     Secretary, may issue a temporary injunction,

[[Page 5397]]

     restraining to the extent it deems proper, the dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker and such person's 
     officers, directors, agents, and employees from violating any 
     of the provisions of subsection (a).
       (B) Appealability of an order.--An order issued pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be final and conclusive unless within 
     30 days after service of the order, the dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, or broker petitions to appeal the order 
     to the court of appeals for the circuit in which such person 
     resides or has its principal place of business or the 
     District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
       (C) Delivery of petition.--The clerk of the court shall 
     immediately cause a copy of the petition filed under 
     subparagraph (B) to be delivered to the Secretary and the 
     Secretary shall thereupon file in the court the record of the 
     proceedings under this subsection.
       (D) Penalty for failure to obey an order.--Any dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, or broker which fails to obey 
     any order of the Secretary issued under the provisions of 
     this section after such order or such order as modified has 
     been sustained by the court or has otherwise become final, 
     shall be fined not less than $5,000 and not more than 
     $100,000 for each offense. Each day during which such failure 
     continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
       (5) Records.--
       (A) In general.--Every dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, and broker shall keep for a period of not less than 
     5 years such accounts, records, and memoranda (including 
     marketing agreements, forward contracts, and formula pricing 
     arrangements) and fully and correctly disclose all 
     transactions involved in the business of such person, 
     including the true ownership of the business.
       (B) Failure to keep records or allow the secretary to 
     inspect records.--Failure to keep, or allow the Secretary to 
     inspect records as required by this paragraph shall 
     constitute an unfair practice in violation of subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (C) Inspection of records.--The Secretary shall have the 
     right to inspect such accounts, records, and memoranda 
     (including marketing agreements, forward contracts, and 
     formula pricing arrangements) of any dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, and broker as may be material to the 
     investigation of any alleged violation of this section or for 
     the purpose of investigating the business conduct or 
     practices of an organization with respect to such dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant or broker.
       (c) Compensation for Injury.--
       (1) Establishment of the family farmer and rancher claims 
     commission.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint 3 individuals 
     to a commission to be known as the ``Family Farmer and 
     Rancher Claims Commission'' (in this subsection referred to 
     as the ``Commission'') to review claims of family farmers and 
     ranchers who have suffered financial damages as a result of 
     any violation of this section as determined by the Secretary 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(3).
       (B) Term of service.--The member of the Commission shall 
     serve 3-year terms which may be renewed. The initial members 
     of the Commission may be appointed for a period of less than 
     3 years, as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Review of claims.--
       (A) Submission of claims.--Family farmers and ranchers 
     damaged as a result of a violation of this section as 
     determined by the Secretary, pursuant to subsection (c)(3) 
     may preserve the right to claim financial damages under this 
     section by filing a claim pursuant to regulations promulgated 
     by the Secretary.
       (B) Determination.--Based on a review of such claims, the 
     Commission shall determine the amount of damages to be paid, 
     if any, as a result of the violation.
       (C) Review.--The decisions of the Commission under this 
     paragraph shall not be subject to judicial review except to 
     determine that the amount of damages to be paid is consistent 
     with the published regulations of the Secretary that 
     establish the criteria for implementing this subsection.
       (3) Funding.--
       (A) In general.--Funds collected from civil penalties 
     pursuant to this section shall be transferred to a special 
     fund in the Treasury, shall be made available to the 
     Secretary without further appropriation, and shall remain 
     available until expended to pay the expenses of the 
     Commission and the claims described in this subsection.
       (B) Authorization of appropriation.--In addition to the 
     funds described in subparagraph (A), there are authorized to 
     be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
       (4) No preclusion of private claims.--By filing an action 
     under this subsection, a family farmer or rancher is not 
     precluded from bringing a cause of action against a dealer, 
     processor, commission, merchant, or broker in any court of 
     appropriate jurisdiction.
       (d) Authority of the Secretary.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     and the Attorney General shall develop and implement a plan 
     to enable, where appropriate, the Secretary to file civil 
     actions, including temporary injunctions, to enforce orders 
     issued by the Secretary under this Act.

     SEC. 5. REPORTS OF THE SECRETARY ON POTENTIAL UNFAIR 
                   PRACTICES.

       (a) Filing Premerger Notices With the Secretary.--No 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, broker, operator of a 
     warehouse of agricultural commodities, or other agricultural 
     related business shall merge or acquire, directly or 
     indirectly, any voting securities or assets of any other 
     dealer, processor, commission merchant, broker, operator of a 
     warehouse of agricultural commodities, or other agricultural 
     related business unless both persons (or in the case of a 
     tender offer, the acquiring person) file notification 
     pursuant to rules promulgated by the Secretary if--
       (1) any voting securities or assets of the dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, broker, operator of a 
     warehouse of agricultural commodities or other agricultural 
     related business with annual net sales or total assets of 
     $10,000,000 or more are being acquired by a dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, broker, or operator of a 
     warehouse of agricultural commodities, or other agricultural 
     related business which has total assets or annual net sales 
     of $100,000,000 or more; and
       (2) any voting securities or assets of a dealer, processor, 
     commission merchant, broker, operator of a warehouse of 
     agricultural commodities, or other agricultural related 
     business with annual net sales or total assets of 
     $100,000,000 or more are being acquired by any dealer, 
     processor, commission merchant, broker, operator of a 
     warehouse of agricultural commodities, or agriculture related 
     business with annual net sales or total assets of $10,000,000 
     or more and as a result of such acquisition, if the acquiring 
     person would hold--
       (A) 15 percent or more of the voting securities or assets 
     of the acquired person; or
       (B) an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and 
     assets of the acquired person in excess of $15,000,000.
       (b) Review of the Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may conduct a review of any merger or acquisition 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Exception.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of any 
     merger or acquisition described in subsection (a) upon a 
     request from a member of Congress.
       (c) Access to records.--The Secretary may request any 
     information including any testimony, documentary material, or 
     related information from a dealer, processor, commission 
     merchant, broker, or operator of a warehouse of agricultural 
     commodities, or other agricultural related business, 
     pertaining to any merger or acquisition of any agriculture 
     related business.
       (d) Purpose of Review.--
       (1) Findings.--The review described in subsection (a) shall 
     make findings whether the merger or acquisition could--
       (A) be significantly detrimental to the present or future 
     viability of family farms or ranches or rural communities in 
     the areas affected by the merger or acquisition, pursuant to 
     standards established by the Secretary; or
       (B) lead to a violation of section 4(a) of this Act.
       (2) Remedies.--The review may include a determination of 
     possible remedies regarding how the parties of the merger or 
     acquisition may take steps to modify their operations to 
     address the findings described in paragraph (1).
       (e) Report of Review.--
       (1) Preliminary report.--After conducting the review 
     described in this section, the Secretary shall issue a 
     preliminary report to the parties of the merger or 
     acquisition and the Attorney General or the Federal Trade 
     Commission, as appropriate, which shall include findings and 
     any remedies described in subsection (d)(2).
       (2) Final report.--After affording the parties described in 
     paragraph (1) an opportunity for a hearing regarding the 
     findings and any proposed remedies in the preliminary report, 
     the Secretary shall issue a final report to the President and 
     Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, as 
     appropriate, with respect to the merger or acquisition.
       (f) Implementation of the Report.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the issuance of a final report described in subsection 
     (e), the parties of the merger or acquisition affected by 
     such report shall make changes to their operations or 
     structure to comply with the findings and implement any 
     suggested remedy or any agreed upon alternative remedy and 
     shall file a response demonstrating such compliance or 
     implementation.
       (g) Confidentiality of Information.--Information used by 
     the Secretary to conduct the review pursuant to this section 
     provided by a party of the merger or acquisition under review 
     or by a government agency shall be treated by the Secretary 
     as confidential information pursuant to section 1770 of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2276), except that the 
     Secretary may share any information with the Attorney 
     General, the Federal Trade Commission, and a party seeking a 
     hearing pursuant to subsection (e)(2) with respect to 
     information relating to such party. The report issued under 
     subsection (e) shall be available to the public consistent

[[Page 5398]]

     with the confidentiality provisions of this subsection.
       (h) Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--After affording the parties an opportunity 
     for a hearing, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty not 
     to exceed $300,000 for the failure of a person to comply with 
     the requirements of subsections (a) and (f). Such hearing 
     shall be limited to the issue of the amount of the civil 
     penalty.
       (2) Failure to follow an order.--If after being assessed a 
     civil penalty in accordance with paragraph (1) a person 
     continues to fail to meet the applicable requirements of 
     subsections (a) and (f), the Secretary may, after affording 
     the parties an opportunity for a hearing, assess a further 
     civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each day such person 
     continues such violation. Such hearing shall be limited to 
     the issue of the additional civil penalty assessed under this 
     paragraph.

     SEC. 6. PLAIN LANGUAGE AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Any contract between a family farmer or 
     rancher and a dealer, processor, commission merchant, broker, 
     operator of a warehouse of agricultural commodities, or other 
     agricultural related business shall--
       (1) be written in a clear and coherent manner using words 
     with common and everyday meanings and shall be appropriately 
     divided and captioned by various sections;
       (2) disclose in a manner consistent with paragraph (1)--
       (A) contract duration;
       (B) contract termination;
       (C) renegotiation standards;
       (D) responsibility for environmental damage;
       (E) factors to be used in determining performance payments;
       (F) which parties shall be responsible for obtaining and 
     complying with necessary local, State, and Federal government 
     permits; and
       (G) any other contract terms the Secretary determines is 
     appropriate for disclosure; and
       (3) not contain a confidentiality requirement barring a 
     party of a contract from sharing terms of such contract 
     (excluding trade secrets as applied in the Freedom of 
     Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.)) for the purposes of 
     obtaining legal or financial advice or for the purpose of 
     responding to a request from Federal or State agencies.
       (b) Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--After affording the parties an opportunity 
     for a hearing, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty not 
     to exceed $100,000 for the failure of a person to comply with 
     the requirements of this section. Such hearing shall be 
     limited to the issue of the amount of the civil penalty.
       (2) Failure to follow an order.--If after being assessed a 
     civil penalty in accordance with paragraph (1), a person 
     continues to fail to meet the applicable requirements of this 
     section, the Secretary may, after affording the parties an 
     opportunity for a hearing, assess a further civil penalty not 
     to exceed $100,000 for each day such person continues such 
     violation. Such hearing shall be limited to the issue of the 
     amount of the additional civil penalty assessed under this 
     paragraph.
       (c) Implementation.--The requirements imposed by this 
     section shall be applicable to contracts entered into or 
     renewed 60 days or subsequently after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON CORPORATE STRUCTURE.

       (a) In General.--A dealer, processor, commission merchant, 
     or broker with annual sales in excess of $100,000,000 shall 
     annually file with the Secretary, a report which describes, 
     with respect to both domestic and foreign activities; the 
     strategic alliances; ownership in other agribusiness firms or 
     agribusiness-related firms; joint ventures; subsidiaries; 
     brand names; and interlocking boards of directors with other 
     corporations, representatives, and agents that lobby Congress 
     on behalf of such dealer, processor, commission merchant, or 
     broker, as determined by the Secretary. This subsection shall 
     not be construed to apply to contracts.
       (b) Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--After affording the parties an opportunity 
     for a hearing, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty not 
     to exceed $100,000 for the failure of a person to comply with 
     the requirements of this section. Such a hearing shall be 
     limited to the issue of the amount of the civil penalty
       (2) Failure to follow an order.--If after being assessed a 
     civil penalty in accordance with paragraph (1) a person 
     continues to fail to meet the applicable requirements of this 
     section, the Secretary may, after affording the parties an 
     opportunity for a hearing, assess a further civil penalty not 
     to exceed $100,000 for each day such person continues such 
     violation. Such hearing shall be limited to the amount of the 
     additional civil penalty assessed under this paragraph.

     SEC. 8. MANDATORY FUNDING FOR STAFF.

       Out of the funds in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, the Secretary of Treasury shall provide to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture $7,000,000 in each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006, to hire, train, and provide for additional 
     staff to carry out additional responsibilities under this 
     Act, including a Special Counsel on Fair Market and Rural 
     Opportunity, additional attorneys for the Office of General 
     Counsel, investigators, economists, and support staff. Such 
     sums shall be made available to the Secretary without further 
     appropriation and shall be in addition to funds already made 
     available to the Secretary for the purposes of this section.

     SEC. 9. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY.

       The Comptroller General of the United States, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary, the 
     Federal Trade Commission, the National Association of 
     Attorney's General, and others, shall--
       (1) study competition in the domestic farm economy with a 
     special focus on protecting family farms and ranches and 
     rural communities and the potential for monopsonistic and 
     oligopsonistic effects nationally and regionally; and
       (2) provide a report to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act on--
       (A) the correlation between increases in the gap between 
     retail consumer food prices and the prices paid to farmers 
     and ranchers and any increases in concentration among 
     processors, manufacturers, or other firms that buy from 
     farmers and ranchers;
       (B) the extent to which the use of formula pricing, 
     marketing agreements, forward contracting, and production 
     contracts tend to give processors, agribusinesses, and other 
     buyers of agricultural commodities unreasonable market power 
     over their producer/suppliers in the local markets;
       (C) whether the granting of process patents relating to 
     biotechnology research affecting agriculture during the past 
     20 years has tended to overly restrict related biotechnology 
     research or has tended to overly limit competition in the 
     biotechnology industries that affect agriculture in a manner 
     that is contrary to the public interest, or could do either 
     in the future;
       (D) whether acquisitions of companies that own 
     biotechnology patents and seed patents by multinational 
     companies have the potential for reducing competition in the 
     United States and unduly increasing the market power of such 
     multinational companies;
       (E) whether existing processors or agribusiness have 
     disproportionate market power and if competition could be 
     increased if such processors or agribusiness were required to 
     divest assets to assure that they do not exert this 
     disproportionate market power over local markets;
       (F) the extent of increase in concentration in milk 
     processing, procurement and handling, and the potential risks 
     to the economic well-being of dairy farmers, and to the 
     National School Lunch program, and other Federal nutrition 
     programs of that increase in concentration;
       (G) the impact of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures 
     among dairy cooperatives on dairy farmers, including impacts 
     on both members and nonmembers of the merging cooperatives;
       (H) the impact of the significant increase in the use of 
     stock as the primary means of effectuating mergers and 
     acquisitions by large companies;
       (I) the increase in the number and size of mergers or 
     acquisitions in the United States and whether some of such 
     mergers or acquisitions would have taken place if the merger 
     or acquisition had to be consummated primarily with cash, 
     other assets, or borrowing; and
       (J) whether agricultural producers typically appear to 
     derive any benefits (such as higher prices for their products 
     or any other advantages) from right-of-first-refusal 
     provisions contained in purchase contracts or other deals 
     with agribusiness purchasers of such products.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall have the authority to 
     promulgate regulations to carry out the responsibilities of 
     the Secretary under this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCain:
  S. 2412. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize 
appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board for fiscal 
years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


      NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000. This bill proposes 
to reauthorize the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through 
fiscal year 2003.
  The NTSB is an independent agency charged with determining the 
probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation 
safety. Among its many duties, the Board investigates accidents, 
conducts safety studies, and evaluates the effectiveness of other 
government agencies' programs for preventing transportation accidents. 
In my view, the NTSB is one of our nation's most critical governmental 
agencies and I want to commend its excellent work.
  Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 
110,000

[[Page 5399]]

aviation accidents, at least 10,000 other accidents in the surface 
modes and issued more than 11,000 safety recommendations. The Board's 
commitment to accident investigation and the development of safety 
recommendations to prevent accidents from recurring is indeed 
admirable. The NTSB staff works tirelessly, and in many cases, under 
the least desirable circumstances.
  The NTSB's authorization expired last September. The Board has 
submitted a reauthorization proposal and the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing last year to 
review the Board's request. The reauthorization legislation I am 
introducing is intended to provide the Board with the resources 
necessary to carry out its important safety investigatory duties and 
provide further assistance to the Board in its efforts to fulfill its 
mission.
  The legislation would authorize the Board for Fiscal years 2000-2003. 
As the Board requested, the bill would provide significant funding 
increases over the level currently authorized. The Chairman of the 
Board has testified that these funds are necessary in order to insure 
that the NTSB continues to make timely and accurate determinations of 
the probable causes of accidents, formulate realistic and feasible 
safety recommendations, and respond to the families of victims of 
transportation disasters in a professional and compassionate manner 
following those tragedies. The legislation also would raise the Board's 
emergency fund to the level commensurate to that which has been 
appropriated in recent years.
  The bill includes language requested by the Safety Board to require 
the withholding from public disclosure of voice and video recorder 
information for all modes of transportation comparable to the 
protections already statutorily provided for cockpit voice recorders 
(CVRs). This provision would be an important step in ensuring that 
railroad, maritime, and motor vehicle recorders are properly protected 
from unwarranted disclosure or alternative use.
  The bill provides the Board with authority to establish reasonable 
rates of overtime pay for its employees directly involved in accident-
related work both on-scene and investigative. This authority was 
requested in acknowledgment of the extensive time spent by NTSB staff 
in carrying out their duties and the Board's inability under current 
law to more fairly compensate these employees. I want to remind my 
colleagues that the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard 
already have been provided authority by Congress to administer similar 
personnel payment matters.
  The Board's budget has dramatically increased over the years and this 
measure includes a number of financial accountability provisions. 
Currently, the NTSB is one of the few agencies of the Federal 
Government not required to have a Chief Financial Office (CFO). While 
the Board on its own initiative does have a CFO, this bill would make 
that position permanent. The legislation also statutorily authorizes 
the Chairman to establish annual travel budgets to govern Board Member 
non-accident travel. After concerns were raised last year over 
excessive Board Member travel by myself and others, the Chairman 
established annual budgets and procedures governing non-accident-
related travel. His actions were an important step in addressing fiscal 
accountability at the Board and I believe they should be continued in 
the future. Further, the bill would give the Inspector General of the 
Department of Transportation the authority to review the financial 
management and business operations of the Board to determine compliance 
with applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations.
  I have only taken time today to highlight a few sections of the bill. 
But I assure my colleagues that there are other provisions in the 
legislation designed to give the Safety Board the necessary tools to 
continue to fulfill its critical safety mission.
  Mr. President. I urge my colleagues' support of this measure and look 
forward to bringing it to the full Senate for consideration in the near 
future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Thurmond, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
        Robb, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Reid):
  S. 2413. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 to clarify the procedures and conditions for the award of 
matching grants for the purchase of armor vests; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


             bulletproof vest partnership grant act of 2000

 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are 
introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, a bill 
to expand an existing matching grant program to help State, tribal, and 
local jurisdictions purchase armor vests for the use by law enforcement 
officers. This bill represents another in a series of law enforcement 
legislative initiatives on which I have had the privilege to work with 
my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. The Senator brings 
to the table invaluable experience in this area, from his distinguished 
service as a State's attorney in Vermont, a nationally recognized 
prosecutor, and as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. We are pleased to be joined in this effort by the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Hatch, and Senators Thurmond, Bingaman, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Coverdell, 
Robb, Schumer, Reed, and Reid.
  Two years ago, Congress passed and the President signed into law the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-181), which we 
were privileged to introduce. This highly successful Department of 
Justice grant program has already funded 92,000 new bulletproof vests 
for police officers across the country.
  There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our 
streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against 
violent criminals. As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the 
risks which law enforcement officers face every day on the front lines 
protecting our communities.
  Today, more than ever, violent criminals have bulletproof vests and 
deadly weapons at their disposal. In fact, figures from the U.S. 
Department of Justice indicate that approximately 150,000 law 
enforcement officers--or 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 state and 
local officers--do not have access to bulletproof vests.
  The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most 
important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can 
have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives 
of more than 1,500 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In 
fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers 
who do not wear bulletproof vests are 14 times more likely to be killed 
by a firearm than those officers who do wear vests. Simply put, 
bulletproof vests save lives.
  Unfortunately, many police departments do not have the resources to 
purchase vests on their own. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act 
of 2000 would continue the partnership with state and local law 
enforcement agencies to make sure that every police officer who needs a 
bulletproof vest gets one. It would do so by authorizing up to $50 
million per year for the grant program within the U.S. Department of 
Justice. In addition, the program would provide 50-50 matching grants 
to state and local law enforcement agencies and Indian tribes with 
under 100,000 residents to assist in purchasing bulletproof vests and 
body armor. Finally, this bill will make the purchase of stabproof 
vests eligible for grant awards.
  While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a 
career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure 
that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a 
vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an 
officer can have and often means the difference between life and death. 
The United States Senate

[[Page 5400]]

can help, and I urge our colleagues to support prompt passage of this 
legislation.
  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. 2413

       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 ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
     Grant Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed 
     in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law 
     enforcement officer in the United States had the protection 
     of an armor vest;
       (2) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law 
     enforcement officers in the United States were killed in the 
     line of duty;
       (3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the 
     risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not 
     wearing an armor vest is 14 times higher than for officers 
     wearing an armor vest;
       (4) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet-
     resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000 
     law enforcement officers in the United States; and
       (5) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law 
     Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian 
     country has risen sharply, despite a decrease in the national 
     crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety 
     crisis in Indian country''.

     SEC. 3. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR 
                   VESTS.

       (a) Matching Funds.--Section 2501(f) of part Y of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796ll(f) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The portion'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The portion'';
       (2) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end of the first sentence and 
     inserting ``subsection (a)--
       ``(A) may not exceed 50 percent; and
       ``(B) shall equal 50 percent, if--
       ``(i) such grant is to a unit of local government with 
     fewer than 100,000 residents;
       ``(ii) the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance 
     determines that the quantity of vests to be purchased with 
     such grant is reasonable; and
       ``(iii) such portion does not cause such grant to violate 
     the requirements of subsection (e).''; and
       (3) by striking ``Any funds'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Indian assistance.--Any funds''.
       (b) Allocation of Funds.--Section 2501(g) of part Y of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Allocation of Funds.--Funds available under this part 
     shall be awarded, without regard to subsection (c), to each 
     qualifying unit of local government with fewer than 100,000 
     residents. Any remaining funds available under this part 
     shall be awarded to other qualifying applicants.''.
       (c) Applications.--Section 2502 of part Y of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796ll-1) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Applications in Conjunction With Purchases.--If an 
     application under this section is submitted in conjunction 
     with a transaction for the purchase of armor vests, grant 
     amounts under this section may not be used to fund any 
     portion of that purchase unless, before the application is 
     submitted, the applicant--
       ``(1) receives clear and conspicuous notice that receipt of 
     the grant amounts requested in the application is uncertain; 
     and
       ``(2) expressly assumes the obligation to carry out the 
     transaction, regardless of whether such amounts are 
     received.''.
       (d) Definition of Armor Vest.--Section 2503(1) of part Y of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-2(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``means body armor'' and inserting the 
     following: ``means--
       ``(A) body armor'';
       (2) by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) body armor that has been tested through the voluntary 
     compliance testing program, and found to meet or exceed the 
     requirements of NIJ Standard 0115.00, or any revision of such 
     standard;''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(23) 
     of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(23)) is amended by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``, and 
     $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2004''.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senior Senator from 
Colorado in introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 
2000. We worked together closely and successfully with the Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress to pass the Bulletproof 
Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 into law. I am pleased that Senator 
Hatch is again an original cosponsor of this bill. I am also pleased 
that Senators Schumer, Reid of Nevada, Sarbanes, Robb, Bingaman, 
Thurmond, Coverdell, and Reed of Rhode Island are joining us as 
original cosponsors.
  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than 40 
percent of the 1,182 officers killed by a firearm in the line of duty 
since 1980 could have been saved if they had been wearing body armor. 
Indeed, the FBI estimates that the risk of fatality to officers while 
not wearing body armor is 14 times higher than for officers wearing it.
  To better protect our Nation's law enforcement officers, Senator 
Campbell and I introduced the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 
1998. President Clinton signed our legislation into law on June 16, 
1998 (public law 105-181). The law created a $25 million, 50 percent 
matching grant program within the Department of Justice to help state 
and local law enforcement agencies purchase body armor for fiscal years 
1999-2001.
  In its first year of operation, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
Grant Program funded 92,000 new bulletproof vests for our Nation's 
police officers, including 361 vests for Vermont police officers. 
Applications are now available at the program's web site at http://
vests.ojp.gov/ for this year's funds. The entire process of submitting 
applications and obtaining federal funds is completed through this web 
site.
  The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 builds on the 
success of this program by doubling its annual funding to $50 million 
for fiscal years 2002-2004. It also improves the program by 
guaranteeing jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 residents receive 
the full 50-50 matching funds because of the tight budgets of these 
smaller communities and by making the purchase of stab-proof vests 
eligible for grant awards to protect corrections officers and sheriffs 
who face violent criminals in close quarters in local and county jails.
  More than ever before, police officers in Vermont and around the 
country face deadly threats that can strike at any time, even during 
routine traffic stops. Bulletproof vests save lives. It is essential 
that we update this law so that many more of our officers who are 
risking their lives everyday are able to protect themselves.
  In the last Congress, we created the Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
Grant Program in part in response to the tragic Drega incident along 
the Vermont and New Hampshire border. On August 19, 1997, Federal, 
State and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New 
Hampshire had cornered Carl Drega, after hours of hot pursuit. This 
madman had just shot to death two New Hampshire state troopers and two 
other victims earlier in the day. In a massive exchange of gunfire with 
the authorities, Drega lost his life.
  During that shootout, all federal law enforcement officers wore 
bulletproof vests, while some state and local officers did not. For 
example, Federal Border Patrol Officer John Pfeifer, a Vermonter, who 
was seriously wounded in the incident. If it was not for his 
bulletproof vest, I would have been attending Officer Pfeifer's wake 
instead of visiting him, and meeting his wife and young daughter in the 
hospital a few days later. I am relieved that Officer John Pfeifer is 
doing well and is back on duty today.
  The two New Hampshire state troopers who were killed by Carl Drega 
were not so lucky. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. Protective 
vests might not have been able to save the lives of those courageous 
officers because of the high-powered assault weapons used by this 
madman. We all grieve for the two New Hampshire officers who were 
killed. Their tragedy underscore the point that all of our law 
enforcement officers, whether federal, state or local, deserve the 
protection of a bulletproof vest. With that and lesser-known incidents 
as constant reminders, I will continue to do all I can

[[Page 5401]]

to help prevent loss of life among our law enforcement officers.
  The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 will provide state 
and local law enforcement agencies with more of the assistance they 
need to protect their officers. Our bipartisan legislation enjoys the 
endorsement of many law enforcement organizations, including the 
Fraternal Order of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association. In my 
home State of Vermont, the bill enjoys the strong support of the 
Vermont State Police, the Vermont Police Chiefs Association and many 
Vermont sheriffs, troopers, game wardens and other local and state law 
enforcement officials.
  Since my time as a State prosecutor, I have always taken a keen 
interest in law enforcement in Vermont and around the country. Vermont 
has the reputation of being one of the safest states in which to live, 
work and visit, and rightly so. In no small part, this is due to the 
hard work of those who have sworn to serve and protect us. And we 
should do what we can to protect them, when a need like this one comes 
to our attention.
  Our Nation's law enforcement officers put their lives at risk in the 
line of duty everyday. No one knows when danger will appear. 
Unfortunately, in today's violent world, even a traffic stop may not 
necessarily be ``routine.'' Each and every law enforcement officer 
across the Nation deserves the protection of a bulletproof vest.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that each and 
every law enforcement agency in Vermont and across the Nation can 
afford basic protection for their officers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 2414. A bill to combat trafficking of persons, especially into the 
sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like conditions, in the United States 
and countries around the world through prevention, through prosecution 
and enforcement against traffickers, and through protection and 
assistance to victims of trafficking; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


               TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill today. I 
would like to thank my colleague, Senator Brownback, for his superb 
work. It is called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. 
Basically, this is legislation I am doing together with Senator 
Brownback. We are very hopeful we will have strong support in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, starting with the chairman.
  The long and the short of it, colleagues, is, though, it is hard to 
believe, in the year 2000, there are maybe 50,000 women and children 
trafficked to our country, maybe as many as 2 million worldwide.
  It is a dark, dark feature of this new world economy, where women and 
children are basically responding to ads, going to other countries, 
believing they will find employment; and they are forced into 
prostitution, they are forced into labor, and the conditions are 
absolutely atrocious.
  It is unbelievable what has happened to these women and children. 
Therefore, we put an emphasis on, No. 1, prevention, to make sure that 
through AID we get information out to people in other countries, so 
women and children are not entrapped in this way.
  No. 2, we want to make sure there are alternatives, such as good 
microloan programs, like NGOs for women.
  No. 3, we put an emphasis on how we can provide some protection, 
which has to do with making sure if women step forward they are not 
automatically deported. There would be an extension of their visa so 
they would be able to speak out without worrying about being deported 
from our country. We would make sure there is treatment for women who 
have gone through this living hell.
  Finally, there would be prosecution. Making it crystal clear to those 
who are engaged in trafficking, you are going to be hit with stiff 
financial penalties.
  Senator Feinstein, who is on the floor, has been a strong supporter 
of trying to do something about this, and to make sure that if you are 
going to traffic a child under the age of 14 for forced prostitution, 
you are going to serve a life sentence in prison.
  We are going to call on the international community to take this 
seriously. I believe there will be strong support in the Senate. It 
would be a powerful and important human rights piece of legislation.
  I am proud to introduce this legislation today. I think we can move 
it in committee. I think we can have strong bipartisan support. I thank 
Senator Brownback, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, and others for 
their interest.
  Mr. President, I am here today to introduce legislation to help end 
the horrific crime of trafficking in persons, particularly women and 
children, for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. 
This egregious human rights violation--and we must acknowledge 
trafficking in persons as the gross human rights abuse that it is--is a 
worldwide problem that must be confronted in domestic legislation as we 
continue to fight it on the international front.
  At this very moment the administration is involved in negotiations in 
Vienna to strengthen international efforts to combat trafficking. We 
too must do our part. We need to enact a comprehensive trafficking bill 
into law in this Congress. Senator Brownback and I have worked together 
closely to develop the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and 
we agree on every provision of the bill except for one. We are here 
together today to introduce separate trafficking bills but to relay to 
you the truly bipartisan effort this has been. Senator Brownback, I 
look forward to continuing this effort as our respective bills move 
through the committee and to the floor.
  Despite increasing governmental and international interest, 
trafficking in persons continues to be one of the darkest aspects of 
globalization of the world economy, becoming more insidious and more 
widespread everyday. It is not just a problem that takes place on 
distant shores, as many of us have been led to believe. A recent CIA 
analysis of the international trafficking of women to the United States 
reports that as many as 50,000 women and children each year are brought 
into the United States and forced to work as prostitutes, forced 
laborers, and servants. Others credibly estimate that the number is 
probably much higher than that.
  In a hearing last week, I heard the almost unbelievable testimony of 
several women who had been victims of trafficking. But, I say almost 
unbelievable because I heard the truth directly from the mouths of 
those who have been hurt the most. One victim trafficked for sex from 
Mexico to Florida at the age of 14 told,

       Because I was a virgin, the men decided to initiate me by 
     raping me again and again, to teach me how to have sex * * * 
     Because I was so young, I was always in demand with the 
     customers. It was awful. Although the men were supposed to 
     wear condoms, some didn't so I eventually became pregnant and 
     was forced to have an abortion.

  I am here today to say that one victim is one too many. We have a 
serious problem that must be addressed.
  The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 is a comprehensive 
bill that addresses the three P's of trafficking: it aims to prevent 
trafficking in persons, provides protection and assistance to those who 
have been trafficked, and provides for tough prosecution and punishment 
of those responsible for trafficking.
  This bill addresses the underlying problems which fuel the 
trafficking industry by promoting public awareness campaigns, and 
initiatives to enhance economic opportunity, such as microcredit 
lending programs and skills training, for those most susceptible to 
trafficking. It provides for the establishment of programs designed to 
assist in the safe reintegration of victims into their community, and 
ensures that such programs address the physical and mental health needs 
of trafficking victims. In fact, the trauma that results from being 
trafficked is not unlike that of someone who has been tortured, and 
victims of trafficking deserve similar assistance.
  This bill also provides immigration relief and allows victims of 
trafficking the time necessary to bring charges

[[Page 5402]]

against those responsible for their condition. In the United States, 
many trafficking victims are deported for not having the appropriate 
legal documents when, in fact, it is often the trafficker who has given 
the victim false documents, or held the victim's identifying documents 
so that he or she could not move freely. This bill addresses this 
unintended result of the law. This measure enhances our existing legal 
structures, criminalizing all forms of trafficking in persons and 
establishing punishment which is commensurate with the heinous nature 
of this crime. It provides for sentences of up to life in prison for 
those criminals involved in trafficking children.
  Those criminals who are involved in trafficking, from the lowest to 
the highest levels, should not expect to go unpunished in the United 
States or abroad, and neither should governments whose governments 
might be complicit in trafficking. This bill requires an expansion of 
reporting on trafficking in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices, including a separate list of countries of origin, transit or 
destination for a significant number of trafficking victims which are 
not meeting minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. This 
bill provides for sanctions against counties which do not meet these 
minimum standards. It also authorizes the Secretary of State to publish 
a list of foreign persons involved in trafficking, and authorizes the 
President to take tough action against any person on that list.
  A similar bill to our bills is moving through the House. Both that 
bill, H.R. 3244, and the bills that we are introducing today, are 
bipartisan efforts that deserve our full consideration. Senator 
Brownback and I have worked hard to create a bill that is comprehensive 
and addresses both of our concerns, and both of us are equally 
committed to the fight against trafficking. We disagree, however, on a 
small but significant part of the strategy in this fight: the use of 
mandatory versus discretionary sanctions against countries which do not 
meet the minimum standards for elimination of trafficking.
  While Senator Brownback believes a system of mandatory sanctions will 
better facilitate our goal to eliminate trafficking, after much 
research into the effect of a mandatory sanctions requirement, I 
believe a discretionary sanctions approach, allowing for a more 
targeted use of sanctions, together with a requirement for the delivery 
to Congress of a separate list of countries involved in trafficking, is 
the better approach.
  Trafficking exploits poor women and booms in societies undergoing 
severe economic distress. To impose economic sanctions in trafficking 
legislation that cuts off a broad range of bilateral and multilateral 
assistance programs designed to improve the economy of specific nations 
is to cause harm to the very people who might be helped by the 
legislation.
  For example, I don't believe we can justify cutting off funding 
designed to foster economic reform so that those most susceptible to 
trafficking such as women and children, can find work; or cutting off 
funding for programs that increase professionalism and independence in 
the judicial system so that traffickers can be held accountable; or 
even cutting off programs designed to provide training and technical 
assistance to countries which are generally making an effort to combat 
trafficking. This is what could happen to certain countries which are 
known to have a severe trafficking problem, under a mandatory sanctions 
regime. I don't believe we justify cutting off child survival and 
disease programs which counter the spread of HIV and AIDS, a 
significant problem among women trafficked into the sex industry, to 
countries in which sex trafficking is a large problem such as the 
Philippines and Bangladesh. These are just a couple of examples of the 
problems created by a sanctions regime that is too broad. A more 
targeted, discretionary sanctions approach to sanctions is, I think, 
clearly the way to go.
  By requiring a list of countries involved in trafficking who do not 
meet minimum standards for the elimination of it, we can closely 
monitor the progress of countries in their fight against trafficking. 
Trafficking in persons is a complicated issue that almost always 
involves larger criminal elements. Those countries which are truly 
committed to ending this gross human rights abuse, and are cooperating 
in the global battle against it, should not fear the list since they 
will not be put on it. Those countries which are not doing their share 
should expect that the President of the United States will use his 
discretion to impose targeted sanctions, and I for one will do all I 
can to see that our government imposes appropriate sanctions against 
those governments whose officials are complicit in this terrible crime.
  Sanctions can be an important deterrent. However, in my opinion broad 
mandatory sanctions within the context of trafficking are not useful. A 
discretionary sanctions regime that allows the President--who is, in 
fact, better positioned to understand the varying dynamics and extent 
of the trafficking problem from country to country--to impose specific, 
targeted, and workable sanctions against trafficking countries is a 
more sound approach.
  I hope my colleagues will take a look at both of these trafficking 
bills and cosponsor one or the other as they move forward. These bills 
are identical except for the sanctions provision, and both provide the 
same broad and comprehensive assistance to trafficking victims and to 
countries working to combat trafficking.
  Since my wife and I began working on this issue several years ago, I 
have met with trafficking victims, after-care providers, and human 
rights advocates from around the world who have reminded me again and 
again of the horrible nature of this crime. We must intensify our work 
to eliminate trafficking in persons. We must focus our energy on this 
bipartisan effort to see the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 
move quickly through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and get 
passed into law this year. The many victims of trafficking deserve no 
less.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. 
        Kerry):
  S. 2415. A bill to amend the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act 
of 1994 and other sections of the Truth in Lending Act to protect 
consumers against predatory practices in connection with high cost 
mortgage transactions, to strengthen the civil remedies available to 
consumers under existing law, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


           predatory lending consumer protection act of 2000

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Predatory 
Lending Consumer Protection Act with Senators Dodd, Kerry, and Schumer. 
This legislation is a companion to an identical bill being introduced 
by Representative LaFalce in the House of Representatives, along with a 
number of his colleagues.
  Representative LaFalce has demonstrated his strong commitment to a 
banking system that takes into consideration the credit needs of all 
Americans, including those that have been traditionally locked out of 
the market or are less sophisticated. I thank him for his leadership.
  Homeownership is the American Dream. It is the opportunity for all 
Americans to put down roots and start creating equity for themselves 
and their families. Homeownership has been the path to building wealth 
for generations of Americans; it has been the key to ensuring stable 
communities, good schools, and safe streets.
  The predatory lending industry plays on these hopes and dreams to 
cheat people of their hard-earned wealth. These lenders target working 
and lower income families, the elderly, and, often, uneducated 
homeowners for their abusive practices. To my mind, nothing can be more 
cynical.
  Let me briefly describe how predatory lenders operate. They target 
people with a lot of equity in their homes; they underwrite the 
property without regard to the ability of the borrower to

[[Page 5403]]

pay the loan back. They make their money by charging extremely high 
origination fees, and by ``packing'' other products into the loan, 
including upfront premiums for credit life insurance, or credit 
unemployment insurance, and others, for which they get significant 
commissions but are of no value to the homeowner.
  The premiums for these products get financed into the loan, greatly 
increasing the loan's total balance amount, sometimes by as much as 50 
percent. As a result, the borrower is likely to find himself in extreme 
financial distress.
  Then, when the trouble hits, the predatory lender will offer to 
refinance the loan. Unfortunately, another characteristic of these 
loans is that they have prepayment penalties. So, by the time the 
refinancing occurs, with all the fees repeated and the prepayment 
penalty included, the lender/broker makes a lot of money from the 
transaction, and the owner has been stripped of his or her equity and, 
oftentimes, his or her home.
  The problem is, most of these practices, while unethical and clearly 
abusive, are legal. There is a widening sense that this is a serious 
problem. Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve Board has recognized 
this as an increasing problem, as have the other banking regulators. 
For example, the FDIC is considering raising capital standards for all 
subprime lending; the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has published 
an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) asking for information 
and views on these very practices; HUD Secretary Cuomo and Treasury 
Secretary Summers have convened a Task Force on this issue. Both Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac have developed a number of products that are 
intended to reach out to homeowners with somewhat impaired credit in 
order to bring them into the financial mainstream. These companies have 
also announced that they will not buy loans with single premium credit 
insurance financed into the loan, one of the problems highlighted by 
this legislation.
  Clearly, there is already some action to address the problem of 
predatory lending. But we need to do more. This legislation will outlaw 
the most abusive practices, and enable the marketplace to eliminate the 
others. This is a very important point. Let me give you an example. The 
bill prohibits the financing of more than 3% of a loan in fees for high 
cost loans, because it is the financing of fees and premiums on 
extraneous products that literally strip the equity out of a person's 
home. However, the bill would not prohibit additional fees from being 
charged, so we are not regulating profit.
  We want to make sure that the loan is affordable to the borrower. 
Tying the lender's return to the loan's successful repayment is the 
best way to assure this. Now, some people have raised concerns that 
limiting the financing of fees will push up interest rates. This may be 
true, but it is also better to see the return to the lender reflected 
in the interest rate because it is much easier for people to shop on 
the basis of the interest rate. As a result, the market will help to 
keep rates down. Moreover, higher rate mortgages can always be 
refinanced as borrower's credit standing improves.
  Mr. President, this legislation has the support of the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, the American Association of Retired People, 
the National Consumer Law Center, the Self-Help Credit Union of North 
Carolina, Consumers Union, Consumers Federation, ACORN, the National 
Association of Consumer Advocates, U.S. PIRG and others.
  I want to make clear that this bill is aimed at predatory practices. 
There are many people who may have had some credit problems who still 
need access to affordable credit. They may only be able to get subprime 
loans, which charge higher interest rates. Clearly, to get the credit, 
they will have to pay somewhat higher rates because of the greater risk 
they represent. We want them to be able to get these loans.
  But these families should not be stripped of their home equity 
through financing of extremely high fees, credit insurance, or 
prepayment penalties. They should not be forced into constant 
refinancing, losing more and more of the wealth they've taken a 
lifetime to build to a new set of fees each and every time.
  This legislation will keep credit available, while discouraging or 
prohibiting these worst practices. The bill allows lenders to recover 
the costs of making their loans, while always leaving the door open to 
borrowers to repair their credit and move to lower cost loans.
  Taken as a whole, predatory lending practices represent a frontal 
assault on homeowners all over America. Today, we are coming to their 
defense. We must stop the American dream of homeownership from being 
distorted into a nightmare by these unscrupulous practices. We want to 
ensure that all borrowers, whether in the prime or subprime market, are 
treated fairly and responsibly. That is what this legislation is 
intended to do, and I urge my colleagues' consideration and support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of 
the legislation be printed in the Record.

                                S. 2415

       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 ``Predatory Lending Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS IN TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

       (a) High Cost Mortgages.--
       (1) In general.--The portion of section 103(aa) of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(aa)) that precedes 
     paragraph (2) of such section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(aa) Mortgage Referred to in This Subsection.--
       ``(1) Definition.--
       ``(A) In general.--A mortgage referred to in this 
     subsection means a consumer credit transaction--
       ``(i) that is secured by the consumer's principal dwelling, 
     other than a reverse mortgage transaction; and
       ``(ii) the terms of which are described in at least 1 of 
     the following subclauses:

       ``(I) The transaction is secured by a first mortgage on the 
     consumer's principal dwelling and the annual percentage rate 
     on the credit, at the consummation of the transaction, will 
     exceed by more than 6 percentage points the yield on Treasury 
     securities having comparable periods of maturity on the 15th 
     day of the month immediately preceding the month in which the 
     application for the extension of credit is received by the 
     creditor;
       ``(II) The transaction is secured by a junior or 
     subordinate mortgage on the consumer's principal dwelling and 
     the annual percentage rate on the credit, at the consummation 
     of the transaction, will exceed by more than 8 percentage 
     points the yield on Treasury securities having comparable 
     periods of maturity on the 15th day of the month immediately 
     preceding the month in which the application for the 
     extension of credit is received by the creditor.
       ``(III) The total points and fees payable on the 
     transaction will exceed the greater of 5 percent of the total 
     loan amount or $1,000.

       ``(B) Introductory rates not taken into account.--If the 
     terms of any consumer credit transaction that is secured by 
     the consumer's principal dwelling offer, for any initial or 
     introductory period, an annual percentage rate of interest 
     which--
       ``(i) is less than the annual percentage rate of interest 
     which will apply after the end of such initial or 
     introductory period; or
       ``(ii) in the case of an annual percentage rate which 
     varies in accordance with an index, which is less than the 
     current annual percentage rate under the index which will 
     apply after the end of such period,

     the annual percentage rate of interest that shall be taken 
     into account for purposes of subclauses (I) and (II) of 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be the rate described in clause 
     (i) or (ii) of this subparagraph rather than any rate in 
     effect during the initial or introductory period.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--Section 103(aa)(2) 
     of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(aa)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
       (b) Points and Fees.--Section 103(aa)(4) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(aa)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) all compensation paid directly or indirectly by a 
     consumer or a creditor to a mortgage broker;'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F); 
     and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following new subparagraphs:

[[Page 5404]]

       ``(C) each of the charges listed in section 106(e) (except 
     an escrow for future payment of taxes and insurance);
       ``(D) the cost of all premiums financed by the lender, 
     directly or indirectly, for any credit life, credit 
     disability, credit unemployment or credit property insurance, 
     or any other life or health insurance, or any payments 
     financed by the lender, directly or indirectly, for any debt 
     cancellation or suspension agreement or contract, except 
     that, for purposes of this subparagraph, insurance premiums 
     or debt cancellation or suspension fees calculated and paid 
     on a monthly basis shall not be considered financed by the 
     lender;
       ``(E) any prepayment penalty (as defined in section 
     129(c)(5)) or other fee paid by the consumer in connection 
     with an existing loan which is being refinanced with the 
     proceeds of the consumer credit transaction; and''.
       (c) High Cost Mortgage Lender.--
       (1) In general.--Section 103(f) of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1602(f)) is amended by striking the last sentence 
     and inserting ``Any person who originates 2 or more mortgages 
     referred to in subsection (aa) in any 12-month period, any 
     person who originates 1 or more such mortgages through a 
     mortgage broker or acted as a mortgage broker between 
     originators and consumers on more than 5 mortgages referred 
     to in subsection (aa) within the preceding 12-month period, 
     and any creditor-affiliated party shall be considered to be a 
     creditor for purposes of this title.''.
       (2) Creditor-affiliated party defined.--Section 103 of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(cc) Creditor-Affiliated Party.--The term ``creditor-
     affiliated party'' means--
       (1) any director, officer, employee, or controlling 
     stockholder of, or agent for, a creditor;
       (2) in the case of a creditor which is an insured 
     depository institution, any other person who has filed or is 
     required to file a change-in-control notice with the 
     appropriate Federal banking agency under section 7(j) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and
       (3) any shareholder, consultant, joint venture partner, and 
     any other person, including any independent contractor (such 
     as an attorney, appraiser, or accountant), who participates 
     in the conduct of the affairs of, or controls the lending 
     practices of, a creditor, as determined (by regulation or on 
     a case-by-case) by the appropriate Federal agency under 
     subsection (a) or (c) of section 108 with respect to the 
     creditor.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH COST 
                   CONSUMER MORTGAGES.

       (a) Additional Disclosures.--Section 129(a)(1) of the Truth 
     in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(a)(1)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(D) `The interest rate on this loan is much higher than 
     most people pay. This means the chance that you will lose 
     your home is much higher if you do not make all payments 
     under the loan.'.
       ``(E) `You may be able to get a loan with a much lower 
     interest rate. Before you sign any papers, you have the right 
     to go see a credit and debt counseling service and to consult 
     other lenders to find ways to get a cheaper loan.'.
       ``(F) `If you are taking out this loan to repay other 
     loans, look to see how many months it will take to pay for 
     this loan and what the total amount is that you will have to 
     pay before this loan is repaid. Even though the total amount 
     you will have to pay each month for this loan may be less 
     than the total amount you are paying each month for those 
     other loans, you may have to pay on this loan for many more 
     months than those other loans which will cost you more money 
     in the end.' ''.
       (b) Prepayment Penalty Provisions.--Section 129(c) of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(c)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(c) Prepayment Penalty Provisions.--
       ``(1) No prepayment penalties after end of 24-month 
     period.--A mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) may not 
     contain terms under which a consumer must pay any prepayment 
     penalty for any payment made after the end of the 24-month 
     period beginning on the date the mortgage is consummated.
       ``(2) No prepayment penalties if more than 3 percent of 
     points and fees were financed.--Subject to subsection (l)(1), 
     a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) may not contain 
     terms under which a consumer must pay any prepayment penalty 
     for any payment made at or before the end of the 24-month 
     period referred to in paragraph (1) if the creditor financed 
     points or fees in connection with the consumer credit 
     transaction in an amount equal to or greater than 3 percent 
     of the total amount of credit extended in the transaction.
       ``(3) Limited prepayment penalty for early repayment under 
     certain circumstances.--Subject to paragraph (2), the terms 
     of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) may contain 
     terms under which a consumer must pay a prepayment penalty 
     for any payment made at or before the end of the 24-month 
     period referred to in paragraph (1) to the extent the sum of 
     total amount of points or fees financed by the creditor, if 
     any, in connection with the consumer credit transaction and 
     the total amount payable as a prepayment penalty does not 
     exceed the amount which is equal to 3 percent of the total 
     amount of credit extended in the transaction.
       ``(4) Construction.--For purposes of this subsection, any 
     method of computing a refund of unearned scheduled interest 
     is a prepayment penalty if it is less favorable to the 
     consumer than the actuarial method (as that term is defined 
     in section 933(d) of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1992).
       ``(5) Prepayment penalty defined.--The term `prepayment 
     penalty' means any monetary penalty imposed on a consumer for 
     paying all or part of the principal with respect to a 
     consumer credit transaction before the date on which the 
     principal is due.''.
       (c) All Balloon Payments Prohibited.--Section 129(e) of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(e)) is amended by 
     striking ``having a term of less than 5 years''.
       (d) Assessment of Ability to Repay.--Section 129(h) of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(h)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Consumer.--A creditor'' and inserting 
     ``Consumer.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on patterns and practices.--A creditor''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Case-by-case assessments of consumer ability to pay 
     required.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to the prohibition in 
     paragraph (1) on engaging in certain patterns and practices, 
     a creditor may not extend any credit in connection with any 
     mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) unless the creditor 
     has determined, at the time such credit is extended, that 1 
     or more of the resident obligors, when considered 
     individually and collectively, will be able to make the 
     scheduled payments under the terms of the transaction based 
     on a consideration of their current and expected income, 
     current obligations, employment status, and other financial 
     resources, without taking into account any equity of any such 
     obligor in the dwelling which is the security for the credit.
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Board shall prescribe, by 
     regulation the appropriate format for determining a 
     consumer's ability to pay and the criteria to be considered 
     in making any such determination.
       ``(C) Resident obligor.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `resident obligor' means an obligor for whom the 
     dwelling securing the extension of credit is, or upon the 
     consummation of the transaction will be, the principal 
     residence.
       ``(3) Verification.--The requirements of paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) shall not be deemed to have been met unless any 
     information relied upon by the creditor for purposes of any 
     such paragraph has been verified by the creditor 
     independently of information provided by any resident 
     obligor.''.
       (e) Requirements Relating to Home Improvement Contracts.--
     Section 129(i) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1639(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Improvement Contracts.--A creditor'' and 
     inserting ``Improvement Contracts.--
       ``(1) In general.--A creditor''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Affirmative claims and defenses.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, any assignee or holder, in any 
     capacity, of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) which 
     was made, arranged, or assigned by a person financing home 
     improvements to the dwelling of a consumer shall be subject 
     to all affirmative claims and defenses which the consumer may 
     have against the seller, home improvement contractor, broker, 
     or creditor with respect to such mortgage or home 
     improvements.''.
       (f) Clarification of Rescission Rights.--Section 129(j) of 
     the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639(j)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(j) Consequence of Failure to Comply.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, in the case of a mortgage referred 
     to in section 103(aa)--
       ``(A) the mortgage contains a provision prohibited by this 
     section or does not contain a provision required by this 
     section; or
       ``(B) a creditor or other person fails to comply with the 
     provisions of this section, whether by an act or omission, 
     with regard to such mortgage at any time,

     the consummation of the consumer credit transaction resulting 
     in such mortgage shall be treated as a failure to deliver the 
     material disclosures required under this title for the 
     purpose of section 125.
       ``(2) Rule of application.--In any application of section 
     125 to a mortgage described in section 103(aa) under 
     circumstances described in paragraph (1), paragraphs (2) and 
     (4) of section 125(e) shall not apply or be taken into 
     account.''.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH COST CONSUMER 
                   MORTGAGES.

       (a) Single Premium Credit Insurance.--Section 129 of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections 
     (s) and (t), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (j), the following new 
     subsection:

[[Page 5405]]

       ``(k) Single Premium Credit Insurance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The terms of a mortgage referred to in 
     section 103(aa) may not require, and no creditor or other 
     person may require or allow--
       ``(A) the advance collection of a premium, on a single 
     premium basis, for any credit life, credit disability, credit 
     unemployment, or credit property insurance, and any analogous 
     product; or
       ``(B) the advance collection of a fee for any debt 
     cancellation or suspension agreement or contract,

     in connection with any such mortgage, whether such premium or 
     fee is paid directly by the consumer or is financed by the 
     consumer through such mortgage.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not be 
     construed as affecting the right of a creditor to collect 
     premium payments on insurance or debt cancellation or 
     suspension fees referred to in paragraph (1) that are 
     calculated and paid on a regular monthly basis, if the 
     insurance transaction is conducted separately from the 
     mortgage transaction, the insurance may be canceled by the 
     consumer at any time, and the insurance policy is 
     automatically canceled upon repayment or other termination of 
     the mortgage referred to in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Restriction on Financing Points and Fees.--Section 129 
     of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (k) (as added by subsection (a) of 
     this section) the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Restriction on Financing Points and Fees.--
       ``(1) Limit on amount of points and fees that may be 
     financed.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection 
     (c), no creditor may, in connection with the formation or 
     consummation of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa), 
     finance, directly or indirectly, any portion of the points, 
     fees, or other charges payable to the creditor or any third 
     party in an amount in excess of the greater of 3 percent of 
     the total loan amount or $600.
       ``(2) Prohibition on financing certain points, fees, or 
     charges.--No creditor may, in connection with the formation 
     or consummation of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa), 
     finance, directly or indirectly, any of the following fees or 
     other charges payable to the creditor or any third party:
       ``(A) Any prepayment fee or penalty required to be paid by 
     the consumer in connection with a loan or other extension of 
     credit which is being refinanced by such mortgage if the 
     creditor, with respect to such mortgage, or any affiliate of 
     the creditor, is the creditor with respect to the loan or 
     other extension of credit being refinanced.
       ``(B) Any points, fees, or other charges required to be 
     paid by the consumer in connection with such mortgage if--
       ``(i) the mortgage is being entered into in order to 
     refinance an existing mortgage of the consumer that is 
     referred to in section 103(aa); and
       ``(ii) if the creditor, with respect to such new mortgage, 
     or any affiliate of the creditor, is the creditor with 
     respect to the existing mortgage which is being 
     refinanced.''.
       (c) Creditor Call Provision.--Section 129 of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (l) (as added by subsection (b) of this section) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Creditor Call Provision.--
       ``(1) In general.--A mortgage referred to in section 
     103(aa) may not include terms under which the indebtedness 
     may be accelerated by the creditor, in the creditor's sole 
     discretion.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply when 
     repayment of the loan has been accelerated as a result of a 
     bona fide default.''.
       (d) Prohibition on Actions Encouraging Default.--Section 
     129 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended 
     by inserting after subsection (m) (as added by subsection (c) 
     of this section) the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Prohibition on Actions Encouraging Default.--No 
     creditor may make any statement, take any action, or fail to 
     take any action before or in connection with the formation or 
     consummation of any mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) 
     to refinance all or any portion of an existing loan or other 
     extension of credit, if the statement, action, or failure to 
     act has the effect of encouraging or recommending the 
     consumer to default on the existing loan or other extension 
     of credit at any time before, or in connection with, the 
     closing or any scheduled closing on such mortgage.''.
       (e) Modification or Deferral Fees.--Section 129 of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting 
     after subsection (n) (as added by subsection (d) of this 
     section) the following new subsection:
       ``(o) Modification or Deferral Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     creditor may not charge any consumer with respect to a 
     mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) any fee or other 
     charge--
       ``(A) to modify, renew, extend, or amend such mortgage, or 
     any provision of the terms of the mortgage; or
       ``(B) to defer any payment otherwise due under the terms of 
     the mortgage.
       ``(2) Exception for modifications for the benefit of the 
     consumer.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any 
     fee imposed in connection with any action described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) if--
       ``(A) the action provides a material benefit to the 
     consumer; and
       ``(B) the amount of the fee or charge does not exceed--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the total loan 
     amount; or
       ``(ii) in any case in which the total loan amount of the 
     mortgage does not exceed $60,000, an amount in excess of 
     $300.''.
       (f) Consumer Counseling Requirements.--Section 129 of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting 
     after subsection (o) (as added by subsection (e) of this 
     section) the following new subsection:
       ``(p) Consumer Counseling Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--A creditor may not extend any credit in 
     the form of a mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) to any 
     consumer, unless the creditor has provided to the consumer, 
     at such time before the consummation of the mortgage and in 
     such manner as the Board shall provide by regulation, all of 
     the following:
       ``(A) All warnings and disclosures regarding the risks of 
     the mortgage to the consumer.
       ``(B) A separate written statement recommending that the 
     consumer take advantage of available home ownership or credit 
     counseling services before agreeing to the terms of any 
     mortgage referred to in section 103(aa).
       ``(C) A written statement containing the names, addresses, 
     and telephone numbers of counseling agencies or programs 
     reasonably available to the consumer that have been certified 
     or approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, a State housing finance authority (as defined in 
     section 1301 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, 
     and Enforcement Act of 1989), or the agency referred to in 
     subsection (a) or (c) of section 108 with jurisdiction over 
     the creditor as qualified to provide counseling on--
       ``(i) the advisability of a high cost loan transaction; and
       ``(ii) the appropriateness of a high cost loan for the 
     consumer.
       ``(B) Complete and Updated Lists Required.--Any failure to 
     provide as complete or updated a list under paragraph (1)(C) 
     as is reasonably possible shall constitute a violation of 
     this section.''.
       (g) Arbitration.--Section 129 of the Truth in Lending Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting after subsection (p) 
     (as added by subsection (f) of this section) the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(q) Arbitration.--
       ``(1) In general.--A mortgage referred to in section 
     103(aa) may not include terms which require arbitration or 
     any other nonjudicial procedure as the method for resolving 
     any controversy or settling any claims arising out of the 
     transaction.
       ``(2) Post-controversy agreements.--Subject to paragraph 
     (3), paragraph (1) shall not be construed as limiting the 
     right of the consumer and the creditor to agree to 
     arbitration or any other nonjudicial procedure as the method 
     for resolving any controversy at any time after a dispute or 
     claim under the transaction arises.
       ``(3) No waiver of statutory cause of action.--No provision 
     of any mortgage referred to in section 103(aa) or any 
     agreement between the consumer and the creditor shall be 
     applied or interpreted so as to bar a consumer from bringing 
     an action in an appropriate district court of the United 
     States, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, 
     pursuant to section 130 or any other provision of law, for 
     damages or other relief in connection with any alleged 
     violation of this section, any other provision of this title, 
     or any other Federal law.''.
       (h) Prohibition on Evasions.--Section 129 of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639) is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (q) (as added by subsection (g) of this section) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(r) Prohibitions on Evasions, Structuring of 
     Transactions, and Reciprocal Arrangements.--
       ``(1) In general.--A creditor may not take any action--
       ``(A) for the purpose or with the intent to circumvent or 
     evade any requirement of this title, including entering into 
     a reciprocal arrangement with any other creditor or affiliate 
     of another creditor or dividing a transaction into separate 
     parts, for the purpose of evading or circumventing any such 
     requirement; or
       ``(B) with regard to any other loan or extension of credit 
     for the purpose or with the intent to evade the requirements 
     of this title, including structuring or restructuring a 
     consumer credit transaction as another form of loan, such as 
     a business loan.
       ``(2) Other actions.--In addition to the actions prohibited 
     under paragraph (1), a creditor may not take any action which 
     the Board determines, by regulation, constitutes a bad faith 
     effort to evade or circumvent any requirement of this section 
     with regard to a consumer credit transaction.

[[Page 5406]]

       ``(3) Regulations.--The Board shall prescribe such 
     regulations as the Board determines to be appropriate to 
     prevent circumvention or evasion of the requirements of this 
     section or to facilitate compliance with the requirements of 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO RIGHT OF RESCISSION.

       (a) Timing of Waiver by Consumer.--Section 125(a) of the 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1635(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) Except as otherwise provided'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Right Established.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Timing of election of waiver by consumer.--No 
     election by a consumer to waive the right established under 
     paragraph (1) to rescind a transaction shall be effective 
     if--
       ``(A) the waiver was required by the creditor as a 
     condition for the transaction;
       ``(B) the creditor advised or encouraged the consumer to 
     waive such right of the consumer; or
       ``(C) the creditor had any discussion with the consumer 
     about a waiver of such right during the period beginning when 
     the consumer provides written acknowledgement of the receipt 
     of the disclosures and the delivery of forms and information 
     required to be provided to the consumer under paragraph (1) 
     and ending at such time as the Board determines, by 
     regulation, to be appropriate.''.
       (b) Noncompliance With Requirements as Recoupment in 
     Foreclosure Proceeding.--Section 130(e) of the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1640(e)) is amended by inserting after 
     the 2d sentence the following new sentence: ``This subsection 
     also does not bar a person from asserting a rescission under 
     section 125, in an action to collect the debt as a defense to 
     a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure after the expiration of 
     the time periods for affirmative actions set forth in this 
     section and section 125.''.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL LIABILITY PROVISIONS.

       (a) Increase in Amount of Civil Money Penalties For Certain 
     Violations.--Section 130(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1640) is amended--
       (1) in (2)(A)(iii), by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting 
     ``$10,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``lesser of $500,000 
     or 1 percentum of the net worth of the creditor'' and 
     inserting ``the greater of--
       ``(i) the amount determined by multiplying the maximum 
     amount of liability under subparagraph (A) for such failure 
     to comply in an individual action by the number of members in 
     the certified class; or
       ``(ii) the amount equal to 2 percent of the net worth of 
     the creditor.''.
       (b) Statute of Limitations Extended For Section 129 
     Violations.--Section 130(e) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1640(e)) (as amended by section 5(b) of this Act) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the 1st sentence, by striking ``Any action'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in the subsequent sentence, 
     any action''; and
       (2) by inserting after the 1st sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``Any action under this section with respect to any 
     violation of section 129 may be brought in any United States 
     district court, or in any other court of competent 
     jurisdiction, before the end of the 3-year period beginning 
     on the date of the occurrence of the violation.''.

     SEC. 7. AMENDMENT TO FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.

       Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1681s-2) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Duty of Creditors With Respect to High Cost 
     Mortgages.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each creditor who enters into a consumer 
     credit transaction which is a mortgage referred to in section 
     103(aa), and each successor to such creditor with respect to 
     such transaction, shall report the complete payment history, 
     favorable and unfavorable, of the obligor with respect to 
     such transaction to a consumer reporting agency that compiles 
     and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis at 
     least quarterly, or more frequently as required by regulation 
     or in guidelines established by participants in the secondary 
     mortgage market, while such transaction is in effect.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     terms `credit' and `creditor' have the same meanings as in 
     section 103.''.

     SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.

       The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall 
     publish regulations implementing this Act, and the amendments 
     made by this Act, in final form before the end of the 6-month 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


  Summary of the ``Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2000''

       Definition of ``High Cost'' Mortgage: the legislation 
     tightens the definition of a ``high cost mortgage,'' for 
     which certain consumer protections are triggered. The new 
     definition, which amends the ``Home Ownership Equipment 
     Protection Act,'' is as follows: First mortgages that exceed 
     Treasury securities by six (6) percentage points; second 
     mortgages that exceed Treasury securities by eight (8) 
     percentage points; or mortgages where total points and fees 
     payable by the borrower exceed the greater of five percent 
     (5%) of the total loan amount, or $1,000. The bill revises 
     the definition of points and fees to be more inclusive.
       The following key protections are triggered for high cost 
     mortgages only:
       Restrictions on financing of points and fees. The bill 
     restricts a creditor from directly or indirectly financing 
     any portion of the points, fees or other charges greater than 
     3% of the total sum of the loan, or $600. The lender cannot 
     finance prepayment penalties or points paid by the consumer 
     if the originator of the loan is refinancing the loan. 
     Moreover, the lender or any affiliated creditor cannot 
     finance points and fees for the refinancing of a loan they 
     originated.
       Limitation on the payment of prepayment penalties. The bill 
     prohibits the lender from imposing prepayment penalties after 
     the initial 24 month period of the loan. During the first 24 
     months of a loan, prepayment penalties are limited to the 
     difference in the amount of closing costs and fees financed 
     and 3% of the total loan amount.
       Prohibition on balloon payments. The bill prohibits the use 
     of balloon payments.
       Limitation on single premium credit insurance. The bill 
     would prohibit upfront payment or financing of credit life, 
     credit disability or credit unemployment insurance on a 
     single premium basis. However, borrowers are free to purchase 
     such insurance with the regular mortgage payment on a 
     periodic basis, provided that it is a separate transaction 
     that can be canceled at any time.
       Extension of liability for home improvement contract loans. 
     The bill would make parent companies and officers of lenders, 
     or subsequent holders of loans by a contractor, liable for 
     HOEPA violations if the contractor goes out of business to 
     avoid liability.
       Limitation on mandatory arbitration clauses. The bill 
     prohibits mortgages from including terms which require 
     arbitration or other non-judicial settlement as the sole 
     method of settling claims or disputes arising under the loan 
     agreement.
       Prohibition on requiring rescission of rights. The bill 
     prohibits a creditor from requiring or encouraging a borrower 
     to sign an election not to exercise the three-day right to 
     rescind or cancel a credit transaction at the same time that 
     the borrowers receives notice of the right of rescission.
       Other provisions in the bill:
       Increase statutory damages in individual civil actions and 
     class actions. The maximum amount that can be awarded in 
     individual actions is increased to $100,000. The maximum 
     amount that can be awarded in a class action is the greater 
     of: (1) the maximum amount of the liability available for an 
     individual action multiplied by the number of members or (ii) 
     percent of the net worth of the creditor.
       Require that as a condition for making a high cost loan, a 
     creditor make a determination at the time the loan is 
     consummated, that the borrower will be able to make the 
     schedule payments to repay the loan obligation.
       Prohibit a lender from making a high cost loan unless it 
     certifies that it has provided the borrower with certain 
     information regarding the risks associated with high cost 
     loans and the availability of home ownership counseling.
       Require additional disclosures related to the risks 
     associated with high cost mortgages.
       Prohibit a creditor/lender from: (i) recommending or 
     encouraging default on an existing loan or other debt prior 
     to, or in connection with, a closing on a high cost loan, 
     (ii) including any provision which permits the creditor, in 
     its sole discretion, to accelerate the indebtedness under the 
     loan, or (iii) charging a borrower any fee to modify a high-
     cost loan or defer payment due under such high cost loan 
     unless it provides a material benefit to the borrower.
       Require that a creditor annually report both favorable and 
     unfavorable payment history of borrowers to credit bureaus.

                          ____________________