[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 934-947]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Lott, Mr. Abraham, 
        Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Smith of 
        New Hampshire, and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 2042. A bill to reform the process by which the Office of the 
Pardon Attorney investigates and reviews potential exercises of 
executive clemency; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              The Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will 
help restore public confidence in the Department of Justice by 
reforming the way that the Office of Pardon Attorney investigates 
candidates for executive clemency. This bill, the Hatch-Nickles-Abraham 
Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act, which is co-sponsored by 
Senators Lott, Thurmond, Kyl, Ashcroft, Sessions, Smith of New 
Hampshire, and Coverdell, addresses the problems that led to the 
widespread public outrage at the Department of Justice's role in 
President Clinton's decision last September to release 11 Puerto Rican 
nationalist terrorists from prison.
  The beneficiaries of President Clinton's grant of clemency were 
convicted terrorists who belong to violent Puerto Rican independence 
groups called the FALN and Los Macheteros. They were in prison for a 
seditious conspiracy that included the planting of over 130 bombs in 
public places in the United States, including shopping malls and 
restaurants. That bombing spree--which killed several people, injured 
many others and caused vast property damage--remains the most prolific 
terrorist campaign within our borders in United States history.
  The Judiciary Committee has thoroughly investigated the facts and 
circumstances surrounding the decision to release those terrorists from 
prison. We read thousands of documents produced by the Department of 
Justice and the White House. We interviewed law enforcement officials 
knowledgeable about the FALN and Los Macheteros organizations. We spoke 
to victims, and we held two hearings on the many issues raised by the 
grant of clemency. Our investigation has led me to a very troubling 
conclusion: the Justice Department ignored its own rules for handling 
clemency matters, exercised very poor judgment in ignoring the opinions 
of law enforcement and victims, and sacrificed its integrity by bowing 
to political pressure to modify its original recommendation against 
clemency.
  I do not come to this conclusion lightly. I base it on an examination 
of the facts. The facts show that the clemency recipients were never 
asked for information relevant to open investigations or the 
apprehension of fugitives--despite the fact that one of their co-
defendants, Victor Gerena, is on the FBI's ``ten most wanted'' list. 
Many of the killings associated with the FALN bombings, including the 
infamous Fraunces Tavern bombing, remain unsolved. The failure to ask 
for such information from the clemency recipients, several of whom held 
leadership positions in the FALN, means that the rest of the 
perpetrators of those crimes may never be brought to justice. My 
legislation will require the Justice Department to notify law 
enforcement of pending clemency requests, and to assess whether a 
proposed clemency recipient could have information on open 
investigations and fugitives.
  Our investigation also revealed that the White House and the Justice 
Department ignored the many victims of FALN crimes, even while senior 
officials were holding numerous meetings with the terrorists' advocates 
for clemency. While top government officials actually gave strategic 
advice to the terrorists, no one lifted a finger to find, interview, or 
even notify the victims about the pending clemency request. My 
legislation would help ensure that the Justice Department remembers who 
it is supposed to be working for by requiring it to notify and seek 
input from victims.
  Finally, a disturbing connection has come to light between the FALN, 
Los Macheteros and the Cuban government. Jorge Masetti, a former Cuban 
intelligence agent, has stated that Cuba helped Los Macheteros to plan 
and execute the $7.1 million Wells Fargo robbery--the biggest cash 
heist in US history--by providing funding, training and assistance in 
smuggling the money out of the country. Some sources estimate that 4 
million dollars from the robbery ended up in Cuba. We don't

[[Page 935]]

know whether the Pardon Attorney knew of or told the President about 
this Cuban connection because the Pardon Attorney currently has no 
obligation to contact intelligence agencies for information relevant to 
proposed grants of executive clemency. My legislation would require the 
Justice Department to solicit from law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies necessary information concerning the nature of the threat 
posed by potential clemency recipients so that the Pardon Attorney can 
properly advise the President whether a particular grant of clemency 
will impact future crime or terrorism.
  Before describing how this bill works, I want to explain how the 
Office of Pardon Attorney currently operates. The job of the Office of 
Pardon Attorney is not complicated: it is to investigate potential 
grants of clemency and, in appropriate cases, to produce a report and 
recommendations to the President. Ordinarily, this work begins when the 
office receives a petition from a prisoner or someone who has already 
completed a prison sentence. The Department's rules require that an 
individual seeking clemency submit such a petition to the Pardon 
Attorney. After receiving a petition, the Pardon Attorney makes an 
initial determination of whether the request has enough merit to 
warrant further investigation. If so, the Pardon Attorney researches 
the potential clemency recipient and prepares a report analyzing the 
information in light of the grounds for granting clemency. As described 
by the United States Attorneys' Manual, those grounds ``have 
traditionally included disparity or undue severity of sentence, 
critical illness or old age, and meritorious service rendered to the 
government by the petitioner.''
  It is to be expected that the Administration and the Department of 
Justice Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') would question the 
constitutionality of this bill by asserting an expansive view of 
executive power. That is their nature. This is the same Administration 
and Department that resisted any oversight of the FALN clemency 
decision. The OLC and the Department have a history of taking a liberal 
view of laws and privileges that would shield the President from 
scrutiny. This is evidenced by the Department's sound defeats on 
assertions of government attorney-client privilege and its ill-fated 
attempt to create a protective function privilege out of whole cloth. 
Anyone examining the merits of the OLC's attacks against this bill, 
therefore, must acknowledge that the Administration and the Department 
have a track record of overstating executive power.
  With that background, let me clarify that the Pardon Attorney Reform 
and Integrity Act was carefully drafted to avoid offending the 
separation of powers. The Act does not attempt to dictate how the 
President uses the pardon power. Far from it. The Constitution gives 
that power to the President, and this bill does not restrict it in any 
way. This bill affects only those cases where the President delegates 
the responsibility to investigate a particular potential grant of 
clemency. Nothing in the bill requires the President to ask the Pardon 
Attorney for assistance or requires the Pardon Attorney to take any 
particular position or recommend any particular outcome. It doesn't 
even require the Department to submit a report to the President, but 
simply make it available. Furthermore, the bill does not require the 
President to read any report, consider any particular information, or 
avail himself of any resource. The President will still be able to 
disregard the Justice Department's reports, use another agency, ask 
anyone in the world for advice, or exercise the ``pardon power'' 
without anyone's counsel. Only if the President chooses to ask the 
Justice Department for assistance will the procedural requirements of 
this bill apply--and they will apply only to the Justice Department, 
not to the President.
  The Act is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinions relating to 
the pardon power. The Act neither ``change[s] the effect of . . . a 
pardon'' as described in United States v. Kline, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 
(1872), nor will it ``modif[y], abridge[], or diminish[]'' the 
President's authority to grant clemency as discussed in Schick v. Reed, 
419 U.S. 256, 266 (1974). In fact, the Act will have no effect 
whatsoever on the President's ability to exercise the pardon power as 
he or she sees fit.
  Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress can 
legislate in areas that touch upon the pardon power. In Carlesi v. New 
York, 233 U.S. 51 (1914), the Court found that it was within the power 
of the legislative branch to determine what effect a pardon would have 
on future criminal sentences. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged 
that the pardon power has limits; the President cannot use that power 
as an excuse to wield power over departments that he or she otherwise 
could not. In Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877), the Court 
held that the pardon power does not give the President authority to 
order the treasury to refund money taken from a prisoner--even though 
that prisoner had just been pardoned for the crime that gave rise to 
the government's seizure of that money.
  It is Congress, not the President, that has the authority--indeed, 
the responsibility--to examine and legislate the manner in which the 
Justice Department performs its work. Congress created an ``attorney in 
charge of pardons'' within the Department of Justice in 1891, and 
appropriated money for an ``attorney in charge of pardons'' in that 
same year. To this day, the Office of the Pardon Attorney depends on 
funds appropriated annually by the Congress. In the most recent 
appropriations legislation, the Congress appropriated $1.6 million for 
the Pardon Attorney for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. This 
Congressional involvement--creation and funding of the office--provides 
a compelling basis for the Judiciary Committee's investigation and the 
present legislation.
  ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in 
the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries 
concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or 
possibly needed statutes.'' Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 
(1957). The scope of this power ```is as penetrating and far-reaching 
as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the 
Constitution.''' Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 
491, 504 n. 15 (1975) (quoting Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 
190, 111 (1959)). The Supreme Court has also recognized ``the danger to 
effective and honest conduct of the Government if the legislative power 
to probe corruption in the Executive Branch were unduly hampered.'' 
Watkins, 354 U.S. at 194-95. Once having established its jurisdiction 
and authority, and the pertinence of the matter under inquiry to its 
area of authority, a committee's investigative purview is substantial 
and wide-ranging. Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 408-09 (1961).
  Congress also has broad powers under the Constitution to ``make all 
Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution 
the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution 
in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer 
thereof.'' The areas in which Congress may potentially legislate or 
appropriate are, by necessary implication, even broader. Thus, in 
determining whether Congress has jurisdiction to oversee and enact 
legislation, deference should be accorded to Congress' decision.
  Because of this legal history, the administration of the Department 
of Justice and its various components has long been considered an 
appropriate subject of Congressional oversight. Early this century, in 
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 151 (1927), the Supreme Court 
endorsed Congress' authority to study ``charges of misfeasance and 
nonfeasance in the Department of Justice.'' In that case, which 
involved a challenge to Congress' inquiry into the DOJ's role during 
the Teapot Dome scandal, the Court concluded that Congress had 
authority to investigate ``whether [DOJ's] functions were being 
properly discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and 
particularly whether the Attorney General and his assistants were 
performing or neglecting their duties in

[[Page 936]]

respect of the institution.'' Id. at 177. These precedents make clear 
that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction to investigate the Pardon 
Attorney's role in the pardon process, and to enact legislation 
concerning the way in which that office operates.
  We have discussed this bill with the Department of Justice, and we 
have reviewed the regulations the Department has proposed. The problems 
with the Office of the Pardon Attorney, however, cannot be fixed by a 
mere change in department regulations. It has been six months since the 
public outcry over the FALN clemency shined a spotlight on the Pardon 
Attorney's practices. Despite having half-a-year to reform itself, the 
Department has suggested only minimal changes in the way it does 
business. In its draft regulations, the Department agrees that it 
should ascertain the views of victims, but only in cases involving 
``crimes of violence.'' Victims of other crimes deserve the right to be 
heard, too. Victims of so-called identity theft, for example, have 
compelling stories of the horror of being forced into bankruptcy to 
avoid collections lawyers, losing their jobs due to issues related to 
wage garnishments, and trying to rebuild their lives without the 
ability to obtain credit or sign an apartment lease. Victims of such 
crimes also deserve to be heard. Similarly, the Department's proposed 
regulations acknowledge the need to determine whether releasing a 
particular prisoner would pose a risk, but limit their focus to past 
victims and ignore other possible targets including witnesses, 
informants, prosecutors and court personnel. The Department's proposal 
also fails to notify victims when it undertakes a clemency 
investigation, when it completes its report to the President, or when 
the President makes a decision. Under the Department's scheme, victims 
may still learn of a prisoner's release from prison by watching the 
event on TV.
  Equally important, the Department's suggested regulations ignore the 
Department's main job: to protect law-abiding people from criminal 
acts. The Department does not see a need to require the Pardon Attorney 
to talk to law enforcement officials about whether a particular person 
could provide helpful information about criminal investigations or 
searches for fugitives. Nor does the Department see the value of asking 
law enforcement whether a potential release from prison would pose a 
risk to specific people other than victims or to a broader societal 
interest such as enhancing a particular criminal organization or 
decreasing the deterrent value of prison sentences. The Department's 
proposed regulations also ignore the importance of whether a potential 
clemency recipient has accepted responsibility for, or feels remorse 
over, criminal acts.
  Even if the Department's proposed regulations were identical to this 
bill, moreover, those regulations could not overcome what is perhaps 
the most important weakness of all: Regulations are not law. They do 
not have the force of statutes, and they can be changed very easily. 
The FALN case proves the need for a statute because the Attorney 
General ignored even the current, weak regulations in the FALN matter. 
Although the Justice Department and the White House refuse to let 
anyone in Congress review the reports produced by the Pardon Attorney 
about the FALN clemency, it is clear that the Pardon Attorney did not 
follow the Justice Department regulations when analyzing the issues for 
the President. For starters, the Pardon Attorney began investigating a 
potential grant of clemency for the FALN terrorists even though no 
personal petitions for clemency had been filed. That's right--these 
terrorists had not asked for clemency prior to the Justice Department's 
efforts to free them. Indeed, no such petitions were ever filed. And 
the absence of petitions was not a mere oversight: the FALN terrorists 
refused to file such petitions because they do not recognize that their 
criminal acts were wrongful or that the United States government had 
the right to punish them for committing those acts.
  I have the utmost respect for the career men and women at the Justice 
Department. It appears, however, the Department caved in to political 
pressure in this case. Although it submitted a report in December 1996 
recommending against the granting of clemency for the FALN terrorists--
which should have ended its involvement--the Pardon Attorney produced 
another report two-and-a-half years later reportedly changing its 
recommendation. The second report did not recommend either for or 
against the granting of clemency, violating the Justice Department 
regulation requiring that in every clemency case the Department ``shall 
report in writing [its] recommendation to the President, stating 
whether in [its] judgment the President should grant or deny the 
petition.''
  Why did the Justice Department's recommendation change? What happened 
between the first report in December 1996 and the second one in the 
summer of 1999 that justified a reexamination and change of the 
Department's conclusion? Because of the President's assertion of 
executive privilege, we may never know for sure. It was a mistake for 
the President to let politics affect such an important clemency 
decision, but is much worse than a mistake when political pressure 
forces an independent agency to alter its advice against its better 
judgment.
  The Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act will help prevent this 
from happening again. It will make available to the President access to 
the most pertinent facts concerning the exercise of executive clemency, 
including information from law enforcement agencies about the risks 
posed by any release from prison. It will also help ensure that--if the 
President chooses to have the Department of Justice conduct a clemency 
review--the victims of crime will not be shut out of the clemency 
process while terrorists and their organized sympathizers have access 
to--and obtain advice from--high government officials. In other words, 
this Act will insure that the taxpayer funded Justice Department will, 
when assisting the President in a clemency review, focus on public 
safety, not politics. Let me be clear that the Department of Justice is 
an agency which I have great respect for. Its employees are loyal, 
dedicated public servants. This bill is aimed at helping the 
Department, not hurting it.
  Specifically, our bill will do the following:
  1. Give victims a voice by insuring that they are notified of key 
events in the clemency process and by giving them an opportunity to 
voice their opinions.
  2. Enhance the voice of law enforcement by requiring the Pardon 
Attorney to notify the law enforcement community of a clemency 
investigation and permitting law enforcement to express its views on: 
the impact of clemency on the individuals affected by the decision--for 
example, victims and witnesses; whether clemency candidates have 
information which might help in other investigations; and whether 
granting clemency will increase the threat of terrorism or other 
criminal activity.
  Of course, it is the hope of all the co-sponsors--and all Americans--
that presidents will use the congressionally created and funded Office 
of the Pardon Attorney in order to make the best possible decisions 
regarding executive clemency. I believe that when Congress passes this 
bill--and should President Clinton sign it into law--future Presidents, 
victims, and the American public will be well served. If President 
Clinton wants to help in this effort to restore integrity to the 
clemency process, he will announce his support for this bill.
  Mr. President, I thank the many co-sponsors of this act, and I ask 
the rest of my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation. I 
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2042

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pardon Attorney Reform and 
     Integrity Act''.

     SEC. 2. REPRIEVES AND PARDONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--

[[Page 937]]

       (1) the term ``executive clemency'' means any exercise by 
     the President of the power to grant reprieves and pardons 
     under clause 1 of section 2 of article II of the Constitution 
     of the United States, and includes any pardon, commutation, 
     reprieve, or remission of a fine; and
       (2) the term ``victim'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 503(e) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(e)).
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--If the President delegates to 
     the Attorney General the responsibility for investigating or 
     reviewing, in any particular matter or case, a potential 
     grant of executive clemency, the Attorney General shall 
     prepare and make available to the President a written report, 
     which shall include--
       (1) a description of the efforts of the Attorney General--
       (A) to make each determination required under subsection 
     (c); and
       (B) to make the notifications required under subsection 
     (d)(1); and
       (2) any written statement submitted by a victim under 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Determinations Required.--In the preparation of any 
     report under subsection (b), the Attorney General shall make 
     all reasonable efforts to--
       (1) inform the victims of each offense that is the subject 
     of the potential grant of executive clemency that they may 
     submit written statements for inclusion in the report 
     prepared by the Attorney General under subsection (b), and 
     determine the opinions of those victims regarding the 
     potential grant of executive clemency;
       (2) determine the opinions of law enforcement officials, 
     investigators, prosecutors, probation officers, judges, and 
     prison officials involved in apprehending, prosecuting, 
     sentencing, incarcerating, or supervising the conditional 
     release from imprisonment of the person for whom a grant of 
     executive clemency is petitioned or otherwise under 
     consideration as to the propriety of granting executive 
     clemency and particularly whether the person poses a danger 
     to any person or society and has expressed remorse and 
     accepted responsibility for the criminal conduct to which a 
     grant of executive clemency would apply;
       (3) determine the opinions of Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement officials as to whether the person for whom a 
     grant of executive clemency is petitioned or otherwise under 
     consideration may have information relevant to any ongoing 
     investigation or prosecution, or any effort to apprehend a 
     fugitive; and
       (4) determine the opinions of Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement or intelligence agencies regarding the effect 
     that a grant of executive clemency would have on the threat 
     of terrorism or other ongoing or future criminal activity.
       (d) Notification to Victims.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall make all 
     reasonable efforts to notify the victims of each offense that 
     is the subject of the potential grant of executive clemency 
     of the following events, as soon as practicable after their 
     occurrence:
       (A) The undertaking by the Attorney General of any 
     investigation or review of a potential grant of executive 
     clemency in a particular matter or case.
       (B) The making available to the President of any report 
     under subsection (b).
       (C) The decision of the President to deny any petition or 
     request for executive clemency.
       (2) Notification of grant of executive clemency.--If the 
     President grants executive clemency, the Attorney General 
     shall make all reasonable efforts to notify the victims of 
     each offense that is the subject of the potential grant of 
     executive clemency that such grant has been made as soon as 
     practicable after that grant is made, and, if such grant will 
     result in the release of any person from custody, such notice 
     shall be prior to that release from custody, if practicable.
       (e) No Effect on Other Actions.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to--
       (1) prevent any officer or employee of the Department of 
     Justice from contacting any victim, prosecutor, investigator, 
     or other person in connection with any investigation or 
     review of a potential grant of executive clemency;
       (2) prohibit the inclusion of any other information or view 
     in any report to the President; or
       (3) affect the manner in which the Attorney General 
     determines which petitions for executive clemency lack 
     sufficient merit to warrant any investigation or review.
       (f) Applicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, this section does not apply to any petition or 
     other request for executive clemency that, in the judgment of 
     the Attorney General, lacks sufficient merit to justify 
     investigation or review, such as the contacting of a United 
     States Attorney.
       (g) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate 
     regulations governing the procedures for complying with this 
     section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2043. A bill to designate the United States Post Office building 
located at 3101 West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the 
``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                 hector g. godinez post office building

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to 
support a bill to name the Santa Ana, California Post Office as the 
``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building.''
  Hector Godinez, who passed away in May of 1999, was a true leader in 
his community of Santa Ana, California. He was a pioneer in the United 
States Postal Service rising from letter carrier to become the first 
Mexican-American to achieve the rank of District Manager within the 
United States Postal Service. He served with honor in World War II, was 
a ardent civil rights activist and an active participant in civic 
organizations and local government.
  After graduation from Santa Ana High School, Mr. Godinez enlisted 
into the armed services and was a tank commander in World War II under 
General George Patton. For his service, he earned a bronze star for 
bravery under fire and was also awarded a purple heart for wounds 
received in battle.
  Upon his return home in 1946, Mr. Godinez started his first of 48 
years of distinguished service as a United States postal worker.
  Hector Godinez was a true pillar within the Santa Ana community 
devoting his tireless energy to such civic groups as the Orange County 
District Boy Scouts of America, Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce, Orange 
County YMCA and National President of the League of United Latin 
American Citizens, one of the country's oldest Hispanic civil rights 
organizations.
  On behalf of the Godinez family and the people of Santa Ana, 
California, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill to name the Santa 
Ana, California Post Office in his honor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2044. A bill to allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for 
domestic violence programs through the voluntary purchase of specially 
issued postage stamps; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


              THE STAMP OUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT OF 2000

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Stamp Out Domestic 
Violence Act of 2000.
  The bill will allow every American to easily contribute to the fight 
against domestic violence through the voluntary purchase of certain 
specially issued U.S. Postal stamps, generally referred to as semi-
postals. Proceeds raised from the stamps would fund domestic violence 
programs nationwide.
  The national statistics on domestic violence are reprehensible and 
shocking. Consider the following: A woman is battered every 15 seconds 
in the United States. According to the Justice Department, four million 
American women were victims of violent crime last year. Two thirds of 
these women were victimized by someone they knew. In fact, 30 percent 
of female murder victims are killed by current or former partners. In 
Colorado alone, the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence 
reported 59 domestic violence related deaths in 1998. We can and must 
make every effort to change that. But, before we can eliminate the 
incidence of domestic violence we must acknowledge the problem and 
identify the resources needed to combat the problem.
  Mr. President, I believe this bill represents an innovative way to 
generate money for the fight against domestic violence. In the 105th 
Congress, as Chairman of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I supported the first semi-postal issued 
in the United States, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. So far, more 
than 104 million stamps have been sold nationally, raising $8 million 
for breast cancer research. My bill is modeled after the breast cancer 
stamp, and I am confident it will be just as successful.
  Specifically, under the ``Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2000,'' 
the Postal Service would establish a special rate of postage for first-
class mail, not to exceed 25 percent of the first-

[[Page 938]]

class rate, as an alternative to the regular first-class postage. The 
additional sum would be contributed to domestic violence programs. The 
rate would be determined in part, by the Postal Service to cover 
administrative costs, and the remainder by the Governors of the Postal 
Service. All of the funds raised would go to the Department of Justice 
to support local domestic violence initiatives across the country.
  In a country as blessed as America, the horrid truth is more women 
are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile and 
cancer deaths--combined. We can no longer ignore that fact, for our 
denial is but a small step from tacit approval. The funds raised by 
this stamp will represent another step forward in addressing this 
national concern. I urge my colleagues to act quickly on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objecton, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2044

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stamp Out Domestic Violence 
     Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMPS RELATING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 414 the following:

     ``Sec. 414a. Special postage stamps relating to domestic 
       violence

       ``(a) In order to afford the public a convenient way to 
     contribute to funding for domestic violence programs, the 
     Postal Service shall establish a special rate of postage for 
     first-class mail under this section.
       ``(b) The rate of postage established under this section--
       ``(1) shall be equal to the regular first-class rate of 
     postage, plus a differential not to exceed 25 percent;
       ``(2) shall be set by the Governors in accordance with such 
     procedures as the Governors shall by regulation prescribe (in 
     lieu of the procedures under chapter 36); and
       ``(3) shall be offered as an alternative to the regular 
     first class rate of postage.
       ``(c) The use of the rate of postage established under this 
     section shall be voluntary on the part of postal patrons.
       ``(d)(1) Amounts becoming available for domestic violence 
     programs under this section shall be paid by the Postal 
     Service to the Department of Justice. Payments under this 
     section shall be made under such arrangements as the Postal 
     Service shall, by mutual agreement with the Department of 
     Justice, establish in order to carry out the purposes of this 
     section, except that under those arrangements, payments to 
     the Department of Justice shall be made at least twice a 
     year.
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the term `amounts 
     becoming available for domestic violence programs under this 
     section' means--
       ``(A) the total amount of revenues received by the Postal 
     Service that it would not have received but for the enactment 
     of this section; reduced by
       ``(B) an amount sufficient to cover reasonable costs 
     incurred by the Postal Service in carrying out this section, 
     including costs attributable to the printing, sale, and 
     distribution of stamps under this section,

     as determined by the Postal Service under regulations that it 
     shall prescribe.
       ``(e) It is the sense of Congress that nothing in this 
     section should--
       ``(1) directly or indirectly cause a net decrease in total 
     funds received by the Department of Justice or any other 
     agency of the Government (or any component or program 
     thereof) below the level that would otherwise have been 
     received but for the enactment of this section; or
       ``(2) affect regular first-class rates of postage or any 
     other regular rates of postage.
       ``(f) Special postage stamps under this section shall be 
     made available to the public beginning on such date as the 
     Postal Service shall by regulation prescribe, but not later 
     than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(g) The Postmaster General shall include in each report 
     rendered under section 2402 with respect to any period during 
     any portion of which this section is in effect, information 
     concerning the operation of this section, except that, at a 
     minimum, each report shall include--
       ``(1) the total amount described in subsection (d)(2)(A) 
     which was received by the Postal Service during the period 
     covered by such report; and
       ``(2) of the amount under paragraph (1), how much (in the 
     aggregate and by category) was required for the purposes 
     described in subsection (d)(2)(B).
       ``(h) This section shall cease to be effective at the end 
     of the 2-year period beginning on the date on which special 
     postage stamps under this section are first made available to 
     the public.''.
       (b) Report by the Comptroller General of the United 
     States.--Not later than 3 months (but no earlier than 6 
     months) before the end of the 2-year period referred to in 
     section 414a(h) of title 39, United States Code (as amended 
     by subsection (a)), the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Congress a report on the operation 
     of such section. Such report shall include--
       (1) an evaluation of the effectiveness and the 
     appropriateness of the authority provided by such section as 
     a means of fund-raising; and
       (2) a description of the monetary and other resources 
     required of the Postal Service in carrying out such section.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 4 
     of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 414 and inserting the following:

``414. Special postage stamps relating to breast cancer.
``414a. Special postage stamps relating to domestic violence.''.
       (2) Section heading.--The heading for section 414 of title 
     39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 414. Special postage stamps relating to breast 
       cancer''.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Mack, 
        Mr. Specter, Mr. DeWine, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Bennett, Mr. Grams, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Smith 
        of Oregon, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2045. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with 
respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


    american competitiveness in the twenty-first century act of 2000

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce what I believe is 
one of the most important pieces of legislation the Senate will 
consider this year, the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century 
Act.
  At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to my two lead 
cosponsors, Senator Abraham and Senator Gramm. Both have worked 
tirelessly with me to craft this legislation. Senator Abraham, of 
course, as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, has long led the 
way on this matter. I also thank our Democrat sponsors, Senators 
Graham, Lieberman, and Feinstein, as well as our majority leader and 
assistant majority leader for their contributions to this effort.
  Last month, the national jobless rate hit 4 percent, the lowest level 
in 30 years. That jobless rate is even lower in my home State of Utah 
at 3.3 percent. That's great news; but at the same time, serious labor 
shortages threaten our continued economic prosperity and global 
competitiveness. A recent study, for example, concluded that a shortage 
of high-tech professionals is currently costing the U.S. economy $105 
billion a year.
  A look at last Sunday's Washington Post makes the problem very clear. 
High-tech jobs even have their own separate section of help wanted ads. 
Twenty-one pages of jobs, jobs, jobs.
  The Clinton administration recently projected that in the next 5 
years, high-tech and related employment will grow ``more than twice as 
fast as employment in the economy as a whole.'' The growth of the high-
tech industry is being felt across this country, and nowhere more than 
in my State of Utah. Common sense tells us that we must allow American 
high-tech companies to fill their labor needs in the United States, or 
they will be forced to take these opportunities of growth abroad.
  We want the high tech industry to thrive in the United States and to 
continue to serve as the engine for the growth of jobs and 
opportunities for American workers. If Congress fails to act promptly 
to alleviate today's high-tech labor shortage, today's low jobless rate 
will be a mere precursor to tomorrow's lost opportunities.
  The purpose of our important bipartisan legislation is twofold: (1) 
To allow for a necessary infusion of high-

[[Page 939]]

tech workers in the short term, and (2) to make prudent investments in 
our own workforce for the long term.
  It is clear that in the short term we need to raise the limits of the 
number of temporary visas for highly skilled labor. Our bill does this 
by increasing the cap to 195,0000 visas over each of the next 3 years. 
We also exempt persons from the cap who come to work in our 
universities and persons who have recently received advanced degrees in 
our educational institutions.
  But this, by itself, is not a satisfactory solution either in the 
short item or long term. Thus, we need to redouble our efforts to 
provide training and educational opportunities for our current and 
future workforce. Thus, we raise an additional $150 million for 
scholarships and training of American workers for these jobs for a 
total of $375 million for education and training under this program 
over 3 fiscal years. Our legislation, in other words, seeks to address 
both the short and long term needs.
  My hope is that the administration will come to support this 
important high-tech legislation. In our new knowledge-based economy, 
where ideas and innovations rather than land or natural resources are 
the principal well springs of economy growth, American competitiveness 
depends greatly on intellectual assets and capacity. The most 
successful economics of the 21st century will be those which maximize 
intellectual assets. In recognition of this fact, the administration 
has worked with me over the years to improve intellectual property 
protection and to encourage developing nations to invest in doing 
likewise. For this reason, I believe that the administration 
appreciates the need for this legislation. In the end, I hope they will 
have the smarts to listen to Alan Greenspan--who has testified about 
the need for this bill--and that the administration will support its 
passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2045

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Competitiveness in 
     the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN VISA ALLOTMENTS.

       In addition to the number of aliens who may be issued visas 
     or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i)(b)), the 
     following number of aliens may be issued such visas or 
     otherwise provided such status for each of the following 
     fiscal years:
       (1) 80,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (2) 87,500 for fiscal year 2001; and
       (3) 130,000 for fiscal year 2002.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL RULE FOR UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH FACILITIES, 
                   AND GRADUATE DEGREE RECIPIENTS.

       Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(5) The numerical limitations contained in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(iii) shall not apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued 
     a visa or otherwise provided status under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)--
       ``(A) who is employed (or has received an offer of 
     employment) at--
       ``(i) an institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001(a))), or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity; or
       ``(ii) a nonprofit research organization or a governmental 
     research organization; or
       ``(B) for whom a petition is filed not more than 90 days 
     before or not more than 180 days after the nonimmigrant has 
     attained a master's degree or higher degree from an 
     institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))).''.
       ``(6) Any alien who ceases to be employed by an employer 
     described in paragraph (5)(A) shall, if employed as a 
     nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 
     be counted toward the numerical limitations contained in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(iii) the first time the alien is employed by 
     an employer other than one described in paragraph (5)(A).''.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON PER COUNTRY CEILING WITH RESPECT TO 
                   EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.

       (a) Special Rules.--Section 202(a) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants.--
       ``(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per 
     country limitation if additional visas available.--If the 
     total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), 
     (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter 
     exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise 
     be issued such visas, the visas made available under that 
     paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical 
     limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the 
     remainder of the calendar quarter.
       ``(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to 
     subsection (e).--In the case of a foreign state or dependent 
     area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of 
     visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number 
     of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the 
     state or area under section 203(b) consistent with subsection 
     (e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in 
     applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have 
     been required for the classes of aliens specified in section 
     203(b).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 202(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (3), (4), and (5)''.
       (2) Section 202(e)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``the proportion of the visa numbers'' and inserting 
     ``except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of 
     the visa numbers''.
       (c) One-Time Protection Under Per Country Ceiling.--
     Notwithstanding section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, any alien who--
       (1) is the beneficiary of a petition filed under section 
     204(a) for a preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or 
     (3) of section 203(b); and
       (2) would be subject to the per country limitations 
     applicable to immigrants under those paragraphs but for this 
     subsection,

     may apply for, and the Attorney General may grant, an 
     extension of such nonimmigrant status until the alien's 
     application for adjustment of status has been processed and a 
     decision made thereon.

     SEC. 5. INCREASED PORTABILITY OF H-1B STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Section 214 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(m)(1) A nonimmigrant alien described in paragraph (2) 
     who was previously issued a visa or otherwise provided 
     nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) is 
     authorized to accept new employment upon the filing by the 
     prospective employer of a new petition on behalf of such 
     nonimmigrant as provided under subsection (a). Employment 
     authorization shall continue for such alien until the new 
     petition is adjudicated. If the new petition is denied, 
     employment authorization shall cease.
       ``(2) A nonimmigrant alien described in this paragraph is a 
     nonimmigrant alien--
       ``(A) who has been lawfully admitted into the United 
     States;
       ``(B) on whose behalf an employer has filed a nonfrivolous 
     application for new employment or extension of status before 
     the date of expiration of the period of stay authorized by 
     the Attorney General; and
       ``(C) who has not been employed without authorization in 
     the United States before or during the pendency of such 
     petition for new employment.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to petitions filed before, on, or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZED STAY IN CASES OF LENGTHY 
                   ADJUDICATIONS.

       (a) Exemption From Limitation.--The limitation contained in 
     section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act with 
     respect to the duration of authorized stay shall not apply to 
     any nonimmigrant alien previously issued a visa or otherwise 
     provided nonimmigrant status under section 
     101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on 
     whose behalf a petition under section 204(b) to accord the 
     alien immigrant status under section 203(b), or an 
     application for adjustment of status under section 245 to 
     accord the alien status under section 203(b), has been filed, 
     if 365 days or more have elapsed since the filing of a labor 
     certification application on the alien's behalf, if required 
     for the alien to obtain status under section 203(b), or the 
     filing of the petition under section 204(b).
       (b) Extension of H1-B Worker Status.--The Attorney General 
     shall extend the stay of an alien who qualifies for an 
     exemption under subsection (a) in one-year increments until 
     such time as a final decision is made on the alien's lawful 
     permanent residence.

     SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 
                   THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2002.

       (a) Attestation Requirements.--Section 212(n)(1)(E)(ii)) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(n)(1)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2001'' 
     and inserting ``October 1, 2002''.
       (b) Fee Requirements.--Section 212(c)(9)(A) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(c)(9)(A)) is 
     amended

[[Page 940]]

     in the text above clause (i) by striking ``October 1, 2001'' 
     and inserting ``October 1, 2002''.
       (c) Department of Labor Investigative Authorities.--Section 
     413(e)(2) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce 
     Improvement Act of 1998 (as contained in title IV of division 
     C of Public Law 105-277) is amended by striking ``September 
     30, 2001'' and inserting ``September 30, 2002''.

     SEC. 8. RECOVERY OF VISAS USED FRAUDULENTLY.

       Section 214(g)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1184 (g)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations 
     of paragraph (1) shall be issued visas (or otherwise provided 
     nonimmigrant status) in the order in which petitions are 
     filed for such visas or status. If an alien who was issued a 
     visa or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status and counted 
     against the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) is found 
     to have been issued such visa or otherwise provided such 
     status by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact 
     and such visa or nonimmigrant status is revoked, then one 
     number shall be restored to the total number of aliens who 
     may be issued visas or otherwise provided such status under 
     the numerical limitations of paragraph (1) in the fiscal year 
     in which the petition is revoked, regardless of the fiscal 
     year in which the petition was approved.''.

     SEC. 9. NSF STUDY AND REPORT ON THE ``DIGITAL DIVIDE''.

       (a) Study.--The National Science Foundation shall conduct a 
     study of the divergence in access to high technology 
     (commonly referred to as the ``digital divide'') in the 
     United States.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall submit a report to Congress setting forth 
     the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Hatch in 
introducing the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act.
  Mr. President, no company can grow if it fails to find enough 
employees with the skills needed to get the job done. And that is 
precisely the situation faced by our high-tech companies today. A Joint 
Venture: Silicon Valley study found that a lack of skilled workers is 
costing Silicon Valley companies $3 to $4 billion every year. A 
Computer Technology Industry Association study concluded that a 
shortage of information technology professionals is costing the U.S. 
economy as a whole $105 billion per year.
  These costs should not be seen as mere abstractions. Because of 
skilled labor shortages, an increasing number of highly productive 
firms have had to curtail their economic activities and/or move 
offshore. At an October 21, 1999 Senate Immigration Subcommittee 
hearing, Susan DeFife, CEO of womenCONNECT.com, noted that ``as 
investment capital flows into start-ups and puts them on a fast growth 
track, the demand for workers will continue to far exceed the supply. 
In order to fill these positions, the options for tech companies are 
not particularly attractive: we can limit our growth, but then we lose 
the ability to compete; we can `steal' employees from other companies, 
which makes none of us stronger and forces us to constantly look over 
our shoulders; or, in the case of larger companies I know, move 
operations off-shore.''
  None of these solutions is good for our economy or our workers. As e-
commerce and other forms of high technology become increasingly 
integrated throughout our economy, the long-term solution to our 
dilemma will be for earlier and better training for our young people to 
qualify them for high-tech tasks. But we are losing productivity and 
opportunities for growth right now. If we are to maintain our high-tech 
edge in an increasingly competitive global market, we must find the 
skilled workers we need wherever we can.
  We must meet our training and education needs. And we need wise and 
careful reforms to our immigration laws. This is not an either/or 
proposition. We have studied this approach for some time. In February 
of 1998 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on high 
technology workforce issues. This hearing demonstrated that many 
companies could not find enough qualified professionals to fill key 
jobs. It also showed that the foreign-born individuals hired by 
companies on H-1B temporary visas typically many additional jobs for 
Americans through their skills and motivations.
  Mr. President, shortly after that hearing, Congress raised the cap on 
H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 in FY1999 and 2000, and 107,500 in 
2001. A number of provisions in this legislation increased enforcement 
efforts and established a $500 fee per visa--currently generating $75 
million per year--for training and scholarships to encourage Americans 
to enter high-tech related fields.
  Unfortunately, this was not enough. Despite the raised cap, a tight 
labor market, increasing globalization and burgeoning economic growth 
all combined to increase demand for skilled workers. The 1999 cap on H-
1B visas was reached by June of last year.
  We must do more to enable American employers to hire job-creating 
high-tech professionals. That is why I have sponsored this legislation 
that would:
  Provide a temporary increase in H-1B visas. Caps would be increased 
by 80,000 for FY 2000; 87,500 for FY 2001; and 130,000 for FY 2002.
  Create exemptions for universities, research facilities, and graduate 
degree recipients to help keep in the country top graduates and those 
who help educate Americans.
  Modify per-country limits on permanent employment visas to allow 
companies to hire talent without regard to nationality.
  Increase labor mobility by allowing H-1B professionals to change jobs 
as soon as the new employer files the initial paperwork, instead of 
waiting for a new H-1B application to be approved.
  Continue and extend the $500 per visa fee to provide over $150 
million in additional funding over three years for training and 
scholarships. Counting the existing money brought in by the fee, this 
will raise the total to over $375 million over three years and will 
help over 50,000 American students receive scholarships in math, 
science or engineering.
  These provisions will increase our economic competitiveness, sustain 
our economic growth, and provide new opportunities for workers and 
entrepreneurs. Julie Holdren, President and CEO of the Olympus Group, 
told the Immigration Subcommittee that ``For every H-1B worker I 
employ, I am able to hire ten more American workers.'' A study for the 
Public Policy Institute of California by U.C. Berkeley Professor 
Annalee Saxenian bears this testimony out. It found that Chinese and 
Indian immigrant entrepreneurs in northern California alone were 
responsible for employing 58,000 people, with annual sales of nearly 
$17 billion.
  Critics of the last H-1B visa increase have been proven spectacularly 
wrong, as the U.S. economy added 387,000 new jobs in January and the 
unemployment rate dropped to a 30-year low of 4 percent. Specialty jobs 
in the computer industry alone are projected to grow by 1.5 million 
between 1998 and 2008, according to the Department of Labor.
  President Clinton's former chief economic advisor, Laura D'Andrea 
Tyson argues that ``it's time to raise the cap on H-1B visas yet again 
and to provide room for further increases as warranted. Silicon 
Valley's experience reveals that the results will be more jobs and 
higher incomes for both Americans and immigrant workers.''
  Mr. President, the final word should belong to Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan. At a Budget Committee hearing last month he 
was asked ``Do you believe we should do something with our laws--
immigration--that would allow high tech . . . labor to come into the 
country to ease the burden'' on our labor force?
  Chairman Greenspan responded: ``I would certainly agree with that. 
It's clear that under existing circumstance . . . aggregate demand is 
putting very significant pressures on an ever-decreasing available 
supply of unemployed labor. The one obvious means that one can use to 
offset that is expanding the number of people we allow in, either 
generally or in a specifically focused area.''
  By increasing the number of highly skilled professionals we allow to 
work in America, and providing additional funding for training and 
scholarships, we will create jobs for all Americans and keep our high-
tech driven economic expansion on the move.

[[Page 941]]


  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am proud to join in the 
introduction of legislation which will increase the number of H-1B 
temporary work visas used to recruit and hire workers with very 
specialized skills, particularly in high technology fields. This bill 
will ensure that the dramatic U.S. economic expansion will not be 
stalled by a lack of skilled workers in critical positions. It retains 
the language of current law which protects qualified U.S. workers from 
being displaced by H-1B visa holders.
  With record low unemployment, U.S. companies already have been forced 
to slow their expansion or even to cancel projects, and some may be 
forced to move their operations overseas because of an inability to 
find qualified individuals to fill job vacancies. We will achieve our 
full economic potential only if we ensure that high-technology 
companies can find and hire the people whose unique qualifications and 
skills are critical to America's future.
  Last year, the Congress temporarily increased the number of annual H-
1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, and to 
107,500 in 2001. The number of H-1B visas is scheduled to drop back to 
65,000 for Fiscal Year 2002 and subsequent years. Our legislation will 
increase the H-1B visa cap to 195,000 for Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 
2002. By the end of that period, we will have the data we need to make 
an informed decision on the number of such visas required beyond 2002.
  According to a recent study by the American Electronics Association 
(AEA), Texas has the fastest growing high technology industry in the 
country and is second only to California in the number of high 
technology workers. This legislation would ensure that these companies 
have access to highly educated workers, in order that America can 
continue to grow and prosper, and in doing so, create more jobs and 
opportunity for U.S. workers.
  I believe that this legislation represents a fair and effective way 
to address a critical need in our Nation's economy, and I hope my 
colleagues will quickly approve this important proposal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
        Breaux, and Mr. Hollings);
  S. 2046. A bill to reauthorize the Next Generation Internet Act, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                 the next generation internet 2000 act

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Next 
Generation Internet 2000 Act, a multi-agency research and development 
program designed to fund advanced networking infrastructure and 
technologies. Two and a half years ago, I stood in this exact spot and 
introduced its predecessor, the ``Next Generation Internet Research Act 
of 1998.'' While scientists throughout the country have made tremendous 
inroads since that time, the digital divide makes the truth clear and 
simple: we are leaving many of our fellow Americans behind. The Next 
Generation Internet 2000 will attempt to eliminate these geographical 
barriers, while providing research funding for a faster, more secure 
and robust network infrastructure for all Americans.
  The Internet is one of the most significant developments of the last 
decade. Its significance is not limited to the new industries that it 
has created nor the new educational opportunities that it affords. The 
impact of the Internet goes beyond those things. With the development 
of electronic commerce, the Internet has radically altered the economic 
landscape of this country. Advances in industries are taking place at a 
faster and faster pace. At the heart of this dizzying pace of change 
are two things: computers and communications. More and more we are 
seeing that computers and communications means the Internet.
  If you had to find a prototypical success story, it could very well 
be the Internet. There are in fact, multiple dimensions to its success. 
It was and is a successful public-private collaboration. It 
demonstrated successful commercial application of technology developed 
as part of mission directed research program. It showed a successful 
transition of an operational system from the public to the private 
sector. Perhaps most of all, it is a prime example of a successful 
federal investment.
  In some respects the Internet is now ``suffering'' from too much 
success. With the advent of tools that have made the Internet easy to 
use, there has been an explosion in the growth of network traffic. As 
computers become more powerful, applications more sophisticated, and 
the user interfaces get easier to use, we can look forward to an even 
greater demand for network bandwidth.
  The Internet and its promising applications have transformed our 
daily lives. They have reshaped the ways in which we communicate at 
work, and with our families; they have made revolutionary medical 
advances a reality that we once thought impossible only a few years 
ago. But each day, as more and more of our neighbors become connected 
to the World Wide Web and experience the amazement of its potential, 
certain segments of our nation are left without these same 
opportunities.
  Since the enactment of the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 
1998, the National Science Foundation has connected hundreds of new 
sites to a testbed providing a 100-fold increase in network 
performance. And the Department of Defense is currently deploying a 
testbed with 1,000-fold increased performance at over twenty sites to 
support networking research and applications deployment. As we applaud 
the success of the first three years of the Next Generation Internet 
(NGI) initiative, we must also realize its current limitations.
  In the review of the first two years of the initiative, the 
President's Information Technology Advisory Committee recommended that 
the NGI program should continue to focus on the utility of the Next 
Generation Internet's gigabit bandwidth to end-users, its increased 
security, and its expanded quality of service. More importantly, the 
committee shared Congress' concern that no federal program specifically 
addresses the geographical penalty issue--the imposition of costs on 
users of the Internet in rural or other locations that are 
disproportionately greater than the costs imposed on users in locations 
closer to high populations. I must admit that this is a great 
disappointment for myself and my colleagues who fought to combat this 
geographical penalty through the authorization of NGI in 1998. 
Unfortunately, the White House did not take us seriously and did not 
follow through with the complete implementation of the original act.
  The Next Generation Internet 2000 makes a distinct departure from its 
predecessor. First, it designates ten percent of the overall program 
funding for research to reduce the cost of Internet access services 
available to all users in geographically remote areas. It further 
prioritizes that these research grants be awarded to qualified college-
level educational institutions located in Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research states.
  Second, the act requires that five percent of the research grants 
shall be made available to minority institutions including Hispanic, 
Native American, Historically Black Colleges and small colleges and 
universities. The most efficient way to open the Internet superhighway 
to everyone is to provide scientists in every corner of the nation with 
opportunities to perform peer-reviewed and merit-based research.
  Finally, the National Academy of Sciences is requested to conduct a 
study to determine the extent to which the Internet backbone and 
network infrastructure contribute to the digital divide. The study will 
further assess the existing geographical penalty and its impact on all 
users and their ability to obtain secure and reliable Internet access.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Jeffords, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2047. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to create a Heating 
Oil Reserve to be available for use when fuel

[[Page 942]]

oil prices in the United States rise sharply because of anticompetitive 
activity, during a fuel oil shortage, or during periods of extreme 
winter weather; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                the home heating oil price stability act

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Lieberman, Snowe, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Reed and Leahy in introducing 
the Home Heating Oil Price Stability Act.
  For the past several weeks, Connecticut and the Northeast have been 
gripped by cold weather and skyrocketing heating oil prices. 
Approximately 36 percent of households in the Northeast rely on home 
heating oil. On Friday, February 4th, home heating oil cost $2 per 
gallon in Hartford, Connecticut and $1.80 per gallon a little farther 
east in Groton, Connecticut, almost double the price from mid-January. 
Prices averaged $.86 per gallon during the winter of 1998/1999.
  Independent, family-owned heating oil retailers in Connecticut are 
struggling to meet their delivery demands because of supply 
constraints. Local oil terminals are at dangerously low levels. Last 
week, supply levels of heating oil were so low in Bridgeport and New 
Haven that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 
issued a 48-hour waiver to allow the sale of 7-9 million gallons of 
heating oil with sulphur content above the level permitted by state 
law.
  To be sure, the extreme cold weather and isolated refinery problems 
have contributed to the supply strain. Icy waters around New Haven had 
slowed the off-loading of some heating oil in late January and early 
February. However, even after tankers were able to unload millions of 
gallons last weekend, customers throughout Connecticut are still paying 
record-high prices as high as $2.10 per gallon--supply is still tight.
  The Northeast is always cold in winter, so why are consumers and 
retailers suffering so much this winter? Many analysts believe that the 
precarious petroleum situation was precipitated by a calculated 
decision by OPEC and others to cut back production, and by major oil 
companies adhering to a practice of just-in-time inventories. As 
petroleum prices began to rise in reaction to OPEC action, refiners 
drew down from their already low stock of lower-priced crude rather 
than purchasing higher-priced crude and thus replenishing the stocks. 
Inventories dwindled and the supply is now at record low levels. For 
the week ending January 14, the total distillate stock for the East 
Coast was 33.5 million barrels compared with 69.1 million barrels a 
year ago.
  What do these events mean to the average consumer in Connecticut and 
the Northeast? Dramatically higher costs, for starters. Heating oil 
bills are averaging 30-60 percent higher than last year. The wide range 
is due to the extent to which people are turning down their thermostats 
to ration supply and stretch their dollars. Schools, libraries and 
small businesses are seeing their budgets burst as more money is 
allocated for fuel. The Middletown, Connecticut school system has spent 
more than twice as much for heating oil from October to January than 
during the same period a year ago, despite a warmer than average 
December.
  Some market analysts believe this is a temporary situation. Mr. 
President, this is not a temporary situation. Just-in-time inventory 
practices appear to be here to stay. OPEC has intimated that the 
petroleum production drawbacks may continue beyond March, thus causing 
further instability at a time when peak demand for gasoline begins. 
This is a perennial problem--unusually high heating oil prices in 
winter followed by skyrocketing gasoline prices in the summer.
  Today's legislation is an effort to address the heating oil problem 
for the long-term. It would create a heating oil reserve of 2 million 
barrels in leased storage facilities in New York Harbor and 4.7 million 
barrels of heating oil in one of four Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) 
caverns along the Gulf Coast. The Secretary of Energy may fill the 
reserve by trading crude oil from the SPR for heating oil. The 
President may draw down the reserve when fuel oil prices in the United 
States rise sharply because of anti-competitive activity, during a fuel 
oil shortage, or during periods of extreme winter weather.
  Let me be perfectly clear. The creation of a Government regional 
heating oil reserve is not intended to compete with the commercial 
sector for sales under normal conditions. It is intended, rather, to 
help stabilize supplies and prices during critical periods.
  I, along with Senator Lieberman, first raised the issue of 
establishing a regional reserve in 1996 when Connecticut consumers were 
facing unusually high heating oil prices attributed to extreme winter 
weather and domestic and international events, including the onset of 
just-in-time inventories. We asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to 
examine regional reserve feasibility and report back to Congress. Their 
conclusions form the foundation of our legislation.
  Mr. President, I have an article from July 13, 1998 coinciding with 
the release of the report that states a positive benefit/cost ratio if 
a small reserve were located in leased terminals in the Northeast and 
filled by trading crude from the SPR for the distillate. As I stated 
briefly a moment ago, our legislation also establishes a backup 4.7 
million barrel reserve in the Gulf due to excess capacity there.
  This legislation should be part of a long-term solution. In the 
meantime, Connecticut and Northeast residents need near-term action. 
Advice to just ride out the winter is simply not acceptable. Hardest 
hit are the poor and elderly who should not have to choose among having 
a warm house, food on the table, or medicine in the cabinet.
  The current home heating oil crisis cuts across all income levels. 
The 1999/2000 winter will go down in the history books as the year with 
the highest heating oil prices ever. I am sure you will agree with me 
that this is one record that need never be broken. I urge our 
colleagues to join me, Senators Lieberman, and our other cosponsors in 
support of working families, small businesses, and towns across the 
Northeast to move forward with this legislation. I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of the bill and additional material be entered in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2047

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Home Heating Oil Price 
     Stability Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) a sharp, sustained increase in the price of fuel oil 
     would negatively affect the overall economic well-being of 
     the United States, and such increases have occurred in the 
     winters of 1983-84, 1988-89, 1996-97, and 1999-2000;
       (2) the United States currently imports roughly 55 percent 
     of its oil;
       (3) heating oil price increases disproportionately harm the 
     poor and the elderly;
       (4) the global oil market is often greatly influenced by 
     nonmarket-based supply manipulations, including price fixing 
     and production quotas; and
       (5) according to the June 1998 Department of Energy 
     ``Report to Congress on the Feasibility of Establishing a 
     Heating Oil Component to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve''--
       (A) the use of a Government-owned distillate reserve in the 
     Northeast would provide benefits to consumers in the 
     Northeast and to the Nation;
       (B) the Government would make a profit of $46,000,000 from 
     drawing down and selling the distillate;
       (C) consumer savings, including reductions in jet fuel, 
     would total $425,000,000;
       (D) there are a number of commercial petroleum storage 
     facilities with available capacity for leasing in the New 
     York/New Jersey area; and
       (E) it would be cost-effective to keep a Government 
     stockpile of approximately 2,000,000 barrels in leased 
     storage in the Northeast, filled by trading some crude oil 
     from the Government's strategic reserve of oil for the 
     refined product.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF HEATING OIL RESERVE.

       (a) Creation of Reserve.--The Secretary of Energy shall 
     immediately create a heating oil reserve consisting of--
       (1) 2,000,000 barrels of heating oil in leased storage 
     facilities in the New York Harbor area; and

[[Page 943]]

       (2) 4,700,000 barrels of heating oil in 1 of the 4 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve caverns on the coast of the Gulf 
     of Mexico.
       (b) Exchange for Crude Oil.--The Secretary of Energy may 
     acquire heating oil for the reserve by trading crude oil from 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for heating oil.

     SEC. 4. DRAWDOWN OF HEATING OIL RESERVE.

       The President may immediately draw down the Heating Oil 
     Reserve--
       (1) when fuel oil prices in the United States rise sharply 
     because of anticompetitive activity;
       (2) during a fuel oil shortage; or
       (3) during a period of extreme winter weather.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Energy to carry out this Act $125,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2019.
                                  ____


            [From DOE Fossil Energy Techline, July 13, 1998]

DOE Sends Report to Congress Analyzing Costs, Benefits of Regional Oil 
                            Product Reserve

       A Department of Energy (DOE) report, commissioned two years 
     ago when high prices and low stocks of heating oil raised 
     consumer concerns, has concluded that a Government-controlled 
     ``regional petroleum product reserve'' would make economic 
     sense only under a very narrow set of conditions.
       The report, which DOE forwarded to Congress late last week, 
     concludes that the benefits of a Government stockpile of 
     heating oil in the Northeast would exceed its costs only if 
     the reserve was relatively small, approximately 2 million 
     barrels, located in leased terminals, and filled by trading 
     crude oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     for the distillate product.
       Storing distillate product in dedicated salt caverns at the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve along the Gulf of Mexico 
     coastline would improve the cost-benefit characteristics, the 
     study found, but products would take 7-10 days to reach 
     consumers in the Northeast.
       A larger product reserve, sized at around 6.7 million 
     barrels to meet the worst weather contingencies, would not be 
     attractive based on the cost-benefit analysis unless it was 
     constructed entirely within the existing Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve sites.
       Moreover, the study found, the positive economic benefits 
     would be achieved only if the Government adopted the policy 
     of releasing the entire volume of the product reserve at the 
     point heating oil prices reached a predefined ``trigger 
     price.'' A more conservative policy of releasing only enough 
     crude oil to bring wholesale prices back down to a predefined 
     ``ceiling price'' would not provide sufficient benefits to 
     offset the reserve's costs.
       The two-volume study is titled ``Report to Congress on the 
     Feasibility of Establishing a Heating Oil Component to the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve.'' The Energy Department 
     undertook the study when in 1995-1996 an unusually long 
     winter, uncertainties about production from Iraq and the 
     Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and 
     increased global demand for petroleum led to a gasoline price 
     surge and later, a price increase in middle distillate fuels 
     used for heating oil, diesel and jet fuel. Consumers in New 
     England, which has no refineries, became especially concerned 
     about heating oil inventory levels and the rise in heating 
     oil prices.
       The events of 1996 prompted several members of Congress 
     from New England states to urge DOE to carry out a study to 
     determine whether or not Government intervention in petroleum 
     markets in the form of a regionally-cited refined product 
     stockpile could be beneficial.
       The Federal Government currently stores only crude oil for 
     emergency purposes, principally to protect the United States 
     from disruptions in petroleum supply, especially imported 
     crude oil. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently stores 
     563 million barrels of crude oil along the Gulf Coast in four 
     sites that are accessible to most refining centers in the 
     country.
                                  ____


                 [From the Boston Globe, Feb. 6, 2000]

                          Buffering Oil Prices

       The surge in home heating and diesel oil prices has shocked 
     householders, truckers, and others and sparked a fresh round 
     of suspicions that massive collusion is responsible. Would 
     that such cooperation existed. Instead, business anarchy has 
     much to do with the rise. The attorney general's consumer 
     protection division should seek to assure that there is no 
     price gouging by individual dealers. In the meantime, 
     prevention of future price spikes is available to government 
     in a form that need not be intrusive. Oil prices spurted 
     because inventories were inadequate. Public reserves are 
     needed.
       The impact has been severe. Oil deliveries costing $400 
     have been a shock for elderly homeowners living on fixed 
     incomes. Even low-cost, emergency suppliers like Joseph 
     Kennedy's Citizens Energy Corp. have been stymied by 
     shortages and high prices.
       The American Petroleum Institute keeps track of inventories 
     of gasoline, oil, crude, and other petroleum products around 
     the country. Among all these, heating oil is unique because 
     demand for it is seasonal, peaking in the winter months.
       While some extra stockpiling of oil by the private sector 
     takes place every year, the tendency has been to cut reserves 
     as close to the bone as possible. This past fall, despite 
     indications that consumption was on the rise, inventories ran 
     significantly below their year-earlier levels. At the end of 
     December, inventories of distillate fuel oil (both diesel and 
     heating) stood at 124 million barrels compared with 156 
     million barrels a year earlier. Both these figures run well 
     below comparable statistics in the past, when inventories 
     were frequently above 200 million barrels.
       The federal government in the 1970s set up a strategic 
     petroleum reserve of crude oil to dampen the power of OPEC, 
     the international oil cartel. But it needs a similar reserve 
     of distillate to help cope with domestic developments like 
     this year's failure to stockpile adequate oil to cope with 
     predictable seasonal surges, much less unpredictable cold 
     snaps. The mere presence of such a reserve, available for 
     rapid release, would dampen spot markets. To do less condemns 
     everyone to senseless repeats of this painful experience.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Home Heating Oil 
Price Stability Act being introduced today by Senator Dodd. In response 
to Congressional concern raised over volatile heating oil prices, the 
Department of Energy completed a study of regional oil reserves and 
issued their report in 1998. This report concluded that regional 
heating oil reserves, such as the one proposed in this bill, would 
benefit New England and help guard against the negative effects of 
volatile fuel prices during the winter months.
  The recent price spike in home heating fuel throughout the Northeast 
and mid-Atlantic regions illustrate the need for a regional fuel 
reserve. Prices of home heating fuel have increased over the last month 
to unprecedented levels, putting many families and businesses at risk 
during these cold winter months. Many areas of New England are now 
facing fuel costs between $1.70 and $2.00 per gallon--nearly double 
last January's average price of .80 cents per gallon. Home heating fuel 
has not seen average prices over $1 dollar in nearly ten years. These 
prices are endangering the welfare of low income Vermonters and 
threatening the stability of our economy.
  This is not the first time we have seen such volatile prices in New 
England and will certainly not be the last. I remember Vermont in 
December 1989, when we experienced the coldest temperatures the 
Northeast has seen in 100 years, and then again in 1993 when the 
mercury plummeted and the fuel bills rose. Mr. President we need a 
regional home heating fuel reserve to protect the welfare and the 
economy of states such as Vermont. The cold winters and the absence of 
refiners make New England susceptible to fluctuations in the market 
which leave other parts of the country virtually untouched.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 2048. A bill to establish the San Rafael Western Legacy District 
in the State of Utah, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


    san rafael western legacy district and national conservation act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the San Rafael 
Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act. I am proud to 
sponsor this legislation which is a result of local citizens working 
together with federal land managers to produce a plan that promotes and 
protects one of our nation's finest natural treasures, the San Rafael 
Swell in Emery County, Utah.
  This is by no means a standard one-size-fits-all land management 
scheme. It reflects both local and national interests. I wish to 
congratulate the elected officials of Emery County, Secretary of 
Interior Bruce Babbitt, local citizen groups, and local Bureau of Land 
Management professionals for their willingness to come to the table and 
craft this proposal. It is a testament to what I have always believed: 
that those who live on and around our public lands love the land and, 
given the chance, will find ways to help protect it. I hope that this 
effort to work

[[Page 944]]

out solutions to land issues with meaningful local input will become 
the norm for federal land policy.
  Mr. President, under this legislation, 2.8 million acres will be 
designated as the San Rafael Western Legacy District. Visitors to the 
San Rafael will be able to see where Kit Carson, Chief Walker, Wesley 
Powell, Butch Cassidy and many others became famous, or infamous as the 
case may be. Backpackers and day hikers will be surprised by 
petroglyphs that tell stories of Native American ancestors and that 
give a picture of life as it once was. Families will enjoy access to 
one of the largest sources of fossils in the New World. They will also 
enjoy a variety of quality museums that already exist in the area which 
take us back in time, whether it be the time of dinosaurs, Native 
Americans, pioneers and the wild west, early explorers, or even the 
early atomic arms race.
  A the core of this Western Legacy District will be the San Rafael 
National Conservation Area, which will withdraw approximately 1 million 
acres from development. Mr. President, Congress cannot create 
spectacular geologic formations, such as the San Rafael Swell, but this 
legislation will protect what God has given us. The San Rafael Swell is 
vast and can accommodate all types of experiences including wilderness, 
wildlife viewing, fishing, mountain biking, and other activities. The 
specifics for these uses will be detailed in a forty year planning 
process led by the Secretary of Interior.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce this legislation along 
with my good friend and colleague Senator Robert Bennett. A companion 
measure in the House is sponsored by Representative Chris Cannon.
  The San Rafael Swell is an area rich in history, beauty, culture, and 
tradition. This legislation protects the San Rafael for all citizens in 
a manner that reflects the needs of those directly affected by its 
bounties. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent for the text of the fill to be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

                                S. 2048

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``San Rafael 
     Western Legacy District and National Conservation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

              TITLE I--SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT

Sec. 101. Establishment of the San Rafael Western Legacy District.
Sec. 102. Management and use of the San Rafael Western Legacy District.

            TITLE II--SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA

Sec. 201. Designation of the San Rafael National Conservation Area.
Sec. 202. Management of the San Rafael National Conservation Area.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to promote--
       (A) the preservation, conservation, interpretation, 
     scientific research, and development of the historical, 
     cultural, natural, recreational, archaeological, 
     paleontological, environmental, biological, educational, 
     wilderness, and scenic resources of the San Rafael region of 
     the State of Utah; and
       (B) the economic viability of rural communities in the San 
     Rafael region; and
       (2) to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and 
     enjoyment of present and future generations of people the 
     unique and nationally important values of the Western Legacy 
     District and the public land described in section 201(b) 
     (including historical, cultural, natural, recreational, 
     scientific, archaeological, paleontological, environmental, 
     biological, wilderness, wildlife, educational, and scenic 
     resources).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' 
     means the San Rafael National Conservation Area established 
     by section 201(a).
       (2) Legacy council.--The term ``Legacy Council'' means the 
     council established under section 101(d).
       (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan for the Conservation Area required to be 
     developed under section 202(e).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management.
       (5) Western legacy district.--The term ``Western Legacy 
     District'' means the San Rafael Western Legacy District 
     established by section 101(a).

              TITLE I--SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY 
                   DISTRICT.

       (a) In General.--There is established the San Rafael 
     Western Legacy District.
       (b) Areas Included.--The Western Legacy District shall 
     consist of approximately 2,842,800 acres of land in the Emery 
     County, Utah, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``San 
     Rafael Swell Western Legacy District and National 
     Conservation Area'' and dated _____.
       (c) Map and Legal Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a map and legal description of the Western Legacy District.
       (2) Effect.--The map and legal description shall have the 
     same effect as if included in this Act, except that the 
     Secretary may correct errors in the map and legal 
     description.
       (3) Copies.--Copies of the map and legal description shall 
     be on file and available for public inspection in--
       (A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management; and
       (B) the appropriate office of the Bureau of the Land 
     Management in the State of Utah.
       (d) Legacy Council.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Legacy 
     Council to advise the Secretary with respect to the Western 
     Legacy District.
       (2) Function.--The Legacy Council may furnish advice and 
     recommendations to the Secretary with respect to management, 
     grants, projects, and technical assistance.
       (3) Membership.--The Legacy Council shall consist of not 
     more than 10 members appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       (A) 2 members from among the recommendations submitted by 
     the Governor of the State of Utah.
       (B) 2 members from among the recommendations submitted by 
     the Emery County, Utah, Commissioners.
       (C) The remaining members from among persons who are 
     recognized as experts in conservation of the historical, 
     cultural, natural, recreational, archaeological, 
     environmental, biological, educational, and scenic resources 
     or other disciplines directly related to the purposes for 
     which the Western Legacy District is established.
       (4) Relationship to other law.--The establishment and 
     operation of the Legacy Council shall conform to the 
     requirements of--
       (A) the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.); and
       (B) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (e) Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--To carry out this section, the Secretary 
     may make grants and provide technical assistance to any 
     nonprofit organization or unit of government with authority 
     in the boundaries of the Western Legacy District.
       (2) Permitted uses.--Grants and technical assistance under 
     this section may be used for--
       (A) planning;
       (B) reports;
       (C) studies;
       (D) interpretive exhibits;
       (E) historic preservation projects;
       (F) construction of cultural, recreational, educational, 
     and interpretive facilities that are open to the public; and
       (G) such other expenditures as are consistent with this 
     Act.
       (3) Planning.--Grants and technical assistance for use in 
     planning activities may be provided under this subsection 
     only to a unit of government or a political subdivision of 
     the State of Utah in an amount--
       (A) not to exceed $100,000 for any fiscal year; and
       (B) not to exceed an aggregate amount of $200,000.
       (4) Matching funds.--Federal funding provided under this 
     section may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the 
     activity carried out with the funding, except that non-
     Federal matching funds are not required with respect to--
       (A) planning activities carried out with assistance under 
     paragraph (3); or
       (B) use of assistance under this section for facilities 
     located on public land and owned by the Federal Government.
       (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section not more than 
     $1,000,000 for each fiscal year, not to exceed a total of 
     $10,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MANAGEMENT AND USE OF THE WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the public 
     land within the Western Legacy District in accordance with--
       (1) this Act; and
       (2) the applicable provisions of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (b) Use of Public Land.--The Secretary shall allow such 
     uses of the public land as

[[Page 945]]

     the Secretary determines will further the purposes for which 
     the Western Legacy District is established.
       (c) Effect of Act.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) affects the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the 
     State of Utah with respect to fish and wildlife in the 
     Western Legacy District;
       (2) affects private property rights within the Western 
     Legacy District; or
       (3) diminishes the authority, rights, or responsibilities 
     of the Secretary for managing the public land within the 
     Western Legacy District.

            TITLE II--SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA

     SEC. 201. DESIGNATION OF THE SAN RAFAEL NATIONAL CONSERVATION 
                   AREA.

       (a) Purposes.--There is established the San Rafael National 
     Conservation Area in the State of Utah.
       (b) Areas Included.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Conservation Area shall consist of approximately 947,000 
     acres of public land in Emery County, Utah, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``San Rafael Swell Western 
     Legacy District and National Conservation Area'' and dated 
     ____.
       (2) Boundary.--The boundary of the Conservation Area shall 
     be set back 300 feet from the edge of the Interstate Route 70 
     right-of-way.
       (c) Map and Legal Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a map and legal description of the Conservation Area.
       (2) Effect.--The map and legal description shall have the 
     same effect as if included in this Act, except that the 
     Secretary may correct errors in the map and legal 
     description.
       (3) Copies.--Copies of the map and legal description shall 
     be on file and available for public inspection in--
       (A) the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management; and
       (B) the appropriate office of the Bureau of Land Management 
     in the State of Utah.

     SEC. 202. MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.

       (a) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the 
     Conservation Area in a manner that--
       (1) conserves, protects, and enhances the resources and 
     values of the Conservation Area, including the resources and 
     values specified in section 2(2); and
       (2) is consistent with--
       (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (B) other applicable provisions of law (including this 
     Act).
       (b) Uses.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses 
     of the Conservation Area as the Secretary finds will further 
     the purposes for which the Conservation Area was established.
       (2) Motorized vehicles.--Except where needed for 
     administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency, use of 
     motorized vehicles in the Conservation Area shall be 
     permitted only on roads and trails designated for use of 
     motorized vehicles as part of the management plan.
       (c) Withdrawals.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     except as provided in paragraph (2), all Federal land within 
     the Conservation Area and all land and interests in land that 
     are acquired by the United States after the date of enactment 
     of this Act are withdrawn from--
       (A) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under 
     the public land laws;
       (B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (C) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing 
     laws.
       (2) Communication facilities.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may authorize the 
     installation of communication facilities within the 
     Conservation Area only to the extent that the facilities are 
     necessary for public safety purposes.
       (B) Minimal impact.--Communication facilities shall--
       (i) have a minimal impact on the resources of the 
     Conservation Area; and
       (ii) be consistent with the management plan.
       (d) Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall permit hunting, trapping, and fishing within 
     the Conservation Area in accordance with applicable laws 
     (including regulations) of the United States and the State of 
     Utah.
       (2) Regulations.--The Secretary, after consultation with 
     the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, may promulgate 
     regulations designating zones where and establishing periods 
     when no hunting, trapping, or fishing shall be permitted in 
     the Conservation Area for reasons of public safety, 
     administration, or public use and enjoyment.
       (e) Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a 
     comprehensive plan for the long-range protection and 
     management of the Conservation Area.
       (2) Contents.--The management plan--
       (A) shall describe the appropriate uses and management of 
     the Conservation Area consistent with this Act; and
       (B) may--
       (i) incorporate appropriate decisions contained in any 
     management or activity plan for the area; and
       (ii) use information developed in previous studies of the 
     land within or adjacent to the Conservation Area.
       (f) State Trust Lands.--The State of Utah and the Secretary 
     may exchange Federal land, Federal mineral interests, or 
     payment of money for land and mineral interests of 
     approximately equal value that are managed by the Utah School 
     and Institutional Trust Lands Administration within the 
     Conservation Area.
       (g) Access.--The Secretary, the State of Utah, and Emery 
     County, Utah, may agree to resolve section 2477 of the 
     Revised Statutes and other access issues within the 
     Conservation Area.
       (h) Wildlife Management.--Nothing in this Act diminishes 
     the responsibility and authority of the State of Utah for 
     management of fish and wildlife within the Conservation Area.
       (i) Grazing.--Where the Secretary permits livestock grazing 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, such grazing shall be 
     allowed subject to all applicable laws (including 
     regulations) and executive orders.
       (j) No Buffer Zones.--
       (1) In general.--Congress does not intend for the 
     establishment of the Conservation Area to lead to the 
     creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around the 
     Conservation Area.
       (2) Activities outside conservation area.--That there may 
     be activities or uses of land outside the Conservation Area 
     that would not be permitted in the Conservation Area shall 
     not preclude such activities or uses on the land up to the 
     boundary of the Conservation Area (or on private land within 
     the Conservation Area) consistent with other applicable laws.
       (k) Water Rights.--
       (1) In general.--The establishment of the Conservation Area 
     shall not constitute any implied or express reservation of 
     any water or water right pertaining to surface or ground 
     water.
       (2) State rights.--Nothing in this Act affects--
       (A) any valid existing surface water or ground water right 
     in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) any water right approved after the date of enactment of 
     this Act under the laws of the State of Utah or any other 
     State.
       (l) No Effect on Application of Other Acts.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this Act affects the 
     application of any provision of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1131) or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
     (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to wilderness resources in the 
     Conservation Area.
       (2) Issue resolution.--Recognizing that the designation of 
     a wilderness area for inclusion in the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System requires an Act of Congress, the 
     Secretary, the State of Utah, Emery County, Utah, and 
     affected stakeholders may work toward resolving wilderness 
     issues within the Conservation Area.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 2049. A bill to extend the authorization for the Violent Crime 
Reduction Trust Fund; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


       re-authorization of the violent crime reduction trust fund

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill which will re-
authorize the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for an additional five 
years.
  I firmly believe that re-authorization of the Violent Crime Reduction 
Trust Fund for another five years is the single most significant thing 
that we can do to continue the war on crime.
  In 1994 when we introduced the Biden Crime Bill, which eventually 
became the crime bill of 1994, some people disagreed with certain 
aspects of the bill. But, we all agreed that crime control is a place 
where the federal government can and should play a key role.
  We can all argue about how much we should be involved in education or 
welfare, but no one can argue about the requirement of the government 
to make our streets safe. That is the starting point for all ordered 
society.
  So, I, along with the Senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and the 
Senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, worked to set up a Violent 
Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The way we did that was not to raise 
taxes--it was to cut the size of the federal government and use the 
money to fight crime. And so we agreed to let 250,000 Federal employees 
go. Then we took the paycheck that would have been used to pay John 
Jones and Sue Smith and we put it into a trust fund to do nothing but 
deal with violent crime in America. And guess what--it worked.

[[Page 946]]

  Since the Fund was established in the Biden Crime Bill, The Office of 
Management and Budget tells us that Congress had appropriated 
$16,648,000,000 from the fund through 1998, and $10,300,000,000 was 
estimated for 1999 and 2000 combined.
  What has this money done you ask? Just look at the numbers: To date, 
the money has funded more than 103,000 police officers under the COPS 
program to make our streets safer.
  As of 1999, over 17,000 new prison, jail or alternative beds had been 
added under the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing 
Grants Program.
  Under the drug court program nationwide, more than 140,000 offenders 
have participated in drug courts, receiving the supervision and 
treatment they need to stop abusing drugs and committing crimes.
  Under the National Criminal History Improvement Program, enhancements 
to the FBI's National Criminal History Background Check System have 
helped block more than 400,000 gun sales to ineligible persons. And, 
program improvements now allow 35 states and the District of Columbia 
to submit data to the FBI's National Sex Offender Registry, which 
became operational in July 1999.
  The fund has provided money to states and localities to help offset 
the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens under the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
  Under the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners 
program, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five 
territories, have implemented drug testing and treatment programs that 
address 80 percent of offenders who have drug or alcohol problems.
  Through the largest Violence Against Women Act program, funding for 
the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program is changing the 
way communities work together to respond to domestic violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking.
  And there are other Violence Against Women Act grant programs which 
have had an impact on many communities. The Grants to Encourage Arrest 
Policies program encourages jurisdictions to implement mandatory or 
pro-arrest policies in domestic violence cases. The Rural Domestic 
Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program has 
recognized the special needs of victims in rural locations. The Civil 
Legal Assistance Grant Program is designed to strengthen civil legal 
assistance for domestic abuse victims through innovative, collaborative 
programs that increase victim access to services. And, the Grants to 
Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campuses Program was first 
funded in FY 1999 to promote comprehensive, coordinated responses to 
violent crimes against women on campuses.
  The results of these efforts have taken hold. Crime is down--way 
down. And we didn't add 1 cent to the deficit.
  The significance of the Trust Fund, why it was so important, is 
because it funds the initiatives contained in the Biden Crime Bill. The 
money has to be used for new cops and crime prevention. It can't be 
spent on anything else but crime reduction. It is the one place that no 
one can compete. it is set aside. It is a savings account to fight 
crime.
  This fund works. It ensures that the crime reduction programs that we 
pass be funded. It ensures that the crime rate will continue to go down 
instead of up. It ensures that our kids will have a place to go after 
school instead of hanging out on the street corners. It ensures that 
violent crimes against women get the individualized attention that they 
need and deserve. It gives states money to hire more cops and get 
better technology.
  Today our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant against 
violent crime. This is one modest step toward meeting that challenge.
  This Act shares bipartisan support. No one wants crime and no one 
wants to raise taxes. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--
this should be an easy one for all of us. In July of last year, during 
debate on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, my friend 
from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, declared his commitment to get the 
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund re-authorized. Senator Gramm has 
always stepped up to the plate on this issue as well, and I commend 
them for their commitment to this program. As Senator Byrd aptly stated 
back in 1994 when we were first debating this, ``the war on crime is of 
such an overriding concern that, as in the past, the Committee on 
Appropriations must take extraordinary actions to confront the issue.'' 
That still rings true today. Although crime is down, we can not become 
complacent. We must continue the fight. We need this Violent Crime 
Reduction Trust Fund more than any other single piece of legislation.
  Every member of the Senate is against violent crime--we all say it in 
speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up their 
words and follow through on their commitments to defeat violent crime. 
Pass this bill. Continue the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Take 
serious action against violent crime. Show the criminals that we are 
serious about fighting crime. Show the American people that their 
safety is of the highest priority for us and that we are taking action.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2049

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 310001(b) of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2001, $6,025,000,000;
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2002, $6,169,000,000;
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2003, $6,316,000,000;
       ``(4) for fiscal year 2004, $6,458,000,000; and
       ``(5) for fiscal year 2005, $6,616,000,000.''.
       (b) Discretionary Limits.--Title XXXI of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211 et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 310001 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 310002. DISCRETIONARY LIMITS.

       ``For the purposes of allocations made for the 
     discretionary category pursuant to section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)), the term 
     `discretionary spending limit' means--
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 2001--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $6,025,000,000 in new budget authority and $5,718,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2002--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $6,169,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,020,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 2003--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $6,316,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,161,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2004--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: 
     $6,459,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,303,000,000 in 
     outlays; and
       ``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2005--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category, amounts of budget 
     authority and outlays necessary to adjust the discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect the changes in subparagraph (B) as 
     determined by the Chairman of the Budget Committee; and
       ``(B) for the violent crime reduction category: $6,616,000 
     in new budget authority and $6,452,000,000 in outlays;

     as adjusted in accordance with section 251(b) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)) and section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.''.

[[Page 947]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. 
        Baucus):
  S. 2050. A bill to establish a panel to investigate illegal gambling 
on college sports and to recommend effective countermeasures to combat 
this serious national problem; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


         combatting illegal college and university gambling act

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, six years ago we passed a crime bill which, 
while controversial at the time, has led to an unprecedented decrease 
in criminal activity. It was a tough bill that was aimed at cracking 
down on illegal criminal activity. It gave law enforcement the tools it 
needed to prevent and crack down on criminal conduct. The legislation 
has been so effective that I believe it should be the model for future 
federal anti-crime initiatives. At the time, however, supporters of the 
Crime Bill were attacked for focusing on the root causes of criminal 
activity. Today, as evidenced by declining crime rates, we see that 
this was an effective approach.
  I raise this issue today because I am concerned that some may be 
moving in the wrong direction in the worthwhile effort to crack down on 
illegal gambling on college sports. Recently introduced legislation 
attempts to crack down on dorm room and bar hall bookies by shutting 
down legal and highly-regulated sports book operations in Nevada. Mr. 
President, this is like closing the Bank of America to eliminate loan 
sharking. It simply does not solve the problem.
  Mr. President, the collegiate gambling legislation recently 
introduced in the Senate is flawed because it incorrectly assumes that 
the elimination of legal sports book wagering in Nevada will mean the 
end of illegal wagering on college sports. The National Collegiate 
Athletic Association (NCAA) is on record stating that there is an 
illegal bookie on every college campus. ``Sports Illustrated'' ran a 
series in 1995, stating that ``gambling is the dirty little secret on 
college campuses, where it's rampant and prospering,'' and that ``the 
bookies catering to most college gamblers are fellow students.'' 
Banning legal college sports gambling in Nevada, where it is controlled 
and heavily regulated, is not going to put these bookies out of 
business. Just as the Twenty-First Amendment did not stop the illegal 
consumption of alcohol, but rather, drove it underground, banning 
regulated, legal college sports wagering in Nevada is simply not going 
to end illegal college sports gambling.
  Mr. President, illegal gambling on college sports is a very serious 
problem, and I commend my colleagues for their willingness to address 
this issue. The problem with gambling on collegiate sporting events, 
however, does not rest with what is legal, but rather, with what is 
illegal. While there are currently numerous state laws that prohibit 
gambling on college sports, illegal practices still occur and there is 
little, if anything, that is being done to address or understand the 
problem. A recent NCAA report noted that there are no comprehensive 
studies available that analyze the prevalence of illegal gambling on 
college sports. Furthermore, the report found that ``the issue of 
illegal gambling on college sports is still largely overlooked by 
college administrators.''
  Mr. President, to respond to this very serious problem, I rise today, 
along with Senators Baucus, Torricelli, and Bryan, to introduce 
alternative legislation that would examine the root causes of illegal 
gambling on college sports. My legislation addresses several key 
aspects of the problem of illegal gambling on collegiate sporting 
events, namely, what is being done by federal and state officials to 
enforce existing laws, whether law enforcement has the proper tools and 
adequate funding to address illegal gambling on college sports, and, 
what colleges and universities are doing to address the problem of 
illegal gambling, especially on their own campuses. The legislation I 
am introducing today would follow the recommendations of the NCAA 
report by directing the Justice Department to examine these issues and 
report back to the Congress.
  Mr. President, the growing attraction of illegal gambling among our 
college youth is a serious national problem that requires a serious 
response. We must have a solution to this problem, however, that 
accurately addressed the source of illegal college sports gambling. The 
alternative legislation I am introducing today, which focuses on 
stronger enforcement of existing laws and education campaigns, follows 
the correct path toward addressing the root causes of this problem and 
finding the most effective and appropriate solution.

                          ____________________