Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

By Mr. DEWINE (for himself and Mr. DURBIN):

S. 431. A bill to establish a program to award grants to improve and maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Durbin, to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2005. As we look forward to celebrating President's Day this coming Monday, I can think of no better way to honor our former Chief Executives than by passing this important piece of legislation.

The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. It is our duty to preserve these sites so that future generations of Americans can gain a better understanding of those who influenced the development of our great Nation.

In an era when innovative technology has been incorporated into the curriculum in schools throughout the country, we often forget that one of the best learning tools is that which a child can touch and see. Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals talked about in the classroom or read about online provides a completely different atmosphere to appreciate history. The opportunity to visit the actual birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs provides a real-life glimpse into the lives of our former Presidents.

Currently, family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands of maintaining such important sites because operating costs must be met before maintenance needs. As a result, these sites are left to deteriorate slowly.

I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home State of Ohio, a State that has been the home of eight Presidents. I was disturbed during one such visit to the Ulysses S. Grant house. There, I saw the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the front porch was pulling away from the house--the very same porch where President Harding delivered his now famous campaign speeches. Fortunately, we were able to obtain funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. We need to continue to provide Federal assistance for maintenance projects today in order to prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow.

These sites are far too important to let slowly decay. Our legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five-member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually.

The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would make sure that every American has the chance to appreciate a real piece of history--a chance at understanding the lives of the great men who have led our Nation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I have just introduced be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. LEAHY):

S. 443. A bill to improve the investigation of criminal antitrust offenses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues Senators KOHL and LEAHY, to introduce the Antitrust Investigative Improvements Act of 2005. We do so to strengthen the Department of Justice's ability to investigate criminal antitrust conspiracies. This bill gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a wiretap order from a Federal judge, for a limited time period, to monitor communications between antitrust conspirators.

Investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies, such as cartels and bid-rigging, is the core mission of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Because of the harm this behavior can do to the economy and to innocent consumers, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Hewitt Pate, has said that prosecuting ``cartels remain[s] our top enforcement priority at the Antitrust Division.'' As a result, in the United States, we punish such illegal behavior harshly. Corporations can be fined up to $100 million and individuals can be fined up to $1 million and be incarcerated for 10 years. But, despite the high priority the Antitrust Division places on these cases and the tough penalties under the law, up to now, we have not given the Department of Justice all the tools it needs to investigate and prosecute criminal antitrust conspiracies.

In criminal antitrust investigations, to prosecute a case, it is critical that prosecutors gain access to evidence on the inner workings of the conspiracy. To meet their heavy burden of proof, prosecutors must marshal strong evidence showing, for example, the terms of the illegal agreement, the participants in the illegal agreement, and precisely when the illegal agreement was reached. This type of evidence is extremely difficult to gain without penetrating the inner workings of the conspiracy.

The Department has principally two techniques for investigating criminal antitrust enterprises. First, it may enlist the cooperation of a witness. The cooperating witness may be, for example, a customer being harmed by the conspiracy or a co-conspirator to the antitrust crime. Under this approach, a cooperating witness may testify about the details of the conspiracy or may record conversations with the conspirators, either through videotape or audiotape. One important restriction is that the cooperating witness must be present at the conversation when recording. But, if the Department cannot secure a cooperating witness, which is often the case, this technique is not available.

Second, the Antitrust Division also has a corporate leniency program, which has been very successful in investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies. In exchange for fully cooperating with an antitrust investigation, an otherwise guilty corporation may receive lenient treatment. But, this method, too, depends on the cooperation of one who was on the inside of the criminal conspiracy.

Our bill adds a third technique by amending Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.) to make a criminal violation of the Sherman Act a ``predicate offense'' for an order authorizing the interception of wire or oral communications, hereinafter ``wiretap order''. Amending this law to make criminal antitrust offenses a predicate offense would give the Department of Justice a much needed tool to investigate the inner workings of criminal antitrust conspiracies. Unlike using a cooperating witness or the corporate leniency program, a wiretap order does not require the cooperation of someone who has inside knowledge of the conspiracy or who is actually participating in the conspiracy. Upon a showing of probable cause to a Federal judge, the Department of Justice could obtain a wiretap order, for a limited time period, to monitor communications between conspirators.

There are over 150 predicate offenses from title 18 and dozens of other predicate offenses from other parts of the U.S. Criminal Code. Offenses, such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud are predicate offenses, but up to now, criminal antitrust offenses have not been on the list. I think this is a mistake. Criminal antitrust offenses are basically white-collar, fraud offenses, and often do much more harm to innocent consumers than other types of fraud offenses. It is time for antitrust to be added as a predicate offense, given the gravity of the crime.

This idea is not new. Past Assistant Attorney Generals of the Antitrust Division have supported the idea for such legislation. And, in 1999, our neighbor to the north, Canada, passed similar legislation. It is an idea whose time has come.

I urge my colleagues to support this important reform to strengthen the enforcement of our antitrust laws. I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the RECORD.

http://thomas.loc.gov