[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.
  

                          ____________________