[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 117 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9381-S9394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 3117. A bill to establish an Office of Children's Services within 
the Department of Justice to coordinate and implement Government 
actions involving unaccompanied alien children to ensure that their 
best interests are held paramount in immigration proceedings and 
actions involving them; to prescribe standards for their custody, 
release, and detention; to improve policies for their permanent 
protection; and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2000

  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

[[Page S9382]]

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation to change the way unaccompanied immigrant children are 
treated while in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS). The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 
would ensure that the federal government addresses the special needs of 
thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter the U.S. It would 
ensure that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain 
humanitarian relief when eligible.
  Central throughout this legislation are two concepts:
  (1) The United States government has a special responsibility to 
protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and
  (2) In all proceedings and actions, the government must have as its 
paramount priority the protection of the best interests of the child.
  The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 would ensure 
that children who are apprehended by the INS are treated humanely and 
appropriately by transferring jurisdiction over the welfare of 
unaccompanied minors from the INS Detention and Deportation division to 
a newly created Office of Children Services within the INS.
  This legislation would also centralize responsibility for the care 
and custody of unaccompanied children in a new Office of Children's 
Services. By doing so, the legislation would resolve the conflict of 
interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains 
custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same 
time, it seeks their deportation.
  Under this bill, the Office of Children's Services would be required 
to establish standards for the custody, release, and detention of 
children, ensuring that children are housed in appropriate shelters or 
foster care rather than juvenile jails. In 1999, the INS held some 
2,000 children in juvenile jails even though they had never committed a 
crime. Equally as important, the bill would require the Office to 
establish clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives 
such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody 
arrangements.
  The bill would strengthen options for the permanent protection of 
alien children in the United States, including providing asylum or 
adjustment of status to those who qualify.
  Finally, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act would provide 
unaccompanied minors with access to legal counsel, who would ensure 
that the children appear at all immigration proceedings and assist them 
as the INS and immigration court considers their cases. The bill would 
also provide access to a guardian ad litem to ensure that they are 
properly placed in a safe environment. The guardian ad litem would also 
make sure that the child's attorney is, in fact, operating in his or 
her best interest.
  Let me turn for a moment to the issue of access to counsel. Children, 
even more than adults, have immense difficulty tackling the 
complexities of the asylum system without the assistance of counsel. 
Despite this reality, most children in INS detention are unrepresented. 
Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to 
their home countries where they may face further human rights abuses.
  I am aware of two cases that demonstrate the compelling need for 
counsel on behalf of these children. The first case involves two 17-
year-old boys from China. Li and Wang were apprehended on an island 
near Guam and have been in INS custody for 16 months. During their 
detention on Guam, the two boys testified in federal court against the 
smugglers who brought them to Guam. In their testimony, they described 
being beaten by the smugglers even before leaving China, and stated 
that others were beaten during the trip to Guam. In the spring of 2000, 
the two boys were brought to a corrections facility in Los Angeles and 
are currently being held in the INS section of that facility. This is 
where the similarity in their cases end.

  While both of the boys would face danger from the smugglers if they 
returned to China because of their testimony, only one was granted 
asylum. Li applied for asylum and was denied. He was not represented by 
counsel at his hearing. Despite the fact that the INS trial attorney 
mentioned that Li had testified in federal court against the smugglers, 
the judge did not include this information in her decision on the 
claim. Luckily for Li, an attorney overheard the hearing, and after 
speaking with Li, agreed to appeal his asylum claim. Li is still being 
held in a Los Angeles corrections facility. The story is different for 
Wang. Wang had an attorney and won his asylum hearing. But INS is 
appealing the decision so Wang still sits in a Los Angeles corrections 
facility, too.
  These cases demonstrate the pressing need of legal representation for 
children. Li may have won his asylum claim if he had been represented 
by counsel and if the evidence regarding his testimony in federal court 
had been incorporated into his asylum claim. Instead, a 17-year-old boy 
unfamiliar with our immigration system and our language was forced to 
navigate the tricky court system alone.
  According to Human Rights Watch, children detained by the INS, 
whether in secure detention or less restrictive settings, often have 
great difficulty obtaining information about their legal rights. On a 
visit to the Berks facility in 1998, Human Rights Watch staff found 
that none of the children they interviewed had received information 
about their rights or available legal services from either the INS or 
the facility's staff. Neither could local INS or facility staff 
identify how these children might receive this information.
  In one way or another, we have been affected by the six-year-old 
shipwreck survivor from Cuba, Elian Gonzalez. His tragic story brought 
to light the plight of numerous other youngsters who find their way to 
the United States, unaccompanied by an adult and, in many cases, 
traumatized by the experiences provoking their flight.
  Unaccompanied alien children are among the most vulnerable of the 
immigrant population; many have entered the country under traumatic 
circumstances. They are unable to protect themselves adequately from 
danger. Because of their youth and the fact that they are alone, they 
are often subject to abuse or exploitation.
  Because of their age and inexperience, unaccompanied alien children 
are not able to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to 
their needs as accurately as adults can. Despite these facts, U.S. 
immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented 
without careful attention to their effect on children, particularly on 
unaccompanied alien children.
  Each year, the INS detains more than 5,000 children nationwide. They 
are apprehended for not having proper documentation at the ports-of-
entry for entering the United States. Their detention may last for 
months--and sometimes for years--as they undergo complex immigration 
proceedings.
  Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle 
through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack 
the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles and procedures. 
Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable 
to being deported back to the very abuses they fled before they are 
able to make their case before the INS or an immigration judge.
  Under current law, the INS is responsible for the apprehension, 
detention, care, placement, legal protection, and deportation of 
unaccompanied children. I believe that these are conflicting 
responsibilities that undercut the best interests of the child. Too 
often, the INS has fallen short in fulfilling the protection side of 
the these responsibilities.
  The INS uses a variety of facilities to house children. Some are held 
in children's shelters in which children are offered some of the 
services they need but still may experience prolonged detention, lack 
of access to counsel, and other troubling conditions.
  The INS relies on juvenile correctional facilities to house many 
children, even in the absence of any criminal wrongdoing. Today, one 
out of every three children in INS custody is detained in secure, jail-
like facilities. These facilities are highly inappropriate, 
particularly for children who have already experienced trauma in their 
homelands.
  There is currently no provision of federal law providing guidance for 
the placement of unaccompanied alien

[[Page S9383]]

children. In 1987, the Flores v. Reno settlement agreement on behalf of 
minors in INS detention established the nationwide policy for the 
detention, release, and treatment of children in the custody of INS. 
The Flores agreement requires that the INS treat minors with dignity, 
respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability. It 
also requires the INS to place each detained minor in the least 
restrictive setting appropriate to the child's age and special needs.
  In response to Flores, the INS issued regulations that permitted its 
officers to detain children in secure facilities only in limited 
circumstances. The INS officers were required to provide written notice 
to the child of the reasons for such placement. More importantly, the 
regulations required the INS to segregate immigration detainees from 
juvenile criminal offenders.
  Although INS officials have contended that these children are placed 
in these facilities largely because they are charged with other 
offenses, the INS statistics do not bear out this claim. In fiscal year 
1999, only 19 percent of the children placed in secure detention were 
chargeable or adjudicated as delinquents.
  According to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Human 
Rights Watch and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, 
the INS regularly violates these regulations. The NGOs contend that too 
often children are placed in jail-like facilities for seemingly 
arbitrary reasons, seldom notified of the reasons why, and forced to 
share rooms and have extensive contact with convicted juvenile 
offenders.
  I was also astonished to learn that many of these children, some as 
young as four and five years old, are placed behind multiple layers of 
locked doors, surrounded by walls and barbed wire. They are strip 
searched, patted down, placed in solitary confinement for punishment, 
forced to wear prison uniforms and shackles, and are forbidden to keep 
personal objects. Often they have no one to speak with because of the 
language barrier.
  The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 would ensure 
that the particular needs of the thousands of unaccompanied alien 
children who enter INS custody each year are met and that these 
children have a fair opportunity to obtain immigration relief when 
eligible.
  In 1999, the INS held approximately 4,600 children under the age of 
18 in its custody. Some of these children fled human rights abuses or 
armed conflict in their home countries, some were victims of child 
abuse or had otherwise lost the support and protection of their 
families, some came to the United States to join family members, and 
some came to escape economic deprivation.
  Many of these children came from troubled countries around the world, 
including the Peoples Republic of China, Honduras, Afghanistan, 
Somalia, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Guatemala, Cuba, former Yugoslavia, 
and others. They range in age from toddlers to teenagers. Some traveled 
to the United States alone, while others were accompanied by unrelated 
adults.
  Sadly, a significant number are victims of smuggling or trafficking 
rings. In one recent instance, Phanupong Khaisri, a two-year-old Thai 
child, was brought to the U.S. by two individuals falsely claiming to 
be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking 
ring. The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was 
not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had 
intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain 
in the U.S. until the agency could provide proper medical attention and 
determine what course of action would be in his best interest. Now 
his case is before a federal district court judge who will determine 
whether he should be eligible to apply for asylum.

  The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent 
situations like this from recurring by centralizing the care and 
custody of unaccompanied children into a new Office of Children's 
Services within the INS, but outside the jurisdiction of the District 
Directors. By doing so, the Act resolves the conflict of interest 
inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of 
children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it 
seeks their deportation.
  I would like to take a moment to share with you a few other examples 
of how the federal government has fallen short in the manner in which 
we handle vulnerable unaccompanied minors. One would think that our 
country would treat unaccompanied minors with the sensitivity and care 
their situations demands. Unfortunately, in too many instances, that 
has not been the case. Too often, these children are often treated like 
adults and, under the worst circumstances, like criminals.
  Xaio Ling, a young girl from China who spoke no English, was detained 
by the INS at the Berks County Juvenile Detention Center. The INS 
placed her among children guilty of violent crimes, including rape and 
murder. Xaio was never guilty of any crime, and yet she slept in a 
small concrete cell, was subjected to humiliating strip searches, and 
forced to wear handcuffs. She was forbidden to keep any of her clothes 
or possessions and, under the policies of the Berks Center, Xaio was 
not allowed to laugh.
  Imagine the fear this child had: thrust into a system she did not 
understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles 
with serious criminal convictions, including murder, car jacking, rape, 
and drug trafficking. She did not speak English and was unable to speak 
to any staff who knew her language, and she had to submit to strip 
searches. It is hard to believe that our country would have allowed 
this innocent child to be treated in such a horrible manner.
  Situations like that of the young Chinese girl make a compelling case 
for a change in the way our nation treats unaccompanied alien children. 
Under the legislation I have introduced today, this youngster would 
never have been placed in a detention center with criminal offenders. 
Rather, she would have immediately been placed in shelter care, foster 
care, or a home more appropriate for her situation. She would have been 
provided an attorney for her immigration proceedings and a social 
worker would have been appointed as guardian ad litem to ensure that 
the child's needs were being met. Sadly, this young girl was given none 
of these options. Neither was a 16-year-old boy from Colombia.
  This youngster fled Colombia to escape a life of violence on the 
streets of Bogota, where FARC guerrillas attempted to recruit him and 
the F-2 branch of the Colombian government harassed him in its attempt 
to get rid of street children. Fearing for his life, he fled Colombia 
for Venezuela where he lived without shelter or sufficient food. In 
search of a safer life, he sneaked into the machine room of a cargo 
ship bound for the United States. He was lucky to survive; many other 
stowaways were thrown overboard when discovered by the ship's crew.
  The boy remained on the ship from November 1998 until March 1999, 
when he arrived in Philadelphia. He was soon turned over to the INS and 
placed into the same detention center the young Chinese girl was held 
in. He, too, was kept with criminal offenders. He did not understand 
English, which created a myriad of problems because he was unable to 
understand what was expected of him in the detention center. He was 
held in an inappropriately punitive environment for six months.
  I have one last story to share with you today. Placed on a boat bound 
for the United States by her very own parents, a 15-year-old girl fled 
China's rigid family planning laws. Under these laws she was denied 
citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country 
alone and desperate. And what did our immigration system do when they 
found her? They held her in a juvenile jail in Portland, Oregon. She 
was held for eight months and was detained for an additional four 
months after being granted political asylum. At her asylum hearing, the 
young girl could not wipe away the tears from her face because her 
hands were chained to her waist. According to her lawyer, ``her only 
crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a 
better life over here.''
  For years children's rights and human rights organizations have 
implored Congress to improve the way our immigration system handles 
unaccompanied minors--just like the ones whose stories I have just 
told. I believe my bill would do just that.
  We cannot continue to allow children, who come to our country, often

[[Page S9384]]

traumatized and guilty of no crime, to be held in jails and treated 
like criminals. We cannot continue to allow children, scared and 
helpless, to be thrown into a system they do not understand without 
sufficient legal aid and a guardian to look after their best interests. 
We must adhere to the principles of our justice system. What kind of 
message do we send when we deprive children who come to our country 
seeking refuge of their basic rights and protections?
  As a nation that holds our democratic ideals and constitutional 
rights paramount, how then can we continue to avert our attention from 
repeated violations of some of the most basic human rights against 
children who have no voice in the immigration system? We should be 
outraged that children who come to the U.S. alone, many against their 
will, are subjected to such inhumane, excessive conditions.
  I am proud to have the support of the United States Catholic 
Conference and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, 
with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.
  Although we are nearing the end of the session, I want to highlight 
this issue now so that we can begin to think about the importance of 
protecting the rights of children in immigration custody and work 
towards passing this legislation in the next Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 3118. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose 
a windfall profits adjustment on crude oil (and products thereof) and 
to fund heating assistance for consumers and small business owners; to 
the Committee on Finance.


        Windfall Oil Profits For Heating Assistance Act of 2000

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Windfall Oil Profits for Heating 
Assistance Act of 2000 is a bit of a mouthful, but let me explain what 
this does. My legislation imposes a windfall profits adjustment on the 
oil industry so we can fund heating help for consumers and small 
business owners across America.
  Mr. President, while American families have been paying sky-high 
prices at the gas pump and are bracing for record-high home heating 
costs this winter, the oil industry is savoring phenomenal profits. 
Something is wrong when working families are struggling to pay for 
basic transportation and home heat while Big Oil rakes in obscene 
amounts of cash by the barrel.
  Indeed, the overall net income for the 14 major petroleum companies 
more than doubled in the second quarter of 2000 relative to the second 
quarter of 1999, to $10.3 billion.
  In the second quarter of 2000, BP Amoco PLC reported profits of $2.87 
billion, Chevron Corporation reported profits of $1.14 billion, Conoco 
reported profits of $460 million, Exxon Mobil Corporation reported 
profits of $4.53 billion, Marathon Oil Company reported profits of $367 
million, Phillips Petroleum Company reported profits of $439 million, 
Royal Dutch/Shell Group reported profits of $3.15 billion and Texaco, 
Inc. reported profits of $641 million.
  Look at these huge profits. When people in Vermont and New England 
want to know why they are paying so much extra for home heating oil, 
pick up the phone and call Texas and ask them how they justify these 
huge windfall profits.
  This chart illustrates the phenomenal profits of the oil industry. 
Keep in mind, these profits came as gasoline prices soared and heating 
oil stocks fell. The oil industry executives said: It is the people of 
OPEC. It is not our fault. We love our customers. We are your friends. 
We wouldn't raise these prices. It is the naughty people overseas. We 
are not making any money from this. We are sorry you have to pay so 
much more to commute to work. We are sorry you can't heat your home.
  In my State, where it can drop down to 20 below zero, this is not a 
matter of comfort. It is a matter of whether you will live or not.
  But the oil industry executives say: We are sorry you have to pay so 
much more. Gee, maybe you should fill up early. Stocks are low. It is 
not our fault. We are not making anything out of this. We are not 
making any money out of it.
  They are liars. They are making money. They are making windfall 
profits.
  I have a chart here that illustrates the phenomenal profits of the 
oil industry for the past year when gasoline prices soared and heating 
oil stocks fell. Compared to the second quarter of 1999, the profits in 
the second quarter of 2000 increased 133 percent for BP Amoco, 136 
percent for Chevron, 205 percent for Conoco, 123 percent for Exxon 
Mobil, 208 percent for Marathon, 275 percent for Phillips, 96 percent 
for Shell and 124 percent for Texaco.
  Not surprisingly, these multi-million and even multi-billion dollar 
profits in the second quarter of 2000 for BP Amoco, Chevron, Conoco, 
Exxon Mobil and Shell were record quarterly profits.
  These gushering profits are not new for the oil industry in 2000. In 
the first quarter of 2000, Big Oil also reaped record profits.
  In the first quarter of 2000, ARCO reported profits of $333 million, 
BP Amoco reported profits of $2.68 billion, Chevron reported profits of 
$1.10 billion, Conoco reported profits of $391 million, Exxon Mobil 
reported profits of $3.35 billion, Phillips reported profits of $250 
million, Shell reported profits of $3.13 billion, and Texaco reported 
profits of $602 million.
  I have a second chart here that illustrates the phenomenal profits of 
the oil industry for the first quarter of the past year. Compared to 
the first quarter of 1999, the profits in the first quarter of 2000 
increased 136 percent for ARCO, 296 percent for BP Amoco, 291 percent 
for Chevron , 371 percent for Conoco, 108 percent for Exxon Mobil, 257 
percent for Phillips, 117 percent for Shell and 473 percent for Texaco.
  Again, these multi-million and multi-billion dollar profits in the 
first quarter of 2000 for BP Amoco, Conoco, Exxon Mobil and Shell were 
record quarterly profits.
  Yet these same oil company executives can tell the people of Vermont, 
the Northeast and elsewhere: Sorry you have to pay so much more for 
your gasoline. Sorry you have to pay so much more for your home heating 
oil. It is not our fault. We are not making any profits. It is those 
mean people in the Middle East.
  Man, what hypocrisy.
  Somebody once said, in Vermont: We will rely on the facts. Vermonters 
are not fooled by this. But how frustrating it is for all of us, how 
frustrating it is for middle America, to pay these bills, feeling they 
are helpless. Because the fact comes down, in our State, in an 
extraordinarily cold winter, we have to have heat. The fact comes down, 
when men and women have to go to work and they have to commute, they 
have to pay the price of going there. Everybody expects to pay what it 
costs to live. But they do not expect to have to pay windfall profits 
for a cartel of companies.
  Big Oil reaped record profits while American consumers and small 
business owners dug deeper into their pockets to pay for soaring 
gasoline prices. And more record profits for Big Oil at the expense of 
consumers and small business owners are expected this winter when 
heating costs go through the roof.
  Even more disturbing are the recent press reports that the major oil 
companies are not using their record profits to boost production and 
lower future prices, but are instead cutting back on exploration and 
production.
  If they were using some of these huge profits to create more fuel, to 
create more production ability to be able to stave off shortages in the 
future, I would say let them have the profits because we will all 
benefit. They are not. They are just pocketing the profits. They are 
not doing a thing to find new oil, to find new production facilities.
  Listen to this from a report in yesterday's Wall Street Journal: 
``Exploration and production expenditures at the so-called super 
majors--Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Amoco PLC, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group--
fell 20 percent to $6.91 billion in the first six months of the year 
from a year earlier. . . .'' Mr. President, that is outrageous.
  The oil industry is made up of corporations formed under the laws of 
the United States. These oil industry corporations have a 
responsibility to the public good as well as their shareholders.

[[Page S9385]]

  To reap record windfall profits and then cut back on exploration and 
production to further increase future profits is poor corporate 
citizenship and an abuse of the public trust by these oil industry 
corporations and their executives.
  Well I for one have had enough of Big Oil making record profits at 
the expense of the working families and the small business owners who 
pay the oil bills, live by the rules and struggle mightily when fuel 
and heating costs skyrocket.
  In response to the energy crisis of the 1980s, Congress enacted the 
Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980. This windfall profits tax, 
which was repealed in 1988, funded low-income fuel assistance and 
energy and transportation programs.
  Similar to the early 1980s, American families again face an energy 
crisis of high prices and record oil company profits. This past June, 
gasoline prices hit all-time highs across the United States, with a 
national average of $1.68 a gallon, according to the Energy Information 
Administration.
  This winter, the Department of Energy estimates that heating oil 
inventories are 36 percent lower than last year with heating oil 
inventories in New England estimated to be 65 percent lower than last 
year. In my home state of Vermont, energy officials estimate heating 
oil costs will jump to $1.31 per gallon, up from $1.19 last winter and 
80 cents in 1998.
  Given the oil industry's record windfall profits in the face of this 
energy crisis, it is time for Congress to act and again limit the 
windfall profits of Big Oil.
  The Leahy bill would do just that and dedicate the revenue generated 
from this windfall profits adjustment to help working families and 
small business owners with their heating oil costs this winter.
  If they are not going to put more money into providing more energy 
for us, then the Windfall Oil Profits For Heating Assistance Act of 
2000 would impose a 100 percent assessment on windfall profits from the 
sale of crude oil. My legislation builds on the current investigation 
by the Federal Trade Commission, a well deserved investigation into the 
pricing and profits of the oil industry.
  My bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to expand this 
investigation to determine if the oil industry is reaping windfall 
profits.
  The revenue collected from windfall oil industry profits, under my 
legislation, would be dedicated to two separate accounts in the 
Treasury for the following: 75 percent of the revenues to fund heating 
assistance programs for consumers such as the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program (LIHEAP), weatherization and other energy efficiency 
programs; and 25 percent of the revenues to fund heating assistance 
programs for small business owners.
  American consumers and small business owners continue to pay sky-high 
gasoline prices and home heating oil costs are expected to hit an all-
time high this winter while U.S. oil corporations reap more record 
profits. We ought to restore some basic fairness to the marketplace. It 
is time for Congress to transfer the windfall profits from Big Oil to 
fund heating oil assistance for working families.
  If big oil executives say: But we need these profits so we can 
continue our exploration, we can continue to increase refineries--then 
let them spend the money for that. If they are actually spending the 
money for that, it is not a problem. But they want to have it both 
ways: They want to have a shortage, they want to force up the price, 
they want to have a windfall profit, and they want to stick it in their 
pocket and they don't want to do anything to help the consumer. If they 
are unwilling to help the consumer, the Congress ought to stand up and 
help the consumer.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks and the bill be appropriately referred.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                                S. 3118

       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 ``Windfall Oil Profits For 
     Heating Assistance Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The overall net income for the 14 major petroleum 
     companies more than doubled in the second quarter of 2000 
     relative to the second quarter of 1999, to $10,300,000,000.
       (2) In the second quarter of 2000, BP Amoco reported 
     profits of $2,870,000,000, Chevron Corporation reported 
     profits of $1,140,000,000, Conoco reported profits of 
     $460,000,000, Exxon Mobil Corporation reported profits of 
     $4,530,000,000, Marathon Oil Company reported profits of 
     $367,000,000, Phillips Petroleum Company reported profits of 
     $439,000,000, Royal Dutch/Shell Group reported profits of 
     $3,150,000,000, and Texaco, Inc. reported profits of 
     $641,000,000.
       (3) When compared to the second quarter of 1999, the 
     profits in the second quarter of 2000 increased 133 percent 
     for BP Amoco, 136 percent for Chevron, 205 percent for 
     Conoco, 123 percent for Exxon Mobil, 208 percent for 
     Marathon, 275 percent for Phillips, 96 percent for Shell, and 
     124 percent for Texaco.
       (4) The profits in the second quarter of 2000 for BP Amoco, 
     Chevron, Conoco, Exxon Mobil, and Shell were record quarterly 
     profits for these oil companies.
       (5) In the first quarter of 2000, ARCO reported profits of 
     $333,000,000, BP Amoco reported profits of $2,680,000,000, 
     Chevron reported profits of $1,100,000,000, Conoco reported 
     profits of $391,000,000, Exxon Mobil reported profits of 
     $3,350,000,000, Phillips reported profits of $250,000,000, 
     Shell reported profits of $3,130,000,000, and Texaco reported 
     profits of $602,000,000.
       (6) When compared to the first quarter of 1999, the profits 
     in the first quarter of 2000 increased 136 percent for ARCO, 
     296 percent for BP Amoco, 291 percent for Chevron, 371 
     percent for Conoco, 108 percent for Exxon Mobil, 257 percent 
     for Phillips, 117 percent for Shell, and 473 percent for 
     Texaco.
       (7) The profits in the first quarter of 2000 for BP Amoco, 
     Conoco, Exxon Mobil, and Shell were record quarterly profits.
       (8) On June 19, 2000, gasoline prices hit all-time highs 
     across the United States, with a national average of $1.68 
     per gallon, according to the Energy Information 
     Administration.
       (9) On September 22, 2000, the Department of Energy 
     estimated that heating oil inventories nationwide are 36 
     percent lower than in 1999, in the East such inventories are 
     40 percent lower than in 1999, and in New England such 
     inventories are 65 percent lower than in 1999.
       (10) American consumers continue to pay sky-high gasoline 
     prices and home heating oil prices are expected to hit an 
     all-time high in the winter of 2000-2001 while the oil 
     industry continues to reap record profits.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to transfer 
     windfall profits from the oil industry to fund heating 
     assistance for consumers and small business owners.

     SEC. 3. WINDFALL PROFITS ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise 
     taxes) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     chapter:

    ``CHAPTER 55--WINDFALL PROFITS ON CRUDE OIL AND PRODUCTS THEREOF

``Sec. 5886. Imposition of tax.

     ``SEC. 5886. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

       ``(a) In General.--An excise tax is hereby imposed an the 
     windfall profit from any domestic crude oil or other taxable 
     product removed from the premises during the taxable year at 
     a rate equal to 100 percent of such windfall profit.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Premises.--The term `premises' has the same meaning 
     as when used for purposes of determining gross income from 
     property under section 613.
       ``(2) Producer.--The term `producer' means the holder of 
     the economic interest with respect to the crude oil or 
     taxable product.
       ``(3) Reasonable profit.--The term `reasonable profit' 
     means the amount determined by the Chairman of the Federal 
     Trade Commission to be a reasonable profit on the crude oil 
     or taxable product.
       ``(4) Taxable product.--The term `taxable product' means 
     any fuel which is a product of crude oil.
       ``(5) Windfall profit.--The term `windfall profit' means, 
     with respect to any removal of crude oil or taxable product, 
     so much of the profit on such removal as exceeds a reasonable 
     profit.
       ``(c) Liability for Payment of Tax.--The tax imposed by 
     subsection (a) shall be paid by the producer of the crude oil 
     or taxable product.
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for subtitle 
     E of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Chapter 55. Windfall profits on crude oil and products thereof.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to crude oil or other products removed from the 
     premises on or after January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INVESTIGATION AND 
                   DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE PROFITS.

       (a) Investigation of Oil Industry Profits.--The Chairman of 
     the Federal Trade

[[Page S9386]]

     Commission shall investigate the profits of the oil industry, 
     including the 14 major petroleum companies, on the sale in 
     the United States of any crude oil or other taxable product 
     (as defined in section 5886(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986) made after January 1, 1999.
       (b) Determination of Reasonable Oil Industry Profits.--The 
     Federal Trade Commission shall make reasonable profit 
     determinations for purposes of applying section 5886 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to windfall profit on 
     crude oil and products thereof).
       (c) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Federal Trade Commission such funds as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.

     SEC. 5. ALLOCATION OF REVENUES FROM WINDFALL OIL PROFITS 
                   ADJUSTMENT TO HEATING ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Establishment of Trust Fund.--Subchapter A of chapter 
     98 of subtitle I of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to establishment of trust funds) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 9511. WINDFALL OIL PROFITS TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Windfall Oil Profits Trust Fund', consisting of such amounts 
     as may be appropriated or credited to the Windfall Oil 
     Profits Trust Fund as provided in this section.
       ``(b) Transfers to Windfall Oil Profits Trust Fund.--There 
     are hereby appropriated to the Windfall Oil Profits Trust 
     Fund amounts equivalent to the taxes received in the Treasury 
     under section 5886.
       ``(c) Expenditures From Windfall Oil Profits Trust Fund.--
     Amounts in the Windfall Oil Profits Trust Fund shall be 
     available, as provided by appropriations Acts, for making 
     expenditures--
       ``(1) in an amount not to exceed 75 percent of amounts 
     transferred under subsection (b), for heating assistance for 
     consumers, and
       ``(2) in an amount not to exceed 25 percent of amounts 
     transferred under subsection (b), for heating assistance for 
     small businesses.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter A of chapter 98 of subtitle I of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 9511. Windfall oil profits trust fund.''
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 3119. A bill to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
establishment of Fort Clatsop National Memorial in the State of Oregon, 
and for other purposes''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


        The Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act of 2000

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, with my 
friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith, the Fort 
Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act of 2000. I am also pleased that 
Congressman David Wu, representing Fort Clatsop and Clatsop County in 
the United States House of Representatives, is introducing companion 
legislation in the House.
  The Fort Clatsop Memorial marks the spot where Meriwether Lewis, 
William Clark and the Corps of Discovery spent 106 days during the 
winter of 1805. The bicentennial of their historic journey is fast 
approaching and it is estimated that over a quarter-million people will 
visit the Memorial during the bicentennial years of 2003 through 2006. 
Despite this anticipated influx of visitors, the Memorial is still 
legally limited to no more than 130 acres. This legislation would 
authorize the boundary expansion of the Memorial to no more than 1500 
acres so as to help accommodate the large number of expected visitors.
  Since the 1980s, the U.S. Park Service in Astoria, Oregon has been 
trying to negotiate a land purchase with Williamette Industries to 
acquire approximately 928 acres for the expansion of the Ft. Clatsop 
National Memorial. These acres are integral to the interpretation and 
enjoyment of the Memorial's historic site. Over the past 13 months the 
Park Service and Willamette Industries negotiated and, recently, 
reached an agreement that will lead to the Park Service acquiring this 
property. Before that can happen, however, this legislation, 
authorizing the expansion of the park boundary, will allow the Park 
Service to acquire the Willamette land administratively. The bill also 
authorizes a study of the national significance of Station Camp, 
another Lewis and Clark stopping point in 1805, located in Washington 
State.
  The Park Service has targeted the expansion of the Fort Clatsop 
Memorial as one of its highest priorities. The Clatsop County 
Commission supports this legislation, as do the local landowners in and 
around the Memorial. In addition, I have heard from the National Parks 
and Conservation Association [NPCA], the Trust for Public Lands and the 
Conservation Fund, all of whom support efforts to expand the Ft. 
Clatsop Memorial.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation 
pass because the protection of this important American historic area 
will enable us to illustrate the story of Oregon and America's western 
expansion for all who visit this special place. I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3119

       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 ``Fort Clatsop National 
     Memorial Expansion Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 1805, the members of the Lewis and Clark Expedition 
     built Fort Clatsop at the mouth of the Columbia River near 
     Astoria, Oregon, where they spent 106 days waiting for the 
     end of winter and preparing for their journey home. The Fort 
     Clatsop National Memorial was created by Congress in 1958 for 
     the purpose of commemorating the culmination, and the winter 
     encampment, of the Lewis and Clark Expedition following its 
     successful crossing of the North American continent, and is 
     the only National Park Service site solely dedicated to the 
     Lewis and Clark Expedition.
       (2) The 1995 General Management Plan for the Fort Clatsop 
     National Memorial, prepared with input from the local 
     community, calls for the addition of lands to the memorial to 
     include the trail used by expedition members to travel from 
     the fort to the Pacific Ocean and to include the shore and 
     forest lands surrounding the fort and trail to protect their 
     natural settings.
       (3) The area near present day McGowan, Washington where 
     Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery camped after 
     reaching the Pacific Ocean, performed detailed surveying, and 
     conducted the historic ``vote'' to determine where to spend 
     the winter, is of undisputed national significance.
       (4) The National Park Service and State of Washington 
     should identify the best alternative for adequately and cost 
     effectively protecting and interpreting the ``Station Camp'' 
     site.
       (5) Expansion of the Fort Clatsop National Memorial would 
     require Federal legislation because the size of the memorial 
     is currently limited by statute to 130 acres.
       (6) Congressional action to allow for the expansion of Fort 
     Clatsop for both the trail to the Pacific and, possibly, the 
     Station Camp site would be both timely and appropriate 
     before the start of the national bicentennial celebration 
     of the Lewis and Clark Expedition planned to take place 
     during the years 2004 through 2006.

     SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR FORT CLATSOP NATIONAL 
                   MEMORIAL.

       The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment 
     of Fort Clatsop National Memorial in the State of Oregon, and 
     for other purposes'', approved May 29, 1958 (Chapter 158; 72 
     Stat. 153), is amended--
       (a) by inserting in section 2 ``(a)'' before ``The 
     Secretary''.
       (b) by inserting in section 2 a period, ``.'', following 
     ``coast'' and by striking the remainder of the section.
       (c) by inserting in section 2 the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(b) The Memorial shall also include the lands depicted on 
     the map entitled `Fort Clatsop Boundary Map', numbered and 
     dated `405-80016-CCO-June-1996'. The area designated in the 
     map as a `buffer zone' shall not be developed but shall be 
     managed as a visual buffer between a commemorative trail that 
     will run through the property, and contiguous private land 
     holdings.
       (c) The total area designated as the Memorial shall contain 
     no more than 1,500 acres.''
       (d) by inserting at the end of section 3 the following:
       ``(b) Such lands included within the newly expanded 
     boundary may be acquired from willing sellers only, with the 
     exception of corporately owned timberlands.''

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF STUDY OF STATION CAMP.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a study of the 
     area known as ``Station Camp'' near McGowan, Washington, to 
     determine its suitability, feasibility, and national 
     significance, for inclusion into the National Park System. 
     The study shall be conducted in accordance with Section 8 of 
     Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 3120. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
modify restrictions added by the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

[[Page S9387]]

             the immigrant fairness restoration act of 2000

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues, 
Senators Graham, Leahy, Kerry, Wellstone, Durbin, and Feingold in 
introducing the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act. This legislation 
will restore the balance to our immigration laws that was lost when 
Congress enacted changes in 1996 that went too far.
  The 1996 law has had harsh consequences that violate fundamental 
principles of family integrity, individual liberty, fairness, and due 
process. Families are being torn apart. Persons who are no danger to 
the community have languished in INS detention. Individuals who made 
small mistakes and atoned for their crimes long ago are being summarily 
deported from the United States to countries they no longer remember, 
separated from all that they know and love in this country.
  The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act will repeal the harshest 
provisions of the 1996 changes. It will eliminate retroactive 
application of these laws. The rules should not change in the middle of 
the game. Permanent residents who committed offenses long before the 
enactment of the 1996 laws should be able to apply for the relief from 
removal as it existed when the offense was committed. Unfair new 
consequences should not attach to old conduct.
  Our legislation will also restore proportionality to our immigration 
laws. Current immigration laws punish permanent residents out of 
proportion to their crimes. Relatively minor offenses are now 
considered aggravated felonies. Permanent residents who did not receive 
criminal convictions or serve prison sentences should not be precluded 
from all relief from deportation.
  Our proposal also restores the discretion of immigration judges to 
evaluate cases on an individual basis and grant relief from deportation 
to deserving families. Currently, these judges are unable to grant such 
relief to many permanent residents, regardless of their circumstances 
or equities in the cases. Their hands are tied, even in the most 
compelling cases, and deserving legal residents are being unfairly 
treated by these laws.
  In addition, our proposal will end mandatory detention. The Attorney 
General will have authority to release person from detention who do not 
pose a danger to the community and are not a flight risk. The 
traditional standards governing such determinations should be restored 
to immigrants. Dangerous criminals should be detained and deported. But 
indefinite detention must end. Those who have lived in the United 
States with their families for years, established strong ties in our 
communities, paid taxes, and contributed to the Nation deserve to be 
treated fairly.
  The 1996 changes also stripped the Federal courts of any authority to 
review the decisions of the INS and the immigration courts. As a 
result, life-shattering determinations are often now made at the 
unreviewable discretion of an INS functionary. Immigrants deserve this 
day in court, and our proposal will provide it.
  It is long past time for Congress to end these abuses. Real 
individuals and real families continue to be hurt by the unacceptable 
changes made four years ago.
  Armando Baptiste of Boston was recently featured in a column in the 
New York Times by Anthony Lewis. Armando came to the United States at 
the age of 9 from Cape Verde. As a teenager, he became involved in a 
gang and was convicted of assault. Later, he joined a church-sponsored 
group and turned his life around. He became a key figure in the city, 
helping other young people in the Cape Verdean community avoid the 
mistakes that he had made.
  But the 1996 law made Armando deportable as a result of his earlier 
conviction. In February, he was jailed by the INS, and he now awaits 
deportation. The immigration judge will not be able to consider his 
positive contributions to his community, his family ties, or the 
hardship that severing those ties will cause.
  Mary Anne Gehris was born in Germany and adopted by a family in 
Georgia when she was 2 years old. She is married and has two children, 
including a 14-year-old with cerebral palsy. Eleven years ago, she 
pulled another woman's hair during an argument and pled guilty to a 
misdemeanor. Although she never spent a day in jail, the crime is a 
deportable offense under the 1996 laws. Mary Anne was pardoned by the 
Georgia Board of Pardons this year. The Board does not usually grant 
pardons for misdemeanor convictions, but it decided to do so because, 
it said, the 1996 laws have ``adversely affected the lives of numerous 
Georgia residents.''
  Ana Flores also deserves a chance. For several years, she complained 
to police about physical abuse by her husband. In 1998, she bit her 
husband during a domestic dispute. Without consulting a lawyer, she 
pleaded guilty at the urging of a judge and was placed on probation for 
six months. Because the 1996 immigration law calls domestic violence a 
deportable offense, she is now being deported to Guatemala, even though 
she has two children who are U.S. citizens.
  We still have time to act this year to end these abuses. The House of 
Representatives has already passed legislation that is an important 
first step in this process, but it fails to deal with many of the most 
harmful aspects of the 1996 laws. The legislation we are introducing 
today is needed to end these festering abuses once and for all, and we 
urge Congress to enact it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues, Senators 
Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin, Kerry, and Wellstone to introduce legislation 
that will help restore fairness and justice to our legal system.
  Our nation is known worldwide for our system of justice.
  We proclaim that everyone is equal under the eyes of the law.
  Since the passage of the 1996 immigration law and the Anti-Terrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty Act, this statement has been only partially 
true.
  There have been thousands of individuals who have been, in simple 
terms, punished twice: once for a crime, even a very minor crime, that 
was committed, and once again for their immigration status.
  These are individuals who are legally here in the United States; but 
they are not U.S. citizens.
  I do a workday once a month.
  On these days I work a full shift on jobs ranging from garbage 
collection to teaching.
  In my 345th workday, in May 1999, I spent the day at the INS Krome 
Detention Center near Miami.
  I met individuals who had been legally present in the United States 
for years.
  They had committed a crime, and for that they had fully served any 
criminal sentence that was imposed.
  When I met them, they were being indefinitely detained by the INS 
solely because of their immigration status.
  Under the two laws we passed in 1996, the United States could not 
release them.
  And because we don't have a treaty with their country of origin--in 
this case--Cuba, we could not deport them.
  Cuba won't take them back.
  So we are locking up for life individuals who may have bounced a 
check, or stolen a car radio and have already been sentenced, and have 
completed their sentence, for those crimes by a court of law.
  Allow me to offer a few examples from my home state of Florida.
  Catherine Caza was born in Canada but came to this country as a legal 
permanent resident when she was three years old.
  She has always considered herself an American.
  Until recently, she had no reason to believe otherwise.
  Twenty years ago Ms. Caza made a terrible mistake. She sold drugs to 
an undercover policeman. For this she pleaded guilty and received five 
years probation--which she successfully completed.
  That was 20 years ago. Now she is 40 years old. She is the mother of 
a 7-year-old girl. She is attending college, hoping to someday become a 
social worker. The INS wants to deport her.
  Ms. Caza is scared, and justifiably so. She wonders how she will be 
able to build a new life for herself and her daughter, her American-
born daughter, in a country that is wholly unfamiliar.
  Roberto and Sheila Salas are facing an equally bleak future.

[[Page S9388]]

  Mrs. Salas dreamed of going overseas with the United States Air 
Force. Naturally, she planned to take her husband and two children with 
her.
  Her husband, 31-year-old Roberto Salas, came to this country from 
Peru as a permanent legal resident when he was 17.
  At 19, he was sentenced to five years probation. He was released from 
probation two years early because he followed all the rules. He has 
followed the rules ever since.
  His family calls him a loving husband and father and a good provider. 
In 1997 he applied for naturalization so his wife could go overseas. 
Months later he was told that his adopted country was sending him back 
to Peru. The rules had changed.
  These are, as I have said, just two of countless stories from every 
state in the nation. This is not fair. This is not humane. This is 
simply not reasonable.
  Our legislation tries to restore a measure of sanity to the laws 
governing deportation of legal aliens.
  First and foremost: It is blatantly unfair to change the rules in the 
middle of the game. This is what we did in 1996.
  We passed a bill that applied new rules retroactively. We need to fix 
this. Under our legislation, if you committed a crime 10 years ago, the 
rules that will punish you will be the rules that were in place then.
  This bill restores proportionality to our immigration law. With the 
passage of Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act, the ``punishment will 
fit the crime.''
  Under our current law, an individual can be deported for very minor 
crimes.
  They can be punished even if a judge and jury hand down no jail time.
  This person may have children who were born in this country, a spouse 
who is a U.S. citizen, even a business with many U.S. citizen 
employees.
  This legislation returns to judges the discretion they had before 
1996. There are some cases where deportation is the appropriate 
sanction. There are other cases where it is clearly not.
  Let's let judges look at the facts and decide instead of taking over 
their role and insisting on a one-size-fits-all system of justice.
  Let's not treat someone who stole a car as a teenager, served his 
time, and has since become a law-abiding productive adult, the same way 
we treat someone who has committed violent crimes over and over again.
  Let's also not lock someone up for life because they have the bad 
fortune to come from a country that won't take them back. Long-term 
detention is an extremely powerful judicial tool.
  We ask that the INS use this action only when necessary--not as a 
first option.
  This is a very difficult issue to advocate. These are criminals. I 
absolutely believe they should be punished. They should fully repay 
their debt to society through incarceration, monetary restitution, 
community service, or any other sanction.
  Judges and juries decide these punishments, and the legal immigrant 
should fully comply with each and every decision. However, from that 
point on, they should be allowed to start over.
  As Americans, we cannot and should not re-punish them.
  What we are doing now is locking up everyone: car radio thieves, 
check bouncers, and others, all mixed in with the most dangerous 
felons. Everyone should get an equal change to plead their case.
  Experienced judges should have the discretion to keep together 
American families who now face the prospect of lifetime separation. I 
do not want a mass release of legal immigrants who pose a threat to our 
society.
  However--I do want fairness and discretion restored to all those who 
legally live in the United States.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of a bill as 
important as the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act, which would 
restore a number of the due process rights that were taken away by the 
passage in 1996 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act (AEDPA). With those laws, we turned our back on our 
historical commitment to immigration and the rule of law. It is long 
past time to undo the damage that was done then, and this bill provides 
an excellent foundation for such important change.
  First, this bill would eliminate the retroactive effects of the 1996 
laws. Those laws not only contained new and overly harsh provisions 
calling for increased deportations for minor offenses, it applied those 
new provisions retroactively. Under those laws, immigrants who may have 
committed a crime years before and had since gone on to live productive 
lives suddenly faced removal from the United States. Some had plead 
guilty to minor offenses--many of which did not even require jail 
time--with the understanding that such a plea would have no effect on 
their immigration status. And that was true at the time. But suddenly, 
with the passage of this law, they face removal and are not even 
allowed to apply for relief. They receive no due process, despite the 
fact that they have American families and legal immigration status.
  This part of our immigration law simply must be changed. I have 
previously introduced legislation that would at least provide 
noncitizen veterans of our Armed Forces the right to due process before 
being removed for past offenses under these laws--the Fairness to 
Immigrant Veterans Act (S. 871). This bill has the support of the 
American Legion, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and other veterans' 
groups. It is unconscionable that those who served our country would be 
forced to leave it for a crime they committed 20 years ago, under a 
different immigration law regime, without even receiving the chance to 
convince a judge that they deserve the opportunity to stay. But in 
truth, this country should not treat any immigrant in that way, and I 
welcome a total eradication of the retroactivity provisions of these 
laws.
  The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act also refines the definition of 
``aggravated felony'' that was itself altered in the 1996 legislation. 
This redefinition will ensure that immigrants who commit relatively 
minor offenses will not be classified as aggravated felons and 
precluded from all relief from deportation. Current law is unfair even 
when it is not applied retroactively, and we must fight to restore the 
concept of judicial review in our immigration law. The United States 
has historically been committed to the idea that people should be 
judged as individuals, and that we are just to impose penalties--
whether they be criminal penalties or severe civil measures such as 
removal--because we have considered them carefully. We must return to 
that historical commitment.
  The bill will also return the definition of ``crimes involving moral 
turpitude'' to the pre-1996 definition of that term. Before the 1996 
laws were passed, an immigrant had to have been sentenced to a year in 
prison for a crime involving moral turpitude to be deportable. Today, 
any crime that could lead to a sentence of a year--even if a judge 
decides to impose no sentence whatsoever--qualifies as a crime 
involving moral turpitude. A one-year prison term requirement makes 
sense and could prevent great unfairness. Our immigration law should 
respect the decisions of judges and juries, not seek to undermine them.
  This bill also touches on an area that I have worked on extensively--
expedited removal. Expedited removal allows low-level INS officers with 
cursory supervision to return people who enter the United States to 
their home countries without opportunity for review. Although those who 
say they fear returning are given the opportunity for a credible fear 
hearing, there is ample evidence that that protection is insufficient 
to help those who have learned to fear authority in their native lands, 
or those whose grasp of English is halting or nonexistent. Senator 
Brownback and I last year introduced S. 1940, the Refugee Protection 
Act, which would restrict the use of expedited removal to immigration 
emergencies, as certified by the Attorney General. I have been greatly 
disappointed that the Judiciary Committee has not scheduled a hearing 
on this bipartisan bill. I hope that we can still take action in this 
Congress to resolve this critical human rights issue. Meanwhile, I 
strongly support this bill's provision to restrict the use of expedited 
removal to our ports of entry. The INS has recently begun implementing 
expedited removal inside the United States. I believe an expansion of 
this program is inappropriate,

[[Page S9389]]

considering the bipartisan movement in Congress to reevaluate its 
existence even at our ports of entry. This bill will limit expedited 
removal's growth while we continue our efforts to restrict its use 
altogether.
  I would also like to note this bill's restoration of the authority of 
federal courts to review INS decisions. Portions of this authority were 
stripped in both 1996 bills, a move I opposed at the time and continue 
to oppose today. Congress should not be in the business of 
micromanaging the federal docket, especially in politically sensitive 
areas such as immigration law. We should restore the pre-1996 status 
quo and give federal courts back the power we improvidently removed in 
the midst of the anti-immigration movement that seized this Congress.
  I have highlighted only some of the excellent provisions in this bill 
today. This legislation also contains good provisions addressing the 
detention of immigrants, and allowing immigrants who have already been 
deported under the 1996 laws to reopen their cases. We cannot be 
content simply to fix these problems while ignoring those who have 
already been harmed by them. Rather, we must find a way to rectify the 
situations of those who have been treated unfairly over the last four 
years.
  Although it is late in this Congress, there is a real opportunity for 
action on these issues. The House has already passed bipartisan 
legislation eliminating some of the retroactive effects of the 1996 
laws. That legislation is not comprehensive enough in my view, but it 
is a good start, and it shows that members on both sides of the aisle 
are concerned about the effects--perhaps unintended--of those laws.
  I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Graham for their 
hard and consistent work on these issues. I am happy to be able to join 
with them and I hope that we can work together to gain attention for 
this bill, and convince our colleagues and the Administration that 
these are changes that need to be made this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 3122. A bill to amend title III of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act of 1990 to require, as a precondition to commencing a civil action 
with respect to a place of public accommodation or a commercial 
facility, that an opportunity be provided to correct alleged 
violations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                          ada notification act

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3122

       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 ``ADA Notification Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990; AMENDMENT TO 
                   PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ALLEGED 
                   VIOLATIONS AS PRECONDITION TO CIVIL ACTIONS 
                   REGARDING PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 308(a)(1) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12188(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) Availability'' and all that follows 
     through ``The remedies and procedures set forth'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Availability of remedies and procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     the remedies and procedures set forth'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of 
     this section), by striking the second sentence; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following subparagraphs:
       ``(B) Opportunity for correction of alleged violation.--A 
     court does not have jurisdiction in a civil action filed 
     under subparagraph (A) with the court unless--
       ``(i) before filing the complaint, the plaintiff provided 
     to the defendant notice of the alleged violation, and the 
     notice was provided by registered mail or in person;
       ``(ii) the notice identified the specific facts that 
     constitute the alleged violation, including identification of 
     the location at which the violation occurred and the date on 
     which the violation occurred;
       ``(iii) 90 or more days has elapsed after the date on which 
     the notice was so provided;
       ``(iv) the notice informed the defendant that the civil 
     action could not be commenced until the expiration of such 
     90-day period; and
       ``(v) the complaint states that, as of the date on which 
     the complaint is filed, the defendant has not corrected the 
     alleged violation.
       ``(C) Certain consequences of failure to provide 
     opportunity for correction.--With respect to a civil action 
     that does not meet the criteria under subparagraph (B) to 
     provide jurisdiction to the court involved, the following 
     applies:
       ``(i) The court shall impose an appropriate sanction upon 
     the attorneys involved (and notwithstanding the lack of 
     jurisdiction to proceed with the action, the court has 
     jurisdiction to impose and enforce the sanction).
       ``(ii) If the criteria are subsequently met and the civil 
     action proceeds, the court may not under section 505 allow 
     the plaintiff any attorneys' fees (including litigation 
     expenses) or costs.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS:
  S. 2123. A bill to provide for Federal class action reform; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


          consumer rights in federal class actions act of 2000

 Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I offer today legislation entitled 
the ``Consumer Rights in Federal Class Actions Act of 2000.'' It is 
designed to incorporate checks upon the abuses of class action law that 
has led to an increasing number of suits where the primary benefit 
accrues to the attorney, and not the class represented. The bill also 
takes steps to ensure that attorney fees in class action resolutions 
are in proportion to the benefits that actually accrue to the class.
  The last few years have seen the rise of ``coupon settlements'' in 
class action suits, in which attorneys reap literally hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in fees while the class members merely receive 
coupons for discounts on later purchases. For instance, in one well-
known airline price-fixing settlement, class members received coupons 
in $8, $10, and $25 denominations which could not be pooled. In another 
class action settlement, a manufacturer was sued because its 
dishwashers caught on fire under conditions of normal use. Under the 
settlement, customers were provided coupons to purchase replacement 
dishwashers from the very same maker. So not only are the trial lawyers 
hitting the jackpot for themselves, but the defendants in many coupon 
settlements actually receive the benefit of a promotional tool for 
their products. These types of deals only further erode the credibility 
of our judicial system.
  Moreover, notices to class members are so densely worded and 
difficult to slog through that they are routinely ignored, and the 
class action attorneys are free to proceed and negotiate without true 
accountability to their supposed clients. The idea of attorneys working 
for the benefit of their clients has been turned on its head, and now 
in many class action lawsuits class members exist for the benefit of 
the lawyer, and the lawyer walks away from the table with a large fee 
while the class members receive next to nothing.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has recently addressed the problem of 
``coupon settlements'' with S. 353, the Class Action Fairness Act, 
which would move more large, multi-state claims into federal court 
where there has been more vigilance in reviewing class action 
certifications and settlements. This is an important reform, but I 
think we can take specific steps that go beyond this reform to cut down 
on the number of ``coupon settlements'' in class action lawsuits.
  The first reform in my bill requires that the attorney filing the 
class action lawsuit file a pleading, including a disclosure of the 
recovery sought for class members and the anticipated attorney's fees, 
along with an explanation of how any attorney's fees will be 
calculated. This will give the court and the public notice of what the 
attorney is actually attempting to accomplish with the litigation for 
the class, and for themselves.
  The second reform would require that, after a proposed settlement 
agreement has been filed by the parties, counsel for the class shall 
provide notice to the class members of the expected benefits they will 
receive, the rights they will waive through the settlement, the fee 
amount class counsel will seek, an explanation of how the attorney fee 
will be calculated and funded, and the right of any class member to 
enter comments into the court record about the proposed 
settlement terms. This will give class members a

[[Page S9390]]

more thorough knowledge about what they will receive in the settlement 
compared to what the attorney would receive, and will provide the court 
a mechanism for receiving comments from the class about the proposed 
settlement terms before rejecting or approving the agreement.

  The third reform would require a regular, continuing disclosure as to 
how many members of the class are participating in the settlement. One 
of the dirty secrets of coupon settlements is that the benefits to the 
class are often of such minimal value that the class members do not 
even bother to take the steps necessary to receive the benefit, making 
the high fees received by the attorneys even more outrageous. Some 
settlements even offer cash recoveries to class members that are so 
minimal that it is not worth their time to recover the funds. The 
required disclosure will be via Internet so that the public and legal 
researchers can access the information, and also will be mailed 
directly to the class members for their information and use.
  The final reform is that Congress will authorize a report by the 
Judicial Conference of the United States on ways to correct a 
particular abuse by class action lawyers in which they use polling 
surveys of the class to determine how many class members would utilize 
the settlement, and then submit it to the court as evidence for 
determining an appropriate fee. Courts have indeed used these tools to 
determine fees, however, the polling numbers regularly overestimate 
class utilization of the settlements by a wide margin, leading to 
inflated fee awards for class attorneys. My legislation directs the 
Conference to make recommendations to ensure that attorneys receive 
fees that are commensurate with the degree that the lawsuit benefits 
the class. The Judicial Conference is also directed to make 
recommendations affecting the broader topic of ensuring that proposed 
class action settlements are fair to the class members for whom the 
settlements are supposed to benefit.
  My legislation will expose the trial bar to greater scrutiny in 
lawsuits that are filed primarily to line their own pockets, give class 
members greater rights in assessing the settlement offers, and set in 
motion other reforms that will put attorneys fees in line with the 
benefit they bring to the class. This is a true consumers' rights bill 
that will cut down on the abuses by the trial bar and shed more light 
on who is actually being benefited by these lawsuits. I urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense reform.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 3125. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, and title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
sustain access to vital emergency medical services in rural areas; to 
the Committee on Finance.


   Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 2000

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Sustaining 
Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Act of 2000. This bill 
would take important steps to strengthen the emergency medical service 
system in rural communities and across the nation.
  Across America, emergency medical care reduces human suffering and 
saves lives. According to recent statistics, the average U.S. citizen 
will require the services of an ambulance at least twice during his or 
her life. As my colleagues surely know, delays in receiving care can 
mean the difference between illness and permanent injury, between life 
and death. In rural communities that often lack access to local health 
care services, the need for reliable EMS is particularly crucial.
  Over the next few decades, the need for quality emergency medical 
care in rural areas is projected to increase as the elderly population 
in these communities continues to rise. Unfortunately, while the need 
for effective EMS systems may increase, we have seen the number of 
individuals able to provide these services decline. Nationwide, the 
majority of emergency medical personnel are unpaid volunteers. As rural 
economies continue to suffer, and individuals have less and less time 
to devote to volunteering, it has become increasingly difficult for 
rural EMS squads to recruit and retain personnel. In my state of North 
Dakota, this phenomenon has resulted in a sharp reduction in EMS squad 
size. In 1980, on average there were 35 members per EMS squad; today, 
the average squad size has plummeted to 12 individuals per unit. I am 
concerned that continued reductions in EMS squad size could jeopardize 
rural residents' access to needed medical services.
  For this reason, the legislation I introduce today includes two 
components to help communities recruit, retain, and train EMS 
providers. First, this proposal would establish a Rural Emergency 
Medical Services Training and Equipment Assistance program. This 
program would authorize $50 million in grant funding for fiscal years 
2001-2006, which could be used by rural EMS squads to meet various 
personnel needs. For example, this funding could help cover the costs 
of training volunteers in emergency response, injury prevention, and 
safety awareness; volunteers could also access this funding to help 
meet the costs of obtaining State emergency medical certification. In 
addition, EMS squads would be offered the flexibility to use grant 
funding to acquire new equipment, such as cardiac defibrillators. This 
is particularly important for rural squads that have difficulty 
affording state-of-the-art equipment that is needed for stabilizing 
patients during long travel times between the rural accident site and 
the nearest urban medical facility. This grant funding could also be 
used to provide community education training in CPR, first aid or other 
emergency medical needs.
  Second, the Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act 
would help individuals meet the costs of providing services by offering 
all volunteer emergency medical personnel a $500 income tax credit. 
Volunteers could use this credit to cover some of the incidental 
expenses incurred in providing services, such as purchasing gasoline 
for the vehicles they use to respond to emergencies or to buy medical 
gear like safety gloves and clothing. It is my hope that this tax 
credit would provide an incentive for unpaid EMS volunteers to 
continue providing services and for new volunteers to join rural 
emergency medical squads.

  In addition to the provisions I have just described, this legislation 
also includes two other measures that would provide additional 
resources to EMS squads. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 reduced 
inflationary update payments to ambulance providers through 2002. This 
means that during this time frame, ambulance providers have not been 
given adequate resources to keep up with increasing service demands. To 
ensure ambulance providers receive appropriate resources, this 
legislation would eliminate the BBA market basket reductions and would 
instead provide a full inflationary update over the next two years. 
Also, this bill would provide an extra one percentage point increase in 
fiscal year 2001 to all EMS providers.
  In addition, this proposal takes steps to fix the shortcomings of the 
newly implemented Medicare ambulance fee schedule. The negotiated 
rulemaking committee that developed the fee schedule voiced concern 
that the payment system does not adequately account for the costs of 
providing emergency care to low-volume rural areas. In response to this 
concern, the Committee included an add-on payment for services provided 
to rural areas. While this payment adjustment is a step in the right 
direction, we must go further in identifying low-volume areas and 
ensuring EMS providers are paid appropriately for serving these 
communities. This proposal would direct the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) to conduct a study and provide recommendations to 
Congress on options for providing more appropriate payments to the 
nation's rural EMS providers. In conjunction with providing these 
recommendations, HHS would be required to implement any appropriate 
reimbursement changes by January 1, 2002.
  It is my hope that the Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency (SAVE) 
Medical Services Act will help ensure EMS providers can continue 
providing quality medical care to our communities. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself and Mr. Biden):

[[Page S9391]]

  S. 3126. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to revise 
and improve provisions relating to famine prevention and freedom from 
hunger; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


   famine prevention and freedom from hunger improvement act of 2000

 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
amend title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Title XII 
describes the relationship between American universities and the United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID), with respect to 
USAID's international agriculture development programs. I am pleased to 
be joined in introducing this bill by my distinguished colleague from 
Delaware, Senator Biden.
  This bill revitalizes the relationship between our universities, 
their public and private partners, and USAID. It reflects the fact that 
agriculture development work has changed dramatically in the past few 
years. For example, universities have long been important partners in 
the United States' efforts to promote agricultural development and 
decrease world hunger, but universities are no longer ivory towers. 
They now work with a variety of public and private partners to carry 
out agriculture-related assistance projects. This bill authorizes 
universities to utilize such partners when carrying out projects for 
USAID.
  The bill also reflects the fact that agriculture development work 
increasingly focuses on income generation, rather than simply on 
household subsistence production. In addition to helping farmers grow 
enough to feed their immediate families, foreign agricultural 
assistance should also help farmers market and sell their products, and 
maximize their household income. This bill recognizes this new focus on 
income generation as a goal of American foreign agricultural assistance 
programs.
  Lastly, the bill reflects the fact that sustainable development has 
increased in importance. Environmental and natural resource issues 
should be considered as part of the big picture in agriculture 
development.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record immediately following these remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3126

       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 ``Famine Prevention and 
     Freedom From Hunger Improvement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Declarations of Policy.--(1) The first sentence of 
     section 296(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2220a(a)) is amended to read as follows: ``The 
     Congress declares that, in order to achieve the mutual goals 
     among nations of ensuring food security, human health, 
     agricultural growth, trade expansion, and the wise and 
     sustainable use of natural resources, the United States 
     should mobilize the capacities of the United States land-
     grant universities, other eligible universities, and public 
     and private partners of universities in the United States and 
     other countries, consistent with sections 103 and 103A of 
     this Act, for: (1) global research on problems affecting 
     food, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries; (2) improved 
     human capacity and institutional resource development for the 
     global application of agricultural and related environmental 
     sciences; (3) agricultural development and trade research and 
     extension services in the United States and other countries 
     to support the entry of rural industries into world markets; 
     and (4) providing for the application of agricultural 
     sciences to solving food, health, nutrition, rural income, 
     and environmental problems, especially such problems in low-
     income, food deficit countries.''.
       (2) The second sentence of section 296(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220a(a)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G), respectively;
       (B) in subparagraph (A) (as redesignated), by striking ``in 
     this country'' and inserting ``with and through the private 
     sector in this country and to understanding processes of 
     economic development'';
       (C) in subparagraph (B) (as redesignated), to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) that land-grant and other universities in the United 
     States have demonstrated over many years their ability to 
     cooperate with international agencies, educational and 
     research institutions in other countries, the private sector, 
     and nongovernmental organizations worldwide, in expanding 
     global agricultural production, processing, business and 
     trade, to the benefit of aid recipient countries and of the 
     United States;'';
       (D) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated), to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) that, in a world of growing populations with rising 
     expectations, increased food production and improved 
     distribution, storage, and marketing in the developing 
     countries is necessary not only to prevent hunger and ensure 
     human health and child survival, but to build the basis for 
     economic growth and trade, and the social security in which 
     democracy and a market economy can thrive, and moreover, that 
     the greatest potential for increasing world food supplies and 
     incomes to purchase food is in the developing countries where 
     the gap between food need and food supply is the greatest and 
     current incomes are lowest;'';
       (E) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (G) (as 
     redesignated);
       (F) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (F) (as 
     redesignated);
       (G) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (H) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) that, with expanding global markets and increasing 
     imports into many countries, including the United States, 
     food safety and quality, as well as secure supply, have 
     emerged as mutual concerns of all countries;
       ``(F) that research, teaching, and extension activities, 
     and appropriate institutional and policy development 
     therefore are prime factors in improving agricultural 
     production, food distribution, processing, storage, and 
     marketing abroad (as well as in the United States);'';
       (I) in subparagraph (G) (as redesignated), by striking ``in 
     the United States'' and inserting ``and the broader economy 
     of the United States''; and
       (J) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) that there is a need to responsibly manage the 
     world's natural resources for sustained productivity, health 
     and resilience to climate variability; and
       ``(I) that universities and public and private partners of 
     universities need a dependable source of funding in order to 
     increase the impact of their own investments and those of 
     their State governments and constituencies, in order to 
     continue and expand their efforts to advance agricultural 
     development in cooperating countries, to translate 
     development into economic growth and trade for the United 
     States and cooperating countries, and to prepare future 
     teachers, researchers, extension specialists, entrepreneurs, 
     managers, and decisionmakers for the world economy.''.
       (b) Additional Declarations of Policy.--Section 296(b) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220a(b)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Accordingly, the Congress declares that, in order to 
     prevent famine and establish freedom from hunger, the 
     following components must be brought together in a 
     coordinated program to increase world food and fiber 
     production, agricultural trade, and responsible management of 
     natural resources, including--
       ``(1) continued efforts by the international agricultural 
     research centers and other international research entities to 
     provide a global network, including United States 
     universities, for international scientific collaboration on 
     crops, livestock, forests, fisheries, farming resources, and 
     food systems of worldwide importance;
       ``(2) contract research and the implementation of 
     collaborative research support programs and other research 
     collaboration led by United States universities, and 
     involving research systems in other countries focused on 
     crops, livestock, forests, fisheries, farming resources, and 
     food systems, with benefits to the United States and partner 
     countries;
       ``(3) broadly disseminating the benefits of global 
     agricultural research and development including increased 
     benefits for United States agriculturally related industries 
     through establishment of development and trade information 
     and service centers, for rural as well as urban communities, 
     through extension, cooperatively with, and supportive of, 
     existing public and private trade and development related 
     organizations;
       ``(4) facilitation of participation by universities and 
     public and private partners of universities in programs of 
     multilateral banks and agencies which receive United States 
     funds;
       ``(5) expanding learning opportunities about global 
     agriculture for students, teachers, community leaders, 
     entrepreneurs, and the general public through international 
     internships and exchanges, graduate assistantships, faculty 
     positions, and other means of education and extension through 
     long-term recurring Federal funds matched by State funds; and
       ``(6) competitive grants through universities to United 
     States agriculturalists and public and private partners of 
     universities from other countries for research, institution 
     and policy development, extension, training, and other 
     programs for global agricultural development, trade, and 
     responsible management of natural resources.''.
       (c) Sense of the Congress.--Section 296(c) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220a(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``each component'' and 
     inserting ``each of the program components described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (b)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--

[[Page S9392]]

       (A) by inserting ``and public and private partners of 
     universities'' after ``for the universities''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by inserting ``and public and private partners of 
     universities'' after ``such universities'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon;
       (D) by striking the matter following subparagraph (B); and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) multilateral banks and agencies receiving United 
     States funds;
       ``(D) development agencies of other countries; and
       ``(E) United States Government foreign assistance and 
     economic cooperation programs;''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) generally engage the United States university 
     community more extensively in the agricultural research, 
     trade, and development initiatives undertaken outside the 
     United States, with the objectives of strengthening its 
     capacity to carry out research, teaching, and extension 
     activities for solving problems in food production, 
     processing, marketing, and consumption in agriculturally 
     developing nations, and for transforming progress in global 
     agricultural research and development into economic growth, 
     trade, and trade benefits for aid recipient countries and 
     United States communities and industries, and for the wise 
     use of natural resources; and
       ``(5) ensure that all federally funded support to 
     universities and public and private partners of universities 
     relating to the goals of this title is periodically reviewed 
     for its performance.''.
       (d) Definition of Universities.--Section 296(d) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220a(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``sea-grant colleges;'' the 
     following: ``Native American land-grant colleges as 
     authorized under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status 
     Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note);''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``extension'' and 
     inserting ``extension (including outreach)''.
       (e) Definition of Administrator.--Section 296(e) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220a(e)) is 
     amended by inserting ``United States'' before ``Agency''.
       (f) Definition of Public and Private Partners of 
     Universities.--Section 296 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) As used in this title, the term `public and private 
     partners of universities' includes entities that have 
     cooperative or contractual agreements with universities, 
     which may include formal or informal associations of 
     universities, other education institutions, United States 
     Government and State agencies, private voluntary 
     organizations, nongovernmental organizations, firms operated 
     for profit, nonprofit organizations, multinational banks, 
     and, as designated by the Administrator, any organization, 
     institution, or agency incorporated in other countries.''.
       (g) Definition of Agriculture.--Section 296 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220a) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(g) As used in this title, the term `agriculture' 
     includes the science and practice of activity related to 
     food, feed, and fiber production, processing, marketing, 
     distribution, utilization, and trade, and also includes 
     family and consumer sciences, nutrition, food science and 
     engineering, agricultural economics and other social 
     sciences, forestry, wildlife, fisheries, aquaculture, 
     floraculture, veterinary medicine, and other environmental 
     and natural resources sciences.''.
       (h) Definition of Agriculturists.--Section 296 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220a) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) As used in this title, the term `agriculturists' 
     includes farmers, herders, and livestock producers, 
     individuals who fish and others employed in cultivating and 
     harvesting food resources from salt and fresh waters, 
     individuals who cultivate trees and shrubs and harvest 
     nontimber forest products, as well as the processors, 
     managers, teachers, extension specialists, researchers, 
     policymakers, and others who are engaged in the food, feed, 
     and fiber system and its relationships to natural 
     resources.''.

     SEC. 3. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authorization of Assistance.--Section 297(a) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220b(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:
       ``(1) to implement program components through United States 
     universities as authorized by paragraphs (2) through (5) of 
     this subsection;'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), to read as follows:
       ``(3) to provide long-term program support for United 
     States university global agricultural and related 
     environmental collaborative research and learning 
     opportunities for students, teachers, extension specialists, 
     researchers, and the general public;''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``United States'' before ``universities'';
       (B) by inserting ``agricultural'' before ``research 
     centers''; and
       (C) by striking ``and the institutions of agriculturally 
     developing nations'' and inserting ``multilateral banks, the 
     institutions of agriculturally developing nations, and United 
     States and foreign nongovernmental organizations supporting 
     extension and other productivity-enhancing programs''.
       (b) Requirements.--Section 297(b) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220b(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``universities'' and inserting ``United States universities 
     with public and private partners of universities''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by inserting ``, environment,'' before ``and related''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``farmers and farm families'' and 
     inserting ``agriculturalists'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, including resources 
     of the private sector,'' after ``Federal or State 
     resources''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and the United States 
     Department of Agriculture'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``, the Department of Agriculture, State 
     agricultural agencies, the Department of Commerce, the 
     Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, 
     the Food and Drug Administration, other appropriate Federal 
     agencies, and appropriate nongovernmental and business 
     organizations.''.
       (c) Further Requirements.--Section 297(c) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220b(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(2) focus primarily on the needs of agricultural 
     producers, rural families, processors, traders, consumers, 
     and natural resources managers;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), to read as follows:
       ``(4) be carried out within the developing countries and 
     transition countries comprising newly emerging democracies 
     and newly liberalized economies; and''.
       (d) Special Programs.--Section 297 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220b) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) The Administrator shall establish and carry out 
     special programs under this title as part of ongoing programs 
     for child survival, democratization, development of free 
     enterprise, environmental and natural resource management, 
     and other related programs.''.

     SEC. 4. BOARD FOR INTERNATIONAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--Section 298(a) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220c(a)) is amended in the 
     third sentence, by inserting at the end before the period the 
     following: ``on a case-by-case basis''.
       (b) General Areas of Responsibility of the Board.--Section 
     298(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2220c(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) The Board's general areas of responsibility shall 
     include participating in the planning, development, and 
     implementation of, initiating recommendations for, and 
     monitoring, the activities described in section 297 of this 
     title.''.
       (c) Duties of the Board.--Section 298(c) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220c(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``increase food 
     production'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``improve agricultural production, trade, and 
     natural resource management in developing countries, and with 
     private organizations seeking to increase agricultural 
     production and trade, natural resources management, and 
     household food security in developing and transition 
     countries;''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before ``sciences'' 
     the following: ``, environmental, and related social'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), after ``Administrator and 
     universities'' insert ``and their partners'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), after ``universities'' insert ``and 
     public and private partners of universities'';
       (4) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (5) in paragraph (7), by striking ``in the developing 
     nations.'' and inserting ``and natural resource issues in the 
     developing nations, assuring efficiency in use of Federal 
     resources, including in accordance with the Governmental 
     Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 
     Stat. 285), and the amendments made by that Act;''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) developing information exchanges and consulting 
     regularly with nongovernmental organizations, consumer 
     groups, producers, agribusinesses and associations, 
     agricultural cooperatives and commodity groups, State 
     departments of agriculture, State agricultural research and 
     extension agencies, and academic institutions;
       ``(9) investigating and resolving issues concerning 
     implementation of this title as requested by universities; 
     and
       ``(10) advising the Administrator on any and all issues as 
     requested.''.
       (d) Subordinate Units.--Section 298(d) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2220c(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Research'' and insert ``Policy'';
       (B) by striking ``administration'' and inserting 
     ``design''; and
       (C) by striking ``section 297(a)(3) of this title'' and 
     inserting ``section 297''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--

[[Page S9393]]

       (A) by striking ``Joint Committee on Country Programs'' and 
     inserting ``Joint Operations Committee''; and
       (B) by striking ``which shall assist'' and all that follows 
     and inserting ``which shall assist in and advise on the 
     mechanisms and processes for implementation of activities 
     described in section 297.''.

     SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORT.

       Section 300 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2220e) is amended by striking ``April 1'' and 
     inserting ``September 1''.

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend 
Senator Hagel in introducing the Famine Prevention and Freedom from 
Hunger Improvement Act of 2000.
  The challenge facing developing nations whose people live in hunger 
today is no longer just how to increase food production. As we enter 
the new millennium, those countries must also confront the problems of 
inadequate income, lack of access to markets for both producers and 
consumers, and unsustainable natural resource management practices.
  One of the keys to all these issues must be a new, more productive 
relationship between educational institutions--here in the U.S. and in 
the affected countries--and their private partners involved in 
agricultural development. In short, they must become part of the new, 
higher-tech, international agricultural economy. This bill, an 
amendment to the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, is designed to 
move us in that direction.
  Mr. President, when delegates from around the world gathered in Rome 
in 1996 for the World Food Summit, they pledged to reduce by half the 
number of people suffering from hunger by the year 2015. At that time 
the number of hungry people was estimated to be between 830 and 840 
million. Now, four years later, the Food and Agriculture Organization 
of the United Nations estimates that there are 790 million people in 
the developing world who do not get enough the eat each day. This is 
positive news, but it is painfully evident that more needs to be done.
  Title XII of the FAA, Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger, was 
written in 1975, at a time when there was a significant level of famine 
and hunger in the world. Its aim was to involve U.S. universities in 
the fight to increase food production. Mr. President, that mission has 
achieved a large degree of success. It is time to go beyond the basic 
issue of production, to take on the further challenges of increasing 
access to markets, improving shipping and storage, promoting 
environmentally sustainable agriculture, and turning farming in 
developing nations from a subsistence activity into a source of income.
  The U.S. Action Plan on Food Security was developed to fulfill 
America's part of the 1996 commitment to cut in half the number of 
hungry persons by 2015. This plan includes several key priority areas, 
including strengthened research and educational capacity, increased 
liberalization of trade and investment, and greater attention to 
natural resource management and environmental degradation. This 
legislation furthers U.S. efforts by amending title XII of the Foreign 
Assistance Act to reflect these priorities.
  As a donor country, our task is to channel assistance into the areas 
in which it is most needed, and to use the most effective means to do 
so. American land and sea grant colleges have been engaged in 
agricultural research for years and, increasingly in the past decade, 
have partnered with private research institutions. In my own state of 
Delaware, Mr. President, both the University of Delaware and Delaware 
State University are engaged in just the kind of research that could 
benefit from the support this legislation will provide.
  I would wager, Mr. President, that most Americans are not aware of 
the many direct benefits that our country's foreign assistance programs 
can provide for us right here at home. Our commitment to reduce hunger 
in developing countries not only benefits those in need: with the 
changes this bill proposes, we will increase the existing benefits to 
U.S. universities and research institutions, and our private 
organizations involved in agricultural development. Our assistance 
programs, while primarily aimed at helping those abroad, can and should 
reflect our commitment to involve U.S. universities and businesses, 
with all of their expertise and experience, in making the world a 
healthier, more productive, and a safer place.
  Mr. President, here in the United States, we are experiencing a 
period of unprecedented growth. At a time in which we have so much, I 
believe that we have a moral obligation to share our blessings. This 
bill helps us to shift our priorities to reflect changing realities so 
that the generosity of the American people is as effective and targeted 
as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Fitzgerald:)
  S. 3127. A bill to protect infants who are born alive; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


               born alive infants protection act of 2000

 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I would like to thank Senator 
Hutchinson and Senator Fitzgerald for joining me as original sponsors. 
This bill is the Senate companion to H.R. 4292, which the House of 
Representatives passed by a vote of 380-15.
  When I came to the Senate six years ago, I never imagined that the 
bill I am offering today would be necessary. Simply stated, this 
measure gives legal status to a fully born living infant regardless of 
the circumstances of his or her birth. I am deeply saddened that we 
must clarify federal law to specify that a living newborn baby is, in 
fact, a person.
  One could ask, ``Why do you need federal legislation to state the 
obvious? What else could a living baby be, except a person?'' I will 
begin my explanation with events in 1995, when the Senate began its 
attempts to outlaw a horrifying, inhumane, and barbaric abortion 
procedure: partial birth abortion. In this particular abortion method, 
a living baby is killed when he or she is only inches from being fully 
born. Twice, the House and Senate have stood united in sending a bill 
to President Clinton to ban this procedure. Twice, the President has 
vetoed the bill. And twice, the House courageously voted to override 
the veto. Although support in the Senate grew each time the ban came to 
a vote, the Senate fell a few votes shy of overriding the veto.
  The Supreme Court's ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, as well as 
subsequent rulings in lower courts, are disturbing on a number of 
levels. First, the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's attempt to ban 
a grotesque procedure the American Medical Association has called ``bad 
medicine,'' and thousands of physicians who specialize in high risk 
pregnancies have called ``never medically necessary.'' Further, the 
Court said it did not matter that the baby is killed when it is almost 
totally outside the mother's body in this abortion method. In other 
known abortion methods, the baby is killed in utero. Finally, the U.S. 
Supreme Court, and the Third Circuit Court have stated it does not 
matter when the baby is positioned when it is aborted. This assertion, 
to me, is the most horrifying of all.
  In the five years worth of debates on partial birth abortion, I have 
asked Senators a very simple question: ``If a partial birth abortion 
was being performed on a baby, and for some reason the head slipped out 
and the baby was delivered, would the doctor and the mother have the 
right to kill that baby?'' In five years, not one Senator who defended 
the procedure has provided a straightforward ``yes'' or ``no'' 
response. They would not answer my question. So last year, I revised 
it. In an effort to try to define when a child may be protected by the 
Constitution, I asked whether it would be alright to kill a baby whose 
foot is still inside the mother's body, or what if only a toe is 
inside? Again, I did not receive an answer.
  Unfortunately, evidence uncovered at a recent hearing before the 
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution suggests my questions 
were not so hypothetical. In fact, two nurses testified to seeing 
babies who were born alive as a result of induced labor abortions being 
left to die in soiled utility rooms. Furthermore, the intellectual 
framework for legalization of killing unwanted babies is being 
constructed by a prominent bioethics professor at Princeton University. 
Professor Peter Singer has advocated allowing parents a 28 waiting 
period to decide whether

[[Page S9394]]

to kill a disabled or unhealthy newborn. In his widely disseminated 
book, Practical Ethics, he asserts, ``killing a disabled infant is not 
morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at 
all.''
  In response to these events, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act 
grants protection under federal law to newborns that are fully outside 
of the mother. Specifically, it states that federal laws and 
regulations referring to a ``person,'' ``human being,'' ``child,'' and 
``individual'' include ``every infant member of the species homo 
sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.'' ``Born alive'' 
means ``the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 
member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or 
extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical 
cord, or definitive movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of 
whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the 
expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, 
caesarean section, or induced abortion.'' The definition of ``born 
alive'' is derived from a World Health Organization definition of 
``live birth'' that has been enacted in 30 states and the District of 
Columbia.
  Again, all this bill says is that a living baby who is completely 
outside of its mother is a person, a human being, a child, and an 
individual. Similar legislation passed by the House of Representatives 
received overwhelming bipartisan support from Members on both sides of 
the general abortion debate. I am hopeful that the Senate and the 
President can agree that once a baby is completely outside of its 
mother, it is a person, deserving protections and dignity afforded to 
all other Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Born Alive Infants 
Protection Act be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 3127

       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 ``Born-Alive Infants 
     Protections Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title, 1, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' 
       as including born-alive infant

       ``(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or 
     of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various 
     administration bureaus and agencies of the United States, the 
     words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', 
     shall include every infant member of the species home sapiens 
     who is born alive at any stage of development.
       ``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with 
     respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the 
     complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 
     member of any stage of development, who after such expulsion 
     or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of 
     the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary 
     muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 
     cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction 
     occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, caesarean 
     section, or induced abortion.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including 
              born-alive infant.''.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Born-
Alive Infants Protection Act. While I am profoundly saddened by the 
fact that such legislation has become necessary, I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor and commend Senator Santorum for his efforts on 
behalf of those members of our society who don't yet have a voice.
  While the abortion lobby announced its vociferous opposition to this 
common-sense legislation and will most-certainly denounce this as an 
attack on Role v. Wade, this is not such an attack. Rather, it is an 
effort to end the brutal practice of infanticide, and to reaffirm that 
a child may not be killed once it has been born.
  I simply do not know how some of my colleagues will be able to defend 
the practice of killing children who have been born alive. We are 
talking about children who have been fully delivered. As I think of the 
moment I first held my grandson Jackson, I am repelled by the fact that 
our society has degenerated to the point where some people say that 
Jackson's life should be able to be taken even after his birth. I truly 
fear that if this practice is not stopped, some day, when the Peter 
Singers of the world have their way, the weakest members of our 
society--babies, the mentally retarded, the terminally ill, and the 
elderly--will have their lives taken from them against their will after 
someone has determined that their life is not meaningful.
  Accordingly, I ask that my colleagues join me and work to enact this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Biden):
  S.J. Res. 53. A resolution to commemorate fallen firefighters by 
lowering the American flag to half-staff on the day of the National 
Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Emittsburg, Maryland; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 53

       Whereas 1,200,000 men and women comprise the American fire 
     and emergency services;
       Whereas the fire and emergency services is considered one 
     of the most dangerous jobs in the United States;
       Whereas fire and emergency services personnel respond to 
     over 16,000,000 emergency calls annually, without reservation 
     and with little regard for their personal safety;
       Whereas fire and emergency services personnel are the first 
     to respond to an emergency, whether it involves a fire, 
     medical emergency, spill of hazardous materials, natural 
     disaster, act of terrorism, or transportation accident;
       Whereas approximately one-third of all active fire and 
     emergency personnel suffer debilitating injuries annually; 
     and
       Whereas approximately 100 fire and emergency services 
     personnel die annually in the line of duty: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That each 
     year, the American flags on all Federal office buildings will 
     be lowered to half-staff on the day of the National Fallen 
     Firefighters Memorial Service in Emittsburg, Maryland.

                          ____________________