[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''.

                          ____________________