[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11864-S11879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 1382. A bill to reform the naturalization process, to clarify the
procedures for investigating the criminal background of individuals
submitting applications in connection with certain benefits under the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
THE NATURALIZATION REFORM ACT OF 1997
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Naturalization Reform Act of 1997. This bill addresses some of the
serious failings in the Immigration and Naturalization Service's
conduct of the naturalization process that have come to light during
the past 2 years. This legislation does not attempt a comprehensive
reform of the naturalization process, a topic that likely should be a
subject of serious consideration but regarding which much additional
work is needed. Rather, it includes a few targeted measures designed to
address critical issues that have emerged, particularly concerning the
granting of citizenship to criminal aliens and the INS' conduct of
criminal background checks. Given that these issues have been the
subject of extensive oversight in both Houses of Congress, it is
important that we work together on this. In that vein, I have developed
this legislation with my counterpart on the House side, Representative
Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee. Today,
he is introducing identical legislation in the House.
Let me state at the outset that citizenship is the most precious gift
and honor that our Nation can bestow. I have spoken many times before--
both in the Immigration Subcommittee and elsewhere--about my own
grandparents' experience of immigrating to America. Their citizenship
papers give me a particular pride, and I know what citizenship papers
mean to my own family and for millions of others across America. The
vast majority of citizenship applicants are law-abiding legal
immigrants who have every right and desire to become full-fledged
American citizens.
Nonetheless, serious concerns about the naturalization process have
been raised this session, particularly concerning the Immigration and
Naturalization Service's provision of citizenship papers to some
undeserving criminal aliens. Some initial reports did overestimate the
number of aliens who were improperly naturalized in 1995 and 1996
despite being statutorily ineligible for naturalization based on
criminal convictions. Regardless of the number, however, it is still a
concern to me that any obviously ineligible criminal aliens were
naturalized. Moreover, it remains of grave concern that the INS was
naturalizing large numbers of applicants without having completed their
criminal background checks, which have been central to the way the INS
conducts its inquiry into an applicant's good moral character. Even if
an applicant did not have a conviction making that applicant
statutorily ineligible, one would think that the good moral character
determination might very well have turned out differently if the INS
had had information concerning an applicant's arrests or other criminal
background information. The mere fact that the INS was moving forward
in this manner in itself raises concerns about how the INS is carrying
out its statutory responsibilities.
Many of these problems are not new, and it is disappointing that they
have gone unresolved for so long. Reports from the Justice Department
and from the General Accounting Office over the past 10 years have
repeatedly found significant faults with the fingerprint check process,
which the INS uses to conduct its criminal background checks. For
instance, a 1988 Department of Justice audit found that, in 47 percent
of naturalization files reviewed at random, there was no record that a
fingerprint check had been requested or no record of when fingerprints
were mailed to the FBI. In a 1989 report, the Department of Justice
audit staff discovered an almost complete absence of evidence that
background checks and fingerprint checks were conducted in
naturalization cases. A 1994 report of the inspector general's office
found that the INS did not verify that fingerprints submitted with an
application actually belonged to the applicant; that report also
documented that the Service failed to ensure that fingerprint checks
were completed by the FBI. A 1994 GAO report disclosed similar
findings.
Despite such observations and disclosures, the INS continued to
permit applicants to submit their own fingerprints without verifying
whether the prints belonged to the applicant, and fingerprint cards
submitted to the FBI often contained incomplete or inaccurate
information. The INS also continued to permit naturalizations to go
forward after 60 days following the submission of fingerprints to the
FBI, regardless of whether a definitive response had been received from
the FBI on the fingerprint check.
In 1996, weaknesses in the criminal history validation process
received renewed attention in the midst of the President's Citizenship
USA program, a roughly 1-year effort to speed the pace of
naturalizations significantly. Those weaknesses were exacerbated as
pressure grew to increase naturalizations. As a result of various
severe problems that came to light, a number of investigations, audits,
and reviews into the naturalization process are now taking place.
The Department of Justice's Justice Management Division, in
conjunction with KPMG Peat Marwick and with some participation from the
General Accounting Office, has been conducting an ongoing review of the
roughly 1.4 million cases of aliens naturalized under Citizenship USA.
Preliminary results indicate that INS failed to complete criminal
background checks on some 180,000 immigrants who were naturalized
between August 1995 and September 1996, and that more than 71,500
applicants who did undergo background checks had criminal records and
were naturalized anyway. It is true that a much smaller number had
convictions for offenses for which there is a statutory bar to
naturalization. As I have noted, however, it remains of great concern
that such a large number were processed improperly, regardless of what
the particular results were.
In response to weaknesses identified by those reviews, on November 29
of last year, the INS finally announced major changes to its criminal
background verification procedures in an effort to respond to some of
the serious and ongoing problems in that area. The Service did so
through a policy memo announcing new ``Naturalization Quality
Procedures.'' That memo went out--or was supposed to go out--from the
Commissioner to all INS regional, district, and local offices. That
specific and detailed memo, which was to be effective immediately,
provided that no naturalizations were to go forward without a response
on the fingerprint check from the FBI and unless the new policies and
procedures were in place.
Unfortunately, we learned this year that the administration's policy
failed to go into effect as mandated by the Commissioner. On April 17,
KPMG Peat Marwick issued a report based on its review of the INS'
management and implementation of the new criminal record verification
guidelines. Building
[[Page S11865]]
on the work of others in Congress, including my predecessor as
subcommittee chairman, I chaired a hearing earlier this year that
examined the criminal record verification process for citizenship
applicants and that particularly focussed on the findings of Peat
Marwick's review of the implementation of that policy. Peat Marwick
rated only 1 INS office of the 23 it reviewed as ``compliant'' with the
new procedures. Of the 22 others, 15 were found ``noncompliant,'' and 7
``marginally compliant.'' One District Office and two Citizenship USA
sites could not produce the particular policy memo they were supposed
to be implementing. Numerous offices were sending fingerprint cards to
the wrong FBI address, fingerprint cards were completed incorrectly,
and worksheets that were required to be dated and initialed showed no
evidence of key tasks being completed. These results are simply
astonishing in the wake of the attention that the flaws in the previous
system received both in the Congress and in the press. Such troubling
deficiencies in even the most basic implementation of the new policy
have emerged that immediate action must be taken to ensure that no
citizenship application is processed without the required fingerprint
checks and that the INS properly considers and evaluates any criminal
record that is revealed. Those deficiencies also suggest we need to
take a long-term look at the entire naturalization process and indeed
at the structure of the INS.
The legislation I am introducing today is limited to targeted
measures aimed at addressing in the short term some critical problems
in the naturalization process, particularly with regard to criminal
background checks. The bill would revise the INS' processing of
criminal background checks in a number of ways. It provides that, in
conducting criminal background checks on any applicant for
naturalization or for a number of other significant immigration
benefits, the INS may not accept for processing or transmit to the FBI
any fingerprint card or any other means used to transmit fingerprints
unless the applicant's fingerprints have been taken by an office of the
INS or by a law enforcement agency. Such offices or agencies would be
permitted to collect a fee from the applicant for the service of taking
and transmitting the fingerprints.
The bill further provides that if an applicant is physically unable
to provide legible fingerprints, for example, because the applicant may
be elderly or disabled, the requirement that the INS submit
fingerprints to the FBI shall not apply and the FBI shall instead
conduct a record check based on the applicant's name and other
identifying information.
Under the legislation, no naturalization application, or application
for the other important immigration benefits specified in the
legislation, like the adjustment of status to lawful permanent
residence, could be approved until the INS receives from the FBI a
definitive response concerning whether the applicant has a criminal
record and receives the content of any criminal history that the
applicant may have.
Interviews would also now be statutorily required before applicants
may be naturalized or may adjust their status to lawful permanent
residence. In the case of any applicant for naturalization, the
interview must cover any criminal background of the applicant, other
than minor traffic violations, and must review any misrepresentations
made on the naturalization application.
In order to provide for an orderly transition, and to insure that the
naturalization backlog does not increase, the bill provides for an
effective date of October 1, 1998.
The bill also addresses the good moral character requirement for
naturalization. Under current law, an applicant for naturalization must
demonstrate good moral character for the 5 years preceding the
application for naturalization. The INS has given good moral character
the most narrow definition possible under the statute, and has
restricted its good moral character inquiry to whether an applicant has
been convicted of a criminal offense that statutorily bars a finding of
good moral character. In my view, the 5 year period is too short. Our
legislation extends that period to 10 years. I also hope that the INS
will, through regulation, examine many more factors than it currently
does in assessing good moral character.
This legislation also begins to approach the question of citizenship
testing. Hearings beginning to look into this issue have been held in
the House and were held last Congress by my predecessor. While we need
to know more before we can definitively decide how to approach
citizenship testing, we can take some measures to address fraud
problems. With respect to non-governmental outside testing entities
that are authorized by INS to do citizenship testing, the bill
safeguards the integrity of the testing process in a number of ways. It
requires the INS to conduct regular inspections of testing sites,
prevents outside testing entities from delegating their testing
authority to any other companies, and allows the Attorney General to
require retests when the testing process is impaired by cheating,
fraud, or negligence. The bill requires GAO to do a comprehensive study
and report to Congress on the overall integrity of the outside testing
process so that we can decide if other reforms are necessary.
The bill also includes a provision specifying that any alien approved
for naturalization would not be able to receive his or her
naturalization certificate until the alien turns in the alien's green
card or submits an affidavit describing how the green card was lost,
stolen, or destroyed. To further discourage the misuse, sale, or
fraudulent transfer of green cards, the legislation requires any alien
whose green card is lost, stolen or destroyed to report it to the INS
promptly or pay a $50 fine for failing to do so.
To address the INS' continued management difficulties in the
naturalization area, the legislation puts into place quality assurance
procedures and will improve oversight for the naturalization process.
In particular, the legislation requires the Attorney General to
establish a process, which is to include internal or other audit
procedures, to review the ongoing compliance by each office of the
Service that is involved in the naturalization process with all
naturalization processes and procedures. Then, within 30 days after the
end of each of the next 4 fiscal years, the Attorney General is to
submit a report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees concerning
the INS' compliance with naturalization processes and procedures during
the preceding years.
Again, this legislation is designed to address some immediate
problems requiring our attention. I look forward to continuing to work
with my colleagues on the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, and with our
colleagues in the House and others, on this legislation and on
addressing the longer-term problems the INS is facing in the
naturalization area.
I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be placed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1382
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 ``Naturalization Reform Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2. BAR TO NATURALIZATION FOR ALIENS DEPORTABLE FOR
CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Section 316(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``States.'' and inserting
``States, and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``(4) on the date
of the application, is not deportable under paragraph (1)
(other than subparagraph (A)), (2), (3), or (6) of section
237(a), subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of paragraph (4) of
such section, or paragraph (1)(A) of such section (but only
to the extent that such paragraph relates to inadmissibility
under paragraph (2), (6), (8), or (9) of section 212(a),
subparagraph (A), (B), or (E) of section 212(a)(3), or
subparagraph (A), (C), (D), or (E) of section 212(a)(10)).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to
applications for naturalization submitted on or after such
date.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION TO 10 YEARS OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER PERIOD
FOR NATURALIZATION.
(a) In General.--Section 316(a)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1427(a)(3)) is amended by striking
``during all the periods referred to in this subsection''
[[Page S11866]]
and inserting ``during the ten years immediately preceding
the date of filing of the application''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to
applications for naturalization submitted on or after such
date.
SEC. 4. INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL BACKGROUND OF CERTAIN
ALIENS AND PERSONS SPONSORING ALIENS FOR ENTRY.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``investigation of criminal background of an alien applying for certain
benefits and certain petitioners for classification of an alien
``Sec. 106. (a) In General.--With respect to a person
described in a subparagraph of subsection (c)(1) who is
petitioning, or applying to, the Attorney General to grant
the benefit or take the action described in such subparagraph
(and with respect to an individual described in subparagraph
(E) of such subsection whose residence is the home of such a
person), the Attorney General may not grant the benefit or
take the action, unless, during the pendency of the person's
petition or application, the following has been completed:
``(1) An employee of the Service, or a Federal, State, or
local criminal law enforcement agency, after verifying the
person's identity, has prepared a complete and legible set of
fingerprints of the person.
``(2) The Commissioner has requested the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct a criminal history
background check on the person for the appropriate purpose
described in subsection (c)(2), and the Commissioner has
submitted the fingerprints to the Director, along with any
supplementary information required by the Director to
complete the check.
``(3) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
using the fingerprints and information provided by the
Commissioner, has conducted the check, and has provided the
Commissioner with a response describing the person's criminal
history, as reflected in records maintained by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
``(4) The Commissioner has conducted an investigation of
the person's criminal history, including all criminal
offenses listed in the Director's response, all criminal
offenses listed in informational databases maintained by the
Service, and all other criminal offenses of which the
Commissioner has knowledge, for the appropriate purpose
described in subsection (c)(2).
``(5) In a case where the investigation under paragraph (4)
of an applicant for naturalization reveals criminal history
that bears upon the applicant's eligibility for
naturalization, and the employee designated under section 335
to conduct the examination under such section has determined
that the application should be granted, such determination
has been reviewed by at least one Service officer whose
duties include performing such reviews.
``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), when the
Attorney General certifies to the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation that a person described in subsection
(c)(1) is physically unable to provide legible fingerprints--
``(1) the requirement that the Commissioner submit
fingerprints to the Director shall not apply; and
``(2) the Director shall conduct a criminal history
background check based on the person's name and any other
method of positive identification other than fingerprints
used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for criminal
history background checks.
``(c) Persons Subject to, and Purposes for, Background
Checks.--
``(1) Persons and petitions described.--The persons (and
applications and petitions) described in this paragraph are
as follows:
``(A) An alien 14 through 79 years of age applying for
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence.
``(B) An alien 14 through 75 years of age applying for
naturalization as a citizen of the United States.
``(C) An alien 14 years of age or older applying for
asylum, or treatment as a spouse or child accompanying an
asylee.
``(D) An alien 14 years of age or older applying for
temporary protected status under section 244.
``(E) A person who has filed a petition to accord a child
defined in section 101(b)(1)(F) classification as an
immediate relative under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and any
additional individual, over the age of 18, whose principal or
only residence is the home of such person.
``(F) A person who has submitted a guarantee of legal
custody and financial responsibility under paragraphs (2)(B)
and (4) of section 204(f) in connection with a petition to
accord an alien, who is the subject of the guarantee,
classification under section 201(b), 203(a)(1), or 203(a)(3).
``(2) Purposes for checks described.--
``(A) Aliens applying for benefits.--With respect to the
aliens, and the applications, described in subparagraphs (A)
through (D) of paragraph (1), the requirements of subsection
(a) shall be applied (subject to subsection (b)) for the
purpose of determining whether the alien has a criminal
history that bears upon the alien's eligibility for the
benefit for which the alien applied.
``(B) Orphan petitions.--With respect to a person described
in paragraph (1)(E), the requirements of subsection (a) shall
be applied (subject to subsection (b)) for the purpose of
determining whether the person has a criminal history that
bears upon whether proper care will be furnished the child
described in such paragraph.
``(C) Amerasian petitions.--With respect to a person
described in paragraph (1)(F), the requirements of subsection
(a) shall be applied (subject to subsection (b)) for the
purpose of determining whether the person is of good moral
character.
``(d) Fee.--The Attorney General may charge a person
described in subsection (c)(1) a fee to cover the actual cost
of the criminal background check process under this section.
``(e) Construction.--This section shall not be construed to
affect or impair the ability of the Attorney General to
require a criminal history background check as a condition
for obtaining any benefit under this Act (including a
classification under section 204) that is not described in
subsection (c)(1).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 105 the following:
``Sec. 106. Investigation of criminal background of an alien applying
for certain benefits and certain petitioners for
classification of an alien.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to
applications for a benefit under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (including petitions to accord a
classification under section 204 of such Act) submitted on or
after such date.
SEC. 5. INTERVIEW FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.
(a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is
amended by inserting after section 245A the following:
``interview for adjustment of status to that of person admitted for
permanent residence
``Sec. 245B. Before the status of an alien may be adjusted
by the Attorney General to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence, the alien shall appear before an
employee of the Service, who shall conduct a personal
interview of the alien for the purpose of verifying that the
alien is eligible for such adjustment.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 245A the following:
``Sec. 245B. Interview for adjustment of status to that of person
admitted for permanent residence.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to
applications for adjustment of status submitted on or after
such date.
SEC. 6. INTERVIEW FOR NATURALIZATION.
(a) In General.--Section 332 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1443) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) The examination under subsection (a) shall include a
personal interview of the applicant, conducted by an employee
of the Service who--
``(1) shall require the applicant to demonstrate the
ability to speak and understand words in ordinary usage in
the English language, in accordance with section 312(a)(1),
unless the applicant is exempt from the requirements of such
section pursuant to section 312(b);
``(2) shall require the applicant to describe any criminal
law violations, other than minor traffic violations, for
which the applicant has ever been arrested, charged,
convicted, fined, or imprisoned, or which the applicant has
committed but for which the applicant has not been arrested,
charged, convicted, fined, or imprisoned; and
``(3) shall verify each statement or representation made by
the applicant in the written application for naturalization,
and in any documents submitted in support of the application,
and shall examine the applicant to determine whether the
applicant has willfully made any false statements or
misrepresentations, or committed any fraud, for the purpose
of obtaining United States citizenship.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to
applications for naturalization submitted on or after such
date.
SEC. 7. CITIZENSHIP TESTING BY OUTSIDE TESTING ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Testing by persons other than attorney general.--
Section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1423) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) An applicant for naturalization may satisfy the
reading and writing requirements of subsection (a)(1), and
the knowledge and understanding requirements of subsection
(a)(2), by passing a test approved by the Attorney General
and administered by a person, other than the Attorney
General, who, not later than the date of the enactment of the
Naturalization Reform Act of 1997, is authorized by the
Attorney General to administer such a test.
``(2) The Attorney General shall revoke the authorization
granted to a person to administer tests referred to in
paragraph (1), unless--
[[Page S11867]]
``(A) the person has not subcontracted, franchised, or
otherwise delegated the person's testing authority to any
other person; and
``(B) at any time after the person has been authorized by
the Attorney General to administer such tests and has
administered them for at least 6 months during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Naturalization
Reform Act of 1997, the person and the Attorney General are
able to demonstrate that--
``(i) in not less than 5 of the 6 preceding months, the
Attorney General has conducted unannounced inspections of at
least 10 percent of the testing sites operated by the person
in each such month;
``(ii) during each such site inspection, the Attorney
General has checked the integrity and security of the testing
process and has memorialized the findings from the inspection
in a written report and, after the inspection, has provided
copies of the report to the person; and
``(iii) after reviewing each such inspection report, the
Attorney General--
``(I) has determined and certified that the person
continues to maintain the overall integrity and security of
the person's testing program, and has remedied any serious
flaws discovered by the inspections; and
``(II) has provided a copy of the certification to the
person.
``(3) The Attorney General shall require an applicant for
naturalization who has passed a test administered under this
subsection to retake and repass such a test in circumstances
where the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe
that the administration of the test was impaired by fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct or negligence that
jeopardizes the reliability of the test results.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to
applications for naturalization submitted on or after such
date.
(b) Study on Integrity of Testing Process.--
(1) Report.--Not later than the date that is 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall prepare and transmit to
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate the report described in paragraph (2).
(2) Contents.--The report referred to in paragraph (1)
shall describe the results of a comprehensive study conducted
by the Comptroller General of the United States to determine
the extent to which tests administered by persons other than
the Attorney General, by which an applicant for
naturalization may satisfy the reading and writing
requirements of subsection (a)(1), and the knowledge and
understanding requirements of subsection (a)(2), of section
312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, are impaired by
fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct or negligence
that jeopardizes the reliability of the test results.
SEC. 8. REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO RESIDENT ALIEN CARDS.
(a) Civil Penalty for Failure to Report Loss, Theft, or
Destruction of Resident Alien Card.--
(1) In general.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is
amended by inserting after section 274D the following:
``civil penalty for failure to report loss, theft, or destruction of
resident alien card
``Sec. 274E. Any alien who has been issued by the Attorney
General an alien registration receipt card indicating the
alien's status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence, and who fails to report to the Attorney General
the loss, theft, or destruction of the card by the date that
is 7 days after the date the alien discovers such loss,
theft, or destruction, shall pay a civil penalty to the
Commissioner of $50 per violation.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of the
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 274D the following new item:
``Sec. 274E. Civil penalty for failure to report loss, theft, or
destruction of resident alien card.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to
alien registration receipt cards that are lost, stolen, or
destroyed on or after such date.
(b) Surrender of Resident Alien Card Upon Naturalization.--
(1) In general.--Section 338 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1449) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``A person''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Attorney
General may not deliver a certificate of naturalization to
any person to whom the Attorney General previously had issued
an alien registration receipt card indicating the person's
status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,
unless--
``(A) the person has surrendered the card to the Attorney
General; or
``(B) the person has submitted an affidavit to the Attorney
General stating that the card was lost, stolen, or destroyed,
and describing any facts known to the alien with respect to
the circumstances of such loss, theft, or destruction, and a
period of not less than 30 days has elapsed since such
submission, during which period the Attorney General may
conduct an investigation of such loss, theft, or destruction.
``(2) The Attorney General may charge a person described in
paragraph (1)(B) a fee to cover the cost of an investigation
described in such paragraph.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to
certificates of naturalization delivered on or after such
date.
SEC. 9. REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION.
(a) Clarification of Materiality Requirement.--Section
340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1451(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For purposes of this section, a fact with respect to
a naturalized person may not be considered immaterial solely
because the fact, had it been known to the Attorney General
before the person was naturalized, would not, by itself, have
required the Attorney General to deny the person's
application for naturalization.''.
(b) Rebuttable Presumption of Willfulness.--Section 340 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (h) as
subsections (e) though (i), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) In any proceeding under this section in which the
United States proves that an order admitting a person to
citizenship was procured by the person's concealment or
misrepresentation of a material fact, such proof shall be
considered prima facie evidence that the person acted
willfully with respect to the concealment or
misrepresentation, and, in the absence of countervailing
evidence, such proof shall be sufficient to authorize the
revocation and setting aside of the order and the
cancellation of the certificate of naturalization.''.
(c) Limitation on Administrative Revocations.--Section 340
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1451), as
amended by subsection (b), is further amended--
(1) in subsection (i), by striking ``Nothing'' and
inserting ``Subject to subsection (j), nothing''; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (i) the following:
``(j) The Attorney General shall commence any proceeding
administratively to correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate
an order naturalizing a person not later than 5 years after
the effective date of the order.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1998, and shall apply to any
order naturalizing a person with an effective date that is on
or after October 1, 1998.
SEC. 10. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVED OVERSIGHT FOR
NATURALIZATION.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
establish a process (including internal audit procedures,
other audit procedures, or both) to review the ongoing
compliance with all laws, policies, and procedures affecting
naturalization by each office of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service that has duties with respect to
naturalization.
(b) Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the termination
of each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, the
Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on
the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives concerning the
compliance by the Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
with all laws, policies, and procedures affecting
naturalization during such terminated fiscal year.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act, and shall cease to be
effective upon the submission, under subsection (b), of the
report with respect to fiscal year 2001.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 1383. A bill to provide a 6-month extension of safety programs
under ISTEA; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
istea legislation
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is clear that a multiyear
reauthorization of ISTEA will not be possible during this session. Due
to the expiration of ISTEA authorizations, I am very concerned that
vital safety programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation are at risk. Senator Hollings and
I are introducing legislation that would provide funds to continue the
operation of those important safety programs.
According to the Department of Transportation [DOT], the highway
safety grant programs do not have any unobligated balances available,
from prior authorizations, to draw on if ISTEA is not extended to
bridge the gap between now and when a long-term reauthorization bill is
passed. The programs at risk include the State and
[[Page S11868]]
Community Safety Grant Program under section 402, the section 410 grant
program to encourage counter measures to impaired driving, and the
National Driver Register [NDR].
The contract to run the National Driver Register is presently running
on funds obligated in fiscal year 1997 but that contract and the
funding expires in March. When that contract expires the program will
have to be shut down and the staff dismissed.
DOT indicates most States only have funding to operate safety
programs for the next 2 or 3 months. I understand that some States have
already started shutting down some of their highway safety programs.
Funds are also needed to pay the salaries of the more than 3,000
State motor carrier enforcement personnel. With the expiration of
ISTEA, there is no Federal funding currently available to pay the
salaries of these individuals whose expenses are exclusively financed
through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP]. The
Department of Transportation testified this week that the elimination
of vital MCSAP funding could impede the ability of States to perform
commercial vehicle and driver inspections. A short-term extension of
MCSAP funding will help ensure that unsafe vehicles and drivers are
prevented from traveling on our Nation's highways.
I know that no one in this body wants to see a situation where
highway safety is degraded in any way. I look forward to working with
my colleagues to address these important issues of highway safety to
ensure that we meet our obligations.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 1384. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to make the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program available to the general
public, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
THE ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE ACT
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when comprehensive health reform failed
in 1994, we were left with the legacy of a major unmet challenge--
providing secure health care coverage to millions of uninsured
Americans. Despite the inability of Congress to enact comprehensive
health reform, many of my colleagues and I continue to work to achieve
that goal, albeit incrementally. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill was part of
that effort, as were the provisions of the recent budget agreement that
made $24 billion available to states to cover uninsured children.
As part of this ongoing effort, last week I introduced legislation
that would restore rights and protections to early retirees who are
abruptly dropped from their employer's health plan. Today I am
introducing legislation to help individuals who do not have employer-
sponsored coverage and who, because of a previous or current health
condition, are unable to obtain private non-group health insurance.
While today many people without employer-sponsored insurance can
purchase health coverage in the individual insurance market, those with
health problems --conditions as common as asthma or migraine headaches
and as controllable as hypertension or allergies--may not be able to
find an insurer willing to cover them at any price. As many as 4
million Americans fall into this abyss, known by the insurance industry
as the ``medically uninsurable.''
Many Americans felt that we had solved that problem when we enacted
the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. I have received phone calls and letters
from men and women in South Dakota and around the country who thought
that enactment of the Kennedy/Kassebaum legislation meant they could
not be denied private health insurance. Unfortunately, that is not the
case. While the Kennedy/Kassebaum bill makes it easier for some groups
to maintain their coverage if they switch jobs or become unemployed, it
does not improve health insurance affordability or access to coverage
for individuals who have not been part of the employer-sponsored
insurance system. Kennedy-Kassebaum does not require insurers to cover
self-employed individuals unless they were previously enrolled under a
group health plan. Moreover, insurance companies still can deny
coverage to workers whose employers do not provide employee health
benefits. The reality is that if you do not have employer-sponsored
insurance and have, or have had, any of a number of health problems,
you're probably out of luck.
Too many insurance companies continue to cherry-pick the healthiest
of us and leave unprotected those most in need of insurance. This is
not only regrettable for those left without coverage, it is
shortsighted. Uninsured individuals often end up needing expensive
emergency room care and extended inpatient convalescence because they
were unable to afford the early, relatively inexpensive care necessary
to prevent these serious problems. The unnecessary costs associated
with the treatment of preventable diseases are passed on to the insured
population through higher hospital charges and insurance premiums. The
uninsured suffer needless health problems, while the insured pay more
for everyone's health care. Ironically, insurers then point to these
higher premiums when they try to justify their exclusionary
underwriting practices, compounding the problem.
This is the unfortunate legacy of our inability to enact
comprehensive reform and it is why we need to continue to pursue every
means available to provide reasonably priced health insurance to all
Americans, even if we have to do it one step at a time.
The legislation I am introducing today would allow individuals who
have been denied coverage for medical reasons to purchase private
coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. While
FEHBP insurers could charge high-risk individuals up to 150 percent of
the premium paid by federal employees--to account for differences in
the risk of insuring the two populations--these previously uninsured
individuals would have access to insurance and in every other respect
would be treated the same as federal employees.
The bill is structured to prevent any cost shifting to Federal
employees. The two populations would be accounted for separately, while
eligible non-Federal individuals would be able to enroll in the program
without jumping through elaborate administrative hoops.
To allay the concerns of those who may fear the creation of a new
entitlement, despite the fact that we're talking about private coverage
paid for by private citizens, the FEHBP buy-in will sunset after 10
years. I'm confident that what we'll learn from this demonstration is
that private insurers can cover high-risk individuals without
disrupting the private insurance market.
One thing is certain. The status quo isn't working. When health
insurance is reserved for only the healthy, the system is not working
efficiently for any of us.
We must stop perpetuating a system that relegates certain individuals
to permanently uninsured status if they are unlucky enough to become
sick at a time when coverage was not in their name or was beyond their
financial reach.
This bill empowers a disenfranchised group of individuals to purchase
private health insurance. They are willing to pay a fair price for it--
all they need is an insurer who will offer it. Through FEHBP this
legislation provides that opportunity.
This legislation is not a comprehensive solution to our health
insurance challenges. Filling this gap won't bring health care costs
under long-term control; it won't eliminate the billions of dollars
lost to waste, fraud and abuse; and it won't create a system that
uniformly reflects consumers' values regarding disease prevention, high
quality care, privacy and access to treatment. Ultimately, we still
need a critical and comprehensive reevaluation and reform of the two-
tiered, patchwork health care financing and delivery system we've
erected over the years. However, this bill represents one long overdue
step, and I hope Congress will enact it in the near future.
There is no excuse for sitting on our heels while the health
insurance system excludes the very people who need coverage most. If
filling gaps is the only way we can move forward at this time to help
early retirees and individuals with health problems gain access to
coverage, then let's get on with it and begin to fill in those gaps.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S11869]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1384
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 ``Accessible Health Coverage
Act''.
SEC. 2. PROVISIONS TO MAKE FEHBP AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC.
(a) In General.--Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8915. Individual access to coverage
``(a) In General.--A contract may not be made or a plan
approved unless the carrier agrees to offer to eligible
individuals, throughout each term for which the contract or
approval remains effective, the same benefits (subject to the
same maximums, limitations, exclusions, and other similar
terms or conditions) as would be offered under such contract
or plan to employees and annuitants and their family members.
``(b) Eligible Individuals.--An individual shall be
eligible to enroll under a plan or contract under this
chapter if such individual--
``(1) is not eligible to be enrolled in a group health plan
(as such term is defined in section 2791(a) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(a));
``(2) provides the Office with documentation that such
individual has been denied individual health insurance
coverage (as such term is defined in section 2791(b)(5) of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(b)(5));
``(3) during the 6-month period prior to the date on which
such individual attempts to enroll under such plan or
contract, was not eligible for coverage through a State high-
risk health insurance pool or coverage through a health
insurer of last resort;
``(4) is not eligible for medical assistance under title
XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et. seq.); and
``(5) meets such other requirements as the Office, by
regulation, may impose.
``(c) Enrollment.--The Office shall provide for the
implementation of procedures to provide for an annual open
enrollment period during which individuals may enroll with a
plan or contract for coverage under this section.
``(d) Premiums.--
``(1) In general.--Premiums for coverage under this section
shall be established in conformance with such requirements as
the Office shall by regulation prescribe, including
provisions to ensure conformance with generally accepted
standards and practices associated with community rating.
``(2) Limitation.--With respect to coverage under a health
plan or contract under this section, the Office, in
establishing premiums under paragraph (1), shall ensure that
the monthly premium for coverage under this section does not
exceed 200 percent of the monthly premium otherwise
applicable for the coverage of employees and annuitants and
their family members under such health plan or contract under
this chapter.
``(e) Adjustment in Agency Contributions.--
``(1) Annual reporting.--Each carrier shall maintain
separate records with respect to individuals covered under
this section and employees and annuitants (and their family
members) otherwise covered under this chapter, and shall
annually report to the Office the amount which the carrier
paid (including claims and administrative costs) with respect
to coverage provided to individuals under this section.
``(2) Determination by office.--If, based on the reports
received under paragraph (1), the Office determines that the
average cost of providing coverage to individuals under this
section exceeds 200 percent of the premiums paid by such
individuals for such coverage, the Office shall increase the
biweekly Government contribution for coverage otherwise
provided under this chapter by an amount equal to such excess
amount.
``(f) Contributions and Benefits.--
``(1) In general.--In no event shall the enactment of this
section result in--
``(A) any increase in the level of individual contributions
by employees or annuitants as required under section 8906 or
under any other provision of this chapter, including
copayments or deductibles;
``(B) the payment by the Government of any premiums
associated with coverage under this section except for the
increase described in subsection (e)(2);
``(C) any decrease in the types of benefits offered under
this chapter; or
``(D) any other change that would adversely affect the
coverage afforded under this chapter to employees and
annuitants and their family members.
``(2) Limitation.--Coverage under this section shall be
provided on an individual, not a family basis.
``(g) Individuals Eligible for Medicare.--Benefits under
this section shall, with respect to an individual who is
entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et. seq.), be offered
(for use in coordination with those Social Security benefits)
to the same extent and in the same manner as if coverage were
under the preceding provisions of this chapter, rather than
under this section.
``(h) Exclusion of Certain Carriers.--
``(1) In general.--A carrier may file an application with
the Office setting forth reasons why such carrier, or a plan
provided by such carrier, should be excluded from the
requirements of this section.
``(2) Consideration of factors.--In reviewing an
application under paragraph (1), the Office may consider such
factors as--
``(A) any bona fide enrollment restrictions which would
make the application of this section inappropriate, including
those common to plans which are limited to individuals having
a past or current employment relationship with a particular
agency or other authority of the Government;
``(B) whether compliance with this section would jeopardize
the financial solvency of the plan or carrier, or otherwise
compromise its ability to offer health benefits under the
preceding provisions of this chapter; and
``(C) the anticipated duration of the requested exclusion,
and what efforts the plan or carrier proposes to take in
order to be able to comply with this section.
``(i) Application of Section.--Except as the Office may by
regulation prescribe, any reference to this chapter (or any
requirement of this chapter), made in any provision of law,
shall not be considered to include this section (or any
requirement of this section).
``(j) Termination.--This section shall terminate on the
date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this
section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``8915. Individual access to coverage.''.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 1385. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the
list of diseases presumed to be service connected with respect to
radiation-exposed veterans; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
the justice for atomic veterans act of 1997
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill that
will help atomic veterans--veterans who were exposed to ionizing
radiation while serving on active duty. Atomic veterans are not only
America's most neglected veterans, but they have been deceived and
treated shabbily for more than 50 years by the Government they served
so selflessly and unquestioningly.
Mr. President, it is hardly accidental that I chose to entitle this
bill the ``Justice for Atomic Veterans Act of 1997.'' Atomic veterans
have been seeking justice almost since the first atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima. The U.S. Government has a long overdue debt to
them and I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that this debt is
paid at long last.
With the full cooperation of my distinguished colleagues Senators
Bond and Mikulski, the Senate in July passed an amendment to the VA-HUD
appropriations bill which serves as the basis for this bill. That
amendment, which was in the legislation that the President signed
recently, provided for CBO to estimate the cost of legislation that
would add 10 radiogenic diseases to the list of presumptively service-
connected diseases for which atomic veterans may be compensated by the
VA. The amendment also requires the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
to hold hearings on expanding the list of radiogenic diseases that are
presumptively service-connected within 60 days of enactment. To
facilitate consideration by the Veterans' Affairs Committee and to
secure the support of my colleagues, I'm introducing this bill.
Mr. President, before I get into the substance of my bill, I want to
discuss why I decided to introduce it. First and foremost, I must
stress that much of what I know about atomic veterans I've learned from
members and families of the Forgotten 216th. The Forgotten 216th refers
to the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S. Army, which
participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper--a series of eight
atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Nevada desert in 1952. About
half of the members of the 216th were Minnesotans. Almost 4 years ago,
they contacted me after then-Secretary of Energy O'Leary announced that
the U.S. Government had conducted radiation experiments on its own
citizens. I will never forget my first meeting with members of the
Forgotten 216th. It was quite an emotional experience for them as well
as for me. For the first time in public, they revealed what went on
during the Nevada tests they participated in over 40 years ago, as well
as the tragedies and trauma they, their families, and former buddies
had experienced since then.
Since that first dramatic meeting, I've met often with the brave and
patriotic members of the Forgotten 216th and their families. They have
been and are my mentors. I'm very proud of
[[Page S11870]]
these extraordinary Minnesotans who have fought hard against great odds
for just treatment for atomic veterans and their families.
Because I believe that their experiences and problems typify that of
atomic veterans nationwide, I want to tell my colleagues more about the
Forgotten 216th. After you hear their story, I'm confident you'll agree
with me that it is imperative that all of us work to ensure the
Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them are never forgotten again.
Mr. President, when they took part in Operation Tumbler Snapper 45
years ago, they believed their Government's assurances that it would
keep them out of harm's way, but they have come to believe they were
used a guina pigs without concern for their safety.
Many members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near
ground zero immediately after a nuclear blast, exposing them to so much
radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while they
inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given minimal or
no protection, sometimes even lacking film badges to measure radiation
exposure and provided with no information on the perils they faced.
Furthermore, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation in
nuclear tests, sometimes denied access to their own service medical
records, and provided no medical followup to ensure they'd suffered no
ill effects as a result of their exposure to radiation.
Tragically, many members of the 216th have already died, often of
cancer. Moreover, many of their children and even grandchildren have
been born with serious and rare disorders, even after they'd had
healthy children prior to exposure to radiation. Their claims for VA
compensation were denied, often because they were alleged to have been
exposed to radiation doses too low to cause disabling illnesses. Since
they'd inhaled radioactive dust near Ground Zero shortly after nuclear
blasts, they were and are justifiably skeptical about claims that their
exposures were insufficient to cause radiogenic diseases. Can anyone
really be surprised that these men now refer to themselves as the
forgotten 216th?
Mr. President, I would not like to turn to the substance of my bill.
I want to stress at the outset that this legislation is directly
responsive to one of the recommendations of the Final Report of the
President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments issued in
October 1995. The Report urged the Congress to address five concerns of
atomic veterans and their families ``promptly.'' My bill directly
addresses two of these concerns, which the report described as follows:
The listing of diseases for which relief is automatically
provided--the presumptive diseases provided for in the 1988
law--is incomplete and inadequate.
The standard of proof for those without presumptive disease
is impossible to meet and, given the questionable condition
of the exposure records retained by the government,
inappropriate.
The VA maintains two lists of radiogenic diseases, a presumptive list
established under Public Law 101-321 as amended by Public Law 102-578
and now consisting of 15 radiogenic diseases, and a nonpresumptive list
established under Public Law 98-542 which includes 10 diseases not on
the presumptive list. My bill would add these 10 diseases to the
presumptive list, making all diseases currently recognized by the VA as
radiogenic presumptively service-connected. The radiogenic diseases
that would be added to the presumptive list are: lung cancer; bone
cancer; skin cancer; colon cancer; posterior subcapsular cataracts;
nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease; ovarian cancer; parathyroid
adenoma; tumors of the brain and central nervous system; and rectal
cancer.
Why the need for these changes? To being with veterans must
jump through hoops to demonstrate they are eligible for compensation
for nonpresumptive diseases and, after they have done so the chances
that the VA will approve their claims are minimal.
Mr. President, to illustrate what I mean, permit me to cite some VA
statistics. As of April 1, 1996, out of the hundreds of thousands of
atomic veterans there are, there have been a total of 18,515 radiation
claim cases, with service-connection granted in 1,886 cases. According
to VA statistics current as of December 1, 1995, only 463 involve the
granting of presumptive service-connection. If we were to exclude the
463 veterans who were granted presumptive service-connection, atomic
veterans had an incredibly low claims approval rate of less than 8
percent. It needs to be stressed, moreover, that of this low
percentage, an indeterminate number may have had their claims granted
for diseases unrelated to radiation exposure.
Why so few claims approvals? One key reason is that VA regulations
are overly stringent for service-connection for nonpresumptive
radiogenic diseases. Dose requirements pose a particularly difficult,
if not insuperable, hurdle. While it is almost impossible to come up
with accurate dose reconstructions because decades have elapsed since
the nuclear detonations and adequate records don't exist, veterans are
frequently denied compensation because their radiation exposure levels
are deemed to be too low.
In this connection, let me cite the findings of the President's
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: ``the Government did
not create or maintain adequate records regarding the exposure of all
participants in [nuclear weapons tests and] the identity and test
locales of all participants.'' This finding obviously calls into
question the capability of the Government to come up with accurate dose
reconstructions on which approval of claims for VA compensation for
atomic veterans frequently depend.
Mr. President, is there any reason that atomic veterans should be
penalized for the U.S. Government's failure to maintain records that
are fundamental in determining the merit of their VA claims? Of course,
their isn't. If the Government can not even be counted on to come up
with the ``identity and test locales of all participants,'' what can it
be counted on to do? Certainly not on giving atomic veterans a fair
shake. Certainly not anything resembling the ``benefit of the doubt''
that the VA is required to accord them.
For these and other reasons it is vital that the Senate pass
legislation to ensure that these patriotic and long-suffering veterans
receive the justice that has been denied them for so many years.
Justice is what my bill is all about. It will ensure that atomic
veterans no longer have to depend on a benefit of the doubt they rarely
receive. How can they receive the benefit of the doubt when the
Government records on which the whole edifice of VA claims adjudication
rests are flawed or nonexistent? When dose reconstruction on which
their claims depend is unreliable? When the health effects of exposure
to purportedly low-level radiation are unknown or still the subject of
scientific controversy 52 years after the first nuclear blast at
Alamogordo, NM?
By now it should be obvious to all of my colleagues that the current
system of adjudicating atomic veterans' claims makes little sense and
is discriminatory. Like many of you I believe that `if it ain't broke
don't fix it.'' Well this system is obviously broke and we need to fix
it now. Both the fairest and quickest way of doing so is by adding the
10 radiogenic diseases now only on the nonpresumptive list to the
presumptive list as my bill proposes.
Mr. President, since January 1994, I have had many meetings with the
men of the Forgotten 216th and atomic veterans from around the country.
I want to assure you that they remain patriotic Americans who are proud
to have served this country. I have no doubt whatever they would gladly
answer the call of duty again if their country was to call on them. A
half century of neglect by the Government that put them in harm's way
without even telling them so, has in no way dimmed their love of
country. These are remarkable Americans and at long last they need to
be treated like the remarkable Americans they are. Even though they
have waited for over 50 years, they still retain the hope that they
will receive the compensation and recognition they deserve.
The fight of atomic veterans for justice has been long, hard, and
frustrating, but these patriotic, dedicated, and deserving veterans
have persevered. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to
join that struggle by supporting the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act.
Let me assure each of you it's a struggle worth waging and a struggle
we can win.
[[Page S11871]]
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1385
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 ``Justice for Atomic Veterans
Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF LIST OF DISEASES PRESUMED TO BE SERVICE
CONNECTED FOR RADIATION-EXPOSED VETERANS.
Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(P) Lung cancer.
``(Q) Bone cancer.
``(R) Skin cancer.
``(S) Colon cancer.
``(T) Posterior subcapsular cataracts.
``(U) Non-malignant thyroid nodular disease.
``(V) Ovarian cancer.
``(W) Parathyroid adenoma.
``(X) Tumors of the brain and central nervous system.
``(Y) Rectal cancer.''.
______
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 1386. A bill to facilitate the remediation of contaminated
sediments in the waters of the United States; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND LEGISLATION
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 5 years ago Congress directed EPA, in
consultation with NOAA and the Army Corps, to conduct a comprehensive
survey of data regarding aquatic sediment quality in the United States.
Sometime within the next few weeks, this long overdue report will be
submitted to Congress. Because of the widespread contamination that
EPA, working with the Army Corps and NOAA, has found, this report
should sound an alarm for all of us. While we have made great progress
on preventing pollution from many sources, we have severely neglected
the problem of contaminated sediments. This contamination is a legacy
of decades of hoping that pollution would flow down the drain or off
the land and out of sight never to bother us again. But, now we know
where a significant portion of it is and it's not going anywhere soon
until we do something about it.
The report, ``The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in
Surface Waters of the United States,'' identifies approximately 96
areas of probable concern [APC's]. In these watershed areas, sampling
indicates there is a significant possibility of adverse aquatic
wildlife or human health effects due to contaminated sediments. These
APC's can be found throughout the country including Boston Harbor, the
Detroit River, Green Bay, along the Mississippi, Puget Sound, San
Francisco Bay, Seal Beach, Mobile Bay to the Middle Savannah, to name a
few. This concentration of sites is surprising when one considers that
of the 2,111 watersheds recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey, there
is no sediment quality information on about 90 percent of them or about
1,900 watersheds.
Mr. President, this report has to be used with caution because it is
only a first step. There is obviously insufficient information to make
sweeping claims about the extent of contamination in sediments across
the country, though EPA plans to develop the report into a national
sediment inventory, a continually updated centralized assemblage of
sediment quality measurements and state-of-the-art assessment
techniques. However, ``based on the evaluation [in the report],
sediment contamination exists at levels indicating a probability of
adverse effects in all regions and states of the country.'' We must be
cautious too about leaping directly from evidence of contamination to
evidence of adverse effects due to that contamination. Unfortunately,
Federal Government agencies have been slow to agree upon and provide
sediment quality guidelines to inform States and the public about
contamination that could cause adverse human health effects. This
sluggishness has prevented development of the true picture of the
potential risks contaminated sediments pose.
In the Great Lakes, we have been concentrating our efforts on
contaminated sediments for some time. We realized some time ago that
our industrial legacy would need attention. That is why I authored the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, which formalized the process
of developing remedial action plans [RAP's] in areas of concern [AOC]
in the Great Lakes, where beneficial uses are impaired. These AOC's are
not too dissimilar to the APC's described in the sediment report,
because contaminated sediments are a significant component of the
environmental and public health risk associated with AOC's.
Unfortunately, despite all of the efforts by local and State
governments to prepare RAP's, very little Federal money has gone into
their development and even less into implementing them to clean up the
waste and prevent further contamination. That needs to change.
The Federal Government has to commit more of its resources to helping
States and local governments clean up the industrial legacy that lurks
beneath the water's surface in harbors and rivers across the Nation. To
date, Federal agencies have been too reluctant to carefully examine the
risks that these contaminated sediments pose for fear of the costs of
cleanup and because the technologies necessary have not been adequately
developed. But, as we have learned in the Great Lakes, these
contaminated sediments are the source of much of the continuing
pollution of our surface waters, as they recirculate pollutants into
the water bodies that are then taken up by fish, birds, humans, and
other living organisms. So, if our goal is to have fishable and
swimmable waters again, we need to use every took that we can to begin
addressing the cleanup.
I am introducing legislation today to authorize the use of Superfund
money to expedite remediation of contaminated sediment sites across the
Nation. Many of the most persistent, bioaccumulative toxics found in
contaminated sediments are derived from the same chemical feedstocks
taxed to fill the Hazardous Substance Superfund, so it is most
appropriate that those moneys be used to clean up sediments.
The bill allows the EPA Administrator to use the Superfund to
remediate contaminated sediments, but limits the amount to no more than
$300 million annually. In expending funds, EPA is to give priority
consideration to sediment sites which do or could adversely affect
human health or the environment. Further, there is a preference given
for sites in watersheds where the local governments are actively
engaged in trying to prevent further contamination of the sediment and
are willing to contribute 25 percent or more of the costs of
remediation.
Under the bill, EPA would have to do a better job of integrating its
Water and Superfund programs' approach to contaminated sediments.
Specifically, the hazardous ranking system used in Superfund to
estimate the potential risks associated with a conventional terrestrial
site will be revisited to determine if it adequately assesses risks
associated with aquatic contaminated sediments. And, EPA would be
required to promulgate final numerical sediment quality criteria for
the 10 toxic, persistent, or bioaccumulative substances most likely to
adversely affect human health and the environment by 2001.
In addition, EPA would have to identify the 20 contaminated sediment
sites that are most likely to adversely affect human health and the
environment and have not been the subject of Federal or State response
actions. And, to address the lack of data on contaminated sediments at
Superfund sites, EPA would have to report on their occurrence and
associated risk.
Mr. President, I consider this to be a fairly modest bill. It does
not set aside a specific percentage of the Superfund that must be spent
on contaminated sediment cleanup, through I think that might also be
helpful. And, it does not place great demands on Federal agencies,
States or local governments. What it does do, however, is seek to bring
resources and attention to bear on a very pressing problem. This
problem has been clearly illustrated in EPA's report and it is a
tenacious one that will not get any smaller. Unfortunately, our current
system lets contaminated sediments fall between the regulatory and
environmental policy cracks in the pier. And, there it will stay on our
harbor and river bottoms, polluting fish, water, and vegetation until
we act.
[[Page S11872]]
I urge my colleagues from all parts of the country to consider
cosponsoring this legislation, but particularly want to encourage the
attention of Senators from coastal areas or from States with
environmentally sensitive and industrialized watersheds. I believe that
the approach taken in this bill is a necessary first step toward
cleaning up contaminated sediments and I will be working to incorporate
this into whatever Superfund reauthorization bill comes before the
Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1386
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 127. REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS.
``(a) Sediment Quality Criteria.--
``(1) Establishment.--Not later than January 1, 2001, after
consultation with the States and Indian tribes, the
Administrator shall establish final numerical sediment
quality criteria for the 10 toxic, persistent, or
bioaccumulative substances that the Administrator determines
are most likely to adversely affect human health and the
environment.
``(2) Review.--Every 3 years after the date on which
criteria are established under paragraph (1)--
``(A) the Administrator shall review the list of substances
compiled under paragraph (1);
``(B) after consultation with the States and Indian tribes,
add or remove substances from the list based on the risks of
adverse effects to human health and the environment
(including the risks of adverse developmental, reproductive,
and transgenerational effects); and
``(C) not later than 3 years after the date on which a
substance is added to the list under subparagraph (B),
establish final numerical sediment quality criteria for the
substance.
``(b) Revision of Hazard Ranking System.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 months after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall revise
the hazard ranking system referred to in section 105(a)(8)(A)
to ensure that the hazard ranking system more accurately
assesses the risks to human health and the environment from
aquatic sites with contaminated sediments (as that term is
applied for the purposes of section 118(c)(7) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7))).
``(2) Scope of assessment.--To ensure more accurate
assessments of health and environmental risks at aquatic
sites with contaminated sediments, the assessment referred to
in paragraph (1) shall not--
``(A) include consideration of the costs of carrying out
response actions; or
``(B) require identification of the source of a release.
``(3) Transition provision.--The hazard ranking system in
effect on the date of enactment of this section shall
continue in effect until the effective date of the revised
hazard ranking system required by this subsection.
``(c) Expenditure of Funds for Response Actions.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for each fiscal year, the Administrator may expend up to
$300,000,000 of funds appropriated out of the Hazardous
Substance Superfund established under section 9507 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the purposes of carrying
out response actions and other corrective actions at
facilities containing contaminated sediments (as that term is
applied for the purposes of section 118(c)(7) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7))).
``(2) Priorities.--In expending funds under paragraph (1),
the Administrator shall give priority to facilities, a
release from which has adversely affected or could adversely
affect human health or the environment, in the following
order:
``(A) A facility in a watershed with respect to which--
``(i) a program has been or is being implemented that has
significantly reduced or is significantly reducing or
preventing the deposition into sediment of a persistent and
bioaccumulative toxic substance from the watershed; and
``(ii) a State or local government having jurisdiction over
a portion of the watershed contributes 25 percent or more of
the response costs.
``(B) A facility in a watershed with respect to which only
subparagraph (A)(i) applies.
``(C) A facility in a watershed with respect to which only
subparagraph (A)(ii) applies.
``(D) A facility in a watershed with respect to which
subparagraph (A) does not apply.
``(d) Hazard Ranking System Scoring Package.--
``(1) Identification of facilities.--From the comprehensive
national survey of data regarding aquatic sediment quality
conducted under section 503(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 1271(a)), the
Administrator shall identify the 20 facilities containing
contaminated sediments (as that term is applied for the
purposes of section 118(c)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7))) that are most likely to
adversely affect human health and the environment and that
have not been the subject of any Federal or State response
action or other corrective action.
``(2) Scoring package.--After identifying the facilities
under paragraph (1), the Administrator, not later than 3
years after the date of enactment of this section, shall--
``(A) prepare a comprehensive scoring package under the
hazard ranking system referred to in section 105(a)(8)(A) for
each facility, unless a State or remedial action planning
committee objects to the conduct of the assessment necessary
for the scoring in an area or watershed under the
jurisdiction of the State or committee; and
``(B) report to Congress the results of each scoring
package prepared under subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Criteria for Determining Priorities Among Releases.--
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(A)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon
at the end the following: ``, except that criteria and
priorities under this paragraph shall not be based on the
extent to which the President is able to identify 1 or more
potentially responsible parties or 1 or more specific sources
of a release''.
(c) Inclusion in Report on Monitoring of Aquatic Sediment
Quality.--Section 503(b)(2) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 1271(b)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``Each report shall include
information on all facilities containing contaminated
sediments that are listed on the National Priorities List
under section 105(a)(8)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(B)).''.
(d) Report on Hazard Ranking System.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report assessing the extent to which the hazard
ranking system referred to in section 105(a)(8)(A) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(A)) (as revised
in 1990) has achieved the objectives specified in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of section 105(c) of that Act (42 U.S.C.
9605(c)).
(2) Contents.--The report shall include a comprehensive
assessment of the number and type of aquatic facilities that
have been scored under the hazard ranking system (as revised
in 1990) and the level of risk that the facilities pose to
human health and the environment.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 1387. A bill to authorize additional appropriations for the
Department of Defense for ballistic missile defenses and other measures
to counter the emerging threat posed to the United States and its
allies in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region by the development
and deployment of ballistic missiles by Iran; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
THE IRAN MISSILE PROTECTION ACT OF 1997
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Iran Missile
Protection Act of 1997, the so-called, IMPACT 97 legislation, a similar
version of which Curt Weldon introduced in the House of Representatives
last week.
The IMPACT 97 legislation is aptly named because it is intended to
have a real impact on the growing threat from Iranian ballistic
missiles. Recent revelations that Iran has nearly completed development
of two new ballistic missiles--made possible with Russian assistance--
that will allow it to strike targets as far away as Central Europe has
convinced me that United States theater missile defenses must be
accelerated in order to counter the emerging Iranian threat.
According to published reports, a long-range Iranian missile, Shahab
4, could be fielded in as little as 3 years. A shorter range missile,
Shahab 3, which will be capable of reaching Israel, could be
operational in 12 to 18 months. Both missiles could be armed with
chemical or biological warheads. These reports are the latest in a
string of increasingly troubling disclosures that have surfaced since
the Los Angeles Times first reported in February that Russia was
providing missile technology and assistance to Iran.
A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives have been working
on various legislative approaches to address the Iranian threat. For
example,
[[Page S11873]]
Representative Jane Harman and I introduced a concurrent resolution
expressing the sense of Congress that the administration should impose
sanctions against Russian entities transferring ballistic missile
technology to Iran. The annual foreign aid bill, currently in
conference, contains a provision strictly conditioning the release of
aid to Russia on certification by the President that Moscow has stopped
the transfer of nuclear and missile technology to Iran. And, Senator
Lott and Representative Gilman have also introduced legislation that
would require that sanctions be imposed against any entity caught
transferring goods to support Iran's ballistic missile program.
In addition to the legislative approach, the administration has been
engaged in a series of diplomatic exchanges with the Russians.
According to press accounts, Vice President Gore has raised the issue
with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin during their meetings in February and
July. President Clinton has raised the matter with President Yeltsin at
the Helsinki summit in March and the P-8 summit in June. The
administration has also appointed Ambassador Frank Wisner as its
special envoy to discuss with Russian officials the allegations made
regarding transfers of technology to Iran. This is a very serious issue
which the Clinton administration has clearly acknowledged.
While we hope that the diplomatic efforts will bear fruit, it is
entirely possible that it will not. In that event, the United States
and our allies must be prepared to defend and protect ourselves from
the possibility that Iran will use ballistic missiles armed with
chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads. It is that possibility--some
might say eventuality--that IMPACT 97 is intended to address.
Neither the United States nor Israel will have missile defenses
capable of countering the threat from the Shahab 3 or Shahab 4 missile
before those systems are deployed. IMPACT 97 authorizes the accelerated
development of some key theater defense systems, as well as the
procurement of additional batteries of interceptors capable of
providing protection against the Iranian missiles.
Specifically, IMPACT 97 would authorize an additional: $65 million to
accelerate development of Navy Upper Tier; $100 million to purchase a
second THAAD UOES system; $15 million to improve interoperability of
the THAAD radar with other missile defense systems; 110 million to
purchase additional Arrow Missiles and for production enhancement to
accelerate deployment; $15 million to accelerate development of a
remote launch capability for PAC-3 using a THAAD radar to enlarge the
area the system can defend; $25 million for PAC-3 production
enhancements to accelerate deployment of the system; $35 million to
purchase two Cobra Gemini radars to improve missile tracking; and $20
million for development of the Joint Composite Tracking Network to
improve command and control and interoperability of missile defense
systems.
I believe that the potential threat from these Iranian ballistic
missiles is so grave that we cannot afford to wait until they are
deployed to respond with defenses. I have personally discussed this
legislation with members of the Department of Defense, and my staff has
been in regular contact with other officials there to help ensure that
the best bill possible is presented for consideration. In the end, the
Department has decided not to support this legislation, however, I have
reasonable confidence that the programs identified, and the funding
provided, is an accurate reflection of where BMDO would spend the
additional funds, if provided. Secretary Cohen has indicated in a
letter to me that he does not recommend that additional resources be
applied to the theater missile defense programs. Unfortunately, the
current deployment schedule for the TMD programs is inadequate, and I
have to respectfully disagree with Secretary Cohen about his assessment
that the programs are progressing as fast as they can. This legislation
will ensure that the United States and its allies can counter the
growing threat from Iran's ballistic missile program.
I hope that the Armed Services Committee will be able to act on this
legislation promptly and that the full Senate can debate IMPACT 97
early next year.
______
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 1388. A bill to provide relief from unfair interest and penalties
on refunds retroactively ordered by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
THE KANSAS NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY ACT
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
speaks directly to the issue of fairness in public policy.
The Kansas natural gas industry operates on the slimmest of margins.
It is still subject to the heavy regulatory ambitions of the Federal
Government. It employs 24,000 individuals, operates in 89 of 105 Kansas
counties, and in 1996 paid $132 million in mineral and property taxes
in the State. Mr. President, the natural gas industry is a major
industry, an important industry, and a beneficial industry to the
citizens and local governments of Kansas. Unfortunately, as happens too
often, a regulatory body of the Federal Government is about to cripple
another valuable industry.
At issue is the failure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
to use discretionary authority and mitigate damages to the Kansas
natural gas industry resulting from a retroactive and punitive order.
Since 1974, first sellers of natural gas in Kansas have been allowed to
recover the cost of a State ad valorem tax. First the Federal Power
Commission and, later the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, held
the Kansas ad valorem tax was eligible for recovery as a reimbursable
tax under the Federal price ceilings established by the Federal Power
Commission and later under section 110 of the Natural Gas Policy Act.
In 1983, an interstate pipeline company petitioned the Commission to
overturn treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax as recoverable. In 1986
and 1987, the Commission responded to this petition by stating the
Kansas tax clearly qualified as recoverable. In 1988 the D.C. Circuit
court reviewed these prior rulings and, believing the Commission had
failed to adequately explain its orders, remanded the issue to the
Commission. In 1993, five years after the court remand, the Commission
reversed 19 years of regulatory treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax
and ordered refunds retroactive to the year 1988 based on the date of
the District of Columbia Circuit's remand order. Kansas gas producers
paid the ordered refunds for the period after 1988, both principal and
interest. Unfortunately, in 1996 the D.C. Circuit reversed the
Commission's decision and required refunds back to 1983, based on the
Federal Register notice of the 1983 interstate pipeline company's
petition to the Commission. In essence, what had been legal for 19
years was retroactively declared illegal, to the serious financial
detriment of not only the Kansas natural gas industry, but local and
state government budgets that rely on this industry's economic base.
The burden on the industry was made even heavier by the assessment of
interest on the period 1983 to 1988.
Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to alleviate the unjust
and punitive financial burden placed upon this Kansas industry by the
Commission. This legislation does not address the legality of the
Commission or the court rulings. The subject of this legislation, the
interest penalty on the principal between the years 1983 to 1988 with
such interest accumulated to the present, was never considered by the
D.C. Circuit. This is an issue of equity and of the proper exercise of
discretion and authority by the Commission in association with an order
retroactively declaring a practice ruled legal for 19 years illegal.
While the industry and the State of Kansas still are in the process
of assessing the cost of this Federal action, there is no question the
cost will be huge and threatens to bankrupt many small producers.
Relieving the industry of severe interest penalties is appropriate.
Congress entrusts oversight and administration of law to regulatory
bodies. When that regulatory body fails to properly administer a law,
or when it exercises authority in an egregious, inequitable manner
inconsistent with congressional intent, Congress has the
[[Page S11874]]
responsibility to intervene. Notwithstanding the D.C. Circuit's
decision in this case, the actions of the Commission are unacceptable.
If ever a case demonstrated the need for oversight of administrative
bodies and corrective action, this is the case.
The natural gas industry and the administrative bodies in Kansas
government had every right to follow established regulatory guidance in
treatment of the Kansas ad valorem tax. Indeed, since 1974, Kansas
producers had been permitted to recover this tax. In 1978, with passage
of the Natural Gas Policy Act, Congress explicitly used the term ad
valorem tax in report language to clarify the intent of section 110.
Further, upon another challenge in 1983, the Commission reaffirmed and
ruled favorably on the Kansas ad valorem tax as recoverable several
times. Clearly a precedent was established and, over a fourteen year
period, not once did Kansas gas producers have any reason to suspect or
question the Commission's rulings.
Mr. President, this is an issue of fairness, of equity, of this
Congress' oversight responsibilities. Regulated industries have every
right--indeed a responsibility--to follow and rely upon established
Commission regulatory guidelines based on statutorily granted
authority. I rise today to reaffirm the proper Federal-State
relationship and a state's right to rely on regulatory decisions in
establishing and administering the natural resource policies of the
State.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1388
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States in Congress assembled, That the Natural Gas
Policy Act of 1978, as amended, is amended by adding the
following new section:
``Sec. 603. In the event any refunds of any rates and
charges made, demanded, or received for reimbursement of
State ad valorem taxes in connection with the sale of natural
gas prior to 1989 are ordered to be made by the Commission,
the refunds shall be ordered to be made without interest or
penalty of any kind.''.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Burns):
S. 1389. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to allow
postal patrons to contribute to funding for prostate cancer research
through the voluntary purchase of certain specially issued U.S. postage
stamps; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
the prostate cancer research stamp act
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue a special stamp to
raise funds for prostate cancer research. It is time to fortify the
battle against prostate cancer by educating the public about this
disease, emphasizing the importance of annual screening, and bolstering
our research efforts in order to find a cure.
In the wake of National Prostate Cancer Awareness week, September,
22-29, men and women from my home State of Maine are sharing their
stories about this devastating disease and are calling for more
prostate cancer research. Prostate cancer is the most common form of
cancer in American men. The American Cancer Society estimates that
334,500 cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 1997. Tragically,
41,000 of these men will die from the disease--a number fast
approaching the annual breast cancer death toll of 44,300. Between 1989
and 1993, the prostate cancer incidence rate increased by 50 percent.
Despite this dramatic surge in incidence, prostate cancer receives only
a modest fraction, 3.7 percent, of the funding resources allocated to
cancer. In fiscal year 1997, prostate cancer research funding was $96.2
million, which is very low considering the number of lives this dreaded
disease will rob each year.
Advances made over the past 10 years to detect and treat prostate
cancer have been significant, considering the fact that the digital
rectal examination [DRE]--the primary tool for detecting prostate
cancer which has been used for over 100 years--cannot detect small
tumors or those on the side of the gland where approximately 40 percent
of prostate cancers are located. Physicians have increased their use of
the prostate-specific antigen, P.A. blood test which detects both
aggressive and latent prostate cancers. The National Cancer Institute
is conducting a multicenter trial to test whether or not early
detection of prostate cancer by the DRE and P.A. will reduce prostate
cancer mortality. Moreover, NCI's Prostate, Lung, Colon and Ovary
Cancer Screening Trial [PLCO], which began in 1993, will eventually
enroll 74,000 men over its 16 year duration. The trial will determine
the relationships between P.A. levels, risk for prostate cancer, and
the actual presence and size of prostate cancer in individual men.
These advances will help lay a solid foundation for prostate cancer
research into the 21st century.
These developments are pivotal steps in the right direction. However,
if we are going to eradicate this disease, much work needs to be done.
We must continue the search for new techniques and methods of
treatment. We must be relentless in emphasizing the importance of
education and awareness. But most of all, we must find a cure. The
lives of our fathers, sons, brothers, and friends depend on this
effort.
The Prostate Cancer Research Stamp Act would authorize a special
first class stamp to be priced at up to 8 cents above the cost of
normal first class postage. The stamp would be voluntarily purchased by
postal patrons and the additional money raised by the sale of the stamp
would be earmarked for prostate cancer research at the National Cancer
Institutes. Perhaps most importantly, this special stamp would help
bring the disease out into the open. By raising awareness, men of all
ages will be reminded to educate themselves about early detection,
screening, prevention and treatment of prostate cancer simply by
visiting the post office.
The ravages of prostate cancer--like all other cancers--are
devastating to the lives of all family members. A stamp designed to
garner additional research funds would not only help the hundreds of
thousands of men who suffer from prostate cancer, but would also remind
men to seek regular screening. It is going to take a collective effort
to find a cure. But if we all play a small role, the investment in this
valuable research will pay off and we will be one step closer to
winning the battle against prostate cancer.
______
By Mr. D'AMATO:
S. 1390. A bill to provide redress for inadequate restitution of
assets seized by the U.S. Government during World War II which belonged
to victims of the Holocaust, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
the holocaust victims redress act
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Holocaust
Victims Redress Act.
We all know that the Second World War was one of the darkest periods
in the history of mankind. Nazi Germany used its vast resources,
technology, and extensive transportation system for the sole purpose of
the persecution and annihilation of a single people, simply because of
their religion. This inhumanity was unheard of in history.
Starvation, disease, slavery, random executions, children separated
from their parents, husbands separated from their wives, the murder of
infants, the rate of women; these were the everyday tortures inflicted
on the Jews of Europe by their Nazi aggressors. By the end of the war,
the bulk of the Jewish population, 6 million men, women and children
had been killed. And those displaced and demoralized few who survived
this ordeal were left to pick up the pieces of their lives and start
anew.
Today, we all know what the Swiss bankers did with the Jewish assets
entrusted to them. Yet, during that period, the United States
Government seized $198 million in German assets and froze an estimated
$1.2 billion more in Swiss assets located in the United States, later
returned to Switzerland in 1946, after the signing of the Washington
accords. The unfortunate fact is that among the capital confiscated by
our Government were funds belonging to Holocaust victims, frozen to
prevent them from falling into the hands of the Third Reich.
Realizing that there were victims of the Holocaust who may not have
had any legal heirs, Congress, after the war, authorized the transfer
of $3 million from those assets to organizations providing relief and
rehabilitation to
[[Page S11875]]
Holocaust survivors. However, only one-sixth of that amount was ever
paid to the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization, dedicated to the
task of caring for the survivors. In June of this year, Under Secretary
of State Stuart Eizenstat, in testimony before the House Banking
Committee, urged Congress to reconsider the $500,000 settlement made
with survivors of the Holocaust, who had assets in U.S. banks, saying
they have a compelling moral claim to the unpaid portion of the
estimated $3 million that was originally authorized for compensation.
The Holocaust Victims Redress Act seeks to right these wrongs,
providing some amount of justice to survivors of the Holocaust while
they are still alive, doing so in the following ways:
As I stated earlier, only one-sixth of the amount authorized by
Congress was actually paid to the Jewish Restitution Successor
Organization of New York. This bill would authorize the appropriation
of funds equal to the present value of the unpaid difference.
It would seek to strike an agreement among the signatories of the
Paris Agreement on Reparations whereby all, or a substantial portion,
of the gold held by the Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of
Monetary Gold would be contributed to charitable organizations to
assist elderly survivors of the Holocaust.
Furthermore, it expresses the sense of Congress that all governments
should act in good faith and facilitate efforts to return private and
public properties, looted by the Nazis, to their rightful owners in
accordance with the Hague Convention of 1907.
I would like to congratulate my colleagues, Representatives Jim Leach
of Iowa and Benjamin Gilman of New York, chairmen of the House Banking
and House International Affairs Committees respectively, for their work
to introduce this bill in the House. It is a good bill. It is the right
and just thing to do. It offers at least a modicum of justice to a
rapidly diminishing population which has long suffered the wounds of
hatred and bigotry inflicted by the Nazis. This legislation has the
support of the administration, as demonstrated by Under Secretary of
State Stuart Eizenstat. I strongly urge the bill's speedy adoption.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill,
along with letters from Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat and
the Anti-Defamation League in support of the legislation, be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1390
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 ``Holocaust Victims Redress
Act''.
TITLE I--HEIRLESS ASSETS
SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Among the $198,000,000 in German assets located in the
United States and seized by the United States Government in
World War II were believed to be bank accounts, trusts,
securities, or other assets belonging to Jewish victims of
the Holocaust.
(2) Among an estimated $1,200,000,000 in assets of Swiss
nationals and institutions which were frozen by the United
States Government during World War II (including over
$400,000,000 in bank deposits) were assets whose beneficial
owners were believed to include victims of the Holocaust.
(3) In the aftermath of the war, the Congress recognized
that some of the victims of the Holocaust whose assets were
among those seized or frozen during the war might not have
any legal heirs, and legislation was enacted to authorize the
transfer of up to $3,000,000 of such assets to organizations
dedicated to providing relief and rehabilitation for
survivors of the Holocaust.
(4) Although the Congress and the Administration authorized
the transfer of such amount to the relief organizations
referred to in paragraph (3), the enormous administrative
difficulties and cost involved in proving legal ownership of
such assets, directly or beneficially, by victims of the
Holocaust, and proving the existence or absence of heirs of
such victims, led the Congress in 1962 to agree to a lump-sum
settlement and to provide $500,000 for the Jewish Restitution
Successor Organization of New York, such sum amounting to \1/
6\th of the authorized maximum level of ``heirless'' assets
to be transferred.
(5) In June of 1997, a representative of the Secretary of
State, in testimony before the Congress, urged the
reconsideration of the limited $500,000 settlement.
(6) While a precisely accurate accounting of ``heirless''
assets may be impossible, good conscience warrants the
recognition that the victims of the Holocaust have a
compelling moral claim to the unrestituted portion of assets
referred to in paragraph (3).
(7) Furthermore, leadership by the United States in meeting
obligations to Holocaust victims would strengthen--
(A) the efforts of the United States to press for the
speedy distribution of the remaining nearly 6 metric tons of
gold still held by the Tripartite Commission for the
Restitution of Monetary Gold (the body established by France,
Great Britain, and the United States at the end of World War
II to return gold looted by Nazi Germany to the central banks
of countries occupied by Germany during the war); and
(B) the appeals by the United States to the 15 nations
claiming a portion of such gold to contribute a substantial
portion of any such distribution to Holocaust survivors in
recognition of the recently documented fact that the gold
held by the Commission includes gold stolen from individual
victims of the Holocaust.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To provide a measure of justice to survivors of the
Holocaust all around the world while they are still alive.
(2) To authorize the appropriation of an amount which is at
least equal to the present value of the difference between
the amount which was authorized to be transferred to
successor organizations to compensate for assets in the
United States of heirless victims of the Holocaust and the
amount actually paid in 1962 to the Jewish Restitution
Successor Organization of New York for that purpose.
(3) To facilitate efforts by the United States to seek an
agreement whereby nations with claims against gold held by
the Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary
Gold would contribute all, or a substantial portion, of that
gold to charitable organizations to assist survivors of the
Holocaust.
SEC. 102. DISTRIBUTIONS BY THE TRIPARTITE GOLD COMMISSION.
(a) Directions to the President.--The President shall
direct the commissioner representing the United States on the
Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold,
established pursuant to Part III of the Paris Agreement on
Reparation, to seek and vote for a timely agreement under
which all signatories to the Paris Agreement on Reparation,
with claims against the monetary gold pool in the
jurisdiction of such Commission, contribute all, or a
substantial portion, of such gold to charitable organizations
to assist survivors of the Holocaust.
(b) Authority To Obligate the United States.--
(1) In general.--From funds otherwise unobligated in the
Treasury of the United States, the President is authorized to
obligate an amount not to exceed $30,000,000 for distribution
in accordance with subsections (a) and (b).
(2) Conformance with budget act requirement.--Any budget
authority contained in paragraph (1) shall be effective only
to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in advance
in appropriation Acts.
SEC. 103. FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the President such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, not to
exceed a total of $25,000,000 for all such fiscal years, for
distribution to organizations as may be specified in any
agreement concluded pursuant to section 102, only if the
organizations meet the needs of Holocaust survivors in the
United States.
(b) Archival Research.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the President $5,000,000 for archival
research and translation services to assist in the
restitution of assets looted or extorted from victims of the
Holocaust and such other activities that would further
Holocaust remembrance and education.
TITLE II--WORKS OF ART
SEC. 201. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) Established pre-World War II principles of
international law, as enunciated in Articles 47 and 56 of the
Regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention (IV)
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, prohibited
pillage and the seizure of works of art.
(2) In the years since World War II, international
sanctions against confiscation of works of art have been
amplified through such conventions as the 1970 Convention on
the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import,
Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which
forbids the illegal export of art work and calls for its
earliest possible restitution to its rightful owner.
(3) In defiance of the 1907 Hague Convention, the Nazis
extorted and looted art from individuals and institutions in
countries it occupied during World War II and used such booty
to help finance their war of aggression.
(4) The Nazis' policy of looting art was a critical element
and incentive in their campaign of genocide against
individuals of Jewish and other religious and cultural
heritage and, in this context, the Holocaust, while standing
as a civil war against defined individuals and civilized
values, must be considered a fundamental aspect of the world
war unleashed on the continent.
[[Page S11876]]
(5) Hence, the same international legal principles applied
among states should be applied to art and other assets stolen
from victims of the Holocaust.
(6) In the aftermath of the war, art and other assets were
transferred from territory previously controlled by the Nazis
to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, much of which has
not been returned to rightful owners.
SEC. 202. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING RESTITUTION OF
PRIVATE PROPERTY, SUCH AS WORKS OF ART.
It is the sense of the Congress that consistent with the
1907 Hague Convention, all governments should undertake good
faith efforts to facilitate the return of private and public
property, such as works of art, to the rightful owners in
cases where assets were confiscated from the claimant during
the period of Nazi rule and there is reasonable proof that
the claimant is the rightful owner.
____
U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC, November 4, 1997.
Hon. Alphonse M. D'Amato,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator D'Amato: I want to bring you up to date on our
efforts to establish a ``Nazi Persecutee Relief Fund'' from
the remaining Tripartite Commission Gold (TGC) gold pool. As
you know, the TGC was charged after the war with gathering
the gold looted by the Nazis and with returning it to the
central banks from which it had been taken. Most of the gold
in the fund had been returned to the 15 claimant countries
long ago, but about 1.6% of the pool remains undistributed.
This now amounts to about $60 to $70 million at current
values.
Our TGC partners, the British and French, like us, very
much want to close out the fund. Mindful of the origin of
some of the gold, they have joined with us in proposing to
the claimant states that the remaining gold be transferred to
this new special Holocaust victims fund. Reactions from the
claimant countries have been generally positive, and we are
hopeful that such a fund might be announced by the end of the
year. The idea if that each of the claimant countries would
voluntarily turn over all or part of its share to the new
fund. Other countries, including neutral countries that had
received Nazi gold during the war, would also be invited to
contribute, as would other states that have an interest in,
or played a role in the collection and disposition of the
tainted gold. A TGC working group met in Brussels in late
September to discuss how such a fund might be established. A
follow-up meeting will be held shortly.
We would very much like the United States to participate in
this fund with it own contribution of up to $25 million. The
legislation that you and Congressman Leach have introduced is
very supportive of this objective. It is very important that
we be able to assist both American and other needy victims of
the Nazi Holocaust. Such a contribution would be fully
consistent with our leadership role and provide a powerful
incentive for the TGC claimant countries, wartime neutrals,
and others, also to contribute.
The legislation is being reviewed by our experts and their
comments will be provided to you shortly. I hope that we can
work together to achieve the establishment of this fund, and
our contribution to it.
Very truly yours,
Stuart A. Bizenstat,
Ambassador.
____
Anti-Defamation League,
New York, NY, November 5, 1997.
Hon. Alfonse D'Amato,
Chairman, Senate Banking Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Alfonse: We commend your leadership in seeking to
investigate and expose the large-scale plundering of Jewish
assets during the Holocaust and the depth of the involvement
of banks and governments in helping finance the Nazi war
machine.
As aging survivors wait out arduous investigations and
negotiations, we must act quickly to enable them to live out
their remaining years with as much dignity and sense of
healing as possible.
The Holocaust Victims Redress Act would offer much needed
support to some victims and strengthen our nation's hand in
appealing to other nations to commit resources to help
survivors.
We are grateful for your efforts to awaken the conscience
of the American people and your resolve to do justice for
remaining Holocaust victims. If the U.S. hopes to credibly
compel all nations to act, we must act expeditiously and take
responsibility for any inadequacies in our own post-war
behavior.
Sincerely,
Howard P. Berkowitz,
National Chairman.
Abraham H. Foxman,
National Director.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Grams, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 1391. A bill to authorize the President to permit the sale and
export of food, medicines, and medical equipment to Cuba; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
the cuban women and children humanitarian relief act
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senators
Warner, Bennett, Jeffords, Grams, Bingaman, and Leahy in introducing
the Cuban Women and Children Humanitarian Relief Act--a bill to
authorize the President to permit the sale of food, medicine, and
medical equipment to the Cuban people.
Provisions of this bill include a summary of the impact that the
United States embargo on food and medicine has had on the public health
in Cuba; a statement of United States policy with respect to the sale
of food and medicine; authority for the President to permit the sale of
food, medicine, and medical supplies to Cuba; congressional
notification requirements; and a report to Congress assessing the
impact of the bill 2 years after enactment.
Mr. President, the intent of the legislation is very straight
forward, namely to clear away all of the legal implements that impede
the President's ability to permit American exports of food, medicines,
and medical supplies to Cuba. As a matter of policy, I do not believe
that United States sanctions should include prohibitions on the sale of
what are essentially humanitarian items--products that are critical to
the health and well being of the more than 10 million people who
inhabit the Island of Cuba.
Most Americans are probably unaware that United States policy
generally prohibits American food and drug companies from selling food,
medicines, and medical supplies to Cuba. Even those who are aware of
this aspect of United States policy, probably assume that this isn't a
serious problem, since Cuban authorities can simply buy these products
elsewhere. That is not the case.
Earlier this year, the American Association for World Health [AAWH]
issued a report--Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S.
Embargo on Health & Nutrition in Cuba--setting forth its observations
from a year long study of the implications of the United States embargo
on health care delivery and food security in Cuba. The AAWH
``determined that the United States embargo of Cuba has dramatically
harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban
citizens.'' The team of nine medical experts who undertook this effort
on behalf of AAWH identified four major health problems affected by the
embargo: malnutrition, water quality, medicines and equipment, and
medical information.
First, with respect to malnutrition--the prohibition on the sale of
United States food to Cuba has had serious consequences on the
nutritional standards in Cuba, particularly for pregnant women. These
nutritional deficiencies have, among other things, led to an increased
incidence of low birth-weight babies.
With respect to water quality, the lack of parts and appropriate
chemicals has compromised the Cuban water supply system and resulted in
increased illness and deaths from water-borne diseases.
We all know that United States medical and pharmaceutical companies
are at the forefront of the development and production of a vast
majority of all new drugs and medical equipment that enter world
markets. The by-product of that situation is that current United States
restrictions virtually preclude the Cuban medical system from utilizing
the most effective and advanced medicines and medical treatments in
caring for the Cuban people. Finally, the embargo indirectly inhibits
the exchange of critical medical information between the United States
and Cuba.
In no way should this legislation be seen as an endorsement of the
current regime in Cuba. The existing policies of that government are
clearly responsible for the serious economic crisis confronting that
country. United States policy should be focused on promoting a peaceful
transition to democracy in Cuba--the tide of history flows in that
direction.
Many human rights activists within Cuba have been strongly critical
of United States food and medicine restrictions. Elizardo Sanchez
Santacruz, director of the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and
National Reconciliation, and a prominent critic of the Cuban
Government, has made clear his views on the current policy. ``America
[[Page S11877]]
should lift its embargo on the sales of food and medicine to Cuba, a
prohibition that violates international law and hurts the people, not
the regime. Denying medicine to innocent citizens is an odd way of
demonstrating support for human rights.''
I share that view. I believe the Clinton administration should take
steps to mitigate the harmful impact of United States policy on the
health of the Cuban people--particularly so with respect to the health
of children, the elderly, and the infirm--by permitting United States
exporters to sell food and medicine to that country. That is what this
bill once enacted will enable the President to do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1391
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 shall be known as the ``Cuban Women and Children
Humanitarian Relief Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the outright ban on the sale of American foodstuffs to
Cuba has contributed to serious nutritional deficits,
particularly among pregnant women, leading to low birth-
weight babies;
(2) the embargo on trade with Cuba is severely restricting
Cuba's access to water treatment chemicals and spare parts
for its water supply, causing reductions in the supply of
safe drinking water and the increased incidence of water-
borne diseases;
(3) the most specialized medical supplies are in short
supply or entirely absent from some Cuban clinics as a result
of the United States embargo;
(4) although informational materials have been exempt from
the United States trade embargo since 1988, in practice very
little medical information is exchanged between the United
States and Cuba due to travel restrictions, currency
regulations, and shipping difficulties; and
(5) current embargoes against Iran, Libya, and Iraq do not
ban the sale of food to those countries or restrict medical
commerce.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It should be the policy of the United States to permit the
sale and export of food, medicines, and medical equipment to
the Cuban people.
SEC. 4. AUTHORITY.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President
is authorized to permit the sale and export of food,
medicines, and medical equipment to Cuba by any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC.
The President shall notify Congress of any decision to
exercise the authority of section 4 and shall, at the time
the decision is made, cause such decision to be published in
the Federal Register, together with such regulations as the
President determines may be necessary to ensure that food,
medicines, and medical equipment sold to Cuba under this Act
will primarily be consumed or otherwise utilized by the
people of Cuba.
SEC. 6. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Two years after the date that the President first exercises
the authority of section 4, the President shall submit a
report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President of the Senate containing an assessment of the
level, composition, and end users of any food, medicine, or
medical equipment sold to Cuba during the previous two years
by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cuban
Women and Children Humanitarian Relief Act. The objective of this
legislation, quite simply, is to remove some of the more objectionable
aspects of the standing United States trade embargo on Cuba, especially
those that imperil the health of women, children, and other vulnerable
groups. The bill would remove existing restrictions on the sale to Cuba
of American food, medicines, and health supplies. Under current law, it
is all but impossible for American companies to sell these items to
Cuba.
Mr. President, I have long held reservations about the effectiveness
of our trade embargo on Cuba. After all, we have maintained a trade
blockade on Cuba for 37 years and have little to show for it in terms
of moving the Cuban Government in the direction of freedom or peaceful
coexistence.
However, this bill is not about how best to pressure the Castro
government. Nor is it intended in any way to signal a change in overall
United States policy toward Cuba. What this bill is about is making
sure that children and other vulnerable groups do not bear the brunt of
the trade embargo. The impact of the embargo on these groups has become
more severe since passage of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, which
tightened the restrictions on food and medical shipments to Cuba.
The respected American Association for World Health concluded that
these new, tougher trade sanctions have caused ``a significant rise in
suffering--and even deaths--in Cuba.'' In particular, the AAWH found
that the embargo on food and medicines has led to malnutrition, reduced
water quality, and the unavailability or short supply of routine
medical supplies.
I do not believe that the American people intended that the trade
embargo against Cuba lead to such demonstrable human suffering. Whether
one supports the overall embargo or not, surely we can agree that the
pain that this policy inflicts should not be borne by children.
All of which is not to absolve Fidel Castro of much of the blame for
the deteriorating state of health in Cuba. The OAS's Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights has noted that many of the medical products
manufactured in Cuba are reserved for hospitals that cater to
foreigners. This has apparently caused much resentment among ordinary
Cubans who feel discriminated against in their country.
But we, too, are the target of much resentment owing to our trade
restrictions on medicines and medical supplies. If a Cuban cannot gain
access to an important drug--50 percent of the most important drugs in
the world are available only from the United States or United States-
licensed firms--or no longer has safe drinking water because water
treatment chemicals or water supply spare parts cannot be obtained, he
can quite credibly blame the United States for his plight. In fact,
Castro has made the most of this situation by pointing to the United
States embargo as the source of almost all of Cuba's health problems.
The State Department maintains that the United States trade
restrictions have not blocked medical shipments to Cuba and that many
firms have successfully met the conditions required to obtain a permit
for such trade. However, the reality is that the requirements to obtain
such a license are so stringent that few drug companies are willing
even to consider sales to Cuba. Those that do often find themselves
investigated for technical and inadvertent violations of the embargo
and ultimately abandon efforts to sell to Cuba. Moreover, relief groups
such as Catholic Relief Services and Church World Services have found
the licensing requirements cumbersome, complex, and costly.
Sales of foodstuffs are barred altogether. And there is no way around
it--no licenses, special permits, or other recourse. I think it's worth
noting that our current embargos against Iran, Iraq, and Libya do not
bar the sale of food or medicines to those countries.
Mr. President, the American people are not mean-spirited. We want our
Government to be tough-minded in protecting our interests but do not
want innocent people to suffer. Even in the case of those countries
adamantly opposed to United States interests and values, such as Iran
and North Korea, we have reached out with humanitarian assistance in
response to natural disasters and famines. We should treat Cuba no
differently. We should not allow our political objectives undermine the
health and well-being of those most in need, especially children.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Conrad):
S. 1393. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the permanent extension of the incentives for alcohol used as a
fuel; to the Committee on Finance.
gasohol legislation
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to
permanently extend the Federal gasohol tax incentives that are
currently available to encourage the development and use of ethanol. I
am pleased that Senators Daschle, Johnson, and Conrad are joining me as
cosponsors of this important bill.
I've been a long-time supporter of the domestic ethanol program
because of its importance to this country's energy
[[Page S11878]]
and economic interests. And I was deeply troubled when Congress failed
to take action earlier this year to keep these ethanol tax incentives
from expiring in the year 2000. Ethanol is an important part of our
domestic fuels industry, and it merits continued support via the Tax
Code.
The ethanol industry helps us to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
It also provides environmental benefits and stimulates our agricultural
industry. In fact, one recent study found that the additional demand
for grain created by ethanol boosts total employment by nearly 200,000
while saving the Federal budget more than $3 billion.
Today's ethanol tax incentive program has strong support in the
Senate. Currently there is a 54-cent per gallon of ethanol credit
available for ethanol blenders. Typically ethanol blenders get the full
benefit of the 54-cent income tax credit by claiming a 5.4-cent
exemption from the gasoline excise tax. The 5.4-cent exemption is
equivalent to 54 cents per gallon of ethanol. Small producers are
provided a 10-cent per gallon credit of ethanol produced, used or sold
as a transportation fuel.
Some of my colleagues in the Senate are now proposing to extend the
ethanol tax incentives through the year 2007 and thereafter connect its
future to any extensions of the Federal gasoline excise tax. Of course
I will continue to support any reasonable efforts to extend the tax
incentives currently available for ethanol. But I think it's time to
make the major ethanol tax incentives a permanent part of our Tax Code,
as are many tax incentives for other energy sectors. The legislation
that I am introducing today will accomplish this goal.
The overwhelming vote of 69 to 30 on the Senate floor during the
consideration of the tax bill this summer shows that a vast majority of
Senators strongly favor continuing the ethanol tax incentives.
Unfortunately, the Senate's provision extending the ethanol incentives
was dropped in conference. But the ethanol program retains the strong
support of many Members in the House of Representatives as well, and by
a broad coalition of Governors, farmers, environmentalists and
consumers across this country.
The future of the ethanol program is too important to our Nation's
energy, environmental and economic interests to be derailed by a few
powerful members in the House of Representatives. Allowing the ethanol
tax incentives to expire in 2000 is short-sighted and unfair. The
ethanol industry is no less important than the other energy sectors
which enjoy permanent tax incentives, and the Internal Revenue Code
should reflect this simple fact.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in making the U.S.
ethanol tax incentive program permanent.
______
By Mr. SARBANES:
S. 1395. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
for the establishment of the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational
Opportunity Program; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the thurgood marshall legal educational opportunity program act of 1997
Mr. SARBANES. I rise today to offer legislation which would establish
the Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program. This
program would allow the Department of Education to award grants to
universities to provide assistance to low-income, minority or
economically disadvantaged students who are seeking a legal education.
For more than 28 years, such assistance was provided through
appropriations authorized by the Higher Education Act [HEA] of 1965.
These critical funds were channeled through the Council on Legal
Education Opportunity [CLEO] and were used to help qualified
disadvantaged students gain admission to law school and prepare
themselves for their legal education.
Since 1968, the heart of the CLEO program has been the 6-week pre-law
summer institute. These institutes, held on law school campuses across
the country, simulate the classroom setting of first year law school,
exposing students to the rigors of legal study. Utilizing full-time law
school professors and a proven curriculum that emphasizes critical
thinking, legal analysis and writing skills, CLEO has built a
reputation of credibility and has produced more than 6,000 successful
alumni from more than 170 law schools.
Unfortunately, Federal funding for CLEO was eliminated during the
fiscal year 1996 appropriations process. This highly beneficial and
cost-effective program has persevered primarily through the assistance
of private donations and the sponsorship of the American Bar
Association [ABA].
The bill I am introducing today, a companion to Congressman Cummings'
legislation in the House, would restore much of the CLEO framework. The
Thurgood Marshall Legal Opportunity Program would identify socially and
economically disadvantaged law school students and provide them with
the opportunity to hone their skills through summer institutes, midyear
seminars and support services.
Mr. President, every society places a premium on education in terms
of developing a skilled and trained work force in the next generation,
and the more economically complex the world becomes, the more urgent it
is to develop these human resources. This program will provide the
necessary resources to ensure that those who have proven themselves at
the undergraduate level of study are able to maximize their potential
as they move on to law school.
Investing in the promise of these talented individuals is a
worthwhile endeavor and I encourage my colleagues to join me in
supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1395
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. THURGOOD MARSHALL LEGAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
PROGRAM.
Chapter 1 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 et seq.) is amended
by inserting after section 402H of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1070a-
18) the following:
``SEC. 402I. LEGAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM.
``(a) Program Authority.--The Secretary shall carry out a
program to be known as the ``Thurgood Marshall Legal
Educational Opportunity Program' designed to provide low-
income, minority, or disadvantaged college students with the
information, preparation, and financial assistance to gain
access to and complete law school study.
``(b) Eligibility.--A college student is eligible for
assistance under this section if the student is--
``(1) from a low-income family;
``(2) a minority; or
``(3) from an economically or otherwise disadvantaged
background.
``(c) Contract or Grant Authorized.--The Secretary is
authorized to enter into a contract with, or make a grant to,
the Council on Legal Education Opportunity, for a period of
not less than 5 years--
``(1) to identify college students who are from low-income
families, are minorities, or are from disadvantaged
backgrounds described in subsection (b)(3);
``(2) to prepare such students for study at accredited law
schools;
``(3) to assist such students to select the appropriate law
school, make application for entry into law school, and
receive financial assistance for such study;
``(4) to provide support services to such students who are
first-year law students to improve retention and success in
law school studies; and
``(5) to motivate and prepare such students with respect to
law school studies and practice in low-income communities.
``(d) Services Provided.--In carrying out the purposes
described in subsection (c), the contract or grant shall
provide for the delivery of services through prelaw
information resource centers, summer institutes, midyear
seminars, and other educational activities, conducted under
this section. Such services may include--
``(1) information and counseling regarding--
``(A) accredited law school academic programs, especially
tuition, fees, and admission requirements;
``(B) course work offered and required for graduation;
``(C) faculty specialities and areas of legal emphasis;
``(D) undergraduate preparatory courses and curriculum
selection;
``(2) tutoring and academic counseling, including
assistance in preparing for bar examinations;
``(3) prelaw mentoring programs, involving law school
faculty, members of State and local bar associations, and
retired and sitting judges, justices, and magistrates;
``(4) assistance in identifying preparatory courses and
material for the law school aptitude or admissions tests;
``(5) summer institutes for Thurgood Marshall Fellows that
expose the Fellows to a rigorous curriculum that emphasizes
abstract thinking, legal analysis, research, writing, and
examination techniques; and
[[Page S11879]]
``(6) midyear seminars and other educational activities
that are designed to reinforce reading, writing, and studying
skills of Thurgood Marshall Fellows.
(e) Duration of the Provision of Services.--The services
described in subsection (d) may be provided--
(1) prior to the period of law school study;
(2) during the period of law school study; and
(3) during the period following law school study and prior
to taking a bar examination.
``(f) Subcontracts and Subgrants.--For the purposes of
planning, developing, or delivering one or more of the
services described in subsection (d), the Council on Legal
Education Opportunity shall enter into subcontracts with, and
make subgrants to, institutions of higher education, law
schools, public and private agencies and organizations, and
combinations of such institutions, schools, agencies, and
organizations.
``(g) Stipends.--The Secretary shall annually establish the
maximum stipend to be paid (including allowances for
participant travel and for the travel of the dependents of
the participant) to Thurgood Marshall Fellows for the period
of participation in summer institutes and midyear seminars. A
Fellow may be eligible for such a stipend only if the Fellow
maintains satisfactory academic progress toward the Juris
Doctor or Bachelor of Laws degree, as determined by the
respective institutions.
``(h) Maximum Level.--For any year for which an
appropriation is made to carry out this chapter, the
Secretary shall allocate not more than $5,000,000 for the
purpose of providing the services described in subsection
(d).''.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. 1396. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to expand
the School Breakfast Program in elementary schools; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
the meals for achievement act
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Meals
for Achievement Act. This bill, if enacted, is intended to expand the
school breakfast program in elementary schools.
In his State of the Union address earlier this year, President
Clinton called education ``my number one priority for the next four
years.'' Congress has echoed this sentiment with a variety of bills
intended to improve the readiness of children to take their place in
America's work force in order to secure our place in a strong economy.
For the United States to compete effectively in the world we must have
an educated and productive work force. In order to have an educated and
productive work force, we must prepare our children to learn. In order
to prepare our children to learn they must be well nourished, and that
begins with a good breakfast.
The best teachers in the world, with the best standards, cannot teach
a hungry child. A child who begins his or her school day with their
stomach growling because they either did not have time to eat breakfast
or there was no breakfast to be served, is simply too distracted to
focus on the lessons being provided by the teacher.
In 1994, the Minnesota Legislature directed the Minnesota Department
of Children, Families and Learning to implement a universal breakfast
pilot program integrating breakfast into the education schedule for all
students. The evaluation of the pilot project, performed by the Center
for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of
Minnesota, shows that when all students are involved in school
breakfast there is a general increase in learning and achievement.
Researchers at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital recently
completed a study on the results of universal free breakfast at one
public school in Philadelphia and two in Baltimore. The study, to be
published in the Journal of Pediatrics in the near future, found that
students who ate the breakfast showed great improvement in math grades,
attendance, and punctuality. The researchers also observed that
students displayed fewer signs of depression, anxiety, hyperactivity,
and other behavioral problems.
As reported by the Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project
[CCHIP], hungry children are more likely to be ill and absent from
school and are less likely to interact with other people or explore or
learn from their surroundings. This interferes with their ability to
learn from a very early age. School-aged children who are hungry cannot
concentrate or do as well as others on the tasks they need to perform
to learn the basics. Research indicates that low-income children who
participate in the School Breakfast Program show an improvement in
standardized test scores and a decrease in tardiness and absenteeism
compared to low-income students who do not eat breakfast at school.
According to the Tufts University Center on Hunger, Poverty, and
Nutrition Policy, evidence from recent research about child nutrition
shows that, in addition to having a detrimental effect on the cognitive
development of children, undernutrition results in lost knowledge,
brainpower, and productivity for the Nation.
If we are serious about improving productivity in America through our
education system, we must first prepare our children to learn. The time
has come, therefore, to build upon the pilot program in Minnesota,
Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other cities, and integrate school
breakfast into the education day, at least at the elementary school
level.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would not
mandate the school breakfast program. A local school could still decide
whether or not to participate, and each parent can decide for
themselves whether or not to have their child participate.
I do appreciate that there is a cost involved with this initiative
and, therefore, we may have to phase it in over a few years. However,
the time has come to set the course for our future direction in the
School Breakfast Program and take our first step forward.
The Meals for Achievement Act raises an important policy question.
The question is: What is the basic purpose and goal of the School
Breakfast Program? Is the School Breakfast Program a welfare program?
Or, Is the School Breakfast Program a nutrition and education program
intended to prepare children for a successful educational experience?
If the School Breakfast Program is a welfare program then my
legislation would not make sense. I do not believe that we should be
providing welfare to individuals who do not need assistance. If, on the
other hand, the School Breakfast Program is a part of the education
day, and is intended to prepare children to learn, then, in my opinion,
it should include all children. School books are provided to all
children without regard to their income; school buses are used by
children without regard to their income; and that is how we should view
the School Breakfast Program.
I commend this legislation to my colleagues and to the
administration. As many of you know the child nutrition programs must
be reauthorized in 1998 and the Administration is currently drafting
its proposal to send to Congress after the first of the year. I would
hope Secretary Glickman and my friends at the Department of
Agriculture, as well as those at the Office of Management and Budget,
consider making the Meals for Achievement Act a part of their
legislative initiative.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1396
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 ``Meals for Achievement Act''.
SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM.
Section 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1773(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``for each free
breakfast'' and inserting ``for each breakfast served in an
elementary school and each free breakfast served in a school
other than an elementary school'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``served in a
school other than an elementary school'' after ``reduced
price breakfast''; and
(3) in the third sentence, by inserting ``in a school other
than an elementary school'' after ``served''.
____________________