[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26983-27014]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1798. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide 
enhanced protection for investors and innovators, protect patent terms, 
reduce patent litigation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


             the american inventors protection act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, along with the 
Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to introduce 
the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. Simply put, this 
legislation reflects several years of discussions and consensus-
building efforts in the Senate and the House, and represents the most 
important and most comprehensive reforms to our nation's patent system 
in nearly half a century. As we prepare to enter a new millennium built 
on high-tech growth, the Internet, and electronic commerce, in which 
American competitiveness will depend on the strength of the patent 
system and the protections it affords, this legislation could not be 
more timely.
  The last time the Patent Act underwent a significant update was in 
1952. Since then, our Nation has experienced an unprecedented explosion 
of technology growth and a tremendous expansion of the global market 
for the fruits of American ingenuity. Yet our patent laws have remained 
largely unchanged in the face of the new demands engendered by these 
developments. This legislation--which many of my colleagues will 
recognize as a compromise version of the Omnibus Patent Act passed by 
the Judiciary Committee with near unanimity more than 2 years ago--will 
effect targeted changes to the patent code to equip the patent system 
to meet the challenges of new technology and new markets as we approach 
the new millennium, while at the same time promoting American 
competitiveness and ensuring adequate protection for American 
innovators, both at home and abroad.
  As many of my colleagues know, this legislation is the product of 
several years of discussion and extensive efforts to reach agreement on 
a responsible package of patent reforms. The Senate made significant 
progress toward consensus during the last Congress when several key 
compromises were reached in the Judiciary Committee to strengthen the 
bill's protections for small businesses and independent inventors and 
to preserve America's competitive edge in the face of increasing global 
competition. I was pleased this year to see those efforts continued in 
the House, where the supporters and former opponents of the bill agreed 
to sit down and work through their differences to produce a 
constructive patent reform bill. The result is H.r. 1907, which has 59 
cosponsors in the House--including the most ardent opponents of prior 
reform measures--and was passed in the House by a 376-43 vote.
  In many ways, the House-passed ``American Inventors Protection Act'' 
builds upon the compromises reached in the Senate during the last 
Congress. For example, the widespread agreement on 18-month publication 
of patent applicants is centered around the

[[Page 26984]]

Senate compromise that allowed inventors to avoid disclosure of their 
applications by not filing their application abroad, where 18-month 
publication is now the rule. Similarly, estoppel provisions similar to 
those agreed to in the Senate form a key component on the broad-based 
agreement on patent reexamination reform. I am pleased to see these 
compromises preserved and to see that the House has built upon them to 
reach the sort of broad consensus on patent reform that I have long 
advocated.
  The bill Senator Leahy and I are introducing today in the Senate 
preserves these important compromises and adds to them a number of 
important provisions. For example, our bill includes a title not in the 
House bill to reduce patent fees for only the second time in history 
(the first time fees were reduced was last year in a bill Senator Leahy 
and I ushered through the Senate), to ensure that trademark fees are 
spent only for trademark-related operations, and to require a study of 
alternative fee structures to encourage maximum participation by the 
American inventor community. Our bill also adds important provisions to 
enhance protections for our national security by preventing disclosure 
of sensitive and strategic patent-related information and by helping to 
identify national security positions at the Patent and Trademark Office 
(PTO) and obtain appropriate security clearances for PTO employees. The 
bill also prohibits the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks from 
entering into an agreement to exchange U.S. patent data with certain 
foreign countries without explicit authorization from the Secretary of 
Commerce. Also in our bill is a requirement that GAO conduct a study on 
patents issued for methods of doing or conducting business, which have 
been the subject of a 75 percent increase in applications at the PTO/
  Like the House bill, our legislation will achieve a number of 
important substantive patent reforms, consistent with the principles of 
protecting American inventors, our national competitiveness, and the 
integrity of our patent system.
  First, the bill provides inventors with enhanced protections against 
invention promotion scams by creating a private right of action for 
inventors harmed by deceptive and fraudulent practices and by requiring 
invention promoters to disclose certain information in writing prior to 
entering into a contract for invention promotion services. An inventor 
who is harmed by any material false or fraudulent statement or 
representation, or any omission of material fact, by an invention 
promoter, or by the invention promoter's failure to make the required 
disclosures, may recover actual damages or, at the plaintiff's 
election, statutory damages in an amount up to $5,000, as the court 
considers just, plus reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. A court may 
award increased damages, up to treble damages, where it finds such 
conduct to have been intentional and done with the intent to deceive 
the inventor. And, in an effort to provide better access to information 
for inventors, the Patent and Trademark Office is required to make 
publicly available all complaints received involving invention 
promoters, along with any response of the invention promoter.
  Second, as noted above, the bill will reduce patent fees, protect 
trademark fees from being diverted to non-trademark uses, and require 
the PTO to study alternative fee structures to encourage maximum 
participation by American inventors.
  Third, the bill provides a ``first inventor defense'' to an action 
for patent infringement for someone who has reduced an invention to 
practice at least one year before the effective filing date of the 
patent and commercially used the subject matter before the effective 
filing date of such patent. The bill responds to recent changes in PTO 
practice and the Federal Circuit's 1998 decision in State Street Bank & 
Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed Cir. 1998), 
in which it formally did away with the so-called ``business methods'' 
exception to statutory patentable subject matter. As a result, patent 
filings for business methods are up by 75 percent this year, and many 
who have been using business methods for many years pursuant to trade 
secret protection--believing such methods were not patentable--are now 
faced with potential patent infringement suits from others who, while 
they may have come later to the game, were first to reach the patent 
office after the bar to patentability for business methods was lifted.
  Fourth, the bill will guarantee a minimum 17-year patent term for 
diligent applicants, addressing concerns that have been expressed since 
the United States went to a 20-year from filing term of protection with 
the adoption of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1994.
  Fifth, the bill will place American inventors on a level playing 
field with their foreign competitors by providing for domestic 
publication in English of those patent applications that are now 
subject to foreign publication by foreign patent offices, while still 
retaining the option inventors now enjoy of preserving the secrecy of 
their application by not filing abroad. It also protects American 
inventors from broader disclosure of their invention through domestic 
publication than occurs in foreign publications by allowing the patent 
applicant to submit a redacted copy of their application for 
publication. This provision will effectively facilitate access to 
information that will enable inventors to target their resources more 
effectively while also providing, for the first time, effective interim 
protection for inventors during patent pendency.
  Sixth, the bill is designed to reduce litigation in district courts 
and make reexamination a viable, less-costly alternative to patent 
litigation by giving third-party requesters the option of inter-partes 
reexamination procedures (in addition to the current ex parte 
reexamination procedures). Under this optional procedure, the third 
party is afforded an expanded, although still limited, role in the 
reexamination process through an opportunity to respond, in writing, to 
an action by a patent examiner when, but only when, the patent owner 
does so. These expanded rights for third parties are carefully balanced 
with incentives to prevent abusive reexamination requests, including 
broad estoppel provisions and severe restrictions on appeals.
  Finally, the bill will make a number of miscellaneous, yet important 
patent reforms.
  In short, the provisions of this bill now enjoy widespread bipartisan 
and bicameral support. The total package of changes that have been made 
to this legislation over the past several years are both responsive and 
comprehensive. The time to act on this package of reforms is now. 
Intellectual property, and patents in particular, are among our 
nation's greatest assets in this technology-dominated age. Our patent 
system must be equipped to handle the challenges of the new millennium 
and to protect our nation's creators into the next century. The 
strength of our economy depends upon it. If we do not, we will lose our 
edge in the ongoing race for technological and economic leadership in 
the world economy.
  In the most simple of terms, we must have a patent system that is 
state of the art. The bill Senator Leahy and I are introducing today 
will help to provide just that. I hope that my colleagues will join 
with me in giving their overwhelming support for this measure.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with Senator 
Hatch in introducing the ``American Inventors Protection Act of 1999,'' 
which I hope can be enacted into law this year.
  This patent bill is important to America's future. I have heard from 
inventors, from businesses large and small, from hi-tech to low-tech 
firms that this bill will give American inventors and businesses an 
improved competitive edge now enjoyed by many European countries.
  We should be on a level playing field with them.
  This bill reduces patent fees for only the second time in history. 
The first time that was done was also in a Hatch-Leahy bill passed by 
the Senate in the 105th Congress.

[[Page 26985]]

  All the concepts in this bill--such as patent term guarantees, 
domestic publication of patent applications filed abroad, first 
inventor defense--have been thoroughly examined. Indeed, they have been 
included in several bills that the Congress has carefully studied.
  Chairman Hatch and I have worked closely on this bill. I believe that 
we can get a good patent bill to the President before we go out of 
session this year. I look forward to working with the House on these 
issues and appreciate the hard work and careful crafting that went into 
their bill--H.R. 1907.
  I wish to point out that the Senate Judiciary Committee last year 
also developed a strong bill--S. 507--which contained many of the same 
concepts and approaches found in H.R. 1907 and S. 1798.
  It is long past time for the Senate to consider and pass this patent 
reform legislation. Our patent bill will be good for Vermont, good for 
Utah and every state in the Nation, good for American innovators of all 
sizes, and good for America.
  We will be working with the Administration, the full Senate and with 
the House to move this bill along quickly. I hope we can keep this 
bipartisan coalition together because otherwise this bill will die, as 
past efforts have.
  The patent bill will reform the U.S. patent system in important ways.
  It will reduce legal fees that are paid by inventors and companies; 
eliminate duplication of research efforts and accelerate research into 
new areas; increase the value of patents to inventors and companies; 
and facilitate U.S. inventors and companies' research, development, and 
commercialization of inventions.
  In Vermont, we have a number of independent inventors and small 
companies. It is, therefore, especially important to me that this bill 
will be one that helps them as well as the larger companies in Vermont 
like IBM.
  Over the past several years, Congress has held eight Congressional 
hearings with more than 80 witnesses testifying about the various 
proposals incorporated in the bill. Republican and Democratic 
Administrations alike, reaching back to the Johnson Administration, 
have supported these similar reforms.
  I also thank Secretary Daley and the administration for their 
unflagging support of effective patent reform. I also know that they 
worked closely with the House on H.R. 1907. I will submit a more 
detailed statement on S. 1798 before we proceed to Senate 
consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1799. A bill for the relief of Sergio Lozano; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer 
legislation that provides permanent resident status to Sergio Lozano 
who, with his younger sister and brother, were granted immigrant visas 
to come to the United States with their mother in 1997. Unfortunately, 
they lost the opportunity to be come immigrants when they tragically 
lost their mother in that same year.
  Sergio Lozano lived with his siblings and their mother, Ana Ruth 
Lozano, until her death in February of this year due to complications 
from typhoid fever. Since their mother's death, the three siblings have 
been living with their closest relative, their U.S. citizen grandmother 
who lives in Los Angeles and has since adopted the two younger 
children.
  Without his mother, Sergio does not have the legal right to remain in 
the United States. When he first arrived in the U.S. at 17, he was 
unable to obtain lawful permanent residence because immigration law 
prohibits permanent legal residency to minor children without their 
parents. However, as a child of 17, he was also outside the age limit 
for adoption by his grandmother. As a result, Sergio, through no fault 
of his own, has been left in limbo in the United States.
  Without legal status, this young man can be deported by the INS 
despite the fact that he has no immediate family in El Salvador except 
their estranged father who was alleged to have been abusive to the 
mother and the children.
  Without the legislation, Sergio will most likely be separated from 
his brother and sister and sent back to El Salvador. Here in the U.S., 
he can remain with his brother and sister, further his education and 
continue to thrive in the loving environment provided by his U.S. 
citizen grandmother and uncles.
  I have previously sought administrative relief for all three Lozano 
children by asking the INS district office in Los Angeles and 
Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in 
their case. INS told my staff that there was nothing further they could 
do administratively and a private relief bill may be then only way to 
protect the children from deportation. Since then, the two younger 
Lozano children have been adopted by their grandmother and have 
received approval of their lawful permanent resident petitions. Like 
his siblings, Sergio has too suffered a sense of loss and bewilderment 
after losing a parent. However. unlike his sister and brother, he 
stands to be deprived of the security of his American family and 
deported back to a land he no longer knows, if only as a consequence of 
being born two years too soon.
  Last year, the Senate passed by unanimous consent the private bill I 
introduced on behalf of Sergio Lozano and his siblings. However, the 
105th Congress came to a close before the House was able to act.
  This year, I hope you will support the bill on behalf of Sergio 
Lozano so that we can help him begin to rebuild his life with his 
loving family in the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 1800. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to improve onsite 
inspections of State food stamp programs, to provide grants to develop 
community partnerships and innovative outreach strategies for food 
stamp and related programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


  the food stamp outreach and research for kids act of 1999 (the fork 
                                  act)

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce 
The Food Stamp Outreach and Research for Kids Act of 1999.
  Along with my House colleagues Representatives William Coyne and 
Sander Levin, I created this common sense piece of legislation with the 
goal of guarding children and their families against hunger.
  In 1998, over 14 million children lived in households that could not 
afford to buy food.
  That was an increase of almost 4 million children from 1997.
  At the same time, the number of poor children not getting Food Stamps 
reached its highest level in a decade.
  My bill, the Food Stamp Outreach for Kids Act of 1999 (the FORK Act), 
would help us to give children who are currently going hungry the Food 
Stamps that they need.
  Some time ago, food banks in Florida started telling me that the 
number of people coming to them for assistance was increasing, and that 
if demand continued at the current rate, they might run out of food.
  This crisis was not specific to Florida, Congressman Coyne and 
Congressman Levin were hearing the same concerns from food banks in 
Pennsylvania and Michigan.
  When we asked them whom the new people coming to the food banks were, 
we were told that they were mostly low-income working families.
  When the food banks screened these families using eligibility 
guidelines, it looked as if the majority of the new people coming to 
the food banks for assistance should have been receiving food stamps 
but were not.
  The General Accounting Office (GAO) researched this issue, and in 
their July, 1999 report found that while a number of people who have 
left the Food Stamp program because of the improved economy, economic 
growth alone does not explain the drop in Food Stamp participation.
  The GAO found that demand for emergency and supplemental food was

[[Page 26986]]

increasing and that some state agencies were not correctly following 
federal laws regarding Food Stamp benefits.
  Perhaps most disturbing of all, the GAO found that almost half of the 
people who have lost Food Stamps since 1996 are children.
  The FORK Act is designed to address GAO's findings and 
recommendations to make certain that children and families in this 
country are not going hungry.
  The FORK Act would provide grant funding to food banks, schools, 
health clinics, local governments and other entities that interact with 
working families. The grants would allow those organizations to develop 
and expand innovative approaches to Food Stamp outreach, which would 
help the Food and Nutrition Service enroll many of the eligible 
families that currently go hungry.
  The FORK Act would require the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to 
conduct onsite inspections of state Food Stamp programs to identify 
barriers to enrollment and work with states to develop corrective 
action plans.
  The FORK Act would authorize FNS to conduct research, which will help 
it to improve access, formulate nutrition policy and measure program 
impacts and integrity.
  The FORK Act would require the Departments of Agriculture and Health 
and Human Services to work with state Temporary Assistance for Children 
and Families (TANF) programs to train caseworkers and make sure that 
prospective and former TANF recipients are property informed about Food 
Stamp eligibility.
  Finally the FORK Act would authorize private-public partnerships to 
expand nutrition education programs.
  Mr. President, I do not believe that there is a member in this 
Congress who ever intended for children to go hungry because their 
parents left welfare to go to work.
  Now that we know it is happening, we must act quickly to make certain 
that the Food Stamp program works for children and families in need.
  I hope that my Senate colleagues will join me in supporting this 
important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask that a list of groups supporting the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The material follows:

 Organizations Supporting the Food Stamp Outreach and Research Act for 
                        Kids 1999 (The FORK Act)


                         national organizations

       ACORN
       AFSCME
       America's Second Harvest
       American Federation of Teachers
       American Friends Service Committee
       Americans for Democratic Action
       Brain Injury Association
       Bread For The World
       Catholic Charities USA
       Center for Community Change
       Children's Defense Fund
       Coalition on Human Needs
       Community Nutrition Institute
       Food Research and Action Center
       Foodchain
       Friends Committee on National Legislation
       Jewish Council for Public Affairs
       Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, ELCA
       Lutheran Services in America
       MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
       McAuley Institute
       Mennonite Center Committee U.S. Washington Office
       Migrant Legal Action Program
       National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
       National Association of Child Advocates
       National Association of Social Workers
       National Center on Poverty Law
       National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association
       National Council of Churches
       National Council of La Raza
       National Immigration Law Center
       National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
       National Urban League
       National Women's Law Center
       NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
       Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
       RESULTS
       The General Board of Church and Society of the United 
     Methodist Church
       Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees 
     (UNITE)
       Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
       United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement 
     Workers of America
       United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society
       United Food and Commercial Workers
       United States Conference of Mayors
       Welfare Law Center
       Wider Opportunities for Women
       World Hunger Year


                                alabama

       Alabama Coalition Against Hunger


                                arizona

       Chidren's Action Alliance
       Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Arizona
       World Hunger Ecumenical Arizona Task-Force (WHEAT)


                                arkansas

       Arkansas Hunger Coalition


                               california

       Alameda County Community Food Bank
       California Food Policy Advocates
       California Statewide Lao Hmong Coalition
       Chico Hmong Advisory Council
       Desert Cities Hunger Action
       Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
       Food Share, Inc./Ventura County Food Bank
       Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger & Homelessness
       Lutheran Office of Public Policy--California
       Southland Farmers' Market Association
       The San Diego Hunger Coalition


                                colorado

       Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry--Colorado
       Weld Food Bank


                              connecticut

       CY Anti-Hunger Coalition/CT Association for Human Services
       End Hunger Connecticut!
       Foodshare of Greater Hartford


                                delaware

       Food Bank of Delaware


                          district of columbia

       Capital Area Community Food Bank


                                florida

       Daily Bread Food Bank
       Florida Association for Community Action
       Florida Atlantic University Department of Social Work
       Florida Impact
       Harry Chapin Food Bank


                                georgia

       Atlanta Community Food Bank
       Georgia Citizens Coalition on Hunger


                                 hawaii

       Task Force on Children's Nutrition Rights (of World 
     Alliance on Nutrition and Human Rights)


                                 idaho

       Idaho Community Action Network
       The Idaho Food Bank


                                illinois

       Chicago Anti-Hunger Federation
       Illinois Hunger Coalition


                                indiana

       Indiana Food & Nutrition Network
       Lafayette Urban Ministries


                                  iowa

       Food Bank of Iowa


                                 kansas

       Campaign to End Childhood Hunger (Wichita, KS)


                                kentucky

       Kentucky Task Force on Hunger


                               louisiana

       Bread for the World--New Orleans


                                 maine

       Hospitality House Inc.
       Maine Coalition for Food Security


                                maryland

       Community Assistance Network


                             massachusetts

       Boston Medical Center Department of Pediatrics
       Food Bank of Western Massachusetts
       Massachusetts Law Reform
       National Priorities Project
       Project Bread
       Survivors, Inc.


                                michigan

       Capitol Area Community Services
       Center for Civil Justice
       Hunger Action Coalition of Michigan


                               minnesota

       Adults & Childrens Alliance
       Lutheran Coalition for Public Policy in Minnesota
       Minnesota FoodShare
       Second Harvest St. Paul Food Bank


                              mississippi

       Mississippi Human Services Coalition


                                missouri

       Harvesters--The Community Food Network
       Missouri Association for Social Welfare
       Reform Organization of Welfare (ROWEL)


                                montana

       Montana Hunger Coalition


                                nebraska

       Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest


                                 nevada

       Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada

[[Page 26987]]




                             new hampshire

       New Hampshire Food Bank


                               new jersey

       Community Food Bank of New Jersey
       Food Bank of South Jersey
       Statewide Emergency Food and Anti-Hunger Network (SEFAN)


                               new mexico

       New Mexico Advocates for Children and Families


                                new york

       Community Food Resource Center
       Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies Inc.
       Food Bank of Western New York
       Health and Welfare Council of Long Island
       Make the Road by Walking
       NYC Coalition Against Hunger
       New York Immigration Coalition
       Task Force on Welfare Reform, NYC Chapter of National 
     Association of Social Workers
       The Nutrition Consortium of NYS
       The Westchester Progressive Forum


                             north carolina

       Food Bank of North Carolina
       Manna Food Bank, Inc.
       North Carolina Hunger Network


                                  ohio

       Ohio Hunger Task Force


                                oklahoma

       Tulsa Community Food Bank


                                 oregon

       Oregon Center for Public Policy
       Oregon Food Bank
       Oregon Hunger Relief Task Force


                              pennsylvania

       Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger
       Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank
       Just Harvest
       PA Hunger Action Center
       Women's Association for Women's Alternatives


                              rhode island

       George Wiley Center and Campaign to Eliminate Childhood 
     Poverty


                             south carolina

       SC Appleseed Legal Justice Center


                              south dakota

       Children's Agenda for South Dakota


                               tennessee

       MANNA
       Tennessee Hunger Coalition


                                 texas

       Center for Public Policy Priorities
       Greater Dallas Community of Churches
       North Texas Food Bank
       Texas Alliance for Human Needs


                                  utah

       Crossroads Urban Center
       Coalition of Religious Communities
       Utahns Against Hunger


                                vermont

       Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger


                                virginia

       Grassroots Innovative Policy Program
       Virginia Poverty Law Center


                               washington

       Children's Alliance Food Policy Center
       Washington State Anti-Hunger and Nutrition Coalition
       Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition


                             west virginia

       West Virginia Coalition on Food and Nutrition


                               wisconsin

       Hunger Task Force of Milwaukee
       Lutheran Coalition for Public Policy in Wisconsin
       Women and Poverty Public Education Initiative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 1801. A bill to provide for the identification, collection, and 
review for declassification of records and materials that are of 
extraordinary public interest to the people of the United States, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


              public interest declassification act of 1999

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
Public Information Disclosure Act, a bill that seeks to add to our 
citizens' knowledge of how and why our country made many of its key 
national security decisions since the end of World War II. This bill 
creates a mechanism for comprehensively reviewing and declassifying, 
whenever possible, records of extraordinary public interest that 
demonstrate and record this country's most significant and important 
national security policies, actions, and decisions.
  As James Madison once wrote, ``A people who mean to be their own 
governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.'' 
Acquiring this knowledge has become increasingly difficult since World 
War II's end, when we witnessed the rise of a vast national security 
apparatus that encompasses thousands of employees and over 1.5 billion 
classified documents that are 25 years or older. Secrecy, in the end, 
is a form of regulation. And I concede that regulation of state secrets 
is often necessary to protect national security. But how much needs to 
be regulated after having aged 25 years or more?
  The warehousing and withholding of these documents and materials not 
only impoverish our country's historical record but retard our 
collective understanding of how and why the United States acted as it 
did. This means that we have less chance to learn from what has gone 
before; both mistakes and triumphs fall through the cracks of our 
collective history, making it much harder to resolve key questions 
about our past and to chart our future actions.
  On the other hand, greater openness makes it more possible for the 
government to explain itself and to defend its actions, a not so 
unimportant thing when one recalls Richard Hofstader's warning in his 
classic 1964 essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics: ``The 
distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents 
see conspiracies here and there in history, but they regard a `vast' or 
`gigantic' conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost 
transcendent power as the motive force in historical events.'' A poll 
taken in 1993 found that three-quarters of those surveyed believed that 
President Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy involving the CIA, 
renegade elements of our military, and organized crime. The Grassy 
Knoll continues to cut a wide path across our national consciousness. 
The classified materials withheld from the Warren Commission, several 
of our actions in Vietnam, and Watergate have only added to the 
American people's distrust of the Federal government.
  Occasionally, though, the government has drawn back its cloak of 
secrecy and made substantial contributions to our national 
understanding. In 1995, the CIA and the NSA agreed to declassify the 
Venona intercepts, our highly secretive effort that ranged over four 
decades to decode the Soviet Union's diplomatic traffic. Much of this 
traffic centered on identifying Soviet spies, one of the cardinal 
preoccupations of that hateful era we call ``McCarthyism.'' These 
releases made at least one thing crystal clear: Their timely release 
decades ago would have dimmed the klieg lights on many who were 
innocent and shown them more brightly on those who truly were guilty. 
It would have been an important contribution during a time when the 
innocent and the guilty were ensnared in the same net.
  Today, Congress plays a pivotal role in declassification through so-
called ``special searches.'' Generally, these involve a member of 
Congress or the White House asking the intelligence community to search 
its records on specific subjects. These have ranged from Pinochet to 
murdered American church women to President Kennedy's assassination. 
However, these good intentions often produce neither good results nor 
good history. Sadly, most of these searches have been done poorly, 
costing millions of dollars and consuming untold hours of labor. 
Several have been performed repeatedly. Special searches on murdered 
American church women, for example, have been done nine separate times. 
Yet there are still several important questions that have yet to be 
answered. The CIA alone has been asked to do 33 ``special searches'' 
since 1998.
  Part of the problem is that Congress lacks a centralized, rational 
way of addressing these requests. This bill establishes a nine-member 
board composed of outside experts who can filter and steer these 
searches, all the while seeking maximum efficiency and disclosure.
  The other part of the problem lies in how the intelligence community 
has conducted these searches. It is imperative that searches are 
carried out in a comprehensive manner. This is not only cheaper in the 
long run but produces a much more accurate record of our history. One 
cannot do Pinochet, for example, and not do Chile under his rule at the 
same time. To do otherwise

[[Page 26988]]

skews history too much and creates too many blind spots, all leading to 
more questions and more searches. This does a disservice not only to 
those asking for these searches but to the American people who have to 
pay for ad hoc, poorly done declassification. If we do it right the 
first time, then we can forgo much inefficiency.
  Many of these special searches ask vital questions about this 
nation's role in many disturbing events. We must see, therefore, that 
they are done correctly and responsibly. This legislation, if passed, 
would improve Congress' role in declassification, making it an 
instrumental arm in the de-cloaking and re-democratization of our 
national history. Indeed, anything less would cheat our citizens, 
undermine their trust in our institutions, and erode our democratic 
values.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Lieberman.
  S. 1803. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
permanently and expand the research tax credit; to the Committee on 
Finance.


               permanent extension of the R&E tax credit

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation that will 
permanently extend the research credit and increase the alternative 
incremental credit 1% per step. It will also expand the credit to 
companies operating in Puerto Rico. Mr. President, research and 
experimentation are the foundation of a vibrant economy. While there is 
some initial cost involved, studies have shown that a permanent 
extension of the R&E tax credit pays for itself over time due to 
increased federal revenues generated by a rise in productivity and 
economic growth. Without a permanent extension of the R&E credit, 
businesses are less likely to make long term investments in research 
that is necessary for scientific and technological advancements. 
Instead, decisions must be made on an annual basis which, over time, 
have the effect of slowing progress. In order to guarantee that our 
country remains the leader in cutting edge technology we need to 
permanently extend the R&E credit. The advantages of increased research 
and experimentation are simply too overwhelming to ignore.
  I intended on offering this bill as an amendment in the Finance 
Committee to the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999, (S. 1792), but I was 
persuaded by members on both sides of the aisle that amendments in 
Committee threatened the whole deal. I decided, instead, to address 
this issue on the Senate floor. I still strongly support the tax 
extenders bill that was reported out of Committee, but I believe, as I 
have for some time, that we need to address this one deficiency. 
Without certainty, our nation's investments in research will suffer. 
Permanent extension of the R&E tax credit is the only way to provide 
that certainty. Despite recent setbacks, I will continue to work with 
all of my colleagues to extend this credit permanently.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1803

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF RESEARCH 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Permanent Extension.--
       (1) In general.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities) 
     is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) 
     of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999.
       (b) Increase in Percentages Under Alternative Incremental 
     Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 41(c)(4) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``1.65 percent'' and inserting ``2.65 
     percent'',
       (B) by striking ``2.2 percent'' and inserting ``3.2 
     percent'', and
       (C) by striking ``2.75 percent'' and inserting ``3.75 
     percent''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after June 30, 1999.
       (c) Extension of Research Credit to Research in Puerto Rico 
     and the Possessions of the United States.--
       (1) In general.--Section 41(d)(4)(F) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to foreign research) is 
     amended by inserting ``, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or 
     any possession of the United States'' after ``United 
     States''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1804. A bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
with the Director of the Office of Science Technology and the Director 
of the National Science Foundation, to establish a program for 
increasing the United State's scientific, technology, and mathematical 
resources, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


  the 21st century technology resources and commercial leadership act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I am please to introduce a bill 
intended to preserve the United States' world leadership position in 
technology into the coming century. This legislation is intended to 
assure that our scientific, mathematics, engineering and technology 
resources are surpassed by no one. It is intended to ensure that our 
most precious national resources, our people, receive the best 
education and training through our best national product, innovation. 
We must allow our most creative forces to interact to achieve improved 
math and science education in our schools. We must assure more highly 
trained college graduates in science, math, engineering and technology. 
And we must encourage the retooling of our country's experienced minds 
to address the problems and the solutions of tomorrow.
  Specifically, this legislation uses a portion of each H-1B visa fee 
to provide grants for innovative programs which will improve the math, 
science, engineering and technology skills of Americans so that they 
can fill the estimated average of 137,800 new positions expected to be 
created in these fields each year from now through 2006. During the 
interim, while the American pipeline of talent is filling, the bill 
lifts the caps on H-1B visas to allow our American companies to 
continue to grow and prosper.
  This legislation is necessary and beneficial to our nation. Let me 
explain in some detail why.
  First, although this country can be proud of having some of the most 
highly regarded colleges and universities in the world, our elementary 
and secondary education system is not sufficiently emphasizing science 
and math in the curriculum. Our students are falling behind in these 
areas. The results of the 1998 Third International Math and Science 
Study (TIMSS) are instructive. In math, our 4th graders ranked 12th out 
of 26 countries. Not a stellar performance. But even more discouraging, 
by 12th grade, the U.S. math rank was 19th out of 21 countries. As a 
result, not enough American college students are majoring in the 
sciences, including computer science, mathematics and engineering to 
fill the escalating need for highly trained professionals.
  According to information compiled by the American Electronics 
Association, at the same time that the number of jobs in these fields 
has increased by 20%, the number of college graduates with degrees in 
engineering, engineering technology, computer science, mathematics, 
business information systems, and physics has declined by 5%.
  To fill the jobs available, American companies are finding it 
increasingly necessary to hire foreign professionals. When they recruit 
on university campuses in the United States, 32% of the Masters degree 
and 45% of the doctoral degree candidates are foreign, not American, 
students. Even though they have been educated here, these foreign 
students cannot remain here to work without a visa.
  Even with these graduates available, there are more jobs to be filled 
than

[[Page 26989]]

qualified candidates. When our companies cannot hire qualified people 
to work for them, they cannot function--they cannot compete. Most of 
these companies have concluded long ago that they need to retain the 
qualified people that they do hire. They understand that one way to 
retain them is to provide training to continually update and upgrade 
their skills. There are many examples of these kinds of programs.
  In addition, there are older American workers with advanced technical 
skills that are outdated, or whose experience is in industries which 
are not in a growth mode. Companies are finding ways to assist some of 
these professional to retool for the current and future needs of 
business. An example of retraining experienced workers is a program at 
San Diego State University. That institution's Defense Conversion 
Center has focused on retraining displaced defense industry 
professional, including military personnel and aerospace engineers.
  Let me read from their project proposal description dated 9/21/99.

       The expansion of the H-1B visa program is a limited and 
     temporary fix to a critical national problem. Unless we find 
     creative ways to meet our workforce needs internally, our 
     ability to produce cutting-edge products will erode. Indeed, 
     some experts predict that our position as the world's leader 
     in innovation will slip from first place to sixth early in 
     the next century. The risk goes beyond losing our competitive 
     edge in the global marketplace; without a strong technology 
     base, our national defense system will be jeopardized.

  The proposal goes on to describe the university's program:

       In the early 1990's, the defense industry in San Diego 
     virtually disintegrated, resulting in the loss of over 42,000 
     jobs. Established with a grant from the Department of 
     Defense, the SDSU Defense Conversion Center developed several 
     certificate programs designed to fast-track displaced defense 
     industry workers back into the marketplace. To date, over 
     1100 individuals have enrolled in the Center, and 80% of 
     those who participated in the program found or retained 
     employment in such high-tech fields as radio-frequency 
     design, software engineering, concurrent design and 
     manufacturing, and multi-media design.

  Many companies are also finding that it is not enough to focus on 
only their short term hiring needs. There are numerous examples of 
companies partnering with their local schools to provide innovative 
changes in curriculum and skill sets.
  For example, Hewlett-Packard has joined forces with Colorado State 
University to assist minority students beginning their studies at CSU. 
The assistance includes 10-week internships at H-P, during which CSU 
provides instructors to H-P to teach calculus. The internships provide 
a bridge from the academic to the real world, demonstrating the 
application of math and science skills. They also provide the freshmen 
with valuable experience that can lead to permanent jobs at H-P.
  Eastman Chemical Company in Tennessee offers another example. Working 
with its local school system, the company focused on two objectives: to 
help prepare and motivate all students to develop competency in math 
and science, and to create a school system of such excellence that 
college graduates would be drawn there as a great place to raise 
children. The result was several programs, including an ``Educator on 
Loan'' program where on a rotating basis, teachers could work at the 
company's manufacturing plant to under the skills required.
  These private/public partnerships are an excellent start. But these 
efforts are not sufficient to solve the problems we have with 
maintaining our country's ability to compete and lead the world in the 
21st century. We must encourage more innovation, more achievement to 
fill the pipeline so that our children will be able to prosper in the 
technological revolution underway.
  This legislation encourages innovation. It provides financial 
assistance for ideas which will work. The proposed legislation is broad 
enough to cover any idea which can be demonstrated to produce results. 
Some of the programs I think should be considered would be to provide 
scholarships to students who possess the requisite talent and are 
willing to become certified as math and science teachers, and who will 
agree to teach for a number of years. Scholarships for students who 
will major in math, science, engineering or technology fields makes 
sense. But we should not limit our selves to these stock type 
approaches. There will be many other new and creative ideas and we 
should welcome them and reward them, as long as they produce the 
outcome we want. We want to improve and increase the American talent 
pool.
  In the meantime, I think it is important not to force our companies 
to develop off-shore bases in order to hire the foreign professional 
they need. The history of numeric caps on H-1B visas is one of best 
guess, rather than of calculated need. It is difficult to anticipate 
the total need, but simply inserting a number because it is politically 
agreeable isn't the right answer. During the last session we adopted 
legislation produced through the fine efforts of Senator Abraham and 
others who worked tirelessly in addressing a broad array of problems 
and issues.
  The result is that our law now requires those who are dependent on H-
1B worker to attest, to give their oath, that they have tried to hire 
an American to fill the position unsuccessfully before applying for a 
foreign worker visa. These requirements are stringent. They protect 
American workers against companies which might otherwise ignore 
qualified applicants in order to bring in a foreign worker. The law 
protects against layoffs followed by foreign hiring.
  With this law in place and with diligent enforcement of its 
requirements, there is no reason to also pick an arbitrary number as a 
cap for H-1B visas. We can let the marketplace prevail. We can focus on 
improving our own resources and our own children's education so that in 
the future we will have more highly skilled professionals to fill these 
positions. When our supply meets the demand we will have achieved the 
goals of improving our education curriculum and our ability to remain 
leaders in the 21st century.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
        Jeffords):
  S. 1805. A bill to restore food stamp benefits for aliens, to provide 
States with flexibility in administering the food stamp vehicle 
allowance, to index the excess shelter expense deduction to inflation, 
to authorize additional appropriations to purchase and make available 
additional commodities under the emergency food assistance program, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                     the hunger relief act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Specter, Leahy, Jeffords, 
and I are introducing the Hunger Relief Act of 1999. Our goals in this 
legislation are to promote self-sufficiency and the transition from 
welfare to work, and to eradicate childhood hunger by increasing the 
availability of food stamps to low-income working families. Republicans 
and Democrats share these goals, and it deserves broad bipartisan 
support.
  Improving Food Stamp accessibility is a central part of helping low-
income working families feed their children and achieve self-
sufficiency. A strong Food Stamp Program, along with a higher minimum 
wage and an adequate Earned Income Tax Credit, gives low-income 
families the stability they need to build a brighter future. With the 
unemployment rate at a 30-year low and record, economic growth, this is 
a time of broad economic prosperity for most Americans. But that is not 
true for the poorest Americans. In 1998 the poverty rate declined from 
13.3% to 12.7%, but this still surpasses rates in the 11% range 
recorded throughout the 1970's. The safety net provided by food stamps 
has weakened since the 1970's, and hunger among working families in 
America has grown.
  In July 1999, the Department of Agriculture reported that 6.6 million 
adults and 3.4 million children live in households that suffered from 
hunger in 1998, and that 36 million people comprising 10% of the 
nation's households lack secure access to enough food for an active 
healthy life.

[[Page 26990]]

  In the same month, the Congressional General Accounting Office 
reported that of the 14 million U.S. children who live in poverty, the 
proportion who receive food stamps dropped from 94% in 1995 to 84% in 
1997. During 1997 alone, the number of children living in poverty 
decreased by 350,000--but the number receiving food stamps decreased by 
1.3 million. GAO's report concludes, ``children's participation in the 
Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children 
living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and 
assistance.''
  In January 1999, the Urban Institute released the results of a study 
of former welfare recipients and reported that 33% have to skip or 
reduce meals due to lack of food. This result is corroborated by 
independent studies in Wisconsin and South Carolina, and by NETWORK's 
National Welfare Reform Project.
  In 1998, surveys of emergency food providers conducted by the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors and America's Second Harvest independently 
documented that the need for emergency food services increased 15 to 
20% over the previous year, and that almost 40% of emergency food 
clients live in households in which an adult is employed.
  The Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project conducted 
surveys of over 5,000 low-income families between 1992 and 1994--the 
most comprehensive study of childhood hunger ever undertaken in the 
U.S.--and found that approximately 4 million children under age 12 were 
hungry, and 9.6 million were at risk of hunger.
  Far too many working parents still struggle to feed their families. 
If our national values cannot persuade us to fight hunger now, while 
the economy is strong, when will we ever do so? If we need economic 
reasons to fight hunger in America, we need only consider the effects 
of hunger on children.
  Hunger and undernutrition are serious problems for people of all 
ages, but their effects are particularly damaging to children. Over 14 
million children live in households that suffer hunger. Hungry and 
undernourished children are more likely to become anemic, and to suffer 
from allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and infections. They are also more 
likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When 
children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If we do not 
address this problem, our considerable investments in education and 
early learning activities will not have the full positive impact that 
they should. Hunger and under-nutrition injure our greatest national 
resource--our children.
  In the past three decades, food stamps have grown into the nation's 
most comprehensive and trusted way to end hunger. The news that 
participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined 27% over the past 
three and a half years would be welcome--if poverty had declined by a 
comparable amount. But the poverty rate declined by only 7% over this 
time. Six million more poor people are without food stamps today than 
in 1995. GAO reported that in 1997 alone, while the number of children 
living in poverty decreased by just 350,000, the number of children 
receiving food stamps decreased by 1.3 million. We need to be concerned 
that the nutritional needs of the other 950,000 children are not being 
met.
  Just as the decline in the welfare rolls does not by itself show that 
people are no longer poor, the decline in Food Stamp rolls in no way 
means that children and families are no longer hungry. Increasingly, 
low-income working families are relying on emergency food services. 
Across the country, demand for emergency food services has increased by 
as much as 50% in some places. Many food banks find themselves unable 
to meet the increased requests for help.
  Only two days ago, the Chicago Sun-Times published an article 
entitled ``Hunger--a growing concern in suburbs,'' describing 
increasing demand for emergency food in some of Chicago's most affluent 
neighborhoods.
  A November 1998 study by Project Bread and Tufts University found 
that 49% of emergency food providers in Massachusetts reported 
increased need among families with children over the previous year. Of 
those requesting assistance, 33% of food bank clients were children, 
and 27% of Massachusetts adults requesting emergency food assistance 
were employed. Although our strong economy and historically low 
unemployment rate have helped many families get back on their feet, 
there is no question that many families are working hard and still 
cannot make ends meet.
  By simplifying Food Stamp eligibility rules and improving access to 
the program, we can reduce hunger and malnutrition, and help working 
families live healthier, more fulfilling lives. No one in this country 
should go hungry. This is a problem we can solve. We must not become 
indifferent to the message that hunger indeed has a cure.
  The Hunger Relief Act repeals many of the 1996 welfare reform law's 
restrictions on access to food stamps for legal immigrants. For 30 
years prior to the welfare reform law, Food Stamps were available to 
legal immigrants. The 1996 welfare reform law made them no longer 
eligible. That law also created substantial uncertainty among eligible 
groups as to whether they qualify.
  Last year, Congress restored food stamp eligibility to some legal 
immigrants--children, seniors, and disabled persons--who were in the 
United States before August 1996. This was an important step, but it 
helped fewer than a third of those who were adversely affected by the 
1996 law. Hunger among legal immigrants predictably increased after 
1996, although many legal immigrants held low-income jobs and paid 
taxes. Children continue to be denied benefits because they arrived in 
the U.S. after 1996 or because exclusion of their parents directly 
results in decreased access to food stamps. Our laws recognize that 
legal immigrants need access to employment, education, and health care 
programs. Yet all of these efforts are compromised when legal 
immigrants are denied access to adequate nutrition. The Hunger Relief 
Act ensures that all those who need food stamps can obtain them.
  In addition, the Hunger Relief Act helps low-income families by 
relaxing federal limits on the value of a vehicle that a family can own 
and still be eligible for food stamps. The current federal limit is 
$4,650, which has risen only $150 since 1977.
  Because low-income parents commonly need a vehicle to get to work and 
to safely transport their children, many states have adopted vehicle 
allowance standards for their state assistance programs that are more 
generous than the federal standard. The conflicting and complex rules 
that govern state programs and the Food Stamp Program complicate access 
to food stamps for working families, as confirmed by GAO's July 1999 
report.
  By giving states the option of using their state vehicle standards 
instead of the federal standard, the Hunger Relief Act gives states the 
flexibility to ensure that their nutritional needs are met. It also 
promotes work and child safety.
  The case of a single parent of three young children in Northeastern 
Massachusetts illustrates the need for this provision. The mother's 
income recently dropped to $928 per month, but she is denied food 
stamps because the value of her car exceeds $4650. Massachusetts would 
be unlikely to reject her application under state law, but the federal 
law requires her pleas for help to be rejected. Our Hunger Relief Act 
will change that.
  The Hunger Relief Act also enables families to qualify for food 
stamps when they have to spend more than 50% of their income on housing 
costs. Low-income families must often pay high rent for substandard 
housing in many cities today. According to a recent report by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, demand for public housing 
is rising, while the supply of affordable apartments and houses is 
declining. Between 1996 and 1998, the number of affordable apartments 
fell by more than 1 million. Nearly 1 million low-income families are 
now waiting for public housing units across the country. They may wait 
as long as 8 years in New York City to be placed.

[[Page 26991]]

  HUD compares finding affordable housing to an ominous game of musical 
chairs in which only the lucky find seats. In Boston, the average rent 
for a two bedroom apartment rose by 58% between 1990 and 1998 to $1,350 
after adjusting for inflation. The Women's Educational and Technical 
Union has documented that single parents with one infant pay an average 
rent of $839 in Boston, $709 in Worcester, and $578 in Pittsfield. All 
of these figures far exceed half of a minimum wage worker's income.
  Present law permits some shelter costs to be deducted when 
determining Food Stamp eligibility, but the deduction is capped too 
low. In 1996, 950,000 people received reduced food stamp benefits due 
to the shelter cap. Over 880,000 of those affected were families with 
children. The Hunger Relief Act raises the cap from $275 to $340, and 
then indexes it to inflation, increasing access to food stamps for 
approximately 1.25 million people.
  For example, a family from Centerville, Massachusetts consisting of a 
working mother and three children, survives on $1,433 in income each 
month. Yet their shelter costs exceed $1,200. This family cannot 
possibly meet these children's nutritional needs on $233 each month, 
even if the family spends money on nothing besides shelter and food. 
The Hunger Relief Act is intended to keep families like this from 
having to choose between heating and eating.
  Finally, the Hunger Relief Act increases federal support for 
emergency food programs. Sharp increases in requests for help from food 
pantries and soup kitchens have occurred over the past year, despite 
steep declines in food stamp participation. The U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, and America's Second Harvest has independently documented a 15 
to 20% increase in need over 1998. A recent survey of 30 cities by the 
National Governors Association found that a growing number of low-
income working parents rely on food banks to feed their children. 79% 
of Massachusetts food pantries funded through Projected Bread reported 
serving more working poor in 1998, and 72% reported helping more 
families with children. To ensure that emergency food needs are met, 
the Hunger Relief Act increases federal funding for The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program by 10%.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cost of the 
Hunger Relief Act will be $2.5 billion over the first 5 years. This 
amount will increase our support for the Food Stamp Program by just 
over 2% each year, a relatively small price to repair the most serious 
problems in the nation's core nutrition program.
  Americans overwhelmingly recognize that hunger is also closely linked 
to problems in health, education, and the workplace. Adequate nutrition 
should be available to all. Over three hundred national, regional, and 
local organizations support the Hunger Relief Act. Even before welfare 
reform was enacted, a January 1996 poll found that 55% of Americans 
believe hunger is worsening in our country, and 74% felt that more 
should be done to combat hunger in America. I request unanimous consent 
that a letter signed by over 300 organizations in support of the Hunger 
Relief Act may be printed in the Congressional Record following my 
statement.
  Millions of low-income working families, like the Jenkins family of 
Royalston, Massachusetts will be helped by this bill. Although Terry 
Jenkins' husband works in two jobs, after their mortgage payments, car 
payments, utilities and clothing expenses for four children are paid, 
they often cannot afford enough food for their family. As a result, 
Terry worries that her children cannot concentrate during their 
classes.
  Her concern is legitimate. Students who are hungry or at-risk of 
hunger are twice as likely to have academic, social and psychological 
problems as children from similar low-income families who are not 
hungry. By improving the Food Stamp Program, the Hunger Relief Act will 
reduce the suffering for millions of families like the Jenkins.
  Now, while the economy is strong, we must actively fight hunger and 
ensure that the most basic needs of children and families are met. I 
welcome the support of Senators Specter, Leahy and Jeffords in this 
bipartisan effort and I look forward to early action in the Senate to 
pass this needed legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we approach the beginning of the next 
century, we have much to be proud of as a nation. The stock market has 
reached an historic 10,000 mark. We are in the midst of one of the 
greatest economic expansions in our nation's history. More Americans 
own their own homes than at any time, and we have the lowest 
unemployment and welfare caseloads in a generation.
  Yet, there are millions of Americans who go hungry every day. Just 
this past July, the Department of Agriculture published a report 
entitled ``Household Food Security in the United States 1995-1998'' 
which reported that last year, 36 million persons--of which 
approximately 40% were children--lived in households that experienced 
hunger.
  While it is true that food stamp and welfare program caseloads have 
dropped over the past few years, hunger has not. As families try to 
make the transition from welfare to work, too many are falling out and 
being left behind. And too often, it is our youth who is feeling the 
brunt of this, as one out of every five people lining up at soup 
kitchens is a child.
  Second Harvest, the nation's largest hunger relief charity, 
distributed more than one billion pounds of food to an estimated 26 
million low-income Americans last year through their network of 
regional food banks. These food banks provide food and grocery products 
to nearly fifty thousand local charitable feeding programs--food 
shelves, pantries, soup kitchens and emergency shelters.
  Yet as the demand has risen at local hunger relief agencies, too many 
pantries and soup kitchens have been forced to turn needy people away 
because the request for their services exceeds available food.
  Last year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors released its Annual Survey 
of Hunger and Homelessness, which reported that the demand for hunger 
relief services grew 14 percent last year. Additionally, 21 percent of 
requests for emergency food were estimated to have gone unmet. This is 
the highest rate of unmet need by emergency food providers since the 
recession of the early 1990s. And this is not just a problem of the 
inner cities. According to the Census Bureau, hunger and poverty are 
growing faster in the suburbs than anywhere else in America. In my own 
state of Vermont, one in ten people is ``food insecure,'' according to 
government statistics. That is, of course, just a clinical way to say 
they are hunger or at risk of hunger.
  Under the leadership of Deborah Flateman, the Vermont Food Bank 
distributes food to approximately 240 private social service agencies 
throughout the state to help hungry and needy Vermonters. The local 
food shelves and emergency kitchens which receive food from the Vermont 
Food Bank clearly are on the front-line against hunger. And what they 
are seeing is very disturbing--one in four seeking hunger relief is a 
child under the age of 17. Elderly people make up more than a third of 
all emergency food recipients. We cannot continue to allow so many of 
our youngest and oldest citizens face the prospect of hunger on a daily 
basis. Another extremely troubling statistic about hunger in Vermont is 
that in 45 percent of the households that receive charitable food 
assistance, one or more adults are working. Nationwide, working poor 
households represent more than one-third of all emergency food 
recipients. These are people in Vermont and across the U.S. who are 
working, paying taxes and contributing to the economic growth of our 
nation, but are reaping few of the rewards.
  Our government has taken numerous steps to alleviate hunger in 
America, but clearly more still needs to be done.
  The Emergency Food Assistance Program has been essential in the fight 
against hunger by providing USDA commodities to the nation's food banks 
and local emergency feeding charities. As the demands continue to grow, 
however, TEFAP resources are running on

[[Page 26992]]

empty. The Hunger Relief Act would increase funding for TEFAP, thus 
helping community charities cope with increased local demand for hunger 
relief.
  Perhaps more than any other program, the Food Stamp Program has been 
critical to the prevention and alleviation of hunger and poverty, and 
is essential to helping families on welfare transition to work. 
Nationally, one in ten people--half of which are children--participates 
in the Food Stamp Program.
  In this time of economic booms, one in five U.S. children--
approximately 15 million children--lives in a household receiving food 
stamps.
  And far too many families with full-time or part-time minimum wage 
jobs need food stamps just to approach the poverty line.
  For many families, the choice between paying the rent and buying food 
is becoming more and more common. While the Food Stamp Program does 
adjust benefits for families with high shelter costs, this adjustment 
has been artificially capped. In 1993, Congress passed a phased-out 
elimination of the cap on the food stamp shelter deduction. With the 
passage of the Welfare Reform bill, however, Congress repealed the 
phase-out and the cap remained in place.
  The cap on the shelter deduction has had a significant impact on 
working families, who tend to have higher shelter costs than families 
receiving public housing assistance. The Hunger Relief Act raises the 
shelter cap from $275 to $340, and then indexes it to inflation, 
increasing access to Food Stamps for approximately 1.25 million people.
  Many working poor families, particularly in rural areas, own a 
modestly valued car, necessary to get to work, but of a value greater 
than the antiquated food stamp vehicle limit. In the last 22 years, the 
limit on car values has increased a total of $150, and in many states 
the Food Stamp vehicle allowance is much lower than the TANF vehicle 
allowance. The Hunger Relief Act would give states more freedom, 
allowing states the option of using the same limits for vehicles under 
both TANF and Food Stamps. The Hunger Relief Act would also complete 
the restoration of food stamp benefits to thousands of immigrants who 
were pushed out of the program by the Welfare Reform Act.
  Last Congress I worked hard to include $818 million in the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reauthorization Act to 
restore food stamp benefits for thousands of legal immigrants. This 
legislation restored food stamps to legal immigrants who are disabled 
or elderly, or who later become disabled, and who resided in the United 
States prior to August 22, 1996. That law also increased food stamp 
eligibility time limits--from five years to seven years--for refugees 
and asylees who came to this country to avoid persecution. Hmong 
refugees who aided U.S. military efforts in Southeast Asia were also 
covered, as were children residing in the United States prior to August 
22, 1996.
  Though the Agriculture Research Act restored food stamp eligibility 
to children of legal immigrants, many of these children are not 
receiving food stamps and are experiencing alarming instances of 
hunger. In its recent report entitled ``Who is Leaving the Food Stamp 
Program? An Analysis of Caseload Changes from 1994 to 1997,'' the 
United States Department of Agriculture reported that participation 
among children living with parents who are legal immigrants fell 
significantly faster than children living with native-born parents. It 
appears that restrictions on adult legal immigrants deterred the 
participation of their children. That is a disturbing development that 
must be rectified, and the Hunger Relief Act would go along way toward 
making the situation right by restoring food stamp eligibility to all 
legal immigrants.
  Of the many problems that we face as a nation, hunger is one that is 
entirely solvable. Hunger is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Hunger 
is a problem that all Americans should agree must be ended in our 
nation. I am proud to join with Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Jeffords 
in introducing the Hunger Relief Act, and I look forward to working 
with members of the Senate to see the passage of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        Hollings, and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 1806. A bill to authorize the payment of a gratuity to certain 
members of the Armed Forces who served at Bataan and Corregidor during 
World War II, or the surviving spouses of such members, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


               bataan and corregidor veterans legislation

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important 
legislation, of which Senator Hollings and Senator Cleland are also 
sponsors, recognizing the heroic contributions of American soldiers who 
served in Bataan and Corregidor during World War II. This legislation 
will provide a one time honorarium to those veterans who survived the 
notorious Death March and were made to work as slave labor in support 
of the Japanese war effort. Compensation awarded these heroes for their 
imprisonment has never approached the value of their sacrifices on 
behalf of our nation's liberty. As these legendary heroes approach the 
final chapters of their lives, if is fitting that the nation pay them 
special homage for their heroic deeds heretofore unrewarded. That's why 
I am introducing this legislation today--to salute these Americans in 
recognition of the great sacrifices they made for this nation.
  From December 1941 to April 1942, American military forces stationed 
in the Philippines fought valiantly against overwhelming Japanese 
military forces on the Bataan peninsula near Manila. Under severe 
combined attack of the Japanese forces, General Douglas MacArthur 
ordered U.S. troops to withdraw to the Bataan peninsula to form a 
strong defensive perimeter to protect the eventual evacuation of troops 
from the island. The U.S. forces fought for 3 months, considerably 
longer than the unfavorable troop balance would have suggested was 
possible. As a result of extending Japanese military resources during 
that crucial initial phase of the war in the Pacific, U.S. forces in 
Bataan and Corregidor prevented Japan from accomplishing critical 
strategic objectives that would have enabled them to capture Australia. 
Had the Japanese been able to accomplish their plans, their victory in 
the Philippines could have doomed Allied efforts in the Pacific from 
the very outset.
  On April 9, 1942, Major General Edward King, Commander of U.S. forces 
on the Bataan peninsula, ordered the troops to surrender rather than 
face certain slaughter on the battlefield. What followed was the 
tragic, infamous ``Death March'' of American prisoners from the Bataan 
peninsula to Camp O'Donnell of Manila. Some experts estimate that more 
than 10,000 Americans died on the 85-mile march to the prison camp. 
Many died of starvation or lack of water; some were executed on the 
spot by their Japanese captors.
  In June 1942, following the surrender of American troops of the 
Corregidor garrison, prisoners held at the O'Donnell Prisoner of War 
(POW) camp were joined with those captured at Corregidor and 
transferred to the Cabanatuan POW camp. In the fall of 1944, the 
Japanese transferred more than 1,600 prisoners from the Cabanatuan POW 
camp to ``hell ships'' destined for Japan, where prisoners were used as 
slave laborers working in mines, shipyards, and factories. In some 
cases, because the ``hell ships'' weren't marked, they were attacked 
and sunk by U.S. military aircraft.
  Mr. President, the heroic performance of our soldiers at Bataan and 
during incarceration in POW camps earned them well-deserved citations 
following the war. The 200th and 515th Coastal Artillery units from New 
Mexico that served to defend the retreating troops at Bataan received 
three Presidential Unit Citations and the Philippine Presidential Unit 
Citation for their heroism. New Mexico is particularly proud of these 
men whose heroism I seek to salute through this legislation today.

[[Page 26993]]

Of the 25,000 American servicemen stationed in the Philippines at the 
outbreak of World War II, less than 1,000 are living today. These 
heroes deserve special recognition and gratitude from the American 
people beyond the symbolic recognition and remuneration they have 
heretofore received.
  In December, 1998, the Canadian Government approved a legislative 
measure to compensate their military veterans who had been captured by 
the Japanese during the fall of Hong Kong, and who subsequently 
provided slave labor in Japanese POW camps. The measure awarded 
approximately 700 qualified veterans and surviving spouses $15,600 each 
``as an extraordinary payment to extraordinary individuals who suffered 
extraordinary treatment in captivity.'' The payment to Canadian 
veterans will total $11.7 million from Canadian federal funds, not from 
the Japanese Government. The Japanese Government considers their 
liability for treatment of POWs to have been settled by the treaty 
signed in 1952, compensating each prisoner of war for their time in 
captivity, but not for any slave labor that was performed. Last fall, 
Japan's high court rejected a compensation suit seeking redress filed 
by a coalition of former Allied prisoners on the basis of the 1952 
treaty protecting Japan from further liability in post-war settlements.
  Mr. President in agreeing to provide their veterans with compensation 
for slave labor performed while in POW camps, the Canadian Government 
recognized that lengthy legal proceedings appealing the decision of the 
Japanese high court would likely be too drawn out to be beneficial to 
their aging veterans. As a result, the Canadian Government concluded 
that it was appropriate and honorable to recognize the heroic 
contributions of veterans who were made to perform slave labor simply 
out of recognition of the debt of gratitude owed to the veterans by the 
Canadian people.
  Our American veterans who served in Bataan and Corregidor and 
performed slave labor in Japanese mines, shipyards, and factories are 
in a similar predicament as their Canadian colleagues. These men have 
never been fully compensated for their heroism and sacrifices made 
while serving as slaves to their Japanese captors. The Japanese 
government has concluded that it is no longer liable for compensating 
such claims. Appealing the decision of the Japanese high court to 
further authority would take more time than many of our veterans have. 
Consequently, Mr. President, I believe that the American Government, 
just as the Canadian Government has done, should choose to recognize 
the contributions of the war heroes of Bataan and Corregidor.
  The legislation I am introducing today calls on the Congress to 
authorize payment of $20,000 to each veteran of Bataan or Corregidor 
who performed slave labor during World War II. The honorarium would 
also be extended to surviving spouses. This small token of appreciation 
would mean a great deal to these heroes and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I hope we can enact it in 
the near future.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me commend our distinguished 
colleague from New Mexico. I had the privilege of visiting Corregidor 
about 30 years ago with Senator Montoya. We talked about the New Mexico 
National Guard. Most were lost who went through that dreadful 
experience. For those that survived--I lost a good friend, Jack 
Leonard, and other graduates who served in the New Mexico National 
Guard--this is a moment of history that should be noted in a more clear 
and reverent fashion.
  I ask, please, to be added as a cosponsor to the Senator's bill.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from South Carolina very much. This 
legislation will move more quickly with him as a cosponsor. I also want 
to indicate that Senator Domenici is a cosponsor of this legislation, 
as well. As I say, I hope we can move ahead with it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague 
Senator Bingaman to introduce legislation that will compensate our 
veterans who fought at Bataan and Corregidor and were later held 
prisoner.
  I do not think words can fully describe the bravery of these veterans 
and the horrific conditions they endured, but I think a quote from Lt. 
Gen. Jonathan M. Wainwright provides an insight into these men:

       They were the first to fire and last to lay down their 
     arms, and only reluctantly doing so after being given a 
     direct order.

  The 200th and 515th Coast Artillery better known as the New Mexico 
Brigade played a prominent and heroic role in the fierce fighting that 
took place in the Philippines. For four months the men of the 200th and 
the 515th held off the Japanese only to be finally overwhelmed by 
disease and starvation.
  Today every student in his or her history class learns about the 
tragic result of the Battle for Bataan. The survivors of the battle 
were subjected to the horrors and atrocities of the 65 mile ``Death 
March.'' As if this were not enough, following the infamous march these 
men were held for over 40 months in Prisoner of War Camps.
  Sadly, of the eighteen hundred men in the Regiment, less than nine 
hundred returned home and a third of those passed away within a year of 
returning. I simply cannot imagine what it must have been like for 
these men.
  I would now like to briefly discuss the Bill we are introducing. This 
legislation offers long overdue compensation to a select group of men 
who served in the Philippines at Bataan and Corregidor during World War 
II. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay 
$20,000 to any veteran, or his surviving spouse, who served at Bataan 
or Corregidor, was captured and held as a prisoner of war, and was 
forced to perform slave labor as a prisoner in Japan during World War 
II.
  There is one final point that I want to make as a matter of simple 
fairness. I believe that in the upcoming months the federal tax 
implications should be examined. It may be necessary to provide that 
the $20,000 payment should be excluded from federal income taxes.
  Without an exclusion, the interaction between a lump sum payment, the 
social security income tax earnings limitation could subject some of 
the survivors of the Bataan death march to one-time exorbitant tax 
rates in excess of 50 percent. We don't want the federal government to 
give the compensation with one hand, only to have it taken away by the 
IRS.
  Thank you and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this 
issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 1807. A bill to provide for increased access to airports in the 
United Kingdom by United States air carriers, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


          open skies between the u.s. and the u.k. legislation

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation in 
response to the lack of progress in negotiations between the United 
States and the United Kingdom to open up competition through an open-
skies treaty for air travel between our countries. International 
aviation travel is central to the continued growth of commerce and 
tourism, and every effort must be made to increase these opportunities.
  This bill mandates that the United States and the United Kingdom come 
to an agreement that would grant all applications U.S. carriers 
currently have filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation for 
route access to the United Kingdom. The bill also mandates more access 
to London's Heathrow International Airport for U.S. carriers that do 
not currently have access to this airport. Congressman Bud Shuster, 
Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
has already introduced an identical bill, H.R. 3072, with the Ranking 
Minority Member, Congressman James Oberstar, in the House of 
Representatives.
  Under the current 22 year old bilateral agreement, known as Bermuda 
II,

[[Page 26994]]

only two U.S. airlines, American and United, and two from Great 
Britain, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, can fly between Heathrow 
and the United States. Under the current agreement, the British hold 
dominant rights to air travel between our countries in one of the most 
restrictive existing bilateral agreements for air travel. For example, 
British Airways is allowed to fly more routes to the U.S. than all U.S. 
carriers can fly to the United Kingdom combined. This present policy is 
unfair and is not in the best interests of American or British 
consumers.
  This situation is illustrated by the recent announcement by British 
Airways that it would be ending its nonstop flights between Pittsburgh 
and London as of October 31, 1999. This means that a city which has had 
nonstop for over a decade will no longer have it. Under the current 
restrictive agreement, only the British can fly to and from Pittsburgh; 
American carriers willing to pick up this route are unable to do so.
  The United States has open-skies agreements with over 36 countries 
which have been completed or are being phased in. Open-skies agreements 
allow a free market in air service in which airlines can fly where they 
want. It is inappropriate for the United States to lack a similar 
agreement with an historic ally and major trading partner such as the 
United Kingdom.
  If an agreement is not reached within six months of the bill's 
passage, the Secretary of Transportation is required to revoke all 
current slots and slot exemptions held by British air carriers at 
Chicago O'Hare and New York Kennedy airports. In addition, if the 
United States and the United Kingdom do not reach an open-skies 
agreement by the end of 2000, the bill mandates renunciation of the 
current bilateral agreement. My goal is to provide a strong incentive 
for our two countries to negotiate a fair, long overdue agreement by 
increasing competition and choices for consumers and all interested 
carriers in both countries.
  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. 1807

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

     SECTION 1. ACCESS TO UNITED KINGDOM AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--If the Governments of the United Kingdom 
     and the United States have not signed an agreement, by the 
     date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, that--
       (1) provides for approval of all applications for air 
     routes from the United States to the United Kingdom that have 
     been submitted to the Secretary of Transportation by United 
     States air carriers and are pending on October 14, 1999; and
       (2) provides slots at Heathrow International Airport to 
     United States air carriers that do not have any slots at such 
     airport on such date of enactment, without affecting any 
     slots held by other United States air carriers at such 
     airport on such date of enactment,

     the Secretary of Transportation shall immediately revoke all 
     slots and exemptions to the slot rule held by British air 
     carriers at O'Hare International Airport and John F. Kennedy 
     International Airport and, after the date of such revocation, 
     shall not grant any slot or exemption to the slot rule to a 
     British air carrier at either of such airports until such an 
     agreement is signed.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) British air carrier.--The term ``British air carrier'' 
     means a citizen of Great Britain undertaking by any means, 
     directly or indirectly, to provide foreign air transportation 
     (as defined in section 40102(a) of title 49, United States 
     Code).
       (2) Slot rule.--The term ``slot rule'' means the 
     requirements contained in subparts K and S of part 93 of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) United states air carrier.--The term ``United States 
     air carrier'' has the meaning given to the term ``air 
     carrier'' by section 40102(a) of title 49, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 2. OPEN SKIES AGREEMENT.

       If the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United 
     States have not signed an open skies agreement, as defined in 
     Department of Transportation Order 92-8-13, by December 31, 
     2000, the Secretary of State shall immediately file a notice 
     to terminate the Agreement Between the United States of 
     America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great 
     Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning Air Services, in 
     accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 1808. A bill to reauthorize and improve the drug court grant 
program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


         Drug Court Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1999

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a 
bill to provide federal assistance to States and local governments for 
drug courts to provide treatment rather than expensive imprisonment for 
drug addicted nonviolent offenders.
  This legislation would reauthorize and improve upon a novel program 
by which States and localities may obtain Federal funds to assist in 
the implementation of a ``drug court'' within the State and local 
criminal courts. Drug courts are designed to select from the general 
criminal population nonviolent offenders who test positive for drugs, 
and put them through a program of court supervised drug treatment and 
rehabilitation. In this way, we can both aid first-time drug offenders 
by preventing them from becoming career criminals and provide 
localities the funds to enable them to control the serious backlogs in 
their criminal court caused by the drug crime wave. In the long-term, 
this solution to the drug plague promises to be less expensive than 
incarcerating these nonviolent offenders.
  In 1991, I introduced similar legislation (S. 648), which was 
proposed by a 1990 study commissioned by the Philadelphia Bar 
Association entitled, ``Clearing the Road to Justice.'' This study 
found that state and local courts are overwhelmed by a large number of 
drug related crimes committed by first time offenders. The study 
concluded that a separate drug court division could both speed 
processing of drug related cases and provide mandatory drug screening 
programs to target first-time nonviolent drug offenders, and at the 
same time free up the rest of the court system to focus on violent 
criminals.
  Congress enacted legislation to authorize a federal drug court grant 
program as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994. However, in an action without any debate and that I believe 
reflected poor judgment, Congress repealed such authority in the 
Omnibus Consolidation Recessional and Appropriations Act of 1996 (PL 
104-134). Although Congress rescinded the authority for this program, 
it has had been good sense to continue to appropriate some funds to the 
program by increasing funding from $11.5 million in 1995 to $40 million 
in 1999.
  As a result of this federal funding, there has been a considerable 
increase in the number of drug courts in the United States. Since 1994, 
the total number of operating drug court program has grown from 42 to 
approximately 300. However, there is still not enough funding to 
adequately support the program despite the increased interest. Last 
year the Department of Justice received 216 grant applications, but was 
able to award only 88 grants. Justice reports that there were at least 
38 additional programs that would have received grants had there been 
funding available.
  During my travels in Pennsylvania, I have confirmed that there is a 
great deal of interest in implementing this program. Currently, there 
are six counties (Allegheny, Chester, Lycoming, Philadelphia, York, 
Erie) that are in various stages of planning and implementing drug 
court programs. I had the opportunity to speak to a number of 
prosecutors, judges and participants of these programs. They are very 
positive about their initial progress and very optimistic about the 
results that they will achieve in the future.
  As a member of the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees, I have 
been an advocate of increasing funds for this program. I am committed 
to a balanced federal budget and realize that we must be careful in how 
we make federal expenditures. With this in mind, I have chosen this 
program carefully as one in which we should invest federal funds. I 
believe that Congress must step up to the plate and

[[Page 26995]]

commit to this program by authorizing it and appropriating sufficient 
funds to meet the growing demand for drug court alternatives. It is 
necessary that the criminal justice system and Congress face up to the 
fact that realistic rehabilitation must be a part of the process of 
drug treatment and crime reduction.
  I believe that the drug courts are extremely effective in breaking 
the cycle of substance abuse and crime and will save large amounts of 
money that otherwise would have been spent on incarceration. With this 
program, first-time drug offenders may be prevented from becoming 
career criminals, and localities will be provided with funds to 
minimize the serious backlogs in criminal courts caused largely by drug 
crimes. The most recent Drug Court Survey Report, published by the 
Office of Justice Programs' Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical 
Assistance Project at American University found that the drug court 
programs reported low recidivism rates between 2% and 20%. The survey 
also found significantly reduced drug use even among those who did not 
graduate from the programs, with as many as 93% of participants testing 
negative for drugs. Further, this alternative promises to be less 
expensive than incarcerating nonviolent offenders. Drug courts offer 
significant cost savings as compared to incarceration. According to the 
Drug Court Survey Report, the average cost for the treatment component 
of a drug court program ranges between $900 and $1,200 per participant, 
and savings in jail bed days have been estimated to be at least $5,000 
per defendant. Additional reported savings include reductions in police 
overtime, witness costs and grand jury expenses.
  While these statistics are very promising, they are not necessarily 
representative of all of the drug court programs. In 1997, GAO issued a 
report entitled ``Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics and 
Results,'' which found that nearly half of the drug court programs do 
not maintain follow-up data regarding recidivism or relapse to drug 
abuse. Accordingly, GAO recommended that the Attorney General require 
drug court programs to collect and maintain follow-up data on 
recidivism and drug use relapse. This legislation includes a 
requirement for such follow-up so Congress can better determine the 
program's efficacy.
  This legislation would authorize up to $200 million per year for this 
innovative program, the original level from the 1994 law. Additionally, 
in order to create greater flexibility for states and local governments 
to fund the drug court programs, this legislation would allow federal 
funds that are received from sources other than the Drug Courts Program 
Office to be counted as a part of the 25% grantee matching contribution 
requirement. The current Justice policy requires the grantee to 
contribute 25% of the total program costs--none of which can come from 
a federal source.
  Additionally, the 1994 law required the Department of Justice to 
consult with HHS concerning administration of the drug court program, 
and although the drug court provision was rescinded, Justice has 
continued to consult with HHS in an informal manner regarding treatment 
programs. As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the important role 
that HHS can play in improving the treatment aspect of the drug court 
program. Accordingly, this bill would reinstate the requirement that 
Justice consult with HHS regarding administration of the drug court 
program and would authorize $75 million to be appropriated to HHS to be 
used for drug treatment services associated with drug court programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important program which provides 
an effective alternative to imprisonment for drug addicted nonviolent 
offenders.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Frist, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. 
        Murray):
  S. 1809. A bill to improve service systems for individuals with 
developmental disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


 The Development Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to introduce 
today, for myself, and my colleagues from the Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Frist, Collins, 
Wellstone, Reed, Dodd, and Murray, The Developmental Disabilities 
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This bill is the 
reauthorization of a piece of legislation with a rich legacy, and a 
long history of bipartisan Congressional support. Originally authorized 
in 1963 and last reauthorized in 1996, it has always focused on the 
needs of our most vulnerable citizens, an estimated four million 
individuals with severe disabilities, including individuals with mental 
retardation and other lifelong, pervasive disabilities.
  Initial versions of this legislation focused primarily on the 
interdisciplinary training of professionals to work with individuals 
with developmental disabilities. The University Affiliated Facilities 
(UAFs) were the first federally funded programs charged with expanding 
the cadre of professionals to address the needs of individuals with 
developmental disabilities. The name of these programs was changed to 
University Affiliated Programs (UAPs) in a subsequent reauthorization 
and their mission was expanded to include community services and 
information dissemination pertaining to individuals with developmental 
disabilities. Finally, in 1996, after 33 years of planned expansion by 
Congress, each State established and received core funding for at least 
one UAP.
  In the 1970 reauthorization of the DD Act, Congress recognized the 
need for, and value of strengthening State efforts to coordinate and 
integrate services for individuals with developmental disabilities. As 
a result, Congress established and authorized funding for State 
Developmental Disabilities Councils (DD Councils) in each state. The 
purpose of the Councils was, and continues to be, to advise governors 
and State agencies on how to use available and potential resources to 
meet the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. Every 
State has a DD Council. The Councils undertake advocacy, capacity 
building, and systemic change activities directed at improving access 
to community services and supports for individuals with disabilities 
and their families.
  In 1975, Congress created and authorized funding for Protection and 
Advocacy Systems (P&As) in each state to ensure the safety and well 
being of individuals with developmental disabilities. The mission of 
these systems has evolved over the years, initially addressing the 
protection of individuals with developmental disabilities who lived in 
institutions, to the present responsibilities related to the protection 
of individuals with developmental disabilities from abuse, neglect, and 
exploitation, and from the violation of their legal and human rights, 
both in institutions and in the community.
  The 1975 reauthorization of the DD Act also established funding for 
Projects of National Significance. Through this new authority Congress 
authorized funding for projects that would support national initiatives 
related to specific areas of need. Over the years, projects related to 
areas such as people with developmental disabilities and the criminal 
justice system, home ownership, employment, assistive technology, and 
self-advocacy for individuals with developmental disabilities have been 
initiated through these projects.
  The 1999 reauthorization of the DD Act builds on the past successes 
of these programs, reflects today's changing society, and seeks to 
provide a foundation to provide the services and supports that 
individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, and 
communities will need as we enter the next century. Let me take a few 
moments to highlight the major provisions of this bill.
  The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 
1999 continues a tradition of support for a DD Network in each State 
that is able

[[Page 26996]]

to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities 
in quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care, 
employment, health, housing, transportation, recreation and other 
services for individuals with developmental disabilities and their 
families. This approach reflects current trends in society and in the 
field of developmental disabilities in that it emphasizes the 
empowerment of individuals with developmental disabilities and their 
families and joins it with state flexibility and increased 
accountability.
  The bill continues and further develops the important work of the DD 
Act programs in each State. It seeks to ensure that more individuals 
with developmental disabilities are able to fully participate in and 
contribute to their communities through full integration and inclusion 
in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational 
mainstream of our nation. It also assists DD Act programs to improve 
the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental 
disabilities and their families regardless of where they choose to 
live.
  Unfortunately, in keeping with other realities of our time, the bill 
also recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities are at 
greater risk of abuse, neglect, financial and sexual exploitation, and 
the violation of their legal and human rights, than the general 
population. Based upon this recognition, the bill supports the extra 
effort and attention that is needed, in both individual and systemic 
situations, to ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities 
are put at no greater risk of harm than others in the general 
population.
  The bill recognizes that individuals with developmental disabilities 
often have multiple, evolving, life long needs that require interaction 
with agencies and organizations that offer specialized assistance as 
well as interaction with generic services in their communities. The 
nature of the needs of these individuals and the capacity of States and 
communities to respond to them have changed. In the past 5 years, new 
strategies for reaching, engaging, and assisting individuals with 
developmental disabilities have gained visibility and credibility. 
These new strategies are reinforced by and reflected in this bill.
  In the past, the Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems have been 
authorized to provide advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change 
activities to make access to and navigation through various service 
systems easier for individuals with developmental disabilities. Over 
time there has been pressure for these three programs to provide 
assistance beyond the limit of their resources and beyond their 
authorized missions. The bill clearly and concisely specifies the roles 
and responsibilities of Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems so that 
there is a common understanding of what the programs are intended to 
contribute toward a State's efforts to respond to the needs of 
individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.
  The bill gives States' Councils, Centers, and P&A Systems more 
flexibility. Each program in a State, working with stakeholders, is to 
develop goals for how to assure that individuals with developmental 
disabilities and their families participate in the design of and have 
access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other 
forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, 
productivity, integration, and inclusion in all facets of community 
life. Goals may be set in any of the following areas of emphasis: 
quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care, 
health, employment, housing, transportation, recreation, or other 
community services.
  Consistent with Congressional emphasis on strengthening 
accountability for all federal programs, this legislation requires each 
program to determine, before undertaking a goal, how it will be 
measured. Measurement of a goal must reflect the impact of the goal on 
individuals with developmental disabilities. The Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to develop indicators 
of progress to evaluate how the three programs in each State have 
engaged in activities to promote and achieve the purpose and policy of 
the Act in terms of choices available to individuals with developmental 
disabilities and their families, their satisfaction with services, 
their ability to participate in community life, and their safety. In 
addition, the Secretary is to monitor how the three programs funded in 
each State coordinate their efforts, and how that coordination affects 
the quality of supports and services for individuals with developmental 
disabilities and their families in that State.
  During the past several years, a clearer picture has emerged of what 
individuals with developmental disabilities are able to accomplish when 
they have access to the same choices and opportunities available to 
others and with the appropriate support. There has also been increasing 
recognition of and support for self-advocacy organizations established 
by and for individuals with developmental disabilities. This bill 
reflects and promotes such efforts by authorizing State Councils in 
each State to support self-advocacy organizations for individuals with 
developmental disabilities.
  The legislation renames the University Affiliated Programs as 
University Centers for Excellence for Developmental Disabilities 
Education, Research, and Service, expands their responsibilities to 
include the conduct of research, and links them together to create a 
National Network.
  By administering the three programs specifically authorized under the 
DD Act and by funding projects of national significance to accomplish 
similar or complementary efforts, the Administration on Developmental 
Disabilities (ADD) in HHS plays a critical role in supporting and 
fostering new ways to assist individuals with developmental 
disabilities and in promoting system integration to expand and improve 
community services for individuals with disabilities. This bill 
provides ADD with the ability to foster similar efforts across the 
Executive Branch. The bill authorizes ADD to pursue and join with other 
Executive Branch entities in activities that will improve choices, 
opportunities, and services for individuals with developmental 
disabilities.
  The bill recognizes that forty-nine States have begun to develop 
family support programs for families with children with disabilities. 
This supports States by providing grants (one, 3-year grant per State, 
on a competitive basis) to assist States to provide services to 
families who choose to keep their children with disabilities at home 
and not be forced to place their children in institutions due to the 
lack of support. The bill gives States maximum flexibility to use 
targeted funds to strengthen or expand existing State family support 
programs.
  Finally, in response to a national need to increase the number and 
improve the training of direct support workers who assist individuals 
with developmental disabilities where they live, work, go to school, 
and play, the bill includes provisions proposed by Senators Frist and 
Wellstone. One provides funding for the development and dissemination 
of a technology-based training curriculum to provide state of the art 
staff development for individuals in direct service roles with people 
with developmental disabilities and their families. The other is a 
scholarship program to encourage continuing education for individuals 
entering the field of direct service
  Throughout the country, the DD Act programs have a long history of 
achievement. In Vermont, the DD Act programs make ongoing contributions 
to major initiatives affecting individuals with developmental 
disabilities and their families. They play significant roles in many of 
Vermont's accomplishments, including: the inclusion of children with 
severe disabilities into local schools and classrooms; early 
intervention and family leadership initiatives that are national 
models; and innovative programs in the areas of employment, and 
community living options for individuals with developmental 
disabilities. Based upon the letters our office has received from 
across the country, it is clear that these small programs make 
substantial, positive differences in their states.

[[Page 26997]]

  The bill we present today reflects the foundation of what Congress 
has supported over the past 36 years, combined with our best efforts to 
support individuals with the most severe disabilities, their families, 
and their communities into the next century. It represents the best of 
what we in Congress have the opportunity to do . . . to ensure that 
those who are among our most vulnerable citizens, are protected, 
supported, and encouraged to achieve their potential. My colleagues and 
I are proud to present it to you today and hope to see it enacted as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator 
Frist, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator 
Durbin, and Senator Cochran to introduce the ``Clinical Research 
Enhancement Act of 1999''.
  Our goal is to enhance support for clinical research, which is 
central to biomedical research. Major advances in basic biological 
research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of 
medicine. As a result, extraordinary opportunities exist for cutting-
edge clinical research to bring breakthroughs in the laboratory to the 
bedside of the patient. Clinical research is essential for the 
advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and 
treatments for disease. In addition, the results of clinical research 
are incorporated by industry and used to develop new drugs, vaccines, 
and health care products. These advances in turn strengthen the economy 
and create jobs.
  Unfortunately, the number of physicians choosing careers in clinical 
research is in serious decline. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of 
physicians applying for first-time NIH grants decreased by 21%. Studies 
by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the 
National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health 
have all highlighted the significant problems faced by clinical 
researchers, including lack of grant support, lack of training 
opportunities, and the heavy debt burden from medical school.
  The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance clinical 
research by addressing these issues. Our bill will provide research 
support and training opportunities for clinical researchers at all 
stages of their careers, as well as the necessary infrastructure to 
conduct clinical research.
  The bill establishes several research grant awards. The Mentored 
Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards will support 
clinical investigators in the early phases of their independent careers 
by providing salary and other support for a period of supervised study. 
The Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research will 
provide support for mid-career clinicians, to give them time for 
clinical research and to act as mentors for beginning investigators.
  To encourage the training of clinical investigators at various stages 
in their careers, the bill establishes several programs. The NIH will 
support intramural and extramural training programs for medical and 
dental students. For students who want to pursue an advanced degree in 
clinical research, the bill provides support for both students and 
institutions to create training programs. For post-graduate education, 
NIH will support continuing education in such research.
  Our legislation also creates a clinical research tuition loan 
repayment program to encourage recruitment of new investigators. 
Student debt is a major barrier to clinical research. Young physicians 
graduate from medical school with an average debt of $86,000. Because 
of the limited financial opportunities in clinical research to repay 
their large debts, many young physicians are under great pressure to 
choose more lucrative fields of medical practice. NIH has acknowledged 
this problem, and has established an intramural loan repayment program 
to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our 
legislation expands the current program, so that researchers throughout 
the country will be eligible.
  A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In 
clinical research, that infrastructure is provided, in part, by the 
general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout 
the country. Our bill provides statutory authority for those clinical 
research centers.
  In the past, support for these centers was once provided largely by 
academic health centers. However, academic health centers today are 
confronted with heavy competition from non-teaching institutions and 
are increasingly emphasizing patient care over research to minimize 
costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become 
much more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important 
legislation through Congress. Our bill is supported by over 70 
biomedical associations and organizations. I commend the American 
Federation for Medical Research for its support of this legislation.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support as a 
cosponsor of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 
Rights Act Amendments of 1999, a bill to extend and improve our 
Nation's developmental disabilities programs which allow individuals 
with developmental disabilities, such as mental retardation and severe 
physical disabilities, to live more independent and productive lives.
  As the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Disability Policy 
during the 104th Congress, I introduced the Developmental Disabilities 
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of 1996 which successfully 
extended this vital law. Through this experience, I became aware of the 
importance of the programs under this Act and how they work to improve 
the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities.
  Before the DD Act was first signed in 1963, Americans who happened to 
be born with developmental disabilities often lived and died in 
institutions where many were subjected to unspeakable conditions, far 
worse than conditions found in any American prison. Over the last 
several decades, thanks in part to the programs included in the DD Act, 
we have learned how to help families to bring up their children with 
developmental disabilities in their family homes; we have learned how 
to teach children with developmental disabilities; we have learned how 
to make room for these citizens to live and work in the heart of our 
communities; and we have learned how to ensure safe living environments 
and dependable care for those individuals with developmental 
disabilities who remain in residential facilities.
  The bill introduced today will ensure that these activities will 
continue. This bill will update and increase the accountability and 
flexibility of these programs under the law. These programs include the 
university affiliated programs which educate students in developmental 
disabilities related fields and which conduct research and training on 
how to meet the needs of the disabled. The law also authorizes funding 
for State Developmental Disabilities Councils which advise governors 
and State agencies on how to use available and potential resources to 
meet the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. To help 
protect the rights of the developmentally disabled, the law provides 
grants for Protection and Advocacy Systems to provide information and 
referral services and to investigate reported incidents of abuse and 
neglect of individuals with developmental disabilities.
  I am pleased that Senator Jeffords has agreed to include a provision 
in this bill which I drafted to address the training of direct service 
personnel for individuals with developmental disabilities. The training 
of direct service personnel is a national challenge in both magnitude 
and complexity. The size of this workforce is over 400,000 persons with 
an estimated annual turnover rate of 50 percent. In addition, nearly 
half of these workers are part time, working nontraditional hours. To 
address this dilemma, I have drafted a provision to develop a training 
program to create, evaluate, and disseminate a multimedia curriculum 
for staff

[[Page 26998]]

development of individuals who are direct support workers or who seek 
to become direct support workers. This program will help develop a 
training regime that will be both cost and time effective for providers 
of services for the developmentally disabled.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support to the Developmental 
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of 1999, 
which will improve and strengthen an important law which provides 
support for individuals with developmental disabilities and their 
families and which will assist individuals with developmental 
disabilities to live independently and work in the community, out of 
institutions, with as little bureaucracy and government intrusion as 
possible.
 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. The Developmental Disabilities Act 
has been a cornerstone of federal registration for people with 
disabilities. I am pleased to be here today with Senator Jeffords, 
Senator Kennedy, and other colleagues from the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee to introduce legislation that will 
reauthorize this important law.
  The entities funded under the Act--The Developmental Disabilities 
Councils, University Affiliated Programs, and the Protection and 
Advocacy agencies--have enabled us to move away from a service system 
dominated by large public institutions, and to establish services where 
families and individuals want them--in their own homes, communities, 
and neighborhoods. In fact, the Supreme Court cited the Developmental 
Disabilities Act in the recent Olmstead decision as one of several 
pieces of federal legislation that secure opportunities for people with 
disabilities to enjoy the benefits of community living.
  This year's reauthorization is important for a number of reasons. 
First, we must continue our progress toward providing better community 
services for all people with disabilities. The Development Disabilities 
Act is instrumental in that work.
  Second, we must ensure that people with developmental disabilities 
are free from abuse and neglect in all aspects of the service delivery 
system. This bill will help protect people with disabilities from abuse 
and neglect no matter where they live--inside an institution or in the 
community.
  And, finally, we must do more to strengthen and support families as 
they provide care and support to family members with a disability. 
Family Support programs are one of the fastest growing services on the 
State level. State policy-makers are realizing that family caregivers 
are the true heroes of our long-term care system and they need help if 
they are going to keep their children at home. In this year's 
reauthorization of the Developmental Disabilities Act, we have included 
a Family Support program to help states strengthen and coordinate their 
support systems for family caregivers.
  I commend the disability groups for all of their work to make this 
reauthorization possible. I thank my colleagues and their staff for 
their hard work to reauthorize this law into the next millennium. I 
applaud their commitment to people with developmental 
disabilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Kerrey, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 1810. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify and 
improve veterans' claims and appellate procedures; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.


                  DUTY TO ASSIST VETERANS LEGISLATION

 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to 
make sure we treat America's veterans with the compassion they deserve. 
They have sacrificed so much of their personal lives for our country. 
And with this bill, I want to show them we appreciate their service, 
and we will be there when they need help.
  When veterans need medical care, they file a claim for benefits with 
the Veterans Administration. It requires researching information over 
many years and from many different government organizations.
  Traditionally, the Veterans Administration has helped veterans 
research and file their claims. That's the way it should be.
  But a series of recent court decisions have changed that--and made it 
harder for veterans to file their claims. I want to set the record 
straight. The VA has a duty to assist veterans in filing their claims.
  So today, I am introducing legislation to amend Title 38 of the 
United States Code to clarify and improve veterans claims and 
procedures.
  My legislation clarifies that the Department of Veterans Affairs has 
a duty to assist veterans in preparing all of the facts pertinent to a 
claim for benefits. The VA has historically aided veterans in gathering 
information from the federal bureaucracy so they can file a claim.
  Let's not forget--the claims process was set up to aid our veterans. 
It's important to all veterans, especially those with severe mental and 
physical disabilities.
  Homeless veterans need help. Elderly veterans need help. And family 
members--who sacrifice to care for veterans--need help from the federal 
government.
  Anyone who has ever dealt with a veterans claim for benefits knows 
this is a very difficult process. It can be frustrating for veterans 
who--even in the best of circumstances--may be forced to wait several 
years for a claim to be approved and granted. Veterans already pay a 
heavy cost for delayed benefits. They often face financial, family, and 
health problems, as they try to resolve their claims.
  Yet, as we speak, the claims process at the VA is becoming even more 
difficult for America's veterans and their families.
  Through a series of court decisions, the VA's historic duty to assist 
veterans has been set aside. The courts responsible for veterans claims 
have determined that it is now the individual veteran's responsibility 
to file a well-rounded claim before they can get assistance from the 
VA. The effect has been to place the burden on the individual veteran 
to gather information--service records, medical records, and other 
documentation--from the federal government in order to file a claim.
  Mr. President, the courts have decided our veterans in need of 
assistance must go it alone. Homeless veterans suffering from Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder must now prepare their claims without 
assistance from the government they sacrificed for. Veterans who are 
sick, mentally or physically disabled, indigent, or poorly educated now 
face new barriers to assistance they may be legally entitled to 
receive. Veterans without the financial resources, time or familiarity 
with the claims process system must navigate through the bureaucracy 
without federal assistance. That's not the way we should treat 
America's veterans.
  Clearly, the courts have misinterpreted Congressional intent. The 
Veterans Judicial Review Act was signed into law during the 100th 
Congress with the following language,

       It is the obligation of the Veterans Administration to 
     assist a claimant in developing facts pertinent to his claim 
     and to render a decision which grants him every benefit that 
     can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the 
     Government.

  Somehow the courts interpreted that language differently. My 
objective in introducing legislation today is not to quarrel with the 
courts. I simply want to reassert congressional intent and re-establish 
the VA's duty to assist veterans. My legislation simply confirms the 
Congress believes it is important and appropriate for the federal 
government to assist veterans in preparing claims for benefits.
  Mr. President, this legislation is widely supported among those who 
work on veterans benefits claims every day. Numerous veterans advocacy 
groups, including the Disabled American Veterans, strongly support my 
legislation. This bill has original cosponsors from both sides of the 
aisle. It is a bipartisan response to a real problem confronting 
America's veterans.
  Let's do the right thing for America's veterans and particularly for 
those veterans who need the government's assistance the most.

[[Page 26999]]

  I urge prompt Senate consideration and passage of this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 1813. A bill to expand the Public Health Service Act to provide 
additional support for and to expand clinical research programs, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


             the clinical research enhancement act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator 
Frist, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator 
Durbin, and Senator Cochran to introduce the ``Clinical Research 
Enhancement Act of 1999''.
  Our goal is to enhance support for clinical research, which is 
central to biomedical research. Major advances in basic biological 
research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of 
medicine. As a result, extraordinary opportunities exist for cutting-
edge clinical research to bring breakthroughs in the laboratory to the 
bedside of the patient. Clinical research is essential for the 
advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and 
treatments for disease. In addition, the results of clinical research 
are incorporated by industry and used to develop new drugs, vaccines, 
and health care products. These advances in turn strengthen the economy 
and create jobs.
  Unfortunately, the number of physicians choosing careers in clinical 
research is in serious decline. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of 
physicians applying for first-time NIH grants decreased by 21 percent. 
Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, 
the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health 
have all highlighted the significant problems faced by clinical 
researchers, including lack of grant support, lack of training 
opportunities, and the heavy debt burden from medical school.
  The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance clinical 
research by addressing these issues. Our bill will provide research 
support and training opportunities for clinical researchers at all 
stages of their careers, as well as the necessary infrastructure to 
conduct clinical research.
  The bill establishes several research grant awards. The Mentored 
Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards will support 
clinical investigators in the early phases of their independent careers 
by providing salary and other support for a period of supervised study. 
The Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research will 
provide support for mid-career clinicians, to give them time for 
clinical research and to act as mentors for beginning investigators.
  To encourage the training of clinical investigators at various stages 
in their careers, the bill establishes several programs. The NIH will 
support intramural and extramural training programs for medical and 
dental students. For students who want to pursue an advanced degree in 
clinical research, the bill provides support for both students and 
institutions to create training programs. For post-graduate education, 
NIH will support continuing education in such research.
  Our legislation also creates a clinical research tuition loan 
repayment program to encourage recruitment of new investigators. 
Student debt is a major barrier to clinical research. Young physicians 
graduate from medical school with an average debt of $86,000. Because 
of the limited financial opportunities in clinical research to repay 
their large debts, many young physicians are under great pressure to 
choose more lucrative fields of medical practice. NIH has acknowledged 
this problem, and has established an intramural loan repayment program 
to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our 
legislation expands the current program, so that researchers throughout 
the country will be eligible.
  A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In 
clinical research, that infrastructure is provided, in part, by the 
general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout 
the country. Our bill provides statutory authority for those clinical 
research centers.
  In the past, support for these centers was once provided largely by 
academic health centers. However, academic health centers today are 
confronted with heavy competition from non-teaching institutions and 
are increasingly emphasizing patient care over research to minimize 
costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become 
much more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important 
legislation through Congress. Our bill is supported by over 70 
biomedical associations and organizations. I commend the American 
Federation for Medical Research for its support of this legislation. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, the 
American Federation for Medical Research's letter of support, and a 
list of supporters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1813

       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 ``Clinical Research 
     Enhancement Act of 1999''.

      SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Clinical research is critical to the advancement of 
     scientific knowledge and to the development of cures and 
     improved treatment for disease.
       (2) Tremendous advances in biology are opening doors to new 
     insights into human physiology, pathophysiology and disease, 
     creating extraordinary opportunities for clinical research.
       (3) Clinical research includes translational research which 
     is an integral part of the research process leading to 
     general human applications. It is the bridge between the 
     laboratory and new methods of diagnosis, treatment, and 
     prevention and is thus essential to progress against cancer 
     and other diseases.
       (4) The United States will spend more than 
     $1,200,000,000,000 on health care in 1999, but the Federal 
     budget for health research at the National Institutes of 
     Health was $15,600,000,000 only 1 percent of that total.
       (5) Studies at the Institute of Medicine, the National 
     Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences have 
     all addressed the current problems in clinical research.
       (6) The Director of the National Institutes of Health has 
     recognized the current problems in clinical research and 
     appointed a special panel, which recommended expanded support 
     for existing National Institutes of Health clinical research 
     programs and the creation of new initiatives to recruit and 
     retain clinical investigators.
       (7) The current level of training and support for health 
     professionals in clinical research is fragmented, 
     undervalued, and underfunded.
       (8) Young investigators are not only apprentices for future 
     positions but a crucial source of energy, enthusiasm, and 
     ideas in the day-to-day research that constitutes the 
     scientific enterprise. Serious questions about the future of 
     life-science research are raised by the following:
       (A) The number of young investigators applying for grants 
     dropped by 54 percent between 1985 and 1993.
       (B) The number of physicians applying for first-time 
     National Institutes of Health research project grants fell 
     from 1226 in 1994 to 963 in 1998, a 21 percent reduction.
       (C) Newly independent life-scientists are expected to raise 
     funds to support their new research programs and a 
     substantial proportion of their own salaries.
       (9) The following have been cited as reasons for the 
     decline in the number of active clinical researchers, and 
     those choosing this career path:
       (A) A medical school graduate incurs an average debt of 
     $85,619, as reported in the Medical School Graduation 
     Questionnaire by the Association of American Medical Colleges 
     (AAMC).
       (B) The prolonged period of clinical training required 
     increases the accumulated debt burden.
       (C) The decreasing number of mentors and role models.
       (D) The perceived instability of funding from the National 
     Institutes of Health and other Federal agencies.
       (E) The almost complete absence of clinical research 
     training in the curriculum of training grant awardees.
       (F) Academic Medical Centers are experiencing difficulties 
     in maintaining a proper environment for research in a highly 
     competitive health care marketplace, which are compounded by 
     the decreased willingness of third party payers to cover 
     health care costs

[[Page 27000]]

     for patients engaged in research studies and research 
     procedures.
       (10) In 1960, general clinical research centers were 
     established under the Office of the Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health with an initial appropriation of 
     $3,000,000.
       (11) Appropriations for general clinical research centers 
     in fiscal year 1999 equaled $200,500,000.
       Since the late 1960s, spending for general clinical 
     research centers has declined from approximately 3 percent to 
     1 percent of the National Institutes of Health budget.
       (12) In fiscal year 1999, there were 77 general clinical 
     research centers in operation, supplying patients in the 
     areas in which such centers operate with access to the most 
     modern clinical research and clinical research facilities and 
     technologies.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to provide 
     additional support for and to expand clinical research 
     programs.

     SEC. 3. INCREASING THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES 
                   OF HEALTH IN CLINICAL RESEARCH.

       Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 409C. CLINICAL RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director of National Institutes of 
     Health shall undertake activities to support and expand the 
     involvement of the National Institutes of Health in clinical 
     research.
       ``(b) Requirements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Director of National Institutes of Health shall--
       ``(1) consider the recommendations of the Division of 
     Research Grants Clinical Research Study Group and other 
     recommendations for enhancing clinical research; and
       ``(2) establish intramural and extramural clinical research 
     fellowship programs directed specifically at medical and 
     dental students and a continuing education clinical research 
     training program at the National Institutes of Health.
       ``(c) Support for the Diverse Needs of Clinical Research.--
     The Director of National Institutes of Health, in cooperation 
     with the Directors of the Institutes, Centers, and Divisions 
     of the National Institutes of Health, shall support and 
     expand the resources available for the diverse needs of the 
     clinical research community, including inpatient, outpatient, 
     and critical care clinical research.
       ``(d) Peer Review.--The Director of National Institutes of 
     Health shall establish peer review mechanisms to evaluate 
     applications for the awards and fellowships provided for in 
     subsection (b)(2) and section 409D. Such review mechanisms 
     shall include individuals who are exceptionally qualified to 
     appraise the merits of potential clinical research training 
     and research grant proposals.''.

     SEC. 4. GENERAL CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS.

       (a) Grants.--Subpart 1 of part B of title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 481C. GENERAL CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS.

       ``(a) Grants.--The Director of the National Center for 
     Research Resources shall award grants for the establishment 
     of general clinical research centers to provide the 
     infrastructure for clinical research including clinical 
     research training and career enhancement. Such centers shall 
     support clinical studies and career development in all 
     settings of the hospital or academic medical center involved.
       ``(b) Activities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Director of National Institutes of Health shall expand the 
     activities of the general clinical research centers through 
     the increased use of telecommunications and telemedicine 
     initiatives.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal 
     year.''.
       (b) Enhancement Awards.--Part B of title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 3, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 409D. ENHANCEMENT AWARDS.

       ``(a) Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development 
     Awards.--
       ``(1) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes 
     of Health shall make grants (to be referred to as `Mentored 
     Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards') to 
     support individual careers in clinical research at general 
     clinical research centers or at other institutions that have 
     the infrastructure and resources deemed appropriate for 
     conducting patient-oriented clinical research.
       ``(B) Use.--Grants under subparagraph (A) shall be used to 
     support clinical investigators in the early phases of their 
     independent careers by providing salary and such other 
     support for a period of supervised study.
       ``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at 
     such time as the Director may require.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal 
     year.
       ``(b) Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented 
     Research.--
       ``(1) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes 
     of Health shall make grants (to be referred to as `Mid-Career 
     Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research') to support 
     individual clinical research projects at general clinical 
     research centers or at other institutions that have the 
     infrastructure and resources deemed appropriate for 
     conducting patient-oriented clinical research.
       ``(B) Use.--Grants under subparagraph (A) shall be used to 
     provide support for mid-career level clinicians to allow such 
     clinicians to devote time to clinical research and to act as 
     mentors for beginning clinical investigators.
       ``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at 
     such time as the Director requires.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal 
     year.
       ``(c) Graduate Training in Clinical Investigation Award.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes 
     of Health shall make grants (to be referred to as `Graduate 
     Training in Clinical Investigation Awards') to support 
     individuals pursuing master's or doctoral degrees in clinical 
     investigation.
       `` (2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be submitted by an individual scientist at 
     such time as the Director may require.
       `` (3) Limitations.--Grants under this subsection shall be 
     for terms of 2 years or more and shall provide stipend, 
     tuition, and institutional support for individual advanced 
     degree programs in clinical investigation.
       ``(4) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `advanced degree programs in clinical investigation' means 
     programs that award a master's or Ph.D. degree in clinical 
     investigation after 2 or more years of training in areas such 
     as the following:
       ``(A) Analytical methods, biostatistics, and study design.
       ``(B) Principles of clinical pharmacology and 
     pharmacokinetics.
       ``(C) Clinical epidemiology.
       ``(D) Computer data management and medical informatics.
       ``(E) Ethical and regulatory issues.
       ``(F) Biomedical writing.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal 
     year.
       ``(d) Clinical Research Curriculum Awards.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes 
     of Health shall make grants (to be referred to as `Clinical 
     Research Curriculum Awards') to institutions for the 
     development and support of programs of core curricula for 
     training clinical investigators, including medical students. 
     Such core curricula may include training in areas such as the 
     following:
       ``(A) Analytical methods, biostatistics, and study design.
       ``(B) Principles of clinical pharmacology and 
     pharmacokinetics.
       ``(C) Clinical epidemiology.
       ``(D) Computer data management and medical informatics.
       ``(E) Ethical and regulatory issues.
       ``(F) Biomedical writing.
       ``(2) Applications.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be submitted by an individual institution or 
     a consortium of institutions at such time as the Director may 
     require. An institution may submit only 1 such application.
       ``(3) Limitations.--Grants under this subsection shall be 
     for terms of up to 5 years and may be renewable.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal 
     year.''.

     SEC. 5. LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM REGARDING CLINICAL 
                   RESEARCHERS.

       Part G of title IV of the Public Health Service Act is 
     amended by inserting after section 487E (42 U.S.C. 288-5) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 487F. LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM REGARDING CLINICAL 
                   RESEARCHERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall 
     establish a program to enter into contracts with qualified 
     health professionals under which such health professionals 
     agree to conduct clinical research, in consideration of the 
     Federal Government agreeing to repay, for each year of 
     service conducting such research, not more than $35,000 of 
     the principal and interest of the educational loans of such 
     health professionals.
       ``(b) Application of Provisions.--The provisions of 
     sections 338B, 338C, and 338E shall, except as inconsistent 
     with subsection (a) of this section, apply to the program 
     established under subsection (a) to the same extent and in 
     the same manner as such provisions apply to the National 
     Health Service

[[Page 27001]]

     Corps Loan Repayment Program established in subpart III of 
     part D of title III.
       ``(c) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal 
     year.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated for carrying out 
     this section shall remain available until the expiration of 
     the second fiscal year beginning after the fiscal year for 
     which the amounts were made available.''.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITION.

       Section 409 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     284d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting ``(a) Health 
     Service Research.--For purposes''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Clinical Research.--As used in this title, the term 
     `clinical research' means patient oriented clinical research 
     conducted with human subjects, or research on the causes and 
     consequences of disease in human populations involving 
     material of human origin (such as tissue specimens and 
     cognitive phenomena) for which an investigator or colleague 
     directly interacts with human subjects in an outpatient or 
     inpatient setting to clarify a problem in human physiology, 
     pathophysiology or disease, or epidemiologic or behavioral 
     studies, outcomes research or health services research, or 
     developing new technologies, therapeutic interventions, or 
     clinical trials.''.

     SEC. 7. OVERSIGHT BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Congress a reporting describing the extent to 
     which the National Institutes of Health has complied with the 
     amendments made by this Act.
                                  ____

                                               American Federation


                                         for Medical Research,

                                  Washington, DC, October 27, 1999
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I write to thank you for your 
     continued support of the need to enhance clinical research 
     programs at the National Institutes of Health by 
     reintroducing the Clinical Research Enhancement Act. The 
     American Federation for Medical Research, a national 
     organization of over 5,000 physician-scientists who are 
     involved in basic, translational, clinical and health 
     services research, is committed to the improvement of human 
     health through the translation of basic scientific 
     discoveries to treatments and cures for disease.
       For many years, academic medical centers have been able to 
     provide institutional support to young physician-scientists 
     who are interested in pursuing careers in biomedical 
     research. However, as the health care marketplace has become 
     increasingly competitive, academic centers have all but 
     eliminated internal subsidies for clinical research or the 
     training of clinical investigators. In fact, the Association 
     of American Medical Colleges has estimated that these 
     institutions have lost approximately $800 million in annual 
     ``purchasing power'' for research and research training 
     within their institutions.
       Unfortunately, young investigators and medical students 
     have suffered as a result of the loss of these funds from the 
     system. The AMA has reported that the number of medical 
     school graduates indicating an interest in a research career 
     has fallen steadily in the 1990's. In addition, the number of 
     first time physician applicants to the National Institutes of 
     Health for research support has fallen by at least 20 percent 
     between 1994 and 1997. It is important that these downward 
     trends are stopped. These lost physician scientists represent 
     the next generation who will move basic science discoveries 
     to patients. We thank you for introducing the Clinical 
     Research Enhancement Act, an extremely modest investment in a 
     much-needed program to reinvigorate our nation's clinical 
     research capabilities.
       There is a strong consensus among the 70 scientific and 
     consumer organizations that have endorsed this legislation 
     that Congress must stop the deterioration of the U.S. 
     clinical research capacity. In addition, we must assure that 
     the American people and the American economy benefit from the 
     translation of basic science breakthroughs to improved 
     clinical care and new medical products. The American 
     Federation for Medical Research is pleased to have the 
     opportunity to express its strong support for this important 
     piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               William Lowe, M.D.,
     President.
                                  ____


       Supporters of the Senate Clinical Research Enhancement Act

       Academy of Radiology Research, Alliance for Aging Research, 
     Alzheimer's Association, Ambulatory Pediatric Association, 
     American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American 
     Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Pediatrics, 
     American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 
     American Academy of Optometry, American Academy of Orthopedic 
     Surgeons, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck 
     Surgery, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association 
     for Cancer Research, American Association for Dental 
     Research, American Association for the Study of Liver 
     Disease, American Association of Dental Schools, American 
     College of Cardiology, American College of 
     Neuropsychopharmacology, American College of Physicians--
     American Society of Internal Medicine, American College of 
     Preventive Medicine.
       American Federation for Medical Research, American Heart 
     Association, American Kidney Fund, American Pediatric 
     Society, American Podiatric Medical Association, American 
     Professors of Dermatology, American Society for Clinical 
     Pharmacology and Therapeutics, American Society for Clinical 
     Nutrition, American Society for Investigative Pathology, 
     American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society 
     for Addiction Medicine, American Society for Hematology, 
     American Urological Association, Arthritis Foundation, 
     Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, 
     Association of Academic Health Centers, Association of 
     American Cancer Institutes, Association of Departments of 
     Family Medicine, Association of Medical Schools Pediatric 
     Department Chairs, Association of Pathology Chairs.
       Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology, 
     Citizens for Public Action, Coalition for American Trauma 
     Care, Coalition of Patient Advocates for Skin Disease 
     Research, College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Cooley's 
     Anemia Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, East Carolina 
     University School of Medicine, Epilepsy Foundation, 
     Federation of Behavioral, Psychological & Cognitive Sciences, 
     Friends of the National Institute of Dental Research, General 
     Clinical Research Centers Program Directors Association, 
     Jeffrey Modell Foundation, Medical Dermatology Society, 
     National Alopecia Areata Foundation.
       National Caucus of Basic Biomedical Science Chairs, 
     National Health Council, National Hemophilia Foundation, 
     National Organization for Rare Disorders, National 
     Osteoporosis Foundation, New York University School of 
     Medicine, Research! America, Research Society on Alcoholism, 
     RESOLVE, The National Infertility Association, St. Jude 
     Children's Research Hospital, Scleroderma Foundation--Central 
     New Jersey Chapter, Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation, Society 
     for Investigative Dermatology, Society for Maternal--Fetal 
     Medicine, Society for Pediatric Research, Society for Women's 
     Health Research, University of Washington--Department of 
     Ophthalmology.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Cleland, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Mack, Mr. Cochran, 
        Mr. Helms, Mr. Grams, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. 
        Voinovich):
  S. 1814. A bill to establish a system of registries of temporary 
agricultural workers to provide for a sufficient supply of such workers 
and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to streamline 
procedures for the admission and extension of stay of nonimmigrant 
agricultural workers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


agricultural job opportunity benefits and security act of 1999 (agjobs)

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise with Senators Graham, 
Craig, Cleland, McConnell, Coverdell, Mack, Cochran, Helms, Grams, 
Crapo, Bunning, and Voinovich to encourage support of S. 1814, the 
Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999.
  Our bill will reform the agricultural labor market, establish and 
maintain immigration control, provide a legal workforce for our 
farmers, and restore the dignity to the lives of thousands of 
farmworkers who have helped make the U.S. economy the powerhouse that 
it is today.
  I am sure you are aware of the problems that have arisen within 
American agriculture. For many years, employers in the agricultural 
industry have struggled to hire enough legal workers to harvest their 
produce and plants.
  As one of the most rapidly growing industries in this country, we can 
only expect the demand for agricultural labor jobs to continue to rise. 
When coupled with the lowest unemployment rates in decades, a crackdown 
on illegal immigration, and increased Social Security audits, the 
agriculture industry--and ultimately its consumers--face a crisis of 
devastating proportions.
  Contrary to some media accounts, these labor shortages and the need 
for a revised H-2A temporary foreign worker program exist around the 
country. Mr. President, my colleagues all

[[Page 27002]]

agree with the General Accounting Office's (GAO) statement that while 
the labor shortage is not caused by one single problem, regional 
shortages stemming from region-specific problems do exist.
  We have a shortage of legal workers in this country and the GAO 
estimates that there are in excess of 600,000 self-identified illegal 
aliens currently employed in U.S. agriculture. Another survey done by 
the Department of Labor also revealed that more than 70 percent, or 
about 1 million, of those hired to work on U.S. farms are here 
illegally.
  Due to the highly sophisticated fraudulent documents in circulation 
and strict U.S. laws prohibiting employers from scrutinizing these 
documents too carefully, thousands of illegal workers have been 
unknowingly hired as a result. This situation leaves many agricultural 
employers vulnerable to potential labor shortfalls in the event of 
concentrated or targeted Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
enforcement efforts or Social Security Administration audits.
  Immigrants are also severely impacted when they must work as 
undocumented workers. These foreign workers risk their lives paying 
human ``coyotes'' $1,200 to be smuggled across the desert border in the 
trunk of a car to work in this country. Because of the risks these 
foreign workers face in coming here and the difficulty of returning if 
they leave for a visit home, many go for years without seeing their 
spouses and children, some never return home. These illegal workers are 
extremely vulnerable to these ``coyotes'' and other dark elements of 
society that prey upon them, prohibiting the basic human rights of 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  A recent survey published by the William C. Velasquez Institute 
demonstrated that a vast majority of registered Latino voters support a 
new farmworker program. In addition to supporting higher wages and 
unionization for farmworkers, the overwhelming majority of registered 
Latino voters--76% in California and 67% in Texas--supported a program 
where ``illegal immigrant'' farmworkers were allowed to become 
permanent residents in exchange for several years of mandatory 
agricultural labor.
  This poll clearly demonstrates that the current farm labor system 
serves no one well. Farmworkers support changing an illegal system that 
victimizes them and their families.
  This issue is not new to Congress. Our government's H-2A agricultural 
guest worker program was designed in part to help solve the labor 
problems facing our farmers. Instead of helping, the H-2A program--the 
only legal temporary agricultural worker program in the United States--
it merely adds bureaucratic red tape and burdensome regulations to the 
growing crisis. And it is failing those who use it.
  The H-2A program is not practicable for the agriculture and 
horticulture industry because it is loaded with burdensome regulations, 
excessive paperwork, a bureaucratic certification process and untimely, 
inconsistent, and hostile decision-making by the U.S. Department of 
Labor. This program is over 50 years old.
  To illustrate, Mr. President, this is the application I filled out to 
run for the United States Senate. It is one page, front and back.
  This is the Department of Labor's 325-page handbook, from January 
1988, which attempts to guide employers through the H-2A program's 
confusing application process. The GAO itself found that this handbook 
is outdated, incomplete, and very confusing to the user.
  Even the December 1997 GAO report illustrated the burdensome H-2A 
process with which employers must comply in order to bring in legal, 
foreign workers. A grower must apply to multiple agencies to obtain 
just one H-2A worker. This process is further complicated by the 
multiple levels of government, redundant levels of oversight and 
conflicting administrative procedures and regulations. Also, as 
reported by the recent Department of Labor Inspector General, the H-2A 
program does not meet the interests of domestic workers because it does 
a poor job of placing domestic workers in agricultural jobs.
  We are looking for solutions to not only make it easier for employers 
to hire legal workers to harvest their crops, but also to ensure that 
U.S. workers find jobs and are treated fairly in the process.
  Our bill is a win-win-win for farmers, farmworkers, and immigration 
control. It reforms the agricultural labor market and establishes and 
maintains immigration control. It gives farmers the stability of a 
legal workforce and the certainty that the crops will be harvested in a 
timely manner. It gives farmworkers the ability to earn the right to 
legal status, avoid the risks of undocumented status and receive U.S. 
labor law protections. It addresses a status quo that persons on both 
sides of the issue agree is indefensible, but until now, has been too 
easy to ignore. It is a balanced bill that seeks both short and long-
term solutions to the crisis in farm labor.
  Our bill will allow farmworkers who have a proven history of 
agricultural employment to eventually adjust to legal status in this 
country. Serious agricultural workers who are willing to commit to work 
several years in agricultural employment will receive nonimmigrant 
status and the rights that go with it.
  If employment requirements are met, workers can eventually adjust to 
permanent resident status, allowing them to remain in the U.S. year-
round. Utilizing the skills of the existing farmworker workforce, a 
majority of whom are undocumented status in the United States, would 
reduce the number of temporary H-2A workers needed. It allows 
hardworking farmworkers seeking to better themselves and their families 
the opportunity to earn the right to legal status.
  At the same time, the current temporary farmworker program--called H-
2A--will be reformed to make it more responsive, affordable and usable 
by the average family farmer who needs temporary help to produce and 
harvest agricultural crops and commodities. The need and risks of 
illegal immigration are removed.
  Our bill provides a system or registry where our unemployed U.S. 
workers can go to find out about job openings on our U.S. farms. Any 
legal U.S. resident who wants to work in agriculture will get the 
absolute right of first refusal for any and all jobs that become 
available. After the Department of Labor determines that a shortage of 
domestic workers exists, farmers would be able to recruit adjusted 
workers. If a shortage of adjusted workers is found, farmers could then 
utilize H-2A workers. This ensures that employers hire workers already 
in the U.S. before recruiting foreign guest workers.
  Our bill also improves the conditions of the farm workers' lives and 
provide them the dignity they deserve. These needed benefits include 
providing a premium wage, providing housing and transportation 
benefits, guaranteeing basic workplace protections, and extending the 
Migrant and Seasonal Workers Protection Act to all workers.
  To add more protections for the health, safety, and security of 
farmworkers, our bill establishes a commission that would study 
problems with farmworker housing. Our bill also directs the Department 
of Labor and Department of Agriculture to study field sanitation, 
childcare and child labor violations, labor standards enforcement and 
to ultimately make recommendations for long-term changes and 
improvements.
  I am very concerned that workers are protected, but let's not forget 
that growers have been victimized by this process too. In order to feed 
their families--and yours--the growers need to harvest their crops on 
time, meet their payroll, and ultimately maintain their bottom line. 
Without achieving those things, farms go out of business and the jobs 
they create are lost along with them. So it is in all of our best 
interests--workers, growers, and consumers alike--that growers have the 
means by which to hire needed legal workers.
  While I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future of the 
indefensible status quo, I can tell you that we will have a major 
economic and social crisis on our U.S. farmlands if there is not

[[Page 27003]]

an improvement over the current process.
  Let's not keep making fugitives out of farmworkers and felons out of 
farmers.
  I urge my fellow colleagues to join Senators Graham, Craig, Cleland, 
McConnell, Coverdell, Mack, Cochran, Helms, Grams, Crapo, Bunning, 
Voinovich, and me in support of this important bipartisan legislation.
  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. 1814

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 
     1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

                  TITLE I--ADJUSTMENT TO LEGAL STATUS

Sec. 101. Agricultural workers.

                TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL WORKER REGISTRIES

Sec. 201. Agricultural worker registries.

                         TITLE III--H-2A REFORM

Sec. 301. Employer applications and assurances.
Sec. 302. Search of registry.
Sec. 303. Issuance of visas and admission of aliens.
Sec. 304. Employment requirements.
Sec. 305. Program for the admission of temporary H-2A workers.

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Enhanced worker protections and labor standards enforcement.
Sec. 402. Bilateral commissions.
Sec. 403. Regulations.
Sec. 404. Determination and use of user fees.
Sec. 405. Funding for startup costs.
Sec. 406. Report to Congress.
Sec. 407. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Adverse effect wage rate.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``adverse effect wage rate'' means the rate of pay 
     for an agricultural occupation that is 5 percent above the 
     prevailing rate of pay for that agricultural occupation in an 
     area of intended employment, if the prevailing rate of pay 
     for the occupation is less than the prior year's average 
     hourly earnings of field and livestock workers for the State 
     (or region that includes the State), as determined by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, provided no adverse effect wage 
     rate shall be more than the prior year's average hourly 
     earnings of field and livestock workers for the State (or 
     region that includes the State), as determined by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture.
       (B) Exception.--If the prevailing rate of pay for an 
     activity is a piece rate, task rate or group rate, and the 
     average hourly earnings of an employer's workers employed in 
     that activity, taken as a group, are less than the prior 
     year's average hourly earnings of field and livestock workers 
     in the State (or region that includes the State), as 
     determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, the term 
     ``adverse effect wage rate'' means the prevailing piece rate, 
     task rate or group rate for the activity plus such an amount 
     as is necessary to increase the average hourly earnings of 
     the employer's workers employed in the activity, taken as a 
     group, by 5 percent, or to the prior's years average hourly 
     earnings for field and livestock workers for the State (or 
     region that includes the State) determined by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, whichever is less.
       (2) Agricultural employment.--The term ``agricultural 
     employment'' means any service or activity that is considered 
     to be agriculture under section 3(f) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(f)) or as agricultural 
     labor under section 3121(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986. For purposes of this paragraph, agricultural employment 
     in the United States includes, but is not limited to, 
     employment under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)).
       (3) Eligible.--The term ``eligible'' as used with respect 
     to workers or individuals, means individuals authorized to be 
     employed in the United States as provided for in section 
     274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1188).
       (4) Employer.--The term ``employer'' means any person or 
     entity, including any farm labor contractor and any 
     agricultural association, that employs workers.
       (5) H-2A employer.--The term ``H-2A employer'' means an 
     employer who seeks to hire one or more nonimmigrant aliens 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act.
       (6) H-2A  worker.--The term ``H-2A worker'' means a 
     nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (7) Job opportunity.--The term ``job opportunity'' means a 
     specific period of employment provided by an employer to a 
     worker in one or more agricultural activities.
       (8) Prevailing wage.--The term ``prevailing wage'' means 
     with respect to an agricultural activity in an area of 
     intended employment, the rate of wages that includes the 51st 
     percentile of employees in that agricultural activity in the 
     area of intended employment, expressed in terms of the 
     prevailing method of pay for the agricultural activity in the 
     area of intended employment.
       (9) Registered worker.--The term ``registered worker'' 
     means an individual whose name appears in a registry.
       (10) Registry.--The term ``registry'' means an agricultural 
     worker registry established under section 201(a).
       (11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Labor.
       (12) United states worker.--The term ``United States 
     worker'' means any worker, whether a United States citizen or 
     national, a lawfully admitted permanent resident alien, or 
     any other alien who is authorized to work in the job 
     opportunity within the United States other than an alien 
     admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) or section 
     218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as in effect on 
     the effective date of this Act, or a nonimmigrant 
     agricultural worker whose status was adjusted under section 
     101(a).
       (13) Work day.--The term ``work day'' means any day in 
     which the individual is employed one or more hours in 
     agriculture.

                  TITLE I--ADJUSTMENT TO LEGAL STATUS

     SEC. 101. AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

       (a) Nonimmigrant Status.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall adjust the 
     status of an alien agricultural worker who qualifies under 
     this subsection to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
     nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act if the Attorney General 
     determines that the following requirements are satisfied with 
     respect to the alien:
       (A) Performance of agricultural employment in the united 
     states.--The alien must establish that the alien has 
     performed agricultural employment in the United States for at 
     least 880 hours or 150 work days, whichever is lesser, during 
     the 12-month period prior to October 27, 1999.
       (B) Application period.--The alien must apply for such 
     adjustment not later than 12 months after the effective date 
     of this Act.
       (C) Admissibility.--
       (i) In general.--The alien must establish that the alien is 
     otherwise admissible to the United States under section 212 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act, except as otherwise 
     provided under subsection (d).
       (ii) Waiver of ineligibility for unlawful presence.--An 
     alien who has not previously been admitted to the United 
     States pursuant to this section, and who is otherwise 
     eligible for admission in accordance with clause (i), shall 
     not be deemed inadmissible by virtue of section 212(a)(9)(B) 
     of that Act.
       (2) Period of validity of nonimmigrant status.--
       (A) In general.--The status granted in paragraph (1) shall 
     be valid for a period of not to exceed 7 consecutive calendar 
     years, except that the alien may not be present in the United 
     States for more than an aggregate of 300 days in any calendar 
     year.
       (B) Exception.--The 300-day-per-year limitation in 
     subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any period of validity of 
     the status of any alien who--
       (i) has established a permanent residence in the United 
     States and has a minor child who was born in the United 
     States prior to the date of enactment of this Act who resides 
     in the alien's household; and
       (ii) performs agricultural employment for not less than 240 
     days in a calendar year.
       (3) Authorized travel.--During the period an alien is in 
     lawful nonimmigrant status granted under this subsection, the 
     alien has the right to travel abroad (including commutation 
     from a residence abroad).
       (4) Authorized employment.--During the period an alien is 
     in lawful nonimmigrant status granted under this subsection, 
     the alien shall be granted authorization to engage in the 
     performance only of agricultural employment in the United 
     States and shall be provided an ``employment authorized'' 
     endorsement or other appropriate work permit, only for the 
     performance of such employment. A nonimmigrant alien under 
     this subsection may perform agricultural employment anywhere 
     in the United States.
       (5) Termination of nonimmigrant status.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in paragraph (2), the Attorney General 
     shall terminate the status, and bring proceedings under 
     section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove, 
     any nonimmigrant alien under this subsection who failed 
     during 3 prior calendar years to perform 1,040 hours or 180 
     work days, whichever is lesser, of agricultural services in 
     any single calendar year.

[[Page 27004]]

       (6) Record of employment.--Each employer of a nonimmigrant 
     agricultural worker whose status is adjusted under this 
     subsection shall--
       (A) provide a written record of employment to the alien; 
     and
       (B) provide a copy of such record to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service.
       (b) Adjustment to Permanent Residence.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Attorney General shall adjust the status of any alien 
     provided lawful nonimmigrant status under subsection (a) to 
     that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if 
     the Attorney General determines that the following 
     requirements are satisfied:
       (A) Qualifying years.--The alien has performed a minimum 
     period of agricultural employment in the United States in 
     each of 5 calendar years during the period of validity of the 
     alien's adjustment to nonimmigrant status pursuant to 
     subsection (a). Qualifying years under this subparagraph may 
     include nonconsecutive years.
       (B) Minimum periods of agricultural employment.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     minimum period of agricultural employment in any calendar 
     year is 1,040 hours or 180 work days, whichever is lesser.
       (ii) Exception.--An alien described in subsection (a)(2)(B) 
     who remains in the United States for more than 300 days in a 
     calendar year may only be credited with satisfaction of the 
     minimum period of agricultural employment requirement for 
     that year if the alien performed agricultural employment in 
     the United States for at least 240 work days that year.
       (C) Application period.--The alien applies for adjustment 
     of status not later than 6 months after completing the fifth 
     year of qualifying employment in the United States.
       (2) Grounds for denial of adjustment of status.--The 
     Attorney General may deny adjustment to nonimmigrant status 
     and provide for termination of the nonimmigrant status 
     granted such alien under subsection (a) if--
       (A) the Attorney General finds by a preponderance of the 
     evidence that the adjustment to nonimmigrant status was the 
     result of fraud or willful misrepresentation as set out in 
     section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), or
       (B) the alien commits an act that (i) makes the alien 
     inadmissible to the United States under section 212 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, except as provided under 
     subsection (c)(2), or (ii) is convicted of a felony or 3 or 
     more misdemeanors committed in the United States.
       (3) Treatment of aliens demonstrating prima facie case for 
     adjustment.--Any alien who demonstrates a prima facie case of 
     eligibility for adjustment under this subsection in 
     accordance with regulations promulgated by the Attorney 
     General, shall be considered a temporary resident alien and, 
     pending adjudication of an application for permanent resident 
     status under this subsection--
       (A) may remain in the United States and shall be granted 
     authorization to engage in any employment in the United 
     States; and
       (B) shall become eligible for any assistance or benefit to 
     which a person granted lawful permanent resident status would 
     be eligible on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (4) Grounds for removal.--Any nonimmigrant alien under 
     subsection (a) who does not apply for adjustment of status 
     under this subsection before the expiration of the 
     application period described in paragraph (1)(C) is 
     deportable and may be removed.
       (5) Numerical limitation.--In any fiscal year not more than 
     20 percent of the number of aliens obtaining nonimmigrant 
     status under subsection (a) may be granted adjustment of 
     status under this subsection. In granting such adjustment, 
     aliens having the greater number of work hours shall be 
     accorded priority. Any temporary resident alien under 
     paragraph (3) who does not receive adjustment of status under 
     this subsection in a fiscal year by reason of the limitation 
     in this paragraph may continue to work in any employment, and 
     shall be credited with any additional hours of agricultural 
     employment performed for purposes of being accorded priority 
     for adjustment of status.
       (c) Applications for Adjustment of Status.--
       (1) To whom may be made.--
       (A) Within the united states.--The Attorney General shall 
     provide that--
       (i) applications for adjustment of status under subsection 
     (a) may be filed--

       (I) with the Attorney General; or
       (II) with a qualified designated entity (designated under 
     paragraph (2)), but only if the applicant consents to the 
     forwarding of the application to the Attorney General; and

       (ii) applications for adjustment of status under subsection 
     (b) shall be filed directly with the Attorney General.
       (B) Outside the united states.--The Attorney General, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of State, shall provide a 
     procedure whereby an alien may apply for adjustment of status 
     under subsection (a) at an appropriate consular office 
     outside the United States. The Attorney General shall 
     prescribe regulations setting forth procedures for 
     notification of immigration officials by the alien before 
     departing the United States.
       (C) Travel documentation.--The Attorney General shall 
     provide each alien whose status is adjusted under this 
     section with a counterfeit-resistant document of 
     authorization to enter or reenter the United States.
       (2) Designation of entities to receive applications.--For 
     purposes of receiving applications under subsection (a), the 
     Attorney General--
       (A) shall designate qualified voluntary organizations and 
     other qualified State, local, community, farm labor 
     organizations, and associations of agricultural employers; 
     and
       (B) may designate such other persons as the Attorney 
     General determines are qualified and have substantial 
     experience, demonstrated competence, and traditional long-
     term involvement in the preparation and submittal of 
     applications for adjustment of status under section 209 or 
     245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Public Law 89-
     732, or Public Law 95-145.
       (3) Proof of eligibility.--
       (A) In general.--An alien may establish that the alien 
     meets the requirement of subsection (a)(1)(A) through 
     government employment records or records supplied by 
     employers or collective bargaining organizations. The 
     Attorney General shall establish special procedures to 
     properly credit work in cases in which an alien was employed 
     under an assumed name.
       (B) Documentation of work history.--(i) An alien applying 
     for adjustment of status under subsection (a)(1) has the 
     burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
     alien has worked the requisite number of hours (as required 
     under subsection (a)(1)(A)).
       (ii) If an employer or farm labor contractor employing such 
     an alien has kept proper and adequate records respecting such 
     employment, the alien's burden of proof under clause (i) may 
     be met by securing timely production of those records under 
     regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.
       (4) Treatment of applications by qualified designated 
     entities.--Each qualified designated entity must agree to 
     forward to the Attorney General applications filed with it in 
     accordance with paragraph (1)(A)(ii) but not to forward to 
     the Attorney General applications filed with it unless the 
     applicant has consented to such forwarding. No such entity 
     may make a determination required by this section to be made 
     by the Attorney General. Upon the request of the alien, a 
     qualified designated entity shall assist the alien in 
     obtaining documentation of the work history of the alien.
       (5) Limitation on access to information.--Files and records 
     prepared for purposes of this section by qualified designated 
     entities operating under this section are confidential and 
     the Attorney General and the Service shall not have access to 
     such files or records relating to an alien without the 
     consent of the alien, except as allowed by a court order 
     issued pursuant to paragraph (6).
       (6) Confidentiality of information.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in this paragraph, 
     neither the Attorney General, nor any other official or 
     employee of the Department of Justice, or bureau or agency 
     thereof, may--
       (i) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant 
     to an application filed under this section, or the 
     information provided to the applicant by a person designated 
     under paragraph (2)(B), for any purpose other than to make a 
     determination on the application, including a determination 
     under subsection (b)(3), or for enforcement of paragraph (7);
       (ii) make any publication whereby the information furnished 
     by any particular individual can be identified; or
       (iii) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and 
     employees of the Department or bureau or agency or, with 
     respect to applications filed with a designated entity, that 
     designated entity, to examine individual applications.
       (B) Crime.--Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits 
     information to be examined in violation of this paragraph 
     shall be fined not more than $10,000.
       (7) Penalties for false statements in applications.--
       (A) Criminal penalty.--Whoever--
       (i) files an application for adjustment of status under 
     this section and knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, 
     or covers up a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, 
     or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses 
     any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any 
     false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, or
       (ii) creates or supplies a false writing or document for 
     use in making such an application,
     shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States 
     Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
       (B) Exclusion.--An alien who is convicted of a crime under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be considered to be inadmissible to 
     the United States on the ground described in section 
     212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (d) Waiver of Numerical Limitations and Certain Grounds for 
     Inadmissibility.--

[[Page 27005]]

       (1) Numerical limitations do not apply.--The numerical 
     limitations of sections 201 and 202 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act shall not apply to the adjustment of aliens 
     to lawful permanent resident status under this section.
       (2) Waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility.--In the 
     determination of an alien's admissibility under subsection 
     (a)(1)(D), the following provisions of section 212(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act shall not apply:
       (A) Grounds of exclusion not applicable.--The provisions of 
     paragraphs (5) and (7)(A) of section 212(a) shall not apply.
       (B) Waiver of other grounds.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     Attorney General may waive any other provision of section 
     212(a) in the case of individual aliens for humanitarian 
     purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in 
     the public interest.
       (ii) Grounds that may not be waived.--The following 
     provisions of section 212(a) may not be waived by the 
     Attorney General under clause (i):

       (I) Paragraph (2) (A) and (B) (relating to criminals).
       (II) Paragraph (4) (relating to aliens likely to become 
     public charges).
       (III) Paragraph (2)(C) (relating to drug offenses), except 
     for so much of such paragraph as relates to a single offense 
     of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
       (IV) Paragraph (3) (relating to security and related 
     grounds), other than subparagraph (E) thereof.

       (C) Special rule for determination of public charge.--An 
     alien is not ineligible for adjustment of status under this 
     section due to being inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) if 
     the alien demonstrates a history of employment in the United 
     States evidencing self-support without reliance on public 
     cash assistance.
       (e) Temporary Stay of Removal and Work Authorization for 
     Certain Applicants.--
       (1) Before application period.--The Attorney General shall 
     provide that in the case of an alien who is apprehended 
     before the beginning of the application period described in 
     subsection (a)(1) and who can establish a nonfrivolous case 
     of eligibility to have his status adjusted under subsection 
     (a) (but for the fact that he may not apply for such 
     adjustment until the beginning of such period), until the 
     alien has had the opportunity during the first 30 days of the 
     application period to complete the filing of an application 
     for adjustment, the alien--
       (A) may not be removed, and
       (B) shall be granted authorization to engage in 
     agricultural employment in the United States and be provided 
     an ``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate 
     work permit for such purpose.
       (2) During application period.--The Attorney General shall 
     provide that in the case of an alien who presents a 
     nonfrivolous application for adjustment of status under 
     subsection (a) during the application period, including an 
     alien who files such an application within 30 days of the 
     alien's apprehension, and until a final determination on the 
     application has been made in accordance with this section, 
     the alien--
       (A) may not be removed, and
       (B) shall be granted authorization to engage in 
     agricultural employment in the United States and be provided 
     an ``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate 
     work permit for such purpose.
       (3) Prohibition.--No application fees collected by the 
     Service pursuant to this subsection may be used by the 
     Service to offset the costs of the agricultural worker 
     adjustment program under this title until the Service 
     implements the program consistent with the statutory mandate 
     as follows:
       (A) During the application period described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) the Service may grant nonimmigrant admission to the 
     United States, work authorization, and provide an 
     ``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate 
     work permit to any alien who presents a preliminary 
     application for adjustment of status under subsection (a) at 
     a designated port of entry on the southern land border. An 
     alien who does not enter through a port of entry is subject 
     to deportation and removal as otherwise provided in this Act.
       (B) During the application period described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) any alien who has filed an application for 
     adjustment of status within the United States as provided in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) is subject to paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection.
       (C) A preliminary application is defined as a fully 
     completed and signed application with fee and photographs 
     which contains specific information concerning the 
     performance of qualifying employment in the United States and 
     the documentary evidence which the applicant intends to 
     submit as proof of such employment. The applicant must be 
     otherwise admissible to the United States and must establish 
     to the satisfaction of the examining officer during an 
     interview that his or her claim to eligibility for 
     agriculture worker status is credible.
       (f) Administrative and Judicial Review.--
       (1) Administrative and judicial review.--There shall be no 
     administrative or judicial review of a determination 
     respecting an application for adjustment of status under this 
     section except in accordance with this subsection.
       (2) Administrative review.--
       (A) Single level of administrative appellate review.--The 
     Attorney General shall establish an appellate authority to 
     provide for a single level of administrative appellate review 
     of such a determination.
       (B) Standard for review.--Such administrative appellate 
     review shall be based solely upon the administrative record 
     established at the time of the determination on the 
     application and upon such additional or newly discovered 
     evidence as may not have been available at the time of the 
     determination.
       (3) Judicial review.--
       (A) Limitation to review of exclusion or deportation.--
     There shall be judicial review of such a denial only in the 
     judicial review of an order of removal under section 106.
       (B) Standard for judicial review.--Such judicial review 
     shall be based solely upon the administrative record 
     established at the time of the review by the appellate 
     authority and the findings of fact and determinations 
     contained in such record shall be conclusive unless the 
     applicant can establish abuse of discretion or that the 
     findings are directly contrary to clear and convincing facts 
     contained in the record considered as a whole.
       (g) Dissemination of Information on Adjustment Program.--
     Beginning not later than the date designated by the Attorney 
     General under subsection (a)(1)(A), the Attorney General, in 
     cooperation with qualified designated entities, shall broadly 
     disseminate information respecting the benefits which aliens 
     may receive under this section and the requirements to obtain 
     such benefits.

                TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL WORKER REGISTRIES

     SEC. 201. AGRICULTURAL WORKER REGISTRIES.

       (a) Establishment of Registries.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish and 
     maintain a system of registries containing a current database 
     of workers described in paragraph (2) who seek agricultural 
     employment and the employment status of such workers--
       (A) to ensure that eligible United States workers are 
     informed about available agricultural job opportunities and 
     have the right of first refusal for the agricultural jobs 
     available through the registry; and
       (B) to provide timely referral of such workers to 
     agricultural job opportunities in the United States.
       (2) Covered workers.--The workers covered by paragraph (1) 
     are--
       (A) eligible United States workers; and
       (B) eligible nonimmigrant agricultural workers whose status 
     was adjusted under section 101(a).
       (3) Geographic coverage.--
       (A) Single state.--Each registry established under 
     paragraph (1) shall include the job opportunities in a single 
     State, except that, in the case of New England States, two or 
     more such States may be represented by a single registry in 
     lieu of multiple registries.
       (B) Requests for inclusion.--Each State having any group of 
     agricultural producers seeking to utilize the registry shall 
     be represented by a registry, except that, in the case of a 
     New England State, the State shall be represented by the 
     registry covering the group of States of which the State is a 
     part.
       (4) Computer database.--The Secretary of Labor may 
     establish the registries as part of the computer databases 
     known as ``America's Job Bank'' and ``America's Talent 
     Bank''.
       (5) Relation to process for importing h-2a workers.--
     Notwithstanding section 218 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1188), no petition to import an 
     alien as an H-2A worker (as defined in section 218(i)(2) of 
     that Act) may be approved by the Attorney General unless the 
     H-2A employer--
       (A) has applied to the Secretary to conduct a search of the 
     registry of the State in which the job opportunities for 
     which H-2A workers are sought are located; and
       (B) has received a report described in section 303(a)(1).
       (b) Registration.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible individual who seeks 
     employment in agricultural work may apply to be included in 
     the registry for the State in which the individual resides. 
     Such application shall include--
       (A) the name and address of the individual;
       (B) the period or periods of time (including beginning and 
     ending dates) during which the individual will be available 
     for agricultural work;
       (C) the registry or registries on which the individual 
     desires to be included;
       (D) the specific qualifications and work experience 
     possessed by the applicant;
       (E) the type or types of agricultural work the applicant is 
     willing to perform;
       (F) such other information as the applicant wishes to be 
     taken into account in referring the applicant to agricultural 
     job opportunities; and
       (G) such other information as may be required by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Validation of employment authorization.--No person may 
     be included on any registry unless the Secretary of Labor has 
     requested and obtained from the Attorney

[[Page 27006]]

     General a certification that the person is authorized to be 
     employed in the United States.
       (3) United states workers.--United States workers shall 
     have preference in referral by the registry, and may be 
     referred to any job opportunity nationwide for which they are 
     qualified and make a commitment to be available at the time 
     and place needed.
       (4) Adjusted nonimmigrants.--Adjusted nonimmigrant aliens 
     who apply to be included in a registry may only be referred 
     to job opportunities for which they are qualified within the 
     State covered by the registry or within States contiguous to 
     that State.
       (5) Sanctions for noncompliance.--Adjusted nonimmigrant 
     aliens who elect to be listed on the registry and who fail to 
     report to a registry job opportunity for which they had made 
     an affirmative commitment and been referred will be removed 
     from the registry for a period of 6 months for the first such 
     failure and for a period of 1 year for each succeeding 
     failure.
       (6) Use of registry.--Any United States agricultural   
     employer   may   use   the   registry.
       (7) Discretionary use for new hires.--An agricultural 
     employer may require prospective employees to register with a 
     registry as a means of assuring that its workers are eligible 
     to be employed in the United States.
       (8) Workers referred to job opportunities.--The name of 
     each registered worker who is referred and accepts employment 
     with an employer shall be classified as inactive on each 
     registry on which the worker is included during the period of 
     employment involved in the job to which the worker was 
     referred, unless the worker reports to the Secretary that the 
     worker is no longer employed and is available for referral to 
     another job opportunity. A registered worker classified as 
     inactive shall not be referred.
       (9) Removal of names from a registry.--The Secretary shall 
     remove from the appropriate registry the name of any 
     registered worker who, on 3 separate occasions within a 3-
     month period, is referred to a job opportunity pursuant to 
     this section, and who declines such referral or fails to 
     report to work in a timely manner.
       (10) Voluntary removal.--A registered worker may request 
     that the worker's name be removed from a registry.
       (11) Removal by expiration.--The application of a 
     registered worker shall expire, and the Secretary shall 
     remove the name of such worker from the appropriate registry 
     if the worker has not accepted a job opportunity pursuant to 
     this section within the preceding 12-month period.
       (12) Reinstatement.--A worker whose name is removed from a 
     registry pursuant to paragraph (9), (10), or (11) may apply 
     to the Secretary for reinstatement to such registry at any 
     time.
       (c) Confidentiality of Registries.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain the confidentiality of the registries established 
     pursuant to this section, and the information in such 
     registries shall not be used for any purposes other than 
     those authorized in this Act.
       (d) Advertising of Registries.--The Secretary shall widely 
     disseminate, through advertising and other means, the 
     existence of the registries for the purpose of encouraging 
     eligible United States workers seeking agricultural job 
     opportunities to register. The Secretary of Labor shall 
     ensure that the information about the registry is made 
     available to eligible workers through all appropriate means, 
     including appropriate State agencies, groups representing 
     farm workers, and nongovernmental organizations, and shall 
     ensure that the registry is accessible to growers and farm 
     workers.

                         TITLE III--H-2A REFORM

     SEC. 301. EMPLOYER APPLICATIONS AND ASSURANCES.

       (a) Applications to the Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 28 days prior to the date 
     on which an H-2A employer desires to employ an H-2A worker in 
     a temporary or seasonal agricultural job opportunity, the 
     employer shall, before petitioning for the admission of such 
     a worker, apply to the Secretary for the referral of a United 
     States worker or nonimmigrant agricultural worker whose 
     status was adjusted under section 101(a) through a search of 
     the appropriate registry, in accordance with section 302. 
     Such application shall--
       (A) describe the nature and location of the work to be 
     performed;
       (B) list the anticipated period (expected beginning and 
     ending dates) for which workers will be needed;
       (C) indicate the number of job opportunities in which the 
     employer seeks to employ workers from the registry;
       (D) describe the bona fide occupational qualifications that 
     must be possessed by a worker to be employed in the job 
     opportunity in question;
       (E) describe the wages and other terms and conditions of 
     employment the employer will offer, which shall not be less 
     (and are not required to be more) than those required by this 
     section;
       (F) contain the assurances required by subsection (c);
       (G) specify the foreign country or region thereof from 
     which alien workers should be admitted in the case of a 
     failure to refer United States workers under this Act; and
       (H) be accompanied by the payment of a registry user fee 
     determined under section 404(b)(1)(A) for each job 
     opportunity indicated under subparagraph (C).
       (2) Applications by associations on behalf of employer 
     members.--
       (A) In general.--An agricultural association may file an 
     application under paragraph (1) for registered workers on 
     behalf of its employer members.
       (B) Employers.--An application under subparagraph (A) shall 
     cover those employer members of the association that the 
     association certifies in its application have agreed in 
     writing to comply with the requirements of this Act.
       (b) Amendment of Applications.--Prior to receiving a 
     referral of workers from a registry, an employer may amend an 
     application under this subsection if the employer's need for 
     workers changes. If an employer makes a material amendment to 
     an application on a date which is later than 28 days prior to 
     the date on which the workers on the amended application are 
     sought to be employed, the Secretary may delay issuance of 
     the report described in section 302(b) by the number of days 
     by which the filing of the amended application is later than 
     28 days before the date on which the employer desires to 
     employ workers.
       (c) Assurances.--The assurances referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1)(F) are the following:
       (1) Assurance that the job opportunity is not a result of a 
     labor dispute.--The employer shall assure that the job 
     opportunity for which the employer requests a registered 
     worker is not vacant because a worker is involved in a 
     strike, lockout, or work stoppage in the course of a labor 
     dispute involving the job opportunity at the place of 
     employment.
       (2) Assurance that the job opportunity is temporary or 
     seasonal.--
       (A) Required assurance.--The employer shall assure that the 
     job opportunity for which the employer requests a registered 
     worker is temporary or seasonal.
       (B) Seasonal basis.--For purposes of this Act, labor is 
     performed on a seasonal basis where, ordinarily, the 
     employment pertains to or is of the kind exclusively 
     performed at certain seasons or periods of the year and 
     which, from its nature, may not be continuous or carried on 
     throughout the year.
       (C) Temporary basis.--For purposes of this Act, a worker is 
     employed on a temporary basis where the employment is 
     intended not to exceed 10 months.
       (3) Assurance of provision of required wages and 
     benefits.--The employer shall assure that the employer will 
     provide the wages and benefits required by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (c) of section 304 to all workers employed in job 
     opportunities for which the employer has applied under 
     subsection (a) and to all other workers in the same 
     occupation at the place of employment, and in no case less 
     than the greater of the hourly wage prescribed under section 
     6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
     206(a)(1)), or the applicable State minimum wage.
       (4) Assurance of employment.--The employer shall assure 
     that the employer will not refuse to employ qualified 
     individuals referred under section 302, and will terminate 
     qualified individuals employed pursuant to this Act only for 
     lawful job-related reasons, including lack of work.
       (5) Assurance of compliance with labor laws.--
       (A) In general.--An employer who requests registered 
     workers shall assure that, except as otherwise provided in 
     this Act, the employer will comply with all applicable 
     Federal, State, and local labor laws, including laws 
     affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, with 
     respect to all United States workers and alien workers 
     employed by the employer.
       (B) Limitations.--The disclosure required under section 
     201(a) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
     Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1821(a)) may be made at any time 
     prior to the time the alien is issued a visa permitting entry 
     into the United States.
       (6) Assurance of advertising of the registry.--The employer 
     shall assure that the employer will, from the day an 
     application for workers is submitted under subsection (a), 
     and continuing throughout the period of employment of any job 
     opportunity for which the employer has applied for a worker 
     from the registry, post in a conspicuous place a poster to be 
     provided by the Secretary advertising the availability of the 
     registry.
       (7) Assurance of advertising of job opportunities.--The 
     employer shall assure that not later than 14 days after 
     submitting an application to a registry for workers under 
     subsection (a) the employer will advertise the availability 
     of the job opportunities for which the employer is seeking 
     workers from the registry in a publication in the local labor 
     market that is likely to be patronized by potential 
     farmworkers, if any, and refer interested workers to register 
     with the registry.
       (8) Assurance of contacting former workers.--The employer 
     shall assure that the employer has made reasonable efforts 
     through the sending of a letter by United States Postal 
     Service mail, or otherwise, to contact any eligible worker 
     the employer

[[Page 27007]]

     employed during the previous season in the occupation at the 
     place of intended employment for which the employer is 
     applying for registered workers, and has made the 
     availability of the employer's job opportunities in the 
     occupation at the place of intended employment known to such 
     previous worker, unless the worker was terminated from 
     employment by the employer for a lawful job-related reason or 
     abandoned the job before the worker completed the period of 
     employment of the job opportunity for which the worker was 
     hired.
       (9) Assurance of provision of workers compensation.--The 
     employer shall assure that if the job opportunity is not 
     covered by the State workers' compensation law, that the 
     employer will provide, at no cost to the worker, insurance 
     covering injury and disease arising out of and in the course 
     of the worker's employment which will provide benefits at 
     least equal to those provided under the State workers' 
     compensation law for comparable employment.
       (10) Assurance of payment of alien employment user fee.--
     The employer shall assure that if the employer receives a 
     notice of insufficient workers under section 302(c), such 
     employer shall promptly pay the alien employment user fee 
     determined under section 404(b)(1)(B) for each job 
     opportunity to be filled by an eligible alien as required 
     under such section.
       (d) Withdrawal of Applications.--
       (1) In general.--An employer may withdraw an application 
     under subsection (a), except that, if the employer is an 
     agricultural association, the association may withdraw an 
     application under subsection (a) with respect to one or more 
     of its members. To withdraw an application, the employer 
     shall notify the Secretary in writing, and the Secretary 
     shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of such withdrawal 
     notice. An employer who withdraws an application under 
     subsection (a), or on whose behalf an application is 
     withdrawn, is relieved of the obligations undertaken in the 
     application.
       (2) Limitation.--An application may not be withdrawn while 
     any alien provided status under this Act pursuant to such 
     application is employed by the employer.
       (3) Obligations under other statutes.--Any obligation 
     incurred by an employer under any other law or regulation as 
     a result of recruitment of United States workers under an 
     offer of terms and conditions of employment required as a 
     result of making an application under subsection (a) is 
     unaffected by withdrawal of such application.
       (e) Review of Application.--
       (1) In general.--Promptly upon receipt of an application by 
     an employer under subsection (a), the Secretary shall review 
     the application for compliance with the requirements of such 
     subsection.
       (2) Approval of applications.--If the Secretary determines 
     that an application meets the requirements of subsection (a), 
     and the employer is not ineligible to apply under paragraph 
     (2), (3), or (4) of section 305(b), the Secretary shall, not 
     later than 7 days after the receipt of such application, 
     approve the application and so notify the employer.
       (3) Rejection of applications.--If the Secretary determines 
     that an application fails to meet 1 or more of the 
     requirements of subsection (a), the Secretary, as 
     expeditiously as possible, but in no case later than 7 days 
     after the receipt of such application, shall--
       (A) notify the employer of the rejection of the application 
     and the reasons for such rejection, and provide the 
     opportunity for the prompt resubmission of an amended 
     application; and
       (B) offer the applicant an opportunity to request an 
     expedited administrative review or a de novo administrative 
     hearing before an administrative law judge of the rejection 
     of the application.
       (4) Rejection for program violations.--The Secretary shall 
     reject the application of an employer under this section if--
       (A) the employer has been determined to be ineligible to 
     employ workers under section 401(b); or
       (B) the employer during the previous two-year period 
     employed H-2A workers or registered workers and the Secretary 
     of Labor has determined, after notice and opportunity for a 
     hearing, that the employer at any time during that period 
     substantially violated a material term or condition of the 
     assurances made with respect to the employment of United 
     States workers or nonimmigrant workers.
     No employer may have applications under this section rejected 
     for more than 3 years for any violation described in this 
     paragraph.

     SEC. 302. SEARCH OF REGISTRY.

       (a) Search Process and Referral to the Employer.--Upon the 
     approval of an application under section 301(e), the 
     Secretary shall promptly begin a search of the registry of 
     the State (or States) in which the work is to be performed to 
     identify registered United States workers and adjusted aliens 
     with the qualifications requested by the employer. The 
     Secretary shall contact such qualified registered workers and 
     determine, in each instance, whether the worker is ready, 
     willing, and able to accept the employer's job opportunity 
     and will make the affirmative commitment to work for the 
     employer at the time and place needed. The Secretary shall 
     provide to each worker who commits to work for the employer 
     the employer's name, address, telephone number, the location 
     where the employer has requested that employees report for 
     employment, and a statement disclosing the terms and 
     conditions of employment.
       (b) Deadline for Completing Search Process; Referral of 
     Workers.--As expeditiously as possible, but not later than 7 
     days before the date on which an employer desires work to 
     begin, the Secretary shall complete the search under 
     subsection (a) and shall transmit to the employer a report 
     containing the name, address, and social security account 
     number of each registered worker who has made the affirmative 
     commitment described in subsection (a) to work for the 
     employer on the date needed, together with sufficient 
     information to enable the employer to establish contact with 
     the worker. The identification of such registered workers in 
     a report shall constitute a referral of workers under this 
     section.
       (c) Acceptance of Referrals.--H-2A employers shall accept 
     all qualified United States worker referrals who make a 
     commitment to report to work at the time and place needed and 
     to complete the full period of employment offered, and those 
     adjusted nonimmigrants on the registry of the State in which 
     the intended employment is located, and the immediately 
     contiguous States. An employer shall not be required to 
     accept more referrals than the number of job opportunities 
     for which the employer applied to the registry.
       (d) Notice of Insufficient Workers.--If the report provided 
     to the employer under subsection (b) does not include 
     referral of a sufficient number of registered workers to fill 
     all of the employer's job opportunities in the occupation for 
     which the employer applied under section 301(a), the 
     Secretary shall indicate in the report the number of job 
     opportunities for which registered workers could not be 
     referred, and shall promptly transmit a copy of the report to 
     the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, by 
     electronic or other means ensuring next day delivery.
       (e) User Fee for Certification To Employ Alien Workers.--
     With respect to each job opportunity for which a notice of 
     insufficient workers is made, the Secretary shall require the 
     payment of an alien employment user fee determined under 
     section 404(b)(1)(B).

     SEC. 303. ISSUANCE OF VISAS AND ADMISSION OF ALIENS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Number of admissions.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary of State shall promptly issue visas to, and the 
     Attorney General shall admit, as nonimmigrant aliens 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act a sufficient number of eligible aliens 
     designated by the employer to fill the job opportunities of 
     the employer--
       (A) upon receipt of a copy of the report described in 
     section 302(c);
       (B) upon approval of an application (or copy of an 
     application under subsection (b));
       (C) upon receipt of the report required by subsection 
     (c)(1)(B); or
       (D) upon receipt of a report under subsection (d).
       (2) Procedures.--The admission of aliens under paragraph 
     (1) shall be subject to the procedures of section 218 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act.
       (b) Direct Application Upon Failure To Act.--
       (1) Application to the secretary of state.--If the employer 
     has not received a referral of sufficient workers pursuant to 
     section 302(b) or a report of insufficient workers pursuant 
     to section 302(c), by the date that is 7 days before the date 
     on which the work is anticipated to begin, the employer may 
     submit an application for alien workers directly to the 
     Secretary of State, with a copy of the application provided 
     to the Attorney General, seeking the issuance of visas to and 
     the admission of aliens for employment in the job 
     opportunities for which the employer has not received 
     referral of registered workers. Such an application shall 
     include a copy of the employer's application under section 
     301(a), together with evidence of its timely submission. The 
     Secretary of State may consult with the Secretary of Labor in 
     carrying out this paragraph.
       (2) Expedited consideration by secretary of state.--The 
     Secretary of State shall, as expeditiously as possible, but 
     not later than 5 days after the employer files an application 
     under paragraph (1), issue visas to, and the Attorney General 
     shall admit, a sufficient number of eligible aliens 
     designated by the employer to fill the job opportunities for 
     which the employer has applied under that paragraph, if the 
     employer has met the requirements of sections 301 and 302. 
     The employer shall be subject to the alien employment user 
     fee determined under section 404(b)(1)(B) with respect to 
     each job opportunity for which the Secretary of State 
     authorizes the issuance of a visa pursuant to paragraph (2).
       (c) Redetermination of Need.--
       (1) Requests for redetermination.--
       (A) In general.--An employer may file a request for a 
     redetermination by the Secretary of the employer's need for 
     workers if--

[[Page 27008]]

       (i) a worker referred from the registry is not at the place 
     of employment on the date of need shown on the application, 
     or the date the work for which the worker is needed has 
     begun, whichever is later;
       (ii) the worker is not ready, willing, able, or qualified 
     to perform the work required; or
       (iii) the worker abandons the employment or is terminated 
     for a lawful job-related reason.
       (B) Additional authorization of admissions.--The Secretary 
     shall expeditiously, but in no case later than 72 hours after 
     a redetermination is requested under subparagraph (A), submit 
     a report to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General 
     providing notice of a need for workers under this subsection, 
     if the employer has met the requirements of sections 301 and 
     302 and the conditions described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Job-related requirements.--An employer shall not be 
     required to initially employ a worker who fails to meet 
     lawful job-related employment criteria, nor to continue the 
     employment of a worker who fails to meet lawful, job-related 
     standards of conduct and performance, including failure to 
     meet minimum production standards after a 3-day break-in 
     period.
       (d) Emergency Applications.--Notwithstanding subsections 
     (b) and (c), the Secretary may promptly transmit a report to 
     the Attorney General and Secretary of State providing notice 
     of a need for workers under this subsection for an employer--
       (1) who has not employed aliens under this Act in the 
     occupation in question in the prior year's agricultural 
     season;
       (2) who faces an unforeseen need for workers (as determined 
     by the Secretary); and
       (3) with respect to whom the Secretary cannot refer able, 
     willing, and qualified workers from the registry who will 
     commit to be at the employer's place of employment and ready 
     for work within 72 hours or on the date the work for which 
     the worker is needed has begun, whichever is later.
     The employer shall be subject to the alien employment user 
     fee determined under section 404(b)(1)(B) with respect to 
     each job opportunity for which a notice of insufficient 
     workers is made pursuant to this subsection.
       (e) Regulations.--The Secretary of State shall prescribe 
     regulations to provide for the designation of aliens under 
     this section.

     SEC. 304. EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Required Wages.--
       (1) In general.--An employer applying under section 301(a) 
     for workers shall offer to pay, and shall pay, all workers in 
     the occupation or occupations for which the employer has 
     applied for workers from the registry, not less (and is not 
     required to pay more) than the greater of the prevailing wage 
     in the occupation in the area of intended employment or the 
     adverse effect wage rate. No worker shall be paid less than 
     the greater of the hourly wage prescribed under section 
     6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
     206(a)(1)), or the applicable State minimum wage.
       (2) Payment of prevailing wage determined by a state 
     employment security agency sufficient.--In complying with 
     paragraph (1), an employer may request and obtain a 
     prevailing wage determination from the State employment 
     security agency. If the employer requests such a 
     determination, and pays the wage required by paragraph (1) 
     based upon such a determination, such payment shall be 
     considered sufficient to meet the requirement of paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) Reliance on wage survey.--In lieu of the procedure of 
     paragraph (2), an employer may rely on other information, 
     such as an employer-generated prevailing wage survey that the 
     Secretary determines meets criteria specified by the 
     Secretary in regulations.
       (4) Alternative methods of payment permitted.--
       (A) In general.--A prevailing wage may be expressed as an 
     hourly wage, a piece rate, a task rate, or other incentive 
     payment method, including a group rate. The requirement to 
     pay at least the prevailing wage in the occupation and area 
     of intended employment does not require an employer to pay by 
     the method of pay in which the prevailing rate is expressed, 
     except that, if the employer adopts a method of pay other 
     than the prevailing rate, the burden of proof is on the 
     employer to demonstrate that the employer's method of pay is 
     designed to produce earnings equivalent to the earnings that 
     would result from payment of the prevailing rate.
       (B) Compliance when paying an incentive rate.--In the case 
     of an employer that pays a piece rate or task rate or uses 
     any other incentive payment method, including a group rate, 
     the employer shall be considered to be in compliance with any 
     applicable hourly wage requirement if the average of the 
     hourly earnings of the workers, taken as a group, in the 
     activity for which a piece rate, task rate, or other 
     incentive payment, including a group rate, is paid, for the 
     pay period, is at least equal to the required hourly wage, 
     except that no worker shall be paid less than the hourly wage 
     prescribed under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) or the applicable State 
     minimum wage.
       (C) Task rate.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     ``task rate'' means an incentive payment method based on a 
     unit of work performed such that the incentive rate varies 
     with the level of effort required to perform individual units 
     of work.
       (D) Group rate.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     ``group rate'' means an incentive payment method in which the 
     payment is shared among a group of workers working together 
     to perform the task.
       (b) Requirement To Provide Housing.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Requirement.--An employer applying under section 301(a) 
     for registered workers shall offer to provide housing at no 
     cost (except for charges permitted by paragraph (5)) to all 
     workers employed in job opportunities to which the employer 
     has applied under that section, and to all other workers in 
     the same occupation at the place of employment, whose place 
     of residence is beyond normal commuting distance.
       (B) Liability.--An employer not complying with subparagraph 
     (A) shall be liable to a registered worker for the costs of 
     housing equivalent to the type of housing required to be 
     provided under that subparagraph and shall not be liable for 
     any employment-related obligation solely by reason of such 
     noncompliance.
       (2) Type of housing.--In complying with paragraph (1), an 
     employer may, at the employer's election, provide housing 
     that meets applicable Federal standards for temporary labor 
     camps or secure housing that meets applicable local standards 
     for rental or public accommodation housing or other 
     substantially similar class of habitation, or, in the absence 
     of applicable local standards, State standards for rental or 
     public accommodation housing or other substantially similar 
     class of habitation.
       (3) Workers engaged in the range production of livestock.--
     The Secretary shall issue regulations that address the 
     specific requirements for the provision of housing to workers 
     engaged in the range production of livestock.
       (4) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to require an employer to provide or secure housing 
     for persons who were not entitled to such housing under the 
     temporary labor certification regulations in effect on June 
     1, 1986.
       (5) Charges for housing.--
       (A) Utilities and maintenance.--An employer who provides 
     housing to a worker pursuant to paragraph (1) may charge an 
     amount equal to the fair market value (but not greater than 
     the employer's actual cost) for maintenance and utilities, or 
     such lesser amount as permitted by law.
       (B) Security deposit.--An employer who provides housing to 
     workers pursuant to paragraph (1) may require, as a condition 
     for providing such housing, a deposit not to exceed $50 from 
     workers occupying such housing to protect against gross 
     negligence or willful destruction of property.
       (C) Damages.--An employer who provides housing to workers 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) may require a worker found to have 
     been responsible for damage to such housing which is not the 
     result of normal wear and tear related to habitation to 
     reimburse the employer for the reasonable cost of repair of 
     such damage.
       (6) Housing allowance as alternative.--
       (A) In general.--In lieu of offering housing pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), the employer may provide a reasonable housing 
     allowance during the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act. After the expiration of that period 
     such allowance may be provided only if the requirement of 
     subparagraph (B) is satisfied or, in the case of a 
     certification under subparagraph (B) that is expired, the 
     requirement of subparagraph (C) is satisfied. Upon the 
     request of a worker seeking assistance in locating housing, 
     the employer shall make a good faith effort to assist the 
     worker in identifying and locating housing in the area of 
     intended employment. An employer who offers a housing 
     allowance to a worker, or assists a worker in locating 
     housing which the worker occupies, pursuant to this 
     subparagraph shall not be deemed to be a housing provider 
     under section 203 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 
     Worker Protection Act (29 U.S.C. 1823) solely by virtue of 
     providing such housing allowance.
       (B) Certification.--The requirement of this subparagraph is 
     satisfied if the Governor of the State certifies to the 
     Secretary that there is adequate housing available in an area 
     of intended employment for migrant farm workers, aliens 
     provided status pursuant to this Act, or nonimmigrant aliens 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act, who are seeking temporary housing while 
     employed at farm work. Such certification shall expire after 
     3 years unless renewed by the Governor of the State.
       (C) Effect of certification.--Notwithstanding the 
     expiration of a certification under subparagraph (B) with 
     respect to an area of intended employment, a housing 
     allowance described in subparagraph (A) may be offered for up 
     to one year after the date of expiration.
       (D) Amount of allowance.--The amount of a housing allowance 
     under this paragraph shall be equal to the statewide average 
     fair market rental for existing housing for nonmetropolitan 
     counties for the State in which the employment occurs, as 
     established by

[[Page 27009]]

     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to 
     section 8(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(c)), based on a 2-bedroom dwelling unit and an 
     assumption of 2 persons per bedroom.
       (c) Reimbursement of Transportation.--
       (1) To place of employment.--A worker who is referred to a 
     job opportunity under section 302(a), or an alien employed 
     pursuant to this Act, who completes 50 percent of the period 
     of employment of the job opportunity for which the worker was 
     hired, shall be reimbursed by the employer for the cost of 
     the worker's transportation and subsistence from the worker's 
     permanent place of residence (or place of last employment, if 
     the worker traveled from such place) to the place of 
     employment to which the worker was referred under section 
     302(a).
       (2) From place of employment.--A worker who is referred to 
     a job opportunity under section 302(a), or an alien employed 
     pursuant to this Act, who completes the period of employment 
     for the job opportunity involved, shall be reimbursed by the 
     employer for the cost of the worker's transportation and 
     subsistence from the place of employment to the worker's 
     place of residence, or to the place of next employment, if 
     the worker has contracted with a subsequent employer who has 
     not agreed to provide or pay for the worker's transportation 
     and subsistence to such subsequent employer's place of 
     employment.
       (3) Limitation.--
       (A) Amount of reimbursement.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the amount of reimbursement provided under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) to a worker or alien shall not exceed 
     the lesser of--
       (i) the actual cost to the worker or alien of the 
     transportation and subsistence involved; or
       (ii) the most economical and reasonable common carrier 
     transportation charges and subsistence costs for the distance 
     involved.
       (B) Distance traveled.--No reimbursement under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) shall be required if the distance traveled is 100 
     miles or less, or the worker is not residing in employer-
     provided housing or housing secured through a voucher as 
     provided in subsection (b)(6).
       (C) Place of recruitment.--For the purpose of the 
     reimbursement required under paragraph (1) or (2) to aliens 
     admitted pursuant to this Act, the alien's place of residence 
     shall be deemed to be the place where the alien was issued 
     the visa authorizing admission to the United States or, if no 
     visa was required, the place from which the alien departed 
     the foreign country to travel to the United States.
       (d) Continuing Obligation To Employ United States 
     Workers.--
       (1) In general.--An employer that applies for registered 
     workers under section 301(a) shall, as a condition for the 
     approval of such application, continue to offer employment to 
     qualified, eligible United States workers who are referred 
     under section 302(b) after the employer receives the report 
     described in section 302(b).
       (2) Limitation.--An employer shall not be obligated to 
     comply with paragraph (1)--
       (A) after 50 percent of the anticipated period of 
     employment shown on the employer's application under section 
     301(a) has elapsed; or
       (B) during any period in which the employer is employing no 
     H-2A workers in the occupation for which the United States 
     worker was referred; or
       (C) during any period when the Secretary is conducting a 
     search of a registry for workers in the occupation and area 
     of intended employment to which the worker has been referred, 
     or in other occupations in the area of intended employment 
     for which the worker that has been referred is qualified and 
     that offer substantially similar terms and conditions of 
     employment.
       (3) Limitation on requirement to provide housing.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employer 
     to whom a registered worker is referred pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) may provide a reasonable housing allowance to such 
     referred worker in lieu of providing housing if the employer 
     does not have sufficient housing to accommodate the referred 
     worker and all other workers for whom the employer is 
     providing housing or has committed to provide housing.
       (4) Referral of workers during 50-percent period.--The 
     Secretary shall make all reasonable efforts to place a 
     registered worker in an open job acceptable to the worker, 
     including available jobs not listed on the registry, before 
     referring such worker to an employer for a job opportunity 
     already filled by, or committed to, an alien admitted 
     pursuant to this Act.

     SEC. 305. PROGRAM FOR THE ADMISSION OF TEMPORARY H-2A 
                   WORKERS.

       Section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1188) is amended to read as follows:


                 ``ADMISSION OF TEMPORARY H-2A WORKERS

       ``Sec. 218. (a) Procedure for Admission or Extension of 
     Aliens.--
       ``(1) Aliens who are outside the united states.--
       ``(A) Criteria for admissibility.--
       ``(i) In general.--An alien described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     shall be admissible under this section if the alien is 
     designated pursuant to section 302 of the Agricultural Job 
     Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999, otherwise 
     admissible under this Act, and the alien is not ineligible 
     under clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Disqualification.--An alien shall be ineligible for 
     admission to the United States or being provided status under 
     this section if the alien has, at any time during the past 5 
     years--

       ``(I) violated a material provision of this section, 
     including the requirement to promptly depart the United 
     States when the alien's authorized period of admission under 
     this section has expired; or
       ``(II) otherwise violated a term or condition of admission 
     to the United States as a nonimmigrant, including overstaying 
     the period of authorized admission as such a nonimmigrant.

       ``(iii) Initial waiver of ineligibility for unlawful 
     presence.--

       ``(I) In general.--An alien who has not previously been 
     admitted to the United States pursuant to this section, and 
     who is otherwise eligible for admission in accordance with 
     clauses (i) and (ii), shall not be deemed inadmissible by 
     virtue of section 212(a)(9)(B). Such an alien shall depart 
     the United States to be eligible for admission under this 
     section.
       ``(II) Termination.--Subclause (I) shall terminate on the 
     date that is 4 years after the date of the enactment of the 
     Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 
     1999.

       ``(B) Period of admission.--The alien shall be admitted for 
     the period requested by the employer not to exceed 10 months, 
     or the ending date of the anticipated period of employment on 
     the employer's application for registered workers, whichever 
     is less, plus an additional period of 14 days, during which 
     the alien shall seek authorized employment in the United 
     States. During the 14-day period following the expiration of 
     the alien's work authorization, the alien is not authorized 
     to be employed unless an employer who is authorized to employ 
     such worker has filed an extension of stay on behalf of the 
     alien pursuant to paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Abandonment of employment.--
       ``(i) In general.--An alien admitted or provided status 
     under this section who abandons the employment which was the 
     basis for such admission or status shall be considered to 
     have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status as an alien 
     described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) and shall depart 
     the United States or be subject to removal under section 
     237(a)(1)(C)(i).
       ``(ii) Report by employer.--The employer (or association 
     acting as agent for the employer) shall notify the Attorney 
     General within 7 days of an alien admitted or provided status 
     under this Act pursuant to an application to the Secretary of 
     Labor under section 302 of the Agricultural Job Opportunity 
     Benefits and Security Act of 1999 by the employer who 
     prematurely abandons the alien's employment.
       ``(iii) Removal by the attorney general.--The Attorney 
     General shall promptly remove from the United States aliens 
     admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) who have 
     failed to maintain nonimmigrant status or who have otherwise 
     violated the terms of a visa issued under this title.
       ``(iv) Voluntary termination.--Notwithstanding the 
     provisions of clause (i), an alien may voluntarily terminate 
     his or her employment if the alien promptly departs the 
     United States upon termination of such employment.
       ``(D) Identification document and identification system.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each alien admitted under this section 
     shall, upon receipt of a visa, be given an identification and 
     employment eligibility document to verify eligibility for 
     employment in the United States and verify such person's 
     proper identity.
       ``(ii) Requirements.--No identification and employment 
     eligibility document may be issued and no identification 
     system may be implemented which does not meet the following 
     requirements:

       ``(I) The document and system shall be capable of reliably 
     determining whether--

       ``(aa) the individual with the identification and 
     employment eligibility document whose eligibility is being 
     verified is in fact eligible for employment,
       ``(bb) the individual whose eligibility is being verified 
     is claiming the identity of another person, and
       ``(cc) the individual whose eligibility is being verified 
     has been properly admitted under this section.

       ``(II) The document shall be in the form that is resistant 
     to counterfeiting and to tampering.
       ``(III) The document and system shall--

       ``(aa) be compatible with other Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service databases and other Federal government 
     databases for the purpose of excluding aliens from benefits 
     for which they are not eligible and to determine whether the 
     alien is illegally present in the United States, and
       ``(bb) be compatible with law enforcement databases to 
     determine if the alien has been convicted of criminal 
     offenses.
       ``(2) Extension of stay of aliens in the united states.--
       ``(A) Extension of stay.--If an employer with respect to 
     whom a report or application

[[Page 27010]]

     described in section 302(a)(1) of the Agricultural Job 
     Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999 has been 
     submitted seeks to employ an alien who has acquired status 
     under this section and who is lawfully present in the United 
     States, the employer shall file with the Attorney General an 
     application for an extension of the alien's stay or a change 
     in the alien's authorized employment. The application shall 
     be accompanied by a copy of the appropriate report or 
     application described in section 302 of the Agricultural Job 
     Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999.
       ``(B) Limitation on filing an application for extension of 
     stay.--An application may not be filed for an extension of an 
     alien's stay for a period of more than 10 months, or later 
     than a date which is 3 years from the date of the alien's 
     last admission to the United States under this section, 
     whichever occurs first.
       ``(C) Work authorization upon filing an application for 
     extension of stay.--An employer may begin employing an alien 
     who is present in the United States who has acquired status 
     under this Act on the day the employer files an application 
     for extension of stay. For the purpose of this requirement, 
     the term `filing' means sending the application by certified 
     mail via the United States Postal Service, return receipt 
     requested, or delivered by guaranteed commercial delivery 
     which will provide the employer with a documented 
     acknowledgment of the date of sending and receipt of the 
     application. The employer shall provide a copy of the 
     employer's application to the alien, who shall keep the 
     application with the alien's identification and employment 
     eligibility document as evidence that the application has 
     been filed and that the alien is authorized to work in the 
     United States. Upon approval of an application for an 
     extension of stay or change in the alien's authorized 
     employment, the Attorney General shall provide a new or 
     updated employment eligibility document to the alien 
     indicating the new validity date, after which the alien is 
     not required to retain a copy of the application.
       ``(D) Limitation on employment authorization of aliens 
     without valid identification and employment eligibility 
     card.--An expired identification and employment eligibility 
     document, together with a copy of an application for 
     extension of stay or change in the alien's authorized 
     employment that complies with the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A), shall constitute a valid work authorization 
     document for a period of not more than 60 days from the date 
     of application for the extension of stay, after which time 
     only a currently valid identification and employment 
     eligibility document shall be acceptable.
       ``(E) Limitation on an individual's stay in status.--An 
     alien having status under this section may not have the 
     status extended for a continuous period longer than 3 years 
     unless the alien remains outside the United States for an 
     uninterrupted period of 6 months. An absence from the United 
     States may break the continuity of the period for which a 
     nonimmigrant visa issued under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) 
     is valid. If the alien has resided in the United States 10 
     months or less, an absence breaks the continuity of the 
     period if it lasts for at least 2 months. If the alien has 
     resided in the United States 10 months or more, an absence 
     breaks the continuity of the period if it lasts for at least 
     one-fifth the duration of the stay.
       ``(b) Study by the Attorney General.--The Attorney General 
     shall conduct a study to determine whether aliens under this 
     section depart the United States in a timely manner upon the 
     expiration of their period of authorized stay. If the 
     Attorney General finds that a significant number of aliens do 
     not so depart and that withholding a portion of the aliens' 
     wages to be refunded upon timely departure is necessary as an 
     inducement to assure such departure, then the Attorney 
     General shall so report to Congress and make recommendations 
     on appropriate courses of action.''.
       (b) No Family Members Permitted.--Section 101(a)(15)(H) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)) 
     is amended by striking ``specified in this paragraph'' and 
     inserting ``specified in this subparagraph (other than in 
     clause (ii)(a))''.
       (c) Range Production of Livestock.--Nothing in this title 
     shall preclude the Secretary of Labor and the Attorney 
     General from continuing to apply special procedures to the 
     employment, admission, and extension of aliens in the range 
     production of livestock.

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. ENHANCED WORKER PROTECTIONS AND LABOR STANDARDS 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Enforcement Authority.--
       (1) Investigation of complaints.--
       (A) Aggrieved person or third party complaints.--The 
     Secretary shall establish a process for the receipt, 
     investigation, and disposition of complaints respecting an 
     employer's failure to meet a condition specified in section 
     301 or an employer's misrepresentation of material facts in 
     an application under that section, or violation of the 
     provisions described in subparagraph (B). Complaints may be 
     filed by any aggrieved person or any organization (including 
     bargaining representatives). No investigation or hearing 
     shall be conducted on a complaint concerning such a failure 
     or misrepresentation unless the complaint was filed not later 
     than 12 months after the date of the failure or 
     misrepresentation, as the case may be. The Secretary shall 
     conduct an investigation under this paragraph if there is 
     reasonable cause to believe that such a failure or 
     misrepresentation has occurred.
       (B) Expedited investigation of serious child labor, wage, 
     and housing violations.--The Secretary shall complete an 
     investigation and issue a written determination as to whether 
     or not a violation has been committed within 10 days of the 
     receipt of a complaint pursuant to subparagraph (A) if there 
     is reasonable cause to believe that any of the following 
     serious violations have occurred:
       (i) A violation of section 12(c) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 212(c)).
       (ii) A failure to make a wage payment, except that 
     complaints alleging that an amount less than the wages due 
     has been paid shall be handled pursuant to subparagraph (A).
       (iii) A failure to provide the housing allowance required 
     under section 304(b)(6).
       (iv) Providing housing pursuant to section 304(b)(1) that 
     fails to comply with standards under section 304(b)(2) and 
     which poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or 
     death to workers.
       (C) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this Act limits the 
     authority of the Secretary of Labor to conduct any compliance 
     investigation under any other labor law, including any law 
     affecting migrant and seasonal agricultural workers or, in 
     the absence of a complaint under this paragraph, under this 
     Act.
       (2) Written notice of finding and opportunity for appeal.--
     After an investigation has been conducted, the Secretary 
     shall issue a written determination as to whether or not any 
     violation described in subsection (b) has been committed. The 
     Secretary's determination shall be served on the complainant 
     and the employer, and shall provide an opportunity for an 
     appeal of the Secretary's decision to an administrative law 
     judge, who may conduct a de novo hearing.
       (3) Ability of alien workers to change employers.--
       (A) In general.--Pending the completion of an investigation 
     pursuant to paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary may permit the 
     transfer of an aggrieved person who has filed a complaint 
     under such paragraph to an employer that--
       (i) has been approved to employ workers under this Act; and
       (ii) agrees to accept the person for employment.
       (B) Replacement worker.--An aggrieved person may not be 
     transferred under subparagraph (A) until such time as the 
     employer from whom the person is to be transferred receives a 
     requested replacement worker referred by a registry pursuant 
     to section 302 of this Act or provided status under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (C) Limitation.--An employer from whom an aggrieved person 
     has been transferred under this paragraph shall have no 
     obligation to reimburse the person for the cost of 
     transportation prior to the completion of the period of 
     employment referred to in section 304(c).
       (D) Voluntary transfer.--Notwithstanding this paragraph, an 
     employer may voluntarily agree to transfer a worker to 
     another employer that--
       (i) has been approved to employ workers under this Act; and
       (ii) agrees to accept the person for employment.
       (b) Remedies.--
       (1) Back wages.--Upon a final determination that the 
     employer has failed to pay wages as required under this 
     section, the Secretary may assess payment of back wages due 
     to any United States worker or alien described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     employed by the employer in the specific employment in 
     question. The back wages shall be equal to the difference 
     between the amount that should have been paid and the amount 
     that actually was paid to such worker.
       (2) Failure to pay wages.--Upon a final determination that 
     the employer has failed to pay the wages required under this 
     Act, the Secretary may assess a civil money penalty up to 
     $1,000 for each person for whom the employer failed to pay 
     the required wage, and may recommend to the Attorney General 
     the disqualification of the employer from the employment of 
     aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act for a period of time 
     determined by the Secretary not to exceed 1 year.
       (3) Other violations.--If the Secretary, as a result of an 
     investigation pursuant to a complaint, determines that an 
     employer covered by an application under section 401(a) has--
       (A) filed an application that misrepresents a material 
     fact;
       (B) failed to meet a condition specified in section 401; or
       (C) committed a serious violation of subsection (a)(1)(B),


[[Page 27011]]


     the Secretary may seek a cease and desist order and assess a 
     civil money penalty not to exceed $1,000 for each violation 
     and may recommend to the Attorney General the 
     disqualification of the employer if the Secretary finds it to 
     be a substantial misrepresentation or violation of the 
     requirements for the employment of any United States workers 
     or aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act for a period of time 
     determined by the Secretary not to exceed 1 year. In 
     determining the amount of civil money penalty to be assessed 
     or whether to recommend disqualification of the employer, the 
     Secretary shall consider the seriousness of the violation, 
     the good faith of the employer, the size of the business of 
     the employer being charged, the history of previous 
     violations by the employer, whether the employer obtained a 
     financial gain from the violation, whether the violation was 
     willful, and other relevant factors.
       (4) Expanded program disqualification.--
       (A) 3 years for second violation.--Upon a second final 
     determination that an employer has failed to pay the wages 
     required under this Act, or a second final determination that 
     the employer has committed another substantial violation 
     under paragraph (3) in the same category of violations, with 
     respect to the same alien, the Secretary shall report such 
     determination to the Attorney General and the Attorney 
     General shall disqualify the employer from the employment of 
     aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act for a period of 3 years.
       (B) Permanent for third violation.--Upon a third final 
     determination that an employer has failed to pay the wages 
     required under this section or committed other substantial 
     violations under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall report 
     such determination to the Attorney General, and the Attorney 
     General shall disqualify the employer from any subsequent 
     employment of aliens described in section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       (c) Role of Associations.--
       (1) Violation by a member of an association.--An employer 
     on whose behalf an application is filed by an association 
     acting as its agent is fully responsible for such 
     application, and for complying with the terms and conditions 
     of this Act, as though the employer had filed the application 
     itself. If such an employer is determined to have violated a 
     requirement of this section, the penalty for such violation 
     shall be assessed against the employer who committed the 
     violation and not against the association or other members of 
     the association.
       (2) Violation by an association acting as an employer.--If 
     an association filing an application on its own behalf as an 
     employer is determined to have committed a violation under 
     this subsection which results in disqualification from the 
     program under subsection (b), no individual member of such 
     association may be the beneficiary of the services of an 
     alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act in an occupation in which 
     such alien was employed by the association during the period 
     such disqualification is in effect, unless such member files 
     an application as an individual employer or such application 
     is filed on the employer's behalf by an association with 
     which the employer has an agreement that the employer will 
     comply with the requirements of this Act.
       (d) Study of Agricultural Labor Standards and 
     Enforcement.--
       (1) Commission on housing migrant agricultural workers.--
       (A) Establishment.--There is established the Commission on 
     Housing Migrant Agricultural Workers (in this paragraph 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (B) Composition.--The Commission shall consist of 12 
     members, as follows:
       (i) Four representatives of agricultural employers and one 
     representative of the Department of Agriculture, each 
     appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (ii) Four representatives of agricultural workers and one 
     representative of the Department of Labor, each appointed by 
     the Secretary of Labor.
       (iii) One State or local official knowledgeable about 
     farmworker housing and one representative of Housing and 
     Urban Development, each appointed by the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development.
       (C) Functions.--The Commission shall conduct a study of the 
     problem of in-season housing for migrant agricultural 
     workers.
       (D) Interim reports.--The Commission may at any time submit 
     interim reports to Congress describing the findings made up 
     to that time with respect to the study conducted under 
     subparagraph (C).
       (E) Final report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report 
     to Congress setting forth the findings of the study conducted 
     under subparagraph (C).
       (F) Termination date.--The Commission shall terminate upon 
     filing its final report.
       (2) Study of relationship between child care and child 
     labor.--The Secretaries of Labor, Agriculture, and Health and 
     Human Services shall jointly conduct a study of the issues 
     relating to child care of migrant agricultural workers. Such 
     study shall address issues related to the adequacy of 
     educational and day care services for migrant children and 
     the relationship, if any, of child care needs and child labor 
     violations in agriculture. An evaluation of migrant and 
     seasonal Head Start programs (as defined in section 637(12) 
     of the Head Start Act) as they relate to these issues shall 
     be included as a part of the study.
       (3) Study of field sanitation.--The Secretary of Labor and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly conduct a study 
     regarding current field sanitation standards in agriculture 
     and evaluate alternative approaches and innovations that may 
     further compliance with such standards.
       (4) Study of coordinated and targeted labor standards 
     enforcement.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, shall conduct a study of the most 
     persistent and serious labor standards violations in 
     agriculture and evaluate the most effective means of 
     coordinating enforcement efforts between Federal and State 
     officials. The study shall place primary emphasis on the 
     means by which Federal and State authorities, in consultation 
     with representatives of workers and agricultural employers, 
     may develop more effective methods of targeting resources at 
     repeated and egregious violators of labor standards. The 
     study also shall consider ways of facilitating expanded 
     education among agricultural employers and workers regarding 
     compliance with labor standards and evaluate means of 
     broadening such education on a cooperative basis among 
     employers and workers.
       (5) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, with respect to each study required to 
     be conducted under paragraphs (2) through (4), the Secretary 
     or group of Secretaries required to conduct the study shall 
     submit to Congress a report setting forth the findings of the 
     study.

     SEC. 402. BILATERAL COMMISSIONS.

       The Attorney General is authorized and requested to 
     establish a bilateral commission between the United States 
     and each country not less than 10,000 nationals of which are 
     nonimmigrant aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)). Such bilateral commissions shall 
     provide a forum to the governments involved to discuss 
     matters of mutual concern regarding the program for the 
     admission of aliens under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.

     SEC. 403. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations of the Attorney General.--The Attorney 
     General shall consult with the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture on all regulations to implement the duties of the 
     Attorney General under this Act.
       (b) Regulations of the Secretary of State.--The Secretary 
     of State shall consult with the Attorney General, the 
     Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Agriculture on all 
     regulations to implement the duties of the Secretary of State 
     under this Act.
       (c) Regulations of the Secretary of Labor.--The Secretary 
     shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and shall 
     obtain the approval of the Attorney General on all 
     regulations to implement the duties of the Secretary under 
     this Act.
       (d) Deadline for Issuance of Regulations.--All regulations 
     to implement the duties of the Attorney General, the 
     Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Labor shall take 
     effect on the effective date of this Act.

     SEC. 404. DETERMINATION AND USE OF USER FEES.

       (a) Schedule of Fees.--The Secretary of Labor shall 
     establish and periodically adjust a schedule for the registry 
     user fee and the alien employment user fee imposed under this 
     Act, and a collection process for such fees from employers 
     participating in the programs provided under this Act. Such 
     fees shall be the only fees chargeable to employers for 
     services provided under this Act.
       (b) Determination of Schedule.--
       (1) In general.--The schedule under subsection (a) shall 
     reflect a fee rate based on the number of job opportunities 
     indicated in an employer's application under section 
     301(a)(1)(C) and sufficient to provide for the reimbursement 
     of the direct costs of providing the following services:
       (A) Registry user fee.--Services provided through the 
     agricultural worker registries established under section 
     301(a), including registration, referral, and validation, but 
     not including services that would otherwise be provided by 
     the Secretary of Labor under related or similar programs if 
     such registries had not been established.
       (B) Alien employment user fee.--Services related to an 
     employer's authorization to employ eligible aliens pursuant 
     to this Act, including the establishment and certification of 
     eligible employers, the issuance of documentation, and the 
     admission of eligible aliens.
       (2) Procedure.--
       (A) In general.--In establishing and adjusting such 
     schedule, the Secretary of Labor shall comply with Federal 
     cost accounting and fee setting standards.
       (B) Publication and comment.--The Secretary of Labor shall 
     publish in the Federal Register an initial fee schedule and 
     associated collection process and the cost data or

[[Page 27012]]

     estimates upon which such fee schedule is based, and any 
     subsequent amendments thereto, pursuant to which public 
     comment will be sought and a final rule issued.
       (c) Use of Proceeds.--
       (1) In general.--All proceeds resulting from the payment of 
     registry user fees and alien employment user fees shall be 
     available without further appropriation and shall remain 
     available without fiscal year limitation to reimburse the 
     Secretaries of Labor, State, and Agriculture, and the 
     Attorney General for the costs of carrying out section 218 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act and the provisions of 
     this Act.
       (2) Limitation on enforcement costs.--In making a 
     determination of reimbursable costs under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary of Labor shall provide that reimbursement of the 
     costs of enforcement under section 401 shall not exceed 10 
     percent of the direct costs of the Secretary described in 
     subsection (b)(1) (A) and (B).

     SEC. 405. FUNDING FOR STARTUP COSTS.

       If additional funds are necessary to pay the startup costs 
     of the agricultural worker registries established under 
     section 301(a), such costs may be paid out of amounts 
     available to Federal or State governmental entities under the 
     Wagner--Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.). Proceeds described 
     in section 404(c) may be used to reimburse the use of such 
     available amounts.

     SEC. 406. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     effective date under section 408, the Resources, Community 
     and Economic Development Division, and the Health, Education 
     and Human Services Division, of the Office of the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall jointly prepare and 
     transmit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate a report describing the results of a review of the 
     implementation of and compliance with this Act. The report 
     shall address--
       (1) whether the program has ensured an adequate and timely 
     supply of qualified, eligible workers at the time and place 
     needed by employers;
       (2) whether the program has ensured that aliens admitted 
     under this program are employed only in authorized 
     employment, and that they timely depart the United States 
     when their authorized stay ends;
       (3) whether the program has ensured that participating 
     employers comply with the requirements of the program with 
     respect to the employment of United States workers and aliens 
     admitted under this program;
       (4) whether the program has ensured that aliens admitted 
     under this program are not displacing eligible, qualified 
     United States workers or diminishing the wages and other 
     terms and conditions of employment of eligible United States 
     workers;
       (5) to the extent practicable, compare the wages and other 
     terms of employment of eligible United States workers and 
     aliens employed under this program with the wages and other 
     terms of employment of agricultural workers who are not 
     authorized to work in the United States;
       (6) whether the housing provisions of this program ensure 
     that adequate housing is available to workers employed under 
     this program who are required to be provided housing or a 
     housing allowance;
       (7) recommendations for improving the operation of the 
     program for the benefit of participating employers, eligible 
     United States workers, participating aliens, and governmental 
     agencies involved in administering the program; and
       (8) recommendations for the continuation or termination of 
     the program under this Act.
       (b) Advisory Board.--There shall be established an advisory 
     board to be composed of--
       (1) four representatives of agricultural employers to be 
     appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, including 
     individuals who have experience with the H-2A program; and
       (2) four representatives of agricultural workers to be 
     appointed by the Secretary of Labor, including individuals 
     who have experience with the H-2A program,

     to provide advice to the Comptroller General in the 
     preparation of the reports required under subsection (a).

     SEC. 407. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall become effective on the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that 
     described the measures being taken and the progress made in 
     implementing this Act.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to recognize our Presiding Officer 
who is also one of the stalwart advocates of this reform in 
agricultural farm labor, as well as the Senator from Oregon who has 
given such leadership on this issue.
  In my opinion, those voices who you anticipate will decry the 
proposals we are making have to carry the burden of defending the 
status quo. In my opinion, that is an impossible defense. What has the 
status quo led to in this country? It has led to over 600,000 people 
who pick the fruits and vegetables upon which American families depend, 
upon which much of our agricultural economy is relying--600,000-plus of 
those persons ranging between a third and a half of all of the migrant 
workers in the country are illegal. They are here without documents. 
They are here without any legal status. Can we call the current system 
a humane system when it puts 600,000 people in the shadows of our 
society because they are without legal status or legal protection? I 
think not.
  It is also a system which denies benefits, ironically, to U.S. 
citizens and U.S. legal permanent residents who work as migrants in 
American agriculture, which we make available to non-U.S. citizens who 
come here under a temporary work visa that we call a H-2A visa. For 
instance, we provide transportation assistance to foreign visa workers 
that we do not provide to U.S. citizens. We provide housing benefits to 
foreign workers that we do not provide to U.S. citizens. We provide 
even a higher wage rate, a higher base salary to foreign visa workers 
than we do to U.S. citizens who work as migrant workers in American 
agriculture.
  We also have a system which is--to say antiquated is to give it a 
status that is beyond justification. We are using a system that is 
bureaucratic, that does not apply contemporary methods of technology, 
communication, which, while it approves some 90 percent of the 
petitions that are filed to make it possible for those non-U.S. visa 
workers to come into the United States, oftentimes the delay in getting 
that ultimate approval is so extended that by the time the approval 
arrives the crops have already rotted in the field.
  Anyone who wishes to attack our ideas, I think, has the burden of 
either attempting to defend a clearly--not broken but smashed status 
quo, and then to come forward with their own ideas. A few days ago, 
Senator Wyden and the Presiding Officer and myself offered an amendment 
to a Department of Labor appropriations bill in which we directed that 
the administration should come forward with its ideas as to how to 
correct the broken status quo of migrant farm labor in America. We look 
forward to receiving that response. We have been asking for that 
response for the better part of 2 to 3 years.
  I hope now that we are on the verge of introducing legislation, we 
will see an engagement by all the parties who have professed an 
interest in this issue so we can get their ideas. We do not believe, as 
thoughtful as we hope this legislation will be seen, that it came down 
from the mountain on plates of stone. It is the product of our best 
human effort and we invite others who have their ideas to participate 
in this process. But I believe we can all start from the fundamental 
position that the status quo is inhumane, illegal, and unacceptable to 
the United States of America as a great nation entering the 21st 
century.
  The legislation we are introducing--and we are actually introducing 
two pieces of legislation--the first is the Agricultural Job 
Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 1999, which we intend to 
acronym into AG-JOBS, which is the comprehensive bill which includes 
all the elements the Presiding Officer outlined in his introductory 
remarks. We will then introduce a second bill which will be called the 
Farm Worker Adjustment Act of 1999, which will include only those 
provisions that relate to the adjustment of status by the some 600,000 
undocumented aliens who are currently in the United States.
  We invite our colleagues to consider both of these pieces of 
legislation. We hope they would be inclined to cosponsor both of these 
pieces of legislation.
  What would be the consequence of passage of the legislation that we 
introduce this evening? What would be the consequences, first, for farm 
workers? Farm workers would receive better wages. Instead of having as 
the base the minimum wage, the base, as the Presiding Officer 
indicated, would be the greater of the minimum wage or the adverse wage 
rate plus 5 percent. In my State of Florida, the current calculation of 
the adverse wage rate plus

[[Page 27013]]

5 percent would be approximately $7.45, as compared to the current 
minimum wage of $5.15.
  Second, domestic farm workers, U.S. citizens, and permanent 
residents, as well as those who would have the temporary work permits 
under the adjustment of status legislation, would all be entitled to 
housing, either housing onsite or, if it were determined by the 
Governor of the State there was adequate housing in the vicinity of the 
agricultural work site, it could be a housing allowance, a voucher 
which would allow the farm worker to select their own places to live.
  It would also provide for the first time for domestic workers, 
citizens, permanent residents, and temporary work permit holders, 
access to a transportation allowance. If they had to go more than 100 
miles to get from one job to the next, they would be entitled to 
compensation for their transportation. They would also receive the 
benefits of some modern technology. Just as we currently have a worker 
registry system for much of nonagricultural employment in America, this 
would provide a computer registry for agricultural workers where they 
can indicate: I am prepared to work in the following crops. I am 
prepared to work in the following locations and during the following 
time periods of the year. They would be permanently registered, so when 
a farmer was looking for workers who met those criteria, he would find 
this employee's name and a means by which to access that potential 
worker.
  We would increase worker protection. Farm workers would now be 
covered by the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. 
We would not have this shadow workforce of 600,000 people without legal 
protection.
  There would be stricter penalties for employers who failed to follow 
the law. Employers could be barred from the H-2A program, including a 
permanent bar for violations of the rights of workers.
  The legal status would be available to all of the persons. They would 
either be working as a citizen, a permanent resident, a holder of a 
temporary work permit, or an H-2A visa. But our goal would be to create 
a situation, both legally and economically, in which all of the persons 
picking the fruits and vegetables in America's fields would be legal.
  How would the farmers benefit? The farmers would have access to this 
efficient, modern, streamlined register as a means of determining who 
is available to do the work that I need.
  They would have assurance that all of their workers were legal. We 
have had situations in the last few months in which there were raids on 
fields--Vidalia onion fields in Georgia, fruit fields in the Pacific 
Northwest where persons who could not show they had documents--and many 
could not--were arrested, where the farmer was put into a situation 
that his livelihood, his crop for the year was about to be lost because 
he would not have the people necessary to harvest the food.
  We would also provide to the farmer the assurance that there would be 
a streamlined means by which, if necessary, they could access non-U.S. 
workers to assure they had a full complement of workers to carry out 
the task.
  Mr. President, you have stated with force and eloquence the rationale 
for this legislation and what we hope to accomplish. I hope in the vein 
within which you entered this to ask our colleagues to carefully 
consider this legislation, particularly in the context of the 
unacceptable status quo. We look forward to engaging with their ideas 
and the ideas of others who have an interest in this issue so that this 
session of Congress will have as one of its achievements the closure of 
a chapter of inhumane abuse of hundreds of thousands of people and a 
denial to American agriculture of what it wants--a legal, humanely 
treated agricultural workforce to pick the fruits and vegetables upon 
which our Nation depends.
  I join with you and our colleagues as we start this effort this 
evening and will shortly be sending to the desk the legislation on the 
adjustment of status of agricultural workers.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I'm pleased to have joined Senators Gordon 
Smith, Bob Graham, Max Cleland, and several other colleagues this week 
in introducing S. 1814. This bill is a new, improved version of the 
Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act--or, as we 
call it, the ``AgJOBS'' bill.
  We are facing a growing crisis--for both farm workers and growers.
  We want and need a stable, predictable, legal work force in American 
agriculture.
  Willing American workers deserve a system that puts them first in 
line for available jobs with fair, market wages. We want all workers to 
receive decent treatment and equal protection under the law.
  Consumers deserve a safe, stable, domestic food supply.
  American citizens and taxpayers deserve secure borders and a 
government that works.
  Yet Americans are being threatened on all these counts, because of a 
growing labor shortage in agriculture, while the only program currently 
in place to respond, the H-2A Guest Worker Program, is profoundly 
broken.
  Last year, the Senate adopted meaningful H-2A reform, on a bipartisan 
vote of 68-31. Unfortunately, that bipartisan floor amendment did not 
survive the last round of negotiations over the omnibus appropriations 
bill last year.
  This year, the problem is only growing worse. Therefore, we are 
introducing a new, improved bill. The name of the bill says it all--
``AgJOBS''.
  Mr. President, our farm workers need this reform bill.
  There is no debate about whether many--or most--farm wokers are 
aliens.
  They are. And they will be, for the foreseeable future. The question 
is whether they will be here legally or illegally.
  Immigrants not legally authorized to work in this country know they 
must work in hiding.
  They cannot even claim basic legal rights and protections. They are 
vulnerable to predation and exploitation. They sometimes have been 
stuffed inhumanly into dangerously enclosed truck trailers and car 
trunks, in order to be transported, hidden from the view of the law.
  In fact, they have been known to pay ``coyotes''--labor smugglers--
$1,000 and more to be smuggled into this country.
  In contrast, legal workers have legal protections.
  They can assert wage, safety, and other legal protections. They can 
bargain openly and join unions. H-2A workers, in fact, are even 
guaranteed housing and transportation.
  Clearly, the status quo is broken.
  Domestic American workers simply are not being found to fill 
agricultural jobs.
  Our own General Accounting Office has estimated that 600,000 farm 
workers--37 percent of the total 1.6 million agricultural work force--
are not legally authorized to work in this country.
  That estimate is low; it's based on self-disclosure by illegal 
workers to government interviewers.
  Some actually have suggested that there is no labor shortage, because 
there are plenty of illegal workers. This is not an acceptable answer.
  Congress has shown its commitment over the past few years to improve 
the security of our borders, both in the 1996 immigration law and in 
subsequent appropriations.
  Between computerized checking by the Social Security Administration 
and audits and raids by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
more and more employers are discovering they have undocumented 
employees; and more and more workers here illegally are being 
discovered and evicted from their jobs.
  Outside of H-2A, employers have no reliable assurance that their 
employees are legal.
  It's worse than a Catch-22--the law actually punishes the employer 
who could be called ``too diligent'' in inquiring into the 
identification documents of prospective workers.
  The H-2A status quo is slow, bureaucratic, and inflexible. It does 
nothing

[[Page 27014]]

to recognize the uncertainties farmers face, from changes in the 
weather to global market demands.
  The H-2A status quo is complicated and legalistic. DOL's compliance 
manual alone is 325 pages.
  The current H-2A process is so hard to use, it will place only 34,000 
legal guest workers this year--2 percent of the total agricultural work 
force.
  Finally, the grower can't even count on his or her government to do 
its job.
  The GAO has found that, in more than 40 percent of the cases in which 
employers filed H-2A applications at least 60 days before the date of 
need, the DOL missed statutory deadlines in processing them.
  The solution we need is the AgJOBS Act of 1999.
  Our new, improved AgJOBS bill includes three main parts:
  First, it would create a national AgJOBS registry.
  This new program would match willing workers anywhere in the U.S. 
with available farm work. Workers would be free to work where they want 
and for whom they want.
  Domestic American workers would be given first preference in job 
referrals. Once no domestic worker is available for a job, an 
``adjusting'' worker could receive a referral. If no domestic or 
adjusting worker is available, an employer could then use the H-2A 
program.
  This is essentially the same job registry as in last year's bill, 
expanded to accommodate the new category of adjusting workers.
  Second, it includes much-needed reforms to the H-2A program.
  Currently, red tape, regulation, and bureaucracy has rendered the H-
2A program almost completely ineffective.
  Our reformed H-2A program would expedite the process and more closely 
reflect market reality. Current red tape, delays, and paperwork would 
be reduced or eliminated. Growers would be assured of the timely 
availability of workers.
  Employers still would be required to provide transportation in out of 
the U.S., as under the current H-2A program. Employers must provide 
either a housing allowance or actual housing to H-2A workers. After 3 
years, actual housing would be required, unless the governor of a state 
certified a housing shortage. This is a more stringent housing 
requirement than last year's bill.
  The premium wage guaranteed to H-2A workers--called the Adverse 
Economic Wage Rate or ``AEWR''--would be based more accurately on 
prevailing wage paid to similar workers in that area. This is similar 
to current law, but other jobs, those not closely related, would be 
excluded from the calculation of the AEWR. This simply would ensure 
that the AEWR more closely reflected prevailing wages for that 
particular type of work. In the case of low-wage jobs, a premium would 
be added to the wage. This would still mean H-2A wages higher than 
virtually all non-H-2A farm worker wages. In other words, current H-2A 
workers would still have significant wage protection, and virtually all 
new H-2A workers would get a raise.
  Third, the bill creates a one-time-only new Category called 
``Adjusting'' Workers.
  Experienced farm workers who are already in the U.S. would be allowed 
to stay if:
  --They have worked at least 150 days in agriculture in the 12 months 
before the October 27 introduction of this bill;
  --They agree to work at least 180 days a year, only in agriculture, 
for at least 5 of the next 7 years; during this 5-7 year adjustment 
period, they would be in a temproary, non-immigrant status;
  --They return to their home country at least 2 months a year (during 
the 5-7 year adjustment period. Those with U.S.-born children--i.e., 
children who were already U.S. citizens--could stay year-round, but 
must agree to work in agriculture 240 days/year.
  ``Adjusting'' workers would be earning the right to keep their jobs 
or move to other agricultural jobs. Eventually, they could earn the 
right to a so-called ``green card''--in other words, permanent 
residency.
  For one moment, I want to mention, and then dispose of, the ``A-
Word":
  This bill is not about amnesty, for several reasons. I have always 
been opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants. If this were an amnesty 
bill, I'd be against it.
  This bill is about workers who are already here, for employers who 
need them and value their services, earning a right to stay.
  Amnesty is a gift; this bill is about earning a right. Amnesty means 
one is home free; this bill is about stabilizing the agricultural work 
force and conditions residency on a 5-7 year agreement to continue in 
farm work.
  The level of documentation required to prove a worker already has 
been working in the U.S. is much stricter than for any past amnesty 
law.
  In closing, Mr. President, this is win-win legislation.
  It will elevate and protect the rights, working conditions, and 
safety of workers. It will help workers--first domestic American 
workers, then other workers already here, then foreign guest workers--
find the jobs they want and need.
  It will assure growers of a stable, legal supply of workers, within a 
program that recognizes market realities. The adjusted-worker 
provisions also will give growers one-time assistance in adjusting to 
the new labor market realities of the 21st Century.
  It will assure all Americans of a safe, consistent, affordable food 
supply.
  The nation needs the Smith-Graham-Craig-Cleland AgJOBS bill. I invite 
the rest of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors; and I urge the 
Senate and the House to act promptly to enact this legislation into 
law.

                          ____________________