[Pages S3634-S3642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 768. A bill to establish court-martial jurisdiction over civilians
serving with the Armed Forces during contingency operations, and to
establish Federal jurisdiction over crimes committee outside the United
States by former members of the Armed Forces and civilians accompanying
the Armed Forces outside the United States; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

military and extraterritorial jurisdiction act of 1999

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Military and
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999. This bill will close a legal
loophole through which civilians who commit crimes while accompanying
the Armed Forces overseas evade punishment. Today, when a civilian
accompanies the military outside the United States, whether a relative,
a dependent, or a civilian contractor--and there are many--the civilian
is not subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and does not fall under any of the general Federal criminal
laws.
These individuals can only be prosecuted for their crimes if the host
country chooses to do so. However, there are many circumstances in
which the host country does not choose to

[[Page S3635]]

prosecute. They just often do not have an interest in the case.
Additionally, in situations such as Somalia and Haiti, when our troops
are rapidly deployed, typically no agreement exists governing how
civilians will be prosecuted until months into the operation. Indeed,
many times there are no laws in effect really in those countries. So we
believe that something must be done in this regard.
There is a glaring deficiency here and it has come to my attention
through a tragic incident. A U.S. Army dependent, not a soldier, living
on an Army base in Germany, sexually molested two dependent children.
The Army investigators found probable cause to believe that the sexual
acts had occurred. However, under German law, no action could be taken
against this juvenile.
Sometimes prosecutors are restricted by legal prohibitions, and
sometimes they just have no interest in prosecuting a case involving
Americans.
As of March 31, 1996, there were more than 240,000 family dependents
and 96,000 civilian employees overseas. These persons accompany our
troops to represent the United States, but many times they are in
effect outside the law.
In addition to the sexual molestation incident that I have already
mentioned, examples of crimes that have gone unpunished due do this
loophole are rape, assault, battery, vandalism, and drug dealing.
Although the offenders may receive some sort of administrative
punishment, such as being barred from certain areas of the base or
monetary fines, these administrative noncriminal penalties are
inadequate for the more serious violations.
Because the military continues to rely heavily on civilian assistance
and support, the United States must develop an appropriate and
effective criminal process to deal with the misbehavior of civilians.
It is important to the morale of our military forces that enlisted men
and women working outside the United States along with civilian
personnel do not believe that civilians who may commit a crime against
them are beyond criminal prosecution.
This bill would extend the reach of title 18 of the United States
Criminal Code to include those civilians that accompany the military
outside the United States. When one of these civilians commits an
offense that Congress has established as a maritime crime, the U.S.
attorney's office would have the option to exercise jurisdiction and
prosecute the offender in the United States. The bill would employ
title 18, United States Code section 3238, which provides that an
accused be tried in the U.S. district court where the offender first
appears when he is brought back to the United States.

Finally, in order to prevent legal conflicts with a jurisdiction
recognized by the United States, this bill only applies if the host
country has already prosecuted or is in the process of prosecuting the
accused.
The need for this legislation was most recently described in a report
submitted by the Overseas Jurisdiction Advisory Committee to the
Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and to this Congress. This
panel was established in section 1151 of the 1996 National Defense
Authorization Act.
In the act, Congress recognized this jurisdictional loophole needed
to be examined so it established this advisory committee to study the
problems of civilians who commit criminal acts when accompanying the
Armed Forces overseas. This committee was composed of experts in
military and civilian law from all branches of the armed services, the
Department of Justice, and the State Department. The advisory committee
found that this problem was serious enough that ``legislation is needed
to address misconduct by civilians accompanying the forces overseas in
peacetime settings.'' These experts believed that the jurisdictional
void must be closed to ``maintain order and discipline.''
The American Government must have the authority to discipline people
it sends overseas to represent and serve this country. It is
inconsistent with the American system of justice that a civilian
employee working with service members and dependents of service members
not be subject to American criminal laws. This piece of legislation is
an important step toward recognizing the changing nature of our Armed
Forces and making sure that the Criminal Code is keeping pace with the
military's changing dynamic.
As a former U.S. attorney for 12 years myself, and one who has met
frequently with victims, nothing can be more frustrating than to see a
person or a family victimized by some awful act and have to tell them:
There is no law that will vindicate you. Even though under various
other circumstances it would be a plain crime, for some technical
reason there is not a way to legally right this wrong.
So I believe this is an important bill. It closes a loophole
involving more and more Americans each year. We simply do not need to
cede away the authority to prosecute criminal acts to nations that may
have no interest whatsoever in vindicating the rights of an American
service man or woman who has been a victim of a crime.
I believe this is an important act. It has broad support, the support
of the military and support of other officials of this Government. We
think it is a needed step and I commend it to my fellow Members of the
Senate.
I also want to express my appreciation for an Alabama family whose
child was a victim of a crime, a sexual act, in a foreign country, who
is here in this Capitol today, at the Senate today, and without whose
support and encouragement this piece of legislation would not become
law and would not have reached this point.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator
Sessions, to reintroduce legislation that would close the loopholes
that permit civilians accompanying the Armed Forces and those serving
with the Armed Forces from evading punishment for crimes they committed
while abroad. Under current law, many illegal acts committed abroad by
dependents, civilian employees, and those servicing with the Armed
Forces go substantially unaddressed by either military or civilian
courts. Administrative punishments have proven equally inadequate to
address this problem.
When civilians accompany the Armed Services outside the United
States, they are not subject to prosecution under Federal criminal law
or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This has proven to be a
double-edged sword. While foreign nations frequently have no interest
in vindicating crimes committed by American civilians against other
Americans, despite the extreme seriousness of the offense, there have
been instances where the United States has had to turn over American
civilians to host countries for potentially harsh punishment because of
the absence of appropriate enforcement action. Unfortunately, this
problem is likely to worsen as there are a large number of dependents
overseas, and the number of civilian employees of the Armed Services
overseas is increasing. As for those serving with the Armed Forces,
criminal prosecutions by the military court or administrative
alternatives sometimes simply discharge the individual and send them
home, rather than imposing any serious punishment for a crime.
The case that has united Senator Sessions and me behind this
legislation is that of an Ohio resident, Amy McGough, who was stationed
in Germany, along with her husband who is from Alabama. Mrs. McGough's
8-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter were repeatedly raped and
molested by a neighbor boy who was supposed to be baby-sitting them.
While the Criminal Investigations Division of the Army found sufficient
facts, neither the Army nor Federal prosecutors had jurisdiction to
prosecute the case, and the German government would not intervene
because of the age of the perpetrator.
In such cases, our bill would guarantee that civilians, or those
serving with the Armed Forces in certain circumstances, who commit an
illegal act punishable under the Federal law by more than a year's
imprisonment, will be subject to the special maritime or territorial
jurisdiction of the United States for prosecution by a military court
or for Federal criminal prosecution. Neither civilians connected with
the Armed Forces nor those serving with the Armed Forces abroad accused
of rape, child molestation or some other serious felony will simply be
allowed to resign or leave the foreign country to avoid punishment.
They will be subject to Federal prosecution.

[[Page S3636]]

We need to make sure that an appropriate criminal process exists in
these circumstances. Letting these individuals back on America's
streets does little to hold them accountable, and nothing to protect
our communities here at home. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague,
Senator Sessions, who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee,
in working with me to introduce this legislation to address our mutual
concern.
______

By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 769. A bill to provide a final settlement on certain debt owed by
the city of Dickinson, ND, for the construction of the bascule gates on
the Dickinson Dam; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

the dickinson dam bascule gates settlement act of 1999

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dickinson
Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act of 1999 and I am pleased that my
colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, is an original cosponsor
of the bill. This legislation would permit the Secretary of the
Interior to accept a one-time, lump-sum payment for the city of
Dickinson, ND, in lieu of the annual payments required under the city's
existing repayment contract for construction of the ``bascule gates''
on the Dickinson Dam on the Heart River. This bill would resolve a
long-standing issue for the city of Dickinson and the Bureau of
Reclamation. The Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act is nearly
identical to a bill I introduced last June, and it is my hope that the
Senate will quickly consider and pass this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. President, the history of the bascule gates is long and complex.
The Bureau of Reclamation constructed the Dickinson Dam on the Heart
River in 1949 and 1950 to supply water to the city of Dickinson, and
for flood control, recreation, and other purposes. The reservoir
created by this dam was named Patterson Lake in about 1960.
The need for additional water supply for the city was identified in
the early 1970's, and the bascule gates were constructed in the early
1980's, to provide additional water storage capacity in Lake Patterson.
At the time, the city expressed reservations over the cost of the
bascule gates and the viability of the gates, since the city was not
aware of any other location in a northern climate in which the gates
had been tested or proven. In 1982, shortly after the gates were
operational, a large ice block caused excessive pressure on the
hydraulic system, causing it to fail. Construction modifications were
made to the gate hydraulic system and a de-icing system were added in
1982, adding further costs to the project.
In 1991, the city began to receive its municipal water supply from
the Southwest Pipeline Project, a project constructed in part with
funds provided for North Dakota's statewide water project, the Garrison
Diversion project, which is another Bureau of Reclamation project. The
Southwest Pipeline brings high-quality water from Lake Sakakawea on the
Missouri River to the city of Dickinson and other communities in
southwest North Dakota. The water is of much higher quality that the
water from the city's previous supply from Lake Patterson, and has
helped spur economic development in the region. While the citizens of
the area now benefit from a higher quality water supply, the city no
longer benefits from the additional water supply provided by the
bascule gates. The result is the city is paying for two Bureau of
Reclamation projects, while it is using water from only one of those
projects for its municipal water supply. The city has repaid more than
$1.2 million to the United States for the bascule gates, despite the
fact that the gates now provide almost no direct benefit to the city.
The city has previously investigated alternatives to the current
situation. The city has discussed the option of assuming title to the
dam and bascule gates, as well as attempting to negotiate a new
agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation administratively. However,
because the terms of the existing contract are outlined statutorily,
new legislation is required to make any changes to the current
repayment contract.

The legislation I am introducing today would do three primary things.
First, it would permit the Interior Secretary to accept a lump-sum
payment of $300,000 from the city and terminate the remaining annual
payments required under the existing repayment contract. This is an
increase from last year's legislation, which called for a $150,000
final settlement. Enacting this legislation would end the issue of
paying for the construction of these gates for both the city and the
Federal government.
Second, my bill would require the Secretary to reallocate the costs
of operation and maintenance for the bascule gates and the Dickinson
Dam. The bill does not prescribe any particular reallocation formula,
but does require the Secretary to consider the fact that the current
benefits of the dam and bascule gates are primarily for flood control,
recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes. In my view, operation and
maintenance costs should be borne by those who benefit from a
particular project.
Finally, my bill would permit the Secretary to enter any appropriate
water service contracts in the future if the city or any other entity
uses water from Patterson Lake for municipal water supply or for other
purposes. It is only fair that if the city benefits in the future from
the water stored behind the bascule gates that we preserve an option
for recovering additional costs from those beneficiaries.
Mr. President, this legislation represents a win-win situation for
the residents of the Dickinson area and for the Federal Government. I
hope this Congress will carefully study this issue and quickly pass
this important 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. 769

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 ``Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates
Settlement Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) in 1980 and 1981, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed
the bascule gates on top of the Dickinson Dam on the Heart
River, North Dakota, to provide additional water supply in
the reservoir known as Patterson Lake for the city of
Dickinson, North Dakota, and for additional flood control and
other benefits;
(2) the gates had to be significantly modified in 1982
because of damage resulting from a large ice block causing
excessive pressure on the hydraulic system, causing the
system to fail;
(3) since 1991, the City has received its water supply from
the Southwest Water Authority, which provides much higher
quality water from the Southwest Pipeline Project;
(4) the City now receives almost no benefit from the
bascule gates because the City does not require the
additional water provided by the bascule gates for its
municipal water supply;
(5) the City has repaid more than $1,200,000 to the United
States for the construction of the bascule gates, and has
been working for several years to reach an agreement with the
Bureau of Reclamation to alter its repayment contract;
(6) the City has a longstanding commitment to improving the
water quality and recreation value of the reservoir and has
been working with the United States Geological Survey, the
North Dakota Department of Game and Fish, and the North
Dakota Department of Health to improve water quality; and
(7) it is in the public interest to resolve this issue by
providing for a single payment to the United States in lieu
of the scheduled annual payments and for the termination of
any further repayment obligation.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Bascule gates.--The term ``bascule gates'' means the
structure constructed on the Dam to provide additional water
storage capacity in the Lake.
(2) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Dickinson,
North Dakota.
(3) Dam.--The term ``Dam'' means Dickinson Dam on the Heart
River, North Dakota.
(4) Lake.--The term ``Lake'' means the reservoir known as
``Patterson Lake'' in the State of North Dakota.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation.

SEC. 4. FORGIVENESS OF DEBT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept a 1-time
payment of $300,000 in lieu of the existing repayment
obligations of the City under the Bureau of Reclamation
Contract No. 9-07-60W0384, dated December 19, 1988, toward
which amount any payments

[[Page S3637]]

made by the City to the Secretary on or after June 2, 1998,
shall be credited.
(b) Ownership.--Title to the Dam and bascule gates shall
remain with the United States.
(c) Costs.--
(1) In general.--In consultation with the City and the
State of North Dakota, the Secretary shall reallocate
responsibility for the operation and maintenance costs of the
Dam and bascule gates.
(2) Consideration of benefits.--The reallocation of costs
shall reflect the fact that the benefits of the Dam and
bascule gates are mainly for flood control, recreation, and
fish and wildlife purposes.
(d) Water Service Contracts.--The Secretary may enter into
appropriate water service contracts if the City or any other
person or entity seeks to use water from the Lake for
municipal water supply or other purposes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from North
Dakota, Mr. Conrad, in introducing a bill to provide a final settlement
on certain debts owned by the City of Dickinson, North Dakota, to the
Bureau of Reclamation. The legislation is virtually identical to that
introduced during the last Congress.
The Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act will provide long
overdue relief to the citizens of Dickinson. Let me briefly explain why
the debt liquidation is needed and appropriate. For one thing, the
Bureau of Reclamation built a faulty project. The debt was incurred by
the City of Dickinson for construction of a dam with gate structures
which never worked properly. In addition, the need for the dam to help
provide a reliable local water supply was eclipsed by the construction
of the Southwest Pipeline, a project of the same Bureau of Reclamation.
The legislation itself is actually quite simple. It would permit the
Secretary of the Interior to accept one final payment from the City of
Dickinson in place of a series of payments now required by city's
current repayment contract.
My colleague has described in some detail the complicated and
frustrating story of the dam and bascule gates project. Let me
underscore a couple of major points. In 1949 and 1950, the dam was
constructed to provide an adequate water supply for the City of
Dickinson, as well as some flood control and recreation. The bascule
gates were added to augment storage capacity in the reservoir called
Patterson Lake. Despite the city's concerns about the use of a gate
structure on the dam, which had not previously been used in a northern
climate, the gates actually failed in 1982. The ensuing modifications
increased the cost of the project.
Another twist in the story is that by 1991 the city no longer needed
the Patterson Lake water supply. As noted, it began to receive its
water supply from the Southwest Pipeline. This is a major distribution
network of the Garrison Diversion Unit, another Bureau of Reclamation
project. This system provides both higher quality and more reliable
water supplies than the city's previous supply from Patterson Lake.
Consequently, it makes no sense for the City of Dickinson to have two
water supply systems when it needs only one--especially when the first
system was a faulty one. The city has already repaid more than $1.2
million for the bascule gates, even though they now provide virtually
no benefit to the city.
Last year, I was able to pass an appropriations amendment to provide
partial relief for the city's debt. Unfortunately, this provision
stalled in the conference committee. The North Dakota delegation also
added an amendment for more complete debt relief to a package of water
management projects, which did not pass in the last days of 1998
session.
Thus, we need to provide authority for Dickinson to settle its debt,
to reallocate costs for operation and maintenance of the bascule gates
and Dickinson Dam, and to permit the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into appropriate water service contracts with the city for any
beneficial use of the water in Patterson Lake. The proposed legislation
will address those three objectives while also providing a fair
settlement for the Federal Government and the City of Dickinson.
I want to commend my colleague from North Dakota for his leadership
and cooperation in developing a sound solution to this problem. In
term, I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this needed
legislation.
______

By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 770. A bill to provide reimbursement under the medicare program
for telehealth services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.

THE COMPREHENSIVE TELEHEALTH ACT OF 1999

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by
Senator Daschle, Senator Wellstone, Senator Inouye, Senator Harkin, and
Senator Murkowski to introduce legislation to help improve health care
delivery in rural and underserved communities throughout America
through the use of telecommunications and telehealth technology.
Telehealth encompasses a wide variety of technologies, ranging from
the telephone to high-tech equipment that enables a surgeon to perform
surgery from thousands of miles away. It includes interactive video
equipment, fax machines and computers along with satellites and fiber
optics. These technologies can be used to diagnose patients, deliver
care, transfer health data, read X-rays, provide consultation and
educate health professionals. Telehealth also includes the electronic
storage and transmission of personally identifiable health information,
such as medical records, test results, and insurance claims.
The promise of telehealth is becoming increasingly apparent.
Throughout the country, providers are experimenting with a variety of
telehealth approaches in an effort to improve access to quality medical
and other health-related services. Those programs are demonstrating
that telecommunications technology can alleviate the constraints of
time and distance, as well as the cost and inconvenience of
transporting patients to medical providers. Many approaches show
promising results in reducing health care costs and bringing adequate
care to all Americans. For the first time, technological advances and
the development of a national information infrastructure give
telehealth the potential to overcome barriers to health care services
for rural Americans and afford them the access that most Americans take
for granted. But it is clear that our nation must do more to integrate
telehealth into our overall health care delivery infrastructure.
Because so many rural and underserved communities lack the ability to
attract and support a wide variety of health care professionals and
services, it is important to find a way to bring the most important
medical services into those communities. Telehealth provides an
important part of the answer. It helps bring services to remote areas
in a quick, cost-effective manner, and can enable patients to avoid
traveling long distances in order to receive health care treatment.
We have made progress. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 includes a
provision that provides for some Medicare reimbursement of telehealth
services. Unfortunately, however, the Health Care Financing
Administration interpreted the legislative language too narrowly and
severely limited the services that are covered. This bill clarifies the
intent of Congress regarding Medicare reimbursement and thereby
increases access to these services in underserved areas.
The first element of my proposal clarifies and expands Medicare
reimbursement for telehealth. Medicare reimbursement policy is an
essential component of helping to integrate telehealth into the health
care infrastructure and is particularly important in rural areas, where
many hospitals do as much as 80% of their business with Medicare
patients. Because the Secretary defined reimbursable services so
narrowly in the BBA, this legislation clarifies that all services that
are covered under Medicare Part B if you drive to a doctor's office,
are covered via telehealth. In particular, it clarifies that the
technology called ``store and forward'', which is a cost-effective
method of transferring information, is included in this reimbursement
policy. Finally, this bill expands coverage from health professional
shortage areas, as enacted in 1997, to cover all rural areas.
The second element of this proposal asks the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to submit a report to the Congress on the status of
efforts to

[[Page S3638]]

ease licensing burdens on practitioners who cross state lines in the
course of supplying telehealth services. Currently, consultation by
almost any licensed health professional in this situation requires that
the practitioner be licensed in both states.
In talking with telehealth providers in my state, and with experts on
the Ad Hoc Committee, I have been told repeatedly that this is one of
the most significant barriers to developing broad, integrated
telehealth systems. More importantly, they tell me states have actively
been using licensure to close their borders to innovative telehealth
practice. Many states have taken legislative action to ensure that out-
of-state practitioners must be fully licensed in their state in order
to provide telehealth services, even if they are fully licensed in
their own state. During a discussion with a telehealth practitioner
from my home state of North Dakota, I was told about a group of
telehealth specialists who, among their small group practice, were
licensed in more than thirty different states. That means they pay
thirty different fees, are responsible for thirty different continuing
education requirements, and are overseen by thirty different regulatory
bodies. This is a costly and burdensome procedure for many
practitioners, but the burden falls particularly heavily on rural
practitioners, who face long travel times to acquire continuing
education, and who frequently run on lower profit margins than urban
practitioners.

While I am not prepared at this time to propose that the federal
government get involved with professional licensure, I have asked the
Secretary to study the issue and report to Congress yearly on the
status of efforts by states and other interested organizations to
address this issue. This will allow us to reach out to the states and
work together to find solutions to cross-state licensure concerns. As
part of this report, I have asked to the Secretary to make
recommendations to Congress, if appropriate, about possible federal
action to lower the licensure barrier.
A third element of my proposal involves coordination of the Federal
telehealth effort. The Department of Health and Human Services has
created an informal interagency task force that is examining our
federal agency telehealth efforts. This group reported on Federal
activities related to telehealth and provided a thorough examination of
many of the important issues in telehealth.
My bill attempts to use that task force to inventory Federal activity
on telehealth and related technology, determine what applications have
been found successful, and recommend an overall Federal policy approach
to telehealth. Many departments and agencies of the Federal government
are engaged in telehealth activity, including the Veterans
Administration, Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture,
Office for the Advancement of Telehealth, and many others. The more
these agencies work together to coordinate the Federal effort and
consolidate Federal resources, the more effective the Federal
government will be in contributing to telehealth in a positive way. I
believe this is especially important in light of the GAO report calling
for an expanded role for this group and more coordination of telehealth
issues across the Federal agencies. The efforts of this group, along
with the ongoing activities of the Congressional Ad Hoc Steering
Committee, will provide a renewed focus for telehealth across the
Federal government. Such coordination will also help protect the
American taxpayer from unnecessary duplication of effort.
The fourth part of my proposal helps communities build home-grown
telehealth networks. It attempts both to build a telehealth
infrastructure and foster rural economic development and incorporates
many of the most important lessons learned from other grant projects
and studies on telehealth from across the Federal government.
Clearly, the scarcity of resources in many rural communities requires
that the coordination and use of those resources be maximized. My bill
encourages cooperation by various local entities in an effort to help
build sustainable telehealth programs in rural communities. It plants
seed money to encourage health care providers to join with other
segments of the community to jointly use telecommunications resources.
Using a unique loan forgiveness program, it rewards telehealth systems
that supply appropriate, high-quality care while reducing overall
health care costs.
Most importantly, it does not create a system where various
technological approaches are imposed upon communities. Rather it
enables potential grantees to determine user-friendly approaches that
work best for them. This home-grown approach to developing user-
friendly telehealth systems, as well as the preference for coordinating
resources within communities, will help ensure the long-term viability
of such programs after the grant expires.
Mr. President, my proposal continues our national efforts to
integrate telecommunications technology into the rapidly evolving
health care delivery system. I am very encouraged by the positive
feedback I have received from telehealth networks across the country. I
have continued to work with telehealth networks and representatives to
strengthen this proposal. As a result, I have made several changes in
the bill that I believe will make this a stronger proposal. But, as
with any complex issue, I understand that some may prefer different
approaches. I would like to continue to encourage all interested
parties to come forward with creative solutions to these important
issues. It is my hope that telehealth legislation can be included in
the comprehensive rural health care legislation in this Congress so we
can continue to improve access to needed health care services for rural
and underserved populations.
______

By Mr. ROBB:
S. 771. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize
the memorialization at the columbarium at Arlington National Cemetery
of veterans who have donated their remains to science, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

VETERANS LEGISLATION

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, late last summer, a Virginian contacted my
office to request my intervention in a matter which had brought
considerable anguish and frustration to her family.

She informed me that her father, a decorated veteran of World War II
and a career civil servant, had recently passed away. Before his death,
however, he made two simple requests: one, that his body be donated to
science, and two, that his ashes be placed in the Arlington National
Cemetery. His widow, now 72, honored the first of those wishes. But in
honoring the first request, she found out that the second was
precluded.
The family learned that, due to various legal concerns, ashes of
organ donors who donate their bodies to science are not returned to the
families of the donors. Unfortunately, due to the regulations governing
Arlington National Cemetery, veterans cannot be memorialized in the
Columbarium unless their remains are actually inurned there. Oddly, it
so happens that if his spouse had predeceased him, her remains would
already have been inurned in a niche at Arlington, awaiting his
remains.
While I can appreciate that limited space at Arlington has
necessitated adherence to strict guidelines for burial and
memorialization, I cannot see the virtue in denying appropriate
recognition for an entitled veteran simply because he has donated his
remains to science. In fact, I would like to encourage more veterans to
do just that.
All of us recognize the great need for viable remains for both
transplantation and for medical study. Veterans who make this
courageous commitment should be suitably recognized and their loved
ones should know that a grateful nation has made a place for them at
one of our country's most sacred memorials.
With that said, I submit this bill which seeks to modify current
regulations to allow otherwise qualified veterans, who have donated
their remains to science, to be memorialized at the Columbarium in
Arlington National Cemetery, notwithstanding the absence of their
cremated remains.
Mr. President, I salute these veterans and their devoted families,
and 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. 771

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

[[Page S3639]]

SECTION 1. MEMORIALIZATION AT COLUMBARIUM AT ARLINGTON
NATIONAL CEMETERY OF VETERANS WHO HAVE DONATED
THEIR REMAINS TO SCIENCE.

(a) Authority To Memorialize.--(1) Chapter 24 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 2412. Arlington National Cemetery: memorialization at
columbarium of veterans who have donated their remains to
science

``The Secretary of the Army may honor, by marker or other
appropriate means at the columbarium at Arlington National
Cemetery, the memory of any veteran eligible for inurnment in
the columbarium whose cremated remains cannot be inurned in
the columbarium as a result of the donation of the veteran's
organs or remains for medical or scientific purposes.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of that chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``2412. Arlington National Cemetery: memorialization at columbarium of
veterans who have donated their remains to science.''.

(b) Applicability.--Section 2412 of title 38, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply to veterans who
die on or after January 1, 1996.
______

By Mr. ROBB:
S. 772. A bill to amend section 8339(p) of title 5, United States
Code, to clarify the computations of certain civil service retirement
system annuities based on part-time service, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ANNUITIES CLARIFICATION

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will
correct current calculations of federal retirement annuities that
unfairly penalizes federal civil servants who switch to part-time
service at the end of their careers.
The Congress included provisions in the 1986 Civil Service amendments
contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that
reformed the part-time service calculations for retirement, so that
part-time workers would not receive the same annuities as full-time
workers. I believe that was a fair and equitable reform. However, after
receiving a letter from one of my fellow Virginians, L. David Jones, it
is clear that there have been errors in the interpretation of the
provision.
Mr. Jones worked for the Naval Research Lab until his retirement in
February, 1995. He worked there full-time for 30 years and part-time
for five years after his 30 years of full-time service. He elected
part-time service at the end of his career to not only to ease into
retirement, but to help his colleagues better manage an increased
workload. But because of the misinterpretation of the provision, he
would have been better off retiring at the end of his 30 years. Instead
of being praised for his additional service, his situation now serves
as a cautionary tale for others who wish to transition into retirement
and help their colleagues: if you switch to part-time service after a
long career as a full-time worker, your annuities will be reduced.
Clearly, that is not the intent of the provision.
Mr. Jones and his wife sought judicial remedies to no avail. He and
his family simply want his annuity calculated accurately. That is why I
am introducing this legislation today.
Mr. President, by passing this legislation we will ensure that
federal retirees like Mr. Jones and others are not unjustly penalized
for working part-time at the end of their careers. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on the Government Affairs Committee to
ensure its consideration and favorable recommendation as quickly as
possible.
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. 772

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

SECTION 1. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ANNUITY
COMPUTATIONS BASED ON PART-TIME SERVICE.

(a) In General.--Section 8339(p) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) In the administration of paragraph (1)--
``(A) subparagraph (A) of such paragraph shall apply to any
service performed on a part-time basis before, on, or after
April 7, 1986;
``(B) subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall apply to all
service performed on a part-time or full-time basis on or
after April 7, 1986; and
``(C) any service performed on a part-time basis before
April 7, 1986, shall be credited as service performed on a
full-time basis.''.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendment
made under subsection (a) shall apply to the computation of
any annuity with a date of commencement on or after April 7,
1986.
(2) Annuity payments.--The computation of an annuity based
on the amendment made under subsection (a) shall apply only
with respect to annuity payments made on or after the first
day of the first applicable pay period beginning 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. BREAUX:
S. 773. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the active business definition relating to distributions of stock and
securities of controlled corporations; to the Committee on Finance.

Amendment to Internal Revenue Code Section 355(b)(2)

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce a bill
that would make a technical change in the Internal Revenue Code. We
often talk about the need to simplify the Tax Code. The change I
propose today would do that.
This change is small but very important. It would not alter the
substance of current law in any way. It would, however, greatly
simplify a common corporate transaction. This small technical change
will alone save corporations millions of dollars in unnecessary
expenses and economic costs that are incurred when they divide their
businesses.
The Treasury Department agrees that there is a technical problem with
the drafting of the Tax Code and has agreed to work with me on this
proposal. In fact, the President included a similar provision to
correct this problem in his budget. I am introducing today the same
bill I introduced during the last session of Congress, but expect to
work with Treasury to perfect the language and make sure that
corporations are not further hampered by this problem.
Corporations, and affiliated groups of corporations, often find it
advantageous, or even necessary, to separate two or more businesses.
The division of AT&T from its local telephone companies is an example
of such a transaction. The reasons for these corporate divisions are
many, but probably chief among them is the ability of management to
focus on one core business.
At the end of the day, when a corporation divides, the stockholders
simply have the stock of two corporations, instead of one. The Tax Code
recognizes this is not an event that should trigger tax, as it includes
corporate divisions among the tax-free reorganization provisions.
One requirement the Tax Code imposes on corporate divisions is very
awkwardly drafted, however. As a result, an affiliated group of
corporations that wishes to divide must often engage in complex and
burdensome preliminary reorganizations in order to accomplish what, for
a single corporate entity, would be a rather simple and straightforward
spinoff of a business to its shareholders. The small technical change I
propose today would eliminate the need for these unnecessary
transactions, while keeping the statute true to Congress's original
purpose.
More specifically, section 355 (and related provisions of the Code)
permits a corporation or an affiliated group of corporations to divide
on a tax-free basis into two or more separate entities with separate
businesses. There are numerous requirements for tax-free treatment of a
corporate division, or ``spinoff,'' including continuity of historical
shareholder interest, continuity of the business enterprises, business
purpose, and absence of any device to distribute earnings and profits.
In addition, section 355 requires that each of the divided corporate
entities be engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business. The
proposed change would alter none of these substantive requirements of
the Code.
Section 355(b)(2)(A) currently provides an attribution or
``lookthrough'' rule for groups of corporations that operate active
businesses under a holding company, which is necessary because a
holding company, by definition, is not itself engaged in an active
business.

[[Page S3640]]

This lookthrough rule inexplicably requires, however, that
``substantially all'' of the assets of the holding company consist of
stock of active controlled subsidiaries. The practical effect of this
language is to prevent holding companies from engaging in spinoffs if
they own almost any other assets. This is in sharp contrast to
corporations that operate businesses directly, which can own
substantial assets unrelated to the business and still engage in tax-
free spinoff transactions.
In the real world, of course, holding companies may, for many sound
business reasons, hold other assets, such as non-controlling (less than
80 percent) interests in subsidiaries, controlled subsidiaries that
have been owned for less than five years (which are not considered
``active businesses'' under section 355), or a host of nonbusiness
assets. Such holding companies routinely undertake spinoff
transactions, but because of the awkward language used in section
355(b)(2)(A), they must first undertake one or more (often a series of)
preliminary reorganizations solely for the purpose of complying with
this inexplicable language of the Code.
Such preliminary reorganizations are at best costly, burdensome, and
without any business purpose, and at worst, they seriously interfere
with business operations. In a few cases, they may be so costly as to
be prohibitive, and cause the company to abandon an otherwise sound
business transaction that is clearly in the best interest of the
corporation and the businesses it operates.
There is no tax policy reason, tax advisors agree, to require the
reorganization of a consolidated group that is clearly engaged in the
active conduct of a trade or business, as a condition to a spinoff. Nor
is there any reason to treat affiliated groups differently than single
operating companies. Indeed, no one has ever suggested one. The
legislative history indicates Congress was concerned about non-
controlled subsidiaries, which is elsewhere adequately addressed, not
consolidated groups.
For many purposes, the Tax Code treats affiliated groups as a single
corporation. Therefore, the simple remedy I am proposing today for the
problem created by the awkward language of section 355(b)(2)(A) is to
apply the active business test to an affiliated group as if it were a
single entity.
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. 773

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF ACTIVE BUSINESS DEFINITION.

(a) In General.--Section 355(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining active conduct of a trade or business)
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes
of subparagraph (A), all corporations that are members of the
same affiliated group (as defined in section 1504(a)) shall
be treated as a single corporation.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions or transfer after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. BREAUX:
S. 774. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the deduction for meal and entertainment expenses of small businesses;
to the Committee on Finance.

Business Meal Deduction for Small Businesses

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important
bill for small businesses in Louisiana and throughout our country that
I also introduced during the 105th Congress. My bill would restore the
80 percent deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses,
thus eliminating a tax burden that has seriously hampered many small
businesses in our country.
Small business is a powerful economic engine, both nationwide and in
Louisiana. Small businesses have helped to create the prosperity that
we have all enjoyed in the last few years. They are leaders in the
innovation and technology development that will sustain our economy in
the 21st century. Nationwide, small business employs 53 percent of the
private work force, contributes 47 percent of all sales in the country,
and is responsible for 50 percent of the private gross domestic
product.
For these reasons, I believe the tax code should encourage, not
discourage, small business development and growth. For the more than
225,000 self-employed and for the thousands of small businesses in
Louisiana, business meals and entertainment take the place of
advertising, marketing, and conference meetings. These expenses are a
core business development cost. As such, a large percentage of these
costs should be deductible.
For many years, businesses were allowed to deduct 100 percent of
business meals and entertainment expenses. In 1987, this deduction was
reduced to 80 percent. The deduction was further reduced in 1994 to 50
percent because of the misconception that these meals were ``three
martini lunches.''
Contrary to this perception, studies show that the primary
beneficiary of the business meal deduction is not the wealthy business
person. Studies indicate that over two-thirds of the business meal
spenders have incomes of less than $60,000 and 37 percent have incomes
below $40,000. Low to moderately priced restaurants are the most
popular types for business meals, with the average check equaling less
than $20. In addition, 50 percent of most business meals occur in small
towns and rural areas.
In 1995, just one year after the deduction was reduced to 50 percent,
the White House Conference on Small Business established the
restoration of the deduction as one of its top priorities for boosting
small business. In Louisiana alone, it is expected that the positive
economic impact of this proposal could exceed $67 million in
industries, such as the travel and restaurant industry, that employ
over 120,000 people. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Mr. TORRICELLI:
S. 775. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to conduct a feasibility study for applying airport
bubbles as a method of identifying, assessing, and reducing the adverse
environmental impacts of airport ground and flight operations and
improving the overall quality of the environment, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Right To Know About Airport Pollution Act

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Right To
Know About Airport Pollution Act, and ask that my remarks be placed in
the Record at the appropriate place. This important legislation will
allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with
the FAA, to conduct a nationwide study of air, water, solid waste and
noise pollution generated by airports across the U.S. every day. In
addition, the bill will direct the EPA to determine whether current air
emission standards are sufficient to protect the environment, and will
require airports to be listed under Community Right To Know laws
governing the use of hazardous materials.
Many of my colleagues and I hear everyday from constituents who are
concerned by the pollution, including noise pollution, created by
airports in our states. In 1996, a Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) report confirmed that US airports rival smokestack industries in
the amount of pollution they release into the environment. This growing
problem affects every state in our nation and millions of our
constituents. You do not have to be from a state with a large airport
to understand that pollution associated with these facilities severely
affects the health and impacts the quality of life of our constituents.
While we must recognize that airport expansion is an inevitable by-
product of a vibrant economy, and that the government has a
responsibility to foster economic growth and jobs, we also have an
equal responsibility to mitigate the hazardous affects of pollution and
noise on our constituents. The studies produced as a result of this
legislation will give us a better idea as to the magnitude of the
pollution problem caused by airports, and will allow us to prepare a
commensurate response.
Again, I would like to thank my colleagues who have demonstrated
interest in this issue and look forward to the passage of this
important legislation.

[[Page S3641]]

______

By Mr. FITZGERALD:
S. 777. A bill to require the Department of Agriculture to establish
an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file
all required paperwork electronically with the Department and to have
access to public information on farm programs, quarterly trade,
economic, and production reports, and other similar information; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

freedom to e-file act

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to streamline the process our farmers follow when filing paper work
with the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Currently, when farmers are
required to fill out USDA paper work, they are required to travel to
their local USDA county offices, complete the paper work, wait in long
lines and file these documents in paper form. This process is very
inefficient and time consuming.
The bill that I introduce today simply requires USDA to develop a
system for farmers to access and file this paper work over the
internet. This legislation entitled the ``Freedom to E-file Act''
simply makes good common sense. As our society has become more
technologically advanced so have our farmers. In fact, a 1998 Novartis
survey found that over 72 percent of all farmers with 500 acres or more
had personal computers. Overall, over fifty percent of all farmers
surveyed had computers.
Our agriculturalists use computers not only for financial management
and market information but for sophisticated precision agriculture
management systems. These sophisticated small business owners could
easily file necessary farm program paperwork from their homes and
offices if only this option was available.
Farmers are often frustrated with the long lines at county USDA
offices, especially during their most hectic times such as harvest
season. Our nation's farmers are clearly overburdened by government-
required paperwork. This bill is the first step in the right direction
toward regulatory reform for our U.S. food producers.
This legislation is budget neutral and USDA would implement the bill
using existing funds. I want to recognize and commend my colleague,
Congressman Ray LaHood, for championing the companion to this bill in
the House of Representatives. This bill should enjoy bipartisan
support. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this bill
important to our nation's farmers.
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. 777

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 ``Freedom to E-File Act''.

SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING AND RETRIEVAL.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable
the public to file all required paperwork electronically with
the Department of Agriculture and to have access to public
information on farm programs, quarterly trade, economic, and
production reports, and other similar information.
(b) Progress Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to
Congress on the progress made toward implementing subsection
(a).
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Moynihan, and
Mr. Schumer):
S. 779. A bill to provide that no Federal income tax shall be imposed
on amounts received by Holocaust victims or their heirs; to the
Committee on Finance.

holocaust era assets tax exclusion act of 1999

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Holocaust Era Assets Tax Exclusion Act of 1999, along with my
colleagues Senators Moynihan and Schumer. Mr. President, survivors of
the Holocaust who had assets withheld from them by Swiss banks or
others have finally received justice in the form of a settlement
between the banks and the survivor's attorneys in August 1998. The
settlement was for $1.25 billion for survivors worldwide. This
settlement will finally return the assets to survivors more than fifty
years after they first entrusted them to the banks.
In addition to these recipients, there are survivors who are needy
and have received one-time payments from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund
established by the Swiss government. In both cases, any payment from
the Swiss banks or other similar sources like this, should be excluded
from taxation because they are receiving back what was rightfully
theirs to begin with. The sum total of payments coming to the needy
Holocaust survivors in the United States from this fund is $31.4
million.
Moreover, funds are being established by banks and corporations in
France, Austria, Italy, and Germany to compensate claimants for
wrongfully held bank deposits, insurance policies, slave labor, and
other losses.
Survivors who have sued banks, insurance companies, and manufacturers
which profited from slave labor during the Holocaust, did so because
there was no other way for them to seek justice. Deprived of their
assets, or those of their families for over fifty years, survivors
fought unsuccessfully until now to receive what belonged to them.
With the average age of Holocaust survivors at 80, there is little
time for debate over these payments which will ease life for the
survivors in their final years. To tax them for the long overdue
receipt of assets would be wrong and immoral. What these survivors will
receive from the various funds will be money that is rightfully theirs
in the first place.
The survivors of man's greatest inhumanity to man deserve justice.
After escaping death at the hands of the Nazis, they were again
victimized by European bankers and insurers. Those who endured the
tortures of slave labor have never been compensated for their servitude
to the Nazis. Now that they have received some measure of justice, let
us not make them wait any longer for what is rightfully theirs.
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. 779

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

SECTION 1. NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY
HOLOCAUST VICTIMS OR THEIR HEIRS.

(a) In General.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, gross income shall not include any amount received
by an individual (or any heir of the individual)--
(1) from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund established by the
Government of Switzerland or from any similar fund
established by any foreign country, or
(2) as a result of the settlement of the action entitled
``In re Holocaust Victims' Asset Litigation'', (E.D. NY),
C.A. No. 96-4849, or as a result of any similar action.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to any amount
received before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Fitzgerald,
Moynihan, and Schumer in introducing this important legislation, which
would prevent the federal government from taxing away any monies
obtained by Holocaust survivors or their families in a settlement
related to thefts by the Nazis or their sympathizers.
The horrors of the Nazi regime and its atrocities remain very much
with us. Many people in America and around the world, particularly
Jews, must live every day with memories of atrocities suffered or
witnessed, either by themselves or by those they love, during the Nazi
terror. Ghettoes, death camps and simple murder were the stuff of daily
life for millions of innocent people during this terrible time of Nazi
power.
Only recently has public attention been properly directed toward
another great crime of the Nazi regime and those who cooperated with
it: A 1998 study by the Institute of the World Jewish Congress
estimates that between $90 billion and $140 billion in today's dollars
was stolen from the Jewish populations of countries occupied by the
Nazis. In addition to committing outright theft and looting, the Nazis
seized liquid assets that could be converted easily into cash, such as
insurance policy proceeds and bank accounts. Documents discovered by
Risk International Services, Inc., an insurance archaeology firm, show
that the Nazis specifically targeted insurance policies held by Jews as
a source of

[[Page S3642]]

funding for their expansionist, totalitarian regime.
Some insurance companies also specifically (and illegally) targeted
Jewish families. Knowing that Jewish policy holders soon would be taken
to concentration camps, these firms sold specifically tailored
policies, taking as much cash as possible up front, with no intention
of honoring their obligations.
After the war, Holocaust survivors attempted to collect on their
policies, access their bank accounts and/or reclaim assets that had
been illegally seized. Unfortunately, governments, banks and insurance
companies failed to fulfill their duty to treat Holocaust victims with
justice and dignity. Instead, Mr. President, they refused to honor
policies or return stolen assets. In this way they compounded crime
with crime and denied people who already had suffered more than most of
us could bear the rightful means by which to rebuild their lives.
Finally, after over 50 years of injustice, Holocaust survivors and
their families are reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. But, even as
we support these efforts to reclaim stolen property, I believe we must
do our part in protecting the proceeds. Under current law, any money
received by Holocaust survivors in their settlements with banks and
other organizations that once cooperated with the Nazis would be
treated as gross income for federal tax purposes.
Mr. President, I firmly believe that victims of the Holocaust have
suffered far too much for any such taxation to be just. These
settlements represent but a fraction of what is owed to those who
suffered under Nazi tyranny. To treat them as income subject to
taxation would be wrong.
This is why this legislation is so important. It will prevent the
federal government from taxing away any monies obtained by Holocaust
survivors or their families in a settlement related to thefts by the
Nazis or their sympathizers. It will prevent yet another injustice from
being done to those who survived the brutal Nazi regime. It will also
keep our nation firmly on the side of justice.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 781. A bill to amend section 2511 of title 18, United States Code,
to revise the consent exception to the prohibition on the interception
of oral, wire, or electronic communications that is applicable to
telephone communications; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Telephone Privacy Act of 1999

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the
``Telephone Privacy Act of 1999.'' This legislation would prohibit the
recording of a telephone call unless all the parties on the call have
given their consent.
I am introducing this bill because our nation's telephone privacy
laws are confused and in conflict. We need a national law governing
telephone privacy so that telephone users have a uniform standard to
rely on.
Currently, thirty-seven states require only the consent of one party
to record a phone call. Fifteen states require the consent of all
parties to be taped. This jumbled collection of telephone privacy laws
leaves most consumers confused about their rights to protect their
phone calls from surreptitious taping.
Today, consumers who seek to block surreptitious taping of their
phone calls face an incredible burden. The problem is especially acute
during interstate calls because the legality of surreptitiously
recording a phone call depends on the state where the call is recorded.
Thus, when a party makes an interstate call, one's rights may depend on
the laws governing taping in other states.
The recent well-publicized taping of Monica Lewinsky's phone
conversations by Linda Tripp illustrates this problem. Maryland, where
Linda Tripp recorded the conversations, is a state that requires the
consent of all parties. However, Washington D.C., where Monica Lewinsky
lived at the time, requires only one-party consent. Two people living
within a half-hours drive from each other should have the same laws
apply to them.
In practice, any person who wants to protect herself against
surreptitious recording must know the telephone privacy laws of other
states. Our laws cannot reasonably expect a consumer to have this
knowledge. People who make lots of interstate calls might be forced
into the position of knowing the telephone privacy laws of all 50
states.
Not only will the Telephone Privacy Act of 1999 promote uniformity of
laws, it will also create a standard that better protects privacy. The
Telephone Privacy Act would require an all-party consent standard for
taping phone calls no matter where one lived in the United States. It
would end the practice of one-party consent that exists under Federal
law and in a number of states.
While surreptitious taping has legitimate uses, such as lawful
surveillance by the police, our laws should not reward the practice of
surreptitious taping. This practice violates individual privacy and
offends common decency.
Phone calls remain one of the few avenues of communication where
people still feel safe enough to have intimate conversations. We should
protect this expectation of privacy. If a telephone user intends to
tape a phone call, the other party on the line ought to be informed.
Moreover, the one-party consent standard is an anachronism. It is
inconsistent with other more privacy-respecting provisions of our
communication laws. Federal law makes it a felony, for example, for a
third party to tap or record a telephone conversation between others.
It is also a felony to surreptitiously tape a cellular telephone call.
The bill has been carefully drafted so that it does not affect the
rights of law enforcement officials to tape or monitor conversations as
they are carrying out their duties.
Nor does it affect the practice of businesses taping customer calls,
as long as the customer is notified at the outset that the call is
being taped. It also does not affect the right of people to
surreptitiously tape threatening or harassing phone calls.
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. 781

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 ``Telephone Privacy Act of
1999''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF CONSENT EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON
INTERCEPTION OF ORAL, WIRE, OR ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS APPLICABLE TO TELEPHONE
COMMUNICATIONS.

Paragraph (d) of section 2511(2) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``unless such communication''
and all that follows and inserting ``unless--
``(i) such communication is intercepted for the purpose of
committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the
Constutition or laws of the United States or of any State; or
``(ii) in the case of a telephone communication, any other
party to such communication has not given prior consent to
such interception.''.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 782. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to modify the
exception to the prohibition on the interception of wire, oral, or
electronic communications to require a health insurance issuer, health
plan, or health care provider obtain an enrollee's or patient's consent
to their interception, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

____________________