[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SIMPSON (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Dole, 
        Mr. D'Amato, and Mrs. Kassebaum):
  S. 1884. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
reform asylum procedures, to strengthen criminal penalties for the 
smuggling of aliens, and to reform other procedures to control illegal 
immigration to the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


        comprehensive immigration and asylum reform act of 1994

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today the 
Comprehensive Immigration and Asylum Reform Act of 1994. This measure 
addresses so many of the various serious immigration and asylum 
problems which have been ``the stuff of headlines'' and debate in this 
country for the past year and much longer.
  As jobless rates remain high, and as State and local governments 
struggle with the cost of education, public assistance, and health 
care, and as there is great stress on the criminal justice system 
during these times of economic pain, we frequently hear in frustration, 
that ``something must be done'' about immigration--legal and illegal.
  There are many studies and many opinions on the economic costs and 
benefits of immigration. Some believe we should have open borders. I 
happen to think that is about the most absurd viewpoint that could ever 
be expressed, because the first duty of a sovereign nation is to 
control its borders.
  Some feel there should be no limit on the number of immigrants we 
could admit to our benefit. Others argue that immigration, legal and 
illegal, is costing State and local governments billions of dollars 
every year in public-funded services.
  I believe that legal immigration has been and can continue to be of 
great benefit to the United States, but only if the newcomers can be 
comfortably absorbed into the American community.
  I do not want to get into flash words like ``assimilation'' and 
``make them do the American thing'' and all of the stuff that comes 
with hyphenated Americanism in these times.
  Immigrants can be comfortably absorbed in reasonable numbers if they 
come here to become ``Americans'' just as others have always come 
before them--to understand, accept, and support the democratic 
institutions and the laws, principles, values, traditions, and spirit 
which reflect the American character. That is not corny to say. I have 
always referred to that as our ``public culture,'' in order to 
distinguish it from the individual's ``private culture'' of their own 
religions, their ways, and their customs which reflect the remarkable 
diversity of our immigrants and which all other Americans should fully 
respect.
  But, indeed, those who come to our land should respect our public 
culture, a common flag, a common language. These are not racist things. 
These are not bigoted things. These are not nativist things. These are 
not mean-spirited things. And all may practice their private cultures, 
whatever they may be, as long as others are not injured.
  But the numbers have to be reasonable for the times in order that 
these new Americans may be successfully integrated, or people become 
sour and hardened against their entry.
  In 1990, we increased legal immigration to the United States to 
700,000 persons--an increase of nearly 40 percent. I was a cosponsor of 
that act which created the increase. I thought it was good.
  Since 1990, we have been admitting more than 120,000 refugees in 
every year. And I was part of the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980.
  In addition to these legal immigrants and refugees, illegal 
immigration contributes another 300,000 permanent immigrants annually.
  This burgeoning stream of legal immigrants, undocumented aliens, and 
refugees is as large an immigration flow as has ever been experienced 
in this country. It cannot continue. We can add to that flow thousands 
more who come here each year to claim, or to try to claim, political 
asylum. And often it is a phony claim.
  Immigration is 35 percent of our annual population growth, and our 
population growth rate is the highest of any developed Western nation. 
I have come to the conclusion that our current immigration exceeds the 
numbers of persons which the United States is capable of absorbing 
comfortably.
  So, today, I present this bill. When we increased the numbers in 
1990, I did not foresee these things, did not anticipate California's 
economic crisis, did not appreciate the fact that illegal immigration 
was again growing to unacceptable levels. And we see now that 1990 was 
not the time for a large-scale expansion in legal immigration, and we 
should not hesitate to correct that miscalculation today.
  So the first order of business is to bring undocumented illegal 
immigration under control. Then we must determine a level of 
immigration which will be reasonable and which will clearly reflect our 
interest as a Nation--the national interest. So this measure I am 
introducing will, for a period of 5 years, reduce legal immigration to 
500,000 legal immigrants annually.
  When we passed the Immigration Act of 1990, I believed we had 
successfully closed the back door to illegal immigration. We did not do 
that. We had enacted laws to prevent the employment of undocumented 
workers. Apprehensions of deportable aliens dropped for the third 
straight year. We thought we were on a good course. And we did not 
foresee the economic distress to our largest immigrant-receiving 
States: California, Florida, Illinois--caused in part by the 
downsizing, at least in California, of the defense establishment.
  The level proposed in this legislation will take us back to the level 
of legal immigration prior to the 1990 act. This reduction will be in 
effect for 5 years, at which time it will automatically return to 
675,000 immigrants annually, the permanent, worldwide level established 
by the 1990 act.
  During this 5-year period, this breathing space, we can address the 
issue of illegal immigration. We can create more English language 
training programs for the immigrants who are already here. We can 
assist the half-million immigrants, plus refugees, who will be admitted 
every year to integrate successfully into the American society. And I 
would note here that while it has been our usual practice in the United 
States to allow immigration to grow, and to never adjust it downward no 
matter what the economic situation, the two other countries of high 
immigration--Australia and Canada--have mechanisms to reduce 
immigration as well as to increase it, in order to best serve their 
national interests.
  Because of the worldwide economic recession, Australia, for example, 
now has reduced immigration by more than 50 percent over the last 3 
years. During those same 3 years we were attempting to absorb a nearly 
40 percent increase in our own immigration. It just does not make sense 
that we cannot or should not adjust our numbers when it is obviously in 
the national interest to do so.
  Although some immigrants and their advocates--I often refer to them 
as ``groups'' in a sinister way--may consider immigration to the United 
States as a right, we must always remember that immigration is a 
privilege. A privilege that should be granted only when it is in the 
national interest.
  This bill will also establish for the first time a firm cap on total 
immigration, excepting only the immigration of immediate relatives of 
American citizens--the nuclear family--which shall remain unrestricted. 
Remember, there is no restriction on the parents, sons and daughters, 
and spouses of U.S. citizens, and the numbers for the minor sons and 
daughters and spouses of permanent resident aliens will not be reduced.
  But at this point I want to say that all immigrants who are in this 
country legally have come at the invitation or sponsorship of an 
American citizen, an employer, or a permanent resident. All of them 
have been approved by our immigration service. All are entitled to the 
respect and consideration we accord to every other American. A 
temporary reduction in the overall level of immigration does not mean 
there is an anti-immigrant sentiment in the Nation or in the Congress. 
It is not nativist, racist, or mean-spirited to talk of controlling 
illegal immigration, or of reducing legal immigration. And it is not 
some response to anti-immigrant passions in the general public. In 
fact, a reduction in immigration should help this country to reduce any 
anti-immigrant feelings that do exist.
  This measure will also establish a limit on the number of refugees 
which the administration can admit without congressional action.
  Under the 1980 Refugee Act, the administration was to have consulted 
with the Congress before determining the number of refugees to admit in 
each year. This consultation process has not proven in any way to be a 
copartnership, it is a one-way street. The administrations under both 
parties have admitted refugees for many years at double or triple the 
50,000 admissions which were established under the act as the ``normal 
flow'' of refugees.
  Most of the refugees now come directly from the country of their own 
nationality. Hear that. As a refugee, you are supposed to be fleeing 
persecution based on race, religion, national origin, political 
opinion, or membership in a particular group. Few are, in fact, fleeing 
any immediate persecution. They may be fleeing economic conditions, 
even discrimination, but that does not make one a refugee under the 
law.

  So the refugee program has really become, in essence, more of an 
immigration program than a refugee rescue program. This bill will 
establish a limit of 80,000 on the number of refugees which may be 
admitted without congressional action. That is a 60 percent increase 
over the ``normal flow'' set by the Refugee Act. But the ability of the 
administration to act in the event of a refugee emergency will not be 
restricted. Under the provisions of the Refugee Act, additional 
refugees may be admitted in the event of a genuine refugee emergency. 
That will continue.
  In addition to providing more congressional control over the 
admission of large numbers of refugees, this provision will limit the 
number of refugees accepted by the United States for the same reasons I 
have mentioned in discussing the proposed limits on immigrant 
admissions.
  This measure also addresses many of the problems we experience with 
criminal aliens. Last summer the American public saw on their 
television the spectacle of aged ships containing hundreds of illegal 
aliens running aground in New York harbor or sailing under the Golden 
Gate Bridge in order to discharge their pathetic human cargo at a dock 
in San Francisco. Americans were appalled at the loss of life, the 
terrible conditions on board the ships, and the inability of our 
Government to control this blatant abuse of our laws by alien smuggling 
organizations. This legislation will increase the penalties for alien 
smuggling, it will add alien smuggling to the list of crimes that 
establish the basis for bringing a RICO--racketeering--charge and will 
expand the seizure or forfeiture authority against those who smuggle or 
harbor illegal aliens.
  The legislation will also expedite the deportation procedures for 
criminal aliens who are not permanent resident aliens, green-card 
holders. The bill will permit a Federal judge to enter an order of 
deportation during the sentencing phase of a criminal trial, thus 
avoiding a second administrative hearing on the deportation. It will 
also limit the defenses to deportation for certain criminal aliens. 
And, to increase the effectiveness of deportation orders, the bill will 
increase the penalties for criminal aliens who fail to depart, or who 
reenter the country after the final order of deportation has been 
issued.
  These provisions are tough, and they are strong, and they are 
direct--but fair. They will reduce the ability of criminal aliens to 
the advantage of a multilayered appeals process which has been 
plastered into the law over the decades. Aliens take advantage of that 
system in extraordinary ways. We now see in our asylum and deportation 
procedures that it is almost in total gridlock. And this will deter 
illegal alien smuggling by greatly increasing the cost of the criminal 
smuggler.
  The legislation also addresses a most serious immigration problem at 
our Nation's international ports of entry. Taking advantage of the 
loopholes that exist in current law, large numbers of illegal aliens 
are entering the United States at our major ports of entry, claiming 
asylum, then disappearing into the interior of our country.
  In a single year approximately 40,000 aliens will seek illegal entry 
at our international airports, either with fraudulent documents or no 
documents. Because we have limited detention space, these aliens, and 
the smugglers who assist them, know that they will likely be released 
into the community at large--and with a work permit, too, if they can 
simply indicate a desire to apply for asylum. This measure will address 
this problem while at the same time preserving and protecting the 
rights of those aliens who present legitimate, good-faith applications 
for asylum. Under this bill, any alien who uses a fraudulent document 
to enter the United States or who uses a document overseas, but then 
fails to present that document upon arrival in the United States, would 
be subject to an immediate order of exclusion.
  However, this bill would still protect those aliens who have 
legitimate claims to refugee status, but who attempt to enter the 
country without proper documents. The legislation would prevent the 
Immigration Service from immediately removing any alien who has a 
``credible fear of persecution'' in the country to which he or she 
would be returned.
  The determination of a ``credible fear of persecution'' would be made 
by a specially trained asylum officer at the port of entry. A denial of 
an asylum claim would be reviewed by the asylum officer's supervisor 
before the alien would be excluded.
  Mr. President, the rampant and widespread use of fraudulent and phony 
identification of all types in this country continues to appall U.S. 
citizens. It reduces the effectiveness of the employer sanctions 
legislation which we passed in 1986. It cannot be effective with the 
gimmickry of the documents.
  It also subjects our public welfare systems to terrible abuse, and it 
weakens the enforcement of gun control laws.
  This legislation will direct the administration to develop and 
implement a more secure system to verify the identification of persons 
who apply for work or for welfare benefits in the United States. The 
bill contains protections to ensure that such a verification system 
shall not become a national identification card.
  I think this provision is especially critical and important, Mr. 
President, as we move toward a universal health care system. We saw our 
President in his address to the Nation hold up a card and say, ``All of 
you will carry this, or all of you will have this, and all of you will 
receive health care.''
  I have no problem with that. But I must note here that I did not see 
a great many editorials warning of a ``slippery slope'' to a national 
I.D. card. I thought that most interesting.
  But as we move toward a universal health care system and we see a 
system that is costing us $900 billion a year for health care, we see a 
system out of whack because of what it is costing to sustain people who 
are here illegally and who get legal documents to get illegal benefits. 
So we want to have the necessary tool for the enforcement of employer 
sanctions--a secure verification system--because, potentially, we think 
that that is the most effective and humane deterrent against illegal 
immigration.
  In addition, the bill will increase penalties for document fraud. I 
do not usually use these remarkable gimmicks that we sometimes see on 
the floor, but I certainly would not hesitate if it does not frighten 
children.
  A person called my office and said, ``Send me your picture and your 
vital statistics and I will send you a couple of documents that will be 
of great interest to you as to what is happening in your country.'' So, 
naturally, I took a photo of my best side, sent it to the person, and 
he went to a street corner in Los Angeles. A man walked up to the car, 
took the order for a California I.D. card and a Social Security card, 
and said, ``I will have it in the morning,'' and he did. And here it 
is. I had it enlarged so you can see it.
  This is my name, Alan Kooi Simpson. That is my middle name, Kooi. My 
address is 4850 Royal in Turlock, CA. I do not know where that is. I 
have never heard of that. There are my vital statistics. Sex, male; 
hair, glossy--no, gray. I am sorry. Eyes, gray; height 6'7''; weight, 
200. There I am. Date of birth, correct. This is not, of course, my 
signature. Only the photo background color is a little off. It should 
be bluer.
  This card and the Social Security card would enable me to work 
anywhere in California and to draw from the welfare systems of the 
State of California. It had a magnetic tape on the back. As far as I 
know, the magnetic tape was correct. That will, in some counties, get 
me the right to vote, and all of it is totally phony. Also, it has a 
holograph over the photo, just like a genuine California I.D. card, so 
it looks counterfeit resistant.
  No wonder California is finally paying attention. That is their I.D. 
card. They and Florida are now in the process of wanting to sue the 
Federal Government for the cost of caring for the people who come there 
because of the Federal Government's failure to properly restrict 
refugees and immigrants. So that is the I.D. card.
  Then the gentleman, whoever it was--I do not know--got this Social 
Security card fixed up for me. I covered a couple of numbers, because 
this is undoubtedly some poor soul's actual number. Some poor guy in 
America now has me using his Social Security account. The card is on 
the counterfeit resistant paper now used by the Social Security 
Administration. There I am. I obliterated two of the numbers so the 
person whose number this is won't know.
  That is the package you need to work, vote, get benefits, whatever. 
You can get it for 50 to 100 bucks. So that is where we are in America.
  These are the things I am up to. We are going to deal with the asylum 
problem at the airports; we are going to deal with the backlog of 
400,000 asylum cases. Hear this one: We have people who are in the 
United States illegally, then get picked up after ranging through the 
country for a couple of years, and then plead asylum where they are 
found. They say, ``I am here, I am an asylee, I am fleeing 
persecution.'' When it is noted that they have been here a couple years 
illegally, they reply, ``I know, but now I am asking for asylum.''
  So the systems have been overwhelmed. These 400,000 people in the 
asylum backlog are aliens who have already entered our country. 
Actually many have been here, as I say, for many years and they are in 
illegal status. These undocumented aliens, at some point apply for 
asylum, usually during deportation proceedings. The system is so 
laborious, so backlogged, so freighted with lawyers that the alien 
knows he can get additional months or years to work in America simply 
by saying the words, ``political asylum.''
  The immigration lawyers of America are really a special group--tough, 
tough, self-preserving and, of course, always for the little guy if the 
little guy has enough to pay. They are very difficult. They will go 
bananas when they see these provisions. I hope we will recognize their 
special interest in keeping the immigration laws confused and obtuse.
  So we will proceed with that. We give the Attorney General the 
discretion to deny work authorization to asylum applicants until such 
time as they receive a grant of asylum. This alone should deter many 
frivolous claims.
  Another problem frequently raised by the Governors of our two largest 
immigrant receiving States--California and Florida--both who served in 
this body with me, both very able men, is the use of public welfare by 
legal and illegal aliens. This burden on the States, as I have 
mentioned, has given rise to calls for full Federal reimbursement for 
public assistance and educational costs attributable to immigrants.
  Under current law, aliens become deportable if they become a ``public 
charge''--those are the words in the statute. But this provision is 
never enforced because of a difficult court decision that said you have 
to ask them to pay it back, and only if they refuse to pay it back, are 
they a public charge. How absurd.
  Many legal immigrants are granted admission only because their 
sponsors promised to support them, if necessary. That is what they 
promised when they brought them here, that they were paying for them.
  This bill will now make it very clear that any alien receiving public 
assistance for more than 1 year, except for causes occurring after his 
or her arrival here, will become deportable as a ``public charge.'' 
Further, the sponsors' income and resources will remain available to 
assist needy immigrants until such person becomes a citizen, rather 
than for only 3 years, as is the case under our current policy. A very 
important change.
  The legislation also provides for additional interior investigators; 
a pilot program to examine the use of closed military bases for the 
detention of illegal aliens; a pilot program to study the effectiveness 
of deporting aliens to the interior of their own country rather than 
simply returning them to the border; and a requirement that all 
federally funded agencies must communicate with the INS regarding the 
immigration status of any, and all, aliens in the United States. We 
will no longer allow that little luxury where a county says, ``We do 
not tell anybody the alienage or the immigration status of anybody in 
our county regardless of what we are taking from the public Treasury.'' 
That is not good enough anymore.

  Finally, Mr. President, the bill would establish a border-crossing 
fee, a user fee to provide funding for the programs contained in this 
measure.
  We must again reform our immigration laws. Much of the American 
public, with some very real justification, views immigration to the 
United States as being excessive and plainly out of control. And the 
most heavily impacted States are demanding Federal moneys to pay the 
cost of legal and illegal immigrants.
  The provisions of this bill, Mr. President, will serve to address 
those concerns in a reasonable manner: A temporary reduction in 
immigration for 5 years, and with additional provisions to control 
illegal immigration; to reduce abuses of the legal immigration system; 
and to streamline procedures to deal with the massive backlogs in the 
asylum system. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I 
earnestly invite their cosponsorship.
  I ask unanimous consent that the cosponsors include Senator Byrd, 
Senator Thurmond, Senator Dole, Senator D'Amato, Senator Kassebaum, and 
such Senators, at the conclusion of the day, who will indicate 
themselves as original cosponsors of the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I send to the desk a section-by-section 
summary of the bill and ask unanimous consent that it be printed at the 
appropriate place in the Record.
  There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Section-by-Section Summary


                        title I--criminal aliens

                    Part A--Alien smuggling control

       Sec. 101. Increased penalties for alien smuggling. (1) 
     increases the penalty for alien smuggling to 10 years 
     (currently 5), (2) provides an additional penalty if the 
     smuggler willfully subjects any alien to a substantial risk 
     of death or serious bodily harm of 3 to 10 years, (3) allows 
     the death penalty for a smuggler who causes death, and (4) 
     provides a 2 to 5 year sentence if a person knowingly hires a 
     smuggled alien.
       Sec. 102. Death penalty procedures. Incorporates 
     constitutionally required procedures for considering and 
     implementing the death penalty.
       Sec. 103. Smuggling for commission of crimes. Creates a new 
     crime for smuggling aliens for the purpose of committing 
     serious crimes in the U.S. The underlying smuggling penalty 
     is enhanced by 3 to 5 years.
       Sec. 104. Adding alien smuggling to RICO. Adds alien 
     smuggling to the list of crimes which establish the basis for 
     bringing a RICO charge. This addition will allow law 
     enforcement officials to use RICO penalties (such as 
     forfeiture and imprisonment) against alien smuggling 
     organizations.
       Sec. 105. Expanded forfeiture for smuggling or harboring 
     illegal aliens. Expands current INS authority to seize and 
     forfeit property used in, or facilitating, the smuggling or 
     harboring of illegal aliens. Important in cases when RICO 
     charges (and penalties) are not available.
       Sec. 106. Wiretap authority for alien smuggling 
     investigations. Permits the INS, with judicial authorization, 
     to intercept wire, electronic, and oral communications of 
     persons involved in alien smuggling operations.

                          Part B--Deportation

       Sec. 111. Expansion in definition of ``aggravated felony''. 
     Expands the definition of ``aggravated felony'' for purposes 
     of the immigration laws. Currently the definition includes: 
     murder, drug trafficking, trafficking in firearms or 
     explosives, money laundering, terrorism and any crime of 
     violence for which the sentence is 5 or more years. This 
     section adds: firearms violations, failure to appear to 
     answer a felony charge, demanding or receiving ransom money, 
     unlawful conduct relating to RICO, child pornography, owning 
     or operating a prostitution business, treason, tax evasion 
     exceeding $200,000 and certain immigration-related offenses 
     including alien smuggling and sale of fraudulent documents.
       Sec. 112. Deportation procedures for certain criminal 
     aliens who are not permanent residents. Provides for the 
     prompt deportation of any non-green card holder alien who has 
     been convicted of an aggravated felony and who is deportable.
       Eliminates the following deportation procedures for non-
     permanent resident criminal aliens: (1) administrative 
     hearing before an immigration judge, (2) administrative 
     review by the Board of Immigration Appeals, (3) availability 
     of current grounds of relief from deportation, and (4) 
     federal court review on any grounds (other than mistaken 
     identity as convicted criminal alien). The AG may not execute 
     a final order of deportation for 14 days to allow the alien 
     to seek the limited court review.
       Sec. 113. Judicial deportation. Allows federal trial courts 
     to issue an order of deportation during the sentencing phase 
     of the criminal trial of an alien convicted of an aggravated 
     felony. This section applies to all criminal aliens, 
     including permanent residents.
       The deportation order must be requested by the government 
     and the alien must be notified promptly of the government's 
     intent. The government must prove that the defendant is an 
     alien subject to deportation and that the alien has been 
     convicted an ``aggravated felony.''
       ``Judicial deportation'' would replace current 
     administrative deportation procedures where it is sought. An 
     appeal of the deportation order to the circuit court of 
     appeals is retained. The Attorney General would retain her 
     right to seek an administrative determination of 
     deportability if the federal court denies a motion for 
     judicial deportation.
       Sec. 114. Restricting defenses to deportation for certain 
     criminal aliens. Restricts defenses against deportation for 
     aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. Allows only those 
     aggravated felons who have been green card holders for at 
     least seven years, and who have been sentenced to less than 
     five years imprisonment, to assert a defense against 
     deportation.
       Currently, green card holders are ineligible for relief 
     from deportation if the alien has served five or more years 
     for one or more aggravated felonies. This section amends 
     section 212(c) to make aliens who have been sentenced to five 
     or more years ineligible for relief.
       This standard is more relevant to judging the seriousness 
     of an offense since dangerous criminals may be released 
     prematurely due to prison overcrowding or other reasons 
     unrelated to the seriousness of crime. Also, the current 
     standard at times prevents a speedy commencement of 
     deportation proceedings since it may be five years before it 
     is known whether the alien has ``served'' 5 years.
       This section also clarifies current law that aggravated 
     felons may not request or be granted withholding of 
     deportation. The provision is consistent with the intent of 
     the UN Protocol to permit denial of withholding of 
     deportation in cases of persons convicted of a ``particularly 
     serious crime.''
       Sec. 115. Enhancing penalties for failing to depart, or 
     reentering, after final order of deportation. Enhances 
     penalties for failing to depart or for reentering after a 
     final order of deportation has been issued.
       Currently, an alien who is deportable for criminal 
     offenses, document fraud, or as a security risk is subject to 
     criminal penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment for failure 
     to depart. However, there are no penalties for aliens 
     deportable for other reasons. Subsection (a) retains the 
     current 10 year penalty and provides for up to 4 years 
     imprisonment for aliens who are issued deportation orders on 
     other grounds and who fail to depart.
       Subsection (b) increases the penalties for criminal aliens 
     who reenter the U.S. after being formally deported. 
     Currently, an alien who is convicted of a felony other than 
     an aggravated felony and who re-enters is subject to 5 years 
     imprisonment and a criminal fine; this subsection extends the 
     penalties to aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanors 
     and increases the maximum sentence to 10 years. Aggravated 
     felons who re-enter the U.S. currently are subject to 
     criminal fines and up to 15 years; this subsection increases 
     the maximum sentence to 20 years. Language also is added to 
     make it clear that any alien who stipulates to deportation 
     during a criminal trial shall be considered to have been 
     formally deported.
       Subsection (c) would restrict a court's ability, in a 
     criminal proceeding against a deported alien who has re-
     entered the U.S., to re-examine the underlying deportation 
     order except in those cases where the alien demonstrates (1) 
     that she has exhausted any available administrative remedies 
     against the deportation order, (2) that the deportation 
     proceedings improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity 
     for judicial review, and (3) that the entry of the order of 
     deportation was ``fundamentally unfair.''
       Sec. 116. Civil penalties for failure to depart. Allows 
     civil penalties to be levied against an alien who fails to 
     depart pursuant to a deportation order.

                         Part C. Miscellaneous

       Sec. 121. Miscellaneous and technical changes. Responds to 
     two holdings of the 9th Circuit. Subsection (a) clarifies 
     that the Attorney General can authorize deportation 
     proceedings to be conducted by electronic or telephonic means 
     or, where agreed to by the parties, in the absence of the 
     alien.
       Subsection (b) clarifies that nothing in this Act or in 
     section 242(i) (directing the AG to begin deportation 
     proceedings as quickly as possible after a conviction) shall 
     be construed to create a legally enforceable right or benefit 
     for the alien.


                  TITLE II--PORT OF ENTRY INSPECTIONS

       Sec. 201. Restrictions on admissions fraud. An alien who 
     presents fraudulent documents, documents containing false 
     information or who presents no documents to an asylum officer 
     upon entry into the U.S. is excludable (can be denied 
     admission to the U.S.), unless the alien can show: (1) that 
     the fraudulent, stolen or ``disappeared'' documents (such as 
     documents destroyed on the airplane) were used exclusively to 
     leave a country from which he or she has a ``credible fear of 
     persecution,'' or (2) to avoid return to such a country.
       Credible fear is established if: (1) it is ``more probable 
     than not'' that the alien's statements are true, and (2) 
     there is a significant possibility, given the alien's 
     statements and the information known by the asylum officer, 
     that the alien can prove her eligibility as a refugee.
       Aliens expressing a desire to apply for asylum will be 
     screened by a specially trained asylum officer. If the 
     officer determines she has a credible fear of persecution, 
     she can then apply for asylum. All other undocumented or 
     falsely documented aliens will be excluded.
       Sec. 202. Special port of entry exclusion for admissions 
     fraud. Aliens found to be specially excludable under this 
     bill may be ordered deported. An alien may be returned only 
     to a country in which the alien has no credible fear of 
     prescution upon return.
       Sec. 203. Judicial review. Restricted to limited habeas 
     corpus review. Other than limited habeas, no court can: (1) 
     review a determination to exclude aliens under this bill, (2) 
     review the procedures established by the Attorney General 
     under this Title, or (3) enter declaratory or injunctive 
     relief regarding implementation of this Title.
       Sec. 204. Effective date.


     TITLE III--PENALTIES FOR DOCUMENT FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION

       Sec. 301. Increased penalties for document fraud. The 
     penalties for fraud and misuse of immigration documents and 
     government-issued identification documents are increased from 
     5 years imprisonment to 10 years. The sentencing guidelines 
     are amended to increase the minimum penalties based upon the 
     number of fradulent document involved. The penalties are also 
     increased if the documents are supplied to a terrorist, to 
     facilitate a terrorist activity, or to persons involved in 
     organized crime activities.
       Sec. 302. Penalties for failure to disclose role as 
     preparer of fraudulent documents. Establishes both civil and 
     criminal penalties for failure to disclose a person's role as 
     preparer of fraudulent documents. Criminal penalties are also 
     established for persons who conceal that they have, for a 
     fee, prepared or assisted in preparing a fraudulent 
     application for asylum.
       Sec. 303. Civil penalties for fraud, misrepresentation, and 
     failure to present documents. Establishes civil penalties for 
     failing to present valid immigration documents at the time of 
     boarding a common carrier, or to an immigration officer upon 
     arrival at a U.S. port of entry.


                        title iv--asylum reform

       Sec. 401. Penalties for frivolous applications. Establishes 
     civil and criminal penalties for preparing false or frivolous 
     applications for immigration benefits or false supporting 
     documents.
       Sec. 402. Asylum and work authorization. Establishes that 
     an applicant for asylum is not automatically entitled to work 
     authorization. The Attorney General has discretion in 
     granting, denying, suspending or placing conditions on work 
     authorization.
       Sec. 403. Resources to address asylum backlog. Providing 
     for a 2-year program of property acquisition and leasing and 
     use of retired federal employees to process the backlog of 
     asylum claims (as in the 1986 Act legalization program).
       Sec. 404. Reforms to deportation process. To expedite the 
     deportation process: removes the Spanish language requirement 
     for the document initiating deportation proceedings, 
     clarifies that the privilege of counsel is ``at no expense or 
     unreasonable delay to the Government,'' and establishes time 
     deadlines for filing judicial appeals, briefs and reply 
     briefs.
       Sec. 405. Reduction of incentive to delay proceedings. 
     Requires that permanent resident aliens undergoing 
     deportation proceedings who assert the defense of having 
     resided in the U.S. for seven consecutive years cannot court 
     the time they were in deportation proceedings towards the 7-
     year requirement.


            title v--illegal immigration and border security

       Sec. 501. Additional investigators. Reprograms $8 million 
     for one year to hire 125 additional investigators and staff 
     to investigate potential violations of employer sanctions.
       Sec. 502. Funding of deportation costs. Reporgrams $10 
     million for one year to fund the detention and deportation of 
     aliens from the U.S.
       Sec. 503. Interior repatriation pilot program. A two-year 
     pilot program and report to examine methods to deter multiple 
     illegal entries, including removing aliens to the interior of 
     their country (instead of just across the border).


                   title vi--border crossing user fee

       Sec. 601. Imposition of fees. Within 6 months of enactment, 
     fees shall be imposed at land border ports of entry for the 
     entrant's use of border facilities and services to equal the 
     amount necessary for maintenance and operation of facilities 
     and services. A separate account is established to retain the 
     fees for INS use. Moneys unused for the current fiscal year 
     due to the imposition of these fees will be used to hire and 
     equip 100 additional Border Patrol agents and support 
     personnel, and for repair, maintenance or construction of 
     structures on the border.


                 title vii--detention of illegal aliens

       Sec. 701. Pilot program on use of closed military bases for 
     the detention of illegal aliens. 2-year pilot program and 
     report on the feasibility of using of closed military bases 
     to detain illegal aliens.


                   title viii--public benefits abuse

       Sec. 801. Ineligibility for federal benefits. Prohibits the 
     distribution of federally-funded welfare benefits to illegal 
     aliens (except emergency health care, short-term disaster 
     aid, child nutrition programs and public health programs). 
     Only aliens lawfully in the U.S. with work authorization can 
     qualify for unemployment benefits.
       Sec. 802. Attribution of sponsor's income and resources to 
     family preference aliens. The income and resources of an 
     alien's sponsor shall be deemed to be the income and 
     resources of the alien until the alien becomes a citizen.
       Sec. 803. Definition of public charge. Defines ``public 
     charge'' (for deportation purposes) as any alien who, within 
     5 years after the date of entry, has received welfare 
     benefits for more than 12 consecutive months, except for 
     causes which arose after entry into the U.S.


               title ix--work authorization verification

    
    
       Sec. 901. Work authorization verification. Requires the 
     Attorney General with the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services to develop and implement a counterfeit-resistant 
     system to verify work eligibility and federally-funded public 
     assistance benefits eligibility for all persons.


 title x--numerical limitations on admission of aliens into the united 
                                 states

       Sec. 1001. Five-year reduction in legal immigration. 
     Reduces legal immigration from 675,000 to 500,000 for five 
     years. The 175,000 reduction is taken proportionately as 
     follows: 75,000 from the family immigration preferences, 
     45,000 from the employment immigration preferences, and 
     55,000 from the diversity program.
       Sec. 1002. Worldwide numerical limitations. Removes the 
     ``pierceable cap'' and replaces with a firm cap. This firm 
     cap applies both to the reduced admissions (5-year reduction 
     to 500,000) and the permanent 675,000 admissions limit.
       Sec. 1003. Numerical limitation on annual admission of 
     refugees. Limits refugee admissions to 80,000 unless Congress 
     adopts a bill specifically authorizing a larger number.


                   TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

       Sec. 1101. Use of legalization information for criminal 
     prosecution purposes. Allows the Attorney General to furnish 
     identifying information, contained in confidential 
     legalization applications, to a law enforcement agency in 
     connection with a criminal investigation, or to a coroner for 
     identifying a deceased individual.
       Sec. 1102. Communications between federally funded 
     government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service. No federal, state or local government entity 
     receiving federal funds shall be prohibited from 
     communicating with the INS regarding the immigration status 
     of an alien.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Simpson, in introducing the 
Comprehensive Immigration and Asylum Reform Act.


                          scope of the problem

  Mr. President, during the past decade, nearly 9 million people have 
immigrated legally into our country--a population greater than most 
States. Unfortunately, millions more have chosen to enter the United 
States illegally, without our consent. The Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, for example, estimates that more than 3,000 
people attempt to illegally cross the California-Mexico border each 
night. Nearly 60 percent of them succeed. In 1986, the apprehension of 
illegal undocumented aliens reached an all-time high of 1.8 million. 
And in 1992, the number of apprehensions was still staggering--more 
than 1 million.
  Of course, illegal immigration has a disproportionate impact on 
certain areas of the country. In California, for example, there are an 
estimated 1.3 million illegal aliens, and more than half of these 
illegals live in a single county--the county of Los Angeles. Not 
surprisingly, a staggering 10 percent of the 1992 budget of Los Angeles 
County was spent on providing services to illegal aliens. The Governor 
of Florida, another State heavily impacted by immigration, has even 
threatened to sue the Federal Government for reimbursement of the cost 
of providing services to immigrants, both legal and illegal.
  Today's bill won't solve these critical problems overnight. But, if 
enacted, it would represent a good first step in the right direction. 
The bottom line is simply this: If we want to get a handle on the 
illegal-immigration problem, we need a national immigration policy.


                          summary of the bill

  Mr. President, some of the highlights of the bill include the 
following: Increased penalties for alien smuggling, including the death 
penalty for a smuggler whose actions result in the death of an innocent 
victim; streamlined deportation procedures that will allow Federal 
trial courts to issue an order of deportation during the sentencing 
phase of the criminal trial of an alien convicted of an aggravated 
felony; reform of the asylum process, making it easier to exclude 
aliens who present fraudulent immigration documents, and increased 
penalties for the misuse of these documents; a 2-year pilot program 
studying the feasibility of using closed military bases to detain 
illegal aliens; and another pilot program to examine ways to remove 
illegal and criminal aliens to the interior of their country of origin, 
rather than right across the border.
  The bill also requires the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, to develop and implement a 
counterfeit-resistant system to verify work eligibility and eligibility 
for federally funded benefits. The bill contains specific language 
prohibiting this system from ever developing into a so-called national 
I.D. card. On a related issue, the bill makes illegal aliens ineligible 
for all Federal benefits except emergency medical assistance, short-
term disaster relief, and certain child nutrition and immunization 
programs.
  In addition, the bill addresses the issue of legal immigration, 
proposing to reduce the annual level of legal immigration from 675,000 
to 500,000 for each of the next 5 years, until the year 1999. Annual 
legal immigration of 500,000 is approximately equal to the level of 
annual legal immigration that existed prior to the passage of the 
Immigration Act of 1990.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, during my 33 years in Congress, I have received many 
requests for help from people who want to come to America. But I have 
never--not once--received a request from anyone seeking help in getting 
a ticket out. Everyone wants to come America. Few ever want to leave.
  While America remains the land of opportunity, it is not the land of 
unlimited opportunity for unlimited numbers of immigrants, both legal 
and illegal. If the America of the 21st century is to prosper--and yes, 
to grow--she must be an America that determines her own destiny by 
controlling her own borders. Today's legislation is an attempt to help 
this process along.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator 
Simpson, for his hard work and for all the time he has personally 
devoted to making some sense out of our Nation's immigration policy. In 
many ways, this task has been a thankless one, but Senator Simpson has 
carried the ball on immigration without complaint and with considerable 
skill.
  Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, who 
is recognized as the expert on immigration and immigration policies in 
the Senate. He spent a lot of time putting this bipartisan bill 
together, and I hope it is received as such. It has broad bipartisan 
support.
  So I just want to commend my colleague from Wyoming.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I once again find myself rising to support 
immigration reform legislation introduced by Senator Simpson. I commend 
him, not only for introducing this legislation earlier today but also 
for his many years of work and leadership in this area. I am pleased to 
join him as a cosponsor of the Comprehensive Immigration and Asylum 
Reform Act of 1994.
  A thorough reform of U.S. immigration law is overdue. The dramatic 
changes that the world experienced over the past decade have not been 
matched by changes in U.S. immigration policies. The breakdown of cold 
war security structures, the rise of nationalism and interethnic 
violence, and a deep worldwide recession have prompted the movement of 
large numbers of people in many regions of the world. Additionally, 
easier access to travel has contributed to the shifting migration 
patterns and has made it much easier for individuals to make the trek 
to the United States. There was a time when America was somewhat 
insulated by two great oceans, but no longer. In the face of this 
dramatic change, our immigration laws still reflect an earlier time.
  The current lax U.S. asylum procedures provide a prime example of 
these outdated policies and the way that unscrupulous individuals take 
advantage of America's compassion. This system allows anyone to gain 
entry to the United States and become immediately eligible to work 
here. All one needs to do is to show up at a U.S. port of entry, 
request asylum, and relate some vague story of persecution to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service agent. The individual then 
receives work authorization documents and is instructed to show up 
later for a hearing on the asylum claim. The system has become so 
backlogged that the hearing will most likely be more than a year later. 
Not surprisingly, fewer than half of the asylum seekers ever appear for 
their hearing. All too often, those claiming asylum are really seeking 
economic opportunity, not freedom from persecution, and they use U.S. 
asylum laws to gain access to the United States, their economic Holy 
Grail.
  America has always had a tradition of compassion for oppressed and 
persecuted peoples. Unfortunately, in our desire to provide a safe 
haven for those who legitimately fear for their lives, we have made it 
too easy to take advantage of American good will by using asylum 
procedures to circumvent the regular immigration process. Asylum and 
refugee laws should apply to individuals that have a legitimate fear of 
personal persecution in their home country, and not those who are 
fleeing from areas of general unrest or poverty.
  Reform of the asylum provisions is important, and over the past 2 
years I have joined with Senator Simpson in attempts to correct these 
problems, but I am more concerned with overall immigration levels. We 
cannot continue to absorb the levels of immigrants that we have 
experienced over the past few years. America no longer has limitless 
resources or vast open areas ripe for settlement and our population 
places ever-increasing demands on an already overburdened environment 
even without the addition of hundreds of thousands of immigrants a 
year.

  It is clear that reform efforts must go beyond our attempts to merely 
plug the gap of illegal immigration. We must reexamine our overall 
immigration policy in light of America's continuing economic and social 
problems. In addition to the well-known upsurge of illegal immigration, 
the United States has witnessed an unprecedented explosion of legal 
immigration in the last few years. From 1981 to 1988, total legal 
immigration to the United States hovered around 600,000. That number 
jumped to 1,090,000 in 1989, and continued up to 1,536,000 in 1990, and 
1,827,000 in 1991. The number dropped off in 1992, the last year for 
which we have final numbers, but remained at approximately 1,000,000. 
This situation cannot continue indefinitely.
  The legislation introduced by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 
[Senator Simpson] attempts to reverse this trend and return the numbers 
to a more manageable level. Title X includes a 5-year reduction of the 
basic annual ceiling on immigrants from 675,000 to 500,000 and attempts 
to make that number a firm cap. In the past this so-called ceiling has 
been far too permeable, resulting in legal immigration numbers much 
higher than the statutory limit and, I feel certain, much higher than 
most Members anticipated when they voted for the Immigration Act of 
1990. Title X also limits the annual number of refugees to 80,000 
unless the Congress specifically authorizes a larger number. This is 
another area where the flexibility provided in earlier statutes has 
resulted in numbers far in excess of what the Congress originally 
envisioned.
  Exceedingly high levels of immigration in recent years have eroded 
public support for continued immigration. A USA Today cover story on 
July 14, 1993, included a poll showing that 65 percent of Americans 
favor decreasing the level of immigration. This is not a question of 
America's compassion or of our sympathy for the plight of those in the 
world who are less fortunate. We simply have reached the point where it 
is not possible for the United States to absorb these exceptionally 
large numbers.
  It is particularly important to note that the segment of our society 
which suffers the most from increased immigration is the lower end of 
the economic scale--unemployed, unskilled, and semiskilled laborers who 
are in real danger of becoming a permanent underclass in our society. 
If we truly want to help our citizens that are mired in poverty, we 
should not be accepting ever-increasing numbers of replacement workers 
to take away those low-skill jobs. We must also realize that the U.S. 
economy, environment, and social structure are being severely strained 
by an unprecedented level of immigration and we must take action soon.
  The United States simply does not have the resources to help 
all those around the world who wish to come here for a better life. We 
do not have the resources to eliminate poverty and unemployment for our 
own population, much less the rest of the world.

  Yesterday, the Senate completed consideration of a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. We had a lengthy debate on the wisdom 
of using the Constitution to deal with budget deficits, and the 
amendment was ultimately defeated, but I think it is safe to say, 
however, that all of the Senators who participated in the debate agreed 
on one thing--we must continue to reduce the deficit. That will require 
the President and the Congress working together to achieve that goal. 
That goal cannot be achieved without additional spending reductions and 
those reductions will mean reduced services to everyone living in the 
United States. It is unfair to U.S. citizens and legal residents to 
continue virtually uncontrolled population expansion through 
immigration at the same time that our fiscal situation forces us to 
reduce the services that the Government provides.
  The time has come to look inward and to start to take care of our own 
problems. We can no longer afford to offer opportunities to all those 
who come in search of a better life. It is more and more difficult for 
us to provide basic social guarantees--education, health care, and so 
on--to our own citizens, whose ancestries go back to many countries, 
and over the years, over the centuries--touch all of us. It is unfair 
and irresponsible of us, as a Government, not to stem the tide of the 
hundreds of thousands of new immigrants coming to this country. I hope, 
in addition to the many other items on the Senate's agenda, that it 
will be possible to consider this comprehensive immigration reform 
package, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr. 
Simpson] for keeping our attention focused on this issue. I look 
forward to working with him in the coming months as we attempt to deal 
with this very important problem.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to include in the Record the 
article from USA Today to which I referred earlier.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, July 14, 1993]

  USA Cool to Huddled Masses--Sentiment Sours as Rate of Arrival Rises

                           (By Maria Puente)

       America--a nation of immigrants--is turning its back on its 
     newest arrivals, with anti-immigration sentiment now as high 
     as it's been at anytime since World War II.
       A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll shows the blacklash against the 
     record number of immigrants running broad and deep, stoked by 
     anxiety over the stagnant economy, the failure to curb 
     illegal immigration and, immigration advocates charge, 
     nothing short of racism.
       Although relatively few Americans say they have much 
     contact with new immigrants, nearly two-thirds of those 
     polled want immigration decreased--the highest percentage 
     since the mid-1940s.
       In addition, 56% believe immigrants cost taxpayers money 
     and 55% say the racial and ethnic diversity of immigrants 
     threatens American culture.
       ``My nightmare is an image of the Statue of Liberty 
     dissolving, replaced by an image of the bombed World Trade 
     Center and the association of immigrants with smuggling, 
     drugs and terrorism,'' says Arthur Helton, immigration expert 
     for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
       Conjuring the images may be the sheer numbers--a historic 
     and massive movement to this country led by Hispanic and 
     Asian immigrants. About 9.5 million legal and illegal 
     immigrants came to the USA between 1980-90--the largest 
     number in any decade since the nation's founding.
       ``In my district, no issue compares to illegal aliens--
     people just go berserk,'' says Rep. Tony Beilenson, D-Calif., 
     who represents Los Angeles, where immigrants make up a major 
     proportion of the population.
       Those who favor curbs--Congress is considering several--say 
     the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty is irrelevant. 
     The last thing needed today, the argument goes, is ``huddled 
     masses.''
       ``It's a poem, not policy,'' says Rosemary Jenks, senior 
     analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington 
     think-tank that advocates reducing immigration. ``It never 
     was policy and we never said we wanted to open our arms.''
       Historians take the uproar with a grain of salt. Fifty-four 
     million immigrants have come to the USA since 1820, and the 
     public's response has been at best ambivalent--and at worst 
     racist and violent.
       The latest round of recriminations over immigrants has been 
     prompted, at least in part, by recent headlines: boatloads of 
     Chinese peasants trying to sneak into U.S. ports; Haitians 
     with the AIDS virus ordered let in; immigrants arrested in 
     connection with New York bomb plots; and Egyptian cleric who 
     somehow got in and now can't be immediately kicked out.
       It is a debate punctuated with apocalyptic rhetoric.
       One side says the United States--especially California, 
     Texas, Florida and New York--is being invaded by immigrants 
     who crowd neighborhoods, take jobs, cost money and change the 
     culture.
       ``We're at the floodstage and we have been for the past six 
     years,'' says Robert Goldsborough, president of Americans for 
     Immigration Control, a group that backs a temporary 
     moratorium on immigration.
       Even President Clinton has adopted the vocabulary of 
     immigration opponents, saying the chief goal of his nominee 
     to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be 
     to ensure the USA doesn't ``lose control of our borders,''
       Immigrant advocates, on the other hand, use words like 
     racism and xenophobia to describe feelings of their 
     opponents. They say immigrants create jobs, pay their taxes, 
     build communities and add vitality to the culture.
       ``There's this image being created of a white minority 
     encircled by Hispanics, Africans and Asians coming to take 
     something we have, rather than contributing to make us all 
     better,'' says Frank Sharry, head of the National Immigration 
     Forum, a coalition of advocate groups in Washington.
       Fierce and emotional, the debate has reached Congress, 
     where many members have concluded that the 1986 law meant to 
     fix the immigration problem failed miserably.
       Proposals being debated:
       Tightening up the political asylum system to allow 
     immigration officers to immediately turn away people with 
     suspected fraudulent claims.
       Denying citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.
       Deploying the military along the southern border.
       Charging a $1 toll for every person entering the USA on 
     foot, ferry, ship or by automobile, to raise $403 million for 
     more Border Patrol agents.
       Requiring a fraud-proof national ID card for every citizen 
     to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs.
       Even the advocates for immigrants want to repeal the 1986 
     law, which, among other things, bans hiring of illegal 
     immigrants. The advocates argue that employer sanctions have 
     caused widespread discrimination against citizens and legal 
     residents who seem ``foreign.''
       But advocates fear a get-tough attitude will prevail.
       ``We're right on the verge of a new era of anti-immigrant 
     hysteria that could push us in the direction of policies 
     based on misperceptions,'' says Lucas Guttentag, of the 
     Immigrant Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties 
     Union.
       The USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll reflects some of those 
     attitudes:
       Two-thirds say immigrants take low-paying jobs that most 
     Americans don't want. At the same time, 64% say immigrants 
     hurt the economy by driving down wages.
       Many are uncomfortable with the rising numbers of blacks 
     and Hispanics arriving.
       About two-thirds believe too many immigrants are coming 
     from Latin America, Asian and Mideast countries, while only 
     33% say too many are coming from European countries.
       Many are willing to embrace some controversial remedies. 
     Fifty-seven percent back the idea of a national ID; 40% would 
     deny illegal immigrants use of hospitals and schools.
       Some critics say the current mood could lead to immigrant-
     targeted violence of the kind now prevalent in Germany and 
     other European countries.
       ``If leaders do not address the public's legitimate 
     concerns, that leaves the door open for demagogues to take 
     over,'' warns Ira Mehlman, of the Federation for American 
     Immigration Reform, a leading anti-immigration group.
       But Lawrence Fuchs, acting chairman of the U.S. Commission 
     on Immigration Reform, thinks that's unlikely.
       Today, he argues, mainstream politicians no longer warn of 
     ``inferior'' immigrants, as generations did before.
       help? Foreign-born residents now make up 7.9% of the 
     population, compared with about 15% at the end of the 19th 
     century.
       And today, most new immigrants come here under family 
     reunification laws.
       Says Fuchs: ``People will say on surveys they're against 
     more immigration, but when their neighbor calls them up and 
     says, `I've petitioned for my spouse and little children to 
     come here,' the next thing out of the neighbor's mouth will 
     be `What can I do to help?'''
       Adds immigration expert Helton: ``That poem on the Statue 
     of Liberty is more persuasive than some people think.''

                 Immigrants' effect on American culture

                              [In percent]

Improve..............................................................35
Threaten.............................................................55
Immigration should stay at present level.............................27
Be increased..........................................................6
Be decreased.........................................................65

       There are too many immigrants from countries in:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Now     1992      1984 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
European.....................................       33       36       26
Latin American...............................       62       69       53
African......................................       44       47       31
Asian........................................       62       58       49
Mideast......................................       64  .......  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Anti-immigrant feeling running high a USA Today/CNN/Gallup 
     poll shows many Americans don't think immigrants are taking 
     away jobs, but feel immigrants are hurting the economy by 
     holding down wages and using government services, such as 
     public schools and hospitals. Many of those surveyed want 
     restricted immigration and tougher immigration laws. A look 
     at how Americans view immigration and immigrants:

                              Immigration

                              [In percent]

Many want reduced immigration until economy improves--those who think 
    immigration should:
  Stop...............................................................27
  Slow...............................................................49
Most think government can do more to stop illegal immigration:
  Can do more........................................................69
  Doing all it can...................................................28
Immigrants less likely than their children to favor restricting 
    immigration:
  Immigrants.........................................................42
  1st generation.....................................................54
  2nd generation.....................................................61
Patrolling borders a popular option--percentage favoring the following 
    to stop illegal immigration:
  Stricter patrol of borders.........................................90
  National ID card...................................................57
  Bar illegal immigrants from American schools, hospitals............40
  Erect wall on Mexican border.......................................27
Job skills important--Important criteria in admitting immigrants:
  Job skills.........................................................78
  Religious persecution..............................................65
  Political persecution..............................................64
  American relatives.................................................56
  Money to invest....................................................50
  Economic hardship..................................................47

                            THE NEW IMMIGRANT                           
[Perception of immigrants worsens; percentage saying these nationalities
            generally benefit the country or create problems]           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Benefit country     Create problems 
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                    1993      1985      1993      1985  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irish...........................        75        78        11         5
Poles...........................        65        72        15         7
Chinese.........................        59        69        31        13
Koreans.........................        53        52        33        23
Vietnamese......................        41        47        46        30
Mexicans........................        29        44        59        37
Haitians........................        19        31        65        35
Iranians........................        20        32        68        40
Cubans..........................        24        29        64        55
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Latin   
                                                   Asian       American 
                                                 immigrants   immigrants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work very hard................................           74           65
Often end up on welfare.......................           38           60
Do very well in school........................           74           42
Significantly increase crime..................           43           62
Have strong family values.....................           77           72
Are too competitive...........................           40           26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Comparing new, older immigrants--many say new immigrants 
     less likely to make good citizens than earlier immigrants:
                                                             In percent
More likely...........................................................9
Less likely..........................................................42
Same.................................................................46

                            Economic impact

Most say immigrants take more than they give--percentage who say that, 
    in the long run:
  Immigrants productive citizens, pay fair share of taxes............37
  Immigrants cost taxpayers by using government services.............56
Most say immigrants hurt economy--those saying immigrants:
  Help economy by providing low cost labor...........................28
  Hurt economy by holding down wages.................................64
                                 ______

      By Mr. DeCONCINI (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 1885. A bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to provide 
a uniform framework for the classification and declassification of 
information in the interests of national security; to the Select 
Committee on Intelligence.


                the security classification act of 1994

 Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kerrey and 
myself, I am introducing today a bill that would provide for the first 
time a statutory basis for the security classification system.
  I am also pleased that the chairman of the House Intelligence 
Committee, Representative Dan Glickman of Kansas, offered a bill 
yesterday in the House of Representatives to accomplish the same 
purpose. The two bills differ substantially, but they strive toward the 
same objective. It is my hope that in the months ahead, working 
together, we can come up with a legislative solution that makes sense 
not only to us but to the administration as well.
  Heretofore, Mr. President, the classification system has rested 
entirely upon Executive order. Over the years, that system has been the 
subject of much complaint and much abuse. It has also been overly 
cumbersome and costly to administer. In my view, the time has come for 
Congress to become involved. The end of the cold war presents us with 
an opportunity for greater openness and accountability. At the same 
time, there are many secrets we must yet protect, and the President 
must have sufficient authority to protect what needs protecting as long 
as protection is needed.

  With this bill, Mr. President, I have tried to strike a balance 
between these two important competing interests: the need for openness 
and the need for security. Clearly, this has required a subjective 
judgment on my part. Others will undoubtedly differ on where that line 
should be drawn, and, indeed, none of this is etched in stone.
  I do think, however, that this is an area where Congress ought to 
act.
  For example, there are a number of other statutes which are based 
upon the classification system, notably, the espionage laws and the 
Freedom of Information Act. We put people in jail for giving away 
classified information, and yet the system for classifying that 
information is not in law but is in Executive order which can be 
changed at the whim of the Executive. We carve out all classified 
information from the Freedom of Information Act, putting it off limits 
to the American public, and yet Congress has had no say on what is 
classified and what is not. It has been a matter of Executive 
discretion.
  To me, putting the security classification system itself in statute 
would provide a much firmer legal basis for these other laws. It would 
be the Congress and not simply the President who determined what was 
classified and what was not.

  Putting the security classification system into law would also tie in 
the legislative and judicial branches to it for the first time. 
Heretofore, there has been nothing that required the legislative and 
judicial branches to protect classified information which they handle. 
While I am not saying that the President should have control over the 
other branches, I do think that requiring all branches to respect the 
classification system by providing a statutory basis for it would be a 
positive step forward.
  Mr. President, my bill would leave the President with sufficient 
authority to protect what he believes needs protection in the interests 
of national security, but it would greatly simplify the system, reduce 
its costs, prevent more abuses, and make more classified information 
available sooner, than under the current system. These are legitimate 
goals not only for the Congress but for the President as well.
  I have come to find out, Mr. President, that there is no one who 
actually knows how much classified information there is. The Congress 
and the President receive an annual report each year which estimates 
the number of new classified documents created annually at 6 to 7 
million. As far as how many classified documents actually exist in 
files or archives of the Government, I do not think an estimate as high 
as 100 million would be out of line.

  What does it cost the U.S. Government to protect all of this 
information? I cannot begin to guess. What I do know is that we have 
spent, and continue to spend, an inordinate amount of money, 
particularly when it comes to protecting very sensitive special access 
programs. The Select Committee on Intelligence continues to hear horror 
stories from contractors in the defense and intelligence communities 
about the exorbitant costs of security measures being imposed by the 
various departments and agencies with whom they deal. Security 
requirements can vary from contract to contract, and often involve 
costly and needless expenditures of taxpayers' money.
  How much of this information is no longer sensitive and should be 
released to historians and archivists who are trying to find out what 
role our Government played in the events that marked our history? I do 
not think anyone can say. What I do know is that there is, as a 
practical matter, no means of getting this information into the hands 
of archivists and historians today. I am told that only a very small 
proportion of the classified documents which become eligible each year 
for declassification when they reach 30 years of age actually 
declassified each year, and the number is shrinking rather than 
increasing. This is because there are literally mountains of documents 
to cope with and relatively few people to do the job. The system is 
bogged down in paper without the resources necessary to extricate 
itself.

  Mr. President, I know that the administration is attempting to come 
to grips with the problem by drafting a new Executive order. I applaud 
them for it. But the bureaucratic interests here are stifling, and 
furthermore, I am not certain that ultimately the system can be fixed 
short of legislation. I recognize that historically this has been the 
domain of the executive branch, and clearly its authorities and 
prerogatives must be accommodated, but I think legislating the system 
would provide a stronger, firmer foundation that we currently have. If 
the executive branch were to come to the same conclusion, I would 
pledge myself to working with it to develop legislation to achieve our 
mutual objectives consistent with our respective authorities and 
prerogatives.
  Mr. President, I now 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. 1885

       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 ``Security Classification Act 
     of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of the National Security Act of 1947 
     (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

    ``TITLE VIII--CLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION IN THE INTERESTS OF 
                           NATIONAL SECURITY

       ``Sec. 801. Definitions.
       ``Sec. 802. Classification criteria.
       ``Sec. 803. Identification and marking of classified 
           information.
       ``Sec. 804. Authority to classify information.
       ``Sec. 805. Duration of classification.
       ``Sec. 806. Protection of classified information.
       ``Sec. 807. Special access programs.
       ``Sec. 808. Declassification, generally.
       ``Sec. 809. Declassification pursuant to a request by a 
           member of the public.
       ``Sec. 810. Declassification of permanently valuable 
           records of the Government for historical reasons.
       ``Sec. 811. Special declassification reviews for topics of 
           historical interest.
       ``Sec. 812. Oversight.
       ``Sec. 813. Sanctions.
       ``Sec. 814. Implementation.
       ``Sec. 815. Effect on information previously classified 
           pursuant to Executive order.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947.

       The National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding the following new title:
    ``TITLE VIII--CLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION IN THE INTERESTS OF 
                           NATIONAL SECURITY

     ``SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this title:
       ``(1) The term `agency' has the meaning provided in section 
     552(f) of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) The term `appropriate committees of the Congress' 
     means the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, 
     the Committee on Government Operations of the House of 
     Representatives, the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     Senate, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives, and, for purposes of receiving 
     reports regarding specific categories of information, such 
     committees as may have jurisdiction over the subject matter 
     of such information.
       ``(3) The term `classified information' means information 
     that has been determined pursuant to this title to require 
     protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests 
     of national security.
       ``(4) The term `declassification' means the authorized 
     change in the status of information from classified to 
     unclassified information.
       ``(5) The term `information' means any knowledge that can 
     be communicated or documentary material regardless of its 
     physical form or characteristics.
       ``(6) The term `international organization' means an 
     organization designated under section 1 of the International 
     Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288).
       ``(7) The term `national security' means the national 
     defense or foreign relations of the United States.
       ``(8) The term `originating agency' means, with respect to 
     information, the department, agency, or entity of the United 
     States (or any officer or employee thereof of acting in his 
     official capacity) that originates, develops, publishes, 
     issues, or otherwise prepares that information or receives 
     that information from outside the United States Government.
       ``(9) The term `security clearance' means a determination, 
     by appropriate governmental authority, based upon appropriate 
     investigation, that a person can with reasonable certainty be 
     trusted to protect classified information to which he or she 
     may be given access.
       ``(10) The term `unauthorized disclosure' means a 
     communication or physical transfer of information to an 
     unauthorized recipient.

     ``SEC. 802. CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA.

       ``(a) In General.--Information may be classified under this 
     title--
       ``(1) only if such information is owned by, produced by or 
     for, or is under the control of the United States Government; 
     and
       ``(2)(A) only if it can be specifically demonstrated that 
     the public release of such information could reasonably be 
     expected to--
       ``(i) impair the ability of the United States Government 
     and its Armed Forces to defend the United States from armed 
     aggression, to engage in armed conflict, or to participate in 
     peacekeeping or multinational operations abroad;
       ``(ii) increase the vulnerability of the United States 
     Government personnel, installations, weapons technology, or 
     related systems to armed attack, loss or compromise, or 
     measures that would weaken their effectiveness or counter 
     their capabilities;
       ``(iii) damage relations between the United States and 
     another country or international organization, impede current 
     diplomatic negotiations, or reveal information provided in 
     confidence by another country or international organization;
       ``(iv) reveal intelligence sources and methods, including 
     those related to covert actions and cryptologic activities;
       ``(v) impair United States Government programs from 
     safeguarding nuclear weapons or facilities;
       ``(vi) damage the ability of the United States to relate or 
     apply critical research or technology to the national defense 
     or foreign relations of the United States; and
       ``(vii) impair the ability of the United States Secret 
     Service to provide protection to designated persons as 
     required by applicable law; or
       ``(B) such information otherwise falls within a category 
     designated by the President, after consultation with the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress, the public release of 
     which would, in a manner that can be specifically 
     demonstrated, damage the national security, of the United 
     States and such information is not covered by any of the 
     clauses of subparagraph (A).

     Categories designated under paragraph (2)(B) shall be 
     published in the Federal Register prior to their effective 
     date.
       ``(b) Prohibition.--In no case shall information be 
     classified pursuant to this section in order to--
       ``(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or 
     administrative error;
       ``(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or 
     agency;
       ``(3) restrain competition;
       ``(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does 
     not require protection in the interests of national security;
       ``(5) control access to basic scientific research 
     information not clearly related to the national security;
       ``(6) control information after it has been released to the 
     public or a member thereof under proper authority; or
       ``(7) prevent the public release of a compilation of items 
     of information which individually are not classified.

     ``SEC. 803. IDENTIFICATION AND MARKING OF CLASSIFIED 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Classifications.--All information classified pursuant 
     to this title shall be clearly identified in an appropriate 
     fashion as either `TOP SECRET' or `SECRET', in accordance 
     with subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(b) `Top Secret' Classification.--Classification as `TOP 
     SECRET' shall be limited to information which meets the 
     criteria for classification established by subsection 802(a) 
     of this title, whose disclosure to unauthorized persons would 
     have the most serious adverse consequences for the national 
     security, as determined in accordance with regulations to be 
     issued by the President pursuant to section 814 of this 
     title.
       ``(c) `Secret' Classification.--Classification as `SECRET' 
     shall apply to all other information which meets the criteria 
     for classification established by section 802(a).
       ``(d) Additional Information.--All information classified 
     pursuant to this title shall also be marked in an appropriate 
     manner at the time of classification to provide the following 
     information:
       ``(1) The agency and office of origin, if not otherwise 
     evident.
       ``(2) A date or event for declassification assigned 
     pursuant to section 805.
       ``(3) A determination whether the document or material 
     contains information which falls within one or more of the 
     categories set forth in section 810(b).
       ``(e) Marking Portions for Classification.--Each classified 
     document shall, by marking or other means, indicate which 
     portions are classified and which portions are unclassified 
     and shall identify the classified portions with the 
     appropriate classification.
       ``(f) Exclusivity of Classifications.--Except as provided 
     by section 807 of this title, and the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954, no classifications other than those authorized by this 
     section shall be utilized to identify classified information.

     ``SEC. 804. AUTHORITY TO CLASSIFY INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Executive Branch.--Information may be classified only 
     by originating agencies within the executive branch of 
     Government, in accordance with procedures promulgated by the 
     President pursuant to section 814, and only by persons 
     authorized by such procedures to classify information.
       ``(b) Legislative and Judicial Branches.--Documents or 
     materials created by the legislative and judicial branches of 
     Government which contain classified information originated by 
     a department or agency of the executive branch shall be 
     assigned the same classification as was assigned to the 
     information by the department or agency which originated the 
     information concerned.

     ``SEC. 805. DURATION OF CLASSIFICATION.

       ``(a) Date or Event for Declassification.--At the time a 
     classification is made, the originating agency of the 
     information shall attempt to establish a specific date or 
     event for declassification of that information based upon the 
     expected duration of the national security sensitivity of the 
     information, and, if this can be done, shall mark the 
     material for declassification by that date, pursuant to 
     subsection 803(d)(2). The date or event shall not exceed the 
     time period prescribed in subsection (b)(1) or subsection 
     (b)(2), as the case may be.
       ``(b) Duration of Classifications.--If the originating 
     agency cannot determine a specific date or event for 
     declassification:
       ``(1) Classified information designated as `TOP SECRET' 
     shall be marked for declassification no later than 15 years 
     from the date of the original decision to classify the 
     information.
       ``(2) Classified information designated as `SECRET' shall 
     be marked for declassification no later than 10 years from 
     the date of the original decision to classify the 
     information.
       ``(c) Application of Classification to Derived Documents.--
     All documents or materials which contain classified 
     information derived from other classified documents or 
     materials shall be marked with the same date or event for 
     declassification as the documents or materials which were the 
     source of the classified information concerned. When multiple 
     classified sources are used, the latest of the dates assigned 
     for declassification shall be applied.

     ``SEC. 806. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Eligibility for Access.--Except as otherwise provided 
     by subsections (d), (e), and (f), access to classified 
     information shall be limited to persons who have received a 
     security clearance permitting such access and only to the 
     extent needed by such persons for the performance of an 
     official governmental function.
       ``(b) Control by Regulation.--In accordance with section 
     814, the President shall issue regulations which provide for 
     a uniform system for the protection of information classified 
     pursuant to this title applicable to all elements of the 
     executive branch of Government. These controls shall ensure 
     that classified information is used, processed, stored, 
     reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed in a manner that 
     prevents access by persons who do not possess a security 
     clearance and an official need for access to such 
     information. Such controls shall also require more stringent 
     security measures for the protection of information 
     classified as `TOP SECRET', pursuant to section 803(b), than 
     is required for the protection of information classified as 
     `SECRET' pursuant to section 803(c).
       ``(c) Legislative and Judicial Branches.--The legislative 
     and judicial branches of Government shall adopt the same or 
     similar procedures to provide a comparable degree of 
     protection for classified information provided by departments 
     and agencies of the executive branch of Government.
       ``(d) Access by Elected Officials and Judicial 
     Appointees.--By virtue of their elected or appointed 
     positions, the President and Vice President of the United 
     States, Members of Congress, and persons appointed by the 
     President to the Federal judiciary shall have access to such 
     classified information as may be needed for the performance 
     of their official duties without receiving a security 
     clearance.
       ``(e) Persons Not Holding Security Clearances.--In 
     accordance with the regulations issued pursuant to section 
     814, the President may permit access to classified 
     information to persons who do not have a security clearance 
     who are engaged in historical research, or who previously 
     occupied policymaking positions to which they were appointed 
     by the President, if appropriate measures are taken to 
     preclude access by other persons who have not been 
     specifically authorized access under this subsection.
       ``(f) Foreign Governments and International 
     Organizations.--Whenever the President determines that it 
     would be in the interests of the United States to permit 
     access to classified information to a foreign government or 
     to an international organization, the President is authorized 
     to do so if such government or organization agrees in advance 
     to provide a comparable degree of protection to such 
     information to preclude its disclosure to unauthorized 
     persons, and the President determines that such government or 
     organization is capable of providing such protection.

     ``SEC. 807. SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Authorization.--The President may authorize, in 
     regulations issued pursuant to section 814, the establishment 
     of special access programs by the Secretaries of State, 
     Defense, and Energy, or the Director of Central Intelligence. 
     The President may establish such programs in any other 
     department or agency of the executive branch of Government if 
     the President notifies the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress 30 days in advance.
       ``(b) Requirements.--(1) Special access programs under this 
     section shall be created only where there is a need, due to 
     the national security sensitivity of the information 
     concerned, for a formal mechanism to establish an official 
     need for access to the information concerned and for more 
     stringent security measures than are applicable to classified 
     information generally to protect such information.
       ``(2) To the extent possible, such special access programs 
     shall not involve security requirements in addition to those 
     required for the protection of information classified as `TOP 
     SECRET' other than the creation of a list of persons with 
     appropriate security clearances who are permitted access to 
     the classified information covered by the program for an 
     official governmental purpose and such mechanisms as may be 
     necessary to implement such controls.
       ``(3) Wherever an agency head determines that security 
     measures in addition to those which apply to information 
     classified as `TOP SECRET' are necessary to protect 
     information within a special access program, such additional 
     measures shall conform to and not exceed a single, uniform 
     set of security measures approved by the President, or the 
     President's designee, for this purpose.
       ``(4) Information protected within an authorized special 
     access program shall be designated only as `RESTRICTED', and 
     dissemination of such information shall be limited to persons 
     who have been authorized access to such program by an 
     appropriate official of the department or agency concerned.
       ``(5) Each department or agency head authorized to 
     establish special access programs shall establish and 
     maintain a system of accounting for such programs consistent 
     with regulations promulgated by the President, or the 
     President's designee, for this purpose.
       ``(6) Such special access programs shall be subject to 
     oversight by the senior oversight official appointed by the 
     President pursuant to section 812, who shall be afforded such 
     access to these programs as may be necessary to perform his 
     or her responsibilities.
       ``(7) Each department or agency head authorized to 
     establish special access programs pursuant to this section 
     shall ensure that each such program is reviewed annually to 
     determine whether it continues to meet the requirements of 
     this section.
       ``(c) Rule of Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall affect the provisions of section 119 of title 
     10, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 808. DECLASSIFICATION, GENERALLY.

       ``Information which is classified pursuant to this title 
     shall remain classified until one of the following has 
     occurred:
       ``(1) If a specific date or event has been assigned for 
     declassification, the date or event assigned has occurred.
       ``(2) In response to a request from a member of the public, 
     submitted pursuant to section 552 or 552a of title 5, United 
     States Code, or otherwise, for documents or materials 
     containing such information, the head of the originating 
     agency, or the agency head's designee for this purpose, has 
     determined that such information no longer meets the criteria 
     for classification established by this title in accordance 
     with section 809.
       ``(3) The information is contained in documents or 
     materials reviewed in accordance with section 810 or 811, and 
     the head of the originating agency, or the agency head's 
     designee for this purpose, has determined that such 
     information does not meet the criteria for continued 
     classification established pursuant to that section.
       ``(4) Such information has been declassified by an 
     appropriate authority within the executive branch in 
     accordance with this title.
       ``(5) Such information has been determined to have been 
     improperly classified by a court of competent jurisdiction, 
     and a final order has been issued requiring the release of 
     such information.

     ``SEC. 809. DECLASSIFICATION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST BY A 
                   MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.

       ``(a) Declassification Review.--Except as provided by 
     subsection (c), any document or material containing 
     classified information which is requested by a United States 
     citizen or permanent resident alien, a Federal agency, or a 
     State or local government, shall be subjected to a review for 
     declassification by the originating agency at any time after 
     the information has been created in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(b) Referral to Originating Agency.--All requests for 
     declassification review which are received by a department or 
     agency which did not originate the information concerned, or 
     by an element of the legislative or judicial branches, shall 
     be referred to the department or agency of the executive 
     branch which originated such information, and the requester 
     shall be apprised of such referral.
       ``(c) Grounds for Denial of Declassification Review.--Any 
     originating agency which receives a request to review 
     classified information for declassification pursuant to this 
     section may decline to conduct such review if--
       ``(1) the requester is unable to identify the document or 
     material concerned with sufficient specificity to enable the 
     originating agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of 
     effort; or
       ``(2) a review of the same document or material has taken 
     place within the last year, in which case the requester shall 
     be apprised of the results of the previous review.
       ``(d) Eligibility for Declassification.--(1) For purposes 
     of the declassification reviews required by this section--
       ``(A) information shall be declassified if it no longer 
     meets the criteria established by this title; and
       ``(B) classified information shall be presumed to no longer 
     meet the criteria for classification established by this 
     title if, at the time of review, the date or event assigned 
     for declassification has passed, unless the agency head or 
     senior agency official determines in writing, citing specific 
     reasons, that the information concerned clearly continues to 
     meet the criteria for classification established by this 
     title.
       ``(2) In the case of information described in paragraph 
     (1)(B), a new date shall be assigned for declassification of 
     the information concerned which shall not exceed 5 years from 
     the date of such determination and the requester shall be 
     apprised of this determination.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding a determination that the information 
     requested continues to meet the criteria for classification 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), an agency head or the senior 
     agency official shall declassify such information if the 
     public interest in disclosure of the information outweighs 
     the national security interest in its continued 
     classification.

     ``SEC. 810. DECLASSIFICATION OF PERMANENTLY VALUABLE RECORDS 
                   OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR HISTORICAL REASONS.

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to the reviews required by 
     section 809, departments and agencies which originate 
     classified information shall establish programs to require 
     review for declassification of all classified documents and 
     materials which are at least 25 years old, which are 
     determined to constitute permanently valuable records of the 
     Government, prior to their being transferred to the National 
     Archives of the United States in accordance with applicable 
     law.
       ``(b) Exception.--Documents or materials subject to the 
     review required by subsection (a) shall be declassified 
     unless they contain information the release of which could 
     reasonably be expected to--
       ``(1) identify a confidential human intelligence source;
       ``(2) reveal information not publicly available that would 
     clearly assist in the development or use of weapons of mass 
     destruction;
       ``(3) reveal information not publicly available that would 
     clearly impair United States cryptologic systems or 
     activities; or
       ``(4) violate a statute, treaty, or international 
     agreement.
       ``(c) Expedited Review.--For purposes of making the 
     determination required by subsection (b), if the document or 
     material has been classified pursuant to this title and has 
     been marked pursuant to subsection 803(d)(3) as not 
     containing information falling within one or more of the 
     categories established by subsection (b), the document or 
     material shall be declassified without further review by the 
     originating agency, except that where an originating agency 
     determines that the document or material concerned should 
     have been marked as containing such information, the 
     originating agency may treat such document or material in 
     accordance with subsection (d).
       ``(d) Treatment of Exempted Documents.--Wherever documents 
     and materials subject to review in accordance with subsection 
     (a) are found to contain information which falls into one of 
     the categories set forth in subsection (b), the originating 
     agency shall--
       ``(1) assign a specific date or event upon which the 
     document or material shall be reevaluated for 
     declassification, except that such date or event shall be no 
     later than 5 years after the date of the initial review;
       ``(2) set aside in one physical location a copy of the 
     documents and materials determined to contain such 
     information;
       ``(3) establish a system which facilitates the continuous 
     review of such documents or materials at the date or event 
     assigned (which shall not exceed 5-year intervals) until the 
     document or material is declassified; and
       ``(4) report annually to the senior oversight official 
     appointed by the President pursuant to section 812 regarding 
     the volume and status of such documents and materials.

     ``SEC. 811. SPECIAL DECLASSIFICATION REVIEWS FOR TOPICS OF 
                   HISTORICAL INTEREST.

       ``In addition to the declassification reviews required by 
     sections 809 and 810, the President shall establish 
     procedures pursuant to section 814 to provide for special 
     declassification reviews to be undertaken by affected 
     departments and agencies of the executive branch leading to 
     the declassification of information regarding topics of 
     significant and current historical interest. Such procedures 
     shall, at a minimum--
       ``(1) provide for the appointment of a National Security 
     Historical Advisory Panel, consisting of representatives from 
     the public and private sector, that shall, after appropriate 
     consultations with affected departments and agencies, 
     historians, archivists, and others with interests in the 
     classified records concerned, be authorized to direct, 
     consistent with available resources, special governmentwide 
     declassification reviews of classified documents and 
     materials relating to topics of significant and current 
     historical interest;
       ``(2) provide that special reviews ordinarily will be 
     limited to topics or events which occurred more than 25 years 
     in the past unless the Panel determines an overriding public 
     interest in undertaking such a review of a more recent event 
     or topic;
       ``(3) give precedence, where necessary, in terms of the use 
     of available resources, to the accomplishment of special 
     reviews, over the accomplishment of declassification reviews 
     required by section 810; and
       ``(4) direct departments and agencies to provide such 
     support to special reviews as may be necessary to meet the 
     objectives established by the Panel.

     ``SEC. 812. OVERSIGHT.

       ``(a) Appointment.--(1) A senior oversight official shall 
     be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, who shall be responsible for 
     monitoring the overall implementation of this title within 
     the executive branch and shall report annually to the 
     President and to the appropriate committees of the Congress 
     with respect to the operation of this title, together with 
     any recommendation for statutory or regulatory change. Such 
     official shall also be authorized to consider and take 
     appropriate action with respect to complaints and suggestions 
     from persons within or outside the Government with respect to 
     the administration of this title, including the 
     declassification of information which has been improperly 
     classified.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section establishes a legal right or 
     entitlement for any person within or outside the Government, 
     nor subjects the official appointed pursuant to this section 
     to suit in any court of law to require performance under this 
     title.
       ``(b) Access to Classified Information.--The senior 
     oversight official appointed pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
     have access to such classified information as may be required 
     for the performance of his or her duties.
       ``(c) Designated Agency Officials.--The head of each 
     originating agency shall designate a senior agency official 
     who shall have overall responsibility within the agency for 
     the implementation of this title. Each such official shall 
     keep the senior oversight official appointed pursuant to 
     subsection (a) fully and currently informed with respect to 
     the implementation of this title within his or her respective 
     department or agency, including the reporting of any 
     violations of this title which may have been identified and 
     the remedial actions taken as a result.
       ``(d) Challenges to Classifications.--Any authorized holder 
     of classified information who, in good faith, believes that 
     such information should not be classified or should be 
     classified at a different level, may challenge the 
     classification status in accordance with regulations to be 
     promulgated by the President pursuant to section 814. Such 
     regulations shall, at a minimum, assure that--
       ``(1) individuals are not subject to retribution for 
     bringing such challenge;
       ``(2) an opportunity is provided for review of such 
     challenge by an impartial official; and
       ``(3) the right to appeal the decision of such official to 
     a higher level is guaranteed.

     ``SEC. 813. SANCTIONS.

       ``(a) Unlawful Classification Activity.--Persons with 
     authorized access to classified information who are 
     determined to have--
       ``(1) knowingly and willfully classified information in 
     violation of section 802 of this title;
       ``(2) knowingly and willfully continued a classification in 
     violation of sections 808 and 809 of this title; or
       ``(3) demonstrated reckless disregard in applying the 
     classification criteria of section 802 of this title,

     shall be removed from access to classified information and 
     shall be subjected to disciplinary actions that may include 
     official reprimand, suspension without pay, or removal from 
     employment, as may be appropriate.
       ``(b) Unlawful Disclosure.--Persons with authorized access 
     to information classified pursuant to this title who 
     knowingly and willfully disclose such information to an 
     unauthorized person shall, in addition to incurring potential 
     criminal liability under chapter 37 of title 18, United 
     States Code, or section 4 of the Subversive Activities 
     Control Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783), be removed from access 
     to classified information and shall be subjected to 
     disciplinary actions that may include official reprimand, 
     suspension without pay, or removal from employment, as may be 
     appropriate.

     ``SEC. 814. IMPLEMENTATION.

       ``(a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall issue 
     regulations to implement this title with respect to agencies 
     of the executive branch. Such regulations shall take effect 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       ``(b) Procedures.--Pursuant to subsection (a), the 
     President shall, at a minimum--
       ``(1) require the heads of departments and agencies to 
     appoint a senior agency official to direct and administer 
     this title;
       ``(2) require the heads of departments and agencies to 
     identify by category information originated by their 
     respective agencies which meets the criteria for 
     classification established by this title, and to issue 
     appropriate regulations, consistent with this title, to 
     require the classification of such information by their 
     employees; and
       ``(3) require that the systems established by law or 
     regulation for evaluating the performance of civilian or 
     military personnel or contractors include the management and 
     handling of classified information as a critical element or 
     item to be evaluated in the rating of all persons whose 
     duties involve the creation or handling of such information.
       ``(c) Procedures Within the Legislative and Judicial 
     Branches.--After the issuance of the regulations required by 
     subsection (a), the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     Senate, the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Director of the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts, shall ensure that 
     procedures exist within their respective bodies to provide 
     comparable protection to information classified pursuant to 
     this title which may be provided by the executive branch for 
     the conduct of their respective functions.

     ``SEC. 815. EFFECT ON INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED 
                   PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER.

       ``(a) Redesignation Not Required.--Information classified 
     pursuant to Executive order before the effective date of this 
     Act shall retain the classification assigned without 
     redesignation pursuant to section 803 of this title.
       ``(b) Declassification of Previously Classified 
     Information.--(1) Information previously classified as 
     `CONFIDENTIAL', pursuant to Executive order, which is subject 
     to a request pursuant to section 809 of this title, shall, if 
     more than 5 years old, be declassified and furnished to the 
     requester. If less than 5 years old, such information shall 
     be treated as `SECRET' information for purposes of this title 
     until it reaches 5 years of age and the requester shall be 
     advised of the date of declassification.
       ``(2) Declassification of information previously classified 
     as `SECRET' or `TOP SECRET', pursuant to Executive order, in 
     response to a request or review made after the effective date 
     of this title, shall be governed by the provisions of this 
     title, regardless of the duration of classification or 
     conditions for declassification previously provided by 
     Executive order.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall 
     take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Robb):
  S. 1886. A bill to amend the Water Supply Act of 1958 to provide for 
the funding of capital improvements at the Washington aqueduct, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


              washington aqueduct improvements act of 1994

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers access to the Federal Financing 
Bank for the purposes of financing capital improvements of the 
Washington aqueduct. I am pleased that Senator Robb has joined in 
cosponsoring this legislation. I would like to express my appreciation 
to my legislative assistants Ann Loomis and Ellen Stein for their work 
in crafting this legislation.
  The Washington aqueduct system, which consists of the Dalecarlia and 
McMillan water treatment plants, has been owned by the Federal 
Government since it was constructed in 1853. Upon completion, the 
system was placed under the control of the Corps of Engineers for 
appropriate management and maintenance. Over the years, many additions 
and improvements have been made to the system including the 
construction of the McMillan Reservoir, filtering and chemical 
treatment facilities and additional intake structures.
  Today, the Washington aqueduct system has the capacity to distribute 
a maximum of 250 million gallons per day to the over 1 million 
customers in the Metropolitan Washington area.
  Mr. President, for 3 days beginning on December 8, 1993, this region 
was practically crippled by the Environmental Protection Agency's order 
to boil tap water prior to consumption. Area residents were fearful 
that their water supply was contaminated and it was an enormous 
undertaking for local governments to notify everyone of the gravity of 
this situation, particularly non-English speaking residents.
  The preliminary reports following this incident indicate that human 
error affected the results of the water quality testing. In an effort 
to gain more information on the circumstances that led to the December 
event and daily operating procedures of the system, two investigations 
are underway for the Environmental Protection Agency. It is my hope 
that these reports will analyze the factors that led to the December 
order, as well as other incidents involving monitoring and reporting 
violations. While these reports will be useful, our first 
responsibility is to ensure that the water from this system is safe for 
consumption and that public confidence is restored.
  In discussions with the affected local Virginia jurisdictions of 
Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the city of Falls Church, the Corps 
of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency following the 
December situation, I have learned that capital improvements of the 
system are critical to ensure that metropolitan Washington area 
residents have safe drinking water.
  While fees collected from the system's users are deposited into the 
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund and provide the 
resources necessary to cover the system's annual operating costs, there 
are no means available to the corps to finance expensive capital 
improvements. The Enterprise Fund receives approximately $6 million-
per-year directly from the sale of water to citizens in the affected 
jurisdictions in Virginia. Revenue from this fund, however, is used for 
the annual operations and maintenance of the system. Any capital 
improvements must also be financed by the fund and must be paid for in 
advance of the work. The inability of the corps to provide long-term 
financing for capital projects will cause the water users to be subject 
to extremely high water bills in the coming years.
  The legislation I am offering today will address this problem by 
granting the corps access to money from the Federal Financing Bank to 
underwrite the cost of these improvements to the Washington aqueduct. 
The Federal Financing Bank has become the vehicle through which many 
Federal agencies finance programs involving construction projects. 
Rather than using the Treasury Department as an interim lender and the 
market as a permanent source of funds, the Federal Financing Bank 
borrows all funds from the Treasury and matches the terms and 
conditions of its borrowing from the Treasury with the terms and 
conditions of its loans.
  The legislation is necessary because of this unique situation of 
Federal ownership of the Washington aqueduct. In this instance, the 
Corps of Engineers provides a local service to the region much like 
other public service authorities. The Corps of Engineers, however, is 
unable to borrow directly to finance needed capital projects. The corps 
has identified approximately $100 million in capital improvements that 
are required immediately or that are necessary within the next 5 years 
to meet Federal drinking water standards.
  Other publicly or privately owned facilities are able to issue bonds 
or borrow from other sources in order to amortize the capital 
improvement costs over the useful life of the project. This normal 
means of financing is not available to the Corps of Engineers. As such, 
area residents are faced with two unacceptable options: possibly unsafe 
drinking water or exorbitant water rates. Customers which rely on the 
Washington aqueduct system for safe, reliable drinking water must be 
allowed the same amortization options available to other public and 
private utilities. My legislation will provide that equity.
  Mr. President, I must also add that it is not my intention that 
Federal funds be used to address this essentially local situation. 
Local water users will bear the costs of these improvements with 
increasing water rates that will be used to repay the loan from the 
Federal Financing Bank over a reasonable period of time.
  Mr. President, I was astonished to read coincidentally in the 
Washington Post an article entitled ``D.C. Water Troubles Run Deep.'' 
This is the water that each of us is dependent on in this institution 
every day. This is water in the Nation's Capital for all of our 
Government. This is the water that is in Maryland and the District of 
Columbia. And it is questionable as to its potability.
  Just stop to think if we were to experience a major catastrophe in 
connection with this water supply on which the Nation's Capital, the 
Nation's Government, is dependent on each day to operate.
  I am putting in today a bill to remedy this problem, namely, to allow 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to have legal access to certain areas 
to begin to step in and correct this problem.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this in the hopes that we can get a 
number of cosponsors and at the earliest possible date begin to get the 
Corps of Engineers to work with local government in correcting this 
problem.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and the 
Washington Post article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1887

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

     SECTION 1. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT.

       Section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 
     390b) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       ``(1) the Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers 
     may borrow from the Federal Financing Bank such amounts as 
     the Chief determines are necessary to finance capital 
     improvements at the Washington Aqueduct;
       ``(2) upon request of the Chief, the Board of Directors of 
     the Federal Financing Bank shall make loans to the Chief for 
     the purpose described in paragraph (1); and
       ``(3) any amounts borrowed by the Chief under this 
     subsection shall be repaid by users of the Washington 
     Aqueduct over such period of time, and shall be subject to 
     such other terms and conditions, as the Board determines to 
     be appropriate.''.
                                  ____


                       [From the Washington Post]

  D.C.'s Water Troubles Run Deep--Recent Crisis Part of a Pattern of 
                         Problems at Two Plants

                            (By D'Vera Cohn)

       The accident that forced a million area residents to boil 
     drinking water in December was not an isolated event. Records 
     from the two treatment plants serving the District and parts 
     of Northern Virginia show a previous pattern of unreported 
     pollution incidents, contradicting statements by the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers that December's accident was an 
     exception in the plants' otherwise smooth operations.
       The December boil-water order was triggered by readings of 
     high cloudiness--known as turbidity--in water at the corps' 
     Dalecarlia plant in Nortwest Washington, which officials said 
     meant filters were working so poorly that they could be 
     letting in dangerous parasites. But both Dalecarlia and the 
     corps' other plant, McMillan, had other serious turbidity 
     problems last year that were not made public.
       For the month of July, water that McMillan pumped to local 
     faucets was cloudier than federal law allows and should have 
     been reported to the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     according to records made available under the Freedom of 
     Information Act. But the EPA did not learn of the violation 
     until it began investigating December's infraction. The 
     agency has not announced whether it will fine or reprimand 
     the corps for that incident.
       Likewise, records show that for two days in early April, 
     turbidity levels shot to dangerous highs at the Dalecarlia 
     plant, on MacArthur Boulevard at the Maryland line. The EPA 
     learned of the problem last month. The April readings were 
     worse than those in December and remained high for a longer 
     period. But at the time, the readings were legal. Standards 
     were tightened July 1.
       The corps' two treatment plants, the pipes leading from 
     them and the District's network of reservoirs also are 
     plagued by persistent summer bacteria contamination. EPA 
     officials say in internal memos that they increasingly are 
     suspicious that practices at the plants may be partly to 
     blame.
       Despite the recent troubles, corps and EPA officials say 
     water from the two treatment plants is safe to drink--
     especially now, with investigations underway into what went 
     wrong. And the area begins with a big advantage: The Potomac 
     River, which supplies the plants, is relatively clean. The 
     water has bacteria pollution but few industrial or 
     agricultural chemicals.
       There were no known report of illness from the December 
     water crisis.
       ``Yes, the water is safe,'' said Stuart Kerzner, a top 
     official in the EPA's Philadelphia regional office, citing 
     recent samplings. But he added, ``The plant is a concern * * 
     * the standard operating procedures that go on in the plant 
     need to be tightened up.''
       Environmentalists, local officials and, privately, some EPA 
     officials say they are troubled by the record of 
     contamination and its potential to recur.
       ``It's clear this was part of a long-standing pattern of 
     problems,'' said Erik D. Olson, senior attorney with the 
     Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group 
     that also examined plant records. ``I think there's a lot 
     more we need to learn before we're complacent.''
       The public also lacks confidence in public water according 
     to a recent survey by the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, which found that more than a third of 
     District households drink bottle water.
       The two corps plants supply the District, Arlington, Falls 
     Church, parts of Fairfax County and 100 homes in Prince 
     George's County. They also serve National Airport, the 
     Pentagon and the White House.
       Some of the blame for deteriorating water quality rests 
     with loose operations, understaffing and outdated equipment.
       Plant records show, for instance, that the corps routinely 
     did not clean filters as often as its own rules required. It 
     also has played down the presence of eels burrowed into the 
     plant's sand filters, a factor an outside consultant 
     suggested may allow contamination leaks.


                  Responsiblity Lies in Several Places

       Some fault lies with the EPA regional office's self-
     confessed weak oversight; the office regulates the two plants 
     and the District's pipes.
       The EPA spent $173,000 last year on oversight in Washington 
     but returned $124,500 of its regulatory budget to the 
     Treasury.
       ``If we'd known the plant was having the kind of problems 
     they were having,'' the EPA would have spent more, said 
     Jeffrey Hass, chief of the regional drinking-water-protection 
     branch.
       Area governments also share responsibility.
       The District snubbed requests from the corps to flush its 
     pipes regularly to counter bacteria contamination. And 
     contrary to law, the public was not told when tests found 
     bacteria contamination at the Arlington courthouse two years 
     ago.
       The water system's troubles burst into public view Dec. 8, 
     when EPA officials declared the cloudy water undrinkable 
     without first being boiled. The agency feared the presence of 
     a microscopic parasite that sickened thousands of people in 
     Milwaukee last spring.
       The edict disrupted life in the Washington area for three 
     days until tests failed to find the parasite, called 
     cryptosporidium, that had worried the EPA.
       Corps officials attributed the accident mainly to workers 
     who had failed to add enough of a chemical to counter 
     sediment left in the water by rains. The error was aggravated 
     by an equipment breakdown and a shortage of another critical 
     chemical, plant officials said.
       After the order was lifted, they said procedures had been 
     tightened and called the violation a one-time problem.
       ``The plant has turned out good water for a long time,'' 
     Col. J. Richard Capka, commander of the corps' Baltimore 
     District, said last month.
       Dalecarlia plant records, however, show that on April 3 and 
     4, cloudiness levels jumped to several times higher than what 
     most plant operators consider safe.
       Most plant operators are concerned when water leaving 
     filters has cloudiness higher than 1 ``nephelometric 
     turbidity unit,'' or NTU--a measure of how much light passes 
     through water. The corps and other plants try to maintain 
     levels below 0.2 NTU. The law now says any reading above 5 
     NTUs is a violation.
       At Dalecarlia in December, water leaped above 5 NTUs for 
     three hours, peaking at 9 NTUs. In April, it shot above 5 
     NTUs for at least five hours, peaking at 14, records show.
       The corps faulted employee mistakes for the April pollution 
     and said it did not tighten procedures then because turbidity 
     was not a big problem. The corps was not required to report 
     the incident to EPA officials, and it didn't.
       EPA officials say they understand why the corps didn't 
     call, because many in the industry did not draw a link 
     between turbidity and cryptosporidium until Milwaukee's 
     problems later that month. The corps now has a strict 
     procedure to call the EPA as levels start to rise, it says.
       Water plant operators elsewhere, though said they would 
     have told the state agency that regulates them had they seen 
     the sort of problems the District was having. In Des Moines, 
     for example, water cloudiness levels reached 2 NTU two years 
     ago, and local officials informed the state.
       Records also show that the McMillan plant violated federal 
     standards in July because nearly 20 percent of its hourly 
     water samples were cloudier than 0.5 NTU. The legal limit is 
     5 percent.
       The corps reported the excessive readings in its monthly 
     report to the EPA, but it didn't flag them. EPA officials 
     didn't notice the violation, and the public was not warned.
       ``It was not reported in the manner it should have been 
     reported,'' Capka now says.
       ``We're very concerned that this information The Post has 
     learned concerning these past problems appears never to have 
     been communicated to us,'' said Richard Hebert, a spokesman 
     for D.C. City Administrator Robert L. Mallett. ``As a 
     customer, we deserve to know when they have problems.''
       Despite the law requiring immediate notification, the 
     public also has not always been told when bacteria readings 
     in water exceeded legal levels.
       Bacteria contamination can cause stomach illness in healthy 
     people and can be dangerous to those with cancer, AIDS or 
     otherwise weakened immune systems.
       To keep tabs on bacteria, local governments are required to 
     sample regularly throughout their jurisdictions. If tests 
     find general bacteria in more than 4 percent of each month's 
     samples, the public must be told. Arlington issued such an 
     alert in August; the District did the same in September.
       If an individual location tests positive for harmful fecal 
     bacteria or E. coli--the kind found in human and animal 
     waste--the public also is supposed to be told, as was done 
     when the bacteria was found in September at a closed school 
     in Northeast Washington. Yet last fall, corps officials found 
     an overlooked incident of fecal bacteria contamination that 
     had occurred at a District firehouse in June. They blamed 
     laboratory understaffing for not catching the problem 
     earlier.
       The same bacteria problem occurred two years ago in 
     Arlington, according to water plant records. A water sample 
     at the county courthouse tested positive for fecal 
     contamination.
       Virginia Health Department officials say Arlington never 
     notified them. Arlington officials say that they did but that 
     the state did not require them to tell the public because the 
     problem cleared up a day later.


                    workers told not to drink water

       A question about public disclosure also was raised after 
     workers at the Dalecarlia plant were ordered not to drink 
     water there because of bacteria in the plant's own water 
     supply for several days in November. Corps officials say the 
     plant's water is distinct from the supply that goes into the 
     rest of the city.
       But some EPA officials contend that the plant water is 
     drawn from a city reservoir that serves all customers, and 
     therefore the entire city should have been alerted to boil 
     its water, according to an internal EPA memo.
       Records show that the corps regularly finds bacteria 
     contamination in a half-dozen sampling points at reservoirs 
     in the District.
       Although other water systems report reservoir test results 
     to their supervising agency, the corps does not, because the 
     EPA does not require it. George Rizzo, the EPA official who 
     oversees the District's water supply, said the agency is 
     considering tighter regulation of city reservoirs because the 
     matter is ``obviously of concern.''
       In August, for example, tests were positive for bacteria 23 
     times at city reservoirs--in some cases twice at the same 
     place on the same day, records show. Samples at 15 faucets 
     also tested positive.
       The cause of the contamination is a mystery, but corps 
     officials say that they plan to clean their reservoirs, which 
     are not regularly cleaned, in hopes that it will alleviate 
     the problem.
       Although bacteria readings did not violate the legal limits 
     until September, the city skirted violations several times.
       In August, 4.76 percent of samples in the District tested 
     positive for bacteria. Records show the number did not exceed 
     5 percent only because officials took an unusually high 
     number of extra samples during the last week of August. The 
     cleaner samples at the end of the month canceled out dirtier 
     readings taken earlier and dropped the average reading for 
     August to within legal limits.
       To try to remedy nagging bacteria contamination, corps 
     officials say they tried for years to persuade the District 
     to flush its pipes. Most big cities regularly flush by 
     opening fire hydrants. The District did not--saying they saw 
     no need to--until the EPA ordered it to do so in late 
     September, invoking a law that gives it emergency power to 
     protect public health.
       Agency memos show that the EPA now suspects that recurring 
     high readings may track to more than the stagnant water in 
     pipes and could reflect loose practices at the treatment 
     plants.
       That fear was fueled when EPA officials learned in 
     September that tests on water just as it exits the two 
     plants--when it should be cleanest--were positive for 
     bacteria. Before September, those samples had not been 
     included in the corps' report to the EPA.
       Adding to the suspicions about plant operations was the 
     fact that corps policy was to clean Dalecarlia's rapid-sand 
     filters every 96 hours to prevent bacteria growth. But plant 
     records show that the rule frequently is violated.
       In August, the filters never ran for less than 102 hours. 
     At times in the last two years, there was as much as 493 
     hours between cleanings.
       The EPA recently told the corps to wash filters every 72 
     hours. Fairfax County officials say their policy is to wash 
     filters at least every 48 hours.
       Dalecarlia also failed to disinfect filters with chlorine 
     after they were taken out of service for repairs last spring 
     and did not monitor the quality of water coming off 
     individual filters, according to a consultant hired by the 
     EPA, Science Applications International Corp.
       The consultant also cited a concern that Potomac River eels 
     are burrowing into the filters, potentially digging holes 
     that allow bacteria inside.
       Capka said the corps is modernizing equipment to provide 
     more precise information on when filters need washing. Each 
     Dalecarlia filter will be equipped by the end of the month 
     with a turbidity monitor and a new gauge to measure its 
     effectiveness, he said.
       But other outdated equipment also may have played a role in 
     problems.
       Until the December accident, Dalecarlia operators used 
     manual controls to set doses of needed chemicals. After the 
     accident, Dalecarlia installed mechanical controls.
       Local officials have complained that they have little voice 
     in how the corps operates.
       To try to improve relations, the corps has promised to 
     create a customer committee to share information with local 
     governments.
       ``We don't expect Third World service delivery in the 
     nation's capital,'' said Fairfax County Board Chairman Thomas 
     M. Davis III (R). ``Clearly, some changes are going to have 
     to be made.''
                                 ______

      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S.J. Res. 165. Joint resolution to designate the month of September 
1994 as ``National Sewing Month''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 national sewing month joint resolution

 Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to designate the month of September as ``National Sewing Month.''
  National Sewing Month, was previously designated by the Congress each 
year from 1984 to 1988, to increase interest in home sewing.
  It is estimated that over 30 million Americans sew at home. Many of 
these individuals have used their acquired sewing skills to enter 
fashion design, retail merchandising, interior design, patternmaking, 
and textiles.
  The great majority of these careers had their beginning in seventh or 
eighth grade home economics classes where the enjoyment and pride 
associated with sewing was first encountered. For generations, the 
fundamentals of home sewing have also been learned in the context of 
the family.
  The sewing industry employs thousands of individuals in the 
manufacture, wholesale, retail, and service sectors. The industry 
generates over $3.5 billion in sales annually and each year invests 
millions of dollars in plants and machinery.
  This September will mark a continuation of a industrywide effort to 
revitalize the sewing spirit in America, as the American Home Sewing 
Association conducts an extensive nationwide promotion of ``National 
Sewing Month.''
  A wide variety of civic organizations will be invited to participate, 
including home economic teachers, county extension agents, 4-H Clubs, 
the Girl Scouts, American Sewing Guild Chapters, Future Home Makers of 
America, and many others.
  Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort to 
cosponsor this joint resolution designating September as ``National 
Sewing Month.''

                          ____________________