[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16621-S16630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 1378. A bill to combat public corruption, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    the anti-corruption act of 1995

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Anti-Corruption 
Act of 1995, a bill which will strengthen the ability of Federal law 
enforcement officials to combat election fraud and public corruption by 
State and local officials. A few excerpts from recent news articles 
will demonstrate the need for this bill:
  The San Diego Union-Tribune writes on October 1 of recent reports,

       [T]hat cats and dogs are on the state's voter rolls, that 
     God is registered to vote in Hollywood, and that a San 
     Francisco man who died in 1982 has consistently voted for the 
     past decade.

  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports on the same day of the city 
comptroller who, a few days earlier, pleaded guilty to--

       [I]ncome tax evasion in exchange for dismissal of charges 
     that he conspired with others to defraud voters in the 
     comptroller's election two years ago.

  The Dallas Morning News reports on September 30, of citizens in rural 
Costilla County, CO, who,

       [S]purred an investigation by the state attorney general 
     that led to a raft of indictments and guilty pleas for 
     election fraud [and p]rompted a second investigation by the 
     attorney general that found fraud and embezzlement by county 
     officials.

  The Hartford Courant reports on August 28, of new efforts to combat 
voter fraud because of irregularities, including,

       [T]wenty-seven felons who voted in 1994 in the race for the 
     2nd District Congressional seat.

  It is no wonder the American people become more disgusted with our 
system every day. Allegations of vote buying and cries of ``voting 
irregularities'' pervade every close election.
  We would like to think that the losing candidates are only motivated 
by sour grapes. But too often, investigations turn up cases where a 
dead, nonetheless patriotic, American manages to roll out of his 
eternal slumber to do his or her civic duty before the polls close.
  Americans' faith is further eroded by daily scandals involving public 
officials reported in their local paper. This past summer, officials 
formally closed a nearly 5-year corruption investigation that rocked my 
own State of Kentucky. Operation BOPTROT resulted in more than a dozen 
convictions of State legislators, appointed State officials and 
lobbyists. The BOPTROT sting operation involved bribery and influence 
peddling at the highest level of Kentucky State government. Although 
the BOPTROT investigation was closed in early August, FBI officials 
made it clear that the State has not yet been cleansed of public 
corruption: ``Public corruption remains the FBI's No. 1 priority in 
Kentucky,'' according to the lead FBI investigator.

[[Page S 16622]]

  A central problem in preventing corruption in elections and 
government operations is a lack of Federal guidelines defining what is 
illegal. Another problem is the jurisdiction over this illegal 
activity. This bill I am introducing aims at correcting both of these 
problems.

  The bill simply states that if anyone engages in any activity to 
deprive people of the honest services of their public officials, they 
will be fined and face a possible 10-year sentence in Federal prison. 
This includes rigging elections, intimidating voters, buying votes, and 
bribing officials.
  And, this bill makes every act of elections fraud--at every level of 
government--a Federal offense. It gives Federal prosecutors the 
jurisdictional authority they need to investigate and prosecute 
entrenched local corruption.
  We have made dramatic changes to the voter registration laws; while 
it is easier to register and vote, it is also easier to commit election 
fraud. This bill is needed to discourage those who would seek to 
defraud the government and abuse the public trust.
  Moreover, as we ask the States to assume more responsibility for 
providing government services, we must ensure that we possess the tools 
for weeding out and punishing corrupt practices.
  The bill also addresses public corruption as it relates to drug 
trafficking. The facilitation by public officials of drug trafficking 
would be classified as a class B felony under title 18 of the United 
States Code.
  And, anyone attempting to bribe or actually bribing a public official 
for help in drug trafficking would be guilty of a class B felony.
  Drug use and drug trafficking are back on the rise. It is a lucrative 
business. Aiding and abetting it can offer a huge stipend to public 
officials, worth many times their government salaries. This bill would 
make drug stings sting a lot more--for the pushers and for corrupt 
politicians.
  Mr. President, I have spoken out repeatedly over the years on these 
issues and on this specific piece of legislation. In past years, this 
bill, included as an amendment to other pieces of anticrime 
legislation, has passed the Senate with overwhelming, bipartisan 
support. But it has never made it to the final conference report.
  The bill has also had wide support among the U.S. attorneys, who 
would be on the front lines prosecuting these crimes. In fact, two 
former U.S. attorneys in Kentucky have endorsed this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their letters in support 
of this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Robinson & McElwee,

                                  Lexington, KY, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I am writing in support of the 
     Anti-Corruption Act you are introducing. As you know, 
     Kentucky has been victimized by public corruption at the 
     highest levels of state government. My first-hand experience 
     in Operation BOPTROT, resulting in the conviction of almost 
     two dozen officials, made me aware of the gaps in federal law 
     and jurisdiction over influence peddling and corruption.
       Your bill would provide federal law enforcement officials 
     with the necessary tools to fight these plagues on the 
     taxpayers. And, it would send a message to public officials 
     everywhere that there will be grave consequences for failing 
     to uphold the public trust.
       The American people grow more and more cynical about our 
     government and much of the blame can be laid at those who 
     breach the confidence placed in them by the voters. Your bill 
     will help restore the faith citizens should have in our great 
     system.
       I am confident your bill will be widely supported among 
     your colleagues and I wish you every success in speedy 
     passage.
           Sincerely,
     Karen K. Caldwell.
                                                                    ____



                                            Joseph M. Whittle,

                                   Prospect, KY, October 16, 1995.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I am pleased to write in support of 
     your Anti-Corruption Act, a bill you have introduced in 
     previous Congresses and which has been adopted by a majority 
     of the Senate.
       Since the bill addresses election fraud and corruption by 
     government officials, it is of particular importance to 
     Kentucky in view of the 5-year Operation BOPTROT effort. My 
     involvement in Operation BOPTROT made me aware that current 
     federal law is not fully adequate to deal with public 
     corruption. This bill will give federal law enforcement 
     agents the power and authority to vigorously fight election 
     fraud, influence peddling and public corruption.
       Most of all, your bill will help restore confidence the 
     American people should have in their government and public 
     servants.
       I wish you success in getting the bill passed. I know it 
     has enjoyed wide support in the past, and I am confident that 
     the bill will continue to have support among your colleagues.
           Respectfully,
                                                Joseph M. Whittle.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am confident this bill will gain the 
support of the Attorney General.
  I am certain that in our renewed effort to gain the public trust, 
this legislation will be received with resounding approval. I urge my 
colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1378

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Corruption Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. PUBLIC CORRUPTION.

       (a) Offenses.--Chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 226. Public corruption

       ``(a) State and Local Government.--
       ``(1) Honest services.--Whoever, in a circumstance 
     described in paragraph (3), deprives or defrauds, or 
     endeavors to deprive or to defraud, by any scheme or 
     artifice, the inhabitants of a State or political subdivision 
     of a State of the honest services of an official or employee 
     of the State or political subdivision shall be fined under 
     this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
       ``(2) Fair and impartial elections.--Whoever, in a 
     circumstance described in paragraph (3), deprives or 
     defrauds, or endeavors to deprive or to defraud, by any 
     scheme or artifice, the inhabitants of a State or political 
     subdivision of a State of a fair and impartially conducted 
     election process in any primary, run-off, special, or general 
     election through one or more of the following means, or 
     otherwise--
       ``(A) through the procurement, casting, or tabulation of 
     ballots that are materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     or that are invalid, under the laws of the State in which the 
     election is held;
       ``(B) through paying or offering to pay any person for 
     voting;
       ``(C) through the procurement or submission of voter 
     registrations that contain false material information, or 
     omit material information;
       ``(D) through the filing of any report required to be filed 
     under Federal or State law regarding an election campaign 
     that contains false material information or omits material 
     information; or
       ``(E) through engaging in intimidating, threatening, or 
     deceptive conduct, with the intent to prevent or unlawfully 
     discourage any person from voting for the candidate of that 
     person's choice, registering to vote, or campaigning for or 
     against a candidate,
     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 
     years, or both.
       ``(3) Circumstances in which offense occurs.--The 
     circumstances referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) are 
     that--
       ``(A) for the purpose of executing or concealing a scheme 
     or artifice described in paragraph (1) or (2) or attempting 
     to do so, a person--
       ``(i) places in any post office or authorized depository 
     for mail matter, any matter or thing to be sent or delivered 
     by the Postal Service, deposits or causes to be deposited any 
     matter or thing to be sent or delivered by any private or 
     commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom 
     any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered 
     by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, 
     or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by 
     the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing;
       ``(ii) transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of 
     wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or 
     foreign commerce any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or 
     sounds;
       ``(iii) transports or causes to be transported any person 
     or thing, or induces any person to travel in or to be 
     transported in, interstate or foreign commerce; or
       ``(iv) uses or causes the use of any facility in interstate 
     or foreign commerce;
       ``(B) the scheme or artifice affects or constitutes an 
     attempt to affect in any manner or degree, or would if 
     executed or concealed affect, interstate or foreign commerce;
       ``(C) in the case of an offense described in paragraph (1), 
     the honest services of the official or employee relate to a 
     governmental office of a State or political subdivision of a 

[[Page S 16623]]

     State which receives funds derived from an Act of Congress in 
     an amount not less than $10,000 during the 12-month period 
     immediately preceding or following the date of the offense; 
     or
       ``(D) in the case of an offense described in paragraph (2), 
     an objective of the scheme or artifice is to secure the 
     election of an official who, if elected, would have any 
     authority over the administration of funds derived from an 
     Act of Congress totaling $10,000 or more during the 12-month 
     period immediately preceding or following the election or 
     date of the offense.
       ``(b) Federal Government.--Whoever deprives or defrauds, or 
     endeavors to deprive or to defraud, by any scheme or 
     artifice, the inhabitants of the United States of the honest 
     services of a public official or a person who has been 
     selected to be a public official shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
       ``(c) Offense by an Official Against an Employee or 
     Official.--
       ``(1) Criminal offense.--Whoever, being an official, public 
     official, or person who has been selected to be a public 
     official, directly or indirectly discharges, demotes, 
     suspends, threatens, harasses, or in any manner discriminates 
     against an employee or official of the United States or of a 
     State or political subdivision of a State, or endeavors to do 
     so, in order to carry out or to conceal a scheme or artifice 
     described in subsection (a) or (b), shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(2) Civil action.--(A) Any employee or official of a 
     State or political subdivision of a State who is discharged, 
     demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any manner 
     discriminated against because of lawful acts done by the 
     employee or official as a result of a violation of this 
     section or because of actions by the employee on behalf of 
     himself or herself or others in furtherance of prosecution 
     under this section (including investigation for, initiation 
     of, testimony for, or assistance in such a prosecution) may 
     bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction 
     and obtain all relief necessary to make the employee or 
     official whole, including--
       ``(i) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     employee or official would have had but for the violation;
       ``(ii) the amount of backpay;
       ``(iii) a penalty of two times the amount of backpay;
       ``(iv) interest on the actual amount of backpay; and
       ``(v) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the violation, including reasonable litigation 
     costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
       ``(B) To obtain recovery under subsection (c)(2)(A) (iii) 
     or (v) against a State or political subdivision, the employee 
     or individual bringing the action shall establish by a 
     preponderance of evidence that any violation of this section 
     was--
       ``(i) the result of widespread violations within the State 
     or political subdivision; or
       ``(ii) the result of conduct authorized by a senior 
     official within the State or political subdivision.
       ``(C) In cases in which a State or political subdivision is 
     sued and found liable for recovery under subsection (c)(2)(A) 
     (iii) or (v), the State or political subdivision may bring an 
     action for contribution for such recovery from any employee 
     or official whose action led to the recovery under subsection 
     (c)(2)(A) (iii) or (v).
       ``(D) An employee or official shall not be afforded relief 
     under subparagraph (A) if the employee or official 
     participated in the violation of this section with respect to 
     which relief is sought.
       ``(E)(i) A civil action or proceeding authorized by this 
     paragraph shall be stayed by a court upon certification of an 
     attorney for the Government that prosecution of the action or 
     proceeding may adversely affect the interests of the 
     Government in a pending criminal investigation or proceeding.
       ``(ii) The attorney for the Government shall promptly 
     notify the court when a stay may be lifted without such 
     adverse effects.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `official' includes--
       ``(A) any person employed by, exercising any authority 
     derived from, or holding any position in the government of a 
     State or any subdivision of the executive, legislative, 
     judicial, or other branch of government thereof, including a 
     department, independent establishment, commission, 
     administration, authority, board, and bureau, and a 
     corporation or other legal entity established and subject to 
     control by a government or governments for the execution of a 
     governmental or intergovernmental program;
       ``(B) any person acting or pretending to act under color of 
     official authority; and
       ``(C) any person who has been nominated, appointed, or 
     selected to be an official or who has been officially 
     informed that he or she will be so nominated, appointed, or 
     selected;
       ``(2) the term `person acting or pretending to act under 
     color of official authority' includes a person who represents 
     that he or she controls, is an agent of, or otherwise acts on 
     behalf of an official, public official, and person who has 
     been selected to be a public official;
       ``(3) the terms `public official' and `person who has been 
     selected to be a public official' have the meanings stated in 
     section 201 and include any person acting or pretending to 
     act under color of official authority; and
       ``(4) the term `State' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--(1) The chapter analysis for 
     chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

 ``226. Public corruption.''.

       (2) Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``section 226 (relating to public 
     corruption),'' after ``section 224 (relating to sports 
     bribery),''.
       (3) Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``section 226 (relating to public 
     corruption),'' after ``section 224 (bribery in sporting 
     contests),''.

     SEC. 3. INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1343 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or uses or causes the use of any 
     facility in interstate or foreign commerce,'' after 
     ``sounds''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or attempting to do so'' after ``for the 
     purpose of executing such scheme or artifice''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 1343 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 1343. Fraud by use of facility of interstate 
       commerce''.

       (2) The chapter analysis for chapter 63 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by amending the item relating to 
     section 1343 to read as follows:

``1343. Fraud by use of facility in interstate commerce.''.

     SEC. 4. NARCOTICS-RELATED PUBLIC CORRUPTION.

       (a) Offenses.--Chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 219 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 220. Narcotics and public corruption

       ``(a) Offense by Public Official.--A public official who, 
     in a circumstance described in subsection (c), directly or 
     indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or 
     agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or 
     for any other person in return for--
       ``(1) being influenced in the performance or nonperformance 
     of any official act; or
       ``(2) being influenced to commit or to aid in committing, 
     or to collude in, or to allow or make opportunity for the 
     commission of any offense against the United States or any 
     State, shall be guilty of a class B felony.
       ``(b) Offense by Person Other Than a Public Official.--A 
     person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (c), 
     directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises 
     anything of value to any public official, or offers or 
     promises any public official to give anything of value to any 
     other person, with intent--
       ``(1) to influence any official act;
       ``(2) to influence the public to commit or aid in 
     committing, or to collude in, or to allow or make opportunity 
     for the commission of any offense against the United States 
     or any State; or
       ``(3) to influence the public official to do or to omit to 
     do any act in violation of the official's lawful duty, shall 
     be guilty of a class B felony.
       ``(c) Circumstances in Which Offense Occurs.--The 
     circumstances referred to in subsections (a) and (b) are that 
     the offense involves, is part of, or is intended to further 
     or to conceal the illegal possession, importation, 
     manufacture, transportation, or distribution of any 
     controlled substance or controlled substance analogue.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the terms `controlled substance' and `controlled 
     substance analogue' have the meanings stated in section 102 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802);
       ``(2) the term `official act' means any decision, action, 
     or conduct regarding any question, matter, proceeding, cause, 
     suit, investigation, or prosecution which may at any time be 
     pending, or which may be brought before any public official, 
     in such official's official capacity, or in such official's 
     place of trust or profit; and
       ``(3) the term `public official' means--
       ``(A) an officer or employee or person acting for or on 
     behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or 
     branch of Government thereof in any official function, under 
     or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of 
     Government;
       ``(B) a juror;
       ``(C) an officer or employee or person acting for or on 
     behalf of the government of any State, commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States (including the 
     District of Columbia), or any political subdivision thereof, 
     in any official function, under or by the authority of any 
     such State, commonwealth, territory, possession, or political 
     subdivision; and
       ``(D) any person who has been nominated or appointed to a 
     position described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), or has 
     been officially informed that he or she will be so nominated 
     or appointed.''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--(1) Section 1961(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``section 220 
     (relating to narcotics and public corruption),'' after 
     ``Section 201 (relating to bribery),''.
       (2) Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``section 220 (relating to narcotics and 
     public corruption),'' after ``section 201 (bribery of public 
     officials and witnesses),''.
       (3) The chapter analysis for chapter 11 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by 

[[Page S 16624]]

     inserting after the item for section 219 the following new 
     item:

``220. Narcotics and public corruption.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON:
  S. 1379. A bill to make technical amendments to the Fair Debt 
Collection Practices Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


       the fair debt collection practices amendments act of 1995

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing 
legislation to make technical amendments to the Fair Debt Collections 
Practices Act.
  The original act was passed in 1977 to stop the abusive debt 
collection practices of third-party debt collectors. In that regard, it 
has worked well.
  Debt collectors were told that if they ran honest, ethical operations 
they would not have problems with the act--that only the lawless 
collectors would be penalized. The law-abiding among them would thus 
not need to worry nor would they have to hire lawyers to interpret the 
act.
  In that regard, the act may well have reached too far. Certainly, 
unscrupulous collectors have been forced to play by the rules, but may 
law-abiding collectors have found themselves unjustly burdened by many 
minor provisions found in the act. There have been hundreds of lawsuits 
based on technical and totally unintentional violations of the act.
  We should remember that collection agencies are, in most cases, the 
smallest of small businesses. Also, some 38 percent are owned or 
operated by women, one of the highest of such percentages in all 
business categories.
  These companies cannot afford huge legal bills and they certainly 
cannot get free legal representation. Because of the large increase in 
the number of such lawsuits, many collection agencies have seen huge 
increases in their insurance premiums.
  The most distressing result is that small and highly dedicated group 
of attorneys is using the act to extort money from collection agencies. 
For example, the act has a $1,000 minimum statutory damage provision, 
even for the smallest, technical violation. These attorneys will comb 
collection files to find the smallest violation and then sue collection 
agencies for the $1,000 amount. The agency is usually forced to pay a 
settlement because, even if they have done nothing wrong, the legal 
fees required to defend such an action will run many thousands of 
dollars. Some agencies have even set aside money each month to pay off 
the demands of these lawyers, even though the company knows it has not 
violated the spirit of the act.
  Let me cite some examples of ridiculous lawsuits that would be 
eliminated under this legislation.
  A Nevada agency was sued for allegedly violating the prohibition 
against third-party contacts after the agency sued the debtor in court 
to obtain a judgment. The consumer attorney felt that communicating 
with the court was a third-party violation.
  An agency that collects students loans for the Department of 
Education was similarly challenged in court. At issue was the language 
used by the agency in its letters as required by the Department. The 
language stated that no legal action is required for the Department to 
enforce an administrative garnishment against a debtor. The attorney 
argued that the notice was deceptive because it did not state that the 
debtor has a right to a hearing before the garnishment is enforced.
  What about the collectors who are big enough to fight back? In many 
cases, collection agencies that can afford this costly litigation are 
not bothered by claimant attorneys. So effectively, the act has served 
to selectively penalize the small collector. To compound confusion, 
different courts have handed down totally contradictory decisions and 
opinions regarding the provisions of the act. Thus we have a Federal 
law requiring collectors to follow procedures that vary from State to 
State. The situation has become so confusing that the Federal Trade 
Commission has asked Congress to clarify the opposing court decisions 
and that, in part, is one of the purposes of this legislation.
  In addition, the bill gets rid of the $1,000 statutory damages 
``carrot'' that has, through its misuse, become a winning lottery 
ticket for some lawyers. Certainly a debt collector who wrongfully 
damages a debtor should be required to pay for those damages--and the 
legislation will preserve such compensation. A collector will be held 
responsible for actual damages, but not for an arbitrary standard that 
is not imposed by most other consumer laws.

  Additionally, when Congress passed the Truth in Lending 
Simplification Act in the 1980's, it cleared up a major problem in 
class action lawsuits by limiting the total damages and number of such 
suits that could be filed against one defendant. Because of an 
oversight, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act was not made part of 
the legislation and today debt collectors face a legal financial burden 
that other companies covered by consumer protection enforcement laws 
are protected against. This legislation corrects that oversight.
  The legislation would allow judges to award defendants the cost of 
their actions plus legal fees if one of these suits is brought in bad 
faith. Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would now apply 
to lawsuits associated with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. 
Under that standard, when a defendant offers a settlement and the 
plaintiff refuses, if the ultimate court award is equal to or less than 
such an offer, the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's legal costs. 
This rule has worked well and should help end technical lawsuits.
  Collectors are also being attacked by another class of attorneys--
district or county attorneys who are setting up ``for profit,'' 
collection agencies that compete directly with private enterprise. 
Under a very narrow reading of the act, these State and local officials 
contend they are not covered by the legislation. In some areas, these 
public officials are telling merchants that they will not accept debts 
for collection if they have previously been turned over to a private 
collection agency. At present, the local government collection agencies 
are only collecting bad checks but they may well branch into other 
collection fields. Do not be fooled. These public officials are not 
collecting bad checks as part of their government function. No, only 
merchants who join the program can get this type of law enforcement. 
Individuals who have received bad checks cannot use the service. This 
amounts to law enforcement judged by the size of your wallet.
  This legislation would still allow local officials to operate such 
collection activities but they would have to comply with the Fair Debt 
Collections Practices Act. No longer would such operations be able to 
charge a consumer $120 for a $5 returned check as has happened in some 
cases.
  The legislation does not remove any of the other basic consumer 
safeguards that are in the act. Still in place are the restrictions 
against harassment by collectors, calls in the middle of the night, 
informing employers about debts and the all important safeguard that 
makes it illegal for a collector to do anything in a deceptive manner.
  Mr. President, the amount of debt owed to American businesses that 
goes unpaid is skyrocketing. In the latest figures available, 226.2 
million accounts totaling $79 billion were turned over to third-party 
collection agencies in 1993. It is estimated that bad debt cases cost 
every man, woman, and child in America $250 per year. That means that a 
family of four will pay $1,000 more for goods and services during each 
year. The figures for bad checks are even more staggering. On average, 
Americans write more than 1.5 million checks a day that are 
subsequently dishonored by U.S. banks.
  In 1992 some 533 million checks totaling $16 billion were returned to 
U.S. banks. Projections for 1995 estimate that 619 million checks will 
``bounce.'' By the year 200 the estimate is that 731 million will be 
returned. Our Nation's economy can't afford such losses and businesses 
deserve the services of an affordable collection industry that is not 
bogged down by the technical and nuisance lawsuits.
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO:
  S. 1380. A bill to require forfeiture of counterfeit access devices, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                         forfeiture legislation

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
close a 

[[Page S 16625]]

loophole which has proven to be a bonus to counterfeiters and a 
detriment to law enforcement. Simply stated, this legislation allows 
equipment used to counterfeit access devices to be treated like any 
other contraband and forfeited.
  Currently under law, certain items are designated as contraband. 
Narcotics, illegal firearms, and counterfeit currency often come to 
mind when the issue of contraband is raised. Contraband also includes 
property designed or intended as the means of committing a criminal 
offense. Since narcotics are contraband, illegal drugs can be seized 
from a suspected drug dealer, as well as the vehicle in which the drug 
transaction occurred.
  This bill would allow counterfeit access devices to be treated as 
contraband. Access devices are the means in which the account owner can 
access his or her own account, including credit cards and cellular 
phones. Counterfeiters can gain entry to this account and, in a matter 
of minutes, reach the owner's cash or use the owner's service. 
Criminals who perpetuate credit card fraud use equipment, such as an 
embosser and encoder, to imprint new numbers onto a piece of plastic. 
They are then able to use the credit cards to the limit for cash 
withdrawal using a valid credit card number. In telecommunications 
fraud, the offender can use an electronic serial number reader [ESN] to 
attract cellular phone numbers and store them for unauthorized use. By 
using a computer and a device called an E-chip, the offender can 
reprogram any cellular phone to call on another person's bill. Once the 
legitimate owner of the stolen cellular phone number realizes that 
their phone has been used by a criminal, the criminal is using another 
innocent owner's cellular number.
  Law enforcement agencies do all they can to catch the offenders. The 
New York Times reported on an imaginative operation devised by the U.S. 
Secret Service to find perpetrators of cellular phone fraud, through 
the use of a computer bulletin board. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of this article be included in the Record, Mr. President, and I 
would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Secret Service 
for working to end fraud on this and other fronts.
  The problem, however, is that when the perpetrators of credit card 
and cellular phone fraud are apprehended, and even convicted, the 
equipment used by the offenders is often returned to them after their 
sentence is served! Although this process seems preposterous, it is 
real. A credit card counterfeiter frequently receives his or her 
embosser and encoder once released from custody. The apparatus used to 
commit the cellular phone theft of services is also frequently remitted 
to the user, even if he or she was convicted. With their equipment 
intact, they are ready to commit fraud again if they so desire. The 
problem of counterfeit access devices costs the cellular phone 
companies and the banks billions of dollars every year. These costs get 
passed on to the customer.
  Remittance of equipment used in counterfeiting access devices is 
certainly not the intent of law enforcement or prosecutors. These 
dedicated officials work tirelessly to do the right thing. Why is it 
that the devices are not forfeited? It is simply because the law has 
not been updated to keep up with technology.
  The process is already in place for other contraband, such as 
narcotics, counterfeit currency and illegal firearms. It should not be 
too much of a stretch to extend the same procedures and safeguards that 
are available for these contrabands to counterfeit credit cards and 
cloned cellular phones.
  This legislation will not end the counterfeiting of access devices 
but it will end the practice of returning tools to those who may use it 
for illicit purposes. Any hurdle that we can create for the repeat 
offender should be clearly established in law. The message from this 
Congress must be: for every ingenious way that criminals can commit 
their crimes, Congress is prepared to stop them.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1380

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

     SECTION 1. FORFEITURE OF COUNTERFEIT ACCESS DEVICES.

       Section 80302(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' the last place it 
     appears;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) a counterfeit access device, device-making equipment, 
     or scanning receiver (as those terms are defined in section 
     1029 of title 18).''.
                                                                    ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 12, 1995]

             Secret Service Goes on Line and After Hackers

                         (By Clifford J. Levy)

       It was a classic sting operation, the kind of undercover 
     gambit that has nabbed bad guys for decades: Federal agents 
     disguised as big-time thieves set up shop and put the word 
     out on the street that they were eager for business. Soon 
     shifty characters were stopping by, officials said, peddling 
     stolen goods that were worth millions of dollars.
       But as the agents revealed yesterday, the meeting place for 
     this subterfuge was not some grimy storefront. It was a 
     computer bulletin board that the United States Secret Service 
     has rigged together to troll for people who are illegally 
     trafficking in the codes that program cellular phones.
       The ``computer service,'' which led to the arrests of at 
     least six suspected hackers and the possibility of more, is 
     the latest indication that law enforcement agencies are being 
     forced to try novel strategies to keep up with the startling 
     growth in computer-assisted crime. Cellular-phone fraud alone 
     cost companies $482 million last year, the cellular-phone 
     industry estimates.
       According to the criminal complaint in the case, a Secret 
     Service agent used the Internet, the global computer network, 
     to announce that the bulletin board catered to those involved 
     in breaking into computers and in cellular-phone and credit-
     card fraud.
       ``People all over the country responded,'' said Peter A. 
     Cavicchia 2d, the special agent in charge of the Newark 
     office of the Secret Service, which ran the investigation. 
     ``They felt they could do this with impunity.''
       The Secret Service, which is the Federal agency charged 
     with going after cellular phone and credit card fraud, has 
     long been known to monitor commercial computer on-line 
     services like Prodigy and America Online, as well as smaller, 
     private computer bulletin boards, for illegal activities.
       But officials said this case represented the first time 
     that the Secret Service had created an entirely new computer 
     bulletin board, which is basically a system that links 
     different computer users, allowing them to chat with and 
     leave messages for each other. There have been a few 
     instances of other law enforcement agencies creating bulletin 
     boards for investigations.
       ``If they are selling the stuff in cyberspace, law 
     enforcement has to be willing to go there,'' said Donna 
     Krappa, an assistant United States Attorney in Newark, who 
     is on the team prosecuting the case. ``And the way to do 
     that is to have a fence in cyberspace.''
       As Federal law enforcement officials detailed it, the 
     investigation unfolded much like a traditional sting that 
     draws in people hawking stolen televisions, jewelry or cars. 
     The agents made contact with the suspects, then worked to 
     gain their confidence and allay their suspicions.
       The difference, of course, was that most of these 
     discussions were conducted with computers talking over 
     telephone lines.
       Last January, a Secret Service special agent, Stacey 
     Bauerschmidt, using the computer nickname Carder One, 
     established a computer bulletin board that she called Celco 
     51.
       It is relatively easy to put together a private computer 
     bulletin board, requiring only a computer, a modem, phone 
     lines and communications software. Special Agent Bauerschmidt 
     was assisted by an informer with experience as a computer 
     hacker, officials said. The equipment and phone line for the 
     scheme were located in a Bergen County, N.J., apartment 
     building.
       After buying hundreds of the stolen phone codes, the Secret 
     Service conducted raids in several states late last week, 
     arresting the six people and seizing more than 20 computer 
     systems, as well as equipment for making cellular phones 
     operate with stolen codes, said the United States Attorney in 
     Newark, Faith S. Hochberg.
       Officials said that of those arrested, two of them, Richard 
     Lacap of Katy, Tex., and Kevin Watkins of Houston, were 
     particularly sophisticated because they actually broke into 
     the computer systems of cellular phone companies to obtain 
     the codes.
       It is more common for thieves to steal the codes by using 
     scanners that intercept the signals that the phones send when 
     making calls.
       ``We consider this to be one of the most significant of the 
     wireless fraud busts that have come down so far,'' said 
     Michael T. Houghton, a spokesman for the Cellular 
     Telecommunications Industry Association, a trade group. 
     ``These guys took it another degree.''
       The others arrested were identified as Jeremy Cushing of 
     Huntington Beach, Calif., Al Bradford of Detroit, and Frank 
     Natoli and Michael Clarkson, both of Brooklyn.
                                 ______

                                 
[[Page S 16626]]

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 1381. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
individuals who are involuntarily unemployed to withdraw funds from 
individual retirement accounts and other qualified retirement plans 
without incurring a tax penalty; to the Committee on Finance.


               individual retirement accounts legislation

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation to allow persons who are involuntarily unemployed to 
withdraw funds from individual retirement accounts [IRAs] and other 
retirement plans, without the tax penalty that would otherwise apply.
  Mr. President, over 7.5 million people were unemployed in September, 
which translates to an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. Many of the 
unemployed will find themselves with no income, substantial fixed 
expenses, and severely impaired ability to make ends meet.
  In most cases, these Americans have been laid off not because they 
are poor workers, or because they do not try hard enough. They are 
simply the innocent victims of corporate down-sizing, or other forces 
larger than themselves.
  For those unlucky enough to be laid off when business slows, the 
experience is often traumatic. There is a sense of rejection and 
betrayal. There is anger. And perhaps most importantly, there is fear--
fear for oneself, and for one's family.
  The fear is understandable. While their short-term employment 
prospects are often bleak, the unemployed face enormous financial 
pressures. As mortgages and rent payments come due, and bills pile up, 
millions of American families find themselves trapped by high fixed 
expenses, and without a paycheck to make ends meet.
  Unemployment insurance can help, but it often falls far short of 
families' real needs, particularly in areas like my home State of New 
Jersey, where the costs of housing and other basic necessities are 
unusually high. Even if a family manages to survive on unemployment 
compensation, there may not be enough to overcome joblessness by 
relocating, or training for a new job. Compounding matters, the 
benefits of the long-term unemployed often expire.
  Yet in many cases, Mr. President, the unemployed do have their own 
savings in an IRA or other retirement plan. These savings can provide a 
financial life raft to get through this unexpected financial storm. 
Unfortunately, it is a life raft with a large hole, because, for those 
under age 59\1/2\, withdrawals generally trigger a stiff, 10-percent 
tax penalty.
  Mr. President, Americans do not believe in hitting people when they 
are down. And I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with 
imposing a heavy penalty on those who want to gain access to their own 
money to cope with unemployment.
  The bill I am introducing proposes to eliminate the 10-percent 
penalty for people who have been laid off and who are trying to find 
work. It is targeted to people who need it--those who have been 
eligible for unemployment compensation for at least 30 days.
  I think that is only fair.
  Mr. President, while the bill's primary purpose is to provide relief 
to the unemployed, it would also provide at least two additional 
benefits.
  First, it should increase the savings rate, by encouraging Americans 
to participate in IRA's and other retirement plans. Currently, many 
people, particularly young people, are reluctant to tie up their money 
for decades in a retirement plan. They're concerned, understandably, 
that their savings would be inaccessible in an emergency, such as an 
unexpected period of unemployment, without the imposition of a heavy 
penalty.
  Allowing greater flexibility during periods of involuntary 
unemployment, Mr. President, should reduce this concern, and that 
should lead to increased savings.
  The bill also should provide another indirect benefit. By unlocking 
savings and injecting money into the economy during periods of high 
unemployment, the legislation would provide a modest countercyclical 
stimulus. This would help revive a slow economy to the benefit of all 
Americans.
  Mr. President, the concept of allowing early withdrawals from 
retirement plans for specific compelling reasons is not new. In fact, I 
first introduced this proposal a few years ago, and it has been 
included in previous legislation adopted by the Senate.
  In sum, Mr. President, this bill would provide relief to the 
unemployed, increase our Nation's savings rate, and provide an 
automatic stimulus to the economy during slow periods.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1381

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

     SECTION 1. WAIVER OF EARLY DISTRIBUTION PENALTY DURING 
                   PERIODS OF INVOLUNTARY UNEMPLOYMENT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 72(t) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions to 10-
     percent additional tax on early distributions from qualified 
     plans) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Distributions for persons who are involuntarily 
     unemployed.--Any distributions which are made during any 
     applicable involuntary unemployment period. For purposes of 
     this subparagraph--
       ``(i) the term `applicable involuntary unemployment period' 
     means the consecutive period beginning on the 30th day after 
     the first date on which an individual is entitled to receive 
     unemployment compensation and ending with the date on which 
     the individual begins employment which disqualifies the 
     individual from receiving such compensation (or would 
     disqualify if such compensation had not expired by reason of 
     a limitation on the number of weeks of compensation); and
       ``(ii) the term `unemployment compensation' has the meaning 
     given such term by section 85(b).''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions made after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 1383. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the 
vessel Westfjord; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  S. 1384. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the 
vessel God's Grace II; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                certificate of documentation legislation

 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing separate 
bills to provide certificates of documentation for the vessels 
Westfjord and God's Grace II.
  The Westfjord, hull number X-53-109, is a 53' Chris Craft 
recreational vessel owned by Gary and Neoma Scheff of Craig, AK. It was 
built in Algonac, MI in 1954. Because records of the vessel have been 
lost, it has been determined to be ineligible to be documented for use 
in the coastwise trade. The Scheffs intend to use the vessel as a 
charter vessel.
  The God's Grace II, Alaska registration number AK5916B, is a 32' 
commercial fishing vessel owned by Winston Gillies of Kenai, AK. It was 
built in North Vancouver, BC in 1965. The vessel was originally built 
for one of the Kenai packing companies and has been used for fishing 
off Alaska for 30 years.
  Because the God's Grace II is less than 5 gross tons, Mr. Gillies has 
been able to operate the vessel in the coastwise trade without 
documentation. Mr. Gillies would now like to extend the boat to 36' in 
order to be able to fish in the Class C, 35- to 60-foot, category of 
the halibut and sablefish individual fishing quota [IFQ] program. If he 
extends the vessel, the vessel will exceed 5 tons and he will be 
required to have documentation.
  I ask for unanimous consent that these two bills be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1383

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
     United State Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate 
     endorsements for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
     vessel Westfjord (Hull number X53-109).
                                                                    ____

                                  
[[Page S 16627]]


                                S. 1384

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
     United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate 
     endorsements for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
     vessel God's Grace II (Alaska registration number 
     AK5916B).
                                 ______

      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerrey, 
        Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 1385. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of periodic colorectal screening services under 
part B of the Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.


              the colorectal cancer screening act of 1995

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I introduce a measure that I 
believe should garner widespread support in both parties. The 
Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 would provide screening under 
Medicare for the third most prevalent type of cancer, cancer of the 
colon and rectum, which will strike 138,200 Americans this year. The 
bill would provide screening in a cost-effective manner which would 
ensure that doctors and their patients, not the Federal Government, 
decide which of the several recommended screening procedures are used. 
I am joined by Senators Conrad, Dorgan, Kerrey, Daschle, and Hollings.
  Let me share with you some of the frightening facts about colorectal 
cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, 55,300 Americans will 
die this year from this disease. Of the 138,200 new cases that will be 
reported, about half will be among men--70,700--and half among women--
67,500. Only lung and prostate cancer attack more Americans. In my own 
State of Louisiana, 2,000 citizens will get this type of cancer this 
year.
  As with most cancers, early detection is key to surviving colorectal 
cancer. About 90 percent of colorectal cancer victims whose cancer is 
detected in an early localized stage survive beyond 5 years. That 
number drops to between 50 and 60 percent when the cancer has spread 
regionally and to less than 10 percent when it has spread more widely.
  Mr. President, colorectal cancer is a major cost to the Medicare 
Program. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 168,000 seniors 
were hospitalized with colon or rectum cancer in 1991--the most recent 
year for which data is available. The average hospital stay for these 
patients was 16 days.
  While private health plans are beginning to provide coverage for 
colorectal cancer screening, Medicare--which serves older Americans who 
are most at risk--does not. According to a report from the 
Congressional Officer of Technology Assessment released earlier this 
year, screening for colorectal cancer is more cost-effective than many 
of the other procedures the Medicare Program already covers. Screening 
provides benefits at a cost of about $13,000 per life-year saved, 
versus $40,000 to $50,000 per life-year saved for some preventive and 
other services that Medicare already covers. At a time when we are 
looking for ways to control the overall cost of the Medicare Program, 
we must continue our efforts to use those limited funds in ways that 
are cost-effective.
  Mr. President, I know that other Members of this body have introduced 
a bill to provide for colorectal cancer screening. This measure differs 
from theirs in only a few ways. First, this bill is not procedure-
specific. It would provide Medicare coverage for all of the colon 
cancer screening recommended by the American College of Physicians and 
which the Office of Technology Assessment found to be cost-effective. 
Second, the would allow the Secretary to add new procedures once they 
are developed. This is critically important to encouraging innovation 
and research in this area. As a number of medical companies have 
explained in recent correspondence, legislation that ``limits Medicare 
reimbursement to only a few of the current screening technologies does 
not allow for the development and diffusion of new medical procedures 
which might ultimately prove more effective and cost-efficient in the 
detection of colorectal cancer.'' Mr. President, I believe Medicare 
should cover all types of recommended screening and let the patient and 
his doctor, not the Federal Government, decide which one is 
appropriate.

  This bill would follow the guidelines approved by the American 
College of Physicians on April 23, 1990, which read as follows:

       Recommendations:
       1. Screening with fecal occult blood tests is recommended 
     annually for individuals age 50 and older.
       2. Screening with sigmoidoscopy is recommended every 3-5 
     years or with air-contrast barium enema every 5 years for 
     individuals age 50 or older.
       3. For individuals age 40 and older who have familial 
     polyposis coli, inflammatory bowel disease, or a history of 
     colon cancer in a first degree relative, i.e., parent or 
     sibling, screening with air-contrast barium enema or 
     colonoscopy in addition to annual fecal occult blood tests, 
     is recommended every 3-5 years.

  For individuals over the age of 50 who are on Medicare and at average 
risk of colorectal cancer, this bill would allow payment for: every 12 
months, a fecal blood test; and every 5 years, a sigmoidoscopy, barium 
enema, or other procedure approved by the Secretary. For individuals at 
high risk of colorectal cancer, the bill would allow Medicare 
reimbursement for: every 12 months, a fecal blood test; and every 2 
years, a colonoscopy, barium enema, or other procedure approved by the 
Secretary.
  Here's how the American Cancer Society described these different 
procedures in its 1995 Cancer Facts and Figures report:

       The stool blood test is a simple method to test feces for 
     hidden blood. The specimen is obtained by the patient at home 
     and returned to the physician's office, a hospital, or a 
     clinic for analysis. The Society recommends annual testing 
     after age 50.
       In proctosigmoidoscopy, the physician uses a hollow lighted 
     tube or a fiberoptic sigmoidoscope to inspect the rectum and 
     lower colon. To detect cancers higher in the colon, longer, 
     flexible instruments are used. The American Cancer Society 
     recommends sigmoidoscopy, preferably flexible, every 3 to 5 
     years after age 50.
       If any of these tests reveal possible problems, more 
     extensive studies, such as colonoscopy (examination of the 
     entire colon) and barium enema (an x-ray procedure in which 
     the intestines are viewed), may be needed.

  Mr. President, if we are to provide screening for colorectal cancer, 
which I believe is desperately needed, we should allow all types of 
procedures recommended by the American College of Physicians and 
described by the American Cancer Society. This bill would do just that. 
I know that other Members of this body have indicated their support for 
colorectal cancer screening under Medicare. My hope is that we can all 
join together on a proposal that will give seniors and their doctors 
the maximum choice and protection from this dreaded disease.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Colorectal Cancer 
Screening Act of 1995 and the recommendations from the American College 
of Physicians on screening for colorectal cancer be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1385

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Colorectal Cancer Screening 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF COLORECTAL SCREENING SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1834 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended by inserting after subsection 
     (d) of following new subsection:
       ``(e) Frequency and Payment Limits for Colorectal Screening 
     Procedures.--
       ``(1) Screening fecal-occult blood tests.--
       ``(A) Payment limit.--In establishing fee schedules under 
     section 1833(h) with respect to screening fecal-occult blood 
     tests provided for the purpose of early detection of colon 
     cancer, except as provided by the Secretary under paragraph 
     (3)(A), the payment amount established for tests performed--
       ``(i) in 1996 shall not exceed $5; and
       ``(ii) in a subsequent year, shall not exceed the limit on 
     the payment amount established under this subsection for such 
     tests for the preceding year, adjusted by the applicable 
     adjustment under section 1833(h) for tests performed in such 
     year.

[[Page S 16628]]

       ``(B) Frequency limits.--Subject to revision by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (3)(B), no payment may be made 
     under this part for a screening fecal-occult blood test 
     provided to an individual for the purpose of early detection 
     of colon cancer if the test is performed--
       ``(i) on an individual under 50 years of age; or
       ``(ii) within the 11 months after a previous screening 
     fecal-occult blood test.
       ``(2) Periodic colorectal screening procedures for 
     individuals not at high risk for colorectal cancer--
       ``(A) Payment amount.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     payment amount under section 1848 with respect to periodic 
     colorectal screening procedures provided for the purpose 
     of early detection of colon cancer that is consistent with 
     payment amounts under such section for similar or related 
     services, except that such payment amount shall be 
     established without regard to subsection (a)(2)(A) of such 
     section. The Secretary shall establish a single payment 
     amount for periodic colorectal screening procedures, which 
     shall be based on the cost of a flexible sigmoidoscopy or 
     barium enema procedure, as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) Frequency limits.--Subject to revision by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (4)(B), no payment may be made 
     under this part for a periodic colorectal screening procedure 
     provided to an individual for the purpose of early detection 
     of colon cancer if the procedure is performed--
       ``(i) on an individual under 50 years of age; or
       ``(ii) within the 59 months after a previous periodic 
     colorectal screening procedure.
       ``(D) Periodic colorectal screening procedure defined.--The 
     term `periodic colorectal screening procedure' means a 
     flexible sigmoidoscopy, barium enema screening procedure, or 
     other screening procedure for colorectal cancer, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Screening for individuals at high risk for colorectal 
     cancer.--
       ``(A) Payment amount.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     payment amount under section 1848 with respect to each 
     eligible procedure for screening for individuals at high risk 
     for colorectal cancer (as determined in accordance with 
     criteria established by the Secretary) provided for the 
     purpose of early detection of colon cancer that is consistent 
     with payment amounts under such section for similar or 
     related services, except that such payment amount shall be 
     established without regard to subsection (a)(2)(A) of such 
     section. The Secretary may establish a payment amount for a 
     barium enema procedure pursuant to this paragraph that is 
     different from the payment amount established pursuant to 
     paragraph (2) for a periodic colorectal screening procedure 
     for an individual not a high risk for colorectal cancer so 
     long as the payment amount established pursuant to paragraph 
     (2) is not based on the cost of a barium enema procedure.
       ``(B) Eligible procedures.--Procedures eligible for payment 
     under this part for screening for individuals at high risk 
     for colorectal cancer for the purpose of early detection of 
     colorectal cancer shall include a screening colonoscopy, a 
     barium enema screening procedure, or other screening 
     procedures for colorectal cancer as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(C) Frequency limit.--Subject to revision by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (4)(B), no payment may be made 
     under this part for a screening procedure for individuals at 
     high risk for colorectal cancer provided to an individual for 
     the purpose of early detection of colon cancer if the 
     procedure is performed within the 23 months after a previous 
     screening procedure.
       ``(D) Factors considered in establishing criteria for 
     determining individuals at high risk.--In establishing 
     criteria for determining whether an individual is at high 
     risk for colorectal cancer for purposes of this paragraph, 
     the Secretary shall take into consideration family history, 
     prior experience of cancer or precursor neoplastic polyps, a 
     history of chronic digestive disease condition (including 
     inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's Disease or ulcerative 
     colitis), the presence of any appropriate recognized gene 
     markers for colorectal cancer and other predisposing factors.
       ``(4) Reductions in payment limit and revision of 
     frequency.--
       ``(A) Reductions in payment limit.--The Secretary shall 
     review from time to time the appropriateness of the amount of 
     the payment limit established for screening fecal-occult 
     blood tests under paragraph (1)(A). The Secretary may, with 
     respect to tests performed in a year after 1998, reduce the 
     amount of such limit as it applies nationally or in any area 
     to the amount that the Secretary estimates is required to 
     assure that such tests of an appropriate quality are readily 
     and conveniently available during the year.
       ``(B) Revision of frequency and determination of eligible 
     procedures.--
       ``(i) Review.--The Secretary shall review periodically the 
     appropriate frequency for performing screening fecal-occult 
     blood tests, periodic colorectal screening procedures, and 
     screening procedures for individuals at high risk for 
     colorectal cancer based on age and such other factors as the 
     Secretary believes to be pertinent, and shall review 
     periodically the availability, effectiveness, and cost of 
     screening procedures for colorectal cancer other than those 
     specified in this section.
       ``(ii) Revision of frequency and determination of eligible 
     procedures.--The Secretary, taking into consideration the 
     review made under clause (i), may revise from time to time 
     the frequency with which such tests and procedures may be 
     paid for under this subsection and may determine that 
     additional screening procedures shall be considered to be 
     `periodic colorectal screening procedures' or an eligible 
     procedure for the screening of individuals at high risk for 
     colorectal cancer, but no such revision shall apply to tests 
     or procedures performed before January 1, 1999.
       ``(5) Limiting charges of nonparticipating physicians.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a periodic colorectal 
     screening procedure provided to an individual for the purpose 
     of early detection of colon cancer or a screening provided to 
     an individual at high risk for colorectal cancer for the 
     purpose of early detection of colon cancer for which payment 
     may be made under this part, if a nonparticipating physician 
     provides the procedure to an individual enrolled under this 
     part, the physician may not charge the individual more than 
     the limiting charge (as defined in section 1848(g)(2)).
       ``(B) Enforcement.--If a physician or supplier knowing and 
     willfully imposes a charge in violation of subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary may apply sanctions against such physician or 
     supplier in accordance with section 1842(j)(2).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Paragraphs (1)(D) and 
     (2)(D) of section 1833(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395l(a)) are each amended by striking ``subsection 
     (h)(1),'' and inserting ``subsection (h)(1) or section 
     1834(e)(1),''.
       (2) Section 1833(h)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to paragraphs (1) and (3)(A) of section 
     1834(e), the Secretary''.
       (3) Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 1848(a)(2)(A) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(a)(2)(A)) are each amended by striking 
     ``a service'' and inserting ``a service (other than a 
     periodic colorectal screening procedure provided to an 
     individual for the purpose of early detection of colon cancer 
     or an eligible screening procedure provided to an individual 
     at high risk for colorectal cancer for the purpose of early 
     detection of colon cancer)''.
       (4) Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking the semicolon at the 
     end and inserting ``, and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) in the case of screening fecal-occult blood tests, 
     periodic colorectal screening procedures, and screening 
     procedures provided for the purpose of early detection of 
     colon cancer, which are performed more frequently than is 
     covered under section 1834(e);''; and
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``paragraph (1)(B) or 
     under paragraph (1)(F)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B), 
     (F), or (G) of paragraph (1)''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to services 
     furnished on or after January 1, 1996.
                                                                    ____


               [From the American College of Physicians]

                    Screening for Colorectal Cancer


                                Disease

       Invasive colorectal cancers arise from adenomas or 
     originate (de novo) from the mucosa of the colon. Progression 
     from adenoma to invasive cancer takes about five years.
       Colorectal cancer accounts for 150,000 new cases each year 
     and 61,000 deaths. It is the second most common form of 
     cancer in the US. On the average, it deprives patients of 
     nearly 10 percent of their expected life span.
       Risk factors for colorectal cancer include inflammatory 
     bowel disease, familial ployposis syndromes, family history, 
     and a previous history of noeplasms. A diagnosis of familial 
     polyposis syndrome or inflammatory bowel disease requires 
     monitoring.


                           Screening Test(s)

       Several tests and procedures have been proposed for 
     colorectal cancer screening; the most common are digital 
     examination, fecal occult blood tests (FOBT), and 
     sigmoidoscopy. Air-contrast barium enemas and colonoscopy 
     have been proposed for screening individuals at high risk of 
     developing colorectal cancer.
       The digital rectal examination entails a manual exploration 
     of the rectum.
       Fecal occult blood tests entail smearing a stool specimen 
     on a slide and submitting the specimen for analysis. 
     Recommended practice is to take two samples on each of three 
     consecutive days, while on a diet designed to reduce the 
     frequency of false positives.
       Sigmoidosocpy is the inspection of the interior of the 
     colon through an endoscope inserted via the rectum. 
     Sigmoidolscopes vary in length and may be rigid or flexible. 
     When available, use of a flexible scope is preferred; 
     otherwise, a rigid scope is acceptable.
       Air-contrast barium enema and colonoscopy allow the 
     inspection of the entire colon. The former involves the 
     administration of barium into the rectum, followed by x-ray 
     study of the entire intestine; the latter introduction of a 
     fiberoptic instrument.


                            Recommendations

       1. Screening with fecal occult blood tests is recommend 
     annually for individual age 50 and older.
     
[[Page S 16629]]

       2. Screening with sigmoiodoscopy is recommended every 3-5 
     years or with air-contrast barium enema every 5 years for 
     individuals age 50 and older.
       3. For individuals age 40 and older who have familial 
     polyposis coli, inflammatory bowel disease, or a history of 
     colon cancer in a first degree relative, i.e., parent or 
     sibling, screening with air-contrast barium enema or 
     colonoscopy in addition to annual fecal occult blood tests, 
     is recommended every 3-5 years.


                               Rationale

       Although there is little direct evidence of the 
     effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, there is 
     indirect evidence, based on the natural history of the 
     disease and the effectiveness of screening tests, that 
     screening should reduce colorectal cancer incidence and 
     mortality.
       Risks associated with colorectal cancer screening include 
     perforations from sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy and barium enema 
     and the extensive diagnostic tests associated with false-
     positive results of fecal occult blood testing.
       Individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer due to 
     familial polyposis coli or inflammatory bowel disease, a 
     history of colorectal cancer in a first degree relative 
     should be encouraged to have a complete examination of the 
     colon. Factors influencing the choice between air contrast 
     barium enema and colonoscopy include cost and access to 
     qualified physicians able to perform safe and accurate 
     studies.
                                 ______

      By Mr. NUNN:
  S. 1387. A bill to provide for innovative approaches for 
homeownership opportunity, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


       the homesteading and neighborhood restoration act of 1995

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of our Nation's 
most critical problems--the lack of affordable housing for low income 
people. As my colleagues know, housing is one of the most basic human 
needs. Lack of it is a problem which plagues every State, in both urban 
and rural areas. Today I would like to remind my colleagues of an 
organization founded on the belief that this is unacceptable. This 
organization is Habitat for Humanity International.
  Habitat is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry founded 
in 1976 by Millard and Linda Fuller and based in Americus, GA. Its 
ambitious goal is nothing less than to eliminate poverty housing and 
homelessness from the world. Since 1976, Habitat has constructed 40,000 
homes worldwide, in every U.S. State and in 45 other countries. As a 
result of Habitat's efforts, a quarter of a million people worldwide 
are living in safe, decent, and affordable housing.
  Though Habitat has chapters all over the globe, its work is done on a 
truly grass roots, individual basis. Through volunteer labor and tax 
deductible donations of money and materials, Habitat joins with the 
partner family to build or rehabilitate a house. Habitat houses are 
then sold to partner families at no profit, financed with affordable 
loans with no interest. The homeowners' monthly mortgage payments go 
into a revolving fund which finances the building of more houses.
  As the numbers I mentioned a moment ago demonstrate, this has been a 
fantastically successful concept. In my view, though, the idea at the 
heart of Habitat's success is the idea of ``sweat equity.'' Part of the 
deal presented to a potential homeowner is that they must contribute 
their own hard work and sweat to the construction of their home and the 
homes of others. In this way, the family builds a tangible bond to the 
finished product, and therefore has a strong interest in maintaining 
it. In addition, the contribution of sweat equity leads new homeowners 
to a stronger sense of community responsibility--contributing to the 
decency and safety of their street and neighborhood.
  In this way, Habitat not only builds new homes, it also helps rebuild 
the internal sense of community that has declined in our Nation. By 
giving families a home--not a handout from a faceless Government 
bureaucrat, not a benefit check, but an opportunity to dedicate their 
hard work to owning their own home--Habitat helps to combat the despair 
and apathy evident in so many of our communities.
  For these reasons, I am introducing today the Homesteading and 
Neighborhood Restoration Act of 1995. This legislation, which is 
supported by such diverse interests as former President Carter, Speaker 
Gingrich, and HUD Secretary Cisneros, directs the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development to reprogram $50 million in existing HUD funds 
into a grant program for Habitat for Humanity and other low cost 
housing organizations. In keeping with Habitat's policy of refusing to 
accept Government funds for actual construction work on dwellings, the 
funds could only be used for land acquisition or infrastructure 
improvements, and only in the United States. The bill directs that half 
of the reprogrammed dollars would be granted to Habitat, and the other 
half would be held in reserve for other similar organizations to 
compete for. Any funds not claimed by qualified organizations would be 
granted to Habitat.
  My estimates indicate that the funds included in this legislation 
would allow Habitat to begin construction on 5,000 new dwellings across 
the Nation immediately. Additionally, as new homeowners begin to pay 
back their loans, the money would be recycled to build even more homes.
  So many times we in Congress must allocate Government dollars based 
on a sense of trust--with very little assurance that the taxpayers' 
funds will actually yield any results at all. Thankfully, this 
legislation does not necessitate Congress taking such a leap of faith. 
The successes of Habitat for Humanity are standing already in brick and 
mortar in 40,000 places around the world. This legislation will enable 
them to expand their successes to many more locations. This is a 
private initiative that really works, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Johnston):
  S.J. Res. 42. A joint resolution designating the Civil War Center at 
Louisiana State University as the U.S. Civil War Center, making the 
center the flagship institution for planning the sesquicentennial 
commemoration of the Civil War, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 u.s. civil war center joint resolution

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint 
resolution on behalf of myself and Senator Johnston to designate the 
U.S. Civil War Center as the flagship institution charged with planning 
and facilitating the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War in 
2011.
  While the date may still seem far off, it is important to remember 
that this will be a particularly important anniversary as it will be 
the last opportunity for most of us to commemorate the Civil War. The 
Civil War Center at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, LA, 
offers the most appropriate setting for the organization of this 
remembrance. There is no other center in the United States that 
currently studies the war from the perspective of every conceivable 
discipline, profession, and occupation. The center will be able to 
coordinate with the numerous Civil War commemorative organizations 
throughout the Nation. Funding for the activities throughout the 
sesquicentennial will come from private donations and grants.
  Since the end of the commemoration of the centennial of the war in 
1965, the United States has come a long way toward healing some of the 
lingering wounds of the war. Recent events have emphasized that many of 
them still must be addressed, as racism, violence, and regional 
economics remain problems in our united Nation. If we are to continue 
to learn from our differences, the commemoration of the 
sesquicentennial offers the opportunity to reflect on where we once 
were and where we will next go.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in the designation of the U.S. Civil 
War Center as the flagship institution for the sesquicentennial.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution and the letter of support from the center's advisory board 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 42

       Whereas the sesquicentennial of the beginning of the Civil 
     War will occur in the year 2011;
       Whereas the sesquicentennial will be the last significant 
     opportunity for most Americans alive in the year 2011 to 
     recall and commemorate the Civil War;
       Whereas the Civil War Center at Louisiana State University 
     in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 

[[Page S 16630]]

     has as principal missions to create a comprehensive database 
     that contains all Civil War materials and to facilitate the 
     study of the war from the perspectives of all ethnic cultures 
     and all professions, academic disciplines, and occupations;
       Whereas the 2 principal missions of Civil War Center are 
     consistent with the commemoration of the sesquicentennial; 
     and
       Whereas advance planning to facilitate the 4-year 
     commemoration of the sesquicentennial is required: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF UNITED STATES CIVIL WAR CENTER.

       The Civil War Center, located on Raphael Semmes Drive at 
     Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, shall 
     be known and designated as the ``United States Civil War 
     Center''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any references in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the center referred 
     to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``United States Civil War Center''.

     SEC. 3. FLAGSHIP INSTITUTION.

       The center referred to in section 1 shall be the flagship 
     institution for planning the sesquicentennial commemoration 
     of the Civil War.
                                                                    ____



                  u.s. civil war center advisory board

       Dear Senator: As members of the United States Civil War 
     Center's Advisory Board, we strongly encourage your 
     cosponsorship of Senator John Breaux's resolution to 
     designate the United States Civil War Center as the flagship 
     institution charged with planning and facilitating the 
     Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War in the years 2011-
     2015.
       The Civil War Center at Louisiana State University in Baton 
     Rouge, Louisiana, offers the most appropriate facility to 
     ensure that the commemoration embraces all of the 
     possibilities for an experience that will affect all 
     Americans profoundly and that will have longlasting effects.
       Knowing that we all have much to learn from the five years 
     our nation was at war with itself, we urge you to join 
     Senator Breaux in cosponsoring this resolution.
       Ed Bearss, Historian; Ken Burns, Florentine Films; William 
     C. Davis, Historian; Rita Dove, U.S. Poet Laureate and 
     Consultant to the Library of Congress; William Ferris, 
     Director, Center for the Study of South Culture.
       Shelby Foote, Novelist, Historian; Grady McWhitney, 
     Historian; T. Michael Parrish, Historian; R.E. Turner, 
     Chairman of the Board, Turner Broadcasting; Tom Wicker, 
     Novelist, Journalist.

                          ____________________