[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 11 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S538-S551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Lott, Mr. Abraham,
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith of
New Hampshire, and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 2042. A bill to reform the process by which the Office of the
Pardon Attorney investigates and reviews potential exercises of
executive clemency; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will
help restore public confidence in the Department of Justice by
reforming the way that the Office of Pardon Attorney investigates
candidates for executive clemency. This bill, the Hatch-Nickles-Abraham
Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act, which is co-sponsored by
Senators Lott, Thurmond, Kyl, Ashcroft, Sessions, Smith of New
Hampshire, and Coverdell, addresses the problems that led to the
widespread public outrage at the Department of Justice's role in
President Clinton's decision last September to release 11 Puerto Rican
nationalist terrorists from prison.
The beneficiaries of President Clinton's grant of clemency were
convicted terrorists who belong to violent Puerto Rican independence
groups called the FALN and Los Macheteros. They were in prison for a
seditious conspiracy that included the planting of over 130 bombs in
public places in the United States, including shopping malls and
restaurants. That bombing spree--which killed several people, injured
many others and caused vast property damage--remains the most prolific
terrorist campaign within our borders in United States history.
The Judiciary Committee has thoroughly investigated the facts and
circumstances surrounding the decision to release those terrorists from
prison. We read thousands of documents produced by the Department of
Justice and the White House. We interviewed law enforcement officials
knowledgeable about the FALN and Los Macheteros organizations. We spoke
to victims, and we held two hearings on the many issues raised by the
grant of clemency. Our investigation has led me to a very troubling
conclusion: the Justice Department ignored its own rules for handling
clemency matters, exercised very poor judgment in ignoring the opinions
of law enforcement and victims, and sacrificed its integrity by bowing
to political pressure to modify its original recommendation against
clemency.
I do not come to this conclusion lightly. I base it on an examination
of the facts. The facts show that the clemency recipients were never
asked for information relevant to open investigations or the
apprehension of fugitives--despite the fact that one of their co-
defendants, Victor Gerena, is on the FBI's ``ten most wanted'' list.
Many of the killings associated with the FALN bombings, including the
infamous Fraunces Tavern bombing, remain unsolved. The failure to ask
for such information from the clemency recipients, several of whom held
leadership positions in the FALN, means that the rest of the
perpetrators of those crimes may never be brought to justice. My
legislation will require the Justice Department to notify law
enforcement of pending clemency requests, and to assess whether a
proposed clemency recipient could have information on open
investigations and fugitives.
Our investigation also revealed that the White House and the Justice
Department ignored the many victims of FALN crimes, even while senior
officials were holding numerous meetings with the terrorists' advocates
for clemency. While top government officials actually gave strategic
advice to the terrorists, no one lifted a finger to find, interview, or
even notify the victims about the pending clemency request. My
legislation would help ensure that the Justice Department remembers who
it is supposed to be working for by requiring it to notify and seek
input from victims.
Finally, a disturbing connection has come to light between the FALN,
Los Macheteros and the Cuban government.
[[Page S539]]
Jorge Masetti, a former Cuban intelligence agent, has stated that Cuba
helped Los Macheteros to plan and execute the $7.1 million Wells Fargo
robbery--the biggest cash heist in US history--by providing funding,
training and assistance in smuggling the money out of the country. Some
sources estimate that 4 million dollars from the robbery ended up in
Cuba. We don't know whether the Pardon Attorney knew of or told the
President about this Cuban connection because the Pardon Attorney
currently has no obligation to contact intelligence agencies for
information relevant to proposed grants of executive clemency. My
legislation would require the Justice Department to solicit from law
enforcement and intelligence agencies necessary information concerning
the nature of the threat posed by potential clemency recipients so that
the Pardon Attorney can properly advise the President whether a
particular grant of clemency will impact future crime or terrorism.
Before describing how this bill works, I want to explain how the
Office of Pardon Attorney currently operates. The job of the Office of
Pardon Attorney is not complicated: it is to investigate potential
grants of clemency and, in appropriate cases, to produce a report and
recommendations to the President. Ordinarily, this work begins when the
office receives a petition from a prisoner or someone who has already
completed a prison sentence. The Department's rules require that an
individual seeking clemency submit such a petition to the Pardon
Attorney. After receiving a petition, the Pardon Attorney makes an
initial determination of whether the request has enough merit to
warrant further investigation. If so, the Pardon Attorney researches
the potential clemency recipient and prepares a report analyzing the
information in light of the grounds for granting clemency. As described
by the United States Attorneys' Manual, those grounds ``have
traditionally included disparity or undue severity of sentence,
critical illness or old age, and meritorious service rendered to the
government by the petitioner.''
It is to be expected that the Administration and the Department of
Justice Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') would question the
constitutionality of this bill by asserting an expansive view of
executive power. That is their nature. This is the same Administration
and Department that resisted any oversight of the FALN clemency
decision. The OLC and the Department have a history of taking a liberal
view of laws and privileges that would shield the President from
scrutiny. This is evidenced by the Department's sound defeats on
assertions of government attorney-client privilege and its ill-fated
attempt to create a protective function privilege out of whole cloth.
Anyone examining the merits of the OLC's attacks against this bill,
therefore, must acknowledge that the Administration and the Department
have a track record of overstating executive power.
With that background, let me clarify that the Pardon Attorney Reform
and Integrity Act was carefully drafted to avoid offending the
separation of powers. The Act does not attempt to dictate how the
President uses the pardon power. Far from it. The Constitution gives
that power to the President, and this bill does not restrict it in any
way. This bill affects only those cases where the President delegates
the responsibility to investigate a particular potential grant of
clemency. Nothing in the bill requires the President to ask the Pardon
Attorney for assistance or requires the Pardon Attorney to take any
particular position or recommend any particular outcome. It doesn't
even require the Department to submit a report to the President, but
simply make it available. Furthermore, the bill does not require the
President to read any report, consider any particular information, or
avail himself of any resource. The President will still be able to
disregard the Justice Department's reports, use another agency, ask
anyone in the world for advice, or exercise the ``pardon power''
without anyone's counsel. Only if the President chooses to ask the
Justice Department for assistance will the procedural requirements of
this bill apply--and they will apply only to the Justice Department,
not to the President.
The Act is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinions relating to
the pardon power. The Act neither ``change[s] the effect of . . . a
pardon'' as described in United States v. Kline, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128
(1872), nor will it ``modif[y], abridge[], or diminish[]'' the
President's authority to grant clemency as discussed in Schick v. Reed,
419 U.S. 256, 266 (1974). In fact, the Act will have no effect
whatsoever on the President's ability to exercise the pardon power as
he or she sees fit.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress can
legislate in areas that touch upon the pardon power. In Carlesi v. New
York, 233 U.S. 51 (1914), the Court found that it was within the power
of the legislative branch to determine what effect a pardon would have
on future criminal sentences. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged
that the pardon power has limits; the President cannot use that power
as an excuse to wield power over departments that he or she otherwise
could not. In Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877), the Court
held that the pardon power does not give the President authority to
order the treasury to refund money taken from a prisoner--even though
that prisoner had just been pardoned for the crime that gave rise to
the government's seizure of that money.
It is Congress, not the President, that has the authority--indeed,
the responsibility--to examine and legislate the manner in which the
Justice Department performs its work. Congress created an ``attorney in
charge of pardons'' within the Department of Justice in 1891, and
appropriated money for an ``attorney in charge of pardons'' in that
same year. To this day, the Office of the Pardon Attorney depends on
funds appropriated annually by the Congress. In the most recent
appropriations legislation, the Congress appropriated $1.6 million for
the Pardon Attorney for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. This
Congressional involvement--creation and funding of the office--provides
a compelling basis for the Judiciary Committee's investigation and the
present legislation.
``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in
the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries
concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or
possibly needed statutes.'' Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187
(1957). The scope of this power ```is as penetrating and far-reaching
as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the
Constitution.''' Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S.
491, 504 n. 15 (1975) (quoting Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S.
190, 111 (1959)). The Supreme Court has also recognized ``the danger to
effective and honest conduct of the Government if the legislative power
to probe corruption in the Executive Branch were unduly hampered.''
Watkins, 354 U.S. at 194-95. Once having established its jurisdiction
and authority, and the pertinence of the matter under inquiry to its
area of authority, a committee's investigative purview is substantial
and wide-ranging. Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 408-09 (1961).
Congress also has broad powers under the Constitution to ``make all
Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution
the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution
in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer
thereof.'' The areas in which Congress may potentially legislate or
appropriate are, by necessary implication, even broader. Thus, in
determining whether Congress has jurisdiction to oversee and enact
legislation, deference should be accorded to Congress' decision.
Because of this legal history, the administration of the Department
of Justice and its various components has long been considered an
appropriate subject of Congressional oversight. Early this century, in
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 151 (1927), the Supreme Court
endorsed Congress' authority to study ``charges of misfeasance and
nonfeasance in the Department of Justice.'' In that case, which
involved a challenge to Congress' inquiry into the DOJ's role during
the Teapot Dome scandal, the Court concluded that Congress had
authority to investigate ``whether [DOJ's] functions were being
properly discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and
particularly whether the Attorney General and his assistants were
performing or neglecting their duties in
[[Page S540]]
respect of the institution.'' Id. at 177. These precedents make clear
that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction to investigate the Pardon
Attorney's role in the pardon process, and to enact legislation
concerning the way in which that office operates.
We have discussed this bill with the Department of Justice, and we
have reviewed the regulations the Department has proposed. The problems
with the Office of the Pardon Attorney, however, cannot be fixed by a
mere change in department regulations. It has been six months since the
public outcry over the FALN clemency shined a spotlight on the Pardon
Attorney's practices. Despite having half-a-year to reform itself, the
Department has suggested only minimal changes in the way it does
business. In its draft regulations, the Department agrees that it
should ascertain the views of victims, but only in cases involving
``crimes of violence.'' Victims of other crimes deserve the right to be
heard, too. Victims of so-called identity theft, for example, have
compelling stories of the horror of being forced into bankruptcy to
avoid collections lawyers, losing their jobs due to issues related to
wage garnishments, and trying to rebuild their lives without the
ability to obtain credit or sign an apartment lease. Victims of such
crimes also deserve to be heard. Similarly, the Department's proposed
regulations acknowledge the need to determine whether releasing a
particular prisoner would pose a risk, but limit their focus to past
victims and ignore other possible targets including witnesses,
informants, prosecutors and court personnel. The Department's proposal
also fails to notify victims when it undertakes a clemency
investigation, when it completes its report to the President, or when
the President makes a decision. Under the Department's scheme, victims
may still learn of a prisoner's release from prison by watching the
event on TV.
Equally important, the Department's suggested regulations ignore the
Department's main job: to protect law-abiding people from criminal
acts. The Department does not see a need to require the Pardon Attorney
to talk to law enforcement officials about whether a particular person
could provide helpful information about criminal investigations or
searches for fugitives. Nor does the Department see the value of asking
law enforcement whether a potential release from prison would pose a
risk to specific people other than victims or to a broader societal
interest such as enhancing a particular criminal organization or
decreasing the deterrent value of prison sentences. The Department's
proposed regulations also ignore the importance of whether a potential
clemency recipient has accepted responsibility for, or feels remorse
over, criminal acts.
Even if the Department's proposed regulations were identical to this
bill, moreover, those regulations could not overcome what is perhaps
the most important weakness of all: Regulations are not law. They do
not have the force of statutes, and they can be changed very easily.
The FALN case proves the need for a statute because the Attorney
General ignored even the current, weak regulations in the FALN matter.
Although the Justice Department and the White House refuse to let
anyone in Congress review the reports produced by the Pardon Attorney
about the FALN clemency, it is clear that the Pardon Attorney did not
follow the Justice Department regulations when analyzing the issues for
the President. For starters, the Pardon Attorney began investigating a
potential grant of clemency for the FALN terrorists even though no
personal petitions for clemency had been filed. That's right--these
terrorists had not asked for clemency prior to the Justice Department's
efforts to free them. Indeed, no such petitions were ever filed. And
the absence of petitions was not a mere oversight: the FALN terrorists
refused to file such petitions because they do not recognize that their
criminal acts were wrongful or that the United States government had
the right to punish them for committing those acts.
I have the utmost respect for the career men and women at the Justice
Department. It appears, however, the Department caved in to political
pressure in this case. Although it submitted a report in December 1996
recommending against the granting of clemency for the FALN terrorists--
which should have ended its involvement--the Pardon Attorney produced
another report two-and-a-half years later reportedly changing its
recommendation. The second report did not recommend either for or
against the granting of clemency, violating the Justice Department
regulation requiring that in every clemency case the Department ``shall
report in writing [its] recommendation to the President, stating
whether in [its] judgment the President should grant or deny the
petition.''
Why did the Justice Department's recommendation change? What happened
between the first report in December 1996 and the second one in the
summer of 1999 that justified a reexamination and change of the
Department's conclusion? Because of the President's assertion of
executive privilege, we may never know for sure. It was a mistake for
the President to let politics affect such an important clemency
decision, but is much worse than a mistake when political pressure
forces an independent agency to alter its advice against its better
judgment.
The Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act will help prevent this
from happening again. It will make available to the President access to
the most pertinent facts concerning the exercise of executive clemency,
including information from law enforcement agencies about the risks
posed by any release from prison. It will also help ensure that--if the
President chooses to have the Department of Justice conduct a clemency
review--the victims of crime will not be shut out of the clemency
process while terrorists and their organized sympathizers have access
to--and obtain advice from--high government officials. In other words,
this Act will insure that the tax-payer funded Justice Department will,
when assisting the President in a clemency review, focus on public
safety, not politics. Let me be clear that the Department of Justice is
an agency which I have great respect for. Its employees are loyal,
dedicated public servants. This bill is aimed at helping the
Department, not hurting it.
Specifically, our bill will do the following:
1. Give victims a voice by insuring that they are notified of key
events in the clemency process and by giving them an opportunity to
voice their opinions.
2. Enhance the voice of law enforcement by requiring the Pardon
Attorney to notify the law enforcement community of a clemency
investigation and permitting law enforcement to express its views on:
the impact of clemency on the individuals affected by the decision--for
example, victims and witnesses; whether clemency candidates have
information which might help in other investigations; and whether
granting clemency will increase the threat of terrorism or other
criminal activity.
Of course, it is the hope of all the co-sponsors--and all Americans--
that presidents will use the congressionally created and funded Office
of the Pardon Attorney in order to make the best possible decisions
regarding executive clemency. I believe that when Congress passes this
bill--and should President Clinton sign it into law--future Presidents,
victims, and the American public will be well served. If President
Clinton wants to help in this effort to restore integrity to the
clemency process, he will announce his support for this bill.
Mr. President, I thank the many co-sponsors of this act, and I ask
the rest of my colleagues to support this much-needed 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. 2042
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 ``Pardon Attorney Reform and
Integrity Act''.
SEC. 2. REPRIEVES AND PARDONS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``executive clemency'' means any exercise by
the President of the power to grant reprieves and pardons
under clause 1 of section 2 of article II of the Constitution
of the United States, and includes any pardon, commutation,
reprieve, or remission of a fine; and
(2) the term ``victim'' has the meaning given the term in
section 503(e) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(e)).
[[Page S541]]
(b) Reporting Requirement.--If the President delegates to
the Attorney General the responsibility for investigating or
reviewing, in any particular matter or case, a potential
grant of executive clemency, the Attorney General shall
prepare and make available to the President a written report,
which shall include--
(1) a description of the efforts of the Attorney General--
(A) to make each determination required under subsection
(c); and
(B) to make the notifications required under subsection
(d)(1); and
(2) any written statement submitted by a victim under
subsection (c).
(c) Determinations Required.--In the preparation of any
report under subsection (b), the Attorney General shall make
all reasonable efforts to--
(1) inform the victims of each offense that is the subject
of the potential grant of executive clemency that they may
submit written statements for inclusion in the report
prepared by the Attorney General under subsection (b), and
determine the opinions of those victims regarding the
potential grant of executive clemency;
(2) determine the opinions of law enforcement officials,
investigators, prosecutors, probation officers, judges, and
prison officials involved in apprehending, prosecuting,
sentencing, incarcerating, or supervising the conditional
release from imprisonment of the person for whom a grant of
executive clemency is petitioned or otherwise under
consideration as to the propriety of granting executive
clemency and particularly whether the person poses a danger
to any person or society and has expressed remorse and
accepted responsibility for the criminal conduct to which a
grant of executive clemency would apply;
(3) determine the opinions of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officials as to whether the person for whom a
grant of executive clemency is petitioned or otherwise under
consideration may have information relevant to any ongoing
investigation or prosecution, or any effort to apprehend a
fugitive; and
(4) determine the opinions of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement or intelligence agencies regarding the effect
that a grant of executive clemency would have on the threat
of terrorism or other ongoing or future criminal activity.
(d) Notification to Victims.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall make all
reasonable efforts to notify the victims of each offense that
is the subject of the potential grant of executive clemency
of the following events, as soon as practicable after their
occurrence:
(A) The undertaking by the Attorney General of any
investigation or review of a potential grant of executive
clemency in a particular matter or case.
(B) The making available to the President of any report
under subsection (b).
(C) The decision of the President to deny any petition or
request for executive clemency.
(2) Notification of grant of executive clemency.--If the
President grants executive clemency, the Attorney General
shall make all reasonable efforts to notify the victims of
each offense that is the subject of the potential grant of
executive clemency that such grant has been made as soon as
practicable after that grant is made, and, if such grant will
result in the release of any person from custody, such notice
shall be prior to that release from custody, if practicable.
(e) No Effect on Other Actions.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to--
(1) prevent any officer or employee of the Department of
Justice from contacting any victim, prosecutor, investigator,
or other person in connection with any investigation or
review of a potential grant of executive clemency;
(2) prohibit the inclusion of any other information or view
in any report to the President; or
(3) affect the manner in which the Attorney General
determines which petitions for executive clemency lack
sufficient merit to warrant any investigation or review.
(f) Applicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, this section does not apply to any petition or
other request for executive clemency that, in the judgment of
the Attorney General, lacks sufficient merit to justify
investigation or review, such as the contacting of a United
States Attorney.
(g) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate
regulations governing the procedures for complying with this
section.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2043. A bill to designate the United States Post Office building
located at 3101 West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the
``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
hector g. godinez post office building
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to
support a bill to name the Santa Ana, California Post Office as the
``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building.''
Hector Godinez, who passed away in May of 1999, was a true leader in
his community of Santa Ana, California. He was a pioneer in the United
States Postal Service rising from letter carrier to become the first
Mexican-American to achieve the rank of District Manager within the
United States Postal Service. He served with honor in World War II, was
a ardent civil rights activist and an active participant in civic
organizations and local government.
After graduation from Santa Ana High School, Mr. Godinez enlisted
into the armed services and was a tank commander in World War II under
General George Patton. For his service, he earned a bronze star for
bravery under fire and was also awarded a purple heart for wounds
received in battle.
Upon his return home in 1946, Mr. Godinez started his first of 48
years of distinguished service as a United States postal worker.
Hector Godinez was a true pillar within the Santa Ana community
devoting his tireless energy to such civic groups as the Orange County
District Boy Scouts of America, Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce, Orange
County YMCA and National President of the League of United Latin
American Citizens, one of the country's oldest Hispanic civil rights
organizations.
On behalf of the Godinez family and the people of Santa Ana,
California, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill to name the Santa
Ana, California Post Office in his honor.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2044. A bill to allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for
domestic violence programs through the voluntary purchase of specially
issued postage stamps; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
THE STAMP OUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT OF 2000
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Stamp Out Domestic
Violence Act of 2000.
The bill will allow every American to easily contribute to the fight
against domestic violence through the voluntary purchase of certain
specially issued U.S. Postal stamps, generally referred to as semi-
postals. Proceeds raised from the stamps would fund domestic violence
programs nationwide.
The national statistics on domestic violence are reprehensible and
shocking. Consider the following: A woman is battered every 15 seconds
in the United States. According to the Justice Department, four million
American women were victims of violent crime last year. Two thirds of
these women were victimized by someone they knew. In fact, 30 percent
of female murder victims are killed by current or former partners. In
Colorado alone, the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence
reported 59 domestic violence related deaths in 1998. We can and must
make every effort to change that. But, before we can eliminate the
incidence of domestic violence we must acknowledge the problem and
identify the resources needed to combat the problem.
Mr. President, I believe this bill represents an innovative way to
generate money for the fight against domestic violence. In the 105th
Congress, as Chairman of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Subcommittee, I supported the first semi-postal issued
in the United States, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. So far, more
than 104 million stamps have been sold nationally, raising $8 million
for breast cancer research. My bill is modeled after the breast cancer
stamp, and I am confident it will be just as successful.
Specifically, under the ``Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2000,''
the Postal Service would establish a special rate of postage for first-
class mail, not to exceed 25 percent of the first-class rate, as an
alternative to the regular first-class postage. The additional sum
would be contributed to domestic violence programs. The rate would be
determined in part, by the Postal Service to cover administrative
costs, and the remainder by the Governors of the Postal Service. All of
the funds raised would go to the Department of Justice to support local
domestic violence initiatives across the country.
In a country as blessed as America, the horrid truth is more women
are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile and
cancer deaths--combined. We can no longer ignore that fact, for our
denial is but a
[[Page S542]]
small step from tacit approval. The funds raised by this stamp will
represent another step forward in addressing this national concern. I
urge my colleagues to act quickly on this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objecton, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2044
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 ``Stamp Out Domestic Violence
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMPS RELATING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 414 the following:
``Sec. 414a. Special postage stamps relating to domestic
violence
``(a) In order to afford the public a convenient way to
contribute to funding for domestic violence programs, the
Postal Service shall establish a special rate of postage for
first-class mail under this section.
``(b) The rate of postage established under this section--
``(1) shall be equal to the regular first-class rate of
postage, plus a differential not to exceed 25 percent;
``(2) shall be set by the Governors in accordance with such
procedures as the Governors shall by regulation prescribe (in
lieu of the procedures under chapter 36); and
``(3) shall be offered as an alternative to the regular
first class rate of postage.
``(c) The use of the rate of postage established under this
section shall be voluntary on the part of postal patrons.
``(d)(1) Amounts becoming available for domestic violence
programs under this section shall be paid by the Postal
Service to the Department of Justice. Payments under this
section shall be made under such arrangements as the Postal
Service shall, by mutual agreement with the Department of
Justice, establish in order to carry out the purposes of this
section, except that under those arrangements, payments to
the Department of Justice shall be made at least twice a
year.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `amounts
becoming available for domestic violence programs under this
section' means--
``(A) the total amount of revenues received by the Postal
Service that it would not have received but for the enactment
of this section; reduced by
``(B) an amount sufficient to cover reasonable costs
incurred by the Postal Service in carrying out this section,
including costs attributable to the printing, sale, and
distribution of stamps under this section,
as determined by the Postal Service under regulations that it
shall prescribe.
``(e) It is the sense of Congress that nothing in this
section should--
``(1) directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in total
funds received by the Department of Justice or any other
agency of the Government (or any component or program
thereof) below the level that would otherwise have been
received but for the enactment of this section; or
``(2) affect regular first-class rates of postage or any
other regular rates of postage.
``(f) Special postage stamps under this section shall be
made available to the public beginning on such date as the
Postal Service shall by regulation prescribe, but not later
than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(g) The Postmaster General shall include in each report
rendered under section 2402 with respect to any period during
any portion of which this section is in effect, information
concerning the operation of this section, except that, at a
minimum, each report shall include--
``(1) the total amount described in subsection (d)(2)(A)
which was received by the Postal Service during the period
covered by such report; and
``(2) of the amount under paragraph (1), how much (in the
aggregate and by category) was required for the purposes
described in subsection (d)(2)(B).
``(h) This section shall cease to be effective at the end
of the 2-year period beginning on the date on which special
postage stamps under this section are first made available to
the public.''.
(b) Report by the Comptroller General of the United
States.--Not later than 3 months (but no earlier than 6
months) before the end of the 2-year period referred to in
section 414a(h) of title 39, United States Code (as amended
by subsection (a)), the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Congress a report on the operation
of such section. Such report shall include--
(1) an evaluation of the effectiveness and the
appropriateness of the authority provided by such section as
a means of fund-raising; and
(2) a description of the monetary and other resources
required of the Postal Service in carrying out such section.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 4
of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking the
item relating to section 414 and inserting the following:
``414. Special postage stamps relating to breast cancer.
``414a. Special postage stamps relating to domestic violence.''.
(2) Section heading.--The heading for section 414 of title
39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 414. Special postage stamps relating to breast
cancer''.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Mack,
Mr. Specter, Mr. DeWine, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Grams, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Smith
of Oregon, and Mr. Warner):
S. 2045. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with
respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
american competitiveness in the twenty-first century act of 2000
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce what I believe is
one of the most important pieces of legislation the Senate will
consider this year, the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century
Act.
At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to my two lead
cosponsors, Senator Abraham and Senator Gramm. Both have worked
tirelessly with me to craft this legislation. Senator Abraham, of
course, as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, has long led the
way on this matter. I also thank our Democrat sponsors, Senators
Graham, Lieberman, and Feinstein, as well as our majority leader and
assistant majority leader for their contributions to this effort.
Last month, the national jobless rate hit 4 percent, the lowest level
in 30 years. That jobless rate is even lower in my home State of Utah
at 3.3 percent. That's great news; but at the same time, serious labor
shortages threaten our continued economic prosperity and global
competitiveness. A recent study, for example, concluded that a shortage
of high-tech professionals is currently costing the U.S. economy $105
billion a year.
A look at last Sunday's Washington Post makes the problem very clear.
High-tech jobs even have their own separate section of help wanted ads.
Twenty-one pages of jobs, jobs, jobs.
The Clinton administration recently projected that in the next 5
years, high-tech and related employment will grow ``more than twice as
fast as employment in the economy as a whole.'' The growth of the high-
tech industry is being felt across this country, and nowhere more than
in my State of Utah. Common sense tells us that we must allow American
high-tech companies to fill their labor needs in the United States, or
they will be forced to take these opportunities of growth abroad.
We want the high tech industry to thrive in the United States and to
continue to serve as the engine for the growth of jobs and
opportunities for American workers. If Congress fails to act promptly
to alleviate today's high-tech labor shortage, today's low jobless rate
will be a mere precursor to tomorrow's lost opportunities.
The purpose of our important bipartisan legislation is twofold: (1)
To allow for a necessary infusion of high-tech workers in the short
term, and (2) to make prudent investments in our own workforce for the
long term.
It is clear that in the short term we need to raise the limits of the
number of temporary visas for highly skilled labor. Our bill does this
by increasing the cap to 195,0000 visas over each of the next 3 years.
We also exempt persons from the cap who come to work in our
universities and persons who have recently received advanced degrees in
our educational institutions.
But this, by itself, is not a satisfactory solution either in the
short item or long term. Thus, we need to redouble our efforts to
provide training and educational opportunities for our current and
future workforce. Thus, we raise an additional $150 million for
scholarships and training of American workers for these jobs for a
total of $375 million for education and training under this program
over 3 fiscal years. Our legislation, in other words, seeks
[[Page S543]]
to address both the short and long term needs.
My hope is that the administration will come to support this
important high-tech legislation. In our new knowledge-based economy,
where ideas and innovations rather than land or natural resources are
the principal well springs of economy growth, American competitiveness
depends greatly on intellectual assets and capacity. The most
successful economics of the 21st century will be those which maximize
intellectual assets. In recognition of this fact, the administration
has worked with me over the years to improve intellectual property
protection and to encourage developing nations to invest in doing
likewise. For this reason, I believe that the administration
appreciates the need for this legislation. In the end, I hope they will
have the smarts to listen to Alan Greenspan--who has testified about
the need for this bill--and that the administration will support its
passage.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2045
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 ``American Competitiveness in
the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN VISA ALLOTMENTS.
In addition to the number of aliens who may be issued visas
or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b)), the
following number of aliens may be issued such visas or
otherwise provided such status for each of the following
fiscal years:
(1) 80,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(2) 87,500 for fiscal year 2001; and
(3) 130,000 for fiscal year 2002.
SEC. 3. SPECIAL RULE FOR UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH FACILITIES,
AND GRADUATE DEGREE RECIPIENTS.
Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraphs:
``(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph
(1)(A)(iii) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued
a visa or otherwise provided status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)--
``(A) who is employed (or has received an offer of
employment) at--
``(i) an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a))), or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity; or
``(ii) a nonprofit research organization or a governmental
research organization; or
``(B) for whom a petition is filed not more than 90 days
before or not more than 180 days after the nonimmigrant has
attained a master's degree or higher degree from an
institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a)
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))).''.
``(6) Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer
described in paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a
nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b),
be counted toward the numerical limitations contained in
paragraph (1)(A)(iii) the first time the alien is employed by
an employer other than one described in paragraph (5)(A).''.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON PER COUNTRY CEILING WITH RESPECT TO
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.
(a) Special Rules.--Section 202(a) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants.--
``(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per
country limitation if additional visas available.--If the
total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2),
(3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter
exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise
be issued such visas, the visas made available under that
paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical
limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the
remainder of the calendar quarter.
``(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e).--In the case of a foreign state or dependent
area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of
visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number
of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the
state or area under section 203(b) consistent with subsection
(e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in
applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have
been required for the classes of aliens specified in section
203(b).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 202(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (3), (4), and (5)''.
(2) Section 202(e)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)(3)) is amended by
striking ``the proportion of the visa numbers'' and inserting
``except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of
the visa numbers''.
(c) One-Time Protection Under Per Country Ceiling.--
Notwithstanding section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, any alien who--
(1) is the beneficiary of a petition filed under section
204(a) for a preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or
(3) of section 203(b); and
(2) would be subject to the per country limitations
applicable to immigrants under those paragraphs but for this
subsection,
may apply for, and the Attorney General may grant, an
extension of such nonimmigrant status until the alien's
application for adjustment of status has been processed and a
decision made thereon.
SEC. 5. INCREASED PORTABILITY OF H-1B STATUS.
(a) In General.--Section 214 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(m)(1) A nonimmigrant alien described in paragraph (2)
who was previously issued a visa or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is
authorized to accept new employment upon the filing by the
prospective employer of a new petition on behalf of such
nonimmigrant as provided under subsection (a). Employment
authorization shall continue for such alien until the new
petition is adjudicated. If the new petition is denied,
employment authorization shall cease.
``(2) A nonimmigrant alien described in this paragraph is a
nonimmigrant alien--
``(A) who has been lawfully admitted into the United
States;
``(B) on whose behalf an employer has filed a nonfrivolous
application for new employment or extension of status before
the date of expiration of the period of stay authorized by
the Attorney General; and
``(C) who has not been employed without authorization in
the United States before or during the pendency of such
petition for new employment.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to petitions filed before, on, or after the date
of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZED STAY IN CASES OF LENGTHY
ADJUDICATIONS.
(a) Exemption from Limitation.--The limitation contained in
section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act with
respect to the duration of authorized stay shall not apply to
any nonimmigrant alien previously issued a visa or otherwise
provided nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on
whose behalf a petition under section 204(b) to accord the
alien immigrant status under section 203(b), or an
application for adjustment of status under section 245 to
accord the alien status under section 203(b), has been filed,
if 365 days or more have elapsed since the filing of a labor
certification application on the alien's behalf, if required
for the alien to obtain status under section 203(b), or the
filing of the petition under section 204(b).
(b) Extension of H1-B Worker Status.--The Attorney General
shall extend the stay of an alien who qualifies for an
exemption under subsection (a) in one-year increments until
such time as a final decision is made on the alien's lawful
permanent residence.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2002.
(a) Attestation Requirements.--Section 212(n)(1)(E)(ii)) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(n)(1)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2001''
and inserting ``October 1, 2002''.
(b) Fee Requirements.--Section 212(c)(9)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(c)(9)(A)) is
amended in the text above clause (i) by striking ``October 1,
2001'' and inserting ``October 1, 2002''.
(c) Department of Labor Investigative Authorities.--Section
413(e)(2) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998 (as contained in title IV of division
C of Public Law 105-277) is amended by striking ``September
30, 2001'' and inserting ``September 30, 2002''.
SEC. 8. RECOVERY OF VISAS USED FRAUDULENTLY.
Section 214(g)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184 (g)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations
of paragraph (1) shall be issued visas (or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status) in the order in which petitions are
filed for such visas or status. If an alien who was issued a
visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status and counted
against the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) is found
to have been issued such visa or otherwise provided such
status by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact
and such visa or nonimmigrant status is revoked, then one
number shall be restored to the total number of aliens who
may be issued visas or otherwise provided such status under
the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) in the fiscal year
in which the petition is revoked, regardless of the fiscal
year in which the petition was approved.''.
SEC. 9. NSF STUDY AND REPORT ON THE ``DIGITAL DIVIDE''.
(a) Study.--The National Science Foundation shall conduct a
study of the divergence
[[Page S544]]
in access to high technology (commonly referred to as the
``digital divide'') in the United States.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science
Foundation shall submit a report to Congress setting forth
the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Hatch in
introducing the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act.
Mr. President, no company can grow if it fails to find enough
employees with the skills needed to get the job done. And that is
precisely the situation faced by our high-tech companies today. A Joint
Venture: Silicon Valley study found that a lack of skilled workers is
costing Silicon Valley companies $3 to $4 billion every year. A
Computer Technology Industry Association study concluded that a
shortage of information technology professionals is costing the U.S.
economy as a whole $105 billion per year.
These costs should not be seen as mere abstractions. Because of
skilled labor shortages, an increasing number of highly productive
firms have had to curtail their economic activities and/or move
offshore. At an October 21, 1999 Senate Immigration Subcommittee
hearing, Susan DeFife, CEO of womenCONNECT.com, noted that ``as
investment capital flows into start-ups and puts them on a fast growth
track, the demand for workers will continue to far exceed the supply.
In order to fill these positions, the options for tech companies are
not particularly attractive: we can limit our growth, but then we lose
the ability to compete; we can `steal' employees from other companies,
which makes none of us stronger and forces us to constantly look over
our shoulders; or, in the case of larger companies I know, move
operations off-shore.''
None of these solutions is good for our economy or our workers. As e-
commerce and other forms of high technology become increasingly
integrated throughout our economy, the long-term solution to our
dilemma will be for earlier and better training for our young people to
qualify them for high-tech tasks. But we are losing productivity and
opportunities for growth right now. If we are to maintain our high-tech
edge in an increasingly competitive global market, we must find the
skilled workers we need wherever we can.
We must meet our training and education needs. And we need wise and
careful reforms to our immigration laws. This is not an either/or
proposition. We have studied this approach for some time. In February
of 1998 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on high
technology workforce issues. This hearing demonstrated that many
companies could not find enough qualified professionals to fill key
jobs. It also showed that the foreign-born individuals hired by
companies on H-1B temporary visas typically many additional jobs for
Americans through their skills and motivations.
Mr. President, shortly after that hearing, Congress raised the cap on
H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 in FY1999 and 2000, and 107,500 in
2001. A number of provisions in this legislation increased enforcement
efforts and established a $500 fee per visa--currently generating $75
million per year--for training and scholarships to encourage Americans
to enter high-tech related fields.
Unfortunately, this was not enough. Despite the raised cap, a tight
labor market, increasing globalization and burgeoning economic growth
all combined to increase demand for skilled workers. The 1999 cap on H-
1B visas was reached by June of last year.
We must do more to enable American employers to hire job-creating
high-tech professionals. That is why I have sponsored this legislation
that would:
Provide a temporary increase in H-1B visas. Caps would be increased
by 80,000 for FY 2000; 87,500 for FY 2001; and 130,000 for FY 2002.
Create exemptions for universities, research facilities, and graduate
degree recipients to help keep in the country top graduates and those
who help educate Americans.
Modify per-country limits on permanent employment visas to allow
companies to hire talent without regard to nationality.
Increase labor mobility by allowing H-1B professionals to change jobs
as soon as the new employer files the initial paperwork, instead of
waiting for a new H-1B application to be approved.
Continue and extend the $500 per visa fee to provide over $150
million in additional funding over three years for training and
scholarships. Counting the existing money brought in by the fee, this
will raise the total to over $375 million over three years and will
help over 50,000 American students receive scholarships in math,
science or engineering.
These provisions will increase our economic competitiveness, sustain
our economic growth, and provide new opportunities for workers and
entrepreneurs. Julie Holdren, President and CEO of the Olympus Group,
told the Immigration Subcommittee that ``For every H-1B worker I
employ, I am able to hire ten more American workers.'' A study for the
Public Policy Institute of California by U.C. Berkeley Professor
Annalee Saxenian bears this testimony out. It found that Chinese and
Indian immigrant entrepreneurs in northern California alone were
responsible for employing 58,000 people, with annual sales of nearly
$17 billion.
Critics of the last H-1B visa increase have been proven spectacularly
wrong, as the U.S. economy added 387,000 new jobs in January and the
unemployment rate dropped to a 30-year low of 4 percent. Specialty jobs
in the computer industry alone are projected to grow by 1.5 million
between 1998 and 2008, according to the Department of Labor.
President Clinton's former chief economic advisor, Laura D'Andrea
Tyson argues that ``it's time to raise the cap on H-1B visas yet again
and to provide room for further increases as warranted. Silicon
Valley's experience reveals that the results will be more jobs and
higher incomes for both Americans and immigrant workers.''
Mr. President, the final word should belong to Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan. At a Budget Committee hearing last month he
was asked ``Do you believe we should do something with our laws--
immigration--that would allow high tech . . . labor to come into the
country to ease the burden'' on our labor force?
Chairman Greenspan responded: ``I would certainly agree with that.
It's clear that under existing circumstance . . . aggregate demand is
putting very significant pressures on an ever-decreasing available
supply of unemployed labor. The one obvious means that one can use to
offset that is expanding the number of people we allow in, either
generally or in a specifically focused area.''
By increasing the number of highly skilled professionals we allow to
work in America, and providing additional funding for training and
scholarships, we will create jobs for all Americans and keep our high-
tech driven economic expansion on the move.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am proud to join in the
introduction of legislation which will increase the number of H-1B
temporary work visas used to recruit and hire workers with very
specialized skills, particularly in high technology fields. This bill
will ensure that the dramatic U.S. economic expansion will not be
stalled by a lack of skilled workers in critical positions. It retains
the language of current law which protects qualified U.S. workers from
being displaced by H-1B visa holders.
With record low unemployment, U.S. companies already have been forced
to slow their expansion or even to cancel projects, and some may be
forced to move their operations overseas because of an inability to
find qualified individuals to fill job vacancies. We will achieve our
full economic potential only if we ensure that high-technology
companies can find and hire the people whose unique qualifications and
skills are critical to America's future.
Last year, the Congress temporarily increased the number of annual H-
1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, and to
107,500 in 2001. The number of H-1B visas is scheduled to drop back to
65,000 for Fiscal Year 2002 and subsequent years. Our legislation will
increase the H-1B visa cap to 195,000 for Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and
2002. By the end of that period, we will have the data we need to make
an informed decision on the number of such visas required beyond 2002.
According to a recent study by the American Electronics Association
(AEA), Texas has the fastest growing
[[Page S545]]
high technology industry in the country and is second only to
California in the number of high technology workers. This legislation
would ensure that these companies have access to highly educated
workers, in order that America can continue to grow and prosper, and in
doing so, create more jobs and opportunity for U.S. workers.
I believe that this legislation represents a fair and effective way
to address a critical need in our Nation's economy, and I hope my
colleagues will quickly approve this important proposal.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Breaux, and Mr. Hollings);
S. 2046. A bill to reauthorize the Next Generation Internet Act, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
the next generation internet 2000 act
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Next
Generation Internet 2000 Act, a multi-agency research and development
program designed to fund advanced networking infrastructure and
technologies. Two and a half years ago, I stood in this exact spot and
introduced its predecessor, the ``Next Generation Internet Research Act
of 1998.'' While scientists throughout the country have made tremendous
inroads since that time, the digital divide makes the truth clear and
simple: we are leaving many of our fellow Americans behind. The Next
Generation Internet 2000 will attempt to eliminate these geographical
barriers, while providing research funding for a faster, more secure
and robust network infrastructure for all Americans.
The Internet is one of the most significant developments of the last
decade. Its significance is not limited to the new industries that it
has created nor the new educational opportunities that it affords. The
impact of the Internet goes beyond those things. With the development
of electronic commerce, the Internet has radically altered the economic
landscape of this country. Advances in industries are taking place at a
faster and faster pace. At the heart of this dizzying pace of change
are two things: computers and communications. More and more we are
seeing that computers and communications means the Internet.
If you had to find a prototypical success story, it could very well
be the Internet. There are in fact, multiple dimensions to its success.
It was and is a successful public-private collaboration. It
demonstrated successful commercial application of technology developed
as part of mission directed research program. It showed a successful
transition of an operational system from the public to the private
sector. Perhaps most of all, it is a prime example of a successful
federal investment.
In some respects the Internet is now ``suffering'' from too much
success. With the advent of tools that have made the Internet easy to
use, there has been an explosion in the growth of network traffic. As
computers become more powerful, applications more sophisticated, and
the user interfaces get easier to use, we can look forward to an even
greater demand for network bandwidth.
The Internet and its promising applications have transformed our
daily lives. They have reshaped the ways in which we communicate at
work, and with our families; they have made revolutionary medical
advances a reality that we once thought impossible only a few years
ago. But each day, as more and more of our neighbors become connected
to the World Wide Web and experience the amazement of its potential,
certain segments of our nation are left without these same
opportunities.
Since the enactment of the Next Generation Internet Research Act of
1998, the National Science Foundation has connected hundreds of new
sites to a testbed providing a 100-fold increase in network
performance. And the Department of Defense is currently deploying a
testbed with 1,000-fold increased performance at over twenty sites to
support networking research and applications deployment. As we applaud
the success of the first three years of the Next Generation Internet
(NGI) initiative, we must also realize its current limitations.
In the review of the first two years of the initiative, the
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee recommended that
the NGI program should continue to focus on the utility of the Next
Generation Internet's gigabit bandwidth to end-users, its increased
security, and its expanded quality of service. More importantly, the
committee shared Congress' concern that no federal program specifically
addresses the geographical penalty issue--the imposition of costs on
users of the Internet in rural or other locations that are
disproportionately greater than the costs imposed on users in locations
closer to high populations. I must admit that this is a great
disappointment for myself and my colleagues who fought to combat this
geographical penalty through the authorization of NGI in 1998.
Unfortunately, the White House did not take us seriously and did not
follow through with the complete implementation of the original act.
The Next Generation Internet 2000 makes a distinct departure from its
predecessor. First, it designates ten percent of the overall program
funding for research to reduce the cost of Internet access services
available to all users in geographically remote areas. It further
prioritizes that these research grants be awarded to qualified college-
level educational institutions located in Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research states.
Second, the act requires that five percent of the research grants
shall be made available to minority institutions including Hispanic,
Native American, Historically Black Colleges and small colleges and
universities. The most efficient way to open the Internet superhighway
to everyone is to provide scientists in every corner of the nation with
opportunities to perform peer-reviewed and merit-based research.
Finally, the National Academy of Sciences is requested to conduct a
study to determine the extent to which the Internet backbone and
network infrastructure contribute to the digital divide. The study will
further assess the existing geographical penalty and its impact on all
users and their ability to obtain secure and reliable Internet access.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 2047. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to create a Heating
Oil Reserve to be available for use when fuel oil prices in the United
States rise sharply because of anticompetitive activity, during a fuel
oil shortage, or during periods of extreme winter weather; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the home heating oil price stability act
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Lieberman, Snowe, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Reed and Leahy in introducing
the Home Heating Oil Price Stability Act.
For the past several weeks, Connecticut and the Northeast have been
gripped by cold weather and skyrocketing heating oil prices.
Approximately 36 percent of households in the Northeast rely on home
heating oil. On Friday, February 4th, home heating oil cost $2 per
gallon in Hartford, Connecticut and $1.80 per gallon a little farther
east in Groton, Connecticut, almost double the price from mid-January.
Prices averaged $.86 per gallon during the winter of 1998/1999.
Independent, family-owned heating oil retailers in Connecticut are
struggling to meet their delivery demands because of supply
constraints. Local oil terminals are at dangerously low levels. Last
week, supply levels of heating oil were so low in Bridgeport and New
Haven that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
issued a 48-hour waiver to allow the sale of 7-9 million gallons of
heating oil with sulphur content above the level permitted by state
law.
To be sure, the extreme cold weather and isolated refinery problems
have contributed to the supply strain. Icy waters around New Haven had
slowed the off-loading of some heating oil in late January and early
February. However, even after tankers were able to unload millions of
gallons last weekend, customers throughout Connecticut are still paying
record-high prices as high as $2.10 per gallon--supply is still tight.
[[Page S546]]
The Northeast is always cold in winter, so why are consumers and
retailers suffering so much this winter? Many analysts believe that the
precarious petroleum situation was precipitated by a calculated
decision by OPEC and others to cut back production, and by major oil
companies adhering to a practice of just-in-time inventories. As
petroleum prices began to rise in reaction to OPEC action, refiners
drew down from their already low stock of lower-priced crude rather
than purchasing higher-priced crude and thus replenishing the stocks.
Inventories dwindled and the supply is now at record low levels. For
the week ending January 14, the total distillate stock for the East
Coast was 33.5 million barrels compared with 69.1 million barrels a
year ago.
What do these events mean to the average consumer in Connecticut and
the Northeast? Dramatically higher costs, for starters. Heating oil
bills are averaging 30-60 percent higher than last year. The wide range
is due to the extent to which people are turning down their thermostats
to ration supply and stretch their dollars. Schools, libraries and
small businesses are seeing their budgets burst as more money is
allocated for fuel. The Middletown, Connecticut school system has spent
more than twice as much for heating oil from October to January than
during the same period a year ago, despite a warmer than average
December.
Some market analysts believe this is a temporary situation. Mr.
President, this is not a temporary situation. Just-in-time inventory
practices appear to be here to stay. OPEC has intimated that the
petroleum production drawbacks may continue beyond March, thus causing
further instability at a time when peak demand for gasoline begins.
This is a perennial problem--unusually high heating oil prices in
winter followed by skyrocketing gasoline prices in the summer.
Today's legislation is an effort to address the heating oil problem
for the long-term. It would create a heating oil reserve of 2 million
barrels in leased storage facilities in New York Harbor and 4.7 million
barrels of heating oil in one of four Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)
caverns along the Gulf Coast. The Secretary of Energy may fill the
reserve by trading crude oil from the SPR for heating oil. The
President may draw down the reserve when fuel oil prices in the United
States rise sharply because of anti-competitive activity, during a fuel
oil shortage, or during periods of extreme winter weather.
Let me be perfectly clear. The creation of a Government regional
heating oil reserve is not intended to compete with the commercial
sector for sales under normal conditions. It is intended, rather, to
help stabilize supplies and prices during critical periods.
I, along with Senator Lieberman, first raised the issue of
establishing a regional reserve in 1996 when Connecticut consumers were
facing unusually high heating oil prices attributed to extreme winter
weather and domestic and international events, including the onset of
just-in-time inventories. We asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to
examine regional reserve feasibility and report back to Congress. Their
conclusions form the foundation of our legislation.
Mr. President, I have an article from July 13, 1998 coinciding with
the release of the report that states a positive benefit/cost ratio if
a small reserve were located in leased terminals in the Northeast and
filled by trading crude from the SPR for the distillate. As I stated
briefly a moment ago, our legislation also establishes a backup 4.7
million barrel reserve in the Gulf due to excess capacity there.
This legislation should be part of a long-term solution. In the
meantime, Connecticut and Northeast residents need near-term action.
Advice to just ride out the winter is simply not acceptable. Hardest
hit are the poor and elderly who should not have to choose among having
a warm house, food on the table, or medicine in the cabinet.
The current home heating oil crisis cuts across all income levels.
The 1999/2000 winter will go down in the history books as the year with
the highest heating oil prices ever. I am sure you will agree with me
that this is one record that need never be broken. I urge our
colleagues to join me, Senators Lieberman, and our other cosponsors in
support of working families, small businesses, and towns across the
Northeast to move forward with this legislation. I ask unanimous
consent that a copy of the bill and additional material be entered in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2047
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 ``Home Heating Oil Price
Stability Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) a sharp, sustained increase in the price of fuel oil
would negatively affect the overall economic well-being of
the United States, and such increases have occurred in the
winters of 1983-84, 1988-89, 1996-97, and 1999-2000;
(2) the United States currently imports roughly 55 percent
of its oil;
(3) heating oil price increases disproportionately harm the
poor and the elderly;
(4) the global oil market is often greatly influenced by
nonmarket-based supply manipulations, including price fixing
and production quotas; and
(5) according to the June 1998 Department of Energy
``Report to Congress on the Feasibility of Establishing a
Heating Oil Component to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve''--
(A) the use of a Government-owned distillate reserve in the
Northeast would provide benefits to consumers in the
Northeast and to the Nation;
(B) the Government would make a profit of $46,000,000 from
drawing down and selling the distillate;
(C) consumer savings, including reductions in jet fuel,
would total $425,000,000;
(D) there are a number of commercial petroleum storage
facilities with available capacity for leasing in the New
York/New Jersey area; and
(E) it would be cost-effective to keep a Government
stockpile of approximately 2,000,000 barrels in leased
storage in the Northeast, filled by trading some crude oil
from the Government's strategic reserve of oil for the
refined product.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF HEATING OIL RESERVE.
(a) Creation of Reserve.--The Secretary of Energy shall
immediately create a heating oil reserve consisting of--
(1) 2,000,000 barrels of heating oil in leased storage
facilities in the New York Harbor area; and
(2) 4,700,000 barrels of heating oil in 1 of the 4
Strategic Petroleum Reserve caverns on the coast of the Gulf
of Mexico.
(b) Exchange for Crude Oil.--The Secretary of Energy may
acquire heating oil for the reserve by trading crude oil from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for heating oil.
SEC. 4. DRAWDOWN OF HEATING OIL RESERVE.
The President may immediately draw down the Heating Oil
Reserve--
(1) when fuel oil prices in the United States rise sharply
because of anticompetitive activity;
(2) during a fuel oil shortage; or
(3) during a period of extreme winter weather.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Energy to carry out this Act $125,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2000 through 2019.
____
[From DOE Fossil Energy Techline, July 13, 1998]
DOE Sends Report to Congress Analyzing Costs, Benefits of Regional Oil
Product Reserve
A Department of Energy (DOE) report, commissioned two years
ago when high prices and low stocks of heating oil raised
consumer concerns, has concluded that a Government-controlled
``regional petroleum product reserve'' would make economic
sense only under a very narrow set of conditions.
The report, which DOE forwarded to Congress late last week,
concludes that the benefits of a Government stockpile of
heating oil in the Northeast would exceed its costs only if
the reserve was relatively small, approximately 2 million
barrels, located in leased terminals, and filled by trading
crude oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve
for the distillate product.
Storing distillate product in dedicated salt caverns at the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve along the Gulf of Mexico
coastline would improve the cost-benefit characteristics, the
study found, but products would take 7-10 days to reach
consumers in the Northeast.
A larger product reserve, sized at around 6.7 million
barrels to meet the worst weather contingencies, would not be
attractive based on the cost-benefit analysis unless it was
constructed entirely within the existing Strategic Petroleum
Reserve sites.
Moreover, the study found, the positive economic benefits
would be achieved only if the Government adopted the policy
of releasing the entire volume of the product reserve at the
point heating oil prices reached a predefined ``trigger
price.'' A more conservative policy of releasing only enough
crude oil to bring wholesale prices back down to a predefined
``ceiling price'' would not provide sufficient benefits to
offset the reserve's costs.
[[Page S547]]
The two-volume study is titled ``Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of Establishing a Heating Oil Component to the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.'' The Energy Department
undertook the study when in 1995-1996 an unusually long
winter, uncertainties about production from Iraq and the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and
increased global demand for petroleum led to a gasoline price
surge and later, a price increase in middle distillate fuels
used for heating oil, diesel and jet fuel. Consumers in New
England, which has no refineries, became especially concerned
about heating oil inventory levels and the rise in heating
oil prices.
The events of 1996 prompted several members of Congress
from New England states to urge DOE to carry out a study to
determine whether or not Government intervention in petroleum
markets in the form of a regionally-cited refined product
stockpile could be beneficial.
The Federal Government currently stores only crude oil for
emergency purposes, principally to protect the United States
from disruptions in petroleum supply, especially imported
crude oil. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently stores
563 million barrels of crude oil along the Gulf Coast in four
sites that are accessible to most refining centers in the
country.
____
[From the Boston Globe, Feb. 6, 2000]
Buffering Oil Prices
The surge in home heating and diesel oil prices has shocked
householders, truckers, and others and sparked a fresh round
of suspicions that massive collusion is responsible. Would
that such cooperation existed. Instead, business anarchy has
much to do with the rise. The attorney general's consumer
protection division should seek to assure that there is no
price gouging by individual dealers. In the meantime,
prevention of future price spikes is available to government
in a form that need not be intrusive. Oil prices spurted
because inventories were inadequate. Public reserves are
needed.
The impact has been severe. Oil deliveries costing $400
have been a shock for elderly homeowners living on fixed
incomes. Even low-cost, emergency suppliers like Joseph
Kennedy's Citizens Energy Corp. have been stymied by
shortages and high prices.
The American Petroleum Institute keeps track of inventories
of gasoline, oil, crude, and other petroleum products around
the country. Among all these, heating oil is unique because
demand for it is seasonal, peaking in the winter months.
While some extra stockpiling of oil by the private sector
takes place every year, the tendency has been to cut reserves
as close to the bone as possible. This past fall, despite
indications that consumption was on the rise, inventories ran
significantly below their year-earlier levels. At the end of
December, inventories of distillate fuel oil (both diesel and
heating) stood at 124 million barrels compared with 156
million barrels a year earlier. Both these figures run well
below comparable statistics in the past, when inventories
were frequently above 200 million barrels.
The federal government in the 1970s set up a strategic
petroleum reserve of crude oil to dampen the power of OPEC,
the international oil cartel. But it needs a similar reserve
of distillate to help cope with domestic developments like
this year's failure to stockpile adequate oil to cope with
predictable seasonal surges, much less unpredictable cold
snaps. The mere presence of such a reserve, available for
rapid release, would dampen spot markets. To do less condemns
everyone to senseless repeats of this painful experience.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Home Heating Oil
Price Stability Act being introduced today by Senator Dodd. In response
to Congressional concern raised over volatile heating oil prices, the
Department of Energy completed a study of regional oil reserves and
issued their report in 1998. This report concluded that regional
heating oil reserves, such as the one proposed in this bill, would
benefit New England and help guard against the negative effects of
volatile fuel prices during the winter months.
The recent price spike in home heating fuel throughout the Northeast
and mid-Atlantic regions illustrate the need for a regional fuel
reserve. Prices of home heating fuel have increased over the last month
to unprecedented levels, putting many families and businesses at risk
during these cold winter months. Many areas of New England are now
facing fuel costs between $1.70 and $2.00 per gallon--nearly double
last January's average price of .80 cents per gallon. Home heating fuel
has not seen average prices over $1 dollar in nearly ten years. These
prices are endangering the welfare of low income Vermonters and
threatening the stability of our economy.
This is not the first time we have seen such volatile prices in New
England and will certainly not be the last. I remember Vermont in
December 1989, when we experienced the coldest temperatures the
Northeast has seen in 100 years, and then again in 1993 when the
mercury plummeted and the fuel bills rose. Mr. President we need a
regional home heating fuel reserve to protect the welfare and the
economy of states such as Vermont. The cold winters and the absence of
refiners make New England susceptible to fluctuations in the market
which leave other parts of the country virtually untouched.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
S. 2048. A bill to establish the San Rafael Western Legacy District
in the State of Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
san rafael western legacy district and national conservation act
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the San Rafael
Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act. I am proud to
sponsor this legislation which is a result of local citizens working
together with federal land managers to produce a plan that promotes and
protects one of our nation's finest natural treasures, the San Rafael
Swell in Emery County, Utah.
This is by no means a standard one-size-fits-all land management
scheme. It reflects both local and national interests. I wish to
congratulate the elected officials of Emery County, Secretary of
Interior Bruce Babbitt, local citizen groups, and local Bureau of Land
Management professionals for their willingness to come to the table and
craft this proposal. It is a testament to what I have always believed:
that those who live on and around our public lands love the land and,
given the chance, will find ways to help protect it. I hope that this
effort to work out solutions to land issues with meaningful local input
will become the norm for federal land policy.
Mr. President, under this legislation, 2.8 million acres will be
designated as the San Rafael Western Legacy District. Visitors to the
San Rafael will be able to see where Kit Carson, Chief Walker, Wesley
Powell, Butch Cassidy and many others became famous, or infamous as the
case may be. Backpackers and day hikers will be surprised by
petroglyphs that tell stories of Native American ancestors and that
give a picture of life as it once was. Families will enjoy access to
one of the largest sources of fossils in the New World. They will also
enjoy a variety of quality museums that already exist in the area which
take us back in time, whether it be the time of dinosaurs, Native
Americans, pioneers and the wild west, early explorers, or even the
early atomic arms race.
A the core of this Western Legacy District will be the San Rafael
National Conservation Area, which will withdraw approximately 1 million
acres from development. Mr. President, Congress cannot create
spectacular geologic formations, such as the San Rafael Swell, but this
legislation will protect what God has given us. The San Rafael Swell is
vast and can accommodate all types of experiences including wilderness,
wildlife viewing, fishing, mountain biking, and other activities. The
specifics for these uses will be detailed in a forty year planning
process led by the Secretary of Interior.
Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce this legislation along
with my good friend and colleague Senator Robert Bennett. A companion
measure in the House is sponsored by Representative Chris Cannon.
The San Rafael Swell is an area rich in history, beauty, culture, and
tradition. This legislation protects the San Rafael for all citizens in
a manner that reflects the needs of those directly affected by its
bounties. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent for the text of the fill to be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows:
S. 2048
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``San Rafael
Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
[[Page S548]]
TITLE I--SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT
Sec. 101. Establishment of the San Rafael Western Legacy District.
Sec. 102. Management and use of the San Rafael Western Legacy District.
TITLE II--SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
Sec. 201. Designation of the San Rafael National Conservation Area.
Sec. 202. Management of the San Rafael National Conservation Area.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to promote--
(A) the preservation, conservation, interpretation,
scientific research, and development of the historical,
cultural, natural, recreational, archaeological,
paleontological, environmental, biological, educational,
wilderness, and scenic resources of the San Rafael region of
the State of Utah; and
(B) the economic viability of rural communities in the San
Rafael region; and
(2) to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and
enjoyment of present and future generations of people the
unique and nationally important values of the Western Legacy
District and the public land described in section 201(b)
(including historical, cultural, natural, recreational,
scientific, archaeological, paleontological, environmental,
biological, wilderness, wildlife, educational, and scenic
resources).
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area''
means the San Rafael National Conservation Area established
by section 201(a).
(2) Legacy council.--The term ``Legacy Council'' means the
council established under section 101(d).
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Conservation Area required to be
developed under section 202(e).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(5) Western legacy district.--The term ``Western Legacy
District'' means the San Rafael Western Legacy District
established by section 101(a).
TITLE I--SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY
DISTRICT.
(a) In General.--There is established the San Rafael
Western Legacy District.
(b) Areas Included.--The Western Legacy District shall
consist of approximately 2,842,800 acres of land in the Emery
County, Utah, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``San
Rafael Swell Western Legacy District and National
Conservation Area'' and dated _____.
(c) Map and Legal Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a map and legal description of the Western Legacy District.
(2) Effect.--The map and legal description shall have the
same effect as if included in this Act, except that the
Secretary may correct errors in the map and legal
description.
(3) Copies.--Copies of the map and legal description shall
be on file and available for public inspection in--
(A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management; and
(B) the appropriate office of the Bureau of the Land
Management in the State of Utah.
(d) Legacy Council.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Legacy
Council to advise the Secretary with respect to the Western
Legacy District.
(2) Function.--The Legacy Council may furnish advice and
recommendations to the Secretary with respect to management,
grants, projects, and technical assistance.
(3) Membership.--The Legacy Council shall consist of not
more than 10 members appointed by the Secretary as follows:
(A) 2 members from among the recommendations submitted by
the Governor of the State of Utah.
(B) 2 members from among the recommendations submitted by
the Emery County, Utah, Commissioners.
(C) The remaining members from among persons who are
recognized as experts in conservation of the historical,
cultural, natural, recreational, archaeological,
environmental, biological, educational, and scenic resources
or other disciplines directly related to the purposes for
which the Western Legacy District is established.
(4) Relationship to other law.--The establishment and
operation of the Legacy Council shall conform to the
requirements of--
(A) the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.); and
(B) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
(e) Assistance.--
(1) In general.--To carry out this section, the Secretary
may make grants and provide technical assistance to any
nonprofit organization or unit of government with authority
in the boundaries of the Western Legacy District.
(2) Permitted uses.--Grants and technical assistance under
this section may be used for--
(A) planning;
(B) reports;
(C) studies;
(D) interpretive exhibits;
(E) historic preservation projects;
(F) construction of cultural, recreational, educational,
and interpretive facilities that are open to the public; and
(G) such other expenditures as are consistent with this
Act.
(3) Planning.--Grants and technical assistance for use in
planning activities may be provided under this subsection
only to a unit of government or a political subdivision of
the State of Utah in an amount--
(A) not to exceed $100,000 for any fiscal year; and
(B) not to exceed an aggregate amount of $200,000.
(4) Matching funds.--Federal funding provided under this
section may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the
activity carried out with the funding, except that non-
Federal matching funds are not required with respect to--
(A) planning activities carried out with assistance under
paragraph (3); or
(B) use of assistance under this section for facilities
located on public land and owned by the Federal Government.
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section not more than
$1,000,000 for each fiscal year, not to exceed a total of
$10,000,000.
SEC. 102. MANAGEMENT AND USE OF THE WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the public
land within the Western Legacy District in accordance with--
(1) this Act; and
(2) the applicable provisions of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
(b) Use of Public Land.--The Secretary shall allow such
uses of the public land as the Secretary determines will
further the purposes for which the Western Legacy District is
established.
(c) Effect of Act.--Nothing in this Act--
(1) affects the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the
State of Utah with respect to fish and wildlife in the
Western Legacy District;
(2) affects private property rights within the Western
Legacy District; or
(3) diminishes the authority, rights, or responsibilities
of the Secretary for managing the public land within the
Western Legacy District.
TITLE II--SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF THE SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION
AREA.
(a) Purposes.--There is established the San Rafael National
Conservation Area in the State of Utah.
(b) Areas Included.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Conservation Area shall consist of approximately 947,000
acres of public land in Emery County, Utah, as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``San Rafael Swell Western
Legacy District and National Conservation Area'' and dated
____.
(2) Boundary.--The boundary of the Conservation Area shall
be set back 300 feet from the edge of the Interstate Route 70
right-of-way.
(c) Map and Legal Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a map and legal description of the Conservation Area.
(2) Effect.--The map and legal description shall have the
same effect as if included in this Act, except that the
Secretary may correct errors in the map and legal
description.
(3) Copies.--Copies of the map and legal description shall
be on file and available for public inspection in--
(A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management; and
(B) the appropriate office of the Bureau of Land Management
in the State of Utah.
SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.
(a) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the
Conservation Area in a manner that--
(1) conserves, protects, and enhances the resources and
values of the Conservation Area, including the resources and
values specified in section 2(2); and
(2) is consistent with--
(A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(B) other applicable provisions of law (including this
Act).
(b) Uses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses
of the Conservation Area as the Secretary finds will further
the purposes for which the Conservation Area was established.
(2) Motorized vehicles.--Except where needed for
administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency, use of
motorized vehicles in the Conservation Area shall be
permitted only on roads and trails designated for use of
motorized vehicles as part of the management plan.
(c) Withdrawals.--
(1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and
except as provided in paragraph (2), all Federal land within
the Conservation Area and all land and interests in land that
are acquired by the United States after the date of enactment
of this Act are withdrawn from--
(A) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under
the public land laws;
[[Page S549]]
(B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(C) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.
(2) Communication facilities.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may authorize the
installation of communication facilities within the
Conservation Area only to the extent that the facilities are
necessary for public safety purposes.
(B) Minimal impact.--Communication facilities shall--
(i) have a minimal impact on the resources of the
Conservation Area; and
(ii) be consistent with the management plan.
(d) Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall permit hunting, trapping, and fishing within
the Conservation Area in accordance with applicable laws
(including regulations) of the United States and the State of
Utah.
(2) Regulations.--The Secretary, after consultation with
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, may promulgate
regulations designating zones where and establishing periods
when no hunting, trapping, or fishing shall be permitted in
the Conservation Area for reasons of public safety,
administration, or public use and enjoyment.
(e) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a
comprehensive plan for the long-range protection and
management of the Conservation Area.
(2) Contents.--The management plan--
(A) shall describe the appropriate uses and management of
the Conservation Area consistent with this Act; and
(B) may--
(i) incorporate appropriate decisions contained in any
management or activity plan for the area; and
(ii) use information developed in previous studies of the
land within or adjacent to the Conservation Area.
(f) State Trust Lands.--The State of Utah and the Secretary
may exchange Federal land, Federal mineral interests, or
payment of money for land and mineral interests of
approximately equal value that are managed by the Utah School
and Institutional Trust Lands Administration within the
Conservation Area.
(g) Access.--The Secretary, the State of Utah, and Emery
County, Utah, may agree to resolve section 2477 of the
Revised Statutes and other access issues within the
Conservation Area.
(h) Wildlife Management.--Nothing in this Act diminishes
the responsibility and authority of the State of Utah for
management of fish and wildlife within the Conservation Area.
(i) Grazing.--Where the Secretary permits livestock grazing
on the date of enactment of this Act, such grazing shall be
allowed subject to all applicable laws (including
regulations) and executive orders.
(j) No Buffer Zones.--
(1) In general.--Congress does not intend for the
establishment of the Conservation Area to lead to the
creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around the
Conservation Area.
(2) Activities outside conservation area.--That there may
be activities or uses of land outside the Conservation Area
that would not be permitted in the Conservation Area shall
not preclude such activities or uses on the land up to the
boundary of the Conservation Area (or on private land within
the Conservation Area) consistent with other applicable laws.
(k) Water Rights.--
(1) In general.--The establishment of the Conservation Area
shall not constitute any implied or express reservation of
any water or water right pertaining to surface or ground
water.
(2) State rights.--Nothing in this Act affects--
(A) any valid existing surface water or ground water right
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) any water right approved after the date of enactment of
this Act under the laws of the State of Utah or any other
State.
(l) No Effect on Application of Other Acts.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act affects the
application of any provision of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131) or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to wilderness resources in the
Conservation Area.
(2) Issue resolution.--Recognizing that the designation of
a wilderness area for inclusion in the National Wilderness
Preservation System requires an Act of Congress, the
Secretary, the State of Utah, Emery County, Utah, and
affected stakeholders may work toward resolving wilderness
issues within the Conservation Area.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 2049. A bill to extend the authorization for the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
re-authorization of the violent crime reduction trust fund
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill which will re-
authorize the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for an additional five
years.
I firmly believe that re-authorization of the Violent Crime Reduction
Trust Fund for another five years is the single most significant thing
that we can do to continue the war on crime.
In 1994 when we introduced the Biden Crime Bill, which eventually
became the crime bill of 1994, some people disagreed with certain
aspects of the bill. But, we all agreed that crime control is a place
where the federal government can and should play a key role.
We can all argue about how much we should be involved in education or
welfare, but no one can argue about the requirement of the government
to make our streets safe. That is the starting point for all ordered
society.
So, I, along with the Senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and the
Senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, worked to set up a Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The way we did that was not to raise
taxes--it was to cut the size of the federal government and use the
money to fight crime. And so we agreed to let 250,000 Federal employees
go. Then we took the paycheck that would have been used to pay John
Jones and Sue Smith and we put it into a trust fund to do nothing but
deal with violent crime in America. And guess what--it worked.
Since the Fund was established in the Biden Crime Bill, The Office of
Management and Budget tells us that Congress had appropriated
$16,648,000,000 from the fund through 1998, and $10,300,000,000 was
estimated for 1999 and 2000 combined.
What has this money done you ask? Just look at the numbers: To date,
the money has funded more than 103,000 police officers under the COPS
program to make our streets safer.
As of 1999, over 17,000 new prison, jail or alternative beds had been
added under the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing
Grants Program.
Under the drug court program nationwide, more than 140,000 offenders
have participated in drug courts, receiving the supervision and
treatment they need to stop abusing drugs and committing crimes.
Under the National Criminal History Improvement Program, enhancements
to the FBI's National Criminal History Background Check System have
helped block more than 400,000 gun sales to ineligible persons. And,
program improvements now allow 35 states and the District of Columbia
to submit data to the FBI's National Sex Offender Registry, which
became operational in July 1999.
The fund has provided money to states and localities to help offset
the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens under the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
Under the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners
program, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five
territories, have implemented drug testing and treatment programs that
address 80 percent of offenders who have drug or alcohol problems.
Through the largest Violence Against Women Act program, funding for
the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program is changing the
way communities work together to respond to domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking.
And there are other Violence Against Women Act grant programs which
have had an impact on many communities. The Grants to Encourage Arrest
Policies program encourages jurisdictions to implement mandatory or
pro-arrest policies in domestic violence cases. The Rural Domestic
Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program has
recognized the special needs of victims in rural locations. The Civil
Legal Assistance Grant Program is designed to strengthen civil legal
assistance for domestic abuse victims through innovative, collaborative
programs that increase victim access to services. And, the Grants to
Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campuses Program was first
funded in FY 1999 to promote comprehensive, coordinated responses to
violent crimes against women on campuses.
The results of these efforts have taken hold. Crime is down--way
down. And we didn't add 1 cent to the deficit.
The significance of the Trust Fund, why it was so important, is
because it funds the initiatives contained in the Biden Crime Bill. The
money has to be used for new cops and crime prevention. It can't be
spent on anything else but crime reduction. It is the one place that no
one can compete. it is set
[[Page S550]]
aside. It is a savings account to fight crime.
This fund works. It ensures that the crime reduction programs that we
pass be funded. It ensures that the crime rate will continue to go down
instead of up. It ensures that our kids will have a place to go after
school instead of hanging out on the street corners. It ensures that
violent crimes against women get the individualized attention that they
need and deserve. It gives states money to hire more cops and get
better technology.
Today our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant against
violent crime. This is one modest step toward meeting that challenge.
This Act shares bipartisan support. No one wants crime and no one
wants to raise taxes. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--
this should be an easy one for all of us. In July of last year, during
debate on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, my friend
from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, declared his commitment to get the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund re-authorized. Senator Gramm has
always stepped up to the plate on this issue as well, and I commend
them for their commitment to this program. As Senator Byrd aptly stated
back in 1994 when we were first debating this, ``the war on crime is of
such an overriding concern that, as in the past, the Committee on
Appropriations must take extraordinary actions to confront the issue.''
That still rings true today. Although crime is down, we can not become
complacent. We must continue the fight. We need this Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund more than any other single piece of legislation.
Every member of the Senate is against violent crime--we all say it in
speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up their
words and follow through on their commitments to defeat violent crime.
Pass this bill. Continue the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Take
serious action against violent crime. Show the criminals that we are
serious about fighting crime. Show the American people that their
safety is of the highest priority for us and that we are taking action.
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. 2049
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 310001(b) of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) is
amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting
the following:
``(1) for fiscal year 2001, $6,025,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 2002, $6,169,000,000;
``(3) for fiscal year 2003, $6,316,000,000;
``(4) for fiscal year 2004, $6,458,000,000; and
``(5) for fiscal year 2005, $6,616,000,000.''.
(b) Discretionary Limits.--Title XXXI of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211 et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 310001 the
following:
``SEC. 310002. DISCRETIONARY LIMITS.
``For the purposes of allocations made for the
discretionary category pursuant to section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)), the term
`discretionary spending limit' means--
``(1) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget
authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary
spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as
determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$6,025,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,718,000,000 in
outlays;
``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget
authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary
spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as
determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$6,169,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,020,000,000 in
outlays;
``(3) with respect to fiscal year 2003--
``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget
authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary
spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as
determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$6,316,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,161,000,000 in
outlays;
``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2004--
``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget
authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary
spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as
determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category:
$6,459,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,303,000,000 in
outlays; and
``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2005--
``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget
authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary
spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as
determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: $6,616,000
in new budget authority and $6,452,000,000 in outlays;
as adjusted in accordance with section 251(b) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
901(b)) and section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.''.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr.
Baucus):
S. 2050. A bill to establish a panel to investigate illegal gambling
on college sports and to recommend effective countermeasures to combat
this serious national problem; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
combatting illegal college and university gambling act
Mr. REID. Mr. President, six years ago we passed a crime bill which,
while controversial at the time, has led to an unprecedented decrease
in criminal activity. It was a tough bill that was aimed at cracking
down on illegal criminal activity. It gave law enforcement the tools it
needed to prevent and crack down on criminal conduct. The legislation
has been so effective that I believe it should be the model for future
federal anti-crime initiatives. At the time, however, supporters of the
Crime Bill were attacked for focusing on the root causes of criminal
activity. Today, as evidenced by declining crime rates, we see that
this was an effective approach.
I raise this issue today because I am concerned that some may be
moving in the wrong direction in the worthwhile effort to crack down on
illegal gambling on college sports. Recently introduced legislation
attempts to crack down on dorm room and bar hall bookies by shutting
down legal and highly-regulated sports book operations in Nevada. Mr.
President, this is like closing the Bank of America to eliminate loan
sharking. It simply does not solve the problem.
Mr. President, the collegiate gambling legislation recently
introduced in the Senate is flawed because it incorrectly assumes that
the elimination of legal sports book wagering in Nevada will mean the
end of illegal wagering on college sports. The National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) is on record stating that there is an
illegal bookie on every college campus. ``Sports Illustrated'' ran a
series in 1995, stating that ``gambling is the dirty little secret on
college campuses, where it's rampant and prospering,'' and that ``the
bookies catering to most college gamblers are fellow students.''
Banning legal college sports gambling in Nevada, where it is controlled
and heavily regulated, is not going to put these bookies out of
business. Just as the Twenty-First Amendment did not stop the illegal
consumption of alcohol, but rather, drove it underground, banning
regulated, legal college sports wagering in Nevada is simply not going
to end illegal college sports gambling.
Mr. President, illegal gambling on college sports is a very serious
problem, and I commend my colleagues for their willingness to address
this issue. The problem with gambling on collegiate sporting events,
however, does not rest with what is legal, but rather, with what is
illegal. While there are currently numerous state laws that prohibit
gambling on college sports, illegal practices still occur and there is
little, if anything, that is being done to address or understand the
problem. A recent NCAA report noted that there are no comprehensive
studies available that analyze the prevalence of illegal gambling on
college sports. Furthermore, the report found that ``the issue of
illegal gambling on college sports is still largely overlooked by
college administrators.''
Mr. President, to respond to this very serious problem, I rise today,
along with Senators Baucus, Torricelli, and Bryan, to introduce
alternative legislation that would examine the root causes of illegal
gambling on college sports. My legislation addresses several
[[Page S551]]
key aspects of the problem of illegal gambling on collegiate sporting
events, namely, what is being done by federal and state officials to
enforce existing laws, whether law enforcement has the proper tools and
adequate funding to address illegal gambling on college sports, and,
what colleges and universities are doing to address the problem of
illegal gambling, especially on their own campuses. The legislation I
am introducing today would follow the recommendations of the NCAA
report by directing the Justice Department to examine these issues and
report back to the Congress.
Mr. President, the growing attraction of illegal gambling among our
college youth is a serious national problem that requires a serious
response. We must have a solution to this problem, however, that
accurately addressed the source of illegal college sports gambling. The
alternative legislation I am introducing today, which focuses on
stronger enforcement of existing laws and education campaigns, follows
the correct path toward addressing the root causes of this problem and
finding the most effective and appropriate solution.
____________________