[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5492-S5499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HELMS:
  S. 1789. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to deny the payment 
of Social Security and supplemental security income benefits to 
prisoners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


             the prevention of prisoner double-dipping act

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a less formal but somewhat more revealing 
title for this bill would be ``The Prevention of Prisoner Double-
Dipping Act.'' A rose by any other name is still a rose and this bill 
is a winner by any name. It will save millions of dollars of the 
taxpayers' money and it will put a stop to the injustice of paying 
scarce Social Security disability benefits to prisoners charged with a 
felony who have been in jail for 30 or more days awaiting trial.
  Current law prohibits payment of disability benefits to anyone in 
jail after conviction for a felony. A loophole permits prisoners to 
continue receiving benefits despite the fact that they are in jail if 
they have not yet been convicted of the crime charged. This bill will 
close that loophole.
  Mr. President, I learned that prisoners are continuing to receive 
these benefits when Sheriff Mike Joyce of Stokes County, NC, wrote me 
earlier this year about it. Sheriff Joyce wrote to me about Earl 
Blevins, a career criminal and convicted murderer, who has been in 
Stokes County jail since December 16, 1995, awaiting trial on charges 
of larceny and breaking and entering. Incredibly, Blevins has been 
receiving disability payments since 1988, even though as Sheriff Joyce 
stated, Blevins obviously is healthy enough ``to run from a bloodhound 
and hide up under leaves under a tree.''
  Until last month, when Blevins was convicted of unrelated felony 
charges in Surry County, he was receiving $450 per month in disability 
payments while Stokes County taxpayers were picking up the tab for his 
room and board and other care.
  Mr. President, Sheriff Mike Joyce is a fine law enforcement officer. 
His outrage about the Federal Government's paying prisoner Blevins $450 
per month in Social Security disability benefits while he is in jail 
awaiting trial on yet another felony charge, will be matched by the 
outrage of the public at large once they learn about it.
  The point is this: Earl Blevins and other career criminals prey on 
law-abiding citizens. When they are apprehended, their food, clothing, 
shelter, and often their legal fees are paid for by the very citizens 
whom the criminals have victimized. It is unwarranted salt rubbed in 
the taxpayer's wounds that these predators are allowed by law to 
collect disability benefits while awaiting trial. This bill will change 
that law.
  The purpose of Social Security disability payments is to provide a 
minimum income to beneficiaries in order to insure that they have 
access to food and shelter. A prisoner awaiting trial is already being 
provided these needs and the taxpayers are paying the bill. Prisoners 
should not be allowed to ``double-dip'' into the pocket of taxpayers.

[[Page S5493]]

  Mr. President, for the record, I reiterate that current law stops 
Social Security disability payments to anyone who has been convicted of 
a felony. It also stops payments to the criminally insane who are 
confined to a mental hospital. Other disability benefits, for example, 
SSI, are cut off to a recipient who is locked up for 30 or more days, 
even if they have not yet been brought to trial. My bill will simply 
apply the same policy to Social Security [OASDI] disability benefits 
that we now have for SSI disability benefits.

  Mr. President, the existing situation brings to mind the case of 
Michael Hayes who cold-bloodedly killed four people and shot five 
others during a 1988 murder spree in Winston-Salem. After being 
confined to a State mental hospital, he began receiving over $500 a 
month in Social Security disability payments which he used to buy 
luxuries like leather coats, electronics, and even a motorcycle. 
Payments to Hayes finally stopped last year after the 103d Congress 
passed and the President signed my bill which I had offered in response 
to this outrage. It's now time for this Congress to act to stop further 
waste of Social Security funds.
  Mr. President, let me make clear for the Record what the pending 
bill, the Prevention of Prisoner Double-Dipping act will do:
  It will eliminate pretrial benefits to anyone charged with a felony 
who has been in jail for 30 or more days;
  It will authorize $50,000,000 for the Social Security Office of 
Inspector General to increase the number of investigators and auditors 
pursuing charges of fraud against the SSA;
  It will require SSA to make recommendations to insure the timely and 
accurate reporting of pre-trial felony detainees in order to stop 
benefits to those who will no longer qualify under this bill;
  It will give the Commissioner of SSA the authority to make payments 
to State and local correctional facilities that report the receipt of 
benefits by those who are in custody;
  It will give the SSA power to impose civil monetary penalties of up 
to $5,000 each time someone fraudulently uses a Social Security number 
or card, in addition to being subject to an assessment of up to five 
times the amount of disability benefits paid; and
  It will require SSA to make recommendations to streamline the review 
and appeals process.
  Mr. President, a few concluding thoughts: I expect some of my 
colleagues will raise concerns about the constitutionality of the 
Prevention of Prisoner Double-Dipping Act. I am confident that this 
legislation will easily pass constitutional muster because prisoners 
have no constitutional right to be paid while they are sitting in jail.
  Second, although this bill is targeted towards prisoners, it is not 
punitive. These payments should be stopped because they are 
duplicative, not because Congress is imposing a punishment on the 
recipient. The payments would be stopped regardless of the ultimate 
finding of guilt.
  Finally, stopping payments to a prisoner will have no effect on the 
payment of benefits to children and other dependents who are otherwise 
entitled to these or other benefits.
  I do hope the Senate will expedite consideration of these common 
sense reforms of the Social Security Act and thereby, save millions of 
dollars that the taxpayer would otherwise have to provide.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1789 be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1789

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       The short title of this Act may be cited as the 
     ``Prevention of Prisoner Double-Dipping Act''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.

       (a) Denial of Benefits to Individuals Jailed on Felony 
     Charges.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(x)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(x)(1)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of clause (i), by striking the period at 
     the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) is confined in a jail, prison, or other penal 
     institution or correctional facility pursuant to a charge of 
     an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, 
     but only with respect to months after the first 30 days of 
     such confinement.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 202(x)(1)(B)(i) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(x)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by striking 
     ``clause (i)'' and inserting ``clauses (i) and (iii)''.
       (3) Study of methods to insure the collection of 
     information respecting public inmates.--
       (A) Study.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall 
     conduct a study regarding methods to insure the timely and 
     accurate reporting of information respecting court orders by 
     which individuals described in section 202(x)(1)(A)(iii) of 
     the Social Security Act (402 U.S.C. 402(x)(1)(A)(iii)) are 
     confined in jails, prisons, or other public penal, 
     correctional, or medical facilities as the Commissioner may 
     require for the purpose of carrying out section 202(x) and 
     1611(e)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(x) and 1382(e)(1)).
       (B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall submit a report on the results of the study conducted 
     pursuant to this paragraph to the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to payments made for months beginning after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Implementation of Prohibition Against Payment of 
     Benefits to Prisoners.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(x)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(x)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B)(i) The Commissioner is authorized to enter into a 
     contract, with any interested State or local institution 
     described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (1)(A) the 
     primary purpose of which is to confine individuals as 
     described in paragraph (1)(A), under which--
       ``(I) the institution shall provide to the Commissioner, on 
     a monthly basis, the names, social security account numbers, 
     dates of birth, and such other identifying information 
     concerning the individuals confined in the institution as the 
     Commissioner may require for the purpose of carrying out 
     paragraph (1); and
       ``(II) the Commissioner is authorized to pay to any such 
     institution, with respect to each individual who is entitled 
     to a benefit under this title for the month preceding the 
     first month throughout which such individual is confined in 
     such institution as described in paragraph (1)(A), an amount 
     determined by the Commissioner.
       ``(ii) The provisions of section 552a of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall not apply to any contract entered into 
     under clause (i) or to information exchanged pursuant to such 
     contract.''.
       (2) Conforming ssi amendments.--Section 1611(e)(1) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(I)(i) The Commissioner is authorized to enter into a 
     contract, with any interested State or local institution 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), under which--
       ``(I) the institution shall provide to the Commissioner, on 
     a monthly basis, the names, social security account numbers, 
     dates of birth, and such other identifying information 
     concerning the inmates of the institution as the Commissioner 
     may require for the purpose of carrying out this paragraph; 
     and
       ``(II) the Commissioner is authorized to pay to any such 
     institution, with respect to each inmate of the institution 
     who is eligible for a benefit under this title for the month 
     preceding the first month throughout which such inmate is in 
     such institution and becomes ineligible for such benefit (or 
     becomes eligible only for a benefit payable at a reduced 
     rate) as a result of the application of this paragraph, an 
     amount determined by the Commissioner.
       ``(ii) The provisions of section 552a of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall not apply to any contract entered into 
     under clause (i) or to information exchanged pursuant to such 
     contract.''.

     SEC. 3. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FOR FRAUDULENT USE OF SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND CARDS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1129 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8) is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and by inserting 
     after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Any person who--
       ``(1) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive, 
     uses a social security account number assigned on the basis 
     of false information provided by such person or another 
     person;
       ``(2) with intent to deceive, falsely represents a number 
     to be a social security account number;
       ``(3) knowingly alters a social security card;
       ``(4) buys or sells a card that is, or purports to be, a 
     social security card;
       ``(5) possesses a social security card or counterfeit card 
     with the intent to sell or alter such card; or
       ``(6) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the 
     social security account number of any person in violation of 
     the law,


[[Page S5494]]


     shall be subject to, in addition to any other penalties that 
     may be prescribed by law, a civil money penalty of not more 
     than $5,000 for each offense. Such person also shall be 
     subject to an assessment, in lieu of damages sustained by the 
     United States because of such offense, of not more than 5 
     times the amount of benefits or payments paid under titles II 
     and XVI as a result of such offense.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 1129(c) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``statements and representations'' and inserting ``actions''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to conduct occurring on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO COMBAT FRAUD IN THE SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY SYSTEM.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are authorized 
     to be appropriated, to remain available without fiscal year 
     limitation, $50,000,000 for the Commissioner of Social 
     Security through the Office of Inspector General to utilize 
     only for increasing the number of investigators and auditors 
     charged with pursuing charges of fraud against the programs 
     under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
       (b) Additional Funds.--Amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (a) shall be in addition to any funds otherwise 
     appropriated for the purposes described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. STUDY REGARDING REVIEW AND APPEALS PROCESS.

       (a) Study.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall 
     conduct a study regarding methods to streamline the review 
     and appeals process under title II and XVI of the Social 
     Security Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall submit a report on the results of the study conducted 
     pursuant to this section to the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
                                 ______


                           By Mr. McCONNELL:

  S. 1790. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to increase 
the penalties for the manufacture, distribution, and possession of 
marijuana, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               THE ENHANCED MARIJUANA PENALTY ACT OF 1996

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are losing the battle against 
illegal drugs. All indicators point to a dramatic surge in drug use, 
especially by our most vulnerable citizens--children.
  The President's 1996 drug strategy sent to Congress just a few weeks 
ago contains some very disturbing information:
  Marijuana use is back on the rise, and among young people between the 
ages of 12 and 17, the use of marijuana has almost doubled between 1992 
and 1994. One of every three high school seniors now smokes marijuana;
  The number of heroin-related emergency room episodes in 1993 was 
double what it was in 1988, and for cocaine, emergency room episodes in 
1994 were the highest ever;
  Methamphetamine, once confined to the West and Southwest, is a 
scourge spreading across the country, including my own State of 
Kentucky. Last year, law enforcement officials seized five 
methamphetamine labs in Kentucky; in 1994, there were no such seizures;
  Unless we tackle the drug problem anew, we risk producing a new 
generation of drug abusers. And the consequences of drug abuse are 
frightening: the spread of diseases like hepatitis, TB and HIV; social 
deviancy; lost productivity at the workplace; and a lot more crime, in 
particular violent crime.
  Our Nation's drug problem is compounded by a lax attitude within 
segments of the enforcement agencies responsible for our antidrug laws. 
Recently, the Los Angeles Times reported that Immigration and Customs 
officials are handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards and letting drug 
dealers go unprosecuted.
  Non-United States nationals are sent back to Mexico instead of being 
prosecuted. And, American citizens are being let go if it's their first 
offense or if the quantities of drugs aren't big enough. So, one pusher 
with 32 pounds of methamphetamine was set free and another with 37,000 
quaaludes. One American was stopped at the border with 53 pounds of 
marijuana in January, 51 pounds in February and 41 pounds in May. He's 
only being prosecuted for this third offense, although he has a 
criminal history going back four decades.
  It's not surprising that a President whose policy is ``don't inhale'' 
gives us a ``don't enforce'' antidrug policy.
  This is simply unacceptable. It's evidence of an administration 
AWOL--absent without leadership.
  Today, I am introducing a bill to increase the penalties for 
trafficking in marijuana, a drug that poses a grave threat to our young 
people. It is commonly known that marijuana impairs short-term memory, 
core motor functions and the ability to concentrate. But it also has 
long-term devastating effects:
  Marijuana use causes chronic bronchitis, acute chest illness, 
heightened risk of pulmonary infection and lung disease;
  Prenatal exposure to marijuana causes impaired intellectual ability 
in young children; in shorthand--low IQ babies; and
  THC, the principal psychoactive ingredient, has been found in lab 
rats to be addictive.
  And, who is smoking marijuana? Kids, more of them and at younger 
ages. The number of 12- to 17-year-olds using marijuana increased from 
1.6 million in 1992 to 2.9 million in 1994. As the chart shows, more 
8th, 10th, and 12th-graders are smoking marijuana and there is no 
indication that this trend is going to be reversed anytime soon.
  A surprising fact is that more children smoke marijuana than have 
smoked five packs of cigarettes, as the second chart reveals. Five-
point-seven percent of 12- to 15-year-olds report smoking cigarettes, 
but 6.6 percent report smoking marijuana. For older teens even more are 
smoking marijuana--20.5 percent smoke cigarettes and 26.1 percent smoke 
marijuana.
  That is an astounding statistic: Teens are less likely to smoke 
cigaretts than marijuana, and fewer teens say smoking marijuana is 
risky. As young people soften their attitudes toward drugs, usage 
increases.
  Not only is marijuana harmful in and of itself, but it is considered 
a gateway drug. Teenagers who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to 
use cocaine. Sixty percent of children who smoke marijuana before age 
15 move on to cocaine.
  My bill is very straightforward. It enhances the penalties for 
trafficking in marijuana. Current law creates a disparity in the 
mandatory minimums for heroin, cocaine and marijuana. My bill will 
eliminate the disparity by lowerng the threshold for the mandatory 
minimum sentences for refined marijuana. The third chart reflects the 
disparities.
  Currently, an individual has to be caught with 1,000 kilos of 
marijuana, with a street value of as much as $10 million, in order to 
get the 10-year mandatory minimum. For cocaine, the threshold quantity 
and street value is much lower--only 5 kilos with a value between 
$420,000 and $750,000. For heroin, the threshold is 1 kilo, with a 
street value of $1.2 million. And growing 1,000 marijuana plants gets 
you the same 10-year mandatory minimum.
  My bill will bring the threshold quantity for refined marijuana into 
line with the other drugs by lowering it from 1,000 kilos to 100 kilos 
for the 10-year mandatory minimum and from 100 kilos to 10 kilos for 
the 5-year mandatory minimum.
  The bill also directs the Sentencing Commission to conform its 
guidelines to this change.
  Last summer, this Sentencing Commission effectively lowered the 
penalties for marijuana trafficking, for quantities less than the 
thresholds for mandatory minimums. It's time we reversed that misguided 
action and this bill will ensure that the Sentencing Commission does 
just that.
  Some will argue that prosecutors have more pressing matters than to 
chase every marijuana dealer selling as little as 10 kilos. As the Los 
Angeles Times reported, Federal prosecutors in southern California 
don't think it's worth their effort to prosecute for quantities of less 
than 125 pounds, an amount that should get a drug trafficker about 3 
years in a Federal prison.
  But I would argue just the opposite. Marijuana is doing irreparable 
harm to our kids and we've got to put the people who sell to our 
children out of business and behind bars. Ten kilos of marijuana is 22 
pounds, with a street value of about $100,000. That amount of marijuana 
will reach a lot of teenagers in small, but harmful quantities.

[[Page S5495]]

  Mr. President the time has come to admit that we have a serious 
marijuana problem among our teens. I say it's worth protecting the 
future of our children by locking up the pushers. Let's toughen the 
penalties and send a message to the drug dealers that we won't tolerate 
it anymore. And let's tell Federal prosecutors it's their job to send 
these outlaws to prison. What can be worth more than saving our next 
generation?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1790

       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 ``Enhanced Marihuana Penalty 
     Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the number of children in the United States between 12 
     and 17 years of age using marihuana increased from 1,600,000 
     in 1992 to 2,900,000 in 1994, which constitutes an 80-percent 
     increase;
       (2) currently, one-third of all high school seniors smoke 
     marihuana;
       (3) the perception of the dangers of using marihuana is 
     declining among youthful marihuana smokers;
       (4) scientific research has demonstrated that--
       (A) marihuana impairs short-term memory, core motor 
     functions, and the ability to concentrate;
       (B) THC, the principal psychoactive ingredient of 
     marihuana, may cause drug dependency;
       (C) regular marihuana use may cause chronic bronchitis, 
     increased frequency of acute chest illness, heightened risk 
     of pulmonary infection, and lung disease; and
       (D) prenatal exposure to marihuana may cause impaired 
     intellectual ability in young children;
       (5) children between the agency of 12 and 17 who use 
     marihuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than 
     children who do not use marihuana;
       (6) there are 39,000,000 children in the United States who 
     are younger than 10 years old, and neglect of our Nation's 
     marihuana problem will lead to the creation of a new 
     generation of drug abusers, prone to criminal and other 
     socially deviant behavior; and
       (7) existing penalties for trafficking in marihuana are 
     inadequate to deter those who sell marihuana to our Nation's 
     most vulnerable citizens.

     SEC. 3. PENALTIES.

       (a) Controlled Substances Act.--Section 401(b)(1) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(vii), by striking ``1000 
     kilograms'' and inserting ``100 kilograms'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(vii), by striking ``100 kilograms'' 
     and inserting ``10 kilograms''; and
       (e) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``50 kilograms'' and 
     inserting ``10 kilograms''.
       (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.--Section 
     1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 960(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(G), by striking ``1000 kilograms'' and 
     inserting ``100 kilograms'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(G), by striking ``100 kilograms'' and 
     inserting ``10 kilograms''; and
       (e) in paragraph (4), by striking ``50 kilograms'' and 
     inserting ``10 kilograms''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       The United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the 
     Federal Sentencing Guidelines to reflect the amendments made 
     by this Act.
                                                                    ____


                 TRENDS IN HIGH SCHOOL MARIJUANA USE \1\                
                              [In percent]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Grade                 1992      1993      1994    Increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th............................      11.9      15.5      19.0       +60
10th............................       8.1      10.9      15.8       +95
8th.............................       3.7       5.1       7.8      +110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Students reporting use within past 30 days.                         
                                                                        
Source: Monitoring the Future, December 1994.                           


                         PREVALENCE OF DRUG USE                         
                      [Percent who have ever used]                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Youths 12- Youths 16-   Adults 
                                             15         17        18+   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cigarettes \1\.........................        5.7       20.5       52.1
Alcohol................................       35.1       69.3       88.9
Marijuana..............................        6.6       26.1       35.4
Any illicit drug.......................       13.7       33.1       38.9
Any drug except marijuana..............       10.5       18.5       21.2
Cocaine................................        1.0        5.3       12.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These percentages include only individuals who have smoked at least 
  100 cigarettes (5 packs).                                             
                                                                        
Source: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use, Center on Addiction and Substance 
  Abuse at Columbia University (10/94).                                 


        DISPARITY IN CURRENT PENALTIES FOR MARIJUANA TRAFFICKING        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Mandatory
              Drug               Quantity   Street value \1\    minimum 
                                                                 (yrs.) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocaine........................     \2\ 5  $420k to $750K....         10
Heroin.........................     \2\ 1  $1.2 million......         10
Marijuana......................  \2\ 1,00  $10 million.......         10
                                        0                               
  Plants.......................     1,000  ..................         10
Cocaine........................   \2\ 500  $42k to $75K......          5
Heroin.........................   \2\ 100  $121 million......          5
Marijuana......................   \2\ 100  $1 million........          5
  Plants.......................       100  ..................          5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Street values bases System to Retrieve Information from Drug        
  Evidence (STRIDE) by Abt Associates, Inc., 9/13/95 Report: Cocaine $84
  to $150 per gram; Heroin $1210 per gram; Marijuana $10 per gram.      
\2\ Kilogram.                                                   

                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMPSON (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 1791. A bill to increase, effective as of December 1, 1996, the 
rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-connected 
disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for 
survivors of such veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs.


    the veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 1996

 Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me, as 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to introduce, 
and comment briefly on, legislation to grant to recipients of 
compensation, and dependency and indemnity compensation [DIC] benefits, 
from the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] a cost of living 
adjustment [COLA] increase to take effect at the beginning of next 
year. This legislation is appropriate and warranted--even as we proceed 
this very week to debate budget reconciliation.
  Mr. President, let me assure this body that the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs will meet the reconciliation targets that the 
Congress ultimately adopts. Indeed, I expect that I will offer 
amendments to this bill--with the bipartisan support of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs--once we receive reconciliation instructions from 
the Congress as an whole. No one need fear that I have lost my zeal for 
gaining control over entitlement spending; I surely have not. 
Nonetheless, I believe that the recipients of veteran's benefits ought 
to receive a COLA--and they can receive such a COLA even as we progress 
on a path to a balanced budget. We can balance the budget, and 
simultaneously treat our veterans, and their survivors, with fairness 
and compassion.
  This bill is simple and straightforward. It would grant to recipients 
of certain VA benefits--most notably, veterans with service-connected 
disabilities who receive VA compensation, and the surviving spouses and 
children of veterans who have died as a result of service-connected 
injuries or illnesses, who receive dependency and indemnity 
compensation--the same COLA that Social Security recipients will 
receive. So, for example, if Social Security recipients receive a 2.6-
percent adjustment at the beginning of next year, then so too would the 
beneficiaries of VA compensation and DIC.
  Last year, the committee's COLA bill put into effect certain 
modifications, as approved by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on 
how COLA's are computed. For example, our 1996 COLA contained a ``round 
down'' feature. To summarize, Mr. President, VA benefits are paid in 
round dollar amounts. As a result, when a round dollar benefit amount--
say, as an example, the current benefit of $266 per month going to a 30 
percent disabled veteran--is multiplied by a consumer price index 
percentage of, say, 2.6-percent, it almost invariably yields a 
mathematical product that is not a round dollar amount. In the case of 
a $266 benefit check, for example, a 2.6-percent increase would yield a 
nonrounded number of $272.92.
  VA practice, in the past, has been to ``round up'' fractional dollar 
amounts of $0.50 or more, and ``round down'' fractional dollar amounts 
of $0.49 or less. So, in the above case, a 30-percent disabled veteran 
would get a monthly check next year of $273 under past practice. Last 
year's COLA bill directed VA to ``round down'' in all cases, so, in the 
above example, a 30-percent disabled veteran would get a monthly check 
of $272.
  It may happen, Mr. President, that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
will again elect to direct that VA ``round down'' as part of a package 
of measures approved to reach whatever reconciliation targets Congress 
ultimately adopts. Indeed, it is, perhaps, likely that we will approve 
such a measure since rounding down is a relatively painless way to 
achieve some fairly significant savings over the long term. Such a 
measure--which would

[[Page S5496]]

cost no VA beneficiary more than $1 per month--would save, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office, almost $500 million over a 6-year 
period.
  Be that as it may, Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
will ``cross the bridge'' of identifying how it will meet its 
reconciliation targets once it has received those targets. In the 
meantime, I want to assure all by the introduction of this COLA bill 
that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs fully anticipated approving a 
COLA bill this year--just as it did last year when I was honored to 
assume the chairmanship of the committee.
  The rounding down provision that the committee approved last year 
serves as an excellent example of the sort of measures that are 
available to assist in balancing the budget. I do not suggest that it 
will be easy to reach that goal. But the availability of real savings 
from measures like a simple rounding down of a COLA ought to strengthen 
the resolve of each of us to get that vital job done. In the Veterans' 
Committee, we expect that we will be directed to find ways to reduce 
the growth in VA's mandatory budget accounts by over $5 billion in 6 
years. We will find ways to meet that goal. And no veteran, or 
veterans' survivor, will suffer inordinate harm as a result. Despite 
the inaccurate, unfair, unfounded, and, yes, partisan pronouncements of 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and despite what veterans, and 
Senators, have heard from service organizations, ``crying wolf,'' we 
will not cut veterans benefits. We never have.
  We do not need to cut veterans benefits in order to balance the 
budget. Nor do we need to endure the cuts--real cuts, not just 
reductions in the growth rate--in veterans health care spending 
proposed by the President in order to achieve a balanced budget. We can 
keep faith with our veterans and balance the budget. As Chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, that is what I intend to do.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the time that has been afforded me to 
address this subject.
  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. 1791

       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 ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-
     of-Living Adjustment Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN COMPENSATION RATES AND LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, as provided in paragraph (2), increase, effective 
     December 1, 1996, the rates of and limitations on Department 
     of Veterans Affairs disability compensation and dependency 
     and indemnity compensation.
       (2) The Secretary shall increase each of the rates and 
     limitations in sections 1114, 1115(1), 1162, 1311, 1313, and 
     1314 of title 38, United States Code, that were increased by 
     the amendments made by the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-
     Living Adjustment Act of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-57, 109 
     Stat. 555). This increase shall be made in such rates and 
     limitations as in effect on November 30, 1996, and shall be 
     by the same percentage that benefit amounts payable under 
     title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) 
     are increased effective December 1, 1996, as a result of a 
     determination under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     415(i)).
       (b) Special Rule.--The Secretary may adjust 
     administratively, consistent with the increases made under 
     subsection (a)(2), the rates of disability compensation 
     payable to persons within the purview of section 10 of Public 
     Law 85-857 (72 Stat. 1263) who are not in receipt of 
     compensation payable pursuant to chapter 11 of title 38, 
     United States Code.
       (c) Publication Requirement.--At the same time as the 
     matters specified in section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(O)) are required to be 
     published by reason of a determination made under section 
     215(i) of such Act during fiscal year 1996, the Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register the rates and 
     limitations referred to in subsection (a)(2) as increased 
     under this section.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 1792. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
companies to donate scientific equipment to elementary and secondary 
schools for use in their educational programs, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


              THE COMPUTER DONATION INCENTIVE ACT OF 1996

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 10 weeks ago, thousands of 
volunteers throughout California helped make NetDay 96 one of the most 
successful 1-day public projects in history. At the time, we all noted 
that this electronic barn-raising could be a turning point in 
educational history--but only if we followed through with other steps 
to help our children travel the information superhighway.
  I would like to take one such step by announcing the Computer 
Donation Incentive Act of 1996.
  This important piece of legislation--which my colleague Senate Chafee 
and I are introducing in the Senate, and my friend Ann Eshoo is 
introducing in the House--will change the Federal Tax Code in order to 
promote gifts of computer hardware, software, and expertise to our 
Nation's schools.
  The Computer Donation Incentive Act will provide a greater tax 
deduction than is currently available for donations of nearly new 
computers to elementary and secondary schools for educational purposes.
  The amount of the deduction for computer manufacturers is equal to 
their manufacturing costs plus half the difference between those costs 
and the selling price. So, if the manufacturing cost is $400 and the 
selling price is $700, then the manufacturer would receive a tax 
deduction of $550.
  For nonmanufacturers, the deduction is based on the computer's 
purchase price minus depreciation. For example: if a company buys a 
computer for $2,000, take a depreciation of $400 1 year and gives the 
computer to a school the next year, then the company can take a 
deduction of $1,600.
  The Boxer-Chafee-Eshoo bill will also provide the same deduction for 
businesses who give computers to libraries, recreational centers and 
other public institutions, or to nonprofit organizations that refurbish 
computers and then give them to schools.
  The successful education of America's children is now closely linked 
to the use of innovative educational technologies, particularly 
computer-aided research and instruction. Unfortunately, far too many 
classrooms lack the computers they need to take advantage of these new 
educational tools.
  NetDay 96 was an important step forward in meeting this challenge. By 
all accounts, it was tremendous success. Taking inexpensive cooper wire 
and priceless expertise, computer technicians worked with parents, 
students, faculty, and staff at each school to connect classrooms, 
libraries, and computer labs to the Internet. By the end of the day, 
hundreds of public and private schools were wired into the Net.
  But the very success of NetDay brought up another problem for most of 
our schools: If young students are to have access to the Information 
Superhighway, what are they going to drive?
  In Sylvandale, CA, for example, NetDay volunteers installed three 
Internet connections in each of a school's 40 classrooms. Counting the 
library and computer lab, this particular school now has 190 potential 
Internet connections. However, only four of the school's computers are 
powerful enough to access the Internet; so there are only four active 
connections out of 190.

  If schools cannot get computers into the classrooms, and if they 
can't get expert help to get up and running, then they will not really 
have access to the Internet. At a time when public schools in 
California and around the country are struggling to buy up-to-date 
textbooks and maintain school buildings, classroom computers may seem 
hopelessly out of reach. As a result, public schools lag far behind 
private schools in computer use.
  Current tax laws provide no incentives for businesses to donate 
computers to public schools. As a matter of fact, the Federal Tax Code 
actually discourages companies from giving to public schools.
  Section 170(e)(4) of the Federal Tax Code allows computer 
manufacturers to take a reasonable deduction when they donate computers 
to universities for scientific or research purposes. Following a recent 
IRS ruling, manufacturers can also take this deduction for gifts to 
private elementary and secondary schools--but not for gifts to public 
elementary and secondary schools. Moreover, a manufacturer who donates 
a computer to a public college can now take the deduction if the 
computer is

[[Page S5497]]

used only for advanced research but not if it is used for other 
teaching purposes.
  To make matters worse, only computer manufacturers are eligible for 
the higher education. Computer dealers and distributors, along with 
many other businesses, get no tax incentive to do this.
  Section 170(e)(4) was written in 1981--before the explosion of 
computer-based technology made computer literacy a must for every 
American student. I know that the authors of this provision did not 
mean to exclude public schools from the computer revolution; they just 
could not foresee the day when every school would need computers.
  The Boxer-Chafee bill will revise this archaic section of the Tax 
Code. Our Computer Donation Incentive Act is designed to give donations 
for educational purposes the same tax break as those for scientific 
research purposes. It will allow businesses to give to public and 
private elementary and secondary schools as well as institutions of 
higher learning and still receive the tax break. And it will encourage 
donations from software producers, computer distributors, and other 
companies as well as hardware manufacturers.
  Along with computers and software, businesses should also donate 
their expertise, providing the training required to bring our schools 
fully on-line--and we challenge them to do so. Teachers and students 
both need such training in order to integrate computer-based lessons 
into their basic curriculum.
  The Computer Donation Incentive Act will provide a reasonable 
incentive for businesses to donate computers to the schools. Again, I 
would like to emphasize that these must be nearly new computers; those 
donated by manufacturers must be no more than 2 years old, and those 
donated by nonmanufacturers must be 3 years old or less.

  It is my hope that computer manufacturers and other companies will 
take advantage of this incentive to make computer literacy a reality 
for elementary and secondary school students.
  Neither a day of electronic barn-building nor an adjustment to the 
Tax Code can solve all our educational problems or even make every 
student computer-literate for the next century. But together, each 
initiative we take will help provide our students with the tools they 
need to drive on the information Superhighway and compete in a global 
information-based economy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be inserted in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1792

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

     SECTION 1. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT 
                   TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

  (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 170(e)(4) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Qualified research or education contribution.--For 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified research or 
     education contribution' means a charitable contribution by a 
     corporation of tangible personal property (including computer 
     software), but only if--
       ``(i) the contribution is to--
       ``(I) an educational organization described in subsection 
     (b)(1)(A)(ii),
       ``(II) a governmental unit described in subsection (c)(1), 
     or
       ``(III) an organization described in section 41(e)(6)(B),
       ``(ii) the contribution is made not later than 3 years 
     after the date the taxpayer acquired the property (or in the 
     case of property constructed by the taxpayer, the date the 
     construction of the property is substantially completed),
       ``(iii) the property is scientific equipment or apparatus 
     substantially all of the use of which by the donee is for--
       ``(I) research or experimentation (within the meaning of 
     section 174), or for research training, in the United States 
     in physical or biological sciences, or
       ``(II) in the case of an organization described in clause 
     (i) (I) or (II), use within the United States for educational 
     purposes related to the purposes or function of the 
     organization,
       ``(iv) the original use of the property began with the 
     taxpayer (or in the case of property constructed by the 
     taxpayer, with the donee),
       ``(v) the property is not transferred by the donee in 
     exchange for money, other property, or services, and
       ``(vi) the taxpayer receives from the donee a written 
     statement representing that its use and disposition of the 
     property will be in accordance with the provisions of clauses 
     (iv) and (v).''
       (b) Donations to Charity for Refurbishing.--Section 
     170(e)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``D) Donations to Charity for Refurbishing.--For purposes 
     of this paragraph, a charitable contribution by a corporation 
     shall be treated as a qualified research or education 
     contribution if--
       ``(i) such contribution is a contribution of property 
     described in subparagraph (B)(iii) to an organization 
     described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt from Taxation under 
     section 501(a),
       ``(ii) such organization repairs and refurbishes the 
     property and donates the property to an organization 
     described in subparagraph (B)(i), and
       ``(iii) the taxpayer receives from the organization to whom 
     the taxpayer contributed the property a written statement 
     representing that its use of the property (and any use by the 
     organization to which it donates the property) meets the 
     requirements of this paragraph.''
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (4)(A) of section 170(e) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``qualified 
     research contribution'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``qualified research or education contribution''.
       (2) The heading for section 170(e)(4) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``or education'' after ``research''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GREGG:
  S. 1793. A bill to amen the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the 
requirement relating to making imported articles and containers apply 
to fresh cut flowers; to the Committee on Finance.


              the tariff act of 1930 amendment act of 1996

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to amend the 
Tariff act of 1930, to provide that the requirements relating to 
marking imported articles and containers will apply to fresh cut 
flowers as well. Under current law and commercial practices, unlike 
other imported goods, flowers are not required to be labeled with 
country of origin. It is my belief that consumers have the right to 
know this information when they shop for flowers.
  U.S. law requires that merchandise imported into the United States be 
marked with country of origin information. This marking must be 
``conspicuously, legibly, and permanently marked in English'' (19 
U.S.C. 1304). Unfortunately, this act also grants the Secretary of the 
Treasury authority to exempt certain items from these requirements 
flowers are among the items that have been exempted. My bill would 
revoke this regulatory exemption.
  The result is that the boxes or sleeves in which imported flowers are 
shipped are required to be marked only at the point of entry and no 
further. Often, before resale to consumers, flowers are taken out of 
boxes either by importers, wholesalers or retailers. In many cases, 
even the retailer from whom flowers are purchased is unaware of the 
product's origin. Domestic fresh cut flower producers have had a 
natural advantage over importers with respect to freshness due to their 
proximity to local markets. Quite simply, domestic flowers last longer 
and they are grown in conformance with strict U.S. pesticide laws as 
well. United States consumers should be able to choose to purchase 
fresh, long-lasting domestic cut flowers produced under strict 
pesticide controls. Historically, however, without a means of 
distinguishing their product, domestic growers have found it difficult 
to promote to consumers and handlers the freshness of their flowers, or 
warn of hazardous pesticide residues on imported flowers.
  The legislation I am introducing today will not place an undue burden 
on retailers or wholesalers. I'm sure all of us, when we shop for 
groceries, have seen perishable products routinely labeled either by 
sticker or a simple sign by the product. This legislation would also 
provide our domestic growers, who enjoy advantages of proximity to the 
market and the controlled environment of the greenhouse a valuable 
means of distinguishing their fresh product from imported flowers that 
are several days old and potentially grown under lax pesticide laws.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the provisions of my bill 
be printed in the Record.

[[Page S5498]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1793

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

     SECTION 1. MARKING OF FRESH CUT FLOWERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1304) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) as 
     subsections (g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Marking of Cut Flowers.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no exception may be made under subsection 
     (a)(3) with respect to fresh cut flowers described in or 
     classified under superior heading 0603, or subheading 
     0603.10, 0603.10.30, 0603.10.60, 0603.10.70, or 0603.10.80 of 
     the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, as in 
     effect on January 1, 1996. The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, by regulation, assure such fresh cut flowers are 
     labeled, marked, or otherwise clearly identified at the 
     retail level as to their country of origin.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
     consumption, on the date that is 15 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Warner, 
        Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 1794. A bill to amend chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, 
to provide for the forfeiture of retirement benefits in the case of any 
Member of Congress, congressional employee, or Federal justice or judge 
who is convicted of an offense relating to official duties of that 
individual, and for the forfeiture of the retirement allowance of the 
President for such a conviction; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


  the congressional, presidential, and judicial pension forfeiture act

 Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which is, 
unfortunately, a necessary measure. Even its name--the Congressional, 
Presidential, and Judicial Pension Forfeiture Act--does not give any of 
us a good feeling. However, I do not introduce this bill 
apologetically, because I believe there is a compelling need to enact 
these changes in order to regain public confidence and trust in elected 
officials and top federal appointees.
  I urge all of my distinguished colleagues to examine this bill and to 
ask themselves the same kinds of questions the American people have 
been asking for a long time. ``Why are Members of Congress not held 
accountable for their decisions, and more importantly for their 
wrongdoing? Why do they seem to think they are above the people who 
elected them, and even sometimes above the law?''
  Recent events have only confirmed such cynicism. I'm sure none of us 
would like to be reminded of the embarrassment caused by these 
scandals, which are representative of an increasing trend of privilege 
abuse. Thirty-four Members have served felony prison sentences since 
1900, 13 of those in the last decade. Perhaps we need a deterrent, a 
statutory deterrent--such as the Congressional, Presidential, and 
Judicial Pension Forfeiture Act--which would cause those who may be 
tempted to abuse the privileges of public service to think twice before 
exploiting those powers. More importantly, this bill is also aimed at 
establishing a commonsense approach to fair play in the use of 
taxpayers' money--an approach that the public understands instinctively 
but to which Congress has yet to conform.
  This bill would deny congressional pensions to any Members who commit 
specified felony crimes during their term in office. The crimes relate 
directly to the execution of congressional duties and were taken from a 
compilation of Federal ethics laws prepared by the Committee on 
Government Affairs. These crimes are acts which we all know are wrong, 
and for which any American citizen would pay dearly in a court of law. 
Yet we as, Members of Congress, were elected on the basis of integrity 
and character and, as such, we should hold ourselves to higher ethical 
standards than the average citizen. This is true in the military, whose 
officers, if convicted in a court-martial, lose their pensions for 
serious wrongdoing. We should ask ourselves if we, too, should submit 
to the kind of standards worthy of our offices. I think we should.

  Mr. President, the question here is accountability. How accountable 
do we perceive ourselves as being for the decisions we make? While we 
would never deny that we all make mistakes--and our constituents would 
never expect us to be perfect--the American people do have a right to 
expect that we serve them honorably, with a strong mind, and with a 
clear conscience. More specifically, they have a right to expect that 
we perform our duties free of corruption. Therefore, I strongly urge 
all of you to consider the source of public cynicism and the bad image 
which Government has recently acquired. Sixty-six percent of eligible 
American voters decide to stay home on election night, not because they 
would rather watch TV, but because they have lost faith in their 
elected officials--in us--and in the importance of their votes in a 
democratic system they no longer feel is responsive to them. And this 
time, it is not about issues; it is about accountability. None of us 
would claim here on the floor of the Senate that we do not hold 
ourselves accountable for our own actions. Hopefully, my colleagues 
will agree to support this bill as a step toward regaining the respect 
and the trust of the American people.
  Finally, I would like to thank Senators Reid and Nickles, who have 
been working independently on this issue and are joining me today in 
introducing this bill. Also, I would like to thank my colleagues who 
have come forward and have demonstrated their support for the bill by 
becoming original cosponsors. It is gratifying, and I am very honored, 
to have my distinguished colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, 
joining me on this issue.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROTH:
  S. 1795. A bill to restore the American family, enhance support and 
work opportunities for families with children, reduce out-of-wedlock 
pregnancies, reduce welfare dependence by requiring work, meet the 
health care needs of America's most vulnerable citizens, control 
welfare and Medicaid spending, and increase State flexibility; to the 
Committee on Finance.


      the personal responsibility and work opportunity act of 1996

 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today is the day we have reached the 
top of a great divide. We can clearly see both what lies ahead and that 
which is behind us. Today is the day we decide whether we dare to press 
forward and change a welfare system that is crippling children and 
families.
  Today is a day of contrasts--39 months ago, President Clinton 
promised the Nation's Governors and the American people that he would 
end welfare as we know it. Nothing happened.
  He abandoned welfare reform and instead pursued a misguided attempt 
to take Government control over the world's finest health care system. 
It didn't work.
  Today, the Republicans in the House and Senate are introducing 
legislation which will deliver on the promise of welfare reform and 
which will protect the health benefits of needy families as they move 
from welfare to work. Today we are introducing welfare and Medicaid 
reform based on the bipartisan recommendations of the Nation's 
Governors. While the Clinton administration has pursued policies of 
national control from Washington, we believe the future of these 
programs belong in the States.
  Without even having seen our proposal, President Clinton labeled 
Medicaid reform a ``poison pill.'' We think it is good medicine. Under 
our proposal, Federal spending for the Medicaid program will total $371 
billion over the next 6 years. This represents an average annual growth 
rate of 6.5 percent between 1996 and 2002 while still achieving savings 
of $72 billion compared to current law.
  But $371 billion represents many important things in addition to how 
much the Federal Government will choose to spend on the third largest 
domestic program in the Federal budget.
  It represents bipartisan compromise.
  It represents the future of how Government will work to help families 
escape welfare dependency.
  And it represents the future of governmental relationships in our 
constitutional system of federalism.
  First, $371 billion represents an important element of compromise in 
the political process. In the budget negotiations with President 
Clinton last

[[Page S5499]]

December, the Republican leadership recommended Medicaid savings of $85 
billion. During the negotiations, President Clinton wanted to reduce 
the savings level for Medicaid to $59 billion. At that time, there was 
a recognition by the administration that Medicaid spending indeed was 
out of control. For example, between 1994 and 1995, total Federal 
outlays grew by 3 percent.
  But Medicaid spending grew nearly three times as fast.
  On a number of occasions, the administration has indicated that the 
President intends to reduce Medicaid spending by $59 billion.
  The President's fiscal year 1997 budget released in March includes 
saving of $55 billion.
  Thus, by setting Medicaid spending at $371 billion, we are meeting 
President Clinton halfway. The difference between us is now $13 
billion. This is less than 2 percent of the total Federal Medicaid 
spending over the next 6 years. This is a difference of 16 cents per 
Medicaid recipient per day.
  When President Clinton vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, he 
argued that the Medicaid budget savings cut too deeply.
  The adoption of today's budget resolution and the introduction of 
this legislation clearly demonstrates that the debate over Medicaid is 
not about spending. The issue is, who will control the spending, 
Washington, or the States?
  In February, the Nation's Governors unanimously adopted a proposal to 
restructure the Medicaid Program. Democratic and Republican Governors 
alike have called upon the President and Congress to dramatically 
change the Medicaid Program.
  The Medicaid proposal we are introducing reflects the Governors' 
policies, including guarantees for children, pregnant women, the 
elderly, and persons with disabilities.
  Together, the Democratic and Republican Governors have testified 
before Congress that budget savings should be between $59 and $85 
billion. The Republican proposal of $72 billion in savings reflects 
this spirit of bipartisan compromise and is the midpoint of these 
savings figures.
  The Medicaid debate therefore is about policy, not budget. Medicaid 
is the largest welfare program and must be part of the solution for 
moving families from welfare to work. It costs more than the AFDC, Food 
Stamp, and SSI Programs combined.
  The growths in the welfare programs are intimately linked to 
Medicaid. Medicaid is the nucleus of authentic welfare reform.
  The Nation's Governors support reform and share the common goal to 
end the status quo. Democratic and Republican Governors have forged a 
bipartisan blueprint for reform.
  Our legislation reflects the principles and framework of the 
Governors' proposals and meets their goals.
  Nearly everyone, including President Clinton, recognizes that the 
welfare system is broken and must be fixed. The Governors, Democratic 
and Republican alike, know that Medicaid and welfare were in the same 
car wreck and both require major reconstructive surgery as soon as 
possible.
  The Governors understand there are major problems in the Medicaid 
Program. To begin with, Medicaid is an all-or-nothing proposition.
  A person either qualifies for all Medicaid benefits or no Medicaid 
benefits. There is no flexibility in the current system to provide 
benefits tailored to a family's needs.
  As such, the welfare system often creates disincentives to work and 
gross inequities for low-income working families, many of whom have no 
other way to provide health care for their children.
  For the individual, the current Medicaid program is often self-
defeating as it encourages dependency. Many proud families can describe 
what they are forced to do to acquire and maintain Medicaid coverage.
  If a family's income rises above the eligibility level by just $1, 
the entire Medicaid package is taken away.
  Medicaid performs as it was designed 30 years ago--$731 billion 
therefore represents a new opportunity to refocus our welfare programs 
to help the present and future generations to escape dependency.
  Governors know that Medicaid is a critical link in moving families 
from welfare to work. They understand it can be difficult to convince a 
family that work pays more than welfare if the price includes the loss 
of their health insurance.
  The Medicaid current program discourages expansion of coverage and 
innovation.
  There is little flexibility or reward for the States to experiment 
with ways of improving access to care.
  The Governors have testified how their ideas to cover more families 
have been stopped cold by Federal rules and regulations.
  The bureaucracy often thwarts targeting of benefits which, for 
example, could be more effective in lowering infant mortality rates.
  Medicaid lags far behind the private sector in adopting progressive 
managed care strategies which have saved employers and working families 
billions of dollars.
  Two-thirds of the people covered by employer-sponsored health plans 
today are enrolled in some type of managed care plan.
  In contrast, only about one-quarter of the Medicaid recipients are in 
any form of managed care.
  Medicaid contains a number of barriers to managed care.
  For example, Florida is facing major disruptions in its entire 
Medicaid system because two of its best HMO's do not meet Medicaid's 
``75/25'' requirements.
  Freed from the choke hold of the Federal bureaucracy, States will be 
able to harness their enormous purchasing power to improve the delivery 
of services at lower costs.
  The central issue of the pending Medicaid debate is who can best 
design a State's public health insurance program--the Federal 
bureaucracy or the States?
  The idea that the children and elderly citizens in a State must be 
protected from their Governor and State legislators is not only wrong.
  Mr. President, it is insulting.
  Finally, slowing the rate of growth represents a fundamental decision 
about the future of federalism. Our elected State officials are 
hostages to the demands of the current Medicaid Program. The Federal-
State partnership cannot survive the skyrocketing cost of the Medicaid 
Program which ricochets throughout State budgets.
  For example, in 1990, Medicaid replaced higher education as the 
second largest State spending category, exceeded only by elementary and 
secondary education.
  In 1987, elementary and secondary education accounted for 22.8 
percent of State spending. Medicaid took 10.2 percent of State 
spending.
  According to the latest report issued by the National Association of 
State Budget Officers, the share of State spending for elementary and 
secondary education has declined to 20.9 percent while Medicaid's share 
has nearly doubled to 19.2 percent.
  If present trends continue, Medicaid will soon pass elementary and 
secondary education as the largest item in State budgets.
  Medicaid has seized the power of decisionmaking from State officials. 
It is simply draining resources from other priorities.
  As summarized by the State budget officers' report, ``Medicaid * * * 
continues to limit the ability of decisonmakers to use the budget as a 
tool for implementing public policy.''
  Last January, President Clinton proclaimed an end to big government. 
Nothing could demonstrate a true allegiance to this pledge better than 
to return the responsibility and authority for welfare programs to the 
States.
  In sum, the critical difference between President Clinton and the 
Republicans is not about the level of Medicaid spending.
  Mr. President, the difference lies in the vision of the proper roles 
of Government and in the faith of the American people to govern 
themselves.

                          ____________________