[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 69 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4669-S4690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 2686. A bill to amend chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code, 
to modify rates relating to reduced rate mail matter, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


 legislation to improve the process for establishing nonprofit postage 
                                 rates

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to improve 
the process used by the United States Postal Service to establish 
postage rates for nonprofit and other reduced-rate mailers.
  Under the current rate setting procedure, nonprofit postage rates 
have changed significantly, often rising more than corresponding 
commercial rates. In fact, in some cases, nonprofit mail rates have 
increased so much that the nonprofit rates are higher than similar 
commercial rates. According to the Postal Service, the unpredictable 
rate changes experienced by nonprofit mailers stem from difficulties 
the Service has had with gathering accurate cost data for small 
subclasses of mail.
  By establishing a structured relationship between nonprofit and 
commercial postage rates, this legislation would protect all categories 
of nonprofit mail from unpredictable rate swings in the future. The 
bill would set nonprofit and classroom Periodical rates at 95 percent 
of the commercial counterpart rates (excluding the advertising 
portion), set nonprofit Standard A rates at 60 percent of the 
commercial Standard A rates, and set Library and Educational Matter 
rates at 95 percent of the rates for the special subclass of commercial 
Standard B mail.
  The Postal Service recently proposed to increase postage rates for 
all classes of mail, and this proposal is now pending before the Postal 
Rate Commission. As part of its request, the Postal Service asked for 
nonprofit postage rates that are premised on the enactment of this, or 
similar, legislation to change the process for setting nonprofit mail 
rates. Without this legislation, nonprofit mailers will face potential 
double-digit rate hikes.
  This bill achieves an appropriate balance between nonprofit and 
commercial postage rates, and provides nonprofit mailers with much 
needed rate predictability. It is a compromise solution that is 
supported by the United States Postal Service and several major 
commercial and nonprofit mailer associations, including: the Alliance 
of Nonprofit Mailers, the National Federation of Nonprofits, the Direct 
Marketing Association, the Magazine Publishers of America, and the 
Association of Postal Commerce.
  I invite my colleagues to support this effort to protect nonprofit 
mailers by improving the method for establishing nonprofit postage 
rates.
  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. 2686

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

     SECTION 1. SPECIAL RATEMAKING PROVISIONS.

       (a) Establishment of Regular Rates for Mail Classes With 
     Certain Preferred Subclasses.--Section 3622 of title 39, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Regular rates for each class or subclass of mail that 
     includes 1 or more special rate categories for mail under 
     former section 4358(d) or (e), 4452(b) or (c), or 4554(b) or 
     (c) of

[[Page S4670]]

     this title shall be established by applying the policies of 
     this title, including the factors of section 3622(b) of this 
     title, to the costs attributable to the regular rate mail in 
     each class or subclass combined with the mail in the 
     corresponding special rate categories authorized by former 
     section 4358(d) or (e), 4452(b) or (c), or 4554(b) or (c) of 
     this title.''.
       (b) Residual Rule for Preferred Periodical Mail.--Section 
     3626(a)(3)(A) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (4) or (5), rates 
     of postage for a class of mail or kind of mailer under former 
     section 4358 of this title shall be established in a manner 
     such that the estimated revenues to be received by the Postal 
     Service from such class of mail or kind of mailer shall be 
     equal to the sum of--
       ``(i) the estimated costs attributable to such class of 
     mail or kind of mailer; and
       ``(ii) the product derived by multiplying the estimated 
     costs referred to in clause (i) by the applicable percentage 
     under subparagraph (B).''.
       (c) Special Rule for Nonprofit and Classroom Periodicals.--
     Section 3626(a)(4) of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(4)(A) Except as specified in subparagraph (B), rates of 
     postage for a class of mail or kind of mailer under former 
     section 4358(d) or (e) of this title shall be established so 
     that postage on each mailing of such mail shall be as nearly 
     as practicable 5 percent lower than the postage for a 
     corresponding regular-rate category mailing.
       ``(B) With respect to the postage for the advertising pound 
     portion of any mail matter under former section 4358(d) or 
     (e) of this title, the 5-percent discount specified in 
     subparagraph (A) shall not apply if the advertising portion 
     exceeds 10 percent of the publication involved.''.
       (d) Special Rule for Nonprofit Standard (A) Mail.--Section 
     3626(a) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(6) The rates for mail matter under former sections 
     4452(b) and (c) of this title shall be established as 
     follows:
       ``(A) The estimated average revenue per piece to be 
     received by the Postal Service from each subclass of mail 
     under former sections 4452(b) and (c) of this title shall be 
     equal, as nearly as practicable, to 60 percent of the 
     estimated average revenue per piece to be received from the 
     most closely corresponding regular-rate subclass of mail.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the estimated 
     average revenue per piece of each regular-rate subclass shall 
     be calculated on the basis of expected volumes and mix of 
     mail for such subclass at current rates in the test year of 
     the proceeding.
       ``(C) Rate differentials within each subclass of mail 
     matter under former sections 4452(b) and (c) shall reflect 
     the policies of this title, including the factors set forth 
     in section 3622(b) of this title.''.
       (e) Special Rule for Library and Educational Matter.--
     Section 3626(a) of title 39, United States Code, as amended 
     by subsection (d) of this section, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(7) The rates for mail matter under former sections 
     4554(b) and (c) of this title shall be established so that 
     postage on each mailing of such mail shall be as nearly as 
     practicable 5 percent lower than the postage for a 
     corresponding regular-rate mailing.''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSITIONAL AND TECHNICAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Transitional Provision for Nonprofit Standard (A) 
     Mail.--In any proceeding in which rates are to be established 
     under chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code, for mail 
     matter under former sections 4452(b) and (c) of that title, 
     pending as of the date of enactment of section 1 of this Act, 
     the estimated reduction in postal revenue from such mail 
     matter caused by the enactment of section 3626(a)(6)(A) of 
     that title, if any, shall be treated as a reasonably 
     assignable cost of the Postal Service under section 
     3622(b)(3) of that title.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 3626(a)(1) of title 39, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``4454(b), or 
     4454(c)'' and inserting ``4554(b), or 4554(c)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 2688. A bill to amend the Native American Languages Act to provide 
for the support of Native American Language Survival Schools, and for 
other purposes.


          native american languages act amendments act of 2000

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
amend the Native American Languages Act to provide authority for the 
establishment of Native American Language Survival Schools. I am joined 
in co-sponsorship by Senators Akaka, Cochran, Dodd, Kennedy, Murray and 
Schumer.
  Mr. President, for hundreds of years, beginning with the arrival of 
European settlers on America's shores, the native peoples of America 
have had to fight for the survival of their cultures. History has shown 
that the ability to maintain and preserve the culture and traditions of 
a people is directly tied to the perpetuation of native languages. Like 
others, the traditional languages of Native American people are an 
integral part of their culture and identity. They provide the means for 
passing down to each new generation the stories, customs, religion, 
history and traditional ways of life. To lose the diversity and vibrant 
history of many Indian nations, is to lose a vital part of the history 
of this country.
  Mr. President, Native American languages are near extinction in the 
United States. Studies suggest that at one time several thousand 
distinct Indian languages existed in what is now America. Today that 
number has dwindled to approximately 155 Indian languages. Of these 155 
languages remaining, 45 are only spoken by elders, 60 are spoken only 
by middle-aged adults or older adults, 30 are spoken by all adults but 
not children, and only 20 Native languages are spoken by most of the 
children. With so many Native communities facing the loss of their 
languages as elderly native speakers pass on before the language can be 
taught to younger generations, it is little wonder that this tragedy is 
growing exponentially, day by day.
  In the 1880s, as part of the United States' forced assimilation 
policies towards Native Americans, a system of off-reservation boarding 
schools was initiated. Native American children were forcibly taken 
from their families, transported hundreds of miles to schools where 
their hair was cut notwithstanding the religious importance of hair 
length in most native cultures, their clothes replaced with military-
style uniforms, and they were forbidden to speak their native languages 
or practice their religion. Although this effort to eradicate Indian 
culture was not successful, it did separate several generations of 
Native Americans from their native languages.
  The Native American Languages Act of 1990 officially repudiated the 
policies of the past and declared that ``it is the policy of the United 
States to preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of 
Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American 
languages.'' The Act was amended in 1992 to provide financial support 
to Native American language projects.
  Mr. President, this bill would bring the nation one step closer to 
assuring the preservation and revitalization of Native American 
languages by supporting the development of Native American Language 
Survival Schools. These schools would provide a complete education 
through the use of both Native American languages and English. The bill 
also provides support for Native American Language Nests, which are 
Native American language immersion programs for children aged six and 
under. In addition, the bill provides authority for the following 
activities: curriculum development, teacher, staff and community 
resource development, rental, lease, purchase, construction, 
maintenance or repair of educational facilities, and the establishment 
of two Native American Language School support centers at the Native 
Language College of the University of Hawaii at Hilo, and the Alaska 
Native Language Center of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to 
assist the Native people of America in their efforts to reverse the 
effects of past Federal policies by reintroducing today's children to 
their Native languages and preserving Native languages for the 
generations to come.
  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. 2688

       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 ``Native American Languages 
     Act Amendments Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) encourage and support the development of Native 
     American Language Survival Schools as innovative means of 
     addressing the effects of past discrimination against Native 
     American language speakers and to support the revitalization 
     of such languages

[[Page S4671]]

     through education in Native American languages and through 
     instruction in other academic subjects using Native American 
     languages as an instructional medium, consistent with United 
     States' policy as expressed in the Native American Languages 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.);
       (2) encourage and support the involvement of families in 
     the educational and cultural survival efforts of Native 
     American Language Survival Schools;
       (3) encourage communication, cooperation, and educational 
     exchange among Native American Language Survival Schools and 
     their administrators;
       (4) provide support for Native American Language Survival 
     School facilities and endowments;
       (5) provide support for Native American Language Nests 
     either as part of Native American Language Survival Schools 
     or as separate programs that will be developed into more 
     comprehensive Native American Language Survival Schools;
       (6) support the development of local and national models 
     that can be disseminated to the public and made available to 
     other schools as exemplary methods of teaching Native 
     American students; and
       (7) develop a support center system for Native American 
     Survival Schools at the university level.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 103 of Public Law 101-477 (25 U.S.C. 2902) is 
     amended to read as follows:


                             ``definitions

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Indian.--The term `Indian' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 9161 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7881).
       ``(2) Indian tribal government.--The term `Indian tribal 
     government' has the meaning given that term in section 502 of 
     Public Law 95-134 (42 U.S.C. 4368b).
       ``(3) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       ``(4) Indian reservation.--The term `Indian reservation' 
     has the meaning given the term `reservation' in section 3 of 
     the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452).
       ``(5) Native american.--The term `Native American' means an 
     Indian, Native Hawaiian, or Native American Pacific Islander.
       ``(6) Native american language.--The term `Native American 
     language' means the historical, traditional languages spoken 
     by Native Americans.
       ``(7) Native american language college.--The term `Native 
     American Language College' means--
       ``(A) a tribally-controlled community college or university 
     (as defined in section 2 of the Tribally-Controlled Community 
     College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
     1801));
       ``(B) Ka Haka `Ula 0 Ke'elikolani College; or
       ``(C) a college applying for a Native American Language 
     Survival School in a Native American language which that 
     college regularly offers as part of its curriculum and which 
     has the support of an Indian tribal government traditionally 
     affiliated with that Native American language.
       ``(8) Native american language educational organization.--
     The term `Native American Language Educational Organization' 
     means an organization that--
       ``(A) is governed by a board consisting of speakers of 1 or 
     more Native American languages;
       ``(B) is currently providing instruction through the use of 
     a Native American language for not less than 10 students for 
     at least 700 hours of instruction per year; and
       ``(C) has provided such instruction for at least 10 
     students annually through a Native American language for at 
     least 700 hours per year for not less than 3 years prior to 
     applying for a grant under this Act.
       ``(9) Native american language nest.--The term `Native 
     American Language Nest' means a site-based educational 
     program enrolling families with children aged 6 and under 
     which is conducted through a Native American language for not 
     less than 20 hours per week and not less than 35 weeks per 
     year with the specific goal of strengthening, revitalizing, 
     or re-establishing a Native American language and culture as 
     a living language and culture of daily life.
       ``(10) Native american language survival school.--The term 
     `Native American Language Survival School' means a Native 
     American language dominant site-based educational program 
     which expands from a Native American Language Nest, either as 
     a separate entity or inclusive of a Native American Language 
     Nest, to enroll families with children eligible for 
     elementary or secondary education and which provides a 
     complete education through a Native American language with 
     the specific goal of strengthening, revitalizing, or 
     reestablishing a Native American language and culture as a 
     living language and culture of daily life.
       ``(11) Native american pacific islander.--The term `Native 
     American Pacific Islander' means any descendant of the 
     aboriginal people of any island in the Pacific Ocean that is 
     a territory or possession of the United States.
       ``(12) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 9212 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7912).
       ``(13) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Department of Education.
       ``(14) Traditional leaders.--The term `traditional leaders' 
     includes Native Americans who have special expertise in 
     Native American culture and Native American languages.
       ``(15) Tribal organization.--The term `tribal organization' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 4 of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b).''.

     SEC. 4. NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE SURVIVAL SCHOOLS.

       Title I of Public Law 101-477 (25 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sections:


                          ``general authority

       ``Sec. 108. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     provide funds, through grant or contract, to Native American 
     Language Educational Organizations, Native American Language 
     Colleges, Indian tribal governments, or a consortia of such 
     organizations, colleges, or tribal governments to operate, 
     expand, and increase Native American Language Survival 
     Schools throughout the United States and its territories for 
     Native American children and Native American language-
     speaking children.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--As a condition of receiving funds under 
     subsection (a), a Native American Language Educational 
     Organization, a Native American Language College, an Indian 
     tribal government, or a consortia of such organizations, 
     colleges, or tribal governments--
       ``(1) shall--
       ``(A) have at least 3 years experience in operating and 
     administering a Native American Language Survival School, a 
     Native American Language Nest, or other educational programs 
     in which instruction is conducted in a Native American 
     language; and
       ``(B) include students who are subject to State compulsory 
     education laws; and
       ``(2) may include students from infancy through grade 12, 
     as well as their families.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Required uses.--A Native American Language Survival 
     School receiving funds under this section shall--
       ``(A) consist of not less than 700 hours of instruction 
     conducted annually through a Native American language or 
     languages for at least 15 students who do not regularly 
     attend another school;
       ``(B) provide direct educational services and school 
     support services that may also include--
       ``(i) support services for children with special needs;
       ``(ii) transportation;
       ``(iii) boarding;
       ``(iv) food service;
       ``(v) teacher and staff housing;
       ``(vi) purchase of basic materials;
       ``(vii) adaptation of teaching materials;
       ``(viii) translation and development; or
       ``(ix) other appropriate services;
       ``(C) provide direct or indirect educational and support 
     services for the families of enrolled students on site, 
     through colleges, or through other means to increase their 
     knowledge and use of the Native American language and 
     culture, and may impose a requirement of family participation 
     as a condition of student enrollment; and
       ``(D) ensure that students who are not Native American 
     language speakers achieve fluency in a Native American 
     language within 3 years of enrollment.
       ``(2) Permissible uses.--A Native American Language 
     Survival School receiving funds under this section may--
       ``(A) include Native American Language Nests and other 
     educational programs for students who are not Native American 
     language speakers but who seek to establish fluency through 
     instruction in a Native American language or to re-establish 
     fluency as descendants of Native American language speakers;
       ``(B) include a program of concurrent and summer college or 
     university education course enrollment for secondary school 
     students enrolled in Native American Language Survival 
     Schools, as appropriate; and
       ``(C) provide special support for Native American languages 
     for which there are very few or no remaining Native American 
     language speakers.
       ``(d) Curriculum Development and Community Language Use 
     Development.--The Secretary is authorized to provide funds, 
     through grant or contract, to Native American Language 
     Educational Organizations, Native American Language Colleges, 
     Indian tribal governments, or a consortia of such 
     organizations, colleges, or tribal governments, for the 
     purpose of developing--
       ``(1) comprehensive curricula in Native American language 
     instruction and instruction through Native American 
     languages; and
       ``(2) community Native American language use in communities 
     served by Native American Language Survival Schools.
       ``(e) Teacher, Staff, and Community Resource Development.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
     funds, through grant or contract, to Native American Language 
     Educational Organizations, Native American Language Colleges, 
     Indian tribal governments, or a consortia of such 
     organizations, colleges, or tribal governments for the 
     purpose of providing programs in pre-service and in-service 
     teacher training, staff training, personnel development 
     programs, programs

[[Page S4672]]

     to upgrade teacher and staff skills, and community resource 
     development training, that shall include a program component 
     which has as its objective increased Native American language 
     speaking proficiency for teachers and staff employed in 
     Native American Language Survival Schools and Native American 
     Language Nests.
       ``(2) Program scope.--Programs funded under this subsection 
     may include--
       ``(A) visits or exchanges among Native American Language 
     Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests of school 
     or nest teachers, staff, students, or families of students;
       ``(B) participation in conference or special non-degree 
     programs focusing on the use of a Native American language or 
     languages for the education of students, teachers, staff, 
     students, or families of students;
       ``(C) full or partial scholarships and fellowships to 
     colleges or universities for the professional development of 
     faculty and staff, and to meet requirements for the 
     involvement of the family or the community of Native American 
     Language Survival School students in Native American Language 
     Survival Schools;
       ``(D) training in the language and culture associated with 
     a Native American Language Survival School either under 
     community or academic experts in programs which may include 
     credit courses;
       ``(E) structuring of personnel operations to support Native 
     American language and cultural fluency and program 
     effectiveness;
       ``(F) Native American language planning, documentation, 
     reference material and archives development; and
       ``(G) recruitment for participation in teacher, staff, 
     student, and community development.
       ``(3) Conditions of fellowships or scholarships.--A 
     recipient of a fellowship or scholarship awarded under the 
     authority of this subsection who is enrolled in a program 
     leading to a degree or certificate shall--
       ``(A) be trained in the Native American language of the 
     Native American Language Survival School, if such program is 
     available through that Native American language;
       ``(B) complete a minimum annual number of hours in Native 
     American language study or training during the period of the 
     fellowship or scholarship; and
       ``(C) enter into a contract which obligates the recipient 
     to provide his or her professional services, either during 
     the fellowship or scholarship period or upon completion of a 
     degree or certificate, in Native American language 
     instruction in the Native American language associated with 
     the Native American Language Survival School in which the 
     service obligation is to be fulfilled.
       ``(f) Endowment and Facilities.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to provide funds, through grant or contract, for 
     endowment funds and the rental, lease, purchase, 
     construction, maintenance, or repair of facilities for Native 
     American Language Survival Schools, to Native American 
     Language Educational Organizations, Native American Language 
     Colleges, and Indian tribal governments, or a consortia of 
     such organizations, colleges, or tribal governments that have 
     demonstrated excellence in the capacity to operate and 
     administer a Native American Language Survival School and to 
     ensure the academic achievement of Native American Language 
     Survival School students.


                    ``native american language nests

       ``Sec. 109. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     provide funds, through grant or contract, to Native American 
     Language Educational Organizations, Native American Language 
     Colleges, Indian tribal governments, and nonprofit 
     organizations that demonstrate the potential to become Native 
     American Language Educational Organizations, for the purpose 
     of establishing Native American Language Nest programs for 
     students from infancy to age 6 and their families.
       ``(b) Requirements.--A Native American Language Nest 
     program receiving funds under this section shall--
       ``(1) provide instruction and child care through the use of 
     a Native American language or a combination of the English 
     language and a Native American language for at least 10 
     children for at least 700 hours per year;
       ``(2) provide compulsory classes for parents of students 
     enrolled in a Native American Language Nest in a Native 
     American language, including Native American language-
     speaking parents;
       ``(3) provide compulsory monthly meetings for parents and 
     other family members of students enrolled in a Native 
     American Language Nest;
       ``(4) provide a preference in enrollment for students and 
     families who are fluent in a Native American language; and
       ``(5) receive at least 5 percent of its funding from 
     another source, which may included Federally-funded programs, 
     such as a Head Start program funded under the Head Start Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.).


       ``demonstration programs regarding linguistics assistance

       ``Sec. 110. (a) Demonstration Programs.--The Secretary 
     shall provide funds, through grant or contract, for the 
     establishment of 2 demonstration programs that will provide 
     assistance to Native American Language Survival Schools and 
     Native American Language Nests. Such demonstration programs 
     shall be established at--
       ``(1) Ka Haka `Ula 0 Ke`elikolani College of the University 
     of Hawaii at Hilo, in consortium with the `Aha Punana Leo, 
     Inc., and with other entities if deemed appropriate by such 
     College, to--
       ``(A) conduct a demonstration program in the development of 
     the various components of a Native American Language Survival 
     School program, including the early childhood education 
     features of a Native American Nest component; and
       ``(B) provide assistance in the establishment, operation, 
     and administration of Native American Language Nests and 
     Native American Language Survival Schools by such means as 
     training, hosting informational visits to demonstration 
     sites, and providing relevant information, outreach courses, 
     conferences, and other means; and
       ``(2) the Alaska Native Language Center of the University 
     of Alaska at Fairbanks, in consortium with other entities as 
     deemed appropriate by such Center, to conduct a demonstration 
     program, training, outreach, conferences, visitation 
     programs, and other assistance in developing orthographies, 
     resource materials, language documentation, language 
     preservation, material archiving, and community support 
     development.
       ``(b) Use of Technology.--The demonstration programs 
     authorized to be established under this section may employ 
     synchronic and asynchronic telecommunications and other 
     appropriate means to maintain coordination and cooperation 
     with one another and with participating Native American 
     Language Survival Schools and Native American Language Nests.
       ``(c) Direction to the Secretary.--The demonstration 
     programs authorized to be established under this section 
     shall provide direction to the Secretary in developing a site 
     visit evaluation of Native American Language Survival Schools 
     and Native American Language Nests.
       ``(d) Endowments and Facilities.--The demonstration 
     programs authorized to be established under this section may 
     establish endowments for the purpose of furthering their 
     activities relative to the study and preservation of Native 
     American languages, and may use funds to provide for the 
     rental, lease, purchase, construction, maintenance, and 
     repair of facilities.


                   ``authorization of appropriations

       ``Sec. 111. There are authorized to be appropriated such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the activities 
     authorized by this Act for fiscal years 2001 through 
     2006.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2689. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on 
behalf of Congress to Andrew Jackson Higgins (posthumously), and to the 
D-day Museum in recognition of the contributions of Higgins Industries 
and the more than 30,000 employees of Higgins Industries to the Nation 
and to world peace during World War II; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                         ANDREW JACKSON HIGGINS

 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I speak today to honor an 
innovative and patriotic American--the logger-turned-boatbuilder, who 
single-handedly transformed the concept of amphibious ship design when 
our nation and her Allies needed it most. Despite a series of 
bureaucratic obstacles set up by America's World War II war-machine, 
Higgins skillfully engineered Marine Corps landing craft, and 
eventually won contracts to build 92 percent of the Navy's war-time 
fleet. The story of Andrew Jackson Higgins exemplifies the American 
Dream, and merits full recognition of this body for his ingenuity, 
assiduous work, and devotion to our country.
  In the late 1930's, Higgins was operating a small New Orleans work-
boat company, with less than seventy-five employees.He quickly earned a 
reputation for fast, dependable work, turning out specialized vessels 
for the oil industry, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. 
Biological Survey. But when he presented his plans for swift amphibious 
landing crafts, he met hard resistance. The U.S. Navy had overestimated 
French and British abilities to secure France's ports from German 
encroachment, and had thus overruled decisions to create landing boat 
crafts. As the U.S. Marine Corps discerned the need for mass production 
of amphibious vessels for both the Pacific and European theaters, top 
brass began to lobby the Navy to abandon its internal contracting, and 
procure ships from Higgins Industries, which boasted high performance 
quality, and unprecedented speed for turning out boats. In 1941, the 
Navy finally asked Higgins to begin designing a landing draft to carry 
tanks. Instead of a design, Higgins delivered an entire working boat. 
It had only taken 61 hours to design and construct his first Landing 
Craft, Mechanized (LCM). Quickly, the Higgins firm grew to seven 
plants, eventually turning out 700 boats a month--

[[Page S4673]]

more than all other shipyards in the nation combined. By the war's end, 
Higgins had turned out 20,000 boats, ranging from the 46-foot LCVP 
(Landing Craft, Vehicle & Personnel) to the fast-moving PT boats, the 
rocket-firing landing craft support boats, the 56-foot tank landing 
craft, the 170 foot freight supply ships and the 27-foot airborne 
lifeboats that could be dropped from B-17 bombers.
  Able to conceive various ship designs and mass-produce vessels 
quickly at affordable prices, Higgins not only transformed wartime ship 
building acquisition, but sustained the universal faith American 
invention and global power projection. Higgins landing craft crashed on 
the shores of Normandy on June 6, 1944, launching the greatest 
amphibious assault in world history, and commencing a eastward drive to 
liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. In addition to his contributions to 
Allied war efforts abroad, Higgins' manufacturing further changed the 
face of my own city of New Orleans, home to most of the firm's 
business. I urge my colleagues to support provisions to award Andrew 
Jackson Higgins the Gold Medal of Honor, in the tradition of our great 
institution.
  Mr. President, in 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was reflecting 
on the success of the 1944 Normandy invasion to his biographer, Steven 
Ambrose. Andrew Jackson Higgins ``is the man who won the war for us,'' 
he said. ``If Higgins had not developed and produced those landing 
craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We would have 
had to change the entire strategy of the war.'' to me, Mr. Higgins and 
his 20,000-member workforce embody American creativity, persistence, 
and patriotism; they deserve to be distinguished for their critical 
place in history.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2689

       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 ``Andrew Jackson Higgins Gold 
     Medal Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Andrew Jackson Higgins was born on August 28, 1886, in 
     Columbus, Nebraska, moved to New Orleans in 1910, and formed 
     Higgins Industries on September 26, 1930.
       (2) Andrew Jackson Higgins designed, engineered, and 
     produced the ``Eureka'', a unique shallow draft boat the 
     design of which evolved during World War II into 2 basic 
     classes of military craft: high speed PT boats, and types of 
     Higgins landing craft (LCPs, LCPLs, LCVPs, LCMs and LCSs).
       (3) Andrew Jackson Higgins designed, engineered, and 
     constructed 4 major assembly line plants in New Orleans for 
     mass production of Higgins landing craft and other vessels 
     vital to the Allied Forces' conduct of World War II.
       (4) Andrew Jackson Higgins bought the entire 1940 
     Philippine mahogany crop and other material purely at risk 
     without a government contract, anticipating that America 
     would join World War II and that Higgins Industries would 
     need the wood to build landing craft. Higgins also bought 
     steel, engines, and other material necessary to construct 
     landing craft.
       (5) Andrew Jackson Higgins, through Higgins Industries, 
     employed a fully integrated assembly line work force, black 
     and white, male and female, of up to 30,000 during World War 
     II, with equal pay for equal work.
       (6) In 1939, the United States Navy had a total of 18 
     landing craft in the fleet.
       (7) From November 18, 1940, when Higgins Industries was 
     awarded its first contract for Higgins landing craft until 
     the conclusion of the war, the employees of Higgins 
     Industries produced 12,300 Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel 
     (LCVP's) and nearly 8,000 other landing craft of all types.
       (8) During World War II, Higgins Industries employees 
     produced 20,094 boats, including landing craft and Patrol 
     Torpedo boats, and trained 30,000 Navy, Marine, and Coast 
     Guard personnel on the safe operation of landing craft at the 
     Higgins' Boat Operators School.
       (9) On Thanksgiving Day 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower 
     stated in an address to the Nation: ``Let us thank God for 
     Higgins Industries, management, and labor which has given us 
     the landing boats with which to conduct our campaign.''.
       (10) Higgins landing craft, constructed of wood and steel, 
     transported fully armed troops, light tanks, field artillery, 
     and other mechanized equipment essential to amphibious 
     operations.
       (11) Higgins landing craft made the amphibious assault on 
     D-day and the landings at Leyte, North Africa, Guadalcanal, 
     Sicily, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Guam, and thousands of less well-
     known assaults possible.
       (12) Captain R.R.M. Emmett, a commander at the North Africa 
     amphibious landing, and later commandant of the Great Lakes 
     Training Station, wrote during the war: ``When the history of 
     this war is finally written by historians, far enough removed 
     from its present turmoil and clamor to be cool and impartial, 
     I predict that they will place Mr. (Andrew Jackson) Higgins 
     very high on the list of those who deserve the commendation 
     and gratitude of all citizens.''.
       (13) In 1964, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told historian 
     Steven Ambrose: ``He (Higgins) is the man who won the war for 
     us. If Higgins had not developed and produced those landing 
     craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We 
     would have had to change the entire strategy of the war.''.

     SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

       (a) Presentation Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized, on behalf of 
     Congress, to award a gold medal of appropriate design to--
       (A) the family of Andrew Jackson Higgins, honoring Andrew 
     Jackson Higgins (posthumously) for his contributions to the 
     Nation and world peace; and
       (B) the D-day Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana, for public 
     display, honoring Andrew Jackson Higgins (posthumously) and 
     the employees of Higgins Industries for their contributions 
     to the Nation and world peace.
       (2) Modalities.--The modalities of presentation of the 
     medals under this Act shall be determined by the President 
     after consultation with the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall strike 2 
     gold medals with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions, 
     to be determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 4. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

       The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of 
     the gold medals struck under this Act, under such regulations 
     as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to 
     cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, 
     use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the 
     gold medal.

     SEC. 5. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS.

       The medals struck under this Act are national medals for 
     purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.

       (a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund an amount not to exceed $60,000 to pay for the cost of 
     the medals authorized by this Act.
       (b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate bronze medals under section 4 shall be deposited in 
     the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Kerrey, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2690. A bill to reduce the risk that innocent persons may be 
executed, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  THE INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a few months ago, I came to this 
floor to draw attention to a growing national crisis in the 
administration of capital punishment and to suggest some solutions. You 
will recall some of the shocking facts I described:

       For every 7 people executed, 1 death row inmate is shown 
     some time after conviction to be innocent of the crime.
       Many of those exonerated have come within hours of being 
     executed, and many have spent a decade or more in jail before 
     they were given a fair opportunity to establish their 
     innocence.
       Capital defendants are frequently represented by lawyers 
     who lack the funds or the competence to do the job, or who 
     have been disbarred or suspended for misconduct, and, from 
     time to time, by lawyers who sleep through the trial, but the 
     courts turn a blind eye.
       Inexpensive and practically foolproof means of proving 
     innocence are often denied to defendants.

  The saddest fact of all, to me, is that the society facing this 
crisis is not a medieval one; it is America, today, in the 21st 
Century. As the Governor of Illinois told us when he placed a 
moratorium on the death penalty in his State earlier this year, 
something urgently needs to be done to remedy this situation. That is 
why I have been talking with Senators on both sides of the aisle and 
all sides of the capital punishment debate. That is why I have been 
searching for ways to reduce the risk of mistaken executions.
  That is why I am so pleased that today, with my good friend, the 
junior

[[Page S4674]]

Senator from Oregon (Senator Gordon Smith), we are introducing the 
bipartisan Innocence Protection Act of 2000. This bill is a carefully 
crafted package of criminal justice reforms designed to protect the 
innocent and to ensure that if the death penalty is imposed, it is the 
result of informed and reasoned deliberation, not politics, luck, bias 
or guesswork.
  Every American child is taught that justice is blind. It is important 
to remember what justice is supposed to be blind to. Justice should 
never be blind to the truth, it should never be blind to the evidence, 
and it should never be blind to the teachings of modern science. What 
justice should be blind to is ideology, politics, race and money.
  Too often in this chamber, we find ourselves dividing along party or 
ideological lines. The bill that Senator Smith and I are introducing 
today is not about that, and it is not about whether in the abstract, 
you favor or disfavor the death penalty. It is about what kind of 
society we want America to be in the 21st Century.
  I am optimistic about America's future. I have become all the more 
optimistic in the past few months as I have seen an outpouring of 
support across the political spectrum and across the country for 
common-sense measures to reduce the risk of executing the innocent.
  Today, Senator Smith and I are joined by Senators from both sides of 
the aisle, by some who support capital punishment and by others who 
oppose it. On the Republican side, I want to thank my friend Senator 
Susan Collins of Maine and my fellow Vermonter, Senator Jim Jeffords. 
On the Democratic side, Senators Levin, Feingold, Moynihan, Akaka, 
Kerrey, and Wellstone. I also want to thank our House sponsors William 
Delahunt and Ray LaHood, along with their 39 cosponsors, both 
Democratic and Republican. Here on Capitol Hill it is our job to 
represent Americans. The scores of legislators who have sponsored this 
legislation clearly do represent Americans, both in their diversity and 
in their readiness to work together for common-sense solutions.
  The outpouring of bipartisan support we have seen in Congress 
reflects an emerging public consensus. Opinion polls show Americans 
divided on the death penalty in the abstract. But they show 
overwhelmingly that Americans will not tolerate the execution of 
innocent people, and that Americans expect their justice system to 
provide everyone with a fair trial and a competent lawyer. A recent 
Gallup Poll found that 92 percent of Americans believe that people 
convicted before modern advances in DNA technology should be given the 
opportunity to obtain DNA testing if such tests might show their 
innocence.
  I am also encouraged by the growing chorus of calls for reform of our 
capital punishment system by criminal justice experts and respected 
opinion leaders nationwide. George Will wrote in a April 6th column 
that ``skepticism is in order'' when it comes to capital punishment. 
Another conservative columnist, Bruce Fein, wrote in The Washington 
Times on April 25th:

       A decent respect for life . . . demands scrupulous concern 
     for the reliability of verdicts in capital punishment trials. 
     Otherwise, the death penalty game is not worth the gamble of 
     executing the innocent--a shameful stain on any system of 
     justice--and life sentences (perhaps in solitary confinement) 
     should be the maximum.

       Mr. Fein writes as one who served as a senior Justice 
     Department official in the Reagan Administration.
  More recently, on May 11th, the Constitution Project at Georgetown 
University Law Center established a blue-ribbon National Committee to 
Prevent Wrongful Executions, comprised of supporters and opponents of 
the death penalty, Democrats and Republicans, including six former 
State and Federal judges, a former U.S. Attorney, two former State 
Attorneys General, and a former Director of the FBI. According to its 
mission statement, this Committee is ``united in [its] profound concern 
that, in recent years, and around the country, procedural safeguards 
and other assurances of fundamental fairness in the administration of 
capital punishment have been significantly diminished.'' Many of the 
concerns that the Committee has raised are addressed in the legislation 
that Senator Smith and I are introducing today.

  Just yesterday, the editors of The Washington Times noted that ``the 
increased use of DNA analysis has in fact revealed some serious flaws 
in the way the justice system exacts the supreme penalty,'' and 
succinctly expressed the common sense view of nine out of ten Americans 
and the basic point that underlies our legislation: ``Surely no one 
could reasonably object to making sure we execute only the guilty.''
  I ask unanimous consent that The Washington Times editorial be 
included in the Record at this point, together with the articles by 
George Will and Bruce Fein, and editorials dated February 19 and 28 
from the New York Times and The Washington Post, both praising the 
Innocence Protection Act.
  As I describe some of the major reforms proposed by our legislation, 
I ask you to consider these issues from the perspective of a capital 
juror, an ordinary citizen who is asked by his government to do one of 
the toughest things a citizen can do: sit in judgment on another 
person's life. You would not want to make the wrong decision. You would 
want the process to work so that you could make the right decision.
  We need to enact real reforms to combat the very real risk in America 
today that an innocent person is being executed. I will now describe 
some of the major reforms proposed by our legislation.
  More than any other development, improvements in DNA testing have 
provided the critical evidence to exonerate innocent people. In the 
last decade, scores of wrongfully convicted people have been released 
from prison--including many from death row--after DNA testing proved 
they could not have committed the crime for which they were convicted. 
In some cases the same DNA testing that vindicated the innocent helped 
catch the guilty.
  As I already mentioned, 92 percent of Americans agree that we need to 
make DNA testing available in every appropriate case. But this 
legislation is not about public opinion polls--it is about saving 
innocent lives.
  A few months ago, I met Kirk Bloodsworth, a former Marine who was 
convicted and sentenced to death in Maryland for a crime that he did 
not commit. Nine years later, DNA testing conclusively established his 
innocence.
  On the same day, I met Clyde Charles. He spent 9 years pleading with 
the State of Louisiana for the DNA testing that eventually exonerated 
him. He missed the childhood of his daughter, he contracted diabetes 
and tuberculosis while in prison, and both of his parents died before 
his release.
  Just last Wednesday, the Governor of Texas pardoned A.B. Butler, who 
served 17 years of a 99-year sentence for a sexual assault that he did 
not commit before he was finally cleared by DNA testing. Butler spent 
10 years trying to have DNA testing done in his case.
  One day later, the Governor of Virginia ordered new DNA testing for 
Earl Washington, a retarded man convicted of a rape-murder in 1982.
  There are still significant numbers of convicted men and women in 
prisons throughout the country whose trials preceded modern DNA 
testing. If history is any guide, then some of these individuals are 
innocent of any crime.
  If DNA testing can help establish innocence, there is no reason to 
deny testing, and every reason to grant it. This is not about guilty 
people trying to get off on legal technicalities. This is about 
innocent people trying to prove their innocence--and being thwarted by 
legal technicalities. Our bill will allow retroactive tests for people 
tried before DNA technology was available to them, and eliminate the 
procedural bars that may prevent the introduction of new, exculpatory 
DNA evidence. Our bill will also ensure that inmates are notified 
before a State destroys a rape kit or other biological evidence that 
may, through DNA testing, prove that an inmate was wrongfully 
convicted.
  What possible reason could there be to deny people access to the 
evidence--often the only evidence--that could prove their innocence? 
Now that we have DNA fingerprinting that can prove a person's 
innocence, why should we as a society be willfully blind to the truth?
  The sole argument I have heard advanced against the Leahy-Smith 
proposal is that it is somehow overly broad. As best I can understand 
this objection, the point seems to be that in

[[Page S4675]]

some cases, DNA evidence will only confirm the jury's guilty verdict. 
That is the point that Virginia prosecutors have advanced in opposing 
DNA testing for death row inmate Derek Barnabei. But as the Washington 
Post pointed out in a March 20th editorial about the Barnabei case, the 
possibility that DNA testing will confirm an inmate's guilt is no 
reason to deny testing:

       It is hard to see why a state, before putting someone to 
     death, would be unwilling to demonstrate a jury verdict's 
     consistency with all of the evidence. Indeed, this is 
     precisely the type of case in which the state should have no 
     choice. Under [the Innocence Protection Act], states would be 
     obligated in such circumstances to allow post-conviction DNA 
     testing. Such a law would not merely offer a layer of 
     protection to innocent people but would increase public 
     confidence in the convictions of guilty people.

  I am grateful for the Post's endorsement.
  As the Post has pointed out, this is a common sense reform. As 
opinion polls have shown, the idea of ensuring DNA testing is available 
in appropriate cases enjoys the support of the vast majority of 
Americans. And as the recent cases that I have discussed make clear, 
this is a matter of national urgency. I hope we can move forward 
expeditiously.
  Post-conviction DNA testing is an essential safeguard that can save 
innocent lives when the trial process has failed to uncover the truth. 
As the Governor of New York has recognized, DNA testing also serves as 
a window into the systemic flaws of our capital punishment apparatus. 
In May, Governor Pataki proposed the creation of a panel to investigate 
the facts behind DNA exonerations and to determine what went wrong.
  When DNA uncovers one miscarriage of justice after another, it is 
neither just nor sensible to stop at making post-conviction DNA testing 
more available. It is unjust because innocent people should not have to 
wait for years after trial to be exonerated and freed. It is not 
sensible because society should not have to wait for years to know the 
truth. When dozens of innocent people are being sentenced to death, and 
dozens of guilty people are working free because the State has 
convicted the wrong person, we must ask ourselves what went wrong in 
the trial process, and we must take what steps we can to make sure it 
does not happen again.
  There is a recurring theme in wrongful conviction cases--incompetent 
and grossly underpaid defense counsel. That theme is well illustrated 
by the case of Federico Macias. He spent nine years on Texas's death 
row and came within two days of execution because his trial lawyer did 
almost nothing to prepare for trial. No doubt, being paid less than $12 
an hour was a disincentive for the lawyer to conduct a more thorough 
investigation.
  This lawyer failed to call available witnesses who could have refuted 
the State's case, and based his trial decisions on a fundamental 
misunderstanding of Texas law. The lawyer also admitted he did no 
investigation at all for the sentencing phase. His only preparation was 
to speak to his client and his client's wife during the lunch break of 
the sentencing proceeding.
  Macias was eventually cleared of all charges and released from 
prison, thanks to volunteer work by a Washington lawyer who intervened 
just before the scheduled execution. Here is what the Federal Court of 
Appeals had to say when it overturned Macias's conviction:

       We are left with the firm conviction that Macias was denied 
     his constitutional right to adequate counsel in a capital 
     case in which actual innocence was a close question. The 
     state paid defense counsel $11.84 per hour. Unfortunately, 
     the justice system got only what it paid for.

  Federico Macias's case was not unique. In the Texas criminal justice 
system, there is a whole category of capital cases known as the 
sleeping lawyer cases, to which the majority of the Texas Court of 
Criminal Appeals has responded with apathy. This attitude was 
chillingly conveyed by one Texas judge who reasoned that, while the 
Constitution requires a defendant to be represented by a lawyer, it 
``doesn't say the lawyer has to be awake.''
  But this is not just a Texas problem, this is a nationwide problem. 
In case after case across the country, capital defendants have found 
their lives placed in the hands of lawyers who are hopelessly 
incompetent--lawyers who were drunk during the trial; lawyers who never 
bothered to investigate the case or even meet with their client before 
trial; and lawyers who were suspended or disbarred.
  Oklahoma spent all of $3,200 on the defense of Ronald Keith 
Williamson; it got what it paid for when Williamson's lawyer failed to 
investigate and present to the jury a simple fact--the fact that 
another man had confessed to the murder. Both Williamson and his 
codefendant were eventually cleared of any crime.
  In Illinois, Dennis Williams was defended by a lawyer who was 
simultaneously defending himself in disbarment proceedings. Williams 
was eventually exonerated in 1996, after 18 years on death row, with 
the help of three journalism students from Northwestern University.
  That is not how the American adversarial system of criminal justice 
is meant to work. Americans on trial for their lives should not be 
condemned to rely on sleeping lawyers, drunk lawyers, disbarred 
lawyers, or lawyers who do not have the resources to do the job. In our 
society, lawyers and journalists both serve important fact-finding 
functions. But, as one of the Northwestern University journalism 
students so aptly said after proving the innocence of yet another death 
row inmate, Anthony Porter, ``Twenty-one-year-olds are not supposed to 
be responsible for finding the innocent people on death row.''
  The need for competent and adequately funded lawyers to make our 
adversarial system work is not a novel insight, and the lack of such 
lawyers and funding is not a novel discovery. In 1991, Retired Chief 
Justice Harold Clarke of Georgia told the Georgia State Bar that:

       Providing lawyers for poor people accused of crimes is a 
     state obligation. The Constitution teaches us that. But more 
     important, common sense and human decency tell us that. Yet 
     we haven't listened to those voices.

  In repeated resolutions dating back to the 1980s, the Conference of 
Chief Justices has urged States to do more to ensure that capital 
defendants are provided quality representation. In 1995, for example, 
the Chief Justices resolved that each State should ``establish 
standards and a process that will assure the timely appointment of 
competent counsel, with adequate resources, to represent defendants in 
capital cases at each stage of such proceedings.''
  As we enter the 21st century, a few States have heeded this advice. 
But many are still not listening to the voices of the people who know 
first hand what a mockery incompetent and underfunded defense lawyers 
can make of our criminal justice system. I have described two cases, 
from Texas and Oklahoma, in which the State grossly underfunded 
appointed counsel and got what it paid for. There are many more 
examples, including an Alabama case within the past year in which the 
court, after a full trial, limited the fee for investigating and 
defending against a charge of capital murder to about $4,000. After 
paying his investigator and paralegal, the lawyer pocketed $1,212, 
which worked out to $5.05 an hour--less than the minimum wage.

  We should not sit back and rely on 21-year-old journalism students to 
save innocent people from execution. And a quarter of a century of 
experience with the death penalty since the Supreme Court restored it 
in 1976 teaches us that we cannot sit back and rely on the States to 
provide adequate counsel to those whom they seek to execute.
  We in Congress can never guarantee that the innocent will not be 
convicted. But we have a responsibility, at a minimum, to ensure that 
when people in this country are on trial for their lives, they will be 
defended by lawyers who meet reasonable minimum standards of competence 
and who have sufficient funds to investigate the facts and prepare 
thoroughly for trial. That goal can be achieved by cooperation between 
the States and the Federal Government whereby we give the States money 
to fund their criminal justice systems conditioned on their meeting a 
floor of minimum standards, and leave the States free to improve on 
those standards if they are so inclined. That is what our bill seeks to 
achieve.
  What do we owe to the innocent people who are able to win their 
release

[[Page S4676]]

from prison? How do we compensate them for all the years they spent 
behind bars, sometimes on death row, for all the lost wages, for all 
the pain and suffering. In most cases, there is no compensation, or at 
least not much. Federal law provides a miserly $5,000 in cases of 
unjust imprisonment, regardless of the time served. In the case of 
Clyde Charles, who spent 18 years in Louisiana's Angola prison, that 
would come out to about 75 cents a day. Is that what society owes to 
Clyde Charles, for the walls placed between him and his family for 18 
years, for missing his daughter's childhood, and for the diabetes and 
tuberculosis he contracted in prison? Does that seem about right--75 
cents a day?
  How about nothing at all? In 36 States, people who have been unjustly 
convicted and incarcerated for crimes they did not commit are barred 
from recovering any damages against the State. Louisiana, which 
destroyed the life of Clyde Charles, has no compensation statute. The 
States that have compensation statutes generally put a cap on payments, 
although none sets the cap as low as the current Federal cap of $5,000.
  Let us step back and put this situation in perspective. A few years 
ago, a Maryland jury found that three young men had been falsely 
imprisoned by a security guard at an Eddie Bauer clothing store. The 
guard detained these men for about 10 minutes on suspicion of 
shoplifting, and forced one of them to remove his shirt. How much did 
the jury award for those 10 minutes of false imprisonment? $1 million.
  Now compare what happened to Walter McMillian. In 1986, in a small 
town in Alabama, an 18-year-old white woman was shot to death. Walter 
McMillian was a black man who lived in the next town. From the day of 
his arrest, McMillian was placed on death row. No physical evidence 
linked him to the crime, and several people testified at the trial that 
he could not have committed the murder because he was with them all 
day. All three witnesses who connected McMillian with the murder later 
recanted their testimony. The one supposed ``eyewitness'' said that 
prosecutors had pressured him to implicate McMillian in the crime.
  The jury in the trial recommended a life sentence, but the judge 
overruled this recommendation and sentenced McMillian to death. His 
case went through four rounds of appeal, all of which were denied. New 
attorneys, not paid by the State of Alabama, voluntarily took over the 
case and eventually found that the prosecutors had illegally withheld 
exculpatory evidence. A story about the case appeared on 60 Minutes in 
November 1992. Finally, the State agreed to investigate its earlier 
handling of the case and admitted that a grave mistake had been made. 
McMillian was freed into the welcoming arms of his family and friends 
on March 3, 1993.
  Despite many years of litigation, McMillian has never been given any 
recompense for the years he was unjustly held on death row. His 
attorney has taken the issue of just compensation all the way to the 
U.S. Supreme Court, but to no avail.
  Let us take another example in another State. In Oklahoma, 4 inmates 
have been exonerated by DNA testing over the past few years. When you 
add it up, they spent about 40 years in prison. Two of them were on 
death row. One came within 5 days of execution. None has received 
compensation--not a dime.
  Putting one's life back together after such an experience is 
difficult enough, even with financial support. Without such support, a 
wrongly convicted person might never be able to establish roots that 
would allow him to contribute to society.
  We need to do more to help repair the lives that are shattered by 
wrongful convictions. The Innocence Protection Act does this by raising 
the Federal cap on compensation, and by pushing the States to provide 
meaningful compensation to any person who is unjustly convicted and 
sentenced to death.
  Money damages will never compensate for the mental anguish of being 
falsely convicted, for the lost years, or for the day-to-day brutality 
and deprivations of prison. But we must do what we can. Society owes a 
moral debt to the wrongfully imprisoned; that debt should be paid.
  Finally, we as a Nation need to go back to first principles when it 
comes to deciding who is eligible for the death penalty. The United 
States stands alongside Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia as 
the only nations still executing people for crimes committed as 
juveniles. Is this the company that we want to keep?
  The execution of juvenile offenders is also barred by several major 
human rights treaties, including the U.N. Convention on the Rights of 
the Child, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights--perhaps the most 
important human rights documents in the world today. As a leader in the 
human rights community, it would be fitting if the United States agreed 
to respect the precepts of international humans rights law and comply 
with the terms of these treaties.
  This country should also stop executing the mentally retarded. People 
with mental retardation have a diminished capacity to understand right 
from wrong. They are more prone to confess to crimes they did not 
commit simply to please their interrogators, and they are often unable 
to assist their lawyer in preparing a defense. Executing them is wrong; 
it is immoral. In addition, the execution of the mentally retarded, 
like the execution of juvenile offenders, severely damages U.S. 
standing in the international community.
  Today, 13 States with capital punishment forbid the execution of 
defendants with mental retardation. The State Senator who sponsored the 
Nebraska bill in 1998 later said that it should not have been necessary 
because ``no civilized, mature society would ever entertain the 
possibility of executing anybody who was mentally retarded.''
  The legislation that I introduce today proposes that the United 
States Congress speak as the conscience of the Nation in condemning the 
continued execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded.
  There can be no longer be any question that our capital punishment 
system is in crisis. The Innocence Protection Act is the absolute 
minimum we must do to prevent and catch these mistakes and to restore 
the public's confidence in our criminal justice system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill, a summary of the bill, and 
additional material be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2690

       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 ``Innocence 
     Protection Act of 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

         TITLE I--EXONERATING THE INNOCENT THROUGH DNA TESTING

Sec. 101. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 102. DNA testing in Federal criminal justice system.
Sec. 103. DNA testing in State criminal justice systems.
Sec. 104. Prohibition pursuant to section 5 of the 14th amendment.

      TITLE II--ENSURING COMPETENT LEGAL SERVICES IN CAPITAL CASES

Sec. 201. Amendments to Byrne grant programs.
Sec. 202. Effect on procedural default rules.
Sec. 203. Capital representation grants.

             TITLE III--COMPENSATING THE UNJUSTLY CONDEMNED

Sec. 301. Increased compensation in Federal cases.
Sec. 302. Compensation in State death penalty cases.

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Accommodation of State interests in Federal death penalty 
              prosecutions.
Sec. 402. Alternative of life imprisonment without possibility of 
              release.
Sec. 403. Right to an informed jury.
Sec. 404. Annual reports.
Sec. 405. Discretionary appellate review.
Sec. 406. Sense of Congress regarding the execution of juvenile 
              offenders and the mentally retarded.

         TITLE I--EXONERATING THE INNOCENT THROUGH DNA TESTING

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid testing 
     (referred to in this section as ``DNA testing'') has emerged 
     as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying

[[Page S4677]]

     criminals when biological material is left at a crime scene.
       (2) Because of its scientific precision, DNA testing can, 
     in some cases, conclusively establish the guilt or innocence 
     of a criminal defendant. In other cases, DNA testing may not 
     conclusively establish guilt or innocence, but may have 
     significant probative value to a finder of fact.
       (3) While DNA testing is increasingly commonplace in 
     pretrial investigations today, it was not widely available in 
     cases tried prior to 1994. Moreover, new forensic DNA testing 
     procedures have made it possible to get results from minute 
     samples that could not previously be tested, and to obtain 
     more informative and accurate results than earlier forms of 
     forensic DNA testing could produce. Consequently, in some 
     cases convicted inmates have been exonerated by new DNA tests 
     after earlier tests had failed to produce definitive results.
       (4) Since DNA testing is often feasible on relevant 
     biological material that is decades old, it can, in some 
     circumstances, prove that a conviction that predated the 
     development of DNA testing was based upon incorrect factual 
     findings. Uniquely, DNA evidence showing innocence, produced 
     decades after a conviction, provides a more reliable basis 
     for establishing a correct verdict than any evidence 
     proffered at the original trial. DNA testing, therefore, can 
     and has resulted in the post-conviction exoneration of 
     innocent men and women.
       (5) In the past decade, there have been more than 65 post-
     conviction exonerations in the United States and Canada based 
     upon DNA testing. At least 8 individuals sentenced to death 
     have been exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing, 
     some of whom came within days of being executed.
       (6) The 2 States that have established statutory processes 
     for post-conviction DNA testing, Illinois and New York, have 
     the most post-conviction DNA exonerations, 14 and 7, 
     respectively.
       (7) The advent of DNA testing raises serious concerns 
     regarding the prevalence of wrongful convictions, especially 
     wrongful convictions arising out of mistaken eyewitness 
     identification testimony. According to a 1996 Department of 
     Justice study entitled ``Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by 
     Science: Case Studies of Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations'', 
     in approximately 20 to 30 percent of the cases referred for 
     DNA testing, the results excluded the primary suspect. 
     Without DNA testing, many of these individuals might have 
     been wrongfully convicted.
       (8) Laws in more than 30 States require that a motion for a 
     new trial based on newly discovered evidence of innocence be 
     filed within 6 months or less. These laws are premised on the 
     belief--inapplicable to DNA testing--that evidence becomes 
     less reliable over time. Such time limits have been used to 
     deny inmates access to DNA testing, even when guilt or 
     innocence could be conclusively established by such testing. 
     For example, in Dedge v. Florida, 723 So.2d 322 (Fla. Dist. 
     Ct. App. 1998), the court without opinion affirmed the denial 
     of a motion to release trial evidence for the purpose of DNA 
     testing. The trial court denied the motion as procedurally 
     barred under the 2-year limitation on claims of newly 
     discovered evidence established by the State of Florida, 
     which has since adopted a 6-month limitation on such claims.
       (9) Even when DNA testing has been done and has 
     persuasively demonstrated the actual innocence of an inmate, 
     States have sometimes relied on time limits and other 
     procedural barriers to deny release.
       (10) The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, 
     a Federal panel established by the Department of Justice and 
     comprised of law enforcement, judicial, and scientific 
     experts, has issued a report entitled ``Recommendations For 
     Handling Post-Conviction DNA Applications'' that urges post-
     conviction DNA testing in 2 carefully defined categories of 
     cases, notwithstanding procedural rules that could be invoked 
     to preclude such testing, and notwithstanding the inability 
     of the inmate to pay for the testing.
       (11) The number of cases in which post-conviction DNA 
     testing is appropriate is relatively small and will decrease 
     as pretrial testing becomes more common and accessible.
       (12) The cost of DNA testing has also decreased in recent 
     years. The typical case, involving the analysis of 8 samples, 
     currently costs between $2,400 and $5,000, depending upon 
     jurisdictional differences in personnel costs.
       (13) In 1994, Congress authorized funding to improve the 
     quality and availability of DNA analysis for law enforcement 
     identification purposes. Since then, States have been awarded 
     over $50,000,000 in DNA-related grants.
       (14) Although the Supreme Court has never announced a 
     standard for addressing constitutional claims of innocence, 
     in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), a majority of the 
     Court expressed the view that, ``a truly persuasive 
     demonstration of `actual innocence' '' made after trial would 
     render imposition of punishment by a State unconstitutional.
       (15) If biological material is not subjected to DNA testing 
     in appropriate cases, there is a significant risk that 
     persuasive evidence of innocence will not be detected and, 
     accordingly, that innocent persons will be unconstitutionally 
     incarcerated or executed.
       (16) To prevent violations of the Constitution of the 
     United States that the Supreme Court anticipated in Herrera 
     v. Collins, it is necessary and proper to enact national 
     legislation that ensures that the Federal Government and the 
     States will permit DNA testing in appropriate cases.
       (17) There is also a compelling need to ensure the 
     preservation of biological material for post-conviction DNA 
     testing. Since 1992, the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. 
     Cardozo School of Law has received thousands of letters from 
     inmates who claim that DNA testing could prove them innocent. 
     In over 70 percent of those cases in which DNA testing could 
     have been dispositive of guilt or innocence if the biological 
     material were available, the material had been destroyed or 
     lost. In two-thirds of the cases in which the evidence was 
     found, and DNA testing conducted, the results have exonerated 
     the inmate.
       (18) In at least 14 cases, post-conviction DNA testing that 
     has exonerated a wrongly convicted person has also provided 
     evidence leading to the apprehension of the actual 
     perpetrator, thereby enhancing public safety. This would not 
     have been possible if the biological evidence had been 
     destroyed.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to--
       (1) substantially implement the Recommendations of the 
     National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence in the 
     Federal criminal justice system, by ensuring the availability 
     of DNA testing in appropriate cases;
       (2) prevent the imposition of unconstitutional punishments 
     through the exercise of power granted by clause 1 of section 
     8 and clause 2 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution 
     of the United States and section 5 of the 14th amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States; and
       (3) ensure that wrongfully convicted persons have an 
     opportunity to establish their innocence through DNA testing, 
     by requiring the preservation of DNA evidence for a limited 
     period.

     SEC. 102. DNA TESTING IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Part VI of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after chapter 155 the following:

                       ``CHAPTER 156--DNA TESTING

``Sec.
``2291. DNA testing.
``2292. Preservation of biological material.

     ``Sec. 2291. DNA testing

       ``(a) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a court 
     established by an Act of Congress may, at any time after 
     conviction, apply to the court that entered the judgment for 
     forensic DNA testing of any biological material that--
       ``(1) is related to the investigation or prosecution that 
     resulted in the judgment;
       ``(2) is in the actual or constructive possession of the 
     Government; and
       ``(3) was not previously subjected to DNA testing, or can 
     be subjected to retesting with new DNA techniques that 
     provide a reasonable likelihood of more accurate and 
     probative results.
       ``(b) Notice to Government.--
       ``(1) In general.--The court shall notify the Government of 
     an application made under subsection (a) and shall afford the 
     Government an opportunity to respond.
       ``(2) Preservation of remaining biological material.--Upon 
     receiving notice of an application made under subsection (a), 
     the Government shall take such steps as are necessary to 
     ensure that any remaining biological material that was 
     secured in connection with the case is preserved pending the 
     completion of proceedings under this section.
       ``(c) Order.--The court shall order DNA testing pursuant to 
     an application made under subsection (a) upon a determination 
     that testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence 
     relevant to the claim of the applicant that the applicant was 
     wrongfully convicted or sentenced.
       ``(d) Cost.--The cost of DNA testing ordered under 
     subsection (c) shall be borne by the Government or the 
     applicant, as the court may order in the interests of 
     justice, if it is shown that the applicant is not indigent 
     and possesses the means to pay.
       ``(e) Counsel.--The court may at any time appoint counsel 
     for an indigent applicant under this section.
       ``(f) Post-Testing Procedures.--
       ``(1) Procedures following results unfavorable to 
     applicant.--If the results of DNA testing conducted under 
     this section are unfavorable to the applicant, the court--
       ``(A) shall dismiss the application; and
       ``(B) in the case of an applicant who is not indigent, may 
     assess the applicant for the cost of such testing.
       ``(2) Procedures following results favorable to 
     applicant.--If the results of DNA testing conducted under 
     this section are favorable to the applicant, the court 
     shall--
       ``(A) order a hearing, notwithstanding any provision of law 
     that would bar such a hearing; and
       ``(B) enter any order that serves the interests of justice, 
     including an order--
       ``(i) vacating and setting aside the judgment;
       ``(ii) discharging the applicant if the applicant is in 
     custody;
       ``(iii) resentencing the applicant; or
       ``(iv) granting a new trial.
       ``(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to limit the

[[Page S4678]]

     circumstances under which a person may obtain DNA testing or 
     other post-conviction relief under any other provision of 
     law.

     ``Sec. 2292. Preservation of biological material

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and subject to subsection (b), the Government shall 
     preserve any biological material secured in connection with a 
     criminal case for such period of time as any person remains 
     incarcerated in connection with that case.
       ``(b) Exception.--The Government may destroy biological 
     material before the expiration of the period of time 
     described in subsection (a) if--
       ``(1) the Government notifies any person who remains 
     incarcerated in connection with the case, and any counsel of 
     record or public defender organization for the judicial 
     district in which the judgment of conviction for such person 
     was entered, of--
       ``(A) the intention of the Government to destroy the 
     material; and
       ``(B) the provisions of this chapter;
       ``(2) no person makes an application under section 2291(a) 
     within 90 days of receiving notice under paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection; and
       ``(3) no other provision of law requires that such 
     biological material be preserved.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to chapter 155 the 
     following:

``156. DNA Testing..........................................2291''.....

     SEC. 103. DNA TESTING IN STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS.

       (a) DNA Identification Grant Program.--Section 2403 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796kk-2) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``shall'' and inserting ``will'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``is charged'' and 
     inserting ``was charged or convicted''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``will''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the State will--
       ``(A) preserve all biological material secured in 
     connection with a State criminal case for not less than the 
     period of time that biological material is required to be 
     preserved under section 2292 of title 28, United States Code, 
     in the case of a person incarcerated in connection with a 
     Federal criminal case; and
       ``(B) make DNA testing available to any person convicted in 
     State court to the same extent, and under the same 
     conditions, that DNA testing is available under section 2291 
     of title 28, United States Code, to any person convicted in a 
     court established by an Act of Congress.''.
       (b) Drug Control and System Improvement Grant Program.--
     Section 503(a)(12) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3753(a)(12)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (iii), by striking ``is charged'' and 
     inserting ``was charged or convicted''; and
       (B) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) the State will--
       ``(i) preserve all biological material secured in 
     connection with a State criminal case for not less than the 
     period of time that biological material is required to be 
     preserved under section 2292 of title 28, United States Code, 
     in the case of a person incarcerated in connection with a 
     Federal criminal case; and
       ``(ii) make DNA testing available to a person convicted in 
     State court to the same extent, and under the same 
     conditions, that DNA testing is available under section 2291 
     of title 28, United States Code, to a person convicted in a 
     court established by an Act of Congress.''.
       (c) Public Safety and Community Policing Grant Program.--
     Section 1702(c) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-1(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) if any part of funds received from a grant made 
     under this subchapter is to be used to develop or improve a 
     DNA analysis capability in a forensic laboratory, or to 
     obtain or analyze DNA samples for inclusion in the Combined 
     DNA Index System (CODIS), certify that--
       ``(A) DNA analyses performed at such laboratory will 
     satisfy or exceed the current standards for a quality 
     assurance program for DNA analysis, issued by the Director of 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation under section 210303 of 
     the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14131);
       ``(B) DNA samples and analyses obtained and performed by 
     such laboratory will be accessible only--
       ``(i) to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement 
     purposes;
       ``(ii) in judicial proceedings, if otherwise admissible 
     under applicable statutes and rules;
       ``(iii) for criminal defense purposes, to a defendant, who 
     shall have access to samples and analyses performed in 
     connection with the case in which the defendant was charged 
     or convicted; or
       ``(iv) if personally identifiable information is removed, 
     for a population statistics database, for identification 
     research and protocol development purposes, or for quality 
     control purposes;
       ``(C) the laboratory and each analyst performing DNA 
     analyses at the laboratory will undergo, at regular intervals 
     not exceeding 180 days, external proficiency testing by a DNA 
     proficiency testing program that meets the standards issued 
     under section 210303 of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 
     (42 U.S.C. 14131); and
       ``(D) the State will--
       ``(i) preserve all biological material secured in 
     connection with a State criminal case for not less than the 
     period of time that biological material is required to be 
     preserved under section 2292 of title 28, United States Code, 
     in the case of a person incarcerated in connection with a 
     Federal criminal case; and
       ``(ii) make DNA testing available to any person convicted 
     in State court to the same extent, and under the same 
     conditions, that DNA testing is available under section 2291 
     of title 28, United States Code, to a person convicted in a 
     court established by an Act of Congress.''.

     SEC. 104. PROHIBITION PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 OF THE 14TH 
                   AMENDMENT.

       (a) Request for DNA Testing.--
       (1) In general.--No State shall deny a request, made by a 
     person in custody resulting from a State court judgment, for 
     DNA testing of biological material that--
       (A) is related to the investigation or prosecution that 
     resulted in the conviction of the person or the sentence 
     imposed on the person;
       (B) is in the actual or constructive possession of the 
     State; and
       (C) was not previously subjected to DNA testing, or can be 
     subjected to retesting with new DNA techniques that provide a 
     reasonable likelihood of more accurate and probative results.
       (2) Exception.--A State may deny a request under paragraph 
     (1) upon a judicial determination that testing could not 
     produce noncumulative evidence establishing a reasonable 
     probability that the person was wrongfully convicted or 
     sentenced.
       (b) Opportunity To Present Results of DNA Testing.--No 
     State shall rely upon a time limit or procedural default rule 
     to deny a person an opportunity to present noncumulative, 
     exculpatory DNA results in court, or in an executive or 
     administrative forum in which a decision is made in 
     accordance with procedural due process.
       (c) Remedy.--A person may enforce subsections (a) and (b) 
     in a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief, filed 
     either in a State court of general jurisdiction or in a 
     district court of the United States, naming either the State 
     or an executive or judicial officer of the State as 
     defendant. No State or State executive or judicial officer 
     shall have immunity from actions under this subsection.

      TITLE II--ENSURING COMPETENT LEGAL SERVICES IN CAPITAL CASES

     SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO BYRNE GRANT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Certification Requirement; Formula Grants.--Section 503 
     of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3753) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) If the State prescribes, authorizes, or permits the 
     penalty of death for any offense, a certification that the 
     State has established and maintains an effective system for 
     providing competent legal services to indigents at every 
     phase of a State criminal prosecution in which a death 
     sentence is sought or has been imposed, up to and including 
     direct appellate review and post-conviction review in State 
     court.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) Within 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this part, the'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Certification regulations.--The Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts, after 
     notice and an opportunity for comment, shall promulgate 
     regulations specifying the elements of an effective system 
     within the meaning of subsection (a)(13), which elements 
     shall include--
       ``(A) a centralized and independent appointing authority, 
     which shall have authority and responsibility to--
       ``(i) recruit attorneys who are qualified to represent 
     indigents in the capital proceedings specified in subsection 
     (a)(13);
       ``(ii) draft and annually publish a roster of qualified 
     attorneys;
       ``(iii) draft and annually publish qualifications and 
     performance standards that attorneys must satisfy to be 
     listed on the roster and procedures by which qualified 
     attorneys are identified;
       ``(iv) periodically review the roster, monitor the 
     performance of all attorneys appointed, provide a mechanism 
     by which members of the Bar may comment on the

[[Page S4679]]

     performance of their peers, and delete the name of any 
     attorney who fails to complete regular training programs on 
     the representation of clients in capital cases, fails to meet 
     performance standards in a case to which the attorney is 
     appointed, or otherwise fails to demonstrate continuing 
     competence to represent clients in capital cases;
       ``(v) conduct or sponsor specialized training programs for 
     attorneys representing clients in capital cases;
       ``(vi) appoint lead counsel and co-counsel from the roster 
     to represent a defendant in a capital case promptly upon 
     receiving notice of the need for an appointment from the 
     relevant State court; and
       ``(vii) report the appointment, or the failure of the 
     defendant to accept such appointment, to the court requesting 
     the appointment;
       ``(B) compensation of private attorneys for actual time and 
     service, computed on an hourly basis and at a reasonable 
     hourly rate in light of the qualifications and experience of 
     the attorney and the local market for legal representation in 
     cases reflecting the complexity and responsibility of capital 
     cases;
       ``(C) reimbursement of private attorneys and public 
     defender organizations for attorney expenses reasonably 
     incurred in the representation of a client in a capital case, 
     computed on an hourly basis reflecting the local market for 
     such services; and
       ``(D) reimbursement of private attorneys and public 
     defender organizations for the reasonable costs of law 
     clerks, paralegals, investigators, experts, scientific tests, 
     and other support services necessary in the representation of 
     a defendant in a capital case, computed on an hourly basis 
     reflecting the local market for such services.''.
       (b) Certification Requirement; Discretionary Grants.--
     Section 517(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3763(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) satisfies the certification requirement established 
     by section 503(a)(13).''.
       (c) Director's Reports to Congress.--Section 522(b) of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3766b(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) descriptions and a comparative analysis of the 
     systems established by each State in order to satisfy the 
     certification requirement established by section 503(a)(13), 
     except that the descriptions and the comparative analysis 
     shall include--
       ``(A) the qualifications and performance standards 
     established pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(A)(iii);
       ``(B) the rates of compensation paid under section 
     503(b)(2)(B); and
       ``(C) the rates of reimbursement paid under subparagraphs 
     (C) and (D) of section 503(b)(2); and''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by this section shall apply with respect to any 
     application submitted on or after the date that is 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     not take effect until the amount made available for a fiscal 
     year to carry out part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 equals or exceeds an 
     amount that is $50,000,000 greater than the amount made 
     available to carry out that part for fiscal year 2000.
       (e) Regulations.--The Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts shall issue all regulations 
     necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section 
     not later than 180 days before the effective date of those 
     regulations.

     SEC. 202. EFFECT ON PROCEDURAL DEFAULT RULES.

       Section 2254(e) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``In a proceeding'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), in a 
     proceeding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) In a proceeding instituted by an indigent applicant 
     under sentence of death, the court shall neither presume a 
     finding of fact made by a State court to be correct nor 
     decline to consider a claim on the ground that the applicant 
     failed to raise such claim in State court at the time and in 
     the manner prescribed by State law, unless--
       ``(A) the State provided the applicant with legal services 
     at the stage of the State proceedings at which the State 
     court made the finding of fact or the applicant failed to 
     raise the claim; and
       ``(B) the legal services the State provided satisfied the 
     regulations promulgated by the Director of the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts pursuant to section 
     503(b)(2) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968.''.

     SEC. 203. CAPITAL REPRESENTATION GRANTS.

       Section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (i), (j), and (k) as 
     subsections (j), (k), and (l), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
       ``(i) Capital Representation Grants.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `capital case'--
       ``(i) means any criminal case in which a defendant 
     prosecuted in a State court is subject to a sentence of death 
     or in which a death sentence has been imposed; and
       ``(ii) includes all proceedings filed in connection with 
     the case, including trial, appellate, and Federal and State 
     post-conviction proceedings;
       ``(B) the term `defense services' includes--
       ``(i) recruitment of counsel;
       ``(ii) training of counsel;
       ``(iii) legal and administrative support and assistance to 
     counsel;
       ``(iv) direct representation of defendants, if the 
     availability of other qualified counsel is inadequate to meet 
     the need in the jurisdiction served by the grant recipient; 
     and
       ``(v) investigative, expert, or other services necessary 
     for adequate representation; and
       ``(C) the term `Director' means the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
       ``(2) Grant award and contract authority.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (g), the Director shall award grants to, or enter 
     into contracts with, public agencies or private nonprofit 
     organizations for the purpose of providing defense services 
     in capital cases.
       ``(3) Purposes.--Grants and contracts awarded under this 
     subsection shall be used in connection with capital cases in 
     the jurisdiction of the grant recipient for 1 or more of the 
     following purposes:
       ``(A) Enhancing the availability, competence, and prompt 
     assignment of counsel.
       ``(B) Encouraging continuity of representation between 
     Federal and State proceedings.
       ``(C) Decreasing the cost of providing qualified counsel.
       ``(D) Increasing the efficiency with which such cases are 
     resolved.
       ``(4) Guidelines.--The Director, in consultation with the 
     Judicial Conference of the United States, shall develop 
     guidelines to ensure that defense services provided by 
     recipients of grants and contracts awarded under this 
     subsection are consistent with applicable legal and ethical 
     proscriptions governing the duties of counsel in capital 
     cases.
       ``(5) Consultation.--In awarding grants and contracts under 
     this subsection, the Director shall consult with 
     representatives of the highest State court, the organized 
     bar, and the defense bar of the jurisdiction to be served by 
     the recipient of the grant or contract.''.

             TITLE III--COMPENSATING THE UNJUSTLY CONDEMNED

     SEC. 301. INCREASED COMPENSATION IN FEDERAL CASES.

       Section 2513 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Damages.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of damages awarded in an 
     action described in subsection (a) shall not exceed $50,000 
     for each 12-month period of incarceration, except that a 
     plaintiff who was unjustly sentenced to death may be awarded 
     not more than $100,000 for each 12-month period of 
     incarceration.
       ``(2) Factors for consideration in assessing damages.--In 
     assessing damages in an action described in subsection (a), 
     the court shall consider--
       ``(A) the circumstances surrounding the unjust conviction 
     of the plaintiff, including any misconduct by officers or 
     employees of the Federal Government;
       ``(B) the length and conditions of the unjust incarceration 
     of the plaintiff; and
       ``(C) the family circumstances, loss of wages, and pain and 
     suffering of the plaintiff.''.

     SEC. 302. COMPENSATION IN STATE DEATH PENALTY CASES.

       (a) Criminal Justice Facility Construction Grant Program.--
     Section 603(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3769b(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) reasonable assurance that the applicant, or the State 
     in which the applicant is located--
       ``(A) does not prescribe, authorize, or permit the penalty 
     of death for any offense; or
       ``(B)(i) has established and maintains an effective 
     procedure by which any person unjustly convicted of an 
     offense against the State and sentenced to death may be 
     awarded reasonable damages upon substantial proof that the 
     person did not commit any of the acts with which the person 
     was charged; and
       ``(ii)(I) the conviction of that person was reversed or set 
     aside on the ground that the person was not guilty of the 
     offense or offenses of which the person was convicted;
       ``(II) the person was found not guilty of such offense or 
     offenses on new trial or rehearing; or
       ``(III) the person was pardoned upon the stated ground of 
     innocence and unjust conviction.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to any application submitted on or 
     after the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

[[Page S4680]]

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. ACCOMMODATION OF STATE INTERESTS IN FEDERAL DEATH 
                   PENALTY PROSECUTIONS.

       (a) Recognition of State Interests.--Chapter 228 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3599. Accommodation of State interests; certification 
       requirement

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Government shall not seek the death penalty in any 
     case initially brought before a district court of the United 
     States that sits in a State that does not prescribe, 
     authorize, or permit the imposition of such penalty for the 
     alleged conduct, except upon the certification in writing of 
     the Attorney General or the designee of the Attorney General 
     that--
       ``(1) the State does not have jurisdiction or refuses to 
     assume jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to the 
     alleged conduct;
       ``(2) the State has requested that the Federal Government 
     assume jurisdiction; or
       ``(3) the offense charged is an offense described in 
     section 32, 229, 351, 794, 1091, 1114, 1118, 1203, 1751, 
     1992, 2340A, or 2381, or chapter 113B.
       ``(b) ``State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' 
     means each of the several States of the United States, the 
     District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of 
     the United States.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 228 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``3599. Accommodation of State interests; certification requirement.''.

     SEC. 402. ALTERNATIVE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT 
                   POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE.

       Section 408(l) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     848(l)), is amended by striking the first 2 sentences and 
     inserting the following: ``Upon a recommendation under 
     subsection (k) that the defendant should be sentenced to 
     death or life imprisonment without possibility of release, 
     the court shall sentence the defendant accordingly. 
     Otherwise, the court shall impose any lesser sentence that is 
     authorized by law.''.

     SEC. 403. RIGHT TO AN INFORMED JURY.

       (a) Additional Requirements.--Section 20105 of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     13705) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Additional Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under section 20103 or 20104, a State shall provide 
     assurances to the Attorney General that--
       ``(1) the State has implemented policies that provide for 
     the recognition of the rights and needs of crime victims; and
       ``(2) in any capital case in which the jury has a role in 
     determining the sentence imposed on the defendant, the court, 
     at the request of the defendant, shall inform the jury of all 
     statutorily authorized sentencing options in the particular 
     case, including applicable parole eligibility rules and 
     terms.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to any application for a grant under 
     section 20103 or 20104 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13703; 13704) that is 
     submitted on or after the date that is 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 404. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney 
     General shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report 
     concerning the administration of capital punishment laws by 
     the Federal Government and the States.
       (b) Report Elements.--The report required under subsection 
     (a) shall include substantially the same categories of 
     information as are included in the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics Bulletin entitled ``Capital Punishment 1998'' 
     (December 1999, NCJ 179012), and the following additional 
     categories of information:
       (1) The percentage of death-eligible cases in which a death 
     sentence is sought, and the percentage in which it is 
     imposed.
       (2) The race of the defendants in death-eligible cases, 
     including death-eligible cases in which a death sentence is 
     not sought, and the race of the victims.
       (3) An analysis of the effect of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 
     391 U.S. 510 (1968), and its progeny, on the composition of 
     juries in capital cases, including the racial composition of 
     such juries, and on the exclusion of otherwise eligible and 
     available jurors from such cases.
       (4) An analysis of the effect of peremptory challenges, by 
     the prosecution and defense respectively, on the composition 
     of juries in capital cases, including the racial composition 
     of such juries, and on the exclusion of otherwise eligible 
     and available jurors from such cases.
       (5) The percentage of capital cases in which life without 
     parole is available as an alternative to a death sentence, 
     and the sentences imposed in such cases.
       (6) The percentage of capital cases in which life without 
     parole is not available as an alternative to a death 
     sentence, and the sentences imposed in such cases.
       (7) The percentage of capital cases in which counsel is 
     retained by the defendant, and the percentage in which 
     counsel is appointed by the court.
       (8) A comparative analysis of systems for appointing 
     counsel in capital cases in different States.
       (9) A State-by-State analysis of the rates of compensation 
     paid in capital cases to appointed counsel and their support 
     staffs.
       (10) The percentage of cases in which a death sentence or a 
     conviction underlying a death sentence is vacated, reversed, 
     or set aside, and the reasons therefore.
       (c) Public Disclosure.--The Attorney General or the 
     Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, as appropriate, 
     shall ensure that the reports referred to in subsection (a) 
     are--
       (1) distributed to national print and broadcast media; and
       (2) posted on an Internet website maintained by the 
     Department of Justice.

     SEC. 405. DISCRETIONARY APPELLATE REVIEW.

       Section 2254(c) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), if the highest court 
     of a State has discretion to decline appellate review of a 
     case or a claim, a petition asking that court to entertain a 
     case or a claim is not an available State court procedure.''.

     SEC. 406. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE EXECUTION OF 
                   JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND THE MENTALLY RETARDED.

       It is the sense of Congress that the death penalty is 
     disproportionate and offends contemporary standards of 
     decency when applied to a person who is mentally retarded or 
     who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the 
     offense.
                                  ____


      Innocence Protection Act of 2000--Section-by-Section Summary


                                overview

       The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 is a comprehensive 
     package of criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the 
     risk that innocent persons may be executed. Most urgently, 
     the bill would (1) ensure that convicted offenders are 
     afforded an opportunity to prove their innocence through DNA 
     testing; (2) help States to provide competent legal services 
     at every stage of a death penalty prosecution; (3) enable 
     those who can prove their innocence to recover some measure 
     of compensation for their unjust incarceration; and (4) 
     provide the public with more reliable and detailed 
     information regarding the administration of the nation's 
     capital punishment laws.


   title I--exonerating the innocent through federal post-conviction 
                                 review

       Sec. 101. Findings and purposes. Legislative findings and 
     purposes in support of this title.
       Sec. 102. DNA testing in Federal criminal justice system. 
     Establishes rules and procedures governing applications for 
     DNA testing by convicted offenders in the Federal system. An 
     applicant must allege that evidence to be tested (1) is 
     related to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in 
     the applicant's conviction; (2) is in the government's actual 
     or constructive possession; and (3) was not previously 
     subjected to DNA testing, or to the form of DNA testing now 
     requested. The court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel 
     for an indigent applicant.
       Because access to DNA testing is of no value unless 
     evidence containing DNA has been preserved, this section also 
     prohibits the government from destroying any biological 
     material in a criminal case while any person remains 
     incarcerated in connection with that case, unless such person 
     is notified of the government's intent to destroy the 
     material, and afforded at least 90 days to request DNA 
     testing under this title.
       Sec. 103. DNA testing in State criminal justice system. 
     Conditions receipt of Federal grants for DNA-related programs 
     on an assurance that the State will adopt adequate procedures 
     for preserving biological material and making DNA testing 
     available to its inmates.
       Sec. 104. Prohibition pursuant to section 5 of the 14th 
     amendment. Prohibits States from (1) denying requests for DNA 
     testing that could produce new exculpatory evidence or (2) 
     denying inmates a meaningful opportunity to prove their 
     innocence using the results of DNA testing. Creates an 
     authority to sue for declaratory or injunctive relief to 
     enforce these prohibitions.


      title ii--ensuring competent legal services in capital cases

       Sec. 201. Amendments to Byrne grant programs. Conditions 
     Federal funding under the Byrne grant programs--when such 
     funding equals or exceeds an amount that is $50 million 
     greater than the amount appropriated for such programs in FY 
     2000--on certification that the State has established and 
     maintains an ``effective system'' for providing competent 
     legal services to indigent defendants at every stage of death 
     penalty prosecution, from pre-trial proceedings through post-
     conviction review. The Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts is charged with specifying the 
     elements of an ``effective system,'' which must include a 
     centralized and independent authority for appointing 
     attorneys in capital cases, and adequate compensation and 
     reimbursement of such attorneys.
       Sec. 202. Effect on procedural default rules. Provides that 
     certain procedural barriers to Federal habeas corpus review 
     shall not apply if the State failed to provide the petitioner 
     with adequate legal services.
       Sec. 203. Capital representation grants. Amends the 
     Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A, to make more 
     Federal funding available to public agencies and private non-
     profit organizations for purposes of enhancing

[[Page S4681]]

     the availability and competence of counsel in capital cases, 
     encouraging the continuity of representation in such cases, 
     decreasing the cost of providing qualified death penalty 
     counsel, and increasing the efficiency with which capital 
     cases are resolved.


             title iii--compensating the unjustly condemned

       Sec. 301. Increased compensation in Federal cases. Raises 
     the total amount of damages that may be awarded against the 
     United States in cases of unjust imprisonment from $5,000 to 
     $50,000 a year in a non-death penalty case, or $100,000 a 
     year in a death penalty case. Identifies factors for court to 
     consider in assessing damages.
       Sec. 302. Compensation in State death cases. Encourages 
     States to permit any person who was unjustly convicted and 
     sentenced to death to be awarded reasonable damages, upon 
     substantial proof of innocence and formal exoneration, by 
     adding a new condition for Federal funding to assist in 
     construction of correctional facility projects.


                        title iv--miscellaneous

       Sec. 401. Accommodation of State interests in Federal 
     death-penalty prosecutions. Protects the interests of States 
     (including the District of Columbia and any commonwealth, 
     territory or possession of the United States) by limiting the 
     Federal government's authority to seek the death penalty in 
     States that do not permit the imposition of such penalty. 
     Department of Justice guidelines provide that in cases of 
     concurrent jurisdiction, ``a Federal indictment for an 
     offense subject to the death penalty will be obtained only 
     when the Federal interest in the prosecution is more 
     substantial than the interests of the State or local 
     authorities.'' Section 401 builds on that principle by 
     requiring the Attorney General or her designee to certify 
     that (1) the State does not have jurisdiction or refuses to 
     assume jurisdiction over the defendant; (2) the State has 
     requested that the Federal government assume jurisdiction; or 
     (3) the offense charged involves genocide; terrorism; use of 
     chemical weapons or weapons of mass-destruction; destruction 
     of aircraft, trains, or other instrumentalities or facilities 
     of interstate commerce; hostage taking; torture; espionage; 
     treason; the killing of certain high public officials; or 
     murder by a Federal prisoner.
       Sec. 402. Alternative of life imprisonment without 
     possibility of release. Provides juries in Federal death 
     penalty prosecutions brought under the drug kingpin statute, 
     21 U.S.C. Sec. 848(l), the option of recommending life 
     imprisonment without possibility of release. This amendment 
     brings the drug kingpin statute into conformity with the more 
     recently-enacted death penalty procedures in title 18, which 
     govern most Federal death penalty prosecutions. See 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 3594.
       Sec. 403. Right to an informed jury. Conditions Federal 
     truth-in-sentencing grants upon certification that, in any 
     capital case in which the jury has a role in determining the 
     defendant's sentence, the defendant has the right to have the 
     jury informed of all statutorily-authorized sentencing 
     options in the particular case, including applicable parole 
     eligibility rules and terms. The purpose is to give full 
     effect to the due process principles underlying the Supreme 
     Court's decision in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 
     (1994), which held that a defendant who has been convicted of 
     a capital offense is entitled to an instruction informing the 
     sentencing jury that he is ineligible for parole under State 
     law.
       Sec. 404. Annual reports. Directs the Justice Department to 
     prepare an annual report regarding the administration of the 
     nation's capital punishment laws. The report must be 
     submitted to Congress, distributed to the press and posted on 
     the Internet.
       Sec. 405. Discretionary appellate review. Respects State 
     procedural rules by allowing Federal habeas corpus 
     petitioners to raise claims that State courts discouraged 
     them from raising when seeking discretionary review in the 
     State's highest court. Responds to the Supreme Court's 
     decision in O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 119 S. Ct. 1728 (1999), 
     which held that a State prisoner must present his claims to a 
     State supreme court in a petition for discretionary review in 
     order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2254(b)(1), (c).
       Sec. 406. Sense of the Congress regarding the execution of 
     juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded. Expresses the 
     sense of the Congress that the death penalty is 
     disproportionate and offends contemporary standards of 
     decency when applied to juvenile offenders and the mentally 
     retarded.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, June 6, 2000]

                         Thoughts on Executions

       In his decision to halt Thursday evening's execution of a 
     convicted killer for a period of 30 days, Texas Gov. George 
     W. Bush did what had to be done. Where there is no shadow of 
     a doubt, the death penalty can sometimes be the right course 
     of action. Yet, where doubt, any doubt, remains, the 
     consequences are awesome. In the case of Ricky Nolan McGinn, 
     who was sentenced to death for raping and murdering his 13-
     year-old stepdaughter in 1993, there seems to be some 
     uncertainty, in which case every means should be used to 
     establish the truth. When you take a man's life, you take 
     everything he's got. There simply is no way to make up for a 
     mistake made in the execution chamber.
       Mr. Bush cannot be accused of being soft on criminals. 
     During his five and a half years in office, Mr. Bush has 
     presided over more executions than any other governor in the 
     country: 131, all told. Most famously, Mr. Bush refused to 
     reduce the sentence of Karla Faye Tucker in 1998. She had 
     been convicted of the particularly horrible execution-style 
     murder of two persons during a gas station robbery, and while 
     in prison had become a born-again Christian. Though religious 
     leaders such as Pat Robertson pleaded for her life, Mr. Bush 
     allowed the execution to go forward. The fact that he has 
     chosen to grant a 30-day reprieve in this one case can hardly 
     be said to indicate a change of heart on the death penalty.
       Nevertheless, in the partisan heat of a presidential 
     election year, Mr. Bush has been accused of playing politics 
     with the death penalty. If this is the case, he is doing so 
     on the side of giving someone on death row a final chance. 
     This contrasts with Gov. Bill Clinton's decision to proceed 
     with the execution of a severely retarded Arkansas man during 
     the 1992 presidential election campaign, which was meant to 
     establish his tough-on-crime credentials.
       But beyond the question of politics, there's science. Mr. 
     Bush is catching a nationwide movement, based on advances 
     that are making DNA testing increasingly sophisticated. The 
     increased use of DNA analysis has in fact revealed serious 
     flaws in the way the justice system exacts the supreme 
     penalty. The trend towards state moratoria on executions has 
     been led by Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, a Republican. In 
     Illinois, during the course of the 23 years since the death 
     penalty was reinstated, a dozen persons have been put to 
     death--but 13 have been cleared of capital murder charges 
     through DNA testing after having been sentenced to death. 
     This is a stunning and sobering fact. Unless Illinois is 
     vastly different from the rest of the United States, that 
     statistic ought to produce second thoughts for everyone. (One 
     of those second thoughts might be that for every innocent man 
     executed, a guilty man is still out there, unpunished.)
       We do not suggest here that the United States should stop 
     punishing the guilty to the fullest extent of the law, even 
     if that means death. However, if this country is to have the 
     death penalty, we must be as certain as is humanly possible 
     that executions are restricted to the guilty. States should 
     be encouraged to make sure that is the case. Even if 66 
     percent of Americans support the death penalty, it is no 
     argument to say (as some conservatives have done) that the 
     death of an innocent person here or there is not enough to 
     reconsider what we are doing. This argument has been put 
     forward by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Some have even argued that 
     this may be the price of the death penalty's deterrent 
     effect; Rep. Bill McCollum, Florida Republican, suggested as 
     much in an article for the Atlantic Monthly last year.
       Perhaps the most cogent argument against the death penalty 
     is that it degrades the sensibilities of otherwise good and 
     reasonable men and women, who have come to believe in it so 
     obsessively that they would impose it on the innocent if that 
     is the only way to keep the death penalty in the law.
       During a moratorium, the state would keep its electricity 
     and gas bills paid and its stockpiles of potassium chloride 
     intact against the day when the moratorium ends and 
     executions resume--presumably following improvements in the 
     way convictions are produced. Surely no one could reasonably 
     object to making sure we execute only the guilty.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 6, 2000]

                         Innocent On Death Row

                          (By George F. Will)

       ``Don't you worry about it,'' said the Oklahoma prosecutor 
     to the defense attorney. ``We're gonna needle your client. 
     You know, lethal injection, the needle. We're going to needle 
     Robert.''
       Oklahoma almost did. Robert Miller spent nine years on 
     death row, during six of which the state had DNA test results 
     proving his sperm was not that of the man who raped and 
     killed the 92-year-old woman. The prosecutor said the tests 
     only proved that another man had been with Miller during the 
     crime. Finally, the weight of scientific evidence, wielded by 
     an implacable defense attorney, got Miller released and 
     another man indicted.
       You could fill a book with such hair-curling true stories 
     of blighted lives and justice traduced. Three authors have 
     filled one. It should change the argument about capital 
     punishment and other aspects of the criminal justice system. 
     Conservatives, especially, should draw this lesson from the 
     book: Capital punishment, like the rest of the criminal 
     justice system, is a government program, so skepticism is in 
     order.
       Horror, too, is a reasonable response to what Barry Scheck, 
     Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer demonstrate in ``Actual 
     Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches From 
     the Wrongly Convicted.'' You will not soon read a more 
     frightening book. It is a catalog of appalling miscarriages 
     of justice, some of them nearly lethal. Their cumulative 
     weight compels the conclusion that many innocent people are 
     in prison, and some innocent people have been executed.
       Scheck and Neufeld (both members of O.J. Simpson's ``dream 
     team'' of defense attorneys) founded the pro-bono Innocence 
     Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York 
     to aid persons who convincingly claim to have been wrongly 
     convicted. Dwyer, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes,

[[Page S4682]]

     is a columnist for the New York Daily News. Their book is a 
     heartbreaking and infuriating compendium of stories of lives 
     ruined by:
       Forensic fraud, such as that by the medical examiner who, 
     in one death report, included the weight of the gallbladder 
     and spleen of a man from whom both organs had been surgically 
     removed long ago.
       Mistaken identifications by eyewitnesses or victims, which 
     contributed to 84 percent of the convictions overturned by 
     the Innocence Project's DNA exonerations.
       Criminal investigations, especially of the most heinous 
     crimes, that become ``echo chambers'' in which, because of 
     the normal human craving for retribution, the perceptions of 
     prosecutors and jurors are shaped by what they want to be 
     true. (The authors cite evidence that most juries will 
     convict even when admissions have been repudiated by the 
     defendant and contradicted by physical evidence.)
       The sinnister culture of jailhouse snitches, who earn 
     reduced sentences by fabricating ``admissions'' by fellow 
     inmates to unsolved crimes.
       Incompetent defense representation, such as that by the 
     Kentucky attorney in a capital case who gave his business 
     address as Kelly's Keg tavern.
       The list of ways the criminal justice system misfires could 
     be extended, but some numbers tell the most serious story: In 
     the 24 years since the resumption of executions under Supreme 
     Court guidelines, about 620 have occurred, but 87 condemned 
     persons--one for every seven executed--had their convictions 
     vacated by exonerating evidence. In eight of these cases, and 
     in many more exonerations not involving death row inmates, 
     the evidence was from DNA.
       One inescapable inference from these numbers is that some 
     of the 620 persons executed were innocent. Which is why, 
     after the exoneration of 13 prisoners on Illinois' death row 
     since 1987, for reasons including exculpatory DNA evidence, 
     Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, has imposed a moratorium on 
     executions.
       Scheck, Neufeld and Dwyer note that when a plane crashes, 
     an intensive investigation is undertaken to locate the cause 
     and prevent recurrences. Why is there no comparable urgency 
     about demonstrable, multiplying failures in the criminal 
     justice system? They recommend many reforms, especially 
     pertaining to the use of DNA and the prevention of forensic 
     incompetence and fraud. Sen. Patrick Leahy's Innocence 
     Protection Act would enable inmates to get DNA testing 
     pertinent to a conviction or death sentence, and ensure that 
     courts will hear resulting evidence.
       The good news is that science can increasingly serve the 
     defense of innocence. But there is other news.
       Two powerful arguments for capital punishment are that it 
     saves lives, if its deterrence effect is not vitiated by 
     sporadic implementation, and it heightens society's valuation 
     of life by expressing proportionate anger at the taking of 
     life. But that valuation is lowered by careless or corrupt 
     administration of capital punishment, which ``Actual 
     Innocence'' powerfully suggests is intolerably common.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Apr. 25, 2000]

                    Death Edict For the Guilty Only

                             (By Bruce Fein)

       Can reasonable people dispute that the government should 
     confine the death penalty to persons guilty of the crime 
     charged? And can reasonable people deny that the climbing 
     number of exonerations of death row inmates on the ground of 
     actual innocence creates chilling worries on that scores?
       Those questions make both urgent and compelling enactment 
     of the cool-headed bill (S. 2071) by Sen. Patrick Leahy, 
     Vermont Democrat, to upgrade the reliability of verdicts in 
     capital cases.
       Manifold reasons justify the death penalty (which the U.S. 
     Supreme Court has restricted to crimes of homicide): 
     retribution against offenders whose killings are earmarked by 
     shocking and barbaric wickedness, something akin to the Adolf 
     Eichmann example; to control prison inmates already laboring 
     under life sentences with no parole possibilities; to deter 
     the murder of police or crime witnesses in the hope of 
     escaping punishment of a lesser crime; and encouraging guilty 
     pleas contingent on cooperation with prosecutors in murder 
     conspiracy cases in exchange for a non-capital sentence.
       Whether death sentences in general deter crime is hotly 
     disputed. but if they do, their effects would not even begin 
     to dent the crime problem.
       A decent respect for life also demands scrupulous concern 
     for the reliability of verdicts in capital punishment trials. 
     Otherwise, the death penalty game is not worth the gamble of 
     executing the innocent--a shameful stain on any system of 
     Justice--and life sentences (perhaps in solitary confinement) 
     without parole should be the maximum.
       The Leahy bill laudably aims to preserve the death penalty 
     by slashing the prevailing and highly worrisome risk of 
     executing the innocent through greater DNA testing and 
     competent defense counsel.
       Unzip you ears to these facts. Since the Supreme Court in 
     1976 affirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty for 
     heinous and aggravated murders, 610 death sentences have been 
     implemented. Concurrently, 85 death row prisoners have been 
     released not for technical procedural flukes but because of 
     exculpatory evidence establishing their innocence. In other 
     words, for every seven executions approximately one capital 
     sentence has been levied on an innocent defendant.
       Moreover, the detections of these grim injustices has been 
     more haphazard than systematic. The case Randall Dale Adams 
     and Antony Porter are emblematic.
       The former was released after attracting the attention of 
     cinematic genius, Earl Morris. His gripping movie, ``The Thin 
     Blue Line,'' discredited the prosecution's case to a 
     nationally awakened audience.
       Mr. Porter had lived with the Sword of Damocles for 16 
     years, and in 1998 his hourglass fell to 48 hours. He was 
     saved from wrongful execution by the plucky work of 
     Northwestern University undergraduate journalism students, 
     who proved Mr. Antony's innocence, a verdict that the 
     State of Illinois conceded.
       Quirks and citizen altruism, however, are woefully 
     inadequate safeguards against executing the innocent. While 
     nothing in life is absolutely certain but death and taxes, 
     the Leahy bill would add two muscular measures to make the 
     truth-finding process in capital cases as reliable as is 
     reasonably feasible.
       First, post-conviction DNA testing of biological material 
     would be available to an inmate through court order upon a 
     demonstration that the test could provide noncumulative 
     exculpatory evidence; that the material is actually or 
     constructively possessed by the government; and that no 
     previous DNA test had been conducted or that new DNA 
     techniques might reasonably yield more accurate and probative 
     evidence. Jurisdictions also would be directed to preserve 
     biological material gathered in the course of an 
     investigation during the period of the criminal's 
     incarceration for the purpose of possible DNA testing.
       Of vastly greater importance to reliable death penalty 
     verdicts, however, is securing competent defense counsel in 
     lieu of incompetence or worse. The U.S. Supreme Court has 
     repeatedly celebrated the indispensability of reasonably 
     skilled lawyers to reliable verdicts. In the infamous 
     Scottsboro, Ala., criminal justice farce, Powell vs. Alabama 
     (1932), Justice George Sutherland, speaking for a unanimous 
     court, lectured: ``Left without the aid of counsel [the 
     accused] may be put on trial without a proper charge, and 
     convicted on incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to 
     the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill 
     and knowledge to prepare his defense, even though he has a 
     perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every 
     step of the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be 
     not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does 
     not know how to establish his innocence.''
       Capital cases generally feature indigent defendants. And 
     their court-appointed lawyers are frequently deficient 
     because of austere rates of reimbursement or plain laziness.
       For instance, the lawyer appointed to represent Ronald 
     Keith Williamson was uncurious about the fact that another 
     had confessed to the crime. He neglected to raise the 
     exculpatory confession at trial, Williamson was convicted, 
     and was later proven innocent through DNA testing after a 
     1997 federal appeals court decision overturned the trial 
     verdict because of inert or anemic lawyering.
       The Leahy legislation would end this blight in death 
     penalty prosecutions by instructing the director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts to creating 
     a scheme for credentialing attorneys and providing reasonable 
     pay in capital prosecutions against indigent defendants.
       Aren't executions too definitive to be left to chancy 
     discoveries of innocence? If the government does not want to 
     pay the price of turning square corners in capital cases, 
     shouldn't the prosecution accept a lesser maximum punishment?
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2000]

                         Innocent on Death Row

       Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has introduced a bill that seeks 
     to strengthen safeguards against wrongful executions. Those 
     who support capital punishment should be as determined as its 
     opponents to ensure that innocent people are not executed. By 
     that logic, this legislation should enjoy wide support.
       The bill would require both state and federal courts to 
     permit post-conviction DNA testing in cases in which there is 
     a significant question of innocence. It also would encourage 
     states to retain biological evidence, thereby ensuring that 
     there is a material to test when innocence questions arise. 
     Perhaps more important, the bill would make federal criminal 
     justice funds to the states contingent on their improving 
     legal representation for the accused in all stages of death-
     penalty litigation.
       This is a critical reform, as the absence of competent 
     counsel is a pervasive theme in wrongful convictions. The 
     bill would raise the insultingly low limit for damages 
     against the federal government--$5,000 per year in jail--for 
     those wrongly convicted of federal crimes. And it would 
     encourage states to offer reasonable compensation as well.
       These are common-sense improvements to the basic 
     infrastructure of the death penalty. For those who favor the 
     abolition of capital punishment, they may seem inadequate. 
     But by focusing only on protecting the innocent--not on a 
     broader agenda of halting all executions--Mr. Leahy places 
     the spotlight on what should be bedrock principle for all

[[Page S4683]]

     who believe in due process. To support these reforms, one 
     need only believe that people accused of capital crimes 
     should have reasonably able counsel and that--when 
     substantial questions arise about the rightness of their 
     convictions--they should have the ability to prove their 
     innocence.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Feb. 19, 2000]

                     New Looks at the Death Penalty

       America is at last beginning to grapple honestly with the 
     profound flaws of the death penalty system. Late last month 
     Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, a Republican, became the first 
     governor in a death penalty state to declare a moratorium on 
     executions, citing well-founded concerns about his state's 
     ``shameful record of convicting innocent people and putting 
     them on death row.'' That has now been followed by moves in 
     Congress and the executive branch to review death penalty 
     policies from a national perspective.
       Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin has urged President 
     Clinton to suspend all federal executions pending a review of 
     death penalty procedures similar to the one Governor Ryan has 
     initiated in Illinois. Problems of inadequate legal 
     representation, lack of access to DNA testing, police 
     misconduct, racial bias and even simple errors are not unique 
     to Illinois, Mr. Feingold noted.
       The Justice Department has also initiated its own review to 
     determine whether the federal death penalty system unfairly 
     discriminates against racial minorities. At his news 
     conference this week, Mr. Clinton praised the death penalty 
     moratorium in Illinois, but indicated he thought a federal 
     moratorium was unnecessary. Mr. Feingold has urged him to 
     reconsider. Given his lame-duck status, the president can 
     afford to call a halt without worrying about being falsely 
     labeled soft on crime. Moreover, the fact that a Republican 
     governor was first to announce a moratorium should minimize 
     any concern about Vice President Al Gore being so labeled.
       Congress need not wait for the administration to act. Last 
     week Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, introduced 
     legislation to address ``the growing national crisis'' in how 
     capital punishment is administered. This promising measure, 
     the Innocence Protection Act of 2000, stops short of 
     abolishing the death penalty, the course we hope the nation 
     will eventually follow. But key provisions would lessen the 
     chance of unfairness and deadly error by making DNA testing 
     available to both state and federal inmates, and by setting 
     national standards to ensure that competent lawyers are 
     appointed for capital defendants.
       Without such protections, there is a grave possibility of 
     judicial error. Nationally, 612 people have been executed 
     since the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 
     1976. During the same period, 81 people in 21 states have 
     been found innocent and released from death row--some within 
     hours of being executed. That suggests that many who were 
     executed might also have been innocent.
       Neither the states nor the courts are providing adequate 
     protection against awful miscarriages of justice. In Texas, 
     the nation's leader in executions, courts have upheld death 
     sentences in cases where defense lawyers slept during big 
     portions of the trial. Lately, Congress and the Supreme Court 
     have exacerbated the danger of mistaken executions by 
     curtailing appeal and habeas corpus rights. They have also 
     ignored the festering problem of inadequate legal 
     representation that caused the American Bar Association to 
     call for a death penalty moratorium three years ago. Even 
     death penalty supporters have to be troubled by a system 
     shown to have a high risk of executing the innocent.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 20, 2000]

                        On Virginia's Death Row

       Derek Barnabei evokes no sympathy. He is on death row in 
     Virginia for the rape and murder of his girlfriend, Sarah 
     Wisnosky, in 1993. The evidence of his guilt seems strong. 
     But that strong probability of guilt makes Virginia's 
     unwillingness to permit DNA testing of potentially key 
     evidence all the more puzzling. Mr. Barnabei has maintained 
     his innocence, and the case has a few troubling aspects. In 
     light of this, it only makes sense to test bloodstained 
     physical evidence retained but never tested by investigators. 
     Yet Virginia balks on the grounds that Mr. Barnabei's guilt 
     is so clear.
       The likelihood is that the blood is Ms. Wisnosky's, which 
     would neither bolster nor undermine the jury's verdict in the 
     case. It also could be Mr. Barnabei's, which would reinforce 
     the integrity of the verdict. But the presence of someone 
     else's blood would make Mr. Barnabei's claims more credible.
       It is hard to see why a state, before putting someone to 
     death, would be unwilling to demonstrate a jury verdict's 
     consistency with all of the evidence. Indeed, this is 
     precisely the type of case in which the state should have no 
     choice. Under a bill being pushed by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-
     Vt.), states would be obligated in such circumstances to 
     allow post-conviction DNA testing. Such a law would not 
     merely offer a lawyer of protection to innocent people but 
     would increase public confidence in the convictions of guilty 
     people.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am a supporter of the death 
penalty. I believe there are some times when humankind can act in a 
manner so odious so heinous, and so depraved that the right to life is 
forfeited. Notwithstanding this belief--indeed, because of this 
belief--I rise today to talk about the importance of protecting 
innocent people in this country from wrongful imprisonment and 
execution. Today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Innocence 
Protection Act of 2000 that will use the technological advances of the 
21st century to ensure that justice is served swiftly and fairly.
  It has been difficult to open a newspaper in recent months without 
finding discussion of the death penalty and possible miscarriages of 
justice. You have almost certainly seen or heard reports of inmates 
being freed from death row based on results of new genetic tests that 
were unavailable at the time of trial. There have been a number of 
cases where this has, in fact, occurred.
  This is a cause for concern for a number of cases. First and 
foremost, of course, is the possibility that an innocent person could 
lose his or her life if wrongfully convicted. In such cases, this also 
leads to the double tragedy that the true guilty party remains free to 
roam the country in search of future victims. Clearly, capturing and 
convicting the true perpetrator of a crime is in everyone's best 
interests.
  The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 would provide a national 
standard for post-conviction DNA testing of inmates who believe they 
have been wrongly incarcerated. Although many inmates were convicted 
before modern methods of genetic fingerprinting were available, not all 
states routinely allow post-conviction DNA testing.
  This does not make sense. If we are to have a system that is just, 
transparent, and defensible, we must make absolutely certain that every 
person who is behind bars deserves to be there. One of the best ways to 
do this is to make the most advanced technology available for cases in 
which physical evidence could have an influence on the verdict.
  Making DNA testing available will result in some convictions being 
overturned. In such cases, people who have been unjustly incarcerated 
must be afforded fair compensation for the lost years of their lives. 
The Leahy-Smith Innocence Protection Act of 2000 has a provision that 
would do this. Sometimes a person who has been wrongly imprisoned is 
released from prison with bus fare and the clothes on his or her back. 
This practice simply heaps one wrong upon another.
  While officers of America's courts and law enforcement work extremely 
hard to ensure that the true perpetrators of heinous crimes are caught 
and convicted, there have been instances where defendants have been 
represented by overworked, underpaid, or even unqualified counsel, and 
this situation cannot be tolerated in a system of criminal justice. The 
Leahy-Smith Innocence Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that 
defendants who are put on trial for their lives receive competent legal 
representation at every stage in their cases.
  The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 will allow us, as a nation, to 
continue our confidence in the American judicial system and in the fair 
and just application of the death penalty. We must have confidence in 
the integrity of justice, that it will both protect the innocent and 
punish the guilty. This legislation will not prevent true criminals 
from being executed; rather, it will increase support for the death 
penalty by providing added assurances that American justice is 
administered fairly across the country.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whether 
you support or oppose capital punishment, to join Senator Leahy and me 
in backing the Innocence Protection Act of 2000, which will put the 
fingerprint of the 21st century on our criminal justice system, 
ensuring that innocent lives are not unjustly taken in this country.
  Ms. COLLINS Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of the 
``Innocence Protection Act.''
  Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, 610 people 
have been executed in our nation. In that same period of time, an 
astounding 87 people who were sentenced to die have been found innocent 
and released from death row. Each of these individuals has lived the 
Kafkaesque nightmare of condemnation and imprisonment for crimes they 
have not committed. It is

[[Page S4684]]

difficult to imagine the despair and betrayal these individuals must 
have felt as they were accused, tried, convicted and sentenced, all the 
time knowing they were not guilty. And during all those years they 
remained in prison, the real perpetrators remained at large.
  I am an opponent of the death penalty, and I am proud to be from the 
State of Maine which outlawed the death penalty in 1887. The 
legislation we introduce today is, however, not an anti-death penalty 
measure.
  The legislation we introduce today simply requires logical safeguards 
to be put in place to prevent wrongful convictions. Its two most 
important provisions compel DNA testing where it can yield evidence of 
innocence, and puts in place a new process to ensure defendants receive 
competent counsel in death penalty cases.
  The ``Innocence Protection Act'' calls on the federal government and 
the states to make DNA testing available in circumstances where it 
could yield new evidence of innocence. The incidents in which DNA 
testing has exonerated individuals are not isolated--64 people have 
been released from prison or death row due to DNA testing.
  Linus Pauling once said that ``science is the search for truth.'' 
Through DNA testing, science provides a tool that can uncover the 
truth, and lend certainty to our moral obligation in a civilized 
society--proper administration of our criminal justice system.
  The legislation we introduce today assists the wrongfully convicted, 
and will help prevent the miscarriages of justices that have seemed 
sadly common. It will also serve the interests of justice and protect 
crime victims. Justice is never served until the true perpetrator of a 
crime is identified, convicted and punished. We owe it to the victims 
and their families to pursue every avenue to find and hold accountable 
the true criminals who have injured them.
  Our American ideals and sense of justice simply cannot tolerate the 
current risk for mistaken executions. The case of Mr. Anthony Porter 
should shock the conscience of America. Mr. Porter spent over 16 years 
on death row, and at one point he was only two days short of receiving 
a lethal injection, having been convicted of two murders. A determined 
group of journalism students investigated his case and uncovered 
evidence that exonerated Mr. Porter. It was only through their efforts 
that the identity of the real murderer was determined, a review of the 
case compelled, and Mr. Porter ultimately freed. The peculiar good 
fortune that lead to the release of Mr. Porter undeniably highlights a 
weakness in our system of justice that cries out for remedy.
  Nothing that we can do here today can restore those years to Mr. 
Porter, or others who have been wrongly convicted, but we can demand 
safeguards be put in place to protect the innocent from conviction, and 
protect society from real criminals who may remain loose on our 
streets. Regardless of one's views about the death penalty, I hope we 
all can agree to needed safeguards to help ensure that justice is 
served.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont and ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, as a cosponsor of the Innocence 
Protection Act of 2000. I commend him for his leadership on this 
important legislation. The insight and unique experience that he brings 
to this issue as a former federal prosecutor is invaluable. I have no 
doubt that because of his leadership and diligence, Americans have 
recently become more aware of the important role that the certainty of 
science can have in our criminal justice system. Improvements in DNA 
testing have allowed us to determine with greater accuracy whether 
certain offenders committed the crime that sent them to prison, 
including, very importantly, of course, those who have been condemned 
to death row.
  Since the 1970s, 87 people sentenced to die were later proven 
innocent. Some of those innocent death row inmates were able to prove 
their innocence based on modern DNA testing of biological evidence. 
But, Mr. President, this is not just about ensuring that we not condemn 
the innocent. DNA testing can also ensure that the guilty person not go 
free. DNA testing can be a tool for the prosecution to determine 
whether they have the right person.
  Over the last several months, I have spoken often on the floor about 
the serious flaws in the administration of capital punishment across 
the nation. I strongly support Senator Leahy's bill. It is a much over-
due package of reforms that goes after some of the worst failings in 
our nation's administration of capital punishment--those that are 
unfair, unjust and plain just un-American.
  Very simply, Senator Leahy's bill can help save lives. His bill would 
make it less likely for an innocent man or woman to be sent to death 
row, where biological evidence is central to the issue of guilt or 
innocence. The bill also would make it more likely that a poor person 
receive adequate defense representation and less likely that a poor 
person gets stuck with a lawyer that sleeps through trial. Yesterday, I 
spoke on the floor about specific examples of such cases of egregious 
failings of defense counsel.
  We must ensure the utmost fairness in the administration of this 
ultimate punishment. I hope our colleagues--both those who support the 
death penalty in principle and those who oppose it--will join together 
in fixing this broken system and restoring fairness and justice. All 
Americans demand and deserve no less.
  Mr. President, I think it is very significant that this important 
bill now has bipartisan support. I want to thank and commend my 
colleagues, Senators Gordon Smith, Susan Collins and James Jeffords, 
for recognizing that flaws exist in our system of justice and 
acknowledging that something has to be done about it. I hope this is a 
sign that we can work together with the very real goal of passing this 
bill this year. Until we do so, the lives of innocent people literally 
hang in the balance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 2691. A bill to provide further protections for the watershed of 
the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management 
Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


               The Little Sandy Watershed Protection Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Little Sandy 
Watershed Protection Act.
  I promised Oregonians that my first legislative business when 
Congress reconvened after the Memorial Day Recess would be the 
introduction of this bill.
  Therefore, joined by my friends Senator Gordon Smith and Congressman 
Earl Blumenauer, I introduce this legislation to make sure that 
Portland families can go to their kitchen faucets and get a glass of 
safe and pure drinking water today, tomorrow, and on, into the 21st 
century.
  The Bull Run has been the primary source of water for Portland since 
1895. The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Mount Hood National 
Forest, was protected by Congressional action in 1904, 1977 and then 
again, most recently, in 1996 (P.L. 95-200, 16, U.S.C. 482b note) 
because it was recognized as Portland's primary municipal water supply. 
It still is.
  Today I propose to finish the job of the Oregon Resources and 
Conservation Act of 1996. That law, which I worked on with Senator Mark 
Hatfield, finally provided full protection to the Bull Run watershed, 
but only provided temporary protection for the adjacent Little Sandy 
watershed. I promised in 1996 that I would return to finish the job of 
protecting Portland's drinking water supply and intend to continue to 
push this legislation until the job is complete.
  The bill I introduce today expands the Bull Run Watershed Management 
Unit boundary from approximately 95,382 acres to approximately 98,272 
acres by adding the southern portion of the Little Sandy River 
watershed, an increase of approximately 2,890 acres.
  The protection this bill offers will not only assure clean drinking 
water, but also increase the potential for fish recovery. Reclaiming 
suitable habitat for our region's threatened fish populations must be 
an all-out effort.

[[Page S4685]]

Through the cooperation of Portland General Electric and the City of 
Portland, the Little Sandy can be an important part of that effort.
  My belief is that the children of the 21st century deserve water that 
is as safe and pure as any that the Oregon pioneers found in the 19th 
century. This legislation will go a long way toward bringing about that 
vision.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation aimed at protecting the 
Little Sandy Watershed for future generations. The Little Sandy lies 
adjacent to the Bull Run Watershed, which is the primary municipal 
water supply for the City of Portland, Oregon. The water that filters 
through these forests and mountainsides to the east of Portland is of 
the highest quality in the nation and does not require artificial 
filtration or treatment.
  The Bull Run Watershed Management Unit was established by 
congressional action in 1977, creating a management partnership between 
the USDA Forest Service and the City of Portland for the review of 
water quality and quantity. Additional protection was given to the Bull 
Run by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1993, restricting all timber 
harvests in sensitive areas. Neither of these actions, however, 
extended a satisfactory level of protection to the nearby Little Sandy 
Watershed. Population growth and heightened water quality expectations 
have brought the preservation of the Little Sandy Watershed to the 
forefront of the public's interest in recent years.
  The legislation that I have cosponsored would expand the boundary of 
the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit to include the southern portion 
of the Little Sandy. This would add nearly 3,000 acres to the 
Management Unit, including a number of acres currently managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I am aware that questions have just 
arisen as to whether some of this acreage is currently managed by O & C 
lands. If so, there are concerns that O & C land would be devalued by a 
change in management designation. If this is the case, as the bill 
moves through the legislative process, I will seek the redesignation of 
other lands outside the preserve in order to maintain the wholeness of 
O & C land and the timber base.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2692. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
improve safety of imported products, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health Education, Labor, and Pensions.


imported products safety improvement and disease prevention act of 2000

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the 
``Imported Products Safety Improvement and Disease Prevention Act of 
2000.'' I am proud to be the sponsor of this important legislation 
which guarantees the improved safety of imported foods, and I have high 
hopes that we will act on it this year.

  The health of Americans is not something to take chances with. It is 
important that we make food safety a top priority. Every person should 
have the confidence that their food is fit to eat. We should be 
confident that imported food is as safe as food produced in this 
country. Cars can't be imported unless they meet U.S. safety 
requirements. Prescription drugs can't be imported unless they meet FDA 
standards. You shouldn't be able to import food that isn't up to U.S. 
standards, either.
  We import increasing quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables, 
seafood, and many other foods. In the past seven years, the amount of 
food imported into the U.S. has more than doubled. Out of all the 
produce we eat, 40% of it is imported. Our food supply has gone global, 
so we need to have global food safety.
  The impact of unsafe food is staggering. There have been several 
frightening examples of food poisoning incidents in the U.S. When 
Michigan schoolchildren were contaminated with Hepatitis A from 
imported strawberries in 1997, Americans were put on alert. Thousands 
of cases of cyclospora infection from imported raspberries--resulting 
in severe, prolonged diarrhea, weight loss, vomiting, chills and 
fatigue were also reported that year. Imported cantaloupe eaten in 
Maryland sickened 25 people. As much as $663 million was spent on food 
borne illness in Maryland alone. Overall, as many as 33 million people 
per year become ill and over 9000 die as a result of food borne 
illness. It is our children and our seniors who suffer the most. Most 
of the food-related deaths occur in these two populations.
  These incidents have scared us and have jump-started the efforts to 
do more to protect our nation's food supply. Now, I believe in free 
trade, but I also believe in fair trade. FDA's current system of 
testing import samples at ports of entry does not protect Americans. It 
is ineffective and resource-intensive. Less than 2 percent of imported 
food is being inspected under the current system. At the same time, the 
quantity of the imported foods continues to increase.
  What this law does is simple: It improves food safety and aims at 
preventing food borne illness of all imported foods regulated by the 
FDA. This bill takes a long overdue, big first step.
  First, it requires that FDA make equivalence determinations on 
imported food. This was developed with the FDA by Senator Kennedy and 
myself in consultation with the consumer groups.
  Today, FDA has no authority to protect Americans against imported 
food that is unsafe until it is too late. According to the GAO, the FDA 
lacks the authority to require that food coming into the U.S. is 
produced, prepared, packed or held under conditions that provide the 
same level of food safety protection as those in the U.S. This means 
that currently, food offered for import to the U.S., can be imported 
under any conditions, even if those conditions are unsanitary. The 
Imported Products Safety Improvement and Disease Prevention Act of 2000 
will allow FDA to look at the production at its source. This means that 
FDA will be able to take preventive measures. FDA will be able to be 
proactive, rather than just reactive.
  That means that when you pack your childrens' lunches for school or 
sit down at the dinner table, you can rest assured that your food will 
be safe. Whether your strawberries were grown in a foreign country or 
on the Eastern Shore, in Maryland, those strawberries will be held to 
the same standard. You won't have to worry or wonder where your food is 
coming from. You won't have to worry that your children or families are 
going to get sick. You will know that the food coming into this country 
will be subject to equivalent standards.
  Second, this bill contains strong enforcement measures. Last year, 
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, under the leadership of 
Senator Sue Collins, held numerous hearings on the safety of imported 
food. These enforcement measures are largely a product of those facts 
uncovered during those hearings.
  Finally, this bill covers emergency situations by allowing FDA to ban 
imported food that has been connected to outbreaks of food borne 
illness. When our children, parents and communities are getting 
seriously sick, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can 
immediately issue an emergency ban. We don't have to wait till someone 
else gets seriously sick or dies. We no longer have to go through the 
current bureaucratic mechanism that is inefficient and resource 
intensive. We can stop the food today, to protect our citizens.
  My goal is to strengthen the food supply, whatever the source of the 
food may be. This bill won't create trade barriers. It just calls for 
free trade of safe food. It calls for international concern and 
consensus on guaranteeing standards for public health.
  This bill is important because it will save lives and makes for a 
safer world. Everyone should have security in knowing that the food 
they eat is fit to eat. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis 
to enact this legislation. I pledge my commitment to fight for ways to 
make America's food supply safer. This bill is an important step in 
that direction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a summary be added to the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4686]]

                                S. 2692

       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 ``Imported Products Safety 
     Improvement and Disease Prevention Act of 2000''.

       TITLE I--IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PRODUCT SAFETY IMPORT SYSTEM

     SEC. 101. EQUIVALENCE AUTHORITY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH 
                   FROM CONTAMINATED IMPORTED PRODUCTS.

       (a) Equivalence Determinations, and Measures, Systems, and 
     Conditions To Achieve Public Health Protection.--Section 801 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d)(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any covered 
     product offered for import into the United States shall be 
     prepared (including produced), packed, and held under a 
     system or conditions, or subject to measures, that meet the 
     requirements of this Act or that have been determined by the 
     Secretary to be equivalent to a system, conditions, or 
     measures for such covered product in the United States and to 
     achieve the level of public health protection for such 
     covered product prepared, packed, and held in the United 
     States. Consistent with section 492 of the Trade Agreements 
     Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2578a), the Secretary shall make, 
     where appropriate, equivalence determinations described in 
     that section relating to sanitary or phytosanitary measures 
     (including systems and conditions) that apply to the 
     preparation, packing, and holding of covered products offered 
     for import into the United States.
       ``(2) In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     conduct systematic evaluations of the systems, conditions, 
     and measures in foreign countries that apply to the 
     preparation, packing, and holding of covered products offered 
     for import into the United States.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall develop a plan for the 
     implementation of the authority under this subsection within 
     2 years after the date of enactment of the Imported Products 
     Safety Improvement and Disease Prevention Act of 2000. In 
     developing the plan, the Secretary shall provide an 
     opportunity for, and take into consideration, public comment 
     on a proposed plan.''.
       (b) General Authority.--Section 801 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381), as amended in 
     subsection (a), is further amended by inserting after 
     subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e)(1)(A) The Secretary shall establish a system, for use 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury, to deny the entry of any 
     covered product offered for import into the United States if 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services makes and 
     publishes--
       ``(i) a written determination that the covered product--
       ``(I) has been associated with repeated and separate 
     outbreaks of disease borne in a covered product or has been 
     repeatedly determined by the Secretary to be adulterated 
     within the meaning of section 402;
       ``(II) presents a reasonable probability of causing 
     significant adverse health consequences or death; and
       ``(III) is likely, without systemic intervention or 
     changes, to cause disease or be adulterated again; or
       ``(ii) an emergency written determination that the covered 
     product has been strongly associated with a single outbreak 
     of disease borne in a covered product that has caused serious 
     adverse health consequences or death.
       ``(B)(i) The Secretary shall make a determination described 
     in subparagraph (A) with respect to--
       ``(I) a covered product from a specific producer, 
     manufacturer, or shipper; or
       ``(II) a covered product from a specific growing area or 
     country;
     that meets the criteria described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Only the covered product from the specific producer, 
     manufacturer, shipper, growing area, or country for which the 
     Secretary makes the determination shall be subject to denial 
     of entry under this subsection.
       ``(C) The denial of entry of any covered product under this 
     paragraph shall be done in a manner consistent with 
     bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements and 
     the rights and obligations of the United States under the 
     agreements.
       ``(D)(i) Before making any written determination under 
     subparagraph (A)(i), the Secretary shall consider written 
     comments, on a proposed determination, made by any party 
     affected by the proposed determination and any remedial 
     actions taken to address the findings made in the proposed 
     determination. In making the written determination, the 
     Secretary may modify or rescind the proposed determination in 
     accordance with such comments.
       ``(ii)(I) The Secretary may immediately issue an emergency 
     written determination under subparagraph (A)(ii) without 
     first considering comments on a proposed determination.
       ``(II) Within 30 days after the issuance of the emergency 
     determination, the Secretary shall consider written comments 
     on the determination that are made by a party described in 
     clause (i) and received within the 30-day period. The 
     Secretary may affirm, modify, or rescind the emergency 
     determination in accordance with the comments.
       ``(III) The emergency determination shall be in effect--
       ``(aa) for the 30-day period; or
       ``(bb) if the Secretary affirms or modifies the 
     determination, until the Secretary rescinds the 
     determination.
       ``(2)(A) The covered product initially denied entry under 
     paragraph (1) may be imported into the United States if the 
     Secretary finds that--
       ``(i) the written determination made under paragraph (1) no 
     longer justifies the denial of entry of the covered product; 
     or
       ``(ii) evidence of remedial action submitted from the 
     producer, manufacturer, shipper, specific growing area, or 
     country for which the Secretary made the written 
     determination under paragraph (1) addresses the 
     determination.
       ``(B)(i) The Secretary shall take action on evidence 
     submitted under subparagraph (A)(ii) within 90 days after the 
     date of the submission of the evidence.
       ``(ii) The Secretary's action may include--
       ``(I) lifting the denial of entry of the covered product; 
     or
       ``(II) continuing to deny entry of the covered product 
     while requesting additional information or specific remedial 
     action from the producer, manufacturer, shipper, specific 
     growing area, or country.
       ``(iii) If the Secretary does not take action on evidence 
     submitted under subparagraph (A)(ii) within 90 days after the 
     date of submission, effective on the 91st day after the date 
     of submission, the covered product initially denied entry 
     under paragraph (1) may be imported into the United States.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall by regulation establish criteria 
     and procedures for the system described in paragraph (1). The 
     Secretary may by regulation modify those criteria and 
     procedures, as the Secretary determines appropriate.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 351(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 262(h)) is amended by striking ``section 801(e)(1) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(e))'' 
     and inserting ``section 801(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(g)(1))''.
       (2) Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (t), by striking ``section 801(d)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``section 801(f)(1)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (w)--
       (i) by striking ``sections 801(d)(3)(A) and 801(d)(3)(B)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
     801(f)(3)'';
       (ii) except as provided in clause (i), by striking 
     ``section 801(d)(3)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``section 801(f)(3)''; and
       (iii) by striking ``section 801(e)'' and inserting 
     ``section 801(g)''.
       (3) Section 303(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``section 801(d)(1)'' and inserting ``section 801(f)(1)''.
       (4) Section 304(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 334(d)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 801(e)(1)'' and inserting 
     ``section 801(g)(1)''; and
       (B) except as provided in subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``section 801(e)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``section 801(g)''.
       (5) Section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 381) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the third sentence, by striking 
     ``subsection (b) of this section'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (b) or subsection (e)(2)(A) (in the case of a covered product 
     described in that subsection)'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A) of subsection (f), as redesignated 
     in subsection (a), by striking ``section 801(e) or 802'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (g), section 802,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (1) of subsection (h), as redesignated in 
     subsection (a), by striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (g)''.
       (6) Section 802 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 382) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)(C), by striking ``section 
     801(e)(2)'' and inserting ``section 801(g)(2)'';
       (B) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``section 801(e)(1)'' 
     and inserting ``section 801(g)(1)''; and
       (C) in subsection (i), by striking ``section 801(e)(1)'' 
     and inserting ``section 801(g)(1)''.

     SEC. 102. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Adulterated Products.--Section 402 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) If--
       ``(A) it is a covered product being imported or offered for 
     import into the United States;
       ``(B) the covered product has been designated by the 
     Secretary for sampling, examination, or review for the 
     purpose of determining whether the covered product is in 
     compliance with this Act;
       ``(C) the Secretary requires, under section 801(a)(2)(B), 
     that the covered product not be distributed until the 
     Secretary authorizes the distribution of the covered product; 
     and
       ``(D) the covered product is distributed before the 
     Secretary authorizes the distribution.

[[Page S4687]]

       ``(2) In this paragraph, the term `distributed', used with 
     respect to a covered product, means--
       ``(A) moved for the purpose of selling the covered product, 
     offering the covered product for sale, or delivering the 
     covered product for the purpose of selling the covered 
     product or offering the covered product for sale; or
       ``(B) delivered contrary to any bond requirement.''.
       (b) Prohibition.--Section 801(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the third sentence, by redesignating paragraphs (1) 
     through (3) as subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``(a) The'' and inserting ``(a)(1) The'';
       (3) in the last sentence, by striking ``Clause (2)'' and 
     inserting ``Subparagraph (B)'';
       (4) by moving the fourth sentence to the end;
       (5) in the sentence so moved, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) The Secretary of Health and Human Services may 
     require that a covered product being imported or offered for 
     import into the United States not be distributed until the 
     Secretary authorizes distribution of the covered product.''.

     SEC. 103. REQUIREMENT OF SECURE STORAGE OF CERTAIN IMPORTED 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Adulterated Products.--Section 402 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended in section 102(a), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) If--
       ``(1) it is a covered product being imported or offered for 
     import into the United States;
       ``(2) the Secretary requires, under section 801(a)(2)(C), 
     that the covered product be held in a secure storage facility 
     until the Secretary authorizes distribution of the covered 
     product; and
       ``(3) the covered product is not held in a secure storage 
     facility as described in section 801(a)(2)(C) until the 
     Secretary authorizes the distribution.''.
       (b) Requirement.--Section 801(a)(2) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended in section 102(b), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C)(i) The Secretary of Health and Human Services may 
     require that a covered product that is being imported or 
     offered for import into the United States be held, at the 
     expense of the owner or consignee of the covered product, in 
     a secure storage facility until the Secretary authorizes 
     distribution of the covered product, if the Secretary makes 
     the determination that the covered product is--
       ``(I) being imported or offered for import into the United 
     States by a person described in clause (ii); or
       ``(II) owned by or consigned to a person described in 
     clause (ii).
       ``(ii) An importer, owner, or consignee referred to in 
     subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) is a person against whom 
     the Secretary of the Treasury has assessed liquidated damages 
     not less than twice under subsection (b) for failure to 
     redeliver, at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury, a 
     covered product subject to a bond under subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 104. REQUIREMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DESTRUCTION OF 
                   CERTAIN IMPORTED PRODUCTS.

       (a) Adulterated Products.--Section 402 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended in section 103(a), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Notwithstanding subsections (a)(2)(A) and (b) of 
     section 801, if--
       ``(1) it is a covered product being imported or offered for 
     import into the United States;
       ``(2) the covered product presents a reasonable probability 
     of causing significant adverse health consequences or death;
       ``(3) the Secretary, after the covered product has been 
     refused admission under section 801(a), requires under 
     section 801(a)(2)(D) that the covered product be destroyed; 
     and
       ``(4) the owner or consignee of the covered product fails 
     to comply with that destruction requirement.''.
       (b) Requirement.--Section 801(a)(2) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended in section 103(b), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) The Secretary of Health and Human Services may 
     require destruction, at the expense of the owner or 
     consignee, of a covered product imported or offered for 
     import into the United States that presents a reasonable 
     probability of causing significant adverse health 
     consequences or death.''.

     SEC. 105. PROHIBITION AGAINST PORT SHOPPING.

       Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as 
     amended in section 104(a), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(k) If it is a covered product being imported or offered 
     for import into the United States, and the covered product 
     previously has been refused admission under section 801(a), 
     unless the person reoffering the article affirmatively 
     establishes, at the expense of the owner or consignee of the 
     article, that the article complies with the applicable 
     requirements of this Act, as determined by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 106. PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS BY DEBARRED PERSONS.

       Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as 
     amended in section 105, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(l) If it is a covered product being imported or offered 
     for import into the United States by a person debarred under 
     section 306(b)(4).''.

     SEC. 107. AUTHORITY TO MARK REFUSED ARTICLES.

       (a) Misbranded Products.--Section 403 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(t) If--
       ``(1) it has been refused admission under section 801(a);
       ``(2) the covered product has not been required to be 
     destroyed under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 801(a)(2); 
     and
       ``(3) the packaging of the covered product does not bear a 
     label or labeling described in section 801(a)(2)(E).''.
       (b) Requirement.--Section 801(a)(2) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended in section 104(b), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) The Secretary of Health and Human Services may 
     require the owner or consignee of a covered product that has 
     been refused admission under paragraph (1), and has not been 
     required to be destroyed under subparagraph (A) or (B), to 
     affix to the packaging of the covered product a label or 
     labeling that--
       ``(i) clearly and conspicuously bears the following 
     statement: `United States: Refused Entry.';
       ``(ii) is affixed to the packaging until the covered 
     product is brought into compliance with this Act; and
       ``(iii) has been provided at the expense of the owner or 
     consignee of the covered product.''.

     SEC. 108. EXPORT OF REFUSED ARTICLES.

       Paragraph (2)(A) of section 801(a) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)), as designated in 
     section 102(b), is amended by striking ``ninety days'' and 
     inserting ``30 days''.

     SEC. 109. COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES OF PRODUCT 
                   IMPORTS.

       Section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 381), as amended in section 101(a), is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) The Secretary may issue regulations or guidance as 
     necessary to govern the collection and analysis by entities 
     other than the Food and Drug Administration of samples of a 
     covered product imported or offered for import into the 
     United States to ensure the integrity of the samples 
     collected and the validity of the analytical results.''.

     SEC. 110. DEFINITION.

       Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(kk) The term `covered product' means an article that is 
     described in subparagraph (1), (2), or (3) of paragraph (f) 
     and that is not a dietary supplement. The term shall not 
     include an article to the extent that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture exercises inspection authority over the article 
     at the time of import into the United States.''.

TITLE II--ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES FOR IMPORTING CONTAMINATED PRODUCTS

     SEC. 201. ENHANCED BONDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIOR INVOLVEMENT 
                   IN IMPORTING ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED 
                   PRODUCTS.

       Section 801(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 381(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Customs, shall issue regulations that 
     establish a rate for a bond required to be executed under 
     paragraph (1) for a covered product if an owner, consignee, 
     or importer of the covered product has committed a covered 
     violation.
       ``(B) The regulations shall require the owner or consignee 
     to execute such a bond--
       ``(i) at twice the usual rate; or
       ``(ii) if the owner, consignee, or importer has committed 
     more than 1 covered violation, at a rate that increases with 
     the number of covered violations committed, as determined in 
     accordance with a sliding scale established in the 
     regulations.
       ``(C) In this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `committed' means been convicted of, or 
     found liable for, a violation by an appropriate court or 
     administrative officer.
       ``(ii) The term `covered violation' means a violation 
     relating to--
       ``(I) importing or offering for import into the United 
     States--
       ``(aa) a covered product during a period of debarment under 
     section 306(b)(4);
       ``(bb) a covered product that is adulterated within the 
     meaning of paragraph (h), (i), (j), (k), or (l) of section 
     402; or
       ``(cc) a covered product that is misbranded within the 
     meaning of section 403(t); or
       ``(II) making a false or misleading statement in conduct 
     relating to the import or offering for import of a covered 
     product into the United States.
       ``(iii) The term `usual rate', used with respect to a bond, 
     means the rate that would be required under paragraph (1) for 
     the bond by a person who has not committed a covered 
     violation.''.

     SEC. 202. DEBARMENT OF REPEAT OFFENDERS AND SERIOUS 
                   OFFENDERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 306(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)) is amended--

[[Page S4688]]

       (1)  in  paragraph  (1),  in  the  paragraph  heading,  by  
     striking  ``In  general.--''  and  inserting  ``Debarment  
     for  violations  relating  to  drugs.--'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), in the paragraph heading, by striking 
     ``Persons subject to permissive debarment.--'' and inserting 
     ``Persons subject to permissive debarment for violations 
     relating to drugs.--'';
       (3)  in  paragraph  (3),  in  the  paragraph  heading,  by  
     striking  ``Stay  of  certain  orders.--''  and  inserting  
     ``Stay  of  certain  orders  relating  to  debarment  for  
     violations  relating  to  drugs.--'';  and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Debarment for violations relating to product 
     imports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may debar a person from 
     importing a covered product or offering a covered product for 
     import into the United States, if--
       ``(i) the Secretary finds that the person has been 
     convicted for conduct that is a felony under Federal law and 
     relates to the importation or offering for importation of any 
     covered product into the United States; or
       ``(ii) the Secretary makes a written determination that the 
     person has repeatedly or deliberately imported or offered for 
     import into the United States a covered product adulterated 
     within the meaning of paragraph (h), (i), (j), or (k) of 
     section 402, or misbranded within the meaning of section 
     403(t).
       ``(B) Impact.--On debarring a person under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall provide notice of the debarment to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall deny entry of a 
     covered product offered for import by the person.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 306 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 335a) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, and'' at the end 
     and inserting a comma;
       (II) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (III) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:

       ``(C) shall, during the period of a debarment under 
     subsection (b)(4), prohibit the debarred person from 
     importing a covered product or offering a covered product for 
     import into the United States, and'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting after clause (iii) 
     the following:
       ``(iv) The period of debarment of any person under 
     subsection (b)(4) shall be not less than 1 year.''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) in subparagraph (C)--

       (aa) by striking ``suspect drugs'' and inserting ``suspect 
     drugs or covered products''; and
       (bb) by striking ``fraudulently obtained'' and inserting 
     ``fraudulently obtained or on a covered product wrongfully 
     imported into the United States''; and

       (II) in subparagraph (E), by inserting ``in the case of a 
     debarment relating to a drug,'' after ``(E)'';

       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A)--

       (aa) in clause (i), by striking ``or (b)(2)(A)'' and 
     inserting ``or paragraph (2)(A) or (4) of subsection (b)''; 
     and
       (bb) in clause (ii)(II), by inserting ``in the case of a 
     debarment relating to a drug,'' after ``(II)''; and

       (II) in subparagraph (B)--

       (aa) in clause (i), by striking ``or clause (i), (ii), 
     (iii) or (iv) of subsection (b)(2)(B)'' and inserting ``, 
     clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subsection (b)(2)(B), or 
     subsection (b)(4)''; and
       (bb) in clause (ii), by striking ``subsection (b)(2)(B)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (2)(B) or (4) of subsection (b)''; 
     and
       (ii) in paragraph (4)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(a)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``(a)(2) or (b)(4)'';
       (II) in subparagraph (B)--

       (aa) in clause (ii), by striking ``involving the 
     development or approval of any drug subject to section 505'' 
     and inserting ``involving, as appropriate, the development or 
     approval of any drug subject to section 505 or the 
     importation of any covered product''; and
       (bb) in clause (iv), by striking ``drug'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``drug or covered product''; and

       (III) in subparagraph (D), in the matter following clause 
     (ii), by inserting ``, in the case of a debarment relating to 
     a drug,'' before ``protects''; and

       (C) in subsection (l)(2), in the second sentence, by 
     striking ``(b)(2)(B)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)(B), subsection 
     (b)(4),''.
       (2) Civil penalties.--Paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 
     307(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     335b(a)) are amended by striking ``306'' and inserting ``306 
     (except section 306(b)(4))''.

     SEC. 203. INCREASED ENFORCEMENT TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF 
                   IMPORTED PRODUCTS.

       Subchapter A of chapter VII of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 712. POSITIONS TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF IMPORTED 
                   PRODUCTS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to 
     enable the Commissioner, in carrying out chapters IV and 
     VIII, to decrease the health risks associated with imported 
     covered products through the creation of additional 
     employment positions for laboratory, inspection, and 
     compliance personnel.''.

 TITLE III--IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND AWARENESS

     SEC. 301. IMPROVEMENTS.

       Title II of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 202 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

          ``PART C--PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND AWARENESS

     ``SEC. 251. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Covered product.--The term `covered product' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 201 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
       ``(2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

     ``SEC. 252. PUBLIC HEALTH SURVEILLANCE ENHANCEMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may--
       ``(1) make grants to, enter into cooperative agreements 
     with, and provide technical assistance to eligible agencies 
     to enable the agencies to enhance their capacity to carry out 
     activities relating to surveillance and prevention of 
     pathogen-related disease borne in a covered product, 
     particularly pathogen-related disease associated with 
     imported covered products, as described in subsection (b)(1); 
     and
       ``(2) carry out the activities described in subsection 
     (b)(2).
       ``(b) Use of Assistance.--
       ``(1) Agencies.--An eligible agency that receives 
     assistance under subsection (a) shall use the assistance to 
     enhance the capacity of the agency--
       ``(A) to identify, investigate, and contain threats of 
     pathogen-related disease borne in a covered product, 
     particularly pathogen-related disease associated with 
     imported covered products; and
       ``(B) to conduct additional surveillance and studies to 
     address prevention and control of the disease.
       ``(2) Centers for disease control and prevention.--The 
     Secretary may use not more than 30 percent of the funds 
     appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(A) to assist an agency described in paragraph (1) in 
     enhancing the capacity described in paragraph (1) by 
     providing standards, technologies, information, materials, 
     and other resources; and
       ``(B) to enhance national surveillance systems, including 
     the ability of domestic and international agencies and 
     entities to respond to product safety issues associated with 
     imported covered products that are identified through such 
     systems.
       ``(c) Eligible Agencies.--To be eligible to receive 
     assistance under subsection (a)(1), an agency shall be a 
     State or local health department.
       ``(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance 
     under subsection (a)(1), an agency shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

     ``SEC. 253. PATHOGEN DETECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct applied 
     research, directly or by grant or contract, to develop new or 
     improved methods for detecting and subtyping emerging 
     pathogens (borne in covered products) in human specimens, 
     covered products, and relevant environmental samples. The 
     Secretary may use funds appropriated to carry out this 
     section to support applied research by State health 
     departments or institutions of higher education.
       ``(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant or 
     enter into a contract under subsection (a), an entity shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

     ``SEC. 254. TRAINING, EDUCATION, AND PUBLIC INFORMATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may--
       ``(1) make grants and enter into contracts with eligible 
     entities, to support training activities and other 
     collaborative activities with the entities to inform health 
     professionals about disease borne in covered products, 
     including strengthening training networks serving State, 
     local, and private entities; and
       ``(2) increase and improve the activities carried out by 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide 
     information to the public on disease borne in covered 
     products.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     or enter into a contract under subsection (a), an entity 
     shall be a medical school, a nursing school, an entity 
     carrying out clinical laboratory training programs, a school 
     of public health, another institution of higher education, a 
     professional organization, or an international organization.

[[Page S4689]]

       ``(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant or 
     enter into a contract under subsection (a), an entity shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(d) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall consult with Federal, State, and local 
     agencies, international organizations, and other interested 
     parties.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

     ``SEC. 255. INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING AND 
                   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall, directly or by 
     agreement, provide training and technical assistance to 
     agencies and entities in foreign countries, to strengthen the 
     surveillance and investigation capacities of the agencies and 
     entities relating to disease borne in covered products, 
     including establishing or expanding activities or programs 
     such as the Field Epidemiology and Training Program of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
       ``(b) Application.--To be eligible to enter into an 
     agreement under subsection (a), an entity shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

     ``SEC. 256. SUPPLIES AND SERVICES IN LIEU OF GRANT FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--On the request of a recipient of 
     assistance under section 252, 253, 254, or 255, the Secretary 
     may, subject to subsection (b), provide supplies, equipment, 
     and services for the purpose of aiding the recipient in 
     carrying out the section involved and, for such purpose, may 
     detail to the grant recipient any officer or employee of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services. Such detail shall be 
     without interruption or loss of civil service status or 
     privilege.
       ``(b) Corresponding Reduction in Payments.--With respect to 
     a request described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     reduce the amount of payments under the section involved by 
     an amount equal to the cost of detailing the officer or 
     employee and the fair market value of the supplies, 
     equipment, or services provided by the Secretary. The 
     Secretary shall, for the payment of expenses incurred in 
     complying with such a request, expend the amounts 
     withheld.''.
                                  ____


Summary of Imported Products Safety Improvement and Disease Prevention 
                              Act of 2000

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


       Title I: Improvements to the Product Safety Import System

Title II: Enforcement and Penalties for Importing Contaminated Products

 Title III: Improvements to Public Health Infrastructure and Awareness

       Imported Products Safety Act of 2000--Title I: Improvements 
     to the Product Safety Import System--Amends the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require imported covered products 
     to be prepared, packed, and held under a system meeting the 
     requirements of such Act, or determined by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services (Secretary) to be equivalent to 
     domestic requirements. (``Covered product'' means a food as 
     defined under Section 201(f) of the Act and that is not a 
     dietary supplement.) Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop an 
     implementation plan; and (2) conduct overseas covered product 
     system evaluations.
       Directs the Secretary to establish, for use by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, a system to deny the entry of 
     imported covered products from a specific area, producer, 
     manufacturer, or transporter into the United States that: (1) 
     has been repeatedly adulterated or associated with repeated 
     outbreaks of foodborne disease, presents a health danger, and 
     is likely without systematic changes to cause disease or be 
     adulterated again; or (2) in an emergency determination, has 
     been strongly associated with a serious outbreak of foodborne 
     disease.
       Makes a conforming amendment to the Public Health Service 
     Act.
       (Sec. 102) Deems as adulterated an imported (of offered for 
     import) covered product: (1) withheld for review that is 
     distributed prior to the Secretary's authorization of 
     distribution; (2) ordered to be held in secure storage prior 
     to distribution that is not so held; (3) required to be 
     destroyed that is not so destroyed; (4) previously denied 
     admission that is subsequently offered for admission without 
     a showing of appropriate compliance (port shopping); or (5) 
     owned or consigned by a debarred person.
       Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) prohibit distribution of 
     an imported covered product until the Secretary so 
     authorizes; (2) prohibit distribution and require the secure 
     storage of an imported covered product if the importer, 
     owner, or consignee of such product is a person against whom 
     the Secretary of the Treasury has assessed certain liquidated 
     damages for failure to redeliver covered products subject to 
     a bond; (3) order dangerous imported covered products to be 
     destroyed; and (4) require marking of refused entry (but not 
     ordered destroyed) covered product until brought into 
     appropriate compliance. Deems as misbranded a covered product 
     refused entry that is not so marked.
       (Sec. 108) Shortens the period before a refused entry 
     article which is not exported shall be destroyed.
       (Sec. 109) Authorizes the Secretary to provide for the 
     collection and analysis of imported covered products by 
     entities other than the Food and Drug Administration.
       Title II: Enforcement and Penalties for Importing 
     Contaminated Food--Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to establish bonding requirements for persons 
     involved in prior importing of adulterated or misbranded 
     covered products.
       (Sec. 202) Authorizes the Secretary to debar a person from 
     importing covered products into the United States for covered 
     product import-related repeat or felony activities.
       (Sec. 203) Authorizes appropriations for additional Food 
     and Drug Administration laboratory, inspection, and 
     compliance personnel.
       Title III: Improvements to Public Health Infrastructure and 
     Awareness--Amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
     the Secretary, through the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, to make grants to, enter into contracts with, and 
     provide technical assistance to State and local health 
     entities for enhanced surveillance and prevention of 
     foodborne disease, particularly related to imported covered 
     products. Authorizes appropriations.
       Authorizes the Secretary, with respect to foodborne 
     disease, to: (1) conduct pathogen detection research and 
     development; and (2) provide for training, education, and 
     public information. Authorizes appropriations.
       Directs the Secretary to provide related international 
     public health training and technical assistance. Authorizes 
     appropriations.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I am reintroducing this important bill because of the 
seriousness of the problem it addresses and to spur this Congress to 
take action. I commend Senator Mikulski for her continued leadership on 
this legislation to close the critical gaps in our imported food safety 
laws.
  Citizens deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe and 
wholesome, regardless of their source. The United States has one of the 
safest food supplies in the world. Yet, every year, millions of 
Americans become sick, and thousands die, from eating contaminated 
food. Food-borne illnesses cause billions of dollars a year in medical 
costs and lost productivity. Often, the source of the problem is 
imported food.
  The number of reports in the press of illnesses caused by eating 
contaminated imported foods has grown steadily over the past few years.
  For example, in 1997, school children in five states contracted 
Hepatitis A from frozen strawberries served in the school cafeterias. 
Fecal contamination is a potential source of Hepatitis A, and the 
strawberries the children ate came from a farm in Mexico where workers 
had little access to sanitary facilities.
  Earlier this year, cases of typhoid fever in Florida were linked to a 
frozen tropical fruit product from Guatemala. Again, poor sanitary 
conditions appear to be at the root of the problem.
  Gastrointestinal illness has been linked to soft cheeses from Europe. 
Bacterial food poisoning has been attributed to canned mushrooms from 
the Far East.
  The emergence of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and an increase 
in the number of organisms that are resistant to antibiotics, make 
microbial contamination of food a major public health challenge.
  Ensuring the safety of imported food is a huge task. Americans now 
enjoy a wide variety of foods from around the world and have access to 
fresh fruits and vegetables year round. In 1997, the Food Safety 
Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture handled 118,000 
entries of imported meat and poultry. The FDA handled far more--2.7 
million entries of other imported food. Current FDA procedures and 
resources allowed for less than two percent of those 2.7 million 
imports to be physically inspected. Clearly, we need to do better.
  The FDA lacks sufficient authority to prevent contaminated food 
imports from reaching our shores. The agency has no legal authority to 
require that food imported into the United States has been prepared, 
packed and stored under conditions that provide the same level of 
public health protection as similar food produced in the United States. 
Under current procedures, the FDA takes random samples of imports as 
they arrive at the border. The imports often continue on their way to 
stores in all parts of the country while testing is being done, and it 
is often

[[Page S4690]]

difficult to recall the food if a problem is found. Unscrupulous 
importers make the most of the loopholes in the law, including 
substituting cargo, falsifying laboratory results, and attempting to 
bring a refused shipment in again, at a later date or at a different 
port.
  The legislation we are reintroducing today will give the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services the additional authority needed to assure 
that food imports are as safe as food grown and prepared in this 
country.
  It will give the FDA greater authority to deal with outbreaks of 
food-borne illness and to bar further imports of dangerous foods until 
improvements at the source can guarantee the safety of future 
shipments. This authority covers foods that have repeatedly been 
associated with food-borne disease, have repeatedly been found to be 
adulterated, or have been linked to a catastrophic outbreak of food-
borne illness.
  The legislation will also close loopholes in the law and give the FDA 
better tools to deal with unscrupulous importers.
  In addition, the legislation will authorize the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to target resources toward enhanced surveillance 
and prevention activities to deal with food-borne illnesses, including 
new diagnostic tests, better training of health professionals, and 
increased public awareness about food safety.
  Too many citizens today are at unnecessary risk of food-borne 
illness. The measure we are proposing is designed to reduce that risk 
as much as possible, both immediately and for the long term. We know 
that there are powerful special interests that put profits ahead of 
safety. But Americans need and deserve laws that better protect their 
food supply. This is essential legislation, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to see that it is enacted as soon as 
possible.

                          ____________________