[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.
____________________