[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.''
____________________