[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3998-S4010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REID:
S. 697. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a
program of providing information and education to the public on the
prevention and treatment of eating disorders; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.
THE EATING DISORDERS INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ACT OF 1997
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Eating Disorders
Information and Education Act of 1997. This legislation would establish
a program, as part of the Public Health Service Act, to provide
information and education to the public on the prevention and treatment
of eating disorders. Eating disorders include anorexia nervosa, bulimia
nervosa, and binge eating disorders. Further, my bill would provide for
the operation of toll-free telephone communications to provide
information to the public on eating disorders. Such communications
shall be available on a 24-hour, 7-day basis.
Anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and compulsive overeating are all
serious emotional problems that can have life-threatening consequences.
An eating disorder refers to a set of distorted eating habits, weight
management practices, and attitudes about weight and body shape.
Further, it is these distorted eating related attitudes and behaviors
that result in loss of self-control, obsession, anxiety, guilt, and
other forms of misery, alienation from self and others, and
physiological imbalances which are potentially life threatening.
Anorexia nervosa is an intense and irrational fear of body fat and
weight gain, a determination to become thinner and thinner, and a
misperception of body weight and shape to the extent that the person
may feel or see themselves as fat, even when emaciation is clear to
others. These psychological characteristics contribute to drastic
weight loss and defiant refusal to maintain a healthy weight for height
and age. Food, calories, weight, and weight management dominate the
person's life.
Bulimia nervosa is characterized by self-perpetuating and self-
defeating cycles of binge eating and purging. During a binge, the
person consumes a large amount of food in a rapid, automatic, and
helpless fashion. This may anesthetize hunger, anger, and other
feelings, but it eventually creates physical discomfort and anxiety
about weight gain. Thus, the person purges the food eaten, usually by
inducing vomiting and by resorting to some combination of restrictive
dieting, excessive exercising, laxatives, and diuretics.
Eating disorders arise from a combination of longstanding
psychological, interpersonal, and social conditions. Feelings of
inadequacy, depression, anxiety, and loneliness, as well as troubled
family and personal relationships may contribute to the development of
an eating disorder. Our culture, with its unrelenting idealization of
thinness and the perfect body, is often a contributing factor. Once
started, eating disorders become self-perpetuating.
The Federal Government has taken a role in research into eating
disorders. The National Institutes of Health [NIH] is sponsoring
research to determine the causes of anorexia, the best methods of
treatment, and ways to identify who might have a high risk of
developing the disorder. Further, NIH, through its Division of
Researcher Resources, supports 10 general clinical research centers
throughout the country
[[Page S3999]]
in which anorexia research is underway.
Researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health are studying
the biological aspects and changes in brain chemistry which may control
appetite. Although psychological or environmental factors may
precipitate the onset of the illness, the study indicates that it may
be prolonged by starvation-induced changes in body processes.
Althouth research into eating disorders is established and
continuing, we need to provide help for those already trapped in the
cycle of an eating disorder. That is why I offer my legislation today,
to provide a resource to people who need help.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 698. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to
authorize the Secretary of Energy, by lease or otherwise, to store in
underutilized strategic petroleum reserve facilities petroleum products
owned by foreign governments or their representatives, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the strategic petroleum reserve replenishment act
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today I am introducing the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve Replenishment Act, a bill to purchase oil for the
strategic petroleum reserve using revenue obtained from leasing SPR
storage capacity. Senators Bingaman and Landrieu join me in sponsoring
this measure.
The strategic petroleum reserve is the cornerstone of U.S. energy
security. During an oil emergency, the SPR is America's insurance
policy against oil price shocks and economic disruption.
However, our insurance policy is not providing the level of coverage
we need. Because of declining U.S. oil production our dependence on
imports is dangerously high, and the situation will grow worse in the
coming decade. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S.
dependence on oil imports will rise from the current level of 50
percent to 60 percent in the year 2010. As oil imports increase, the
strategic petroleum reserve will provide less and less energy security.
The logical response should be to stockpile more oil. Yet, exactly
the opposite is occurring. Some $315 million in revenue from the
Operation Desert Storm drawdown was diverted to pay operating expenses
rather than purchase replacement oil. Annual purchases of crude for the
SPR have been halted, and we have begun to sell oil from the reserve as
a deficit reduction measure. During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the
Department of Energy sold $450 million barrels of oil for this purpose.
Congress and the administration share the blame for the sale of these
strategic assets.
The most alarming development of all, however, was last week's
announcement by the Department of Energy that it is seeking public
comment on the future of the strategic petroleum reserve. The first
question on the DOE comment notice was ``Should the United States
continue to maintain the SPR?'' That's like asking whether the Titanic
should carry life boats. The strategic petroleum reserve provides an
essential umbrella of energy security and the importance of this asset
will increase as we become more dependent on oil imports.
Like many Federal programs, the strategic petroleum reserve has
become a victim of the balanced budget process. Congress and the
administration are unable to muster the political will, or the scarce
Federal dollars, to maintain or expand our emergency reserve.
My colleagues and I on the Energy Committee have proposed a modest
initiative to purchase new oil for the reserve. The bill we have
introduced today would finance the purchase of oil for the SPR using
revenue obtained from the lease of excess SPR storage capacity.
With its current inventory, the SPR has more than 100 million barrels
of available, but unused storage. A number of foreign governments have
expressed interest in storing oil in the U.S. reserve to meet
International Energy Agency responsibilities. Storing oil in our gulf
coast facility would be far less expensive for these countries than
constructing new storage capacity. The cost of constructing new
capacity exceeds $15 per barrel, whereas the annual operating cost at
SPR facilities is less than 50 cents per barrel. All of the revenue
generated from such leases would be dedicated to the purchase of crude
oil for the U.S. reserve.
During consideration of last year's reconciliation bill, the Senate
adopted a proposal I offered that was nearly identical to the
legislation I have introduced today. The Clinton administration has a
mixed response to this proposal. They support legislation giving DOE
the authority to lease idle SPR capacity to foreign governments, but
they have reservations about dedicating leasing revenue for the
purchase of new oil.
The legislation I am introducing today is an essential first step
toward a more rational energy security policy. As the Senate Energy
Committee considers the reauthorization of the strategic petroleum
reserve, I will work with my colleagues on the committee to ensure that
this measure is included as an amendment.
Madam 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. 698
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 ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Replenishment Act''.
SEC. 2. LEASE OF EXCESS STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE CAPACITY.
Part B of title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 168. UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 649(b) of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7259(b)) and
any other provision of this title, the Secretary, by lease or
otherwise, for any term and under such other conditions as
the Secretary considers necessary, may store in an
underutilized Strategic Petroleum Reserve facility a
petroleum product owned by a foreign government or its
representative.
``(b) Exclusion From Reserve; Export.--A petroleum product
stored under subsection (a)--
``(1) is not part of the Reserve;
``(2) is not subject to part C; and
``(3) may be exported from the United States.
``(c) Use of Funds.--Funds resulting from the leasing or
other use of a Reserve facility under subsection (a) shall be
available to the Secretary, without further appropriation,
for the purchase of petroleum products for the Reserve.''.
______
By Mr. BREAUX:
S. 699. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on Diiodomethly-p-
tolylsulfone; to the Committee on Finance.
temporary duty-free treatment legislation
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that
would temporarily suspend, through the year 2000, the rate of duty
applicable to imports of Diiodomenthyl-p-tolylsulfone, commonly
referred to as ``DMTS.'' Commercially, DMTS is known by the brand name
AMICAL 48. It is a fungicide/mildewcide that is used in caulks,
adhesives, plastics, textiles, and for other purposes. The preservative
is of indisputable benefit to a host of industries engaged in the
production, storage, and use of products subject to microbial
degradation.
The current rate of duty on DMTS is 10.7 percent ad valorem. Under
the Uruguay Round, this rate is scheduled to decrease by 0.6 percent
per year until 2004, when it will reach and remain at 6.5 percent. The
proposed legislation would provide for duty-free treatment of imports
of DMTS from the date of enactment through the last day of the year
2000, and it is estimated that if this legislation is enacted, the
reduction in duty collection will be a de minimis amount of about
$250,000 to $350,000 per year.
Furthermore, because there is no substitute domestic product
currently benefiting from the present rate of duty on DMTS, no adverse
impact on the domestic preservatives industry is anticipated. It may
also be that such a temporary suspension in the rate of duty will
result in savings being passed along to the consumers of AMICAL 48. I
therefore urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
S. 700. A bill to provide States with greater flexibility in setting
provider
[[Page S4000]]
reimbursement rates under the Medicaid Program; to the Committee on
Finance.
legislation to repeal certain medicaid provisions
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
repeal the provider reimbursement requirements of the Boren amendment.
This bill will provide States with greater flexibility in setting
provider reimbursement rates under the Medicaid Program.
Under current law, States may set Medicaid payment rates at whatever
level they choose for home and community-based services, but they must
meet a minimum standard for nursing home and hospital reimbursement.
This standard is prescribed by the Boren amendment, which requires that
providers be reimbursed under rates the State ``finds and makes
assurances satisfactory to the Secretary are reasonable and adequate to
meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically
operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity
with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations and quality and
safety standards.''
Although the law was designed to relax previous standards and
increase flexibility, unfortunately the opposite has resulted. The use
of vague and undefined terms in the amendment created
problems, compounded by the Federal Government's decision not to issue
regulations defining these terms. To add further confusion, the law,
while requiring reimbursement rates to be ``determined in accordance
with methods and standards developed by the State,'' also requires the
Federal Government to be satisfied with the State-determined rates.
Implementing this requirement means State Medicaid plans must include
both State processes for determining rates and the rates themselves,
which are then subject to approval by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
Moreover, beyond this federally imposed regulatory nightmare we've
created for the States, many States, including Texas, have had to deal
with substantial litigation resulting from the vagueness of the
statutory language and lack of regulatory definitions. Some courts have
viewed the Boren amendment as a cost-based payment standard in which
all cost incurred by the providers must be reimbursed. In these
instances, States may be liable for significant sums to cover the
retroactive rate increases ordered by the court for the group of
providers involved in the suit, even if their rate schedule was
approved by the Federal Government. In some cases, the additional
payments made as a result of a court-ordered retroactive rate increase
are not eligible for cost-sharing from the Federal Government.
For example, in 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
found that the State of Louisiana Medicaid agency's findings on
``reasonable and adequate'' compensation for hospitals were inadequate,
despite HCFA's approval of the State plan. In New York, the State's
``minimum utilization adjustment'' decreased reimbursement for
psychiatric hospitals that operated at less than 75 percent capacity as
a means to encourage ``efficiency and economy.'' In another New York
case, however, despite recognizing the many strong policy reasons
behind the adjustments, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York determined the State did not meet the procedural
requirements of the Boren amendment. The decision not only has resulted
in unjustified reimbursement increases for under-used facilities, but
has also tied up the State in continuing litigation over retroactive
damages.
Returning to the States the flexibility to negotiate Medicaid
reimbursement rates would allow them to avoid or mitigate large
increases in spending because of such suits, and follow the example of
private-sector purchasers of health care services by selectively
contracting with hospitals and nursing homes on a competitive basis.
California's Selective Provider Contracting Program [SPCP] is a good
example of the economic benefits of this type of program. Because of
rapid increases in inpatient hospital costs and a budget shortfall,
California passed legislation in 1982 allowing its Medicaid Program
[Medi-Cal] to negotiate contracts with providers. SPCP contains the
overall expenditures for hospital services reimbursed by the Med-Cal
Program and assures adequate access to quality services for
beneficiaries through a competitive, rather than a regulatory process.
The process saves California an estimated $300 million per year.
Illinois had a similar program for several years and saved an estimated
$100 million annually, but it was discontinued following a change in
administrations and a switch to a different system of reimbursement.
The average Medicaid cost per day in Illinois has since risen
substantially.
Both California and Illinois officials have been pleased with the
high quality of care under this type of system. In addition to relying
on strict regulations already in place for hospitals, both States
independently audit hospitals for quality of care. Illinois contracted
for a 2-year period, which meant that hospitals had to compete often to
win contracts while maintaining quality standards.
Mr. President, programs such as those in California and Illinois
exemplify the efficiency and innovation offered within our Federal
system. It is time to give other States free rein to experiment with
similar programs, thus creating a more cost-effective and higher
quality Medicaid system for their beneficiaries. I hope all my
colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation to take a
significant step in the direction of true Medicaid reform.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Helms, Mr. D'Amato,
and Mr. Durbin):
S. 701. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide protections for Medicare beneficiaries who enroll in Medicare
managed care plans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
the medicare patient choice and access act of 1997
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer bipartisan
legislation to provide Medicare beneficiaries with the necessary tools
and protections they need to choose the right health plan under the
Medicare program for their individual health care needs. The bill I am
introducing today, with my Democratic colleague, Senator Conrad, whom I
have had the pleasure to work with on many issues, is entitled the
Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act of 1997. I am also joined by my
Republican colleagues, Senator D'Amato and Senator Helms, and my
Democratic colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. Similar legislation
has been introduced in the House by Representatives Coburn and Brown.
Representative Coburn's bill currently has 91 cosponsors and has strong
bipartisan support.
The bill I am sponsoring accomplishes a number of important
objectives for Medicare beneficiaries and for the success of the
Medicare program. We often talk about providing more choices of health
plans for Medicare recipients, but we rarely discuss what they need to
make the right choice. As Congress examines ways to encourage more
options for Medicare beneficiaries through the growth of managed care,
it is critical that there is a trusting relationship between Medicare
enrollees and their health plans. Medicare is a Federal program.
Therefore, it is our job to ensure that health plans participating in
the Medicare program provide quality care to our Nation's elderly.
Medicare recipients look to Congress to hold health plans accountable.
The legislation I am introducing will encourage plans to compete based
on the quality of care they provide and will give beneficiaries the
necessary information they need make an informed choice.
The bill includes the following provisions: Provides beneficiaries
with standardized consumer-friendly charts to compare health plans in
their area (information such as disenrollment rates and appeals denied
and reversed by plans are included in these charts); ensures that
beneficiaries will receive fair treatment when health plans deny care
by establishing a uniform and timely appeals process for managed care
plans participating in Medicare; creates an atmosphere of trust between
beneficiaries and their providers by prohibiting the use of gag clauses
which restrict communications between providers and their patients;
provides beneficiaries with the assurance that their health care
provider
[[Page S4001]]
will refer to specialists, when medically necessary, by expanding
Medicare's restriction on the use of financial incentives in managed
care to include not just physicians but all providers; given patients,
especially those individuals who require specialized care, the
assurance they will be able to see a specialist, as medically
necessary, when they are enrolled in a managed care plan; and offers
beneficiaries more choices by guaranteeing they will have the option,
at the time of enrollment, to select a plan with coverage for out-of-
network services (point-of-service plans are the fastest growing health
plans in the private sector).
Many of the provisions in this bill are supported by research
conducted by the General Accounting Office [GAO] and the Institute of
Medicine [IOM]. In the Senate Special Committee on Aging, which I
chair, we recently held a hearing on the importance of detailed health
plan information in holding health plans accountable and improving the
quality of care delivered. We heard from large health care purchasers
such as the California Public Employees Retirement System [CalPERS] and
Xerox Corp. on ways Congress could improve the Medicare program by
providing comparative, standardized, information on participating
health plans. We heard from the GAO and the IOM about ways the Health
Care Financing Administration could be more cost-efficient by requiring
that health plans standardize their information. These witnesses
highlighted the costliness of high disenrollment rates among health
plans and how rates are significantly reduced when beneficiaries are
given accurate and detailed comparative information on available health
plans.
Most importantly, we heard from a recent Medicare beneficiary and a
representative of a Medicare Insurance Counseling Assistance program on
the lack of reliable, comparative information under the current
Medicare program. The consistent theme from all these witnesses was the
importance of trust between Medicare beneficiaries and their health
plans. This trust in the program does not exist today, particularly in
areas experiencing a rapid growth in managed care. However, by enacting
the bill I am offering today which includes several incremental changes
to the Medicare program, Congress can help to establish trust and
rebuild confidence among our Nation's seniors in the Medicare program.
Many of the provisions in this bill are strengthening current law or
providing beneficiaries protection in statute in addition to
regulation. I believe it is the responsibility of Congress and
administration to ensure that our Nation's elderly are getting quality,
cost-effective care under the Medicare program. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to join me and Senator Conrad in cosponsoring
this very important bipartisan legislation.
Mr. President, I ask that a summary and full text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 701
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 ``Medicare Patient Choice and
Access Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There should be no unreasonable barriers or impediments
to the ability of individuals enrolled in health care plans
to obtain appropriate specialized medical services.
(2) The patient's first point of contact in a health care
plan must be encouraged to make all appropriate medical
referrals and should not be constrained financially from
making such referrals.
(3) Some health care plans may impede timely access to
specialty care.
(4) Some contracts between health care plans and providers
may contain provisions which impede the provider in informing
the patient of the full range of treatment options.
(5) Patients cannot make appropriate health care decisions
without access to all relevant information relating to those
decisions.
(6) Restrictions on the ability of health care providers to
provide full disclosure of all relevant information to
patients making health care decisions violate the principles
of informed consent and the ethical standards of the health
care professions. Contractual clauses and other policies that
interfere with communications between health care providers
and patients can impact the quality of care received by those
patients.
(7) Patients should have the opportunity to access out-of-
network items, treatment, and services at an additional cost
to the patient which is not so prohibitive that they are
deterred from seeing the health care provider of their own
choice.
(8) Specialty care must be available for the full duration
of the patient's medical needs when medically necessary and
not limited by time or number of visits.
(9) Direct access to specialty care is essential for
patients in emergency and nonemergency situations and for
patients with chronic and temporary conditions.
SEC. 3. PROTECTION FOR MEDICARE HMO ENROLLEES.
(a) In General.--Section 1876 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395mm) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``subsection (e)''
and inserting ``subsections (e) and (k)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Beneficiary Protection.--
``(1) Assuring adequate in-network access.--
``(A) Timely access.--An eligible organization that
restricts the providers from whom benefits may be obtained
must guarantee to enrollees under this section timely access
to primary and specialty health care providers who are
appropriate for the enrollee's condition.
``(B) Access to specialized care.--Enrollees must have
access to specialized treatment when medically necessary.
This access may be satisfied through contractual arrangements
with specialized health care providers outside of the
network.
``(C) Continuity of care.--An eligible organization's use
of case management may not create an undue burden for
enrollees under this section. An eligible organization must
ensure direct access to specialists for ongoing care as so
determined by the case manager in consultation with the
specialty health care provider. This continuity of care may
be satisfied for enrollees with chronic conditions through
the use of a specialist serving as case manager.
``(2) Out-of-network access.--If an eligible organization
offers to members enrolled under this section a plan which
provides for coverage of items and services covered under
parts A and B only if such items and services are furnished
through health care providers and other persons who are
members of a network of health care providers and other
persons who have entered into a contract with the
organization to provide such services, the contract with the
organization under this section shall provide that the
organization shall also offer to members enrolled under this
section (at the time of enrollment) a plan which provides for
coverage of such items and services which are not furnished
through health care providers and other persons who are
members of such a network.
``(3) Grievance process.--
``(A) In general.--An eligible organization must provide a
meaningful and expedited procedure, which includes notice and
hearing requirements, for resolving grievances between the
organization (including any entity or individual through
which the organization provides health care services) and
members enrolled with the organization under this section.
Under that procedure, any member enrolled with the eligible
organization may, at any time, file a complaint to resolve
grievances between the member and the organization before a
board of appeals established under subparagraph (C).
``(B) Notice requirements.--
``(i) In general.--The eligible organization must provide,
in a timely manner, to an enrollee a notice of any denial of
services in-network or denial of payment for out-of-network
care.
``(ii) Information required.--Such notice shall include the
following:
``(I) A clear statement of the reason for the denial.
``(II) An explanation of the complaint process under
subparagraph (A) which is available to the enrollee upon
request.
``(III) An explanation of all other appeal rights available
to all enrollees.
``(IV) A description of how to obtain supporting evidence
for the hearing described in subparagraph (C), including the
patient's medical records from the organization, as well as
supporting affidavits from the attending health care
providers.
``(C) Hearing board.--
``(i) In general.--Each eligible organization shall
establish a board of appeals to hear and make determinations
on complaints by enrollees concerning denials of coverage or
payment for services (whether in-network or out-of-network)
and the medical necessity and appropriateness of covered
items and services.
``(ii) Composition.--A board of appeals of an eligible
organization shall consist of--
``(I) representatives of the organization, including
physicians, nonphysicians, administrators, and enrollees;
``(II) consumers who are not enrolled with an eligible
organization under this section; and
``(III) health care providers who are not under contract
with the eligible organization and who are experts in the
field of medicine which necessitates treatment.
Members of the board of appeals described in subclauses (II)
and (III) shall have no interest in the eligible
organization.
[[Page S4002]]
``(iii) Deadline for decision.--
``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), a
board of appeals shall hear and resolve complaints within 30
days after the date the complaint is filed with the board.
``(II) Expedited procedure.--A board of appeals shall have
an expedited procedure in order to hear and resolve
complaints regarding urgent care (as determined by the
Secretary in regulations).
``(D) Other remedies.--Nothing in this paragraph may be
construed to replace or supersede any appeals mechanism
otherwise provided for an individual entitled to benefits
under this title.
``(4) Notice of enrollee rights and comparative report.--
``(A) In general.--Each eligible organization shall provide
in any marketing materials distributed to individuals
eligible to enroll under this section and to each enrollee at
the time of enrollment and not less frequently than annually
thereafter, an explanation of the individual's rights under
this section and a copy of the most recent comparative report
(as established by the Secretary under subparagraph (C)) for
that organization.
``(B) Rights described.--The explanation of rights under
subparagraph (A) shall be in a standardized format (as
established by the Secretary in regulations) and shall
include an explanation of--
``(i) the enrollee's rights to benefits from the
organization;
``(ii) the restrictions (if any) on payments under this
title for services furnished other than by or through the
organization;
``(iii) out-of-area coverage provided by the organization;
``(iv) the organization's coverage of emergency services
and urgently needed care;
``(v) the organization's coverage of out-of-network
services, including services that are additional to the items
and services covered under parts A and B;
``(vi) appeal rights of and grievance procedures available
to enrollees; and
``(vii) any other rights that the Secretary determines
would be helpful to beneficiaries in understanding their
rights under the plan.
``(C) Comparative report.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop an
understandable standardized comparative report on the plans
offered by eligible organizations, that will assist
beneficiaries under this title in their decisionmaking
regarding medical care and treatment by allowing the
beneficiaries to compare the organizations that the
beneficiaries are eligible to enroll with. In developing such
report the Secretary shall consult with outside
organizations, including groups representing the elderly and
health insurers, in order to assist the Secretary in
developing the report.
``(ii) Contents of report.--The report described in clause
(i) shall include a comparison for each plan of--
``(I) the premium for the plan;
``(II) the benefits offered by the plan, including any
benefits that are additional to the benefits offered under
parts A and B;
``(III) the amount of any deductibles, coinsurance, or any
monetary limits on benefits;
``(IV) the identity, location, qualifications, and
availability of health care providers in any health care
provider networks of the plan;
``(V) the number of individuals who disenrolled from the
plan within 3 months of enrollment and during the previous
fiscal year, stated as percentages of the total number of
individuals in the plan;
``(VI) the procedures used by the plan to control
utilization of services and expenditures, including any
financial incentives;
``(VII) the procedures used by the plan to ensure quality
of care;
``(VIII) the rights and responsibilities of enrollees;
``(IX) the number of applications during the previous
fiscal year requesting that the plan cover certain medical
services that were denied by the plan (and the number of such
denials that were subsequently reversed by the plan), stated
as a percentage of the total number of applications during
such period requesting that the plan cover such services;
``(X) the number of times during the previous fiscal year
(after an appeal was filed with the Secretary) that the
Secretary upheld or reversed a denial of a request that the
plan cover certain medical services;
``(XI) the restrictions (if any) on payment for services
provided outside the plan's health care provider network;
``(XII) the process by which services may be obtained
through the plan's health care provider network;
``(XIII) coverage for out-of-area services;
``(XIV) any exclusions in the types of health care
providers participating in the plan's health care provider
network; and
``(XV) any additional information that the Secretary
determines would be helpful for beneficiaries to compare the
organizations that the beneficiaries are eligible to enroll
with.
``(iii) Ongoing development of report.--The Secretary
shall, not less than annually, update each comparative
report.
``(D) Compliance.--Each eligible organization shall
disclose to the Secretary, as requested by the Secretary, the
information necessary to complete the comparative report.
``(5) Restrictions on health care provider incentive
plans.--
``(A) In general.--Each contract with an eligible
organization under this section shall provide that the
organization may not operate any health care provider
incentive plan (as defined in subparagraph (B)) unless the
following requirements are met:
``(i) No specific payment is made directly or indirectly
under the plan to a health care provider or health care
provider group as an inducement to reduce or limit medically
necessary services.
``(ii) If the plan places a health care provider or health
care provider group at substantial financial risk (as
determined by the Secretary) for services not provided by the
health care provider or health care provider group, the
organization--
``(I) provides stop-loss protection for the health care
provider or health care provider group that is adequate and
appropriate, based on standards developed by the Secretary
that take into account the number (and type) of health care
providers placed at such substantial financial risk in the
group or under the plan and the number of individuals
enrolled with the organization that receive services from the
health care provider or the health care provider group; and
``(II) conducts periodic surveys of both individuals
enrolled and individuals previously enrolled with the
organization to determine the degree of access of such
individuals to services provided by the organization and
satisfaction with the quality of such services.
``(iii) The organization provides the Secretary with
descriptive information regarding the plan, sufficient to
permit the Secretary to determine whether the plan is in
compliance with the requirements of this subparagraph.
``(B) Health care provider incentive plan defined.--In this
paragraph, the term `health care provider incentive plan'
means any compensation arrangement between an eligible
organization and a health care provider or health care
provider group that may directly or indirectly have the
effect of reducing or limiting medically necessary services
provided with respect to individuals enrolled with the
organization.
``(6) Prohibition of interference with certain medical
communications.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Prohibition of certain provisions.--Subject to
subparagraph (C), an eligible organization may not include
with respect to its plan under this section any provision
that prohibits or restricts any medical communication (as
defined in subparagraph (B)) as part of--
``(I) a written contract or agreement with a health care
provider;
``(II) a written statement to such a provider; or
``(III) an oral communication to such a provider.
``(ii) Nullification.--Any provision described in clause
(i) is null and void.
``(B) Medical communication defined.--In this paragraph,
the term `medical communication' means a communication made
by a health care provider with a patient of the provider (or
the guardian or legal representative of such patient) with
respect to any of the following:
``(i) How participating physicians and health care
providers are paid.
``(ii) Utilization review procedures.
``(iii) The basis for specific utilization review
decisions.
``(iv) Whether a specific prescription drug or biological
is included in the formulary.
``(v) How the eligible organization decides whether a
treatment or procedure is experimental.
``(vi) The patient's physical or mental condition or
treatment options.
``(C) Construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed as preventing an entity from--
``(i) acting on information relating to the provision of
(or failure to provide) treatment to a patient; or
``(ii) restricting a medical communication that recommends
1 health plan over another if the sole purpose of the
communication is to secure financial gain for the health care
provider.
``(7) Additional definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Health care provider.--The term `health care
provider' means anyone licensed under State law to provide
health care services under part A or B.
``(B) In-network.--The term `in-network' means services
provided by health care providers who have entered into a
contract or agreement with the organization under which such
providers are obligated to provide items, treatment, and
services under this section to individuals enrolled with the
organization under this section.
``(C) Network.--The term `network' means, with respect to
an eligible organization, the health care providers who have
entered into a contract or agreement with the organization
under which such providers are obligated to provide items,
treatment, and services under this section to individuals
enrolled with the organization under this section.
``(D) Out-of-network.--The term `out-of-network' means
services provided by health care providers who have not
entered into a contract agreement with the organization under
which such providers are obligated to provide items,
treatment, and services under this section to individuals
enrolled with the organization under this section.
``(8) Nonpreemption of state law.--A State may establish or
enforce requirements with respect to the subject matter of
this
[[Page S4003]]
subsection, but only if such requirements are more stringent
than the requirements established under this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1876 of such Act is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(E)(ii)(II), by striking
``subsection (c)(3)(E)'' and inserting ``subsection (k)(4)'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking subparagraph (E); and
(ii) in subparagraph (G)(ii)(II), by striking
``subparagraph (E)'' and inserting ``subsection (k)(4)'';
(B) by striking paragraph (4); and
(C) by striking ``(5)(A) The organization'' and all that
follows through ``(B) A member'' and inserting ``(5) A
member''; and
(3) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (6)(A)(vi), by striking ``paragraph (8)''
and inserting ``subsection (k)(5)''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (8).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contracts entered into or renewed under
section 1876 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm)
after the expiration of the 1-year period that begins on the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF PROTECTIONS TO MEDICARE SELECT
POLICIES.
(a) In General.--Section 1882(t) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395ss(t)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) notwithstanding any other provision of this section
to the contrary, the issuer of the policy meets the
requirements of section 1876(k) (except for subparagraphs (C)
and (D) of paragraph (4) of that section) with respect to
individuals enrolled under the policy, in the same manner
such requirements apply with respect to an eligible
organization under such section with respect to individuals
enrolled with the organization under such section; and
``(H) the issuer of the policy discloses to the Secretary,
as requested by the Secretary, the information necessary to
complete the report described in paragraph (4).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The Secretary shall develop an understandable
standardized comparative report on the policies offered by
entities pursuant to this subsection. Such report shall
contain information similar to the information contained in
the report developed by the Secretary pursuant to section
1876(k)(4)(C).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to policies issued or renewed on or after the
expiration of the 1-year period that begins on the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in
this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a
thorough study regarding the implementation of the amendments
made by sections 3 and 4 of this Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit a report to Congress that shall contain a
detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the
Secretary regarding the study conducted pursuant to
subsection (a), together with the Secretary's recommendations
for such legislation and administrative actions as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out the provisions
of this section out of funds otherwise appropriated to the
Secretary.
SEC. 6. NATIONAL INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall establish and operate, out of
funds otherwise appropriated to the Secretary, a
clearinghouse and (if the Secretary determines it to be
appropriate) a 24-hour toll-free telephone hotline, to
provide for the dissemination of the comparative reports
created pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(k)(4)(C)) (as added by section
3 of this Act) and section 1882(t)(4) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(t)(4)) (as added by section 4 of this
Act). In order to assist in the dissemination of the
comparative reports, the Secretary may also utilize medicare
offices open to the general public, the beneficiary
assistance program established under section 4359 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-
3), and the health insurance information counseling and
assistance grants under section 4359 of that Act (42 U.S.C.
1395b-4).
____
Summary--Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act of 1997
The Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act of 1997
establishes certain standards and beneficiary protections for
Medicare recipients enrolled in Medicare managed care plans.
The legislation builds upon and strengthens existing law,
which already provides some protections to Medicare
beneficiaries. There is growing concern, however, that as
more and more beneficiaries (currently 4.9 million Medicare
beneficiaries with enrollment growth averaging 30% annually)
enroll in managed care greater protections must be in place
to ensure quality and access to care for seniors.
The bill would require the following:
Comparative Health Plan Information: Expands the consumer
information that health plans must provide to beneficiaries
under current law. Provides beneficiaries with standardized
consumer-friendly charts to compare health plans. Requires
the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to include
disenrollment data, which will contribute to greater
competition among health plans. HCFA currently collects this
data, but does not distribute it to beneficiaries.
Expedited Appeals Process: Provides an expedited appeals
procedure, consistent with new regulations, and a 30 day
resolution for grievances and appeals of health plan
enrollees. Preserves current law allowing beneficiaries to
appeal to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services.
Prohibition of Gag Clauses: Prohibits gag rules, using the
managed care industry's definition of ``medical
communication.'' This is an expansion of HCFA's current
regulation banning the use of gag clauses regarding treatment
options.
Expansion of Restrictions on Financial Incentives: Expands
the current Federal law which places certain restrictions on
the use of financial incentives to manage care from applying
to physicians only to covering all providers.
Point-of-Service Option: Expands choice of health plans by
guaranteeing enrollees the option of choosing a point-of-
service plan at the time they enroll in a Medicare managed
care plan.
Timely and Appropriate Access to Specialists: Gives
enrollees the assurance they will be able to see a specialist
in-network, as medically necessary. Current law requires that
managed care health plans provide access to the full range of
Medicare health care services. The bill expands and
strengthens this provision.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I certainly am not alone in having strong
feelings that the senior citizens of America must not be deprived of
their right to choose their own doctors.
Senator Grassley's Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act of 1997,
which I'm cosponsoring today, ensures choice, access, and quality care
for senior citizens by guaranteeing enrollees the option of choosing a
point-of-service plan at the time they enroll in a Medicare HMO.
Five years ago, I had a close but fortunate encounter with some
remarkable medical doctors in my home town of Raleigh. My heart surgery
and the very effective subsequent rehabilitation made it clear that I
had been cared for by some of the most capable people in the medical
profession.
I was free to choose the surgeon who performed the operation. Senior
citizens enrolled in Medicare should have the same choice, and the bill
I'm co-sponsoring today will enable senior citizens who join HMO's to
preserve their right to choose their doctor.
America's senior citizens depend on the health care coverage provided
by the Medicare system, and those of us in Congress have a duty to make
sure they will not be forced to give up their right to choose their
doctors.
Mr. President, the Health Care Financing Administration--which, of
course, administers Medicare--is now the largest purchaser of managed
care in the Nation, accounting for about 18 million Americans. As of
February 1997, 5 million Medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in
managed care plans. This represents a 108-percent increase in managed
care enrollment since 1993. Increased migration of the elderly into
health maintenance organizations, and other types of managed care
plans, will surely lower the costs of operating the vast Medicare
system. And citizens who belong to a Medicare-supported HMO may
increase their benefits for prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and hearing
aids coverage not available through fee-for-service plans.
Without some moderating legislation, however, senior citizens could
very well find themselves locked into coverage that limits them to
services provided by HMO-affiliated doctors, other professionals and
hospitals. No longer would senior citizens have the freedom to choose
their own doctor.
Mr. President, consider, if you will, the predicament of a patient
who requires heart surgery, and whose HMO will not approve the
cardiologist with whom the senior has built up a longstanding
relationship. Should that patient be required to wait for a year's time
to change to a plan that will cover the cardiologist whom the patient
knows and trusts?
We must provide a safety valve to protect seniors who find themselves
in that position. A point-of-service option
[[Page S4004]]
would enable patients to see physicians and specialists inside and
outside the managed care network. If senior citizens are satisfied with
the care they receive within the network, they will feel no need to
choose outside doctors and specialists. Without such options, however,
these senior citizens will be locked into a rigid system which may, or
may not, give them the health care they need from people they most
trust to provide it.
Mr. President, most Americans, whether their health is insured by
private firms or by Medicare, enjoy their freedom to decide which
medical professional will provide their care and treatment. According
to polls I have seen, patients are willing to pay a little more for the
ability to go out of network to be assured of seeing the doctors of
their choice. As many as 70 percent of Americans over 50 years old
declared in one poll that they would be unwilling to join a Medicare
managed plan that denied them the freedom to choose their own
physicians.
Building a point-of-service option into all health plans under
Medicare will not interfere with the plan's ability to contain cost,
nor will it limit their efforts to encourage providers and patients to
use their health care resources wisely. It simply will ensure that
health plans put the patient first.
The CBO indicated that a built-in point-of-service feature would not
increase the cost of Medicare. In testimony before the Senate Budget
Committee, CBO stated that:
the point of service option would permit Medicare enrollees
to go to providers outside the HMO's panel when they wanted
to, and yet it need not increase the benefit cost to HMO's or
to Medicare * * *
The Medicare Patient Choice and Access Act also includes patient
protections and provisions ensuring Medicare participants' timely
access to specialists and provides an expedited appeals process which
requires patient grievances to be resolved within 30 days. Lastly, this
bill expands the consumer information which must be provided to
beneficiaries to help patients compare health plans. Unfortunately,
although the Health Care Financing Administration collect vast amounts
of data, virtually none of it is currently accessible to consumers.
So, Mr. President, I urge Senators to support the Medicare Patient
Choice and Access Act, which will provide senior citizens with real
patient protections and real choice in health care.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 702. A bill to amend the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act to clarify that a State is not required to provide special
education and related services to a person with a disability who is
convicted of a felony and incarcerated in a secure correctional
facility with adult offenders; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
special education for violent criminals legislation
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure
that children across the country will not lose special education funds
provided by the Individual With Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. My
legislation will fix a loophole in IDEA that threatens to cut off
special education funding to children in California and as many as 24
other States.
IDEA guarantees all children a ``free and appropriate public
education.'' Unfortunately, the Department of Education has interpreted
this requirement with a bizarre twist. It has insisted that ``all
children'' includes those felons who, because of the particularly
violent nature of their crimes, are serving time in adult State
prisons. The Department of Education has even insisted California
provide special education classes to two murderers on death row. If
California refuses to comply, it stands to loss all Federal funding for
special education--over $330 million, which helps educate close to
600,000 children.
I believe California is correct to protest these guidelines.
To hold special education children hostage to juvenile murderers and
rapists in the State's adult prison system is unconscionable. The $5 to
$20 million it would cost to provide specialized classes for these
violent felons would clearly be better spent on law-abiding citizens.
My colleagues should be aware that California is not alone in this
predicament. Twenty-four other states have been cited for noncompliance
with IDEA's prison mandate, and they may lose Federal special education
aid if they fail to change their policies.
My bill would amend IDEA to clarify that those juveniles sent to
adult prisons because of the violent nature of their crimes would not
be subject to the IDEA special education requirement. Young adults
housed in juvenile detention facilities will not be affected in any
way.
This bill will not prohibit or hinder in any way a State's ability to
provide special education to adult prisoners. It will only remove the
Federal mandate requiring States to provide special education to
juveniles remanded to adult prisons. Deciding which rehabilitation
programs to provide to State prisoners properly rests with lawmakers in
each State. States such as California should not have to fear the loss
of critical Federal aid because they prefer to allocate scarce
resources to educate noncriminals.
Mr. President, this is a commonsense proposal, and I hope the Senate
will act on it expeditiously.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in
the Record. I ask unanimous consent that a newspaper article on this
subject also be printed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 702
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION ON THE PROVISION OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION AND RELATED SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES WHO ARE CONVICTED OF FELONIES.
Section 612(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(1)) is amended by adding at end
the following: ``The State is not required under the policy
to assure a free appropriate public education to a person
with a disability who is convicted of a felony and as a
result of such a conviction, is incarcerated in a secure
correctional facility.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 602(a) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(28) The term ``secure correctional facility'' means any
public or private residential facility that--
``(A) includes construction fixtures designed to physically
restrict the movements and activities of individuals held in
lawful custody in such facility; and
``(B) is used for the placement, after adjudication and
disposition, of an individual convicted of a criminal
offense.''.
____
[From the Los Angles Times, Apr. 18, 1997]
State Should Give Prisoners Special Education, U.S. Says
(By Richard Lee Colvin)
The federal government wants California to provide special
education services to some imprisoned felons, including those
serving life terms or on death row. And, to pressure the
state to do so, the U.S. Department of Education is
threatening to withhold $332 million that now goes to pay for
the same services for public schoolchildren.
The issue arises from an Education Department
interpretation of the 1975 law that requires schools to
ensure that students with physical, emotional and learning
disabilities receive a ``free, appropriate public education''
in return for federal aid.
The law does not specifically require that prisoners
receive such services. Indeed, many other states do not
provide them. Neither does the federal prison system.
Yet, because California extends services such as tutoring
and vocational and speech therapy to juveniles until they
turn 22, the federal government says prisoners up to that age
cannot be discriminated against--even if they are behind bars
for crimes including murder and rape or awaiting execution.
Privately, federal education officials acknowledge that
withholding money from programs for schoolchildren to
pressure the state would be highly unpopular and that they
would be reluctant to go through with it.
Nonetheless, federal officials have continued to press the
state to comply.
The Wilson administration has resisted the order, saying
that screening inmates and creating an individualized plan
for serving each of them would pose daunting logistic,
financial, security and legal problems. State officials have
been lobbying Congress to change the law.
In testimony before a congressional committee looking into
the issue, Gregory W. Harding, the Department of Corrections
chief deputy director, questioned the ``appropriateness and
wisdom of expending precious resources'' on individuals who
have ``committed felonious and, in many instances, heinous
crimes.''
Harding also warned that inmates or their parents ``would
merely use this process to make unreasonable demands or to
bring frivolous lawsuits against staff.''
The state prisons house roughly 10,000 inmates between the
ages of 16 and 21. No one
[[Page S4005]]
knows for sure how many of those prisoners might have
disabilities qualifying them for special education. Estimates
have ranged between 10% and 25%. Cost estimates also range
widely, from $5 million to $20 million annually.
Those numbers pale next to the $3.4 billion spent annually
in California to provide special education for 590,000
students.
But the possibility of shifting any money to prisoners
rankles educators because the federal government requires the
states to provide special education to disabled children,
but has never come close to providing its full share of
the programs' cost. The law originally said the federal
government could cover up to 40% of the cost of special
education, but Washington has never put up more than 12%
of the money and has now dropped its share to roughly 8%--
draining money from local school district budgets.
``Our position is that we don't want to see any public
education dollar--state or federal--be siphoned off to
provide special education service . . . to youth in
prison,'' said Lou Barela, a special education administrator
in Solano County who has testified on the issue on behalf of
a statewide administrators group.
Barela said it would be more expensive to provide services
in prisons than in schools because of security risks. She
said the state already has a huge shortage of trained special
education teachers, and it will be even more difficult to
find ones willing to work in prisons.
It is not uncommon for federal officials to threaten to
withhold special education funding in order to get a state or
a local school district to comply with a ruling. In 1994, the
Los Angeles Unified School District was threatened with the
loss of its special education funding if it did not revamp
its procedures for assessing students' needs in a timely
fashion. In the end, no money was withheld.
Federal education officials have scheduled a public hearing
for next month in Sacramento to discuss when the state will
begin to provide the services. That hearing will also
consider a compliance agreement under which the state would
have as long as three years to change its program.
The issue of providing special education services to
inmates is one of many that have complicated action to extend
the life of the landmark 1975 law, now known as the
Individuals With Disabilities Act.
Last fall, after working on the reauthorization bill for
two years, Congress adjourned without taking action. Among
the other issues stalling the bill were questions about how
federal money for the program is distributed and how students
served by the program can be disciplined.
Representatives of both parties in the Senate and House and
from the Clinton administration are in the middle of
negotiations on the reauthorization bill and are expected to
come up with a compromise in the next few weeks. In an effort
to keep those negotiations on track, the parties, including
those from the Department of Education, have agreed not to
talk about whether they are making progress.
Repubican Rep. Frank Riggs of Windsor heads one of the
subcommittees dealing with the reauthorization and has vowed
in the past to change the law to exempt California from the
order to serve prisoners.
``It is utterly unfair to take precious special education
dollars away from students in the public schools to give
those dollars to muggers, murderers and rapists,'' said Beau
Phillips, Riggs' spokesman.
``For the U.S. Department of Education to threaten the
special ed grant for the entire state of California because
the state won't provide special education to 19- and 22-year-
old killers is insane.''
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 703. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify
the deductibility of expenses by a taxpayer in connection with the
business use of the home; to the Committee on Finance.
HOME OFFICE TAX LEGISLATION
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
fully restore the home office tax deduction. This legislation is
necessary because a recent Supreme Court decision and subsequent IRS
regulations have made it impossible for many small business
entrepreneurs to use the home office tax deduction.
During my service in the House of Representatives I introduced this
legislation in both the 103d and 104th Congresses. We made great
progress in the 104th, and even included a full home office tax
deduction in the Contract With America tax legislation. Unfortunately,
that tax legislation was vetoed.
However, by the end of the last Congress we were able to reach
agreement with the President on a number of small business tax changes,
and among them was a restoration of the tax deduction for home space
used for the storage of product samples. This year we should finish the
job and restore the full home office tax deduction.
Increasingly, it is the little guy who gets squeezed by the tax
system. While large corporations can rent space and deduct office and
virtually all other expenses, many taxpayers who work out of their home
are no longer able to deduct their office expenses.
Traditionally, the Tax Code has permitted individuals who operate
businesses within their homes to deduct a portion of the expenses
related to that home. However, over the past 20 years Congress, the
courts, and the IRS have reduced the scope and usefulness of the
deduction.
The most serious blow came in 1993 when the Supreme Court's ruling in
the Soliman decision effectively eliminated the home office deduction
for most taxpayers. Under the Supreme Court's new interpretation of
``principal place of business'' a taxpayer who maintains a home office,
but also performs important business related work outside the home is
not likely to pass IRS scrutiny.
This change effectively denies the deduction to taxpayers who work
out of their home but also spend time on the road. Those impacted
include sales representatives, caterers, teachers, computer repairers,
doctors, veterinarians, house painters, consultants, personal trainers,
and many more. Even though these taxpayers may have no office other
than their home, the work they perform will often deny them a
deduction.
According to the IRS, 1.6 million taxpayers claimed a home office tax
deduction in 1991. While not all of these taxpayers were affected by
the Court's decision, many were. Clearly, any taxpayers who operate a
business out of their home must review their tax situation.
There are many reasons why a broad home office tax deduction is
important. The deduction is pro-family. It helps taxpayers pursue
careers that enable them to spend more time with their children. The
deduction helps cut down on commuting and saves energy. The deduction
recognizes the advances of technology--computer and telecommunciations
advances mean that more and more individuals will be able to work for
themselves and maintain a home office.
The deduction is a boost to women and minorities who are increasingly
starting their own businesses. In fact, over 32 percent of all
proprietorships are now owned by women entrepreneurs, and Commerce
Department data reveal that 55 percent of these women business owners
operate their firms from their home. In addition, there are now well
over 1 million minority-owned small businesses and a good number of
these are operated out of the home.
Finally, the home office tax deduction helps our economy. It benefits
small businesses and entrepeneurs who develop new ideas, and create
jobs. Many of America's most important businesses originated out of a
home.
Small business is increasingly the engine which drives our economy.
With large firms downsizing, entrepeneurs must pick up the slack. The
importance of this trend is demonstrated by the job shift that occurred
during the slow recovery from the most recent recession. During the
period of October 1991 to September 1992 large businesses cut 400,000
jobs while small business created 178,000 new jobs. During the boom
years of the 1980's, the vast majority of the 20 million new jobs
created were in the small business sector.
It is critical that recent assaults on the home office tax deduction
be reversed. That is why I plan to work hard to see that this change in
law is enacted as soon as possible.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 704. A bill to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 with respect to the separate detention and
confinement of juveniles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
the juvenile jail improvement act
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Juvenile Jail
Improvement Act of 1997.
We face a growing and frightening tide of juvenile violence. And that
tide is threatening to swamp our rural sheriffs. It is increasingly
common for
[[Page S4006]]
rural sheriffs to face a terrible dilemma every time they arrest a
juvenile--they either have to release a potentially violent juvenile on
the street to await trial or they have to spend invaluable time and
manpower chauffeuring the juvenile around their State to an appropriate
detention facility. Either way, the current system makes little sense
and needs to be changed.
Let me explain how this dilemma works. In most rural communities, the
only jail available is built exclusively for adults. There are no
special juvenile facilities. But sometimes, the community can create a
separate portion of the jail for juveniles. However, under current law,
a juvenile picked up for criminal activity can only be held in a
separate portion of an adult facility for up to 24 hours. After that,
the juvenile must be transported--often across hundreds of miles--to a
separate juvenile detention facility, often to be returned to the very
same jail 2 or 3 days later for a court date. This system often leaves
rural law enforcement criss-crossing the State with a single juvenile--
and results in massive expenses for law enforcement with little benefit
for juveniles, who spend endless hours in a squad car. Such a process
does not serve anyone's interests.
And that is not all that rural sheriffs face. Even qualifying for the
24-hour exception can be a nightmare. That's because juveniles can be
kept in adult jails only under a very stringent set of rules. Keeping
juveniles in an adult jail is known as collocation. It can only be done
if there is strict sight and sound separation between the adults and
the juveniles as well as completely separate staff. For many small
communities, making these physical and staff changes to their jails is
prohibitively expensive.
So sheriffs faced with diverting officers to drive around the State
in search of a detention facility may choose to let the juvenile go
free while awaiting trial. This prospect should frighten anyone who is
aware of the growing trend in juvenile violence.
Today, I am introducing legislation that is designed to cure this
problem. My legislative solution is simple, straightforward and
effective. It extends from 24 to 72 hours the time during which rural
law enforcement may collocate juvenile offenders in an adult facility,
as long as juveniles remain separated from adults. It also relaxes the
requirements for acceptable collocation. After taking a hard look at
how collocation rules have worked--and in what ways they have failed--
this legislation comes to a reasonable compromise.
Mr. President, one of our most important goals in assuring that any
changes to these rules do not sacrifice the safety and welfare of
arrested juveniles. In addition to the growing fear about juvenile
violence, we have witnessed a growing anger and frustration at
juveniles. This frustration should not lead us to forget the painful
lessons we learned many years ago about abusive and dangerous treatment
of delinquent children. Twenty years ago, we learned about kids who
were thrown in jail where they were victimized and abused by adult
prisoners; or where, without proper supervision, they committed
suicide; or, where, guarded by people who only had experience with
adult prisoners, they were disciplined savagely. When we give into the
temptation to throw juveniles in jail and teach them a tough lesson, we
are often ill rewarded. So even as we loosen these collocation
requirements, we must bear in mind that the juvenile justice system
still has its principle goal rehabilitation not harsh retribution.
My conversations with administrators, sheriffs, and juvenile court
judges have led me to conclude that we must bring greater flexibility--
and less red-tape--to the Juvenile Justice Act. It is my hope that this
legislation--which offers greater flexibility while retaining important
protections regarding the separation of juveniles from adults--will
meet with strong support from the Senate. Thank you.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 705. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish
statutory rules for the conversion of television broadcast station from
analog to digital transmission consistent with the Federal
Communications Commission's fifth order and report, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the digital television conversion act
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Digital
Television Conversion Act. This legislation codifies the rules and
policies recently adopted by the Federal Communications Commission to
govern the transition of the over-the-air television system from analog
to digital broadcasting.
Mr. President, every American has a stake in the speedy and
successful implementation of new digital broadcasting technology. Those
of us who like to watch TV will benefit from crisper, larger video, CD-
quality audio, and more channels of video programming choices. Even
better, those of us who would prefer to interact with TV will find that
the convergence of digital television and computer technology will make
exciting new interactive video service offerings possible. The economy
will benefit from the new jobs created by manufacturing new digital
television receivers. The television broadcasting industry stands on
the threshold of a transformation that will assure that over-the-air
broadcasting isn't relegated to the slow lane on the digital
information superhighway.
To enable this all to happen, the $100 billion television industry
will be given extra channels of broadcast spectrum valued at up to $70
billion for free. In return, each television licensee will only be
required to incur the cost of installing digital broadcasting
equipment--a cost, I assure you, far below the estimated value of the
new digital spectrum each broadcaster will be given--and, when the
transition is complete, return the analog channels they now occupy, to
be auctioned for other uses.
The new and improved services that will come from digitial
television, plus whatever revenue is derived from auctioning the analog
channels, is what the American people will get from the television
industry in return. It is therefore absolutely imperative, Mr.
President, to guarantee that this transition to digital takes place as
quickly as conditions will reasonably allow. Put another way, Mr.
President, it is incumbent upon us to make sure, on behalf of the
American people, that the television industry actually crosses the
digital threshold upon which it now stands.
And that is the reason I am introducing this legislation today. For
the rules recently adopted by the Federal Communications Commission do
not establish firm timetables and deadlines to govern the television
industry's critically important digital conversion. For example,
although the FCC set out target dates for television stations in each
market to convert to digital, this conversion schedule is not binding
on more than 90 percent of all television stations, and the Commission
has not adopted any way to verify licensee's compliance with the
nonbinding conversion schedule. Likewise, there is no rule requiring
that television licensees return their current analog channels by any
given date so they can be auctioned.
Given the tremendous promise that digital broadcasting holds for
television licensees, why not simply rely on broadcasters to
voluntarily implement a rapid transition out of their own best
interests? The answer, Mr. President, is that different licensees may
see their own best interests in different ways.
Some may see their own best interests served by delaying the
conversion to avoid the added expenditure, at least until a majority of
other stations take the plunge. This could produce a classic ``chicken-
and-egg'' problem, especially in smaller markets: Local stations wait
to convert until the cost comes down and until local viewers buy
digital sets or converter boxes--but the cost won't come down and
consumers won't buy digital sets or converter boxes because local
stations aren't broadcasting in digital. It would be unfortunate that
viewers in smaller markets, who probably stand to benefit the most from
the diverse array of new services that digital broadcasting can
provide, are most likely to fall victim to these perverse incentives.
And of course, Mr. President, there is that element of self-interest
that any broadcaster, regardless of market size, might have: the
perfectly understandable interest in retaining both the old
[[Page S4007]]
analog and the new digital channel for as long as possible. But this,
of course, would doubly enrich television licensees, who would already
have been given their digital channel for free. It would also delay the
ability to use the returned analog channels for different
telecommunications services from which the public would benefit.
Moreover, any delay in returning the analog channels would also affect
the revenues realized from auctioning them. This has now become an
especially important consideration with the bipartisan agreement
between Congress and the White House to balance the budget by the year
2002: Revenues from the auction of these channels have been scored and
included in the estimates on which this bipartisan budget agreement is
based.
To be sure, many station licensees are apparently eager to get on
with the job of conversion, although they sometimes foresee practical
difficulties beyond their control getting in the way. In recognition of
these potential problems, this legislation also codifies the FCC's
standard for waiving the conversion schedule on a case-by-case basis.
And in codifying the FCC's nonbinding analog channel giveback dates,
the bill also recognizes the special circumstances faced by
noncommercial broadcasters, and codifies the more liberal analog
channel giveback target dates the FCC provided for these licensees.
Nor am I concerned, Mr. President, that some markets could lose over-
the-air television if analog channel reversion deadlines are codified
but, for some unforeseen reason, digital broadcasting does not take
hold. Codifying the digital conversion timetables will assure that as
many stations as possibly can convert to digital, will. And it is
simply preposterous to think that, even if digital broadcasting somehow
fails to take hold during the next 9 years notwithstanding this bill's
legislative impetus for it to do so, further legislation extending the
date for the give back of the analog channels would not swiftly be
enacted.
In sum, Mr. President, those televisions broadcasters who are willing
and eager to convert to digital will not be hurt in any way by
codifying the deadlines and the waiver standard. It is only those
licensees who, for whatever reason, might be less than anxious to make
the transition who will have their feet held to the fire. Is this fair?
You bet it is. We cannot be lax in our duty to guarantee, to the
greatest extent we can, that consumers enjoy both the
telecommunications benefits of digital television and the economic
benefits of the analog channels' auction revenues.
______
By Mr. BOND:
S. 706. A bill to amend the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act to permit the use of long-term disciplinary measures against
students who are children with disabilities, to provide for a
limitation on the provision of educational services to children with
disabilities who engage in behaviors that are unrelated to their
disabilities, and to require educational entities to include in the
educational records of students who are children without disabilities
documentation with regard to disciplinary measures taken against such
students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
the school security improvement act of 1997
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the School Security
Improvement Act of 1997. This legislation will make some needed reforms
to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. The goal of
this act is to preserve the rights of students with disabilities while
granting local school districts more flexibility to discipline violent
and disruptive students. This legislation also focuses on reducing
litigation and unnecessary attorneys' fees.
Last week, I traveled through my home State of Missouri to discuss
this measure with school district superintendents, principals, school
board members, special education directors, and parents. The top two
concerns mentioned, without exception, were safety and discipline of
all students in the public school system. The rising incidences of
school violence and current inflexible Federal mandates have made IDEA
reform a high priority issue for educators and parents around the
country. Current law prohibits removal of a disabled child from the
classroom for more than 10 days--even if he or she becomes violent,
commits a crime, or threatens other children--unless permission is
granted by a parent. IDEA has created a separate category of students
that are not bound by the rules of conduct required of their students,
even when their behavior is not related to their disability.
My primary concern is creating a safe learning environment for all
children. In attempting to provide good education services to disabled
students, which I fully support, we have unfortunately created a
situation where some kids can hide behind their disability in
displaying some outrageous behavior. For instance, I know a case where
a young man who sold drugs at school was still in the classroom a year
later, even though his crime was not related to his disability. What
does that say to other kids, particularly when for them the same crime
would bring an automatic 1-year expulsion? In another horrendous case,
a student stabbed a classmate with scissors and was back in the
classroom in just 10 days.
The School Security Improvement Act of 1997 will eliminate the double
standard that currently exists between special education and general
education children. All students, disabled or not, should receive the
same discipline for the same behavior. I believe this is appropriate
when the behavior of the child is not related to their disability.
Children must learn that there are consequences for violating the
rules. Good education demands discipline and standards of conduct.
In an effort to ensure that the students, teachers, and school
employees remain safe within the educational environment, this bill
requires schools to include in the records of a child with a disability
a statement of disciplinary action taken against the student and allows
intrastate and interstate transfer of records from one district to
another. The records issue has been brought to the forefront because of
several instances when disabled students have caused serious problems
and school officials were unaware that the student had a record of
similar activities in other schools.
I believe that all students with disabilities need and deserve access
to educational services to meet their individual needs. However, in
those occasional circumstances when a student becomes so violent or
dangerous, and their behavior significantly disrupts the educational
process and they become a danger to themselves or others, or create an
environment in which learning cannot occur, then the rights of others
in the school to have a safe and effective learning environment must
take precedence.
The School Security Improvement Act of 1997 will enable school
administrators, those who are closest to the problem, to remove
dangerous students with disabilities who pose a threat to the safety of
others from the classroom and make temporary alternative placements to
ensure the safety of all students until a more appropriate placement is
determined. When these students are able to behave appropriately, they
will be returned to the classroom.
The current IDEA provision requiring local school districts to
reimburse attorneys' fees incurred by parents who elect to initiate
litigation has had the predictable result of encouraging such
litigation and of driving up special education costs. The dispute-
resolution procedures has become extremely adversarial and costly.
Studies have found that the amount of special education litigation has
dramatically increased in recent years. Sadly, some parent attorneys
seem encouraged to use due process, as a fishing expedition or to
threaten districts with protracted litigation over non-issues as a
tactic to force school districts to comply with parental demands.
This practice only serves to reduce district funds available to meet
the needs of students with disabilities. Clearly, we need reasonable
reforms to the dispute-resolution process to ensure that scarce
educational funds are used for educational services for our children.
I firmly believe that children with disabilities must be guaranteed a
free appropriate education. Yet no school district should have to cut
services to any student so it can pay attorneys'
[[Page S4008]]
fees. But, because of the explosion of litigation in this area,
educational services for all students are being endangered.
Under the School Security Improvement Act of 1997, local school
districts will be permitted to provide alternative educational
placement for children who threaten the safety of others. For some
children, it is absolutely appropriate to swiftly and permanently
remove them from the regular classroom setting. The law should not
prohibit local school officials from acting on their own authority to
discipline dangerous and unruly students.
The School Security Improvement Act will give local school districts
the authority and flexibility to ensure that the students and the
personnel are provided educational and working environments that are
safe and orderly.
Mr. President, when the Federal Government enacted IDEA, it promised
to fund 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure.
Today, the Federal Government funds only 7 percent. My bill contains a
provision expressing a sense of the Senate that the Federal portion of
educating students with disabilities should be fully funded. In recent
years, costly regulations have dramatically increased, placing a
tremendous strain on local school districts. The time and money spent
on Federal mandates must be reduced, so that more time and resources
can be spent in the classroom on school children. This money will help
students by easing the financial burden on local school districts.
I know the feelings run high on this issue. We have a difficult job
when it comes to balancing the needs of those with special needs with
our responsibility to educate all children in the classroom, free of
violence and disruption. I look forward to the upcoming reauthorization
of IDEA and working with my colleagues in this effort to come up with a
commonsense approach to improve our Nation's schools.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 707. A bill to prohibit the public carrying of a handgun, with
appropriate exceptions for law enforcement officials and others; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
THE CONCEALED WEAPONS PROHIBITION ACT OF 1997
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation,
the Concealed Weapons Prohibition Act of 1997, that would prohibit
individuals from publicly carrying a handgun.
The bill includes exceptions for certain people authorized to carry
handguns under State law, such as law enforcement personnel and duly
authorized security officers. States also could provide exemptions in
individual cases, based on credible evidence of compelling
circumstances warranting an exemption, such as a woman being stalked by
someone who is threatening her. A simple claim of concern about
generalized risks would not be sufficient to warrant an exemption;
there would have to be a specified, credible threat.
Mr. President, common sense tells us that there are more than enough
dangerous weapons on America's streets. Yet, incredibly, some seem to
think that there should be more. These people want to turn our States
and cities into a modern version of the old wild west, where everyone
carries a gun on his or her hip, taking the law into their own hands.
This is a foolhardy and dangerous trend.
Mr. President, this country is already drowning in a sea of gun
violence. Every 2 minutes, someone in the United States is shot. Every
14 minutes, someone dies from a gunshot wound. In 1994 alone, over 15
thousand people in our country were killed by handguns. Compare that to
countries like Canada, where 90 people were killed by handguns that
year, or Great Britain, which had 68 handgun fatalities.
Mr. President, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimate that by the year 2003, gunfire will have surpassed auto
accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths in the United
States. In fact, this is already the case in seven States.
Mr. President, given the severity of our Nation's gun violence
problem, we need to be looking for ways to reduce the number of guns on
our streets. Yet, instead, many States recently have enacted laws to do
the opposite, by making it easier for people to carry concealed
weapons.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, concealed weapons make people less, not
more, secure. In fact, there is near-unanimous agreement among law
enforcement groups that concealed weapons laws are bad policy. These
groups understand that when more people carry weapons on the streets,
more routine conflicts escalate into deadly violence.
Mr. President, every day people get into everything from traffic
accidents to domestic disputes. Maybe these arguments lead to yelling,
or even fisticuffs. But if people are carrying guns, those conflicts
are much more likely to end in a shooting, and death.
Concealed weapons laws also are likely to make criminals more
violent. Think about it, Mr. President. If a criminal thinks that you
might be carrying a concealed weapon, common sense tells you that he is
much more likely to simply shoot first, and ask questions later.
Mr. President, another dangerous side-effect of having private
citizens carry concealed weapons is the impact these unseen guns will
have on law enforcement officers. Police officers would become
reluctant to conduct even routine traffic stops if they knew that large
numbers of citizens could be carrying concealed weapons.
You do not need to take my word for this, Mr. President. Just ask the
men and women in law enforcement. In fact, the Police Executive
Research Forum did just that. In their 1996 survey, they found that 92
percent of their membership opposed legislation allowing private
citizens to carry concealed weapons. The most cited reason for this
opposition was public safety.
Mr. President, the police of this country understand that the public
carrying of handguns increases the likelihood of gun violence. Also,
concealed weapons increase the chances that incompetent or careless
handgun users will accidently injure or kill innocent bystanders.
Unfortunately, States increasingly are allowing individuals to carry
concealed weapons with little or no training in the operation of
firearms. This means that many incompetent people are putting the
public at risk from stray bullets.
Mr. President, although the regulation of concealed weapons has been
left to States, it is time for Congress to step in to protect the
public. All Americans have a right to be free from the dangers posed by
the carrying of concealed handguns, regardless of their State of
residence. And Americans should be able to travel across State lines
for business, to visit their families, or for any other purpose,
without having to worry about concealed weapons.
Congress has the constitutional authority to provide this protection,
Mr. President, and there is a strong Federal interest in ensuring the
safety of our citizens. Beyond the human costs of gun violence, crimes
committed with handguns impose a substantial burden on interstate
commerce and lead to a reduction in productivity and profitability for
businesses around the Nation whose workers, suppliers, and customers
are adversely affected by gun violence. Moreover, to ensure its
coverage under the Constitution's commerce clause, my bill applies only
to handguns that have been transported in interstate or foreign
commerce, or that have parts or components that have been transported
in interstate or foreign commerce. This clearly distinguishes the
legislation from the gun free school zone statute that was struck down
in the Supreme Court's Lopez case.
Mr. President, the bottom line is that more guns equals more death.
This legislation will help in our struggle to reduce the number of guns
on our streets, and help prevent our society from becoming even more
violent and dangerous.
I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent
that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 707
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 ``Concealed Weapons
Prohibition Act of 1997''.
[[Page S4009]]
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds and declares that--
(1) crimes committed with handguns threaten the peace and
domestic tranquility of the United States and reduce the
security and general welfare of the Nation and its people;
(2) crimes committed with handguns impose a substantial
burden on interstate commerce and lead to a reduction in
productivity and profitability for businesses around the
Nation whose workers, suppliers, and customs are adversely
affected by gun violence;
(3) the public carrying of handguns increases the level of
gun violence by enabling the rapid escalation of otherwise
minor conflicts into deadly shootings;
(4) the public carrying of handguns increases the
likelihood that incompetent or careless handgun users will
accidently injure or kill innocent bystanders;
(5) the public carrying of handguns poses a danger to
citizens of the United States who travel across State lines
for business or other purposes; and
(6) all Americans have a right to be protected from the
dangers posed by the carrying of concealed handguns,
regardless of their State of residence.
SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL ACT.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(y)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be
unlawful for a person to carry a handgun on his or her person
in public.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the following:
``(A) A person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to
State law who is--
``(i) a law enforcement official;
``(ii) a retired law enforcement official;
``(iii) a duly authorized private security officer;
``(iv) a person whose employment involves the transport of
substantial amounts of cash or other valuable items; or
``(v) any other person that the Attorney General determines
should be allowed to carry a handgun because of compelling
circumstances warranting an exception, pursuant to
regulations that the Attorney General may promulgate.
``(B) A person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to a
State law that grants a person an exemption to carry a
handgun based on an individualized determination and a review
of credible evidence that the person should be allowed to
carry a handgun because of compelling circumstances
warranting an exemption. A claim of concern about generalized
or unspecified risks shall not be sufficient to justify an
exemption.
``(C) A person authorized to carry a handgun on his or her
person under Federal law.''.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 708. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for
a national minimum penalty for an individual who operates a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.
THE DEADLY DRIVER REDUCTION AND MATTHEW P. HAMMELL MEMORIAL ACT
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Deadly
Driver and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act, which would establish
national minimum penalties for alcohol-related motor vehicle
violations. It is a companion to S. 412, the Safe and Sober Streets
Act, which I introduced last month along with Senator Mike DeWine of
Ohio, a bill intended to make .08 blood alcohol content the national
standard for impaired driving. I am proud to sponsor this legislation
and when it is adopted, many lives will be saved.
However, Mr. President, we can also reduce fatalities and serious
injury caused by drunk driving by having tougher penalties. Driving
while intoxicated, or DWI, is one of the most prevalent crimes in this
country. In 1992, more people were arrested for DWI--1.6 million--than
for any other reported criminal activity including larceny or theft, or
for drug abuse violations. By even reasonable standards this could be
considered a kind of epidemic. And we need to start treating this
epidemic.
A shocking number of DWI convictions are repeat offenders. When the
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration studied this issue,
it found that about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of
DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. One study in California
demonstrated the extent of this problem over the long term. It found
that 44 percent of all drivers convicted of DWI in California in 1980
were convicted again of DWI within the next 10 years.
In my State of New Jersey, the problem is exacerbated by the fact
that DWI offenses are treated as traffic violations as opposed to
crimes. Unfortunately, Mr. President, too many people share this view
of drinking and driving, with the result being that those who are
charged with DWI often drink and drive again. While in New Jersey new
laws and programs have been implemented to address the drunk-driving
problem, and DWI arrests and convictions have declined, the problem of
repeat offenders persists. Between 1994 and 1995 the number of two-time
offenders actually increased from 4,495 in 1994 to 4,731 in 1995.
The danger of these repeat offenders is illustrated by the fact that
drivers with prior DWI convictions are overrepresented in fatal
crashes. These drivers have a 4.1 times greater risk of being in a
fatal crash, as do intoxicated drivers without a prior DWI, and the
risk of a particular driver being involved in a fatal crash increases
with each DWI arrest.
Mr. President, it is time that we take this problem of repeat
offenders seriously. The first time a driver is convicted of DWI, he or
she must understand the severity of the crime which has been committed.
If a person continues to ignore the law, and continues to drink and
drive, the courts need to treat that person with the full force of the
law, both to punish that person, and to protect the public at large.
That is why I am introducing the Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew
P. Hammell Memorial Act. This bill requires States to adopt mandatory
minimum sentences for DWI offenders within 3 years or otherwise lose a
portion of their Federal highway funding. The sentencing requirements
are as follows: For a first-time conviction of a person operating a
motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, their license is
revoked for 6 months. A second conviction requires a 1-year suspension,
and a third conviction for the crime of driving while impaired by
alcohol results in the permanent revocation of that person's license.
If a State fails to adopt these minimum sentences by October 1, 2000,
5 percent of that State's Federal highway funds will be withheld. If a
State fails to adopt these minimum sentences after another year, that
State would then lose 10 percent of its allocated Federal highway
funds.
Mr. President, sanctions work. In too many States, and in too many
courts in this country, drunk driving is not taken seriously enough. We
want to make sure that those who disobey the law by drinking and
driving both understand the severity of their offense and are prevented
from driving if they continue to break the law. These mandatory minimum
penalties will meet these challenges.
When we talk about drunk driving, too often we talk about it in
statistical terms. But there are real people attached to those
statistics. In the spring of 1995, a young man, from Tuckerton, NJ,
full of goodness and potential, was struck down by a drunk driver while
he and his friend were in-line skating. Matthew Hammell was
exceptional. All those who knew him talk about being touched by his
kindness and caring. Like so many American boys, at one point he
dreamed of being a baseball player, but as he matured he knew he wanted
to be a missionary. His dream became living a life of helping others.
But this dream, this young man, was taken away from all of us much too
early when Robert Hyer, drunk and driving, struck Matthew with his car
while passing another vehicle. Robert Hyer should not have been on the
road. Not only was he drunk, but he had a history of driving drunk.
Before this fateful incident, Hyer had been charged with DWI six times,
though he was convicted only twice. Hyer lost his license in New Jersey
in 1984, but somehow he obtained a North Carolina license just 2 years
later. He was a habitual offender who kept bucking the system. A system
which kept letting him go. A system which, in the end, was too late in
responding.
Mr. President, it may be too late for Matthew Hammell, and all of the
other Matthew Hammells whose spirits are taken from us too early, but
it is now that we must become serious about drinking and driving. So,
in his honor, and in the memory of all of our loved ones who do not get
to achieve their potential due to the actions of drunk drivers, we have
named this bill the Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew P. Hammell
Memorial Act. While I will be the first to admit that this bill is not
enough, at least it is a start. Let us
[[Page S4010]]
work together now so that such memorial acts are unnecessary in the
future.
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. 708
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 ``Deadly Driver Reduction and
Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act''.
SEC. 2. MINIMUM PENALTY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO OPERATES A
MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
ALCOHOL.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 162. National minimum penalty for an individual who
operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol
``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
``(1) Fiscal year 2001.--The Secretary shall withhold 5
percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State
under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (5)(B) of section
104(b) on October 1, 2000, if the State does not meet the
requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
``(2) Thereafter.--The Secretary shall withhold 10 percent
(including any amounts withheld under paragraph (1)) of the
amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of
paragraphs (1), (3), and (5)(B) of section 104(b) on October
1, 2001, and on October 1 of each fiscal year thereafter, if
the State does not meet the requirements of paragraph (3) on
that date.
``(3) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--A State meets the requirements of this
paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law
that provides for a minimum penalty consistent with the
following:
``(i) In the case of the first offense of an individual of
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol, revocation of the individual's driver's license for
at least 180 days.
``(ii) In the case of the second offense of an individual
of any alcohol-related offense while operating a motor
vehicle (including operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol), revocation of the individual's
driver's license for at least 1 year.
``(iii) In the case of the third or subsequent offense of
an individual of any alcohol-related offense while operating
a motor vehicle (including operating a motor vehicle while
under the influence of alcohol), permanent revocation of the
individual's driver's license.
``(B) Terms of revocation.--A revocation under subparagraph
(A) shall not be subject to any exception or condition,
including an exception or condition to avoid hardship to any
individual.
``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and
Noncompliance.--
``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2002.--Any
funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any
State on or before September 30, 2002, shall remain available
until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal
year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.
``(B) Funds withheld after september 30, 2002.--No funds
withheld under this section from apportionment to any State
after September 30, 2002, shall be available for
apportionment to the State.
``(2) Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.--
If, before the last day of the period for which funds
withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment are to
remain available for apportionment to a State under paragraph
(1), the State meets the requirements of subsection (a)(3),
the Secretary shall, on the first day on which the State
meets the requirements, apportion to the State the funds
withheld under subsection (a) that remain available for
apportionment to the State.
``(3) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned
funds.--Any funds apportioned under paragraph (2) shall
remain available for expenditure until the end of the third
fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the funds are
so apportioned. Sums not obligated at the end of that period
shall lapse or, in the case of funds apportioned under
section 104(b)(5)(B), shall lapse and be made available by
the Secretary for projects in accordance with section 118.
``(4) Effect of noncompliance.--If, at the end of the
period for which funds withheld under subsection (a) from
apportionment are available for apportionment to a State
under paragraph (1), the State does not meet the requirements
of subsection (a)(3), the funds shall lapse or, in the case
of funds withheld from apportionment under section
104(b)(5)(B), shall lapse and be made available by the
Secretary for projects in accordance with section 118.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``162. National minimum penalty for an individual who operates a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.''.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Thurmond, and Mrs.
Feinstein):
S.J. Res. 30. A joint resolution designating March 1, 1998 as
``United States Navy Asiatic Fleet Memorial Day,'' and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
U.S. NAVY ASIATIC FLEET MEMORIAL DAY
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
recognize the sailors and marines who served in the U.S. Asiatic Fleet
throughout the Far East. During the Asiatic Fleet's existence from 1910
to 1942, the fleet was an instrumental component of American national
security and diplomacy.
The U.S. Asiatic Fleet, the successor to the old Asiatic Station and
precursor to today's 7th Fleet, maintained an important presence
throughout Southeast Asian waters. Initially operating between coastal
China and the Philippines, the fleet's activities expanded to include
operations in Russian waters and the straits and narrows encompassing
Malaysia and Indonesia.
In these critical regions, the fleet's men and women supported
American security interests and the safety of citizens abroad during
civil wars and international conflicts. During one of the greatest
natural disasters, the Yangtze flood of 1931, which killed 150,000
people, the fleet rendered aide and assistance to Americans and
Chinese. Through these actions, the fleet demonstrated the commitment
of the United States to an important area of the world during a dynamic
period in history.
During the last years of Asiatic Fleet operations, sailors and
marines courageously distinguished themselves by defending against the
tidal wave of Japanese aggression. Facing the modern Japanese armada
were the fleet's 3 cruisers, 13 WWI-vintage destroyers, 29 submarines
and a handful of gunboats and patrol aircraft. Against overwhelming
odds, the fleet defended the Philippines until the evacuation was
ordered and fought the continued expansion of the Japanese throughout
the South Pacific. Many of those defenders were captured or killed in
these heroic battles.
It is important that we pause to remember the valor and spirit of
these dedicated servicemen. For that reason, I am introducing a
resolution which will designate March 1, 1998, the 56th anniversary of
the sinking of the Asiatic Fleet's flagship, the U.S.S. Houston, by
Japanese Imperial Forces, as ``United States Navy Asiatic Fleet
Memorial Day.'' I invite my colleagues to support this resolution.
____________________