Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support bankruptcy reform, and I voted in favor of the Senate bankruptcy bill, this past February. Simply put, people who can afford to repay their debts, should repay their debts. However, I cannot support the version of bankruptcy legislation outlined in the Conference Report to H.R. 2415. The Conference Report has dropped key provisions from the Senate-passed bankruptcy bill, and has failed to protect consumers against irresponsible creditor practices. Thus, I intend to vote ``No''. Let me recount my concerns. First, the Conference Report lets wealthy individuals continue to purchase multimillion dollar homes that are shielded from creditors' bankruptcy claims. The Senate bill curbed this abuse, voting 76-22 to approve the Kohl amendment placing a $100,000 nationwide cap on homestead exemptions. The Conference Report replaced the Kohl amendment with a two-year ownership or residency requirement that wealthy debtors can easily sidestep. Debtors should not be able to avoid their obligations by funneling money into extravagant estates. The Conference Report lets this egregious practice continue. Second, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Schumer's amendment to prevent anti-abortion extremists from using bankruptcy laws to avoid paying civil judgements against them. The Senate passed the Schumer amendment by an overwhelming 80-17 vote. It protects a woman's right to choose and the ongoing effectiveness of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, FACE, Act. The FACE Act has led to successful criminal and civil judgements against groups that use intimidation and outright violence to prevent people from obtaining or providing reproductive health services. I am deeply disappointed that the Conference Report has omitted this important provision. Third, I had hoped that the Conference Report would work to improve the limited consumer credit card protections in the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the Conference Report has gone the other way--consumer protections have been deleted. For example, the Senate passed an amendment by Senator Byrd that would have required any credit card solicitation on the Internet to be accompanied by information from the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, that gives consumers advice about selecting and using credit cards. The Conference Report dropped this provision. Additionally, the Conference Report deleted an amendment by Senator Levin that would have made it clear that consumers do not owe interest for on-time credit card payments. Presently, many credit card solicitations advise consumers that interest is not charged on payments made within a grace period (such as 25 days). However, in the fine print, these agreements state that if the entire debt is not paid back, the cardholder is liable for interest on the full amount charged. Say $995 is paid off of a $1,000 credit debt, most people reasonably assume that they owe interest on just the unpaid $5. Not so. The credit card company will charge consumers interest retroactively on the full $1,000. This important amendment would have brought interest charges in line with consumer expectations. When analyzing legislation, it is often telling to review the opinions of those groups with no financial stake in the outcome. Overwhelmingly, the non-partisan experts on bankruptcy--the judges, trustees, and academics--have expressed serious concerns or opposition to this bankruptcy bill. These organizations include the National Bankruptcy Conference, NBC, the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, NCBJ, the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees, NACTT, the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, NABT, and law professors from many of our nation's law schools. On October 30, 2000, for example, 91 law professors wrote to me that the ``bill is deeply flawed,'' and will not achieve balanced reform. The professors state that ``. . . the problems with the bankruptcy bill have not been resolved, particularly those provisions that adversely affect woman and children.'' Congress should also take note that, after soaring to record levels in the mid-1990s, bankruptcy filings declined in recent years. In 1998, bankruptcy filings totaled 1,442,549. In 1999, bankruptcy filings totaled 1,319,540 cases, a decline of almost 10 percent from the previous year. A final note, Mr. President. When the 107th Congress convenes, the Senate will be evenly divided for the first time in over a century. If we are to govern, to conduct the nation's business, we have to be able to work across party lines. The bankruptcy Conference Report we are considering this afternoon is a case study of how not to govern. There was no conference; this report emerged as the product of negotiations held exclusively between House and Senate Republicans. Maybe if they had consulted with the minority, they could have fashioned a bill the minority could support. But they didn't. They deliberately excluded us. The result is a Conference Report the President has vowed to veto. Bankruptcy reform requires a balanced bill that is fair to both debtors and creditors. This bill doesn't measure up. I intend to vote no on passage of the Conference Report to H.R. 2415. I hope that Congress will revisit bankruptcy reform in the 107th Congress, and work in a bipartisan way to address known abuses in our bankruptcy laws.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last month the Senate and House approved the conference report to the fiscal year 2001 intelligence authorization bill. Title VIII of the conference report is based on legislation I introduced along with Senators Wellstone, Grams, Boxer, Levin, and Hatch that would create an interagency process to declassify records on activities of the Japanese Imperial Government. Specifically, title VIII is based on the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, a law written by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and our House colleague from new York, Representative Carolyn Maloney. This law requires the federal government to search through its records and disclose any classified materials it has on Nazi war crimes, the Nazi Holocaust and the looting of assets and property by the Nazis. Leading what has become the largest declassification of U.S. government records in American history is the Nazi War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group, or IWG, which consists of representatives of key government departments and agencies and three public members appointed by the President. The work done by the IWG and a team of historians and experts at the National Archives has been nothing less than extraordinary. However, the law only gives the IWG just until the end of next year to complete this enormous task. After discussing this with the Senator from Ohio, we agreed that the best course of action was to extend the authorization of the existing IWG until the end of 2003, and give it additional authority to oversee the declassification of Japanese Imperial Government records. In that way, the IWG will be able to undertake an effort to search through U.S. Government records and disclose any classified materials it has on the Japanese Imperial Government similar to the declassification effort underway on Nazi war crimes. In addition, we also thought it was important to ensure that the IWG had a funding authorization to carry out its activities, including the preservation of records that are being declassified. I see the Senator from Ohio on the floor, and I ask if he has anything he wishes to add at this point.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As I understand it, the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act effectively creates a process of review of records, and then a process to determine which of these records are to be declassified under the criteria provided in the act. The act contains exceptions that could be cited to justify a decision not to declassify. However, these exceptions apply only to decisions relating to declassification, and are not to be used as a reason to not review records for relevancy. As the author of the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, would the Senator of Ohio agree with my interpretation?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. With that said, some people have raised concerns that the removal of the National Security Act of 1947 exemption in title VIII, which was included in the original legislation, could impede the ability of the IWG in its declassification efforts. It is my understanding, however, that the intent of title VIII, like the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, requires all U.S. Government classified records be reviewed for relevancy, including intelligence records. Is that also the understanding of the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his clarification of the language contained in the conference report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Ohio and also thank the chairman for taking the time to clarify title VIII. Specifically, would the chairman agree that the records covered in this title are U.S. Government records?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today the Senate passed by unanimous consent important legislation Senator Kyl and I sponsored that seeks to improve the United States' ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. This bill, S. 3205, the Counterterrorism Act of 2000--together with a Kyl-Feinstein amendment making a few technical changes-- implements major recommendations from a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission on terrorism. Let me describe what the bill would do. First, it urges that the U.S. government continue to take strong and effective actions to investigate the recent attack on the U.S.S. Cole and ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice. The assault on the Cole is the worst against the U.S. military since the bombing of an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia killed 19 airmen in 1996. It is also the worst attack on a Navy ship since an Iraqi missile struck an American guided-missile frigate in 1987, killing 37 sailors. Second, the bill requires the Department of Justice to review legal authority of federal agencies responsible for responding to a catastrophic terrorist attack and determine whether additional legal authority is necessary. Third, the bill requires the president to establish a program for long-term research and development to counter catastrophic terrorist attacks and submit a report to Congress on this program. It also expresses the sense of Congress that there should be more long-term research and development in this area. Fourth, the bill mandates that the attorney general issue a report on how to improve U.S. controls on biological pathogens and the equipment necessary to produce biological weapons, and requires the Health & Human Services secretary to issue a report on any appropriate actions that should be taken to protect against unlawful diversion of pathogens. Fifth, the bill requires that the president establish a joint task force to develop a broad approach toward discouraging the fundraising activities of international terrorist organizations and that the task force issue a report. Sixth, the bill requires the FBI to report on whether it can set up a central mechanism to distribute intelligence information it gleans about international terrorists to other members of the intelligence community. Seventh, the bill directs the president to review the type of information shared by U.S. law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies as well as legal limitations on the sharing of this information. The president shall provide any recommendations regarding the sharing of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information between such agencies. Eighth, the bill mandates that the CIA shall issue a report responding to the Commission on Terrorism's finding that the CIA should scrap a internal classified guideline requiring CIA agents to get approval from headquarters before recruiting unsavory individuals to act as informants about terrorism. Ninth, the bill expresses the Sense of Congress that Syria and Iran should remain on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism. Finally, the bill would ensure that federal counterintelligence personnel be fully reimbursed for buying insurance they purchase to protect themselves from liability if they are sued for their officially authorized activities. Currently, the government reimburses federal criminal law enforcement officers, supervisors, and management officials for one-half of their insurance expenses. These individuals purchase professional liability insurance because government representation may not be available to them. However, FBI special agents and CIA officers who do counterterrorism work may not be reimbursed at all when they buy such insurance. This is particularly unfortunate because counterterrorism work is so risky-- especially when the work occurs overseas. There can be few more dangerous tasks than infiltrating a terrorist cell in, say, Yemen or Afghanistan. The Kyl-Feinstein Counterterrorism Act of 2000 is not a panacea for the problem of terrorism. Rather, it seeks to implement a number of specific improvements to our counterterrorism policy unanimously suggested by the Commission on Terrorism, a bipartisan group of experts. The bill also lays the groundwork for a number of further improvements. We will be revisiting many of the issues covered by the bill in the next Congress once we receive more detailed information and recommendations from the Executive Branch. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and with the next Administration to implement S. 3205. I believe that we need to take strong action to combat terrorism. There is no question that terrorist attacks will continue and that they will become more deadly. Terrorists today often act out of a visceral hatred of the U.S. or the West and seek to wreak maximum destruction and kill as many people as possible. At the same time, I believe that our counterterrorism policy must be conducted in a way that remains consistent with our democratic values and our commitment to an open, free society. In many ways, the Kyl-Feinstein Counterterrorism Act of 2000 is a counterpart bill to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act that recently passed the Senate 95 to 0. That legislation, which I cosponsored, will make it easier for American victims of terrorism abroad to collect court-awarded compensation and ensure that the state sponsors of terrorism pay a price for their crimes. While I strongly support assisting terrorist victims, I also believe that we need to do more to prevent Americans from becoming victims of terrorism in the first place. Thus, I am glad that the Senate has acted to pass S. 3205 with such dispatch. It is crucial to act now before terrorists strike again, killing and injuring more Americans and leaving more families grieving. I urge the House to pass S. 3205 before we adjourn. In conclusion, I want to thank my good friend Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to get this bill passed. His work, as always, has been invaluable. I also thank my other colleagues for their assistance in helping us pass this bill. I know Senator Leahy, for instance, initially had a number of concerns with the legislation. I am grateful for the time he spent working through these issues with us, and I am glad that we can move this bill forward unanimously.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Collins on Senate passage of S. 2924, the ``Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000.'' This legislation is an important step forward in the fight against identity theft. ``The Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000'' recognizes that the crime of identity theft has entered the Internet age, and that the Federal government has a responsibility to bring our identity theft laws up to speed. The primary law governing false identification documents was enacted in 1982, well before the advent of websites and e-mail. Specifically, this legislation prohibits individuals from knowingly producing, distributing, or offering for download from the Internet computer files or templates that are designed to make counterfeit identification documents. While the total number of false identification documents sold on the Internet is unknown, purveyors of false identification documents have used the Internet to sell their wares to a much broader market, and to distribute these documents as quickly as they can be downloaded from a website. According to a study by the Senate Committee of Government Affairs, one web site operator reported that he sold 1,000 fake IDs a month yielding $600,000 in annual sales. The ``Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000'' also closes a loophole in current law that permitted manufacturers of false identification documents to escape liability by displaying a disclaimer, ``Not a Government Document.'' These disclaimers, however, can be easily removed. The bill also directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to coordinate efforts to investigate and prosecute the distribution of false identification documents on the Internet. I would note that this bill contains an exemption from criminal liability for certain ``interactive computer services.'' This language reflects a narrow, one-time solution and I want it to be clear that this should not be considered as a precedent. Congress has debated the issue of whether the liability of certain Internet service providers should be limited with respect to particular activities of their subscribers or users of their services. This is a complicated question, requiring careful deliberation and evaluation of the short- and long-term consequences. A full debate on this issue is needed in the 107th Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize California's participants in the Games of the XXVIIth Olympiad for their outstanding efforts and accomplishments. I am so proud of their performances and the dignity with which they carried themselves. This year, the United States had another spectacular Games, and I am particularly pleased that Californians had much to do with our success. Some of this year's most memorable moments involved athletes from California: Marion Jones was the first woman ever to medal in five track and field events, Sean Burroughs helped our baseball team snatch gold from a heavily favored Cuban Team, Eric Fonoimoana and Dain Blanton won gold in the beach volleyball tournament, Venus Williams was the second woman ever to win gold medals in both singles and doubles tennis, and Lisa Leslie led the women's basketball team to its 34th Olympic championship. The Olympics have long been the world's premiere stage where athletes compete; their performances are inspiring and, sometimes, heart- breaking. And while the world enjoys two weeks of drama and intense competition, we must remember that these athletes have chased their Olympic dreams for years, even decades, with perseverance and courage. I thank each athlete--qualifier and medal winner alike--for giving us the privilege of witnessing their triumphs. Each performance was a very personal moment in these athletes' lives, and I am inspired by their courage and resolve to pursue their Olympic dreams. These athletes competed with all their heart and they make California proud. Mr. President, I ask that the following names of the medal winning athletes from California be printed in the Record. Aaron Peirsol, Silver medal, Swimming--Men's 200 Meter Backstroke. Amanda Beard, Bronze Medal, Swimming--Women's 200 Meter Breaststroke. Venus Williams, Gold Medal, Tennis--Women's Singles; Gold Medal, Tennis--Women's Doubles. Serena Williams, Gold Medal, Tennis--Women's Doubles. Guenter Seidel, Bronze Medal, Equestrian Team Dressage Grand Prix. Christine Traurig, Bronze Medal, Equestrian Team Dressage Grand Prix. Eric Fonoimoana, Gold Medal, Men's Beach Volleyball. Dain Blanton, Gold Medal, Men's Beach Volleyball. Sean Burroughs, Gold Medal, Men's Baseball. Marion Jones, Gold Medal, Track and Field--Women's 100 Meters; Gold Medal, Track and Field--Women's 200 Meters; Gold Medal, Track and Field--Women's 4x400 Meter Relay; Bronze Medal, Track and Field--Women's 4x100 Meter Relay; Bronze Medal, Track and Field--Women's Long Jump. Chryste Gaines, Bronze Medal, Track and Field--Women's 4x100 Meter Relay. Torri Edwards, Bronze Medal, Track and Field--Women's 4x100 Meter Relay. Mari Holden, Silver Medal, Cycling--Women's Individual Time Trial. Lisa Leslie, Gold Medal, Women's Basketball. Gary Payton, Gold Medal, Men's Basketball. Alonzo Mourning, Gold Medal, Men's Basketball. Jason Kidd, Gold Medal, Men's Basketball. Mark Reynolds, Silver Medal, Sailing--Men's Open Sail Star Fleet Races. Lorrie Fair, Silver Medal, Women's Soccer. Kaitlin Sandeno, Bronze Medal, Swimming--Women's 800 Meter Freestyle. Bernice Orwig, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. Joy Fawcett, Silver Medal, Women's Soccer. Mark Crear, Bronze Medal, Track and Field, men's 110 Meter Hurdles. Jason Lezak, Silver Medal, Swimming--Men's 4x100 Meter Free Relay. Jenny Thompson, Gold Medal, Swimming--Women's 4x100 Medley; Gold Medal, Swimming--Women's 4x200 Meter Free Relay; Gold Medal, Swimming--Women's 4x100 Meter Free Relay; Bronze Medal, Swimming--Women's 100 Meter Freestyle. Lenny Krazelburg, Gold Medal, Swimming--Men's 100 Meter Backstroke; Gold Medal, Swimming--Men's 200 Meter Backstroke; Gold Medal, Swimming--Men's 4x100 Meter Medley. Anthony Ervin, Gold Medal, Swimming--Men's 50 Meter Freestyle; Silver Medal, Swimming--Men's 4x100 Meter Free Relay. Anthony Ervin, Silver Medal, Swimming--Men's 4x100 Meter Free Relay. John Godina, Bronze Medal, Track and Field, Men's Shot Put. Pease Glaser, Silver Medal, Sailing, Women's 470 Fleet Races. Tom Wilkens, Bronze Medal, Swimming--200 Meter Individual Medley. Dara Torres, Gold Medal, Swimming--Women's 4x100 Medley; Gold Medal, Swimming--Women's 4x100 Meter Free Relay; Bronze Medal, Swimming--Women's 100 Meter Butterfly; Bronze Medal, Swimming--Women's 100 Meter Freestyle; Bronze Medal, Swimming--Women's 50 Meter Freestyle. Sheila Douty, Gold Medal, Softball. Kathy Sheehy, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. Calvin Harrison, Gold Medal, Track and Field--4x400 Meter Relay. Alvin Harrison, Gold Medal, Track and Field--4x400 Meter Relay; Silver Medal, Track and Field--400 Meters. Stacey Nuveman, Gold Medal, Softball. Yolanda Griffith, Gold Medal, Women's Basketball. Lisa Fernandez, Gold Medal, Softball. Danielle Slaton, Silver Medal, Women's Soccer. Brandi Chastain, Silver Medal, Women's Soccer. Kimberly Rhode, Bronze Medal, Shooting--Women's Double Trap Final. Nicole Payne, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. Maurice Green, Gold Medal, Track and Field--100 Meters; Gold Medal, Track and Field--4x100 Meter Relay. Robin Beauregard, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. Nikki Serlenga, Silver Medal, Women's Soccer. Crystl Bustos, Gold Medal, Softball. Julie Foudy, Silver Medal, Women's Soccer. Laura Berg, Gold Medal, Softball. Dot Richardson, Gold Medal, Softball. Ericka Lorenz, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. Adam Nelson, Silver Medal, Track and Field--Men's Shot Put. Lindsey Benko, Gold Medal, Swimming--Women's 4x200 Meter Free Relay. Heather Petri, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. JJ Isler, Silver Medal, Sailing--470 Fleet Races. John Drummond, Gold Medal, Track and Field--4x100 Meter Relay. Julie Swail, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. Coralie Simmons, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. Ellen Estes, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo. Brenda Villa, Silver Medal, Women's Water Polo.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate both the chairman and ranking member's willingness to work with me on this issue. Due to this loss of income, a number of growers are currently unable to pay their bills or prepare for next year's crop. This assistance is desperately needed, but I believe that more emphasis must be placed on preventing future infestations. I am heartened to see that in Fiscal Year 2001, the USDA will hire 17 new agriculture inspectors for the San Diego ports of entry. This is a badly needed first step. We also need to increase the federal investment in California's Medfly Preventive Release Program. If California's fruits were quarantined from all foreign markets because of Medfly infestations, the State estimates that 35,000 jobs would be lost and economic output would be reduced by $3.6 billion.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss one of the greatest threats facing California growers and farmers across the nation--infestations of disease-carrying pests which can potentially destroy entire crops. Just this past year, California has been victimized by a number of pest infestations that have resulted in significant quarantine and eradication programs. California's $1 billion nursery industry is being threatened by red imported fire ants. The $2.8 billion grape industry faces complete destruction due to an infestation of the glassy winged sharpshooter which spreads Pierce's disease, and there is no known cure.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their courtesy and understanding. On behalf of California's growers, I want to express my appreciation for your efforts to help shield the State from future fruit fly infestations. american heritage rivers

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today, by unanimous consent, passed H.R. 3235, the National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of 2000, a bill that will authorize the Department of Justice to provide grant money to police after-school programs to reduce crime and drug use. This bill is companion legislation to S. 1874, a bill introduced by Senator Graham, Senator Bingaman, and myself. The Senate bill has a total of 22 cosponsors. I want to thank my colleagues in this body, particularly my friend Senator Hatch, for their support of this legislation. I also want to thank Representative Tom Barrett for his work on the bill, and Representatives Canady and Scott for helping shepherd the legislation through the House. I also want to acknowledge the tremendous efforts of the Police Athletic League in spreading the word about the bill. In particular, Ron Exley of the California Police Activities League labored tirelessly to build support for the legislation. H.R. 3235 would create a program directing the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs to award grants to the Police Athletic League, PAL, to establish new PAL chapters to serve public housing projects and other distressed areas and to expand existing chapters to assist additional youth. To do this, the bill would authorize $16 million a year for 5 years beginning with fiscal year 2001. The money would be used to enhance the services provided by the existing 320 established PAL chapters and provide seed money for the establishment of an additional 250 chapters over 5 years. The Police Athletic League was founded by police officers in New York City in 1914. Its mission is to offer an alternative to crime, drugs, and violence for our nation's most at-risk youth. In the last 75 years, PAL has become one of the largest youth-crime prevention programs in the nation, with a network of 1700 facilities serving more than 3000 communities and 1.5 million young people. Over one-third of existing PALs are in California, and these chapters serve more than 300,000 at- risk youth. Off-duty police officers staff local chapters, and PALs receive most of their funding from private sources. PALs currently provide kids with after-school recreational, educational, mentoring, and crime prevention programs. By keeping kids busy and out of trouble, PALs have significantly reduced juvenile crime and victimization in hundreds of communities across the country. One study found, for example, that PALs have cut crime in Baltimore by 30 percent and decreased juvenile victimization there by 40 percent. Another study concluded that PAL reduced crime and gang activity in a HUD housing development in El Centro, California by 64 percent. PAL programs involve close, positive interaction between kids and cops, encouraging youngsters to view the police in a favorable light and obey the law. The programs are generally held after school, during the prime hours that some youth turn to crime and other anti-social activities. PAL programs more than pay for themselves, saving taxpayers millions of dollars in crime, drug, and dropout costs. The Department of Justice has found, for example, that each youngster who drops out of high school and turns to crime and drugs costs taxpayers a staggering $2-3 million. Even so, the legislation requires any new chapter seeking a grant to explain the manner in which it will operate without additional direct federal assistance when the act is discontinued. In short, this valuable legislation will help fight crime and benefit kids in California and across the country. It will now go to President Clinton's desk for signature.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring S. 3205, the Counterterrorism Act of 2000. This bill, introduced last night, seeks to improve our ability to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. In light of the events yesterday in the Middle East, there can be no doubt of the need for this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to act quickly to pass this important bill. All the evidence now indicates that the cowardly and reprehensible attack on the U.S. Navy destroyer U.S.S. Cole yesterday in Aden was a terrorist suicide attack. It appears that the bombers had infiltrated the port's harbor operations and carefully planned the operation. It is fortunate that the explosion did not set off Tomahawk cruise missiles or other ordnance on board, causing even more devastation. If found to be a terrorist incident, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole would be the worst against the U.S. military since the bombing of an Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia killed 19 airmen in 1996. It would also be the worst attack on a Navy ship since an Iraqi missile struck an American guided-missile frigate in 1987, killing 37 sailors. My heart goes out to the families of the American sailors who were killed or injured or who are still missing. Their tragedy underlines the constant danger faced by our armed forces around the world and the need for this country to remain vigilant in protecting them from terrorist and other attacks. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole was no isolated incident. In fact, just today, a bomb was hurled at the British embassy in Yemen, causing a massive explosion. I believe that we need to take strong action to combat terrorism. There is no question that terrorist attacks will continue and that they will become more deadly. Terrorists today often act out of a visceral hatred of the U.S. or the West and seek to wreak maximum destruction and kill as many people as possible. At the same time, I believe that our counterterrorism policy must be conducted in a way that remains consistent with our democratic values and our commitment to an open, free society. To help avert attacks such as those on the U.S.S. Cole, Senator Kyl and I have introduced S. 3205. This legislation implements major recommendations from a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission on terrorism. Specifically, the bill aims to review legal authority for responding to catastrophic terrorist attacks and increase long-term research and development to counter such attacks, improve controls on biological pathogens and equipment that could be used in a terrorist assault, discourage terrorist fundraising, improve the sharing of information about terrorists, keep Syria and Iran on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, and fully reimburse counterintelligence personnel for insurance they purchase to protect themselves from professional liability. In many ways, the Kyl-Feinstein Counterterrorism Act of 2000 is a counterpart bill to the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act that just passed the Senate 95 to 0. That legislation, of which I was a chief cosponsor, will make it easier for American victims of terrorism abroad to collect court-awarded compensation and to ensure that the responsible state sponsors of terrorism pay a price for their crimes. The act also contained an amendment I authored with Senator Patrick Leahy that will provide faster and better assistance to victims of terrorism abroad. This legislation, which has passed the House as well, will now go the desk of President Clinton, who will sign it. While I strongly support assisting terrorist victims, I also believe that we need to do more to prevent Americans from becoming victims of terrorism in the first place. And I believe that we should act now-- before terrorists strike again, killing and injuring more Americans and leaving more families grieving. I urge Congress to act pass S. 3205 before we adjourn.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 conference report. While I have some reservations of some parts of the conference report, I am pleased that a number of important provisions have been included. I would like to focus my comments today on three specific provisions of this report: the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, and the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act. I strongly supported the Violence Against Women Act when we passed it 6 years ago. VAWA was the most comprehensive bill ever passed by Congress to deal with the corrosive problem of domestic violence. I believed then and believe now that this legislation was long overdue. For far too long, there has been an attitude that violence against women is a ``private matter.'' If a woman was mugged by a stranger, people would be outraged and demand action. However, if the same woman was bruised and battered by her husband or boyfriend, they would simply turn away. Attitudes are hard to change. But I believe that VAWA has helped. In the last 5 years, VAWA has enhanced criminal penalties on those who attack women, eased enforcement of protection orders from State to State, and provided over $1.6 billion over 6 years to police, prosecutors, battered women's shelters, a national domestic violence hotline, and other provisions designed to catch and punish batterers and offer victims the support they need to leave their abusers. The Violence Against Women Act works. A Department of Justice study recently found that, during the 6-year period that VAWA has been in effect, violence against women by intimate partners fell 21 percent. However, the same study found that much more work remains to be done. For example: Since 1976, about one-third of all murdered women each year have been killed by their partners; Moreover, women are still much more likely than men to be attacked by their intimate partners. During 1993-1998, women victims of violence were more than seven times more likely to have been attacked by an intimate partner than male victims of violence. VAWA 2000 will help us complete that work. This legislation would do three things. First, the bill would reauthorize through fiscal year 2005 the key programs in the original Violence Against Women Act. These include STOP grants, pro-arrest grants, rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement grants, the national domestic violence hotline, and rape prevention and education programs. The bill also reauthorizes the court-appointed and special advocate program, CASA, and other programs in the Victims of Child Abuse Act. Second, the bill makes some improvements to VAWA. These include: Funding for grants to help victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault who need legal assistance because of that violence; Assistance to states and tribal courts to improve interstate enforcement of civil protection orders, as required by the original Violence Against Women Act; Funding for grants to provide short-term housing assistance and short-term support services to individuals and their dependents fleeing domestic violence who are unable to find quickly secure alternative housing; A provision providing supervised visitation of children for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse to reduce the opportunity for additional domestic violence during visitations; A provision strengthening and refining protections for battered immigrant women; and An expansion of several of the primary grant programs to cover violence that arises in dating relationships. I was disappointed that the conference did not agree to extend the recently expired Violent Crime Reduction Fund. The money for the trust fund comes from savings generated by reducing the Federal workforce by more than 300,000 employees, and it was the primary source of money for VAWA programs. This will mean that VAWA will likely be funded directly by tax revenues. However, I am pleased that the conference agreed to restore language that would allow grant money to be used to deal with dating violence. Without this language, women could not benefit from VAWA unless they cohabited with their abusers. That makes no sense. In fact, the Department of Justice study on intimate partner violence found that women between the ages of 16 and 24--prime dating ages--are the most likely to experience violence within their relationships. VAWA has been particularly important to my own state of California. VAWA funds have trained hundreds of California police officers, prosecutors, and judges. They have provided California law enforcement with better evidence gathering and information sharing equipment. VAWA funds have also hired victims' advocates and counselors in scores of California cities. They have provided an array of services to California women and children--from 24-hour hotlines to emergency transportation to medical services. I have heard numerous stories from women in California who have benefitted from VAWA. For instance, one woman wrote to me to how she fled from an abusive relationship but was able to get food, clothing, and shelter for her and her four children from a VAWA-supported center. If it was not for VAWA, she wrote, ``I would have lost my four children because I didn't have anywhere to go. I was homeless with my children.'' And the head of the Valley Trauma Center in Southern California wrote me about another tragic case. Four men kidnaped a woman as she walked to her car and raped her repeatedly for many hours. Incredibly, because the men accused the victim of having sex with them voluntarily and one of the men was underage, the woman herself was charged with having sex with a minor. As a result, the woman lost her job. Fortunately, the center, using VAWA funds, was able to intervene. They helped get the charges against the victim dismissed and assisted the woman through her trauma. There is no question that VAWA has made a real difference in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children in California. Let me give you some more examples: Through VAWA funding, California has 23 sexual assault response teams, 13 violence response teams, and scores of domestic violence advocates in law enforcement agencies throughout the state. These teams have responded to hundreds of incidents of domestic violence, saving lives and helping protect California women and children from abuse. Since 1997, eight counties in California have developed stalking and threat assessment teams, STATs. Since VAWA was enacted, there has been a 200-percent increase in the number of felony stalking cases filed by the Los Angeles District Attorney. Within 2 weeks of launching an antistalking educational campaign using VAWA money, the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women, LACAAW, received about 40 calls to its crisis hotline. These calls resulted in numerous investigations by the local STAT. Since LACAAW receive VAWA money in 1997, it has seen a 64 percent increase in the number of victims served. Moreover, its rape prevention education program services have doubled in this period. In the last 5 years, Women Escaping a Violent Environment, WEAVE, a victim service provider in Sacramento, has doubled its legal advocacy efforts and crisis and referral services. It responds to over 20,000 domestic violence and sexual assault calls to its crisis line annually and 35 requests for legal services daily. In Alameda County, the district attorney's office has used VAWA funds to institute comprehensive training regarding the investigation and prosecution of domestic violence and stalking cases. Two hundred sixty prosecutors in Alameda and Contra Costa county and 350 police officers in Alameda country have been trained. The result: 30 new stalking cases and numerous new domestic violence cases being investigated and prosecuted just in 3 months. Lideres Campasinas has used VAWA money to establish itself in 12 communities in California and has trained 25,000 immigrant and migrant women. Before it received this money, Lideres Campasinas did not address the problem of domestic violence among farmworker women. Now, three tribal organizations and 4 States have contacted it about setting up similar programs in their jurisdictions. The California Coalition Against Sexual Assault's Rape Prevention Resource Center has, using VAWA money, assembled over 4,000 items focused exclusively on issues related to violence against women in the U.S. Over 4,000 items are currently available in its lending library. In short, VAWA 2000 renews our commitment to fighting violence against women and children. I am delighted to support its passage today. Let me also say a few words about the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which is also in the conference report. I strongly support this bill, which will help American victims of terrorism abroad collect court-awarded compensation and ensures that the responsible State sponsors of terrorism pay a price for their crimes. Just let me talk about one example of why this new law is necessary. In 1985, David Jacobsen was residing in Beirut, Lebanon, and was the chief executive officer of the American University of Beirut Medical Center. His life would soon take a dramatic and irreversible change for the worse, and he would never again be the same. Shortly before 8:00 a.m. on May 28, 1985, Jacobsen was crossing an intersection with a companion when he was assaulted, subdued and forced into a van by several terrorist assailants. He was pistol-whipped, bound and gagged, and pushed into a hidden compartment under the floor in the back of the van. Jacobsen was held by these men, members of the Iranian-backed Hizballah, for 532 days--nearly a year and a half. He was held in darkness and blindfolded during most of that time, chained by his ankles and wrists and wearing nothing but undershorts and a t-shirt. He has said in the past that he was allowed to see sunlight just twice in those 17 months. The food during his captivity was meager--sometimes the guards would even spit in his food before handing it over. Jacobsen was subjected to regular beatings, and often threatened with immediate death. He was forced to listen as fellow captives were killed. As a result of this physical and mental torture, Jacobsen has been under continuous treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder since his release in November of 1986--nearly 13 years ago. In August of 1998, David Jacobsen was awarded $9 million by a U.S. Federal Court. The judgement was against the Government of Iran, and pursuant to a bill that Congress signed in 1996 allowing victims of foreign terrorism to recover against terrorist nations. But David Jacobsen has collected nothing. He cannot go to Iran to ask for the verdict. And our own Government has essentially turned its back. Some have estimated the United States Government has frozen more than a billion dollars of Iranian assets. Yet not one cent has been paid to David Jacobsen. The administration has invoked waiver after waiver--even as Congress has modified the 1996 bill to clarify our intent. The same has been true for others victimized by agents of designated terrorist-sponsoring nations, including Alisa Flatow, Terry Anderson, Joseph Ciccippio, Frank Reed, Matthew Eisenfeld, Sarah Duker, Armando Alejandre, Carlos A. Costa, and Mario de la Pena. The legislation included in this conference report replaces the waiver authority in current law to make it both more clear, and more narrow. It is my hope that once Congress has again spoken on this issue, money frozen from terrorist nations will finally begin to flow to the victims of those terrorist acts. The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act also contains an amendment authored by Senator Leahy and myself that will offer more immediate and effective assistance to victims of terrorism abroad, such as those Americans killed or injured in the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and in the Pam Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. This amendment does not involve any new funding; all the money for victims would come out of the existing emergency reserve fund for the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, OVC. The Leahy-Feinstein amendment aims to provide faster and better assistance to victims of terrorism abroad. Under current Federal law, if there is a terrorist attack against Americans abroad, the victims and their families must generally go to the victims' services agencies in their home States to receive assistance and compensation. However, victims' services vary widely from State to State, and some overseas victims receive no relief at all because they cannot establish residency in a particular State. Let me give you a couple of real-life examples created by current law: Two American victims, standing literally yards apart, were injured in the bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Kenya. Each received severe injuries, was permanently disabled, and spent 7 months recovering at the same hospital. However, because the two were residents of different States, they received very different victims' assistance: one received $15,000 in compensation and one $100,000. And one waited a week for a decision on the money and the other 5 months. Another American was also severely injured in the embassy bombings. Because he was not able to establish residency in a particular State, he could not receive any victims' assistance or compensation at all. In fact, because he lacked health insurance, he had to pay his medical bills himself. The Office for Victims of Crime has been able to get around the problem in certain cases by transferring money to the FBI or U.S. attorney's offices, which then transfer the money to victims. However, this cannot be done in some situations. Moreover, even where such transfers can be done, OVC and the victims have run into a lot of redtape and delays. An example: Because of current law, OVC was not able to respond directly to the needs of victims of the embassy bombings. So they transferred money to the Executive Office of the U.S. attorneys, which then transferred the money to the State Department, which then transferred the money to the victims. This triple transfer took 8 months. In the meantime, the victims and their families had to pay medical bills, transportation costs, funeral expenses, and other expenses themselves. The Leahy-Feinstein amendment will immediately benefit terrorist victims. For example, the amendment ensures that the OVC can assist victims directly with regard to the upcoming trial in New York City of the individuals who allegedly bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Leahy-Feinstein amendment fixes the problem in three ways. First, it creates a single, centralized agency to help victims of terrorism abroad. This agency--OVC--has more expertise and resources to help overseas terrorism victims than a typical State victims' services agency. For example, OVC can much more easily get information from U.S. and foreign government agencies to process victims' claims than, say, the Wyoming Victim Services Division. Second, it eliminates the gaps and inconsistencies in Federal and State victims' services statutes that result in disparate treatment of similarly situated victims of terrorism. The amendment provides OVC with much more flexibility to assist victims of terrorism directly, avoiding unfair results. Third, it cuts redtape that has unnecessarily delayed services to victims of terrorism. Specifically, the Leahy-Feinstein amendment: Authorizes OVC to establish a terrorism compensation fund and to make direct payments to American citizens and noncitizen U.S. Government employees for emergency expenses related to terrorist victimization. The money would be used to pay emergency travel expenses, medical bills, and the cost of transporting bodies. Allows OVC to pay for direct services to victims, regardless of where a terrorist attack occurs. This includes counseling services, a victims' website, and closed-circuit TV so victims and their families can monitor trial proceedings. Raises the cap on OVC's emergency reserve fund from $50 million to $100 million. This would enable OVC to access additional funds in the event of a terrorist attack involving massive casualties. Makes it easier for OVC to replenish its emergency reserve fund with money that it de-obligates from its other grant programs. Expands the range of organizations that OVC may fund to include the Department of State, Red Cross, and others. I would like to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this issue. While he and I have sometimes disagreed on how to address the lack of victims' rights in this Nation, I am glad that we were able to work together to pass this important amendment. Finally, I would like to discuss one last provision of this conference report. Specifically, I want to address the so-called Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act, S. 577, now included as part of this conference report. I want it to be perfectly clear that this provision is simply a jurisdictional statute with a very narrow and specific purpose. The bill is not intended to allow the enforcement of invalid or unconstitutional State liquor laws in the Federal courts, and is certainly not intended to allow States to unfairly discriminate against out-of-State sellers for the purposes of economic protectionism. The Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act would add a new section (section 2) to the Webb-Kenyon Act, granting Federal court jurisdiction to injunctive relief actions brought by State attorneys general seeking to enforce State laws dealing with the importation or transportation of alcoholic beverages. It is important to emphasize that Congress is not passing on the advisability or legal validity of the many State laws dealing with alcoholic beverages. Whether a particular State law on this subject is a valid exercise of State power is, and will continue to be, a matter for the courts to decide. As you know, the powers granted to the States under section 2 of the 21st amendment are not absolute. As the Supreme Court has made clear since 1964, State power under the 21st amendment cannot be read in isolation from other provisions in the Constitution. In Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation, 377 U.S. 324 (1964), the Court began to use a ``balancing test'' or ``accommodation test'' to determine whether a state liquor law was enacted to implement a ``core power'' of the 21st amendment or was essentially an effort to unfairly regulate or burden interstate commerce with an inadequate connection to the temperance goals of the second section of the 21st amendment. The Court said in Hostetter that ``[B]oth the 21st amendment and the commerce clause are parts of the same Constitution. Like other provisions of the Constitution, each must be considered in the light of the other, and in the context of the issues and interests at stake in any concrete case.'' The Court in that case also emphasized that to draw the conclusion that the 21st amendment has repealed the commerce clause, would be ``patently bizarre'' and ``demonstrably incorrect.'' Subsequently, in a series of other decisions over the last 35 years, the Supreme Court has held that the 21st amendment does not diminish the force of the supremacy clause, the establishment clause, the export-import clause, the equal protection clause, and, again, the commerce clause; nor does it abridge rights protected by the first amendment. In case after case (Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 712 (1984) (supremacy clause); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 122 (1982) (establishment clause); Department of Revenue v. James Beam Co., 377 U.S. 341 (1964) (export-import clause); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 209 (1976) (equal protection); Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 275 (1984) (commerce clause); 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 516 (1996) (first amendment)), the Court has made it clear that the powers granted to the States under the 21st amendment must be read in conjunction with other provisions in the Constitution. In Bacchus Imports, the Court stated that the 21st amendment was not designed ``to empower States to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition.'' Nor are State laws that constitute ``mere economic protectionism . . . entitled to the same deference as laws enacted to combat the perceived evils of an unrestricted traffic in liquor.'' The Bacchus decision stands for the legal principle that the 21st amendment cannot be used by the States to justify liquor laws which, by favoring instate businesses, discriminate against out-of- state sellers or otherwise burden interstate commerce. Economic discrimination is not a core purpose of the 21st amendment. Earlier this year, when the Senate Judiciary Committee considered S. 577, I offered an amendment to the ``Rules of Construction'' section of Senator Hatch's substitute to S. 577. The amendment was intended to clarify that Congress recognizes the important line of cases I have described today and does not intend to tip or alter the critical balance between the 21st amendment and other provisions in the Constitution, such as the commerce clause. I also thought it was important that we make it clear that, in passing this jurisdictional statute, we are neither endorsing any existing State liquor laws nor prejudging the validity of any State liquor laws. In making a decision as to whether to issue an injunction, the Federal judge will look at the underlying State statute and determine whether or not it has been violated and whether it is a constitutionally permissible exercise of State authority. The committee adopted my amendment by a unanimous voice vote and the language of subsection 2(e) now reflects the committee's intent. It states that this legislation is to be construed only to extend the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in connection with a State law that is a valid exercise of State power: (1) under the 21st amendment of the U.S. Constitution as such an amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, including interpretations in conjunction with other provisions of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) under the first section of the Webb-Kenyon Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Further, S. 577 is not to be construed as granting the States any additional power. The legislative history of both the Webb-Kenyon Act and the second section of the 21st amendment reflect the fact that Congress intended to protect the right of the individual States to enact laws to encourage temperance within their borders. So both before the establishment of nationwide prohibition and after its repeal, the States have been free to enact statewide prohibition laws, and to enact laws allowing the local governments (i.e. counties, cities, townships, etcetera) within their borders to exercise ``local option'' restrictions on the availability of alcoholic beverages. Further, the States are also free to enact laws limiting the access of minors to alcoholic beverages under their police powers. The language in subsection 2(e) reinforces the Supreme Court decisions holding that the 21st amendment is not to be read in isolation from other provisions contained in the U.S. Constitution. These cases have recognized that State power under section 2 of the 21st amendment is not unlimited and must be balanced with the other constitutional rights protected by commerce clause, the supremacy clause, the export-import clause, the equal protection clause, the establishment clause and the first amendment. The substitute to S. 577 offered in the Judiciary Committee by Senator Hatch also made a number of other positive changes in this legislation. Federal court jurisdiction is granted only for injunctive relief actions by State attorneys general against alleged violators of State liquor laws. However, actions in Federal court are not permitted against persons licensed by that State, nor are they permitted against persons authorized to produce, sell, or store intoxicating liquor in that State. The Hatch substitute also made other changes ensuring that the bill tracks the due process requirements of rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning suits for injunctive relief in Federal court. Under subsection 2(b), a State attorney general must have ``reasonable cause'' to believe that a violation of that State's law regulating the importation or transportation of intoxicating liquor has taken place. Further, under subsection 2(d)(1) the burden of proof is on the State to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation of State law has occurred. Similarly, subsection 2(d)(2) makes it clear that no preliminary injunction may be granted except upon evidence: (A) demonstrating the probability of irreparable injury; and (B) supporting the probability of success on the merits. Also, under subsection 2(d)(3) no preliminary or permanent injunction may be issued without notice to the adverse party and an opportunity for a hearing on the merits. While the legislation makes it clear that an action for injunctive relief under this act is to be tried before the Court without a jury, at the same time a defendant's rights to a jury trial in any separate or subsequent State criminal proceeding are intended to be preserved. The amendments adopted in the Judiciary Committee bring both balance and fairness to this legislation. As amended, the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act will assist in the enforcement of legitimate State liquor laws that are genuinely about encouraging temperance or prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors. At the same time, the amended bill reflects a recognition on the part of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate, and the Congress that S. 577 is solely a jurisdictional statute and is not intended to allow the enforcement of invalid or unconstitutional State liquor laws in the Federal courts.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am pleased have worked with Senators Lautenberg, Mack, and Kyl in getting this legislation to this point. The national security interest waiver should be used only when there is a specific national security interest greater than the interest in taking effective action to combat terrorism against American citizens; and it should be exercised on a case-by-case basis. The judiciary Committee never intended to divide victims, helping some and not others. We must ensure that all American victims of terrorism able to successfully hold foreign states responsible to the satisfaction of U.S. courts are treated fairly and aided by this and future administrations to collect their damages.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of S. 2045, ``American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000,'' I am pleased to see this important legislation pass the Senate today. One of my most sobering experiences as a U.S. Senator occurred a few years ago when several CEOs of California's leading high-tech companies told me our schools were not producing enough skilled graduates and asked me to support an increase in the number of H-1B temporary visas for skilled foreign workers. Initially, I did not believe this. But subsequently the problem became very clear at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the subject. California's high-tech sector has fueled our record economic expansion, providing more than 784,000 high-tech jobs in our state alone. But that continued growth is threatened if California cannot produce an adequate number of well-educated workers. Clearly our education system needs major reform. I asked TechNet, a network of the nation's leading high-tech CEOs, to help me develop a program to reduce our reliance on H-1B workers. The discussions led to a public-private plan, which Senator Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., and I offered as an amendment to the H-1B visa bill. It was approved by the Judiciary Committee in March. From the funds collected for H-1B fees over the next three years, the amendment would allocate 15 percent of the H-1B fees, or roughly $23 million for National Science Foundation kindergarten through 12th grade math and science education and skills-development programs. The technology industry will match these funds and then some. This is an incredible commitment by the industry to help develop a pipeline of American students who are better prepared for the workplace of tomorrow. Additionally, $35 million will be designated for post-secondary school scholarships for 16,000 to 18,000 low-income students to obtain degrees in science, math or other technology-related disciplines so that they can compete for the cutting-edge jobs in the high-tech sector. At the same time, our amendment provides 23.5 percent, or more than $35 million per year in funding--in addition to that already being provided--for scholarships so that American students and workers can also enjoy the opportunity to work in the high tech and other industries demanding a highly skilled workforce. Another $83 million, or 55 percent of the H-1B fee revenue, as a result of an amendment by Senator Kennedy, would be allocated to workforce training programs and demonstration projects to provide technical skills training for U.S. workers. I am hopeful that, in the end, we can work in a provision to increase the H-1B visa fee from $500 to $1,000. This will double the amount of funding for these important education and training programs. I support lifting the H-1B visa cap, but clearly it is only a short- term solution to a long-term problem. The technology industry recognizes this and has already made significant financial contributions to education training programs. These amendments represent an additional industry commitment to educating America's workforce. Recent research indicates that the number of bachelor of science degrees awarded in computer science and math fell 29 percent from 1985 to 1995. Engineering degrees fell 16 percent from 1985 to 1997; computer and information sciences experience a 42 percent drop. Yet it is expertise in these very areas that businesses, especially high- technology companies, need in order to stay globally competitive. Our society is undergoing a dramatic technological transformation. Information technology has changed every aspect of our society, from telephone and banking services to commerce and education. Given this, the demand for highly skilled professionals has exploded. Even excluding the biotechnology industry, the high-tech explosion has created over 4.8 million jobs in the United States since 1993 and produced an industry unemployment rate of 1.4 percent. Despite the billions of dollars that companies spend annually on training, a gap still exists between professionals available in the U.S. workforce and the needs of employers. We need to raise the H-1B cap for the next few years because often employers' needs are immediate; they cannot afford to wait for workforce training or retraining while positions remain unfilled. I look forward to the day when it is not necessary to bring in workers from abroad for these positions because California's schools are producing students who can match the best and brightest from anywhere across the globe. I am also pleased that the Senate has adopted as an amendment to the H-1B legislation, the provisions of S. 2586, the ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000,'' which I introduced earlier this year. As we seek to address the needs of the high tech industry by increasing the number of H-1B visas, I am pleased that we are also taking an active role in addressing the unacceptably long backlogs in processing other immigration applications. We have all heard the horror stories of the long processing delays associated with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). What was once a 6-month process has now become a three- to four-year ordeal. When I first introduced S. 2586, the INS had roughly 2.3 million cases pending. Out of this number, California had 600,000 naturalization and adjustment of status cases pending. While the INS has made some improvements in reducing processing times for some applications, the INS's overall record keeping and computer systems still suffer from serious flaws. Many forms filed during the application process have been lost, automatically disqualifying immigrants from an immigrant visa or naturalization because they missed their INS appointments. It is unacceptable that millions of people who have followed our nation's laws, made outstanding contributions to our nation, and paid the requisite fees have had to wait months, and even years, to obtain the immigration services they need. These processing delays have had a negative impact on businesses seeking to employ or retain essential workers. Faced with a shortage of highly skilled workers in the U.S., many of our nation's businesses, including those in the high tech industry, must increasing rely on the INS to help provide them with access to highly skilled foreign professionals. However, long delays and inconsistencies in INS processing are causing many companies to postpone or cancel major projects that support their fiscal growth. I believe the backlog reduction provisions included in this bill will send a clear signal to the INS that it is time to change the way they do business. The provisions would require the INS to process H-1B applications and other non-immigrant visa applications within 30 days, and naturalization applications, permanent employment visas, and other immigration visa applications within six months. In addition, the provisions would establish a separate account with the INS to fund backlog reduction efforts. This account would permit the INS to fund across several fiscal years infrastructure improvements, including additional staff, computer records management, fingerprinting, and nationwide computer integration. Finally, the provisions would require the INS to put together a plan on how it intends to eliminate existing backlogs and report on this plan before it could obtain any appropriated funds. The backlog reduction provisions are intended to provide the INS with direction and accountability, and would enable millions of law-abiding residents, immigrants, and businesses, who have paid substantial fees to the INS, to have their applications processed in a timely manner. I believe enactment of these provisions as part of the H-1B legislation will send a strong Congressional directive to the INS that timely and efficient service is not merely a goal, but a mandate. Our nation has undergone a dramatic technological transformation. The U.S. economy has enjoyed unprecedented expansion, in large part because of the high tech industry. In California alone, this growth in technology has made our State number one in high tech employment by creating almost 800,000 jobs and comprising 61 percent of California's exports. I am convinced that the economy of California as well as the rest of the nation could run out of steam if the driving engine--that is, the high tech industry--does not have the resources it needs to continue its unprecedented growth. Certainly, it is in our interest to ensure that these industries, which are located in the U.S. and help drive our economy, can continue to obtain qualified, highly skilled employees. This bill meets the needs of the industry by providing additional temporary visas for exceptional professional personnel. Despite the billions of dollars that companies spend annually to train their work force, a gap still exists between professionals available in the U.S. work force and the needs of employers. Often employers' needs are immediate; they cannot afford to wait for work force training or retraining while positions remain unfilled. I look forward to the day when it is not necessary to bring in workers from abroad for these positions because California's schools are producing students who can match the best and brightest from anywhere across the globe.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to change the way unaccompanied immigrant children are treated while in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that the federal government addresses the special needs of thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter the U.S. It would ensure that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain humanitarian relief when eligible. Central throughout this legislation are two concepts: (1) The United States government has a special responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and (2) In all proceedings and actions, the government must have as its paramount priority the protection of the best interests of the child. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that children who are apprehended by the INS are treated humanely and appropriately by transferring jurisdiction over the welfare of unaccompanied minors from the INS Detention and Deportation division to a newly created Office of Children Services within the INS. This legislation would also centralize responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied children in a new Office of Children's Services. By doing so, the legislation would resolve the conflict of interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it seeks their deportation. Under this bill, the Office of Children's Services would be required to establish standards for the custody, release, and detention of children, ensuring that children are housed in appropriate shelters or foster care rather than juvenile jails. In 1999, the INS held some 2,000 children in juvenile jails even though they had never committed a crime. Equally as important, the bill would require the Office to establish clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody arrangements. The bill would strengthen options for the permanent protection of alien children in the United States, including providing asylum or adjustment of status to those who qualify. Finally, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act would provide unaccompanied minors with access to legal counsel, who would ensure that the children appear at all immigration proceedings and assist them as the INS and immigration court considers their cases. The bill would also provide access to a guardian ad litem to ensure that they are properly placed in a safe environment. The guardian ad litem would also make sure that the child's attorney is, in fact, operating in his or her best interest. Let me turn for a moment to the issue of access to counsel. Children, even more than adults, have immense difficulty tackling the complexities of the asylum system without the assistance of counsel. Despite this reality, most children in INS detention are unrepresented. Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to their home countries where they may face further human rights abuses. I am aware of two cases that demonstrate the compelling need for counsel on behalf of these children. The first case involves two 17- year-old boys from China. Li and Wang were apprehended on an island near Guam and have been in INS custody for 16 months. During their detention on Guam, the two boys testified in federal court against the smugglers who brought them to Guam. In their testimony, they described being beaten by the smugglers even before leaving China, and stated that others were beaten during the trip to Guam. In the spring of 2000, the two boys were brought to a corrections facility in Los Angeles and are currently being held in the INS section of that facility. This is where the similarity in their cases end. While both of the boys would face danger from the smugglers if they returned to China because of their testimony, only one was granted asylum. Li applied for asylum and was denied. He was not represented by counsel at his hearing. Despite the fact that the INS trial attorney mentioned that Li had testified in federal court against the smugglers, the judge did not include this information in her decision on the claim. Luckily for Li, an attorney overheard the hearing, and after speaking with Li, agreed to appeal his asylum claim. Li is still being held in a Los Angeles corrections facility. The story is different for Wang. Wang had an attorney and won his asylum hearing. But INS is appealing the decision so Wang still sits in a Los Angeles corrections facility, too. These cases demonstrate the pressing need of legal representation for children. Li may have won his asylum claim if he had been represented by counsel and if the evidence regarding his testimony in federal court had been incorporated into his asylum claim. Instead, a 17-year-old boy unfamiliar with our immigration system and our language was forced to navigate the tricky court system alone. According to Human Rights Watch, children detained by the INS, whether in secure detention or less restrictive settings, often have great difficulty obtaining information about their legal rights. On a visit to the Berks facility in 1998, Human Rights Watch staff found that none of the children they interviewed had received information about their rights or available legal services from either the INS or the facility's staff. Neither could local INS or facility staff identify how these children might receive this information. In one way or another, we have been affected by the six-year-old shipwreck survivor from Cuba, Elian Gonzalez. His tragic story brought to light the plight of numerous other youngsters who find their way to the United States, unaccompanied by an adult and, in many cases, traumatized by the experiences provoking their flight. Unaccompanied alien children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population; many have entered the country under traumatic circumstances. They are unable to protect themselves adequately from danger. Because of their youth and the fact that they are alone, they are often subject to abuse or exploitation. Because of their age and inexperience, unaccompanied alien children are not able to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to their needs as accurately as adults can. Despite these facts, U.S. immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented without careful attention to their effect on children, particularly on unaccompanied alien children. Each year, the INS detains more than 5,000 children nationwide. They are apprehended for not having proper documentation at the ports-of- entry for entering the United States. Their detention may last for months--and sometimes for years--as they undergo complex immigration proceedings. Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles and procedures. Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very abuses they fled before they are able to make their case before the INS or an immigration judge. Under current law, the INS is responsible for the apprehension, detention, care, placement, legal protection, and deportation of unaccompanied children. I believe that these are conflicting responsibilities that undercut the best interests of the child. Too often, the INS has fallen short in fulfilling the protection side of the these responsibilities. The INS uses a variety of facilities to house children. Some are held in children's shelters in which children are offered some of the services they need but still may experience prolonged detention, lack of access to counsel, and other troubling conditions. The INS relies on juvenile correctional facilities to house many children, even in the absence of any criminal wrongdoing. Today, one out of every three children in INS custody is detained in secure, jail- like facilities. These facilities are highly inappropriate, particularly for children who have already experienced trauma in their homelands. There is currently no provision of federal law providing guidance for the placement of unaccompanied alien children. In 1987, the Flores v. Reno settlement agreement on behalf of minors in INS detention established the nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of children in the custody of INS. The Flores agreement requires that the INS treat minors with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability. It also requires the INS to place each detained minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the child's age and special needs. In response to Flores, the INS issued regulations that permitted its officers to detain children in secure facilities only in limited circumstances. The INS officers were required to provide written notice to the child of the reasons for such placement. More importantly, the regulations required the INS to segregate immigration detainees from juvenile criminal offenders. Although INS officials have contended that these children are placed in these facilities largely because they are charged with other offenses, the INS statistics do not bear out this claim. In fiscal year 1999, only 19 percent of the children placed in secure detention were chargeable or adjudicated as delinquents. According to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Human Rights Watch and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the INS regularly violates these regulations. The NGOs contend that too often children are placed in jail-like facilities for seemingly arbitrary reasons, seldom notified of the reasons why, and forced to share rooms and have extensive contact with convicted juvenile offenders. I was also astonished to learn that many of these children, some as young as four and five years old, are placed behind multiple layers of locked doors, surrounded by walls and barbed wire. They are strip searched, patted down, placed in solitary confinement for punishment, forced to wear prison uniforms and shackles, and are forbidden to keep personal objects. Often they have no one to speak with because of the language barrier. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that the particular needs of the thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter INS custody each year are met and that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain immigration relief when eligible. In 1999, the INS held approximately 4,600 children under the age of 18 in its custody. Some of these children fled human rights abuses or armed conflict in their home countries, some were victims of child abuse or had otherwise lost the support and protection of their families, some came to the United States to join family members, and some came to escape economic deprivation. Many of these children came from troubled countries around the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, Honduras, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Guatemala, Cuba, former Yugoslavia, and others. They range in age from toddlers to teenagers. Some traveled to the United States alone, while others were accompanied by unrelated adults. Sadly, a significant number are victims of smuggling or trafficking rings. In one recent instance, Phanupong Khaisri, a two-year-old Thai child, was brought to the U.S. by two individuals falsely claiming to be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking ring. The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain in the U.S. until the agency could provide proper medical attention and determine what course of action would be in his best interest. Now his case is before a federal district court judge who will determine whether he should be eligible to apply for asylum. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent situations like this from recurring by centralizing the care and custody of unaccompanied children into a new Office of Children's Services within the INS, but outside the jurisdiction of the District Directors. By doing so, the Act resolves the conflict of interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it seeks their deportation. I would like to take a moment to share with you a few other examples of how the federal government has fallen short in the manner in which we handle vulnerable unaccompanied minors. One would think that our country would treat unaccompanied minors with the sensitivity and care their situations demands. Unfortunately, in too many instances, that has not been the case. Too often, these children are often treated like adults and, under the worst circumstances, like criminals. Xaio Ling, a young girl from China who spoke no English, was detained by the INS at the Berks County Juvenile Detention Center. The INS placed her among children guilty of violent crimes, including rape and murder. Xaio was never guilty of any crime, and yet she slept in a small concrete cell, was subjected to humiliating strip searches, and forced to wear handcuffs. She was forbidden to keep any of her clothes or possessions and, under the policies of the Berks Center, Xaio was not allowed to laugh. Imagine the fear this child had: thrust into a system she did not understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles with serious criminal convictions, including murder, car jacking, rape, and drug trafficking. She did not speak English and was unable to speak to any staff who knew her language, and she had to submit to strip searches. It is hard to believe that our country would have allowed this innocent child to be treated in such a horrible manner. Situations like that of the young Chinese girl make a compelling case for a change in the way our nation treats unaccompanied alien children. Under the legislation I have introduced today, this youngster would never have been placed in a detention center with criminal offenders. Rather, she would have immediately been placed in shelter care, foster care, or a home more appropriate for her situation. She would have been provided an attorney for her immigration proceedings and a social worker would have been appointed as guardian ad litem to ensure that the child's needs were being met. Sadly, this young girl was given none of these options. Neither was a 16-year-old boy from Colombia. This youngster fled Colombia to escape a life of violence on the streets of Bogota, where FARC guerrillas attempted to recruit him and the F-2 branch of the Colombian government harassed him in its attempt to get rid of street children. Fearing for his life, he fled Colombia for Venezuela where he lived without shelter or sufficient food. In search of a safer life, he sneaked into the machine room of a cargo ship bound for the United States. He was lucky to survive; many other stowaways were thrown overboard when discovered by the ship's crew. The boy remained on the ship from November 1998 until March 1999, when he arrived in Philadelphia. He was soon turned over to the INS and placed into the same detention center the young Chinese girl was held in. He, too, was kept with criminal offenders. He did not understand English, which created a myriad of problems because he was unable to understand what was expected of him in the detention center. He was held in an inappropriately punitive environment for six months. I have one last story to share with you today. Placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, a 15-year-old girl fled China's rigid family planning laws. Under these laws she was denied citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate. And what did our immigration system do when they found her? They held her in a juvenile jail in Portland, Oregon. She was held for eight months and was detained for an additional four months after being granted political asylum. At her asylum hearing, the young girl could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to her lawyer, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.'' For years children's rights and human rights organizations have implored Congress to improve the way our immigration system handles unaccompanied minors--just like the ones whose stories I have just told. I believe my bill would do just that. We cannot continue to allow children, who come to our country, often traumatized and guilty of no crime, to be held in jails and treated like criminals. We cannot continue to allow children, scared and helpless, to be thrown into a system they do not understand without sufficient legal aid and a guardian to look after their best interests. We must adhere to the principles of our justice system. What kind of message do we send when we deprive children who come to our country seeking refuge of their basic rights and protections? As a nation that holds our democratic ideals and constitutional rights paramount, how then can we continue to avert our attention from repeated violations of some of the most basic human rights against children who have no voice in the immigration system? We should be outraged that children who come to the U.S. alone, many against their will, are subjected to such inhumane, excessive conditions. I am proud to have the support of the United States Catholic Conference and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation. Although we are nearing the end of the session, I want to highlight this issue now so that we can begin to think about the importance of protecting the rights of children in immigration custody and work towards passing this legislation in the next Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to change the way unaccompanied immigrant children are treated while in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that the federal government addresses the special needs of thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter the U.S. It would ensure that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain humanitarian relief when eligible. Central throughout this legislation are two concepts: (1) The United States government has a special responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and (2) In all proceedings and actions, the government must have as its paramount priority the protection of the best interests of the child. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that children who are apprehended by the INS are treated humanely and appropriately by transferring jurisdiction over the welfare of unaccompanied minors from the INS Detention and Deportation division to a newly created Office of Children Services within the INS. This legislation would also centralize responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied children in a new Office of Children's Services. By doing so, the legislation would resolve the conflict of interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it seeks their deportation. Under this bill, the Office of Children's Services would be required to establish standards for the custody, release, and detention of children, ensuring that children are housed in appropriate shelters or foster care rather than juvenile jails. In 1999, the INS held some 2,000 children in juvenile jails even though they had never committed a crime. Equally as important, the bill would require the Office to establish clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody arrangements. The bill would strengthen options for the permanent protection of alien children in the United States, including providing asylum or adjustment of status to those who qualify. Finally, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act would provide unaccompanied minors with access to legal counsel, who would ensure that the children appear at all immigration proceedings and assist them as the INS and immigration court considers their cases. The bill would also provide access to a guardian ad litem to ensure that they are properly placed in a safe environment. The guardian ad litem would also make sure that the child's attorney is, in fact, operating in his or her best interest. Let me turn for a moment to the issue of access to counsel. Children, even more than adults, have immense difficulty tackling the complexities of the asylum system without the assistance of counsel. Despite this reality, most children in INS detention are unrepresented. Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to their home countries where they may face further human rights abuses. I am aware of two cases that demonstrate the compelling need for counsel on behalf of these children. The first case involves two 17- year-old boys from China. Li and Wang were apprehended on an island near Guam and have been in INS custody for 16 months. During their detention on Guam, the two boys testified in federal court against the smugglers who brought them to Guam. In their testimony, they described being beaten by the smugglers even before leaving China, and stated that others were beaten during the trip to Guam. In the spring of 2000, the two boys were brought to a corrections facility in Los Angeles and are currently being held in the INS section of that facility. This is where the similarity in their cases end. While both of the boys would face danger from the smugglers if they returned to China because of their testimony, only one was granted asylum. Li applied for asylum and was denied. He was not represented by counsel at his hearing. Despite the fact that the INS trial attorney mentioned that Li had testified in federal court against the smugglers, the judge did not include this information in her decision on the claim. Luckily for Li, an attorney overheard the hearing, and after speaking with Li, agreed to appeal his asylum claim. Li is still being held in a Los Angeles corrections facility. The story is different for Wang. Wang had an attorney and won his asylum hearing. But INS is appealing the decision so Wang still sits in a Los Angeles corrections facility, too. These cases demonstrate the pressing need of legal representation for children. Li may have won his asylum claim if he had been represented by counsel and if the evidence regarding his testimony in federal court had been incorporated into his asylum claim. Instead, a 17-year-old boy unfamiliar with our immigration system and our language was forced to navigate the tricky court system alone. According to Human Rights Watch, children detained by the INS, whether in secure detention or less restrictive settings, often have great difficulty obtaining information about their legal rights. On a visit to the Berks facility in 1998, Human Rights Watch staff found that none of the children they interviewed had received information about their rights or available legal services from either the INS or the facility's staff. Neither could local INS or facility staff identify how these children might receive this information. In one way or another, we have been affected by the six-year-old shipwreck survivor from Cuba, Elian Gonzalez. His tragic story brought to light the plight of numerous other youngsters who find their way to the United States, unaccompanied by an adult and, in many cases, traumatized by the experiences provoking their flight. Unaccompanied alien children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population; many have entered the country under traumatic circumstances. They are unable to protect themselves adequately from danger. Because of their youth and the fact that they are alone, they are often subject to abuse or exploitation. Because of their age and inexperience, unaccompanied alien children are not able to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to their needs as accurately as adults can. Despite these facts, U.S. immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented without careful attention to their effect on children, particularly on unaccompanied alien children. Each year, the INS detains more than 5,000 children nationwide. They are apprehended for not having proper documentation at the ports-of- entry for entering the United States. Their detention may last for months--and sometimes for years--as they undergo complex immigration proceedings. Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles and procedures. Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very abuses they fled before they are able to make their case before the INS or an immigration judge. Under current law, the INS is responsible for the apprehension, detention, care, placement, legal protection, and deportation of unaccompanied children. I believe that these are conflicting responsibilities that undercut the best interests of the child. Too often, the INS has fallen short in fulfilling the protection side of the these responsibilities. The INS uses a variety of facilities to house children. Some are held in children's shelters in which children are offered some of the services they need but still may experience prolonged detention, lack of access to counsel, and other troubling conditions. The INS relies on juvenile correctional facilities to house many children, even in the absence of any criminal wrongdoing. Today, one out of every three children in INS custody is detained in secure, jail- like facilities. These facilities are highly inappropriate, particularly for children who have already experienced trauma in their homelands. There is currently no provision of federal law providing guidance for the placement of unaccompanied alien children. In 1987, the Flores v. Reno settlement agreement on behalf of minors in INS detention established the nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of children in the custody of INS. The Flores agreement requires that the INS treat minors with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability. It also requires the INS to place each detained minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the child's age and special needs. In response to Flores, the INS issued regulations that permitted its officers to detain children in secure facilities only in limited circumstances. The INS officers were required to provide written notice to the child of the reasons for such placement. More importantly, the regulations required the INS to segregate immigration detainees from juvenile criminal offenders. Although INS officials have contended that these children are placed in these facilities largely because they are charged with other offenses, the INS statistics do not bear out this claim. In fiscal year 1999, only 19 percent of the children placed in secure detention were chargeable or adjudicated as delinquents. According to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Human Rights Watch and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the INS regularly violates these regulations. The NGOs contend that too often children are placed in jail-like facilities for seemingly arbitrary reasons, seldom notified of the reasons why, and forced to share rooms and have extensive contact with convicted juvenile offenders. I was also astonished to learn that many of these children, some as young as four and five years old, are placed behind multiple layers of locked doors, surrounded by walls and barbed wire. They are strip searched, patted down, placed in solitary confinement for punishment, forced to wear prison uniforms and shackles, and are forbidden to keep personal objects. Often they have no one to speak with because of the language barrier. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000 would ensure that the particular needs of the thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter INS custody each year are met and that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain immigration relief when eligible. In 1999, the INS held approximately 4,600 children under the age of 18 in its custody. Some of these children fled human rights abuses or armed conflict in their home countries, some were victims of child abuse or had otherwise lost the support and protection of their families, some came to the United States to join family members, and some came to escape economic deprivation. Many of these children came from troubled countries around the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, Honduras, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Guatemala, Cuba, former Yugoslavia, and others. They range in age from toddlers to teenagers. Some traveled to the United States alone, while others were accompanied by unrelated adults. Sadly, a significant number are victims of smuggling or trafficking rings. In one recent instance, Phanupong Khaisri, a two-year-old Thai child, was brought to the U.S. by two individuals falsely claiming to be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking ring. The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain in the U.S. until the agency could provide proper medical attention and determine what course of action would be in his best interest. Now his case is before a federal district court judge who will determine whether he should be eligible to apply for asylum. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent situations like this from recurring by centralizing the care and custody of unaccompanied children into a new Office of Children's Services within the INS, but outside the jurisdiction of the District Directors. By doing so, the Act resolves the conflict of interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it seeks their deportation. I would like to take a moment to share with you a few other examples of how the federal government has fallen short in the manner in which we handle vulnerable unaccompanied minors. One would think that our country would treat unaccompanied minors with the sensitivity and care their situations demands. Unfortunately, in too many instances, that has not been the case. Too often, these children are often treated like adults and, under the worst circumstances, like criminals. Xaio Ling, a young girl from China who spoke no English, was detained by the INS at the Berks County Juvenile Detention Center. The INS placed her among children guilty of violent crimes, including rape and murder. Xaio was never guilty of any crime, and yet she slept in a small concrete cell, was subjected to humiliating strip searches, and forced to wear handcuffs. She was forbidden to keep any of her clothes or possessions and, under the policies of the Berks Center, Xaio was not allowed to laugh. Imagine the fear this child had: thrust into a system she did not understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles with serious criminal convictions, including murder, car jacking, rape, and drug trafficking. She did not speak English and was unable to speak to any staff who knew her language, and she had to submit to strip searches. It is hard to believe that our country would have allowed this innocent child to be treated in such a horrible manner. Situations like that of the young Chinese girl make a compelling case for a change in the way our nation treats unaccompanied alien children. Under the legislation I have introduced today, this youngster would never have been placed in a detention center with criminal offenders. Rather, she would have immediately been placed in shelter care, foster care, or a home more appropriate for her situation. She would have been provided an attorney for her immigration proceedings and a social worker would have been appointed as guardian ad litem to ensure that the child's needs were being met. Sadly, this young girl was given none of these options. Neither was a 16-year-old boy from Colombia. This youngster fled Colombia to escape a life of violence on the streets of Bogota, where FARC guerrillas attempted to recruit him and the F-2 branch of the Colombian government harassed him in its attempt to get rid of street children. Fearing for his life, he fled Colombia for Venezuela where he lived without shelter or sufficient food. In search of a safer life, he sneaked into the machine room of a cargo ship bound for the United States. He was lucky to survive; many other stowaways were thrown overboard when discovered by the ship's crew. The boy remained on the ship from November 1998 until March 1999, when he arrived in Philadelphia. He was soon turned over to the INS and placed into the same detention center the young Chinese girl was held in. He, too, was kept with criminal offenders. He did not understand English, which created a myriad of problems because he was unable to understand what was expected of him in the detention center. He was held in an inappropriately punitive environment for six months. I have one last story to share with you today. Placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, a 15-year-old girl fled China's rigid family planning laws. Under these laws she was denied citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate. And what did our immigration system do when they found her? They held her in a juvenile jail in Portland, Oregon. She was held for eight months and was detained for an additional four months after being granted political asylum. At her asylum hearing, the young girl could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to her lawyer, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.'' For years children's rights and human rights organizations have implored Congress to improve the way our immigration system handles unaccompanied minors--just like the ones whose stories I have just told. I believe my bill would do just that. We cannot continue to allow children, who come to our country, often traumatized and guilty of no crime, to be held in jails and treated like criminals. We cannot continue to allow children, scared and helpless, to be thrown into a system they do not understand without sufficient legal aid and a guardian to look after their best interests. We must adhere to the principles of our justice system. What kind of message do we send when we deprive children who come to our country seeking refuge of their basic rights and protections? As a nation that holds our democratic ideals and constitutional rights paramount, how then can we continue to avert our attention from repeated violations of some of the most basic human rights against children who have no voice in the immigration system? We should be outraged that children who come to the U.S. alone, many against their will, are subjected to such inhumane, excessive conditions. I am proud to have the support of the United States Catholic Conference and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation. Although we are nearing the end of the session, I want to highlight this issue now so that we can begin to think about the importance of protecting the rights of children in immigration custody and work towards passing this legislation in the next Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, to introduce legislation to better protect American consumers from irresponsible companies who knowingly allow defective vehicles or vehicle parts to remain on the market. Our bill, the ``Defective Product Penalty Act,'' would significantly increase the responsibility of companies to test products for defects, to recall those products when necessary, and to report to authorities when defects are found. Recent news stories about Firestone tires have grabbed the headlines, but this bill really addresses some long-standing and serious deficiencies within our current laws. The Firestone case has highlighted the need for these overdue proposals, and it is our hope that this legislation receives swift and serious consideration. The time has come to close some loopholes and impose some real responsibility on company executives who ignore public safety. Let me describe specifically what this bill does: First, this legislation will increase civil penalties for failure to recall a defective vehicle or part or withholding information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Current penalties are $1,000 per violation with a maximum penalty in these cases of $925,000. The Defective Product Penalty Act would increase the penalty to $10,000 per violation, and would eliminate the maximum penalty altogether. A penalty of $925,000 for a multi-billion dollar, multinational business is not even enough to cause the company to think twice about releasing or recalling a defective vehicle. We need to give the NHTSA some real teeth. Second, this legislation will establish criminal penalties for knowingly distributing a defective vehicle or part, or for failing to recall or tell authorities about a defective product, if that defect results in death or injuries. If death results, the legislation calls for a penalty of up to 15 years in prison. If serious injury results, the legislation calls for penalties of up to 5 years. Third, this legislation would extend the statute of limitations for NHTSA to mandate recalls, from 8 to 10 years for vehicles, and from 3 to 5 years for tires. Fourth, the bill would require companies to actually test vehicle products before self-certifying that the product is in compliance with NHTSA standards. Next, the legislation clarifies federal law to make it clear that in cases involving vehicle products sold in the U.S., a company must send the NHTSA copies of all notices sent to dealers and owners, even if the notices are sent only to owners and dealers in foreign countries. Finally, this legislation includes provisions from Senator Kohl's ``Sunshine in Litigation Act'' (S. 957), to: Prohibit federal courts from issuing protective orders that prohibit individuals from disclosing potential defects or dangers to regulatory agencies; and Prohibit federal courts from enforcing secrecy agreements without first balancing the need for privacy against the public's need to know about potential health and safety hazards. In other words, no longer can a company put other consumers at risk by forcing a plaintiff to keep quiet about a potential threat to public safety. Mr. President, this legislation will send a clear signal to irresponsible companies and individuals who intentionally put the public at risk from defective products--you will now be held responsible for your actions. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, to introduce legislation to better protect American consumers from irresponsible companies who knowingly allow defective vehicles or vehicle parts to remain on the market. Our bill, the ``Defective Product Penalty Act,'' would significantly increase the responsibility of companies to test products for defects, to recall those products when necessary, and to report to authorities when defects are found. Recent news stories about Firestone tires have grabbed the headlines, but this bill really addresses some long-standing and serious deficiencies within our current laws. The Firestone case has highlighted the need for these overdue proposals, and it is our hope that this legislation receives swift and serious consideration. The time has come to close some loopholes and impose some real responsibility on company executives who ignore public safety. Let me describe specifically what this bill does: First, this legislation will increase civil penalties for failure to recall a defective vehicle or part or withholding information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Current penalties are $1,000 per violation with a maximum penalty in these cases of $925,000. The Defective Product Penalty Act would increase the penalty to $10,000 per violation, and would eliminate the maximum penalty altogether. A penalty of $925,000 for a multi-billion dollar, multinational business is not even enough to cause the company to think twice about releasing or recalling a defective vehicle. We need to give the NHTSA some real teeth. Second, this legislation will establish criminal penalties for knowingly distributing a defective vehicle or part, or for failing to recall or tell authorities about a defective product, if that defect results in death or injuries. If death results, the legislation calls for a penalty of up to 15 years in prison. If serious injury results, the legislation calls for penalties of up to 5 years. Third, this legislation would extend the statute of limitations for NHTSA to mandate recalls, from 8 to 10 years for vehicles, and from 3 to 5 years for tires. Fourth, the bill would require companies to actually test vehicle products before self-certifying that the product is in compliance with NHTSA standards. Next, the legislation clarifies federal law to make it clear that in cases involving vehicle products sold in the U.S., a company must send the NHTSA copies of all notices sent to dealers and owners, even if the notices are sent only to owners and dealers in foreign countries. Finally, this legislation includes provisions from Senator Kohl's ``Sunshine in Litigation Act'' (S. 957), to: Prohibit federal courts from issuing protective orders that prohibit individuals from disclosing potential defects or dangers to regulatory agencies; and Prohibit federal courts from enforcing secrecy agreements without first balancing the need for privacy against the public's need to know about potential health and safety hazards. In other words, no longer can a company put other consumers at risk by forcing a plaintiff to keep quiet about a potential threat to public safety. Mr. President, this legislation will send a clear signal to irresponsible companies and individuals who intentionally put the public at risk from defective products--you will now be held responsible for your actions. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I acknowledge the comments made by the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and indicate my agreement with them. I also thank the staff people he has duly mentioned, and I want to speak particularly to the funding of the legislative branch. It is my understanding on our side of the aisle that there is deep concern about the addition of the Treasury-Postal bill on this bill, largely because it contains a measure which would use 25 percent of the non-Social Security surplus. I will leave that to others to discuss. Senator Bennett and I worked in a bipartisan way on the fiscal year 2001 legislative branch appropriations bill. I believe it is a very good bill. It addresses the critical areas of concern for the legislative branch and is in the best interests of those whom we serve. We worked very hard to ensure that each agency within our legislative branch was treated fairly, and even though we were not able to fully fund every agency's request, we made every effort to distribute the scarce resources as fairly as possible. In some cases, we were able to make modest increases above last year's level. I particularly note that the $97.1 million which we are providing for the Capitol Police will fund 1,481 full-time equivalents, a level which conferees believe will enable the appropriate staffing at building entrances to ensure the security of our Capitol campus. Additionally, in order to address some very critical needs, the conference agreement provides to the Capitol Police $2.1 million in fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental funds for security enhancements, and provides the Architect of the Capitol $9 million in fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental funds to move forward with a number of urgent building repairs. This is my second year as ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, working alongside our dedicated and distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Bennett. Senator Bennett is always very open and willing to discuss the various issues that arise in relation to this bill. He has been very accommodating to my concerns as well as to the concerns of other Members of the Senate. I know that firsthand. In fact, he never ceases to amaze me with his extensive knowledge of the various departments and agencies under the legislative branch--not only their basic structure and the function of those agencies but their legislative histories as well. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with Senator Bennett on this bill. I urge the adoption of the conference agreement. I yield some time, with the approval of Senator Bennett, to Senator Harkin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe Senator Wellstone is speaking under his own time. I will yield such time as he may consume to Senator Harkin.