[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 59 (Thursday, May 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4217-S4246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Wyden and Mr. 
        Campbell):
  S. 718. A bill to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1974, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


    THE JUVENILE CRIME CONTROL AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today, with the Senator from 
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, 
to introduce the Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 
1997. I don't think there is anything that is worrying the American 
people more than what is happening to the criminal justice system in 
their cities, their counties, and their States.
  Senator Ashcroft, a former attorney general from Missouri, knows a 
lot about these matters on a firsthand basis from having been there. I 
am hopeful he will arrive before the time expires to speak to one 
aspect of the bill, which we are introducing, and then I will, as soon 
as I can, yield to Senator Wyden for some of his observations.
  Last year, I had field hearings in New Mexico to hear the concerns 
and problems faced by all of the people affected by juvenile crime. We 
heard from the police, prosecutors, judges, social workers and, most 
important, Mr. President, as you well know, the victims who reside in 
our communities.
  The sentiments expressed at these hearings are the same ones felt by 
people all over this country: One, some juveniles are out of control 
and the juvenile justice system cannot cope with them; second, other 
children do not have enough constructive things to do to keep them from 
sliding into delinquency; third, the current system does little, if 
anything, to protect the public from senseless youth violence; and 
fourth, the current system has failed its victims.
  I want to tell my colleagues about an 18-year-old girl from New 
Mexico named Renee Garcia who was stabbed and left paralyzed by a 15-
year old gang member. The stabbing was part of that

[[Page S4218]]

gang's initiation ritual. The gang member later received only a 
sentence of 4 years in a juvenile facility. This is what Renee Garcia 
had to say about the current justice system as it applied to her and 
her family:

       The outdated laws which exist in our legal system today are 
     nothing but a joke to juveniles. Our laws were meant for 
     juveniles who were committing [small] crimes like truancy and 
     breaking curfews. They are not designed to deal with violent 
     crimes that juveniles are committing today.

  Renee has made quite a recovery from her attack, and we are quite 
pleased that she is doing reasonably well in our community and in our 
State.
  The time has come, in my opinion, for the U.S. Government to be a 
better partner in a major American effort to improve the criminal 
juvenile justice system across this land. For many, it is well known, 
we have an adult juvenile system that developed over a long period of 
time, but we have a juvenile justice system that sort of evolved willy-
nilly. It has never reached the stature of the adult system. There are 
vagaries and much has been left to judges who are asked to respond to 
the young criminals in a way completely different than if they were 
adults.
  Some statutes were passed that made this response mandatory, and 
those statutes still exist today. Still today, in many States, you do 
not disclose to the public the name and detailed information about 
juvenile criminals who are committing adult crimes. Their fingerprints 
and their records are not part of law enforcement's ability to cope 
with repeated crime, committed over and over, from one State to another 
by some of these same teenage criminals.
  The Federal Government, in my opinion, should get involved. As we do 
this, however, we should expect the States to get tough on youth 
sentencing. We should reward States for enacting law enforcement and 
prosecutorial policies designed to take violent juvenile criminals off 
the streets.
  This bill makes some fundamental changes to the crime-fighting 
partnership which exists between the States and the Federal Government. 
It contains two important ideas: One, strict law enforcement and 
prosecution policies for the most violent offenders. We cannot tell the 
States they must do that, but in this bill, we set up a very 
significant grant program, part of which goes to States that do certain 
minimal things to improve their system. If they do not, they do not get 
that money. It goes to States that choose to modernize their system in 
accordance with a series of options that we have found are clearly 
necessary today.

  This approach is going to help States fight crime as well as prevent 
juveniles from entering the juvenile justice system in the first place. 
It makes important fundamental changes to the Federal juvenile justice 
system, and I am going to leave an explanation of how we change our 
Federal juvenile justice system and modernize it to the Senator from 
Missouri. It would be a shame if we tell the States to do things 
better, but we leave the prosecutions in the Federal juvenile justice 
system alone.
  The bill adopts an approach that I suggested last year as part of a 
juvenile justice bill. It authorizes--we do not have it appropriated 
yet--but we authorize $500 million to provide the States with two 
separate grant programs: One, with virtually no strings attached, based 
on a current State formula grant program; the second is a new incentive 
grant for States that enact what we call ``best practices'' to combat 
and prevent juvenile violence.
  This bill authorizes $300 million, divided into two $150 million 
pots, for a new grant program, the purpose of which is to encourage 
States to get tough and enact reforms to their juvenile justice 
systems.
  I am not going to proceed with each one, but I will just read off the 
suggested reforms that will comprise ``getting tough'' and ``best 
practices'':
  Victims' rights, including the right to be notified of the sentencing 
and release of the offender;
  Mandatory victim restitution;
  Public access to juvenile records;
  Parental responsibility laws for acts committed by juveniles released 
to their parents' custody;
  Zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents, a requirement that 
juveniles released from custody attend school or vocational training 
and support their children;
  Zero tolerance for truancy;
  Character counts training, or similar programs adopted and enacted 
among the States;
  And mentoring.
  These programs are a combination of reforms which will positively 
impact victims, get tough on juvenile offenders, and provide states 
with resources to implement prevention programs to keep juveniles out 
of trouble in the first place.
  The bill also increases from around $68 million to $200 million the 
amount available to states under the current OJJDP grant program. It 
also eliminates many of the strings placed on states as a condition of 
receiving those grants.
  In my home state of New Mexico, juvenile arrests increased 84 percent 
from 1986 to last year.
  In 1996, 36,927 juveniles were referred to the state juvenile parole 
and probation office. Some 39 percent of those referred have a history 
of 10 or more referrals to the system.
  While the Justice Department has said that the overall juvenile crime 
rate in the United States dropped last year, states like New Mexico 
continue to see yearly increases in the number of juveniles arrested, 
prosecuted and incarcerated.
  I mention these numbers because they have led to a growing problem in 
my home State, a problem which this bill will help fix.
  More juvenile arrests create the need for more space to house 
juvenile criminals. But, because of burdensome federal ``sight and 
sound separation'' rules, New Mexico has been unable to implement a 
safe, reasonable solution to alleviate overcrowding at its juvenile 
facilities.
  Instead, the state has been forced to consider sending juvenile 
prisoners to Iowa and Texas to avoid violating the federal rules and 
losing their funding. That is unacceptable and this bill will fix that.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to work with the Senator from Missouri on 
this important legislation. I know that many of my colleagues share my 
concerns about the need to update our juvenile justice system. I hope 
that they will examine our bill and lend their support.
  I am going to stop here. I ask unanimous consent that the entire bill 
and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record, and that it be 
appropriately referred. It will bear the signatures today of Senator 
Ashcroft, Senator Wyden, and Senator Campbell as cosponsors.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 718

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Severability.

                  TITLE I--REFORM OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sec. 104. Annual report.
Sec. 105. Block grants for State and local programs.
Sec. 106. State plans.
Sec. 107. Repeals.

      TITLE II--INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY-BASED REFORMS

Sec. 201. Incentive grants for accountability-based reforms.

          TITLE III--REFORM OF FEDERAL JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Sec. 301. Juvenile adjudications considered in sentencing.
Sec. 302. Access to juvenile records.
Sec. 303. Referral of children with disabilities to juvenile and 
              criminal authorities.
Sec. 304. Limited disclosure of Federal Bureau of Investigation 
              records.
Sec. 305. Amendments to Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or

[[Page S4219]]

     circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of 
     this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the 
     application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
                  TITLE I--REFORM OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) the Nation's juvenile justice system is in trouble, 
     including dangerously overcrowded facilities, overworked 
     field staff, and a growing number of children who are 
     breaking the law;
       ``(2) a redesigned juvenile corrections program for the 
     next century should be based on 4 principles, including--
       ``(A) protecting the community;
       ``(B) accountability for offenders and their families;
       ``(C) restitution for victims and the community; and
       ``(D) community-based prevention;
       ``(3) existing programs have not adequately responded to 
     the particular problems of juvenile delinquents in the 
     1990's;
       ``(4) State and local communities, which experience 
     directly the devastating failure of the juvenile justice 
     system, do not have sufficient resources to deal 
     comprehensively with the problems of juvenile crime and 
     delinquency;
       ``(5) limited State and local resources are being 
     unnecessarily wasted complying with overly technical Federal 
     requirements for `sight and sound' separation currently in 
     effect under the 1974 Act, while prohibiting the commingling 
     of adults and juvenile populations would achieve this 
     important purpose without imposing an undue burden on State 
     and local governments;
       ``(6) limited State and local resources are being 
     unnecessarily wasted complying with the overly restrictive 
     Federal mandate that no juveniles be detained or confined in 
     any jail or lockup for adults, which mandate is particularly 
     burdensome for rural communities;
       ``(7) the juvenile justice system should give additional 
     attention to the problem of juveniles who commit serious 
     crimes, with particular attention given to the area of 
     sentencing;
       ``(8) local school districts lack information necessary to 
     track serious violent juvenile offenders, information that is 
     essential to promoting safety in public schools;
       ``(9) the term `prevention' should mean both ensuring that 
     families have a greater chance to raise their children so 
     that those children do not engage in criminal or delinquent 
     activities, and preventing children who have engaged in such 
     activities from becoming permanently entrenched in the 
     juvenile justice system;
       ``(10) in 1994, there were more than 330,000 juvenile 
     arrests for violent crimes, and between 1985 and 1994, the 
     number of juvenile criminal homicide cases increased by 144 
     percent, and the number of juvenile weapons cases increased 
     by 156 percent;
       ``(11) in 1994, males age 14 through 24 constituted only 8 
     percent of the population, but accounted for more than 25 
     percent of all homicide victims and nearly half of all 
     convicted murderers;
       ``(12) in a survey of 250 judges, 93 percent of those 
     judges stated that juvenile offenders should be 
     fingerprinted, 85 percent stated that juvenile criminal 
     records should be made available to adult authorities, and 40 
     percent stated that the minimum age for facing murder charges 
     should be 14 or 15;
       ``(13) studies indicate that good parenting skills, 
     including normative development, monitoring, and discipline, 
     clearly affect whether children will become delinquent, and 
     adequate supervision of free-time activities, whereabouts, 
     and peer interaction is critical to ensure that children do 
     not drift into delinquency;
       ``(14) school officials lack the information necessary to 
     ensure that school environments are safe and conducive to 
     learning;
       ``(15) in the 1970's, less than half of our Nation's cities 
     reported gang activity, while 2 decades later, a nationwide 
     survey reported a total of 23,388 gangs and 664,906 gang 
     members on the streets of United States cities in 1995;
       ``(16) the high incidence of delinquency in the United 
     States results in an enormous annual cost and an immeasurable 
     loss of human life, personal security, and wasted human 
     resources; and
       ``(17) juvenile delinquency constitutes a growing threat to 
     the national welfare, requiring immediate and comprehensive 
     action by the Federal Government to reduce and eliminate the 
     threat.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``further''; and
       (B) by striking ``Federal Government'' and inserting 
     ``Federal, State, and local governments''.
       (b) Purposes.--Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5602) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 102. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this title and title II are--
       ``(1) to assist State and local governments in promoting 
     public safety by supporting juvenile delinquency prevention 
     and control activities;
       ``(2) to give greater flexibility to schools to design 
     academic programs and educational services for juvenile 
     delinquents expelled or suspended for disciplinary reasons;
       ``(3) to assist State and local governments in promoting 
     public safety by encouraging accountability through the 
     imposition of meaningful sanctions for acts of juvenile 
     delinquency;
       ``(4) to assist State and local governments in promoting 
     public safety by improving the extent, accuracy, 
     availability, and usefulness of juvenile court and law 
     enforcement records and the openness of the juvenile justice 
     system to the public;
       ``(5) to assist teachers and school officials in ensuring 
     school safety by improving their access to information 
     concerning juvenile offenders attending or intending to 
     enroll in their schools or school-related activities;
       ``(6) to assist State and local governments in promoting 
     public safety by encouraging the identification of violent 
     and hardcore juveniles and in transferring such juveniles out 
     of the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system and into 
     the jurisdiction of adult criminal court;
       ``(7) to provide for the evaluation of federally assisted 
     juvenile crime control programs, and training necessary for 
     the establishment and operation of such programs;
       ``(8) to ensure the dissemination of information regarding 
     juvenile crime control programs by providing a national 
     clearinghouse; and
       ``(9) to provide technical assistance to public and private 
     nonprofit juvenile justice and delinquency prevention 
     programs.''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``punishment,'' after 
     ``control,'';
       (2) in paragraph (22)(iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) the term `serious violent crime' means--
       ``(A) murder or nonnegligent manslaughter, or robbery;
       ``(B) aggravated assault committed with the use of a 
     dangerous or deadly weapon, forcible rape, kidnaping, felony 
     aggravated battery, assault with intent to commit a serious 
     violent crime, and vehicular homicide committed while under 
     the influence of an intoxicating liquor or controlled 
     substance; or
       ``(C) a serious drug offense;
       ``(25) the term `serious drug offense' means an act or acts 
     which, if committed by an adult subject to Federal criminal 
     jurisdiction, would be punishable under section 401(b)(1)(A) 
     or 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     841(b)(1)(A), 848) or section 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled 
     Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(A)); 
     and
       ``(26) the term `serious habitual offender' means a 
     juvenile who--
       ``(A) has been adjudicated delinquent and subsequently 
     arrested for a capital offense, life offense, first degree 
     aggravated sexual offense, or serious drug offense;
       ``(B) has had not fewer than 5 arrests, with 3 arrests 
     chargeable as felonies if committed by an adult and not fewer 
     than 3 arrests occurring within the most recent 12-month 
     period;
       ``(C) has had not fewer than 10 arrests, with 2 arrests 
     chargeable as felonies if committed by an adult and not fewer 
     than 3 arrests occurring within the most recent 12-month 
     period; or
       ``(D) has had not fewer than 10 arrests, with 8 or more 
     arrests for misdemeanor crimes involving theft, assault, 
     battery, narcotics possession or distribution, or possession 
     of weapons, and not fewer than 3 arrests occurring within the 
     most recent 12-month period.''.

     SEC. 103. OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY 
                   PREVENTION.

       Section 204 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5614) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``shall develop'' and inserting the 
     following: ``shall--
       ``(A) develop'';
       (B) by inserting ``punishment,'' before ``diversion''; and
       (C) in the first sentence, by striking ``States'' and all 
     that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting 
     the following: ``States; and
       ``(B) annually submit the plan required by subparagraph (A) 
     to the Congress.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2) through (7) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) reduce duplication among Federal juvenile delinquency 
     programs and activities conducted by Federal departments and 
     agencies.'';
       (3) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (f); and
       (4) by striking subsection (i).

     SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT.

       Section 207 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5617) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 207. ANNUAL REPORT.

       ``Not later than 180 days after the end of a fiscal year, 
     the Administrator shall submit to the President, the Speaker 
     of the House of

[[Page S4220]]

     Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and 
     the Governor of each State, a report that contains the 
     following with respect to such fiscal year:
       ``(1) Summary and analysis.--A detailed summary and 
     analysis of the most recent data available regarding the 
     number of juveniles taken into custody, the rate at which 
     juveniles are taken into custody, the number of repeat 
     juvenile offenders, the number of juveniles using weapons, 
     the number of juvenile and adult victims of juvenile crime 
     and the trends demonstrated by the data required by 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). Such summary and analysis 
     shall set out the information required by subparagraphs (A), 
     (B), (C), and (D) separately for juvenile nonoffenders, 
     juvenile status offenders, and other juvenile offenders. Such 
     summary and analysis shall separately address with respect to 
     each category of juveniles specified in the preceding 
     sentence--
       ``(A) the types of offenses with which the juveniles are 
     charged, data on serious violent crimes committed by 
     juveniles, and data on serious habitual offenders;
       ``(B) the race and gender of the juveniles and their 
     victims;
       ``(C) the ages of the juveniles and their victims;
       ``(D) the types of facilities used to hold the juveniles 
     (including juveniles treated as adults for purposes of 
     prosecution) in custody, including secure detention 
     facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and 
     lockups;
       ``(E) the number of juveniles who died while in custody and 
     the circumstances under which they died;
       ``(F) the educational status of juveniles, including 
     information relating to learning disabilities, failing 
     performance, grade retention, and dropping out of school;
       ``(G) the number of juveniles who are substance abusers; 
     and
       ``(H) information on juveniles fathering or giving birth to 
     children out of wedlock, and whether such juveniles have 
     assumed financial responsibility for their children.
       ``(2) Activities funded.--A description of the activities 
     for which funds are expended under this part.
       ``(3) State compliance.--A description based on the most 
     recent data available of the extent to which each State 
     complies with section 223 and with the plan submitted under 
     that section by the State for that fiscal year.
       ``(4) Summary and explanation.--A summary of each program 
     or activity for which assistance is provided under part C or 
     D, an evaluation of the results of such program or activity, 
     and a determination of the feasibility and advisability of 
     replacing such program or activity in other locations.
       ``(5) Exemplary programs and practices.--A description of 
     selected exemplary delinquency prevention programs and 
     accountability-based youth violence reduction practices.''.

     SEC. 105. BLOCK GRANTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS.

       (a) Section 221.--Section 221 of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5631) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Administrator'';
       (B) by inserting ``, including charitable and religious 
     organizations,'' after ``and private agencies'';
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, including--
       ``(A) initiatives for holding juveniles accountable for any 
     act for which they are adjudicated delinquent;
       ``(B) increasing public awareness of juvenile proceedings;
       ``(C) improving the content, accuracy, availability, and 
     usefulness of juvenile court and law enforcement records 
     (including fingerprints and photographs); and
       ``(D) education programs such as funding for extended hours 
     for libraries and recreational programs which benefit all 
     juveniles''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) State and local governments receiving grants under 
     paragraph (1) may contract with religious organizations or 
     allow religious organizations to accept grants under any 
     program described in this title, on the same basis as any 
     other nongovernmental provider without impairing the 
     religious character of such organizations, and without 
     diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries of 
     assistance funded under such program.
       ``(B) A State or local government exercising its authority 
     to contract with private agencies or to allow private 
     agencies to accept grants under paragraph (1) shall ensure 
     that religious organizations are eligible, on the same basis 
     as any other private organization, as contractors to provide 
     assistance, or to accept grants under any program described 
     in this title so long as the programs are implemented 
     consistent with the Establishment Clause of the United States 
     Constitution. Neither the Federal Government nor a State or 
     local government receiving funds under such programs shall 
     discriminate against an organization which is or applies to 
     be a contractor to provide assistance, or which accepts 
     grants, on the basis that the organization has a religious 
     character.
       ``(C)(i) A religious organization that participates in a 
     program authorized by this title shall retain its 
     independence from Federal, State, and local governments, 
     including such organization's control over the definition, 
     development, practice, and expression of its religious 
     beliefs.
       ``(ii) Neither the Federal Government nor a State or local 
     government shall require a religious organization--
       ``(I) to alter its form of internal governance; or
       ``(II) to remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other 
     symbols,

     in order to be eligible to contract to provide assistance, or 
     to accept grants funded under a program described in this 
     title.
       ``(D) A religious organization's exemption provided under 
     section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-
     1a) regarding employment practices shall not be affected by 
     its participation in, or receipt of funds from, programs 
     described in this title.
       ``(E) If a juvenile has an objection to the religious 
     character of the organization or institution from which the 
     juvenile receives, or would receive, assistance funded under 
     any program described in this title, the State in which the 
     juvenile resides shall provide such juvenile (if otherwise 
     eligible for such assistance) within a reasonable period of 
     time after the date of such objection with assistance from an 
     alternative provider that is accessible to the juvenile and 
     the value of which is not less than the value of assistance 
     which the juvenile would have received from such 
     organization.
       ``(F) Except as otherwise provided in law, a religious 
     organization shall not discriminate against an individual in 
     regard to rendering assistance funded under any program 
     described in this title on the basis of religion, a religious 
     belief, or refusal to actively participate in a religious 
     practice.
       ``(G)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), any religious 
     organization contracting to provide assistance funded under 
     any program described in this title shall be subject to the 
     same regulations as other contractors to account in accord 
     with generally accepted accounting principles for the use of 
     such funds provided under such programs.
       ``(ii) If such organization segregates Federal funds 
     provided under such programs into separate accounts, then 
     only the financial assistance provided with such funds shall 
     be subject to audit.
       ``(H) Any party that seeks to enforce its rights under this 
     section may assert a civil action for injunctive relief 
     exclusively in an appropriate Federal district court against 
     the official or government agency that allegedly commits such 
     violation.
       ``(I) No State or local government may use funds provided 
     under this title to fund sectarian worship, proselytization, 
     or prayer, or for any purpose other than the provision of 
     social services under this title.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Of amounts made available to carry out this part in 
     any fiscal year, $10,000,000 or 1 percent (whichever is 
     greater) may be used by the Administrator--
       ``(A) to establish and maintain a clearinghouse to 
     disseminate to the States information on juvenile delinquency 
     prevention, treatment, and control; and
       ``(B) to provide training and technical assistance to 
     States to improve the administration of the juvenile justice 
     system.''.
       (b) Section 223.--Section 223(a)(10) of the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5633(a)(10)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or through'' and inserting ``through''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``or through grants and contracts with 
     religious organizations in accordance with section 
     221(b)(2)(B)'' after ``agencies,''.

     SEC. 106. STATE PLANS.

       Section 223 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking the second sentence;
       (B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) provide for an advisory group, which--
       ``(A) shall--
       ``(i)(I) consist of such number of members deemed necessary 
     to carry out the responsibilities of the group and appointed 
     by the chief executive officer of the State; and
       ``(II) consist of a majority of members (including the 
     chairperson) who are not full-time employees of the Federal 
     Government, or a State or local government;
       ``(ii) include members who have training, experience, or 
     special knowledge concerning--

       ``(I) the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency;
       ``(II) the administration of juvenile justice, including 
     law enforcement; and
       ``(III) the representation of the interests of the victims 
     of violent juvenile crime and their families; and

       ``(iii) include as members at least 1 locally elected 
     official representing general purpose local government;
       ``(B) shall participate in the development and review of 
     the State's juvenile justice plan prior to submission to the 
     supervisory board for final action;
       ``(C) shall be afforded an opportunity to review and 
     comment, not later than 30 days after the submission to the 
     advisory group, on all juvenile justice and delinquency 
     prevention grants submitted to the State agency designated 
     under paragraph (1);
       ``(D) shall, consistent with this title--
       ``(i) advise the State agency designated under paragraph 
     (1) and its supervisory board; and

[[Page S4221]]

       ``(ii) submit to the chief executive officer and the 
     legislature of the State not less frequently than annually 
     recommendations regarding State compliance with this 
     subsection; and
       ``(E) may, consistent with this title--
       ``(i) advise on State supervisory board and local criminal 
     justice advisory board composition;
       ``(ii) review progress and accomplishments of projects 
     funded under the State plan; and
       ``(iii) contact and seek regular input from juveniles 
     currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice 
     system;'';
       (C) in paragraph (10)--
       (i) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (O), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P) programs implementing the practices described in 
     paragraphs (6) through (12) and (17) and (18) of section 
     242(b);'';
       (D) by striking paragraph (13) and inserting the following:
       ``(13) provide assurances that, in each secure facility 
     located in the State (including any jail or lockup for 
     adults), there is no commingling in the same cell or 
     community room of, or any other regular, sustained, physical 
     contact between--
       ``(A) any juvenile detained or confined for any period of 
     time in that facility; and
       ``(B) any adult offender detained or confined for any 
     period of time in that facility.'';
       (E) by striking paragraphs (8), (9), (12), (14), (15), 
     (17), (18), (19), (24), and (25);
       (F) by redesignating paragraphs (10), (11), (13), (16), 
     (20), (21), (22), and (23) as paragraphs (8) through (15), 
     respectively;
       (G) in paragraph (14), as redesignated, by adding ``and'' 
     at the end; and
       (H) in paragraph (15), as redesignated, by striking the 
     semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and
       (2) by striking subsections (c) and (d).

     SEC. 107. REPEALS.

       The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in title II--
       (A) by striking parts C, E, F, G, and H;
       (B) by striking part I, as added by section 2(i)(1)(C) of 
     Public Law 102-586; and
       (C) by amending the heading of part I, as redesignated by 
     section 2(i)(1)(A) of Public Law 102-586, to read as follows:

         ``Part E--General and Administrative Provisions''; and

       (2) by striking title V, as added by section 5(a) of Public 
     Law 102-586.
      TITLE II--INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY-BASED REFORMS

     SEC. 201. INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY-BASED REFORMS.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after part B the following:

      ``Part C--Incentive Grants for Accountability-Based Reforms

     ``SEC. 241. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

       ``The Administrator shall provide juvenile delinquent 
     accountability grants under section 242 to eligible States to 
     carry out this title.

     ``SEC. 242. ACCOUNTABILITY-BASED INCENTIVE GRANTS.

       ``(a) Eligibility for Grant.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under section 241, a State shall submit to the 
     Administrator an application at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such assurances and information as the 
     Administrator may require by rule, including assurances that 
     the State has in effect (or will have in effect not later 
     than 1 year after the date on which the State submits such 
     application) laws, or has implemented (or will implement not 
     later than 1 year after the date on which the State submits 
     such application)--
       ``(1) policies and programs that ensure that all juveniles 
     who commit an act after attaining 14 years of age that would 
     be a serious violent crime if committed by an adult are 
     treated as adults for purposes of prosecution, unless on a 
     case-by-case basis, as a matter of law or prosecutorial 
     discretion, the transfer of such juveniles for disposition in 
     the juvenile system is determined to be in the interest of 
     justice, except that the age of the juvenile alone shall not 
     be determinative of whether such transfer is in the interest 
     of justice;
       ``(2) graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders, ensuring 
     a sanction for every delinquent or criminal act, ensuring 
     that the sanction is of increasing severity based on the 
     nature of the act, and escalating the sanction with each 
     subsequent delinquent or criminal act; and
       ``(3) a system of records relating to any adjudication of 
     juveniles less than 15 years of age who are adjudicated 
     delinquent for conduct that if committed by an adult would 
     constitute a serious violent crime, which records are--
       ``(A) equivalent to the records that would be kept of 
     adults arrested for such conduct, including fingerprints and 
     photographs;
       ``(B) submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 
     the same manner in which adult records are submitted;
       ``(C) retained for a period of time that is equal to the 
     period of time that records are retained for adults; and
       ``(D) available to law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, 
     the courts, and school officials.
       ``(b) Standards for Handling and Disclosing Information.--
     School officials referred to in subsection (a)(3)(D) shall be 
     subject to the same standards and penalties to which law 
     enforcement and juvenile justice system employees are subject 
     under Federal and State law for handling and disclosing 
     information referred to in that paragraph.
       ``(c) Additional Amount Based on Accountability-Based Youth 
     Violence Reduction Practices.--A State that receives a grant 
     under subsection (a) is eligible to receive an additional 
     amount of funds added to such grant if such State 
     demonstrates that the State has in effect, or will have in 
     effect, not later than 1 year after the deadline established 
     by the Administrator for the submission of applications under 
     subsection (a) for the fiscal year at issue, not fewer than 5 
     of the following practices:
       ``(1) Victims' rights.--Increased victims' rights, 
     including--
       ``(A) the right to be treated with fairness and with 
     respect for the dignity and privacy of the victim;
       ``(B) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused 
     offender;
       ``(C) the right to be notified of court proceedings; and
       ``(D) the right to information about the conviction, 
     sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender.
       ``(2) Restitution.--Mandatory victim and community 
     restitution, including statewide programs to reach 
     restitution collection levels of not less than 80 percent.
       ``(3) Access to proceedings.--Public access to juvenile 
     court delinquency proceedings.
       ``(4) Parental responsibility.--Juvenile nighttime curfews 
     and parental civil liability for serious acts committed by 
     juveniles released to the custody of their parents by the 
     court.
       ``(5) Zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents.--A 
     requirement as conditions of parole that--
       ``(A) any juvenile offender who is a parent demonstrates 
     parental responsibility by working and paying child support; 
     and
       ``(B) the juvenile attends and successfully completes 
     school or pursues vocational training.
       ``(6) Serious habitual offenders comprehensive action 
     program (shocap).--
       ``(A) In general.--Implementation of a serious habitual 
     offender comprehensive action program which is a 
     multidisciplinary interagency case management and information 
     sharing system that enables the juvenile and criminal justice 
     system, schools, and social service agencies to make more 
     informed decisions regarding early identification, control, 
     supervision, and treatment of juveniles who repeatedly commit 
     serious delinquent or criminal acts.
       ``(B) Multidisciplinary agencies.--Establishment by units 
     of local government in the State under a program referred to 
     in subparagraph (A), of a multidisciplinary agency comprised 
     of representatives from--
       ``(i) law enforcement organizations;
       ``(ii) school districts;
       ``(iii) State's attorneys offices;
       ``(iv) court services;
       ``(v) State and county children and family services; and
       ``(vi) any additional organizations, groups, or agencies 
     deemed appropriate to accomplish the purposes described in 
     subparagraph (A), including--

       ``(I) juvenile detention centers;
       ``(II) mental and medical health agencies; and
       ``(III) the community at large.

       ``(C) Identification of serious habitual offenders.--Each 
     multidisciplinary agency established under subparagraph (B) 
     shall adopt, by a majority of its members, criteria to 
     identify individuals who are serious habitual offenders.
       ``(D) Interagency information sharing agreement.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each multidisciplinary agency 
     established under subparagraph (B) shall adopt, by a majority 
     of its members, an interagency information sharing agreement 
     to be signed by the chief executive officer of each 
     organization and agency represented in the multidisciplinary 
     agency.
       ``(ii) Disclosure of information.--The interagency 
     information sharing agreement shall require that--

       ``(I) all records pertaining to serious habitual offenders 
     shall be kept confidential to the extent required by State 
     law;
       ``(II) information in the records may be made available to 
     other staff from member organizations and agencies as 
     authorized by the multidisciplinary agency for the purposes 
     of promoting case management, community supervision, conduct 
     control, and tracking of the serious habitual offender for 
     the application and coordination of appropriate services; and
       ``(III) access to the information in the records shall be 
     limited to individuals who provide direct services to the 
     serious habitual offender or who provide community conduct 
     control and supervision to the serious habitual offender.

       ``(7) Community-wide partnerships.--Community-wide 
     partnerships involving county, municipal government, school 
     districts, appropriate State agencies, and nonprofit 
     organizations to administer a unified approach to juvenile 
     delinquency.
       ``(8) Zero tolerance for truancy.--Implementation by school 
     districts of programs to curb truancy and implement certain 
     and

[[Page S4222]]

     swift punishments for truancy, including parental 
     notification of every absence, mandatory Saturday school 
     makeup sessions for truants or weekends in jail for truants 
     and denial of participation or attendance at extracurricular 
     activities by truants.
       ``(9) Alternative schooling.--A requirement that, as a 
     condition of receiving any State funding provided to school 
     districts in accordance with a formula allocation based on 
     the number of children enrolled in school in the school 
     district, each school district shall establish one or more 
     alternative schools or classrooms for juvenile offenders or 
     juveniles who are expelled or suspended for disciplinary 
     reasons and shall require that such juveniles attend the 
     alternative schools or classrooms. Any juvenile who refuses 
     to attend such alternative school or classroom shall be 
     immediately detained pending a hearing. If a student is 
     transferred from a regular school to an alternative school 
     for juvenile offenders or juveniles who are expelled or 
     suspended for disciplinary reasons such State funding shall 
     also be transferred to the alternative school.
       ``(10) Judicial jurisdiction.--A system under which 
     municipal and magistrate courts have--
       ``(A) jurisdiction over minor delinquency offenses such as 
     truancy, curfew violations, and vandalism; and
       ``(B) short term detention authority for habitual minor 
     delinquent behavior.
       ``(11) Elimination of certain ineffective penalties.--
     Elimination of `counsel and release' or `refer and release' 
     as a penalty for juveniles with respect to the second or 
     subsequent offense for which the juvenile is referred to a 
     juvenile probation officer.
       ``(12) Report back orders.--A system of `report back' 
     orders when juveniles are placed on probation, so that after 
     a period of time (not to exceed 2 months) the juvenile 
     appears before and advises the judge of the progress of the 
     juvenile in meeting certain goals.
       ``(13) Penalties for use of firearm.--Mandatory penalties 
     for the use of a firearm during a violent crime or a drug 
     felony.
       ``(14) Street gangs.--A prohibition on engaging in criminal 
     conduct as a member of a street gang and imposition of severe 
     penalties for terrorism by criminal street gangs.
       ``(15) Character counts.--Establishment of character 
     education and training for juvenile offenders.
       ``(16) Mentoring.--Establishment of mentoring programs for 
     at-risk youth.
       ``(17) Drug courts and community-oriented policing 
     strategies.--Establishment of courts for juveniles charged 
     with drug offenses and community-oriented policing 
     strategies.
       ``(18) Recordkeeping and fingerprinting.--Programs that 
     provide that, whenever a juvenile who has not achieved his or 
     her 14th birthday is adjudicated delinquent (as defined by 
     Federal or State law in a juvenile delinquency proceeding) 
     for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute 
     a felony under Federal or State law, the State shall ensure 
     that a record is kept relating to the adjudication that is--
       ``(A) equivalent to the record that would be kept of an 
     adult conviction for such an offense;
       ``(B) retained for a period of time that is equal to the 
     period of time that records are kept for adult convictions;
       ``(C) made available to prosecutors, courts, and law 
     enforcement agencies of any jurisdiction upon request; and
       ``(D) made available to officials of a school, school 
     district, or postsecondary school where the individual who is 
     the subject of the juvenile record seeks, intends, or is 
     instructed to enroll, and that such officials are held liable 
     to the same standards and penalties that law enforcement and 
     juvenile justice system employees are held liable to, for 
     handling and disclosing such information.
       ``(19) Evaluation.--Establishment of a comprehensive 
     process for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of 
     State juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs in 
     reducing juvenile crime and recidivism.
       ``(20) Boot camps.--Establishment of State boot camps with 
     an intensive restitution or work and community service 
     requirement as part of a system of graduated sanctions.

     ``SEC. 243. GRANT AMOUNTS.

       ``(a) Allocation and Distribution of Funds.--
       ``(1) Eligibility.--Of the total amount made available to 
     carry out Part C of this title for each fiscal year, subject 
     to subsection (b), each State shall be eligible to receive 
     the sum of--
       ``(A) an amount that bears the same relation to one-third 
     of such total as the number of juveniles in the State bears 
     to the number of juveniles in all States;
       ``(B) an amount that bears the same relation to one-third 
     of such total as the number of juveniles from families with 
     incomes below the poverty line in the State bears to the 
     number of such juveniles in all States; and
       ``(C) an amount that bears the same relation to one-third 
     of such total as the average annual number of part 1 violent 
     crimes reported by the State to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years for which 
     such data are available, bears to the number of part 1 
     violent crimes reported by all States to the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation for such years.
       ``(2) Minimum requirement.--Each State shall be eligible to 
     receive not less than 3.5 percent of one-third of the total 
     amount appropriated to carry out Part C for each fiscal year, 
     except that the amount for which the Virgin Islands of the 
     United States, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands is eligible shall be not less 
     than $100,000 and the amount for which Palau is eligible 
     shall be not less than $15,000.
       ``(3) Unavailability of information.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, if data regarding the measures governing 
     allocation of funds under paragraphs (1) and (2) in any State 
     are unavailable or substantially inaccurate, the 
     Administrator and the State shall utilize the best available 
     comparable data for the purposes of allocation of any funds 
     under this section.
       ``(b) Allocated Amount.--The amount made available to carry 
     out Part C of this title for any fiscal year shall be 
     allocated among the States as follows:
       ``(1) 50 percent of the amount for which a State is 
     eligible under subsection (a) shall be allocated to that 
     State if it meets the requirements of section 242(a).
       ``(2) 50 percent of the amount for which a State is 
     eligible under subsection (a) shall be allocated to that 
     State if it meets the requirements of subsections (a) and (c) 
     of section 242.
       ``(c) Availability.--Any amounts made available under this 
     section to carry out Part C of this title shall remain 
     available until expended.''.

     ``SEC. 244. ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``A State that receives a grant under section 241 shall use 
     accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to 
     guidelines prescribed by the Administrator, and shall ensure 
     that any funds used to carry out section 241 shall represent 
     the best value for the State at the lowest possible cost and 
     employ the best available technology.

     ``SEC. 245. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available 
     under section 241 shall not be used to supplant State funds, 
     but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that would, 
     in the absence of Federal funds, be made available from State 
     sources.
       ``(b) Administrative and Related Costs.--Not more than 2 
     percent of the funds appropriated under section 299(a) for a 
     fiscal year shall be available to the Administrator for such 
     fiscal year for purposes of--
       ``(1) research and evaluation, including assessment of the 
     effect on public safety and other effects of the expansion of 
     correctional capacity and sentencing reforms implemented 
     pursuant to this part; and
       ``(2) technical assistance relating to the use of grants 
     made under section 241, and development and implementation of 
     policies, programs, and practices described in section 242.
       ``(c) Carryover of Appropriations.--Funds appropriated 
     under section 299(a) shall remain available until expended.
       ``(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant 
     received under this part may not exceed 90 percent of the 
     costs of a proposal, as described in an application approved 
     under this part.''.
          TITLE III--REFORM OF FEDERAL JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

     SEC. 301. JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS CONSIDERED IN SENTENCING.

       Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, 
     the United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
     guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide that 
     offenses contained in the juvenile record of an adult 
     defendant shall be considered as adult offenses in sentencing 
     determinations if such juvenile offenses would have 
     constituted a felony had they been committed by the defendant 
     as an adult.

     SEC. 302. ACCESS TO JUVENILE RECORDS.

       Section 5038(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) inquiries from officials of a school, school 
     district, or any postsecondary school where the individual 
     who is the subject of the juvenile record seeks, intends, or 
     is instructed or ordered to enroll.''.

     SEC. 303. REFERRAL OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES TO JUVENILE 
                   AND CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES.

       Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Referrals to Juvenile and Criminal Authorities.--
       ``(1) Reporting.--Nothing in this part shall be construed 
     to prohibit an agency from reporting a criminal act committed 
     by a child with a disability to the police or a juvenile 
     authority, or to prohibit a State juvenile or judicial 
     authority from exercising the responsibility of the authority 
     with regard to the application of a juvenile or criminal law 
     to a criminal activity committed by a child with a 
     disability.
       ``(2) Filing petitions.--Nothing in this part shall be 
     construed to require a State educational agency or local 
     educational agency to exhaust the due process procedures 
     under this section or any other part of this Act prior to 
     filing a petition in a juvenile or criminal court with regard 
     to a child with a disability who commits a criminal act at 
     school or a school-related event under the jurisdiction of 
     the State educational agency or local educational agency.''.

[[Page S4223]]

     SEC. 304. LIMITED DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
                   INVESTIGATION RECORDS.

       Section 534(e) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3)(A) The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, Identification Division, shall provide, upon 
     request, the information received under paragraph (3) of 
     section 242(a) of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and 
     Prevention Act of 1974, to officials of a school, school 
     district, or postsecondary school where the individual who is 
     the subject of such information seeks, intends, or is 
     instructed or ordered to enroll.
       ``(B) School officials receiving information under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to the same standards and 
     penalties to which law enforcement and juvenile justice 
     system employees are subject under Federal and State law for 
     handling and disclosing information referred to in 
     subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 305. AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ACT.

       (a) Prosecution of Juveniles as Adults.--Section 5032 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting before 
     the first undesignated paragraph the following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a juvenile 
     defendant 14 years of age or older shall be prosecuted as an 
     adult, and this chapter shall not apply, if such juvenile is 
     charged with an offense that constitutes--
       ``(A) murder or attempted murder;
       ``(B) robbery while armed with a dangerous or deadly 
     weapon;
       ``(C) battery or assault while armed with a dangerous or 
     deadly weapon;
       ``(D) forcible rape;
       ``(E) any serious drug offense which, if committed by an 
     adult, would be punishable under section 401(b)(1)(A) or 408 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), 
     848) or section 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled Substances 
     Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(A)); and
       ``(F) the third or subsequent occasion, unrelated to any 
     previous occasion, on which such juvenile engages in conduct 
     for which an adult could be imprisoned for a term exceeding 1 
     year, unless, on a case-by-case basis--
       ``(i) a court determines that trying such a juvenile as an 
     adult is not in the interest of justice, except that the age 
     of the juvenile alone shall not be determinative of whether 
     or not such action is in the interest of justice;
       ``(ii) the court records its reasons for making such a 
     determination in writing and makes such record available for 
     inspection by the public; and
       ``(iii) the court makes a record in writing of the 
     disposition of the juvenile in the juvenile justice system 
     available to the public, notwithstanding any other law 
     requiring such information to be withheld or limited in any 
     way from access by the public.''.
       (b) Amendments Concerning Records.--Section 5038 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (d) and (f);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) The court shall comply with the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) if--
       ``(A) a juvenile under 14 years of age has been found 
     guilty of committing an act which, if committed by an adult, 
     would be an offense described in the first undesignated 
     paragraph of section 5032; or
       ``(B) a juvenile, age 14 or older, is adjudicated 
     delinquent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding for conduct 
     which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a felony.
       ``(2) The requirements of this paragraph are that--
       ``(A) a record shall be kept relating to the adjudication 
     that is--
       ``(i) equivalent to the record that would be kept of an 
     adult conviction for such an offense;
       ``(ii) retained for a period of time that is equal to the 
     period of time that records are kept for adult convictions;
       ``(iii) made available to law enforcement agencies of any 
     jurisdiction;
       ``(iv) made available to officials of a school, school 
     district, or postsecondary school where the individual who is 
     the subject of the juvenile record seeks, intends, or is 
     instructed to enroll; and
       ``(v) made available, once the juvenile becomes an adult or 
     is tried as an adult, to any court having criminal 
     jurisdiction over such an individual for the purpose of 
     allowing such court to consider the individual's prior 
     juvenile history as a relevant factor in determining 
     appropriate punishment for the individual at the sentencing 
     hearing;
       ``(B) officials referred to in clause (iv) of subparagraph 
     (A) shall be held liable to the same standards and penalties 
     that law enforcement and juvenile justice system employees 
     are held liable to under Federal and State law for handling 
     and disclosing such information;
       ``(C) the juvenile shall be fingerprinted and photographed, 
     and the fingerprints and photograph shall be sent to the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, Identification Division, and 
     shall otherwise be made available to the same extent that 
     fingerprints and photographs of adults are made available; 
     and
       ``(D) the court in which the adjudication takes place shall 
     transmit to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     Identification Division, information concerning the 
     adjudication, including the name, date of adjudication, 
     court, offenses, and disposition, along with a prominent 
     notation that the matter concerns a juvenile adjudication.
       ``(3) If a juvenile has been adjudicated to be delinquent 
     on 2 or more separate occasions based on conduct that would 
     be a felony if committed by an adult, the record of the 
     second and all subsequent adjudications shall be kept and 
     made available to the public to the same extent that a record 
     of an adult conviction is open to the public.''.
                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 299 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671) is amended by 
     striking subsections (a) through (e) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention.--There are authorized to be appropriated for each 
     of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, such sums 
     as may be necessary to carry out part A.
       ``(b) Block Grants for State and Local Programs.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, to carry out part B.
       ``(c) Incentive Grants for Accountability-Based Reforms.--
     There is authorized to be appropriated $300,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, to carry 
     out part C.
       ``(d) Source of Appropriations.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this section may be appropriated from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.''.
                                  ____


    Summary of Domenici-Ashcroft-Wyden ``Juvenile Crime Control and 
                   Community Protection Act of 1997''

       Funding--$500 million authorization for juvenile justice 
     grants: $200 million for current OJJDP state formula grants 
     (increase of $113 million from $86.5 million in FY 1997); 
     $300 million for new incentive grants.
       To qualify for the first $150 million, states must enact 
     three reforms: (1) mandatory adult prosecution for juveniles 
     age 14 and over who commit serious violent crimes or serious 
     drug felonies; (2) graduated sanctions, so that every bad act 
     receives punishment; and (3) adult recordkeeping, including 
     fingerprints and photographs for juveniles under age 15 who 
     commit serious violent crimes.
       To qualify for the next $150 million, states must enact 5 
     of 20 suggested reforms.
       They include:
       1) Increased victims' rights, including notification of 
     release or escape of the offender who committed a crime 
     against a particular victim.
       2) Victim and community restitution.
       3) Public access to juvenile court delinquency proceedings.
       4) Nighttime curfews and parental responsibility laws, 
     holding parents civilly liable for the delinquent acts of 
     their children.
       5) Zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents--require as 
     a condition of parole that juvenile parents pay child support 
     and attend school or vocational training.
       6) SHOCAP--interagency information sharing and monitoring 
     of the most serious juvenile offenders across the state.
       7) Zero tolerance for truancy--parental notification of 
     every absence, mandatory make-up sessions, and denial of 
     participation in extra-curriculars for habitual truants.
       8) Alternative schools and classrooms for expelled or 
     suspended students.
       9) Judicial jurisdiction for local magistrates over minor 
     delinquency offenses and short-term detention authority for 
     habitual delinquent behavior.
       10) Elimination of `counsel and release' as a penalty for 
     second or subsequent offenses.
       11) Report-back orders for juveniles on probation--must 
     appear before the sentencing judge and apprise the judge of 
     the juvenile's progress in meeting certain goals.
       12) Mandatory penalties for the use of a firearm during a 
     violent crime.
       13) Anti-gang legislation.
       14) Character Counts--character education and training.
       15) Mentoring.
       16) Drug courts, special courts or court sessions for 
     juveniles charged with drug offenses.
       17) Community-wide partnerships involving all levels of 
     state and local government to administer a unified approach 
     to juvenile justice.
       18) Adult recordkeeping for juveniles age 14 and under who 
     commit any felony under state law.
       19) Boot camps, which include an intensive restitution and/
     or community service component.
       20) Evaluation and monitoring of the effectiveness of State 
     juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs reducing 
     crime and recidivism.
       Mandates--reforms or eliminates 3 of the most burdensome 
     federal mandates found in the 1974 Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act.
       Modifies mandatory sight and sound separation of juveniles 
     and adults in secure facilities by prohibiting ``regular, 
     sustained physical contact'' between juveniles and adults in 
     the same facility. States would provide assurances that there 
     will be no commingling or regular physical contact between 
     juveniles and adults in the same cell

[[Page S4224]]

     or community room. This will reduce costs for rural 
     communities, which often do not have a separate space to 
     house juveniles which meets the current strict sight and 
     sound requirement.
       Eliminates two other mandates: (1) prohibition on placing 
     juveniles in any adult jail or lock-up; and (2) prohibition 
     on placing ``status offenders'' in secure facilities.


                            federal reforms

       Adult prosecution. Requires mandatory adult prosecution for 
     juveniles age 14 or over for serious violent crimes and major 
     drug offenses. Also requires mandatory ``three strikes'' 
     adult prosecution for juveniles age 14 and over when a 
     juvenile commits a third offense chargeable as a felony. 
     Judge has discretion under the ``three strikes'' provision to 
     refuse to prosecute the juvenile as a adult if the 
     ``interests of justice'' determine that adult prosecution is 
     inappropriate.
       Adult records. Requires equivalent of an adult record for 
     juveniles under age 14 who commit serious violent crimes and 
     for juveniles over age 14 who commit acts chargeable as 
     felonies. Includes fingerprints and photographs.
       Access to juvenile records. Allows courts to consider 
     juvenile offenses when making adult sentencing decisions, if 
     juvenile offenses would have been felonies if committed by 
     adults. Gives school officials access to federal juvenile 
     records and FBI files, as long as confidentiality is 
     maintained.
       IDEA amendment. Overturns court decision prohibiting school 
     officials from unilaterally reporting to authorities or 
     filing petitions in juvenile or criminal courts with regard 
     to criminal acts at school committed by children covered by 
     the IDEA.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Wyden at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, and 
want him to know I very much appreciate the chance to join him and 
Senator Ashcroft on this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, it is very clear that the 
juvenile justice system today in our country is very much like a 
revolving door. A young person can commit a violent crime, a series of 
violent crimes, be apprehended, visit the juvenile justice system--and 
that is really an appropriate characterization--and be back on the 
street virtually immediately. In fact, in our newspaper, the Oregonian, 
it was recently reported that a child committed 52 crimes, 32 of which 
were felonies, before the juvenile justice system took action to 
protect the community.
  I felt--and I think this is the focus of the legislation that the 
Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Missouri and I bring to the 
floor today--that there should be three principles for the new juvenile 
justice system for the 21st century.
  The first ought to be community protection; the second should be 
accountability; and the third should be restitution. The principle of 
accountability is especially important with young people. I even see it 
with my own small kids, a 7-year-old and a 13-year-old. If they act up, 
there needs to be some consequences.
  I am particularly pleased that the legislation the Senator from New 
Mexico brings to the floor today puts a special focus on trying to deal 
with offenses perpetrated by young people that have not yet risen to 
that level of violent crime and, in effect, try to send a message to 
young people that there will be consequences.
  The last point that I will make, because I know time is short and we 
have much to do today, is that this legislation is particularly 
important in such areas as recordkeeping. We have found across the 
country that it has not even been possible to keep tabs on the violent 
juveniles, because there are so many gaps in the recordkeeping in the 
States. Both the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Missouri 
have done yeoman work in this regard.
  This is a balanced bill; it is a bipartisan bill. It moves to update 
the laws dealing with juveniles for the 21st century.
  I thank my friend from New Mexico and the Senator from Missouri for 
allowing me to be part of this bipartisan coalition. They included a 
number of provisions that are important to our State in the drafting 
that went on in the last week. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Campbell be added as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am proud to join with the Senators 
Domenici and Wyden in introducing the Juvenile Crime Control and 
Community Protection Act of 1997 to reform the juvenile justice system 
in order to protect the public and hold juvenile offenders accountable 
for their actions.
  In 1994, juvenile courts handled an estimated 120,200 drug offense 
cases, a jump of 82 percent from 1991. Violent crime arrests among 
juveniles in 1995 was 12 percent higher than the level in 1991 and 67 
percent above the level in 1986.
  This year, Mr. President, it seems as though incidents of juvenile 
violence are occurring every day and everywhere.
  In Alton, IL, two teens were gunned down--one shot twice in the face 
and the other shot once in the back of the head when he turned to 
flee--by a 15-year-old of East St. Louis who had driven 30 miles to 
carry out the shooting.
  In Dayton, KY, a 15-year-old killed her 5-month-old son. She was 
given the maximum sentence--30 days of detention.
  In Montgomery County, MD, a 14-year-old girl along with three adults 
were arrested for two bank robberies in Silver Spring.
  In Boston, MA, three schoolgirls--two 14-year-olds and one 15-year-
old--were charged with putting knives to the throat or stomach of 
classmates and stealing their gold jewelry and lunch money.
  As these incidents demonstrate, the perpetrators of violence and 
their victims are getting younger. Similarly, gang activity is getting 
worse in our inner cities, suburbs, and rural communities. A 1995 
nationwide survey of law enforcement agencies reported a total of 
23,388 gangs, and 664,906 gang members in their jurisdiction. In 
comparison, a 1993 survey showed an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 
gang members in the United States.
  The need for juvenile justice reform is clear, especially in light of 
the fact that probation was the sentence handed out for 56 percent of 
the 1992 juvenile court cases in which the juvenile was adjudicated 
delinquent whether the offense was a felony or misdemeanor in nature.
  Mr. President, this bill takes substantial steps toward addressing 
the problems of violent juvenile offenders and the prevalence of youth 
gangs. The Federal Government would assist State and local efforts in 
dealing with the epidemic of juvenile crime by helping target the most 
violent and problematic offenders.
  Mr. President, the Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection 
Act of 1997 would provide $1.5 billion over 5 years in incentive grants 
to encourage and assist States in reforming their juvenile justice 
systems.
  States are encouraged to revise their laws to reflect three much-
needed reforms. First, juveniles age 14 or older who commit serious 
violent crimes--such as murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, or 
serious drug offenses--should be tried as the adult criminals they are. 
By making sure that the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime, 
this proposal would deter juveniles who currently believe that the law 
cannot touch them.
  Second, the States are encouraged to ensure that records of juveniles 
under age 15, who are found to be delinquent regarding serious violent 
crimes and serious drug offenses, are maintained and made available to 
law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, prosecutors, adult criminal courts, and appropriate 
school officials.
  Finally, the States are encouraged to establish graduated sanctions 
for juvenile offenders, ensuring a sanction for every delinquent or 
criminal act and that the sanctions increase in severity based on the 
nature of the act. The sanctions should also escalate with each 
subsequent delinquent or criminal act, and should include mandatory 
restitution to victims, longer sentences of confinement, or mandatory 
participation in community service.
  For States that enact such reforms, additional grant funds would be 
made available to implement at least 5 of 18 accountability-based 
practices including: record-keeping for juvenile criminals age 14 or 
older who commit offenses equivalent to an adult felony; increasing 
victims' rights concerning information about the conviction, 
sentencing, imprisonment, and release of their juvenile attackers; 
mandatory

[[Page S4225]]

restitution to victims of juvenile crimes; public access to juvenile 
court proceedings; parental responsibility laws; zero tolerance for 
deadbeat juvenile parents; implementation of a Serious Habitual 
Offenders Comprehensive Action Program [SHOCAP]--a comprehensive and 
cooperative information and case management process for police, 
prosecutors, schools, probation departments, corrections facilities, 
and social and community aftercare services; establishment of 
community-wide partnerships involving county, municipal government, 
school districts, and others to administrator a unified approach to 
juvenile delinquency; antitruancy initiatives; alternative schooling 
for juvenile offenders or juveniles who are expelled or suspended from 
school for disciplinary reasons; tougher penalties for criminal street 
gang crimes; and the establishment of penalties for juvenile offenders 
who use a firearm during a violent crime or a drug felony.
  The bill would provide $200 million in formula grants, a $130 million 
increase over the FY1997 level for each fiscal year, FY1998 through 
FY2002. Under current law, states and localities must comply with 
several mandates to be eligible for these funds. For example, states 
must currently ensure that (1) no status offender may be held in secure 
detention or confinement; (2) juveniles cannot be held in jails and law 
enforcement lockup in which adults may be detained or confined for any 
period of time; and (3) complete sight and sound separation of juvenile 
offenders from adult offenders in secure facilities.
  These mandates are costly and burdensome on state and local law 
enforcement efforts. For example, in February of this year, I visited 
with law enforcement and juvenile justice officials in Kirksville, MO, 
a rural community in Northeast Missouri, who told me about a problem 
that is all too common for rural communities. A deputy juvenile officer 
said that local law enforcement officers were able to apprehend four 
Missouri 15-year-olds who had brutally murdered a Iowa farm wife in 
October of 1994, and were even able to secure confessions to the 
murder. However, the Kirksville police could not detain the murderers 
because the Federal law prohibits juveniles from being held in jails in 
which adults may be detained and Kirksville did not have secure 
detention facilities.
  As a result, the teens had to be detained in other Missouri 
facilities. Two of the teen had to be transported to Boone County, MO--
100 miles from Kirksville--while the other two teens had to be taken to 
Union, MO, more than 200 miles away.
  The legislation introduced today would eliminate this absolute jail 
and lockup prohibition. If enacted, the Kirksvilles of our country 
would no longer have to bear additional costs in trying to find a 
completely separate facility in order to detain violent juvenile 
offenders.
  A thorough reform of juvenile justice systems must also include 
participation by our charitable and faith-based organizations. 
Government needs to rebuild civil society by fostering a partnership 
with charitable and faith-based organizations to promote civic virtues 
and individual responsibility.
  Govenrment needs to look beyond its bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all 
programs and give assistance to those groups toiling daily in our 
communities, often publicly unnoticed and virtually unaided by 
Government.
  For example, Teen challenge, which is headquartered in Missouri, 
receives little or no local, State, or Federal government financial 
assistance. Teen Challenge is a nonprofit, faith-based organization 
that works with youth, adults and families. Teen challenge has 16 
adolescent programs in several states, including Florida, Indiana, and 
New Mexico.
  Most of the juveniles in the program has drug or alcohol problems. A 
large number of the adolescents have been physically or sexually 
abused. Almost all of them had a major problem with rebelling against 
authority, according to a 1992 survey of Indianapolis Teen Challenge. 
Thirteen percent were court-ordered placements. This same study 
indicated that 70 percent of the graduates were abstaining from illegal 
drug use.
  Mr. President, this bill would amend the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act to allow states to conduct with, or make 
grants to, private, charitable and faith-based organizations to provide 
programs for at-risk and delinquent juveniles.
  Charitable and faith-based organizations have a proven track record 
of transforming shattered lives by addressing the deeper needs of 
people, by instilling hope and values which help change behavior and 
attitudes. Under this bill states would be allowed to enroll these 
organizations as full-fledged participants in caring for and supporting 
juveniles who are less fortunate.
  The bill also proposes reforms to the federal criminal justice system 
consistent with those it encourages those states to adopt. The 
legislation strengthens the federal law by requiring the adult 
prosecution of any juvenile age 14 or older who is alleged to have 
committed murder, attempted murder, robbery while armed with a 
dangerous or deadly weapon, assault or battery while armed with a 
dangerous weapon, forcible rape or a serious drug offense. Repeat 
juvenile offenders would also be subject to transfer to adult court, if 
they have 2 previous adjudications for offenses that would amount to a 
felony if committed by an adult.
  Juvenile criminals found delinquent in U.S. district courts of 
violent crimes would be fingerprinted and photographed, and then the 
fingerprints and photograph are sent to the FBI to be made available to 
the same extent as that of adult felons to law enforcement agencies, 
school officials, and courts for sentencing purposes.
  In addition, the bill would clearly express the intent of Congress 
with regard to special education students who commit criminal acts at 
school or school-related events. Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, in Morgan v. Chris L., upheld the ruling of a 
district court that the Knox County Tennessee Public School violated 
the procedural requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) by in essence filing criminal charges against a 
student with a disability. IDEA provides grants to states and creates 
special due process procedures for children with disabilities.
  In this case, a student diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit 
hyperactivity disorder kicked a water pipe in the school lavatory until 
it burst--a crime against property--resulting in about $1,000 water 
damage. The Knox County School District filed a petition in juvenile 
court against the child. The disabled student's father filed for a due 
process hearing under the IDEA to review the filing of the petition in 
juvenile court by the school. The hearing officer ordered the school 
district to seek dismissal of its juvenile court petition and that 
decision by the hearing officer was upheld by the Federal District 
Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The Court of Appeals concluded that under ``IDEA's procedural 
safeguards, the school system must adopt its own plan and institute a 
[multi-disciplinary] team meeting before initiating a juvenile court 
petition.'' The problem with the circuit court's holding is that the 
special due process procedures for disabled students take several 
months, and sometimes a year, to complete. The practical effect of the 
ruling is that schools, as a matter of law, cannot unilaterally file 
charges against disabled students unless students' parents consent to 
such referrals. Schools must keep a student in school--potentially 
endangering others--and wait until the completion of the due process 
procedures required by IDEA.
  In addition to Tennessee, other States--such as Georgia, Ohio, 
Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire--allow 
individuals, including school officials who witness students committing 
crimes at school, to file petitions in juvenile courts against the 
students. School officials should not be required to exhaust the IDEA's 
significant due process procedures before filing criminal juvenile 
petitions against students with disabilities.
  The ramifications of the sixth circuit's ruling have been immediate 
and troubling for school districts. Citing the ruling of the Chris L 
holding as authority, a Knox County, TN chancellor recently set aside 
the juvenile conviction of a high school special education student--
because he is deaf in his right ear--who brought a butterfly knife to

[[Page S4226]]

school. The chancellor court based its decision on the fact that the 
school had failed to convene a multidisciplinary team before referring 
the student with a disability to the juvenile court. The chancellor, 
when asked about his ruling, reportedly said, ``There's a serious 
question to whether or not a student under this IDEA program can be 
charged at all.''
  The bill we are introducing today would make it clear to the 
Tennessee chancellor and other courts that students with disabilities 
who commit criminal acts on school property are not shielded from 
immediate referral to juvenile court or law enforcement authorities 
under IDEA's special due process procedures. We must restore the 
capacity of schools to create secure environments where all students 
can learn and achieve their highest potential.
  Mr. President, this bill would assist State and local governments in 
increasing public safety by holding juvenile criminals accountable for 
their serious and violent crimes, by encouraging accountability through 
the imposition of meaningful sanctions for delinquent acts, and by 
improving the extent, accuracy, availability, and usefulness of 
juvenile criminal records and public accessibility to juvenile court 
proceedings.
  In short, Mr. President, enactment of the Juvenile Crime Control and 
Community Protection Act of 1997 would be a significant step in the 
right direction toward addressing America's juvenile crime problem.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last month, I talked about the importance 
of the innovative ``Community Justice'' model for juvenile justice 
being developed in Deschutes County and Multnomah County, OR. Today, 
Senators Domenici and Ashcroft and I are introducing legislation that 
incorporates many important pieces of this Oregon model and also 
represents an effort to bring some new, bipartisan thinking to the 
issue of juvenile justice.
  Oregon's idea is that the juvenile justice system should weave the 
community into the very fabric of juvenile justice. This entails 
treating the victim as a customer of the juvenile justice system and 
realizing that when a crime is committed the whole community is the 
victim. There is a reciprocal obligation in communities--first, to give 
children the values and tools to ensure that youth crime is prevented 
and second, to look for at-risk children and try to form a net of 
services to keep these children from getting into trouble. However, 
once a young person steps over the line and commits a crime, part of 
the reciprocity involves the youth making the community whole through 
restitution and community service.
  I was pleased to work with Senators Domenici and Ashcroft to include 
some of these Oregon ideas into this bill. In particular, I think that 
the second tier of incentive grants will help encourage States to come 
up with ways to integrate the community into the juvenile justice 
process. In particular, the bill promotes consideration for victims and 
restitution for all crimes. It will also ensure that this restitution 
is collected. The legislation encourages States to look at mentorship 
programs, parent accountability, and ways to bring together service 
providers to form a network of information sharing to prevent juvenile 
crime.
  One of the key aspects of the Deschutes County model that is so 
impressive is the coordination between schools, juvenile justice 
services, child protection services, police, district attorneys, 
judges, and others. Not only does this build a broad base of support 
for the juvenile justice system, but it allows these agencies to 
identify the most at-risk youth early, to see whether efforts to divert 
them from delinquency are effective and to concentrate resources on 
them.
  When I began working on this issue in 1995, I laid out three 
principles for a new juvenile justice system: community protection, 
accountability, and restitution. We need to keep our streets safe, 
punish criminals, and make sure victims--including the community 
itself--are repaid. This legislation will encourage States to develop 
systems based on these principles and to add to the the important 
ingredient of community involvement in the juvenile justice system.
  I thank the Senators from Missouri and New Mexico for their 
bipartisan effort to develop juvenile justice legislation that takes a 
balanced approach to juvenile justice.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 719. A bill to expedite the naturalization of aliens who served 
with special guerrilla units in Laos; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


             the hmong veterans' naturalization act of 1997

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I have introduced the 
Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 1997.
  The purpose of this bill is to help expedite the naturalization of 
Hmong veterans who served and fought alongside the United States during 
the United States secret war in Laos. This legislation acknowledges 
their service and officially recognizes the service of Hmong and other 
ethnic Lao veterans who sacrificed and loyally fought for America and 
its principles of freedom, human rights, and democracy.
  This legislation continues the tradition of recognizing the service 
of those who came to the aid of the United States in times of war. 
Current law permits aliens or noncitizens who served honorably in the 
U.S. military forces during wartime to be naturalized, regardless of 
age, period of U.S. residence, or physical presence in the United 
States. However, expedited naturalization does not apply to Hmong and 
Lao veterans and their families because of the covert status of their 
work. This bill would help expedite this process by eliminating the 
literacy requirement in the naturalization process.
  Classified studies conducted by the defense policy think tank RAND 
have recently been declassified. They show the unique and important 
role that the Hmong people played during the Vietnam war. The studies 
reveal that this group, the ``Secret Army,'' specially created by the 
United States Government, played a critical role in the clandestine 
military activities in Laos.
  Hmong men, women, and children of all ages fought and died alongside 
U.S. military personnel in units recruited, organized, trained, funded 
and paid by the U.S. Government. It is estimated that during the United 
States involvement in Vietnam, 35,000 to 40,000 Hmong veterans and 
their families' were killed in conflict. 50,000 to 58,000 were wounded 
in conflict and an additional 2,500 to 3,000 were declared missing.
  During the Vietnam conflict, Hmong forces were responsible for 
risking their lives by crossing enemy lines to rescue downed American 
pilots. It is estimated that they saved at least 60 American lives and 
often lost half their troops rescuing one soldier.
  When the United States withdrew from Southeast Asia, thousands of 
Hmong were evacuated by the U.S. Government. However, many were left 
behind and experienced mass genocide at the hands of Communists. Many 
fled to neighboring Thailand. During their journey, many were murdered 
before they reached the Thai border. Even today, despite official 
denial by the Lao Government, the Communist regime of Laos continues to 
persecute and discriminate against the Hmong specifically because of 
their role in the United States secret army.
  Edgar Buell, the senior U.S. CIA official who worked with the Hmong 
secret army, explained their critical role on national television:
  ``Everyone of them (Hmong) that died, that was an American back home 
that didn't die, or one that was injured that wasn't injured. Somebody 
in nearly every Hmong family was either fighting or died from fighting. 
They became refugees because we (the United States) encouraged them to 
fight for us. I promised myself: `` `Have no fear, we will take care of 
you.' ''
  It is now time to live up to earlier promises and take care of this 
group that so valiantly fought alongside American forces. We can only 
make good on our word by passing this legislation.
  Currently, many of the 45,000 former soldiers and their refugee 
family members living in the United States cannot become citizens 
because they lack the sufficient English language skills to pass the 
naturalization test. The intense and protracted war in Laos and the 
subsequent exodus of the Hmong veterans into squalid refugee camps did

[[Page S4227]]

not permit these veterans the opportunity to attend school and learn 
English. Also, many suffer from injuries that occurred during the war 
that make learning difficult and frustrating.
  Because of the welfare and immigration reform bill enacted last 
Congress, aging, elderly, illiterate (in English), semiliterate and 
wounded soldiers--usually with large families--will suffer greatly 
because they are now facing the almost impossible task of immediately 
learning English and finding gainful employment. People like Chanh 
Chantalangsy are faced with an uncertain future:
  Chanh served in the secret army and was seriously wounded in his 
head, arm, and legs. After being in the hospital for 7 months, he 
returned to combat, serving in a CIA sponsored unit. Fleeing Laos, he 
spent 14 years in a refugee camp in Thailand. Realizing that the 
conditions in his country would not improve, Chanh left the refugee 
camp and came to the United States. He studied English for 5 years but 
it became evident that mental and physical injuries prevented him from 
learning English. In 1993, he was classified disabled and now receives 
$561 a month in SSI benefits. As of August, he could lose this small 
benefit.
  Given the unique role that the veterans served on behalf of the U.S. 
national security interests, we should waive the difficult 
naturalization requirements for this group. We have a responsibility to 
these people. This responsibility was supported by former CIA Director 
William Colby when he said to a House subcommittee:
  ``The basic burden (of fighting in Laos) was born by the Hmong. We 
certainly encouraged them to fight. We enabled them to fight in many 
cases, and I think the spirit that they developed was in part a result 
of our offering of support and our provision of it.''
  Mr. President, it is now time to give our support. These people 
fought for our country for 15 years and came to the United States with 
an understanding that they would be cared for. One act of Congress, the 
welfare reform law, wiped out this understanding and threw the Hmong 
into a state of despair. They neither have the capacity to care for 
themselves if benefits are terminated, nor the ability to return to 
their homeland. I implore my colleagues to support one more act of 
Congress that would fulfill our pledge and our obligation.
  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. 719

       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 ``Hmong Veterans' 
     Naturalization Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. WAIVER OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN 
                   ALIENS WHO SERVED WITH SPECIAL GUERRILLA UNITS 
                   IN LAOS.

       The requirement of paragraph (1) of section 312(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423(a)) shall not 
     apply to the naturalization of any person who--
       (1) served with a special guerrilla unit operating from a 
     base in Laos in support of the United States at any time 
     during the period beginning February 28, 1961, and ending 
     September 18, 1978, or
       (2) is the spouse or widow of a person described in 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 3. NATURALIZATION THROUGH SERVICE IN A SPECIAL GUERRILLA 
                   UNIT IN LAOS.

       (a) In General.--The first sentence of subsection (a) and 
     subsection (b) (other than paragraph (3)) of section 329 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440) shall 
     apply to an alien who served with a special guerrilla unit 
     operating from a base in Laos in support of the United States 
     at any time during the period beginning February 28, 1961, 
     and ending September 18, 1978, in the same manner as they 
     apply to an alien who has served honorably in an active-duty 
     status in the military forces of the United States during the 
     period of the Vietnam hostilities.
       (b) Proof.--The Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     shall verify an alien's service with a guerrilla unit 
     described in subsection (a) through--
       (1) review of refugee processing documentation for the 
     alien,
       (2) the affidavit of the alien's superior officer,
       (3) original documents,
       (4) two affidavits from person who were also serving with 
     such a special guerrilla unit and who personally knew of the 
     alien's service, or
       (5) other appropriate proof.

     The Service shall liberally construe the provisions of this 
     subsection to take into account the difficulties inherent in 
     proving service in such a guerrilla unit.
                                 ______
                                 
  By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Frist):

  S. 720. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to expand and make permanent the availability of cost-effective, 
comprehensive acute and long-term care services to frail elderly 
persons through Programs of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) 
under the medicare and medicaid programs; to the Committee on Finance.


                     THE PACE PROVIDER ACT OF 1997

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, 
along with Senator Inouye, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, the 
PACE Provider Act of 1997. PACE, the Program of All-Inclusive Care for 
the Elderly, is a unique system of integrated care for the frail 
elderly. This Act increases the number of PACE sites authorized to 
provide comprehensive, community-based services to frail, elderly 
persons.
  As our population ages, we must continue to place a high priority on 
long-term care services. Giving our seniors alternatives to nursing 
home care and expanding the choices available, is not only cost 
effective, but will also improve the quality of life for older 
Americans.
  PACE programs achieve this goal. PACE enables the frail elderly to 
remain as healthy as possible, at home in their communities. By doing 
so, elderly individuals maintain their independence, dignity and 
quality of life.
  Each PACE participant receives a comprehensive care package, 
including all Medicare and Medicaid services, as well as community-
based long-term care services. Each individual is cared for by an 
interdisciplinary team consisting of a primary care physician, nurse, 
social worker, rehabilitation therapist, home health worker, and 
others. Because care providers on the PACE team work together, they are 
able to successfully accommodate the complex medical and social needs 
of the elderly person in fragile health.
  What's more, PACE provides high-quality care at a lower cost to 
Medicare and Medicaid, relative to their payments in the traditional 
system. Studies show a 5-15 percent reduction in Medicare and Medicaid 
spending for individuals in PACE.
  The potential savings to Medicare and Medicaid is significant. PACE 
programs provide services for one of our most vulnerable, and costly, 
population: frail, elderly adults who are eligible for Medicare and 
Medicaid. In many cases, these ``dually eligible'' individuals have 
complex, chronic care needs and require ongoing, long-term care 
services. The current structure of Medicare and Medicaid does not 
encourage coordination of these services. The result is fragmented and 
costly care for our nation's most vulnerable population.
  The PACE Provider Act does not alter the criteria for eligibility for 
PACE participation in any way. Instead, it makes PACE programs more 
available to individuals already eligible for nursing home care, 
because of their poor health status. PACE is a preferable, and less 
costly, alternative. Specifically, this Act increases the number of 
PACE programs authorized from 15 to 40, with an additional 20 to be 
added each year, and affords regular ``provider'' status to existing 
sites.
  The PACE Provider Act allows the success of PACE programs to be 
replicated throughout the country. And, with an emphasis on 
preventative and supportive services, PACE services can substantially 
reduce the high-costs associated with emergency room visits and 
extended nursing home stays often needed by the frail elderly in the 
traditional Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  My sponsorship of this bill grows out of my Aging Committee hearing 
on April 29, Torn Between Two Systems: Improving Chronic Care in 
Medicare and Medicaid. The plight of the dual eligibles is 
unacceptable. This bill is an immediate and positive step in the right 
direction.
  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:

[[Page S4228]]

                                 S. 720

       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 ``Programs of All-inclusive 
     Care for the Elderly (PACE) Coverage Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF PACE UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


    ``payments to, and coverage of benefits under, programs of all-
                 inclusive care for the elderly (pace)

       ``Sec. 1894. (a) Receipt of Benefits Through Enrollment in 
     PACE Program; Definitions for PACE Program Related Terms.--
       ``(1) Benefits through enrollment in a pace program.--In 
     accordance with this section, in the case of an individual 
     who is entitled to benefits under part A or enrolled under 
     part B and who is a PACE program eligible individual (as 
     defined in paragraph (5)) with respect to a PACE program 
     offered by a PACE provider under a PACE program agreement--
       ``(A) the individual may enroll in the program under this 
     section; and
       ``(B) so long as the individual is so enrolled and in 
     accordance with regulations--
       ``(i) the individual shall receive benefits under this 
     title solely through such program, and
       ``(ii) the PACE provider is entitled to payment under and 
     in accordance with this section and such agreement for 
     provision of such benefits.
       ``(2) PACE program defined.--For purposes of this section 
     and section 1932, the term `PACE program' means a program of 
     all-inclusive care for the elderly that meets the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) Operation.--The entity operating the program is a 
     PACE provider (as defined in paragraph (3)).
       ``(B) Comprehensive benefits.--The program provides 
     comprehensive health care services to PACE program eligible 
     individuals in accordance with the PACE program agreement and 
     regulations under this section.
       ``(C) Transition.--In the case of an individual who is 
     enrolled under the program under this section and whose 
     enrollment ceases for any reason (including the individual no 
     longer qualifies as a PACE program eligible individual, the 
     termination of a PACE program agreement, or otherwise), the 
     program provides assistance to the individual in obtaining 
     necessary transitional care through appropriate referrals and 
     making the individual's medical records available to new 
     providers.
       ``(3) PACE provider defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `PACE provider' means an entity that--
       ``(i) subject to subparagraph (B), is (or is a distinct 
     part of) a public entity or a private, nonprofit entity 
     organized for charitable purposes under section 501(c)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and
       ``(ii) has entered into a PACE program agreement with 
     respect to its operation of a PACE program.
       ``(B) Treatment of private, for-profit providers.--Clause 
     (i) of subparagraph (A) shall not apply--
       ``(i) to entities subject to a demonstration project waiver 
     under subsection (h); and
       ``(ii) after the date the report under section 5(b) of the 
     Programs of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) 
     Coverage Act of 1997 is submitted, unless the Secretary 
     determines that any of the findings described in subparagraph 
     (A), (B), (C) or (D) of paragraph (2) of such section are 
     true.
       ``(4) PACE program agreement defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `PACE program agreement' means, with 
     respect to a PACE provider, an agreement, consistent with 
     this section, section 1932 (if applicable), and regulations 
     promulgated to carry out such sections, between the PACE 
     provider and the Secretary, or an agreement between the PACE 
     provider and a State administering agency for the operation 
     of a PACE program by the provider under such sections.
       ``(5) PACE program eligible individual defined.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `PACE program eligible 
     individual' means, with respect to a PACE program, an 
     individual who--
       ``(A) is 55 years of age or older;
       ``(B) subject to subsection (c)(4), is determined under 
     subsection (c) to require the level of care required under 
     the State medicaid plan for coverage of nursing facility 
     services;
       ``(C) resides in the service area of the PACE program; and
       ``(D) meets such other eligibility conditions as may be 
     imposed under the PACE program agreement for the program 
     under subsection (e)(2)(A)(ii).
       ``(6) PACE protocol.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `PACE protocol' means the Protocol for the Program of 
     All-inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), as published by On 
     Lok, Inc., as of April 14, 1995.
       ``(7) PACE demonstration waiver program defined.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `PACE demonstration waiver 
     program' means a demonstration program under either of the 
     following sections (as in effect before the date of their 
     repeal):
       ``(A) Section 603(c) of the Social Security Amendments of 
     1983 (Public Law 98-21), as extended by section 9220 of the 
     Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 
     (Public Law 99-272).
       ``(B) Section 9412(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-509).
       ``(8) State administering agency defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `State administering agency' means, 
     with respect to the operation of a PACE program in a State, 
     the agency of that State (which may be the single agency 
     responsible for administration of the State plan under title 
     XIX in the State) responsible for administering PACE program 
     agreements under this section and section 1932 in the State.
       ``(9) Trial period defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `trial period' means, with respect to a PACE program operated 
     by a PACE provider under a PACE program agreement, the first 
     3 contract years under such agreement with respect to such 
     program.
       ``(B) Treatment of entities previously operating pace 
     demonstration waiver programs.--Each contract year (including 
     a year occurring before the effective date of this section) 
     during which an entity has operated a PACE demonstration 
     waiver program shall be counted under subparagraph (A) as a 
     contract year during which the entity operated a PACE program 
     as a PACE provider under a PACE program agreement.
       ``(10) Regulations.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `regulations' refers to interim final or final regulations 
     promulgated under subsection (f) to carry out this section 
     and section 1932.
       ``(b) Scope of Benefits; Beneficiary Safeguards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Under a PACE program agreement, a PACE 
     provider shall--
       ``(A) provide to PACE program eligible individuals, 
     regardless of source of payment and directly or under 
     contracts with other entities, at a minimum--
       ``(i) all items and services covered under this title (for 
     individuals enrolled under this section) and all items and 
     services covered under title XIX, but without any limitation 
     or condition as to amount, duration, or scope and without 
     application of deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other 
     cost-sharing that would otherwise apply under this title or 
     such title, respectively; and
       ``(ii) all additional items and services specified in 
     regulations, based upon those required under the PACE 
     protocol;
       ``(B) provide such enrollees access to necessary covered 
     items and services 24 hours per day, every day of the year;
       ``(C) provide services to such enrollees through a 
     comprehensive, multidisciplinary health and social services 
     delivery system which integrates acute and long-term care 
     services pursuant to regulations; and
       ``(D) specify the covered items and services that will not 
     be provided directly by the entity, and to arrange for 
     delivery of those items and services through contracts 
     meeting the requirements of regulations.
       ``(2) Quality assurance; patient safeguards.--The PACE 
     program agreement shall require the PACE provider to have in 
     effect at a minimum--
       ``(A) a written plan of quality assurance and improvement, 
     and procedures implementing such plan, in accordance with 
     regulations, and
       ``(B) written safeguards of the rights of enrolled 
     participants (including a patient bill of rights and 
     procedures for grievances and appeals) in accordance with 
     regulations and with other requirements of this title and 
     Federal and State law designed for the protection of 
     patients.
       ``(c) Eligibility Determinations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The determination of whether an 
     individual is a PACE program eligible individual--
       ``(A) shall be made under and in accordance with the PACE 
     program agreement, and
       ``(B) who is entitled to medical assistance under title 
     XIX, shall be made (or who is not so entitled, may be made) 
     by the State administering agency.
       ``(2) Condition.--An individual is not a PACE program 
     eligible individual (with respect to payment under this 
     section) unless the individual's health status has been 
     determined, in accordance with regulations, to be comparable 
     to the health status of individuals who have participated in 
     the PACE demonstration waiver programs. Such determination 
     shall be based upon information on health status and related 
     indicators (such as medical diagnoses and measures of 
     activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily 
     living, and cognitive impairment) that are part of a uniform 
     minimum data set collected by PACE providers on potential 
     eligible individuals.
       ``(3) Annual eligibility recertifications.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     determination described in subsection (a)(5)(B) for an 
     individual shall be reevaluated not more frequently than 
     annually.
       ``(B) Exception.--The requirement of annual reevaluation 
     under subparagraph (A) may be waived during a period in 
     accordance with regulations in those cases where the State 
     administering agency determines that there is no reasonable 
     expectation of improvement or significant change in an 
     individual's condition during the period because of the 
     advanced age, severity of the advanced age, severity of 
     chronic condition, or degree

[[Page S4229]]

     of impairment of functional capacity of the individual 
     involved.
       ``(4) Continuation of eligibility.--An individual who is a 
     PACE program eligible individual may be deemed to continue to 
     be such an individual notwithstanding a determination that 
     the individual no longer meets the requirement of subsection 
     (a)(5)(B) if, in accordance with regulations, in the absence 
     of continued coverage under a PACE program the individual 
     reasonably would be expected to meet such requirement within 
     the succeeding 6-month period.
       ``(5) Enrollment; disenrollment.--The enrollment and 
     disenrollment of PACE program eligible individuals in a PACE 
     program shall be pursuant to regulations and the PACE program 
     agreement and shall permit enrollees to voluntarily disenroll 
     without cause at any time.
       ``(d) Payments to PACE Providers on a Capitated Basis.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a PACE provider with a 
     PACE program agreement under this section, except as provided 
     in this subsection or by regulations, the Secretary shall 
     make prospective monthly payments of a capitation amount for 
     each PACE program eligible individual enrolled under the 
     agreement under this section in the same manner and from the 
     same sources as payments are made to an eligible organization 
     under a risk-sharing contract under section 1876. Such 
     payments shall be subject to adjustment in the manner 
     described in section 1876(a)(1)(E).
       ``(2) Capitation amount.--The capitation amount to be 
     applied under this subsection for a provider for a contract 
     year shall be an amount specified in the PACE program 
     agreement for the year. Such amount shall be based upon 
     payment rates established under section 1876 for risk-sharing 
     contracts and shall be adjusted to take into account the 
     comparative frailty of PACE enrollees and such other factors 
     as the Secretary determines to be appropriate. Such amount 
     under such an agreement shall be computed in a manner so that 
     the total payment level for all PACE program eligible 
     individuals enrolled under a program is less than the 
     projected payment under this title for a comparable 
     population not enrolled under a PACE program.
       ``(e) PACE Program Agreement.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary, in close cooperation with 
     the State administering agency, shall establish procedures 
     for entering into, extending, and terminating PACE program 
     agreements for the operation of PACE programs by entities 
     that meet the requirements for a PACE provider under this 
     section, section 1932, and regulations.
       ``(B) Numerical limitation.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall not permit the 
     number of PACE providers with which agreements are in effect 
     under this section or under section 9412(b) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 to exceed--

       ``(I) 40 as of the date of the enactment of this section, 
     or
       ``(II) as of each succeeding anniversary of such date, the 
     numerical limitation under this subparagraph for the 
     preceding year plus 20.

     Subclause (II) shall apply without regard to the actual 
     number of agreements in effect as of a previous anniversary 
     date.
       ``(ii) Treatment of certain private, for-profit 
     providers.--The numerical limitation in clause (i) shall not 
     apply to a PACE provider that--

       ``(I) is operating under a demonstration project waiver 
     under subsection (h), or
       ``(II) was operating under such a waiver and subsequently 
     qualifies for PACE provider status pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(3)(B)(ii).

       ``(2) Service area and eligibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--A PACE program agreement for a PACE 
     program--
       ``(i) shall designate the service area of the program;
       ``(ii) may provide additional requirements for individuals 
     to qualify as PACE program eligible individuals with respect 
     to the program;
       ``(iii) shall be effective for a contract year, but may be 
     extended for additional contract years in the absence of a 
     notice by a party to terminate and is subject to termination 
     by the Secretary and the State administering agency at any 
     time for cause (as provided under the agreement);
       ``(iv) shall require a PACE provider to meet all applicable 
     State and local laws and requirements; and
       ``(v) shall have such additional terms and conditions as 
     the parties may agree to consistent with this section and 
     regulations.
       ``(B) Service area overlap.--In designating a service area 
     under a PACE program agreement under subparagraph (A)(i), the 
     Secretary (in consultation with the State administering 
     agency) may exclude from designation an area that is already 
     covered under another PACE program agreement, in order to 
     avoid unnecessary duplication of services and avoid impairing 
     the financial and service viability of an existing program.
       ``(3) Data collection.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under a PACE program agreement, the PACE 
     provider shall--
       ``(i) collect data,
       ``(ii) maintain, and afford the Secretary and the State 
     administering agency access to, the records relating to the 
     program, including pertinent financial, medical, and 
     personnel records, and
       ``(iii) make to the Secretary and the State administering 
     agency reports that the Secretary finds (in consultation with 
     State administering agencies) necessary to monitor the 
     operation, cost, and effectiveness of the PACE program under 
     this Act.
       ``(B) Requirements during trial period.--During the first 
     three years of operation of a PACE program (either under this 
     section or under a PACE demonstration waiver program), the 
     PACE provider shall provide such additional data as the 
     Secretary specifies in regulations in order to perform the 
     oversight required under paragraph (4)(A).
       ``(4) Oversight.--
       ``(A) Annual, close oversight during trial period.--During 
     the trial period (as defined in subsection (a)(9)) with 
     respect to a PACE program operated by a PACE provider, the 
     Secretary (in cooperation with the State administering 
     agency) shall conduct a comprehensive annual review of the 
     operation of the PACE program by the provider in order to 
     assure compliance with the requirements of this section and 
     regulations. Such a review shall include--
       ``(i) an on-site visit to the program site;
       ``(ii) comprehensive assessment of a provider's fiscal 
     soundness;
       ``(iii) comprehensive assessment of the provider's capacity 
     to provide all PACE services to all enrolled participants;
       ``(iv) detailed analysis of the entity's substantial 
     compliance with all significant requirements of this section 
     and regulations; and
       ``(v) any other elements the Secretary or State agency 
     considers necessary or appropriate.
       ``(B) Continuing oversight.--After the trial period, the 
     Secretary (in cooperation with the State administering 
     agency) shall continue to conduct such review of the 
     operation of PACE providers and PACE programs as may be 
     appropriate, taking into account the performance level of a 
     provider and compliance of a provider with all significant 
     requirements of this section and regulations.
       ``(C) Disclosure.--The results of reviews under this 
     paragraph shall be reported promptly to the PACE provider, 
     along with any recommendations for changes to the provider's 
     program, and shall be made available to the public upon 
     request.
       ``(5) Termination of pace provider agreements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under regulations--
       ``(i) the Secretary or a State administering agency may 
     terminate a PACE program agreement for cause, and
       ``(ii) a PACE provider may terminate an agreement after 
     appropriate notice to the Secretary, the State agency, and 
     enrollees.
       ``(B) Causes for termination.--In accordance with 
     regulations establishing procedures for termination of PACE 
     program agreements, the Secretary or a State administering 
     agency may terminate a PACE program agreement with a PACE 
     provider for, among other reasons, the fact that--
       ``(i) the Secretary or State administering agency 
     determines that--

       ``(I) there are significant deficiencies in the quality of 
     care provided to enrolled participants; or
       ``(II) the provider has failed to comply substantially with 
     conditions for a program or provider under this section or 
     section 1932; and

       ``(ii) the entity has failed to develop and successfully 
     initiate, within 30 days of the receipt of written notice of 
     such a determination, and continue implementation of a plan 
     to correct the deficiencies.
       ``(C) Termination and transition procedures.--An entity 
     whose PACE provider agreement is terminated under this 
     paragraph shall implement the transition procedures required 
     under subsection (a)(2)(C).
       ``(6) Secretary's oversight; enforcement authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--Under regulations, if the Secretary 
     determines (after consultation with the State administering 
     agency) that a PACE provider is failing substantially to 
     comply with the requirements of this section and regulations, 
     the Secretary (and the State administering agency) may take 
     any or all of the following actions:
       ``(i) Condition the continuation of the PACE program 
     agreement upon timely execution of a corrective action plan.
       ``(ii) Withhold some or all further payments under the PACE 
     program agreement under this section or section 1932 with 
     respect to PACE program services furnished by such provider 
     until the deficiencies have been corrected.
       ``(iii) Terminate such agreement.
       ``(B) Application of intermediate sanctions.--Under 
     regulations, the Secretary may provide for the application 
     against a PACE provider of remedies described in section 
     1876(i)(6)(B) or 1903(m)(5)(B) in the case of violations by 
     the provider of the type described in section 1876(i)(6)(A) 
     or 1903(m)(5)(A), respectively (in relation to agreements, 
     enrollees, and requirements under this section or section 
     1932, respectively).
       ``(7) Procedures for termination or imposition of 
     sanctions.--Under regulations, the provisions of section 
     1876(i)(9) shall apply to termination and sanctions 
     respecting a PACE program agreement and PACE provider under 
     this subsection in the same manner as they apply to a 
     termination and sanctions with respect to a contract and an 
     eligible organization under section 1876.
       ``(8) Timely consideration of applications for pace program 
     provider status.--In considering an application for PACE 
     provider program status, the application shall

[[Page S4230]]

     be deemed approved unless the Secretary, within 90 days after 
     the date of the submission of the application to the 
     Secretary, either denies such request in writing or informs 
     the applicant in writing with respect to any additional 
     information that is needed in order to make a final 
     determination with respect to the application. After the date 
     the Secretary receives such additional information, the 
     application shall be deemed approved unless the Secretary, 
     within 90 days of such date, denies such request.
       ``(f) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue interim final 
     or final regulations to carry out this section and section 
     1932.
       ``(2) Use of pace protocol.--
       ``(A) In general.--In issuing such regulations, the 
     Secretary shall, to the extent consistent with the provisions 
     of this section, incorporate the requirements applied to PACE 
     demonstration waiver programs under the PACE protocol.
       ``(B) Flexibility.--The Secretary (in close consultation 
     with State administering agencies) may modify or waive such 
     provisions of the PACE protocol in order to provide for 
     reasonable flexibility in adapting the PACE service delivery 
     model to the needs of particular organizations (such as those 
     in rural areas or those that may determine it appropriate to 
     use non-staff physicians accordingly to State licensing law 
     requirements) under this section and section 1932 where such 
     flexibility is not inconsistent with and would not impair the 
     essential elements, objectives, and requirements of the this 
     section, including--
       ``(i) the focus on frail elderly qualifying individuals who 
     require the level of care provided in a nursing facility;
       ``(ii) the delivery of comprehensive, integrated acute and 
     long-term care services;
       ``(iii) the interdisciplinary team approach to care 
     management and service delivery;
       ``(iv) capitated, integrated financing that allows the 
     provider to pool payments received from public and private 
     programs and individuals; and
       ``(v) the assumption by the provider over time of full 
     financial risk.
       ``(3) Application of certain additional beneficiary and 
     program protections.--
       ``(A) In general.--In issuing such regulations and subject 
     to subparagraph (B), the Secretary may apply with respect to 
     PACE programs, providers, and agreements such requirements of 
     sections 1876 and 1903(m) relating to protection of 
     beneficiaries and program integrity as would apply to 
     eligible organizations under risk-sharing contracts under 
     section 1876 and to health maintenance organizations under 
     prepaid capitation agreements under section 1903(m).
       ``(B) Considerations.--In issuing such regulations, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(i) take into account the differences between populations 
     served and benefits provided under this section and under 
     sections 1876 and 1903(m);
       ``(ii) not include any requirement that conflicts with 
     carrying out PACE programs under this section; and
       ``(iii) not include any requirement restricting the 
     proportion of enrollees who are eligible for benefits under 
     this title or title XIX.
       ``(g) Waivers of Requirements.--With respect to carrying 
     out a PACE program under this section, the following 
     requirements of this title (and regulations relating to such 
     requirements) are waived and shall not apply:
       ``(1) Section 1812, insofar as it limits coverage of 
     institutional services.
       ``(2) Sections 1813, 1814, 1833, and 1886, insofar as such 
     sections relate to rules for payment for benefits.
       ``(3) Sections 1814(a)(2)(B), 1814(a)(2)(C), and 
     1835(a)(2)(A), insofar as they limit coverage of extended 
     care services or home health services.
       ``(4) Section 1861(i), insofar as it imposes a 3-day prior 
     hospitalization requirement for coverage of extended care 
     services.
       ``(5) Sections 1862(a)(1) and 1862(a)(9), insofar as they 
     may prevent payment for PACE program services to individuals 
     enrolled under PACE programs.
       ``(h) Demonstration Project for For-Profit Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to demonstrate the operation of 
     a PACE program by a private, for-profit entity, the Secretary 
     (in close consultation with State administering agencies) 
     shall grant waivers from the requirement under subsection 
     (a)(3) that a PACE provider may not be a for-profit, private 
     entity.
       ``(2) Similar terms and conditions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph 
     (B), and paragraph (1), the terms and conditions for 
     operation of a PACE program by a provider under this 
     subsection shall be the same as those for PACE providers that 
     are nonprofit, private organizations.
       ``(B) Numerical limitation.--The number of programs for 
     which waivers are granted under this subsection shall not 
     exceed 10. Programs with waivers granted under this 
     subsection shall not be counted against the numerical 
     limitation specified in subsection (e)(1)(B).
       ``(i) Miscellaneous Provisions.--Nothing in this section or 
     section 1932 shall be construed as preventing a PACE provider 
     from entering into contracts with other governmental or 
     nongovernmental payers for the care of PACE program eligible 
     individuals who are not eligible for benefits under part A, 
     or enrolled under part B, or eligible for medical assistance 
     under title XIX.''.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF PACE PROGRAM AS MEDICAID STATE 
                   OPTION.

       (a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 1905(a) (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a))--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (24);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (25) as paragraph (26); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (24) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(25) services furnished under a PACE program under 
     section 1932 to PACE program eligible individuals enrolled 
     under the program under such section; and'';
       (2) by redesignating section 1932 as section 1933, and
       (3) by inserting after section 1931 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 1932. PROGRAM OF ALL-INCLUSIVE CARE FOR THE ELDERLY 
                   (PACE).

       ``(a) Option.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may elect to provide medical 
     assistance under this section with respect to PACE program 
     services to PACE program eligible individuals who are 
     eligible for medical assistance under the State plan and who 
     are enrolled in a PACE program under a PACE program 
     agreement. Such individuals need not be eligible for benefits 
     under part A, or enrolled under part B, of title XVIII to be 
     eligible to enroll under this section.
       ``(2) Benefits through enrollment in pace program.--In the 
     case of an individual enrolled with a PACE program pursuant 
     to such an election--
       ``(A) the individual shall receive benefits under the plan 
     solely through such program, and
       ``(B) the PACE provider shall receive payment in accordance 
     with the PACE program agreement for provision of such 
     benefits.
       ``(3) Application of definitions.--The definitions of terms 
     under section 1894(a) shall apply under this section in the 
     same manner as they apply under section 1894.
       ``(b) Application of Medicare Terms and Conditions.--Except 
     as provided in this section, the terms and conditions for the 
     operation and participation of PACE program eligible 
     individuals in PACE programs offered by PACE providers under 
     PACE program agreements under section 1894 shall apply for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(c) Adjustment in Payment Amounts.--In the case of 
     individuals enrolled in a PACE program under this section, 
     the amount of payment under this section shall not be the 
     amount calculated under section 1894(d), but shall be an 
     amount, specified under the PACE agreement, which is less 
     than the amount that would otherwise have been made under the 
     State plan if the individuals were not so enrolled. The 
     payment under this section shall be in addition to any 
     payment made under section 1894 for individuals who are 
     enrolled in a PACE program under such section.
       ``(d) Waivers of Requirements.--With respect to carrying 
     out a PACE program under this section, the following 
     requirements of this title (and regulations relating to such 
     requirements) shall not apply:
       ``(1) Section 1902(a)(1), relating to any requirement that 
     PACE programs or PACE program services be provided in all 
     areas of a State.
       ``(2) Section 1902(a)(10), insofar as such section relates 
     to comparability of services among different population 
     groups.
       ``(3) Sections 1902(a)(23) and 1915(b)(4), relating to 
     freedom of choice of providers under a PACE program.
       ``(4) Section 1903(m)(2)(A), insofar as it restricts a PACE 
     provider from receiving prepaid capitation payments.
       ``(e) Post-Eligibility Treatment of Income.--A State may 
     provide for post-eligibility treatment of income for 
     individuals enrolled in PACE programs under this section in 
     the same manner as a State treats post-eligibility income for 
     individuals receiving services under a waiver under section 
     1915(c).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1902(j) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(j)) is 
     amended by striking ``(25)'' and inserting ``(26)''.
       (2) Section 1924(a)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
     5(a)(5)) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``from organizations 
     receiving certain waivers'' and inserting ``under pace 
     programs'', and
       (B) by striking ``from any organization'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``under a PACE demonstration waiver 
     program (as defined in subsection (a)(7) of section 1894) or 
     under a PACE program under section 1932.''.
       (3) Section 1903(f)(4)(C) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(f)(4)(C)) is amended by inserting ``or who is a PACE 
     program eligible individual enrolled in a PACE program under 
     section 1932,'' after ``section 1902(a)(10)(A),''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION.

       (a) Timely Issuance of Regulations; Effective Date.--The 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this Act in a timely manner. Such 
     regulations shall be designed so that entities may establish 
     and operate PACE programs under sections 1894 and 1932 for 
     periods beginning not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Expansion and Transition for PACE Demonstration Project 
     Waivers.--
       (1) Expansion in current number of demonstration 
     projects.--Section 9412(b) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1986, as amended by section 4118(g) of 
     the Omnibus

[[Page S4231]]

     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, except that the Secretary shall grant 
     waivers of such requirements to up to the applicable 
     numerical limitation specified in section 1894(e)(1)(B) of 
     the Social Security Act''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, including 
     permitting the organization to assume progressively (over the 
     initial 3-year period of the waiver) the full financial 
     risk''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``In granting further extensions, an organization 
     shall not be required to provide for reporting of information 
     which is only required because of the demonstration nature of 
     the project.''.
       (3) Elimination of replication requirement.--Subparagraph 
     (B) of paragraph (2) of such section shall not apply to 
     waivers granted under such section after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (4) Timely consideration of applications.--In considering 
     an application for waivers under such section before the 
     effective date of repeals under subsection (c), subject to 
     the numerical limitation under the amendment made by 
     paragraph (1), the application shall be deemed approved 
     unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services, within 90 
     days after the date of its submission to the Secretary, 
     either denies such request in writing or informs the 
     applicant in writing with respect to any additional 
     information which is needed in order to make a final 
     determination with respect to the application. After the date 
     the Secretary receives such additional information, the 
     application shall be deemed approved unless the Secretary, 
     within 90 days of such date, denies such request.
       (c) Priority and Special Consideration in Application.--
     During the 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act:
       (1) Provider status.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall give priority, in processing applications of 
     entities to qualify as PACE programs under section 1894 or 
     1932 of the Social Security Act--
       (A) first, to entities that are operating a PACE 
     demonstration waiver program (as defined in section 
     1894(a)(7) of such Act), and
       (B) then entities that have applied to operate such a 
     program as of May 1, 1997.
       (2) New waivers.--The Secretary shall give priority, in the 
     awarding of additional waivers under section 9412(b) of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986--
       (A) to any entities that have applied for such waivers 
     under such section as of May 1, 1997; and
       (B) to any entity that, as of May 1, 1997, has formally 
     contracted with a State to provide services for which payment 
     is made on a capitated basis with an understanding that the 
     entity was seeking to become a PACE provider.
       (3) Special consideration.--The Secretary shall give 
     special consideration, in the processing of applications 
     described in paragraph (1) and the awarding of waivers 
     described in paragraph (2), to an entity which as of May 1, 
     1997 through formal activities (such as entering into 
     contracts for feasibility studies) has indicated a specific 
     intent to become a PACE provider.
       (d) Repeal of Current PACE Demonstration Project Waiver 
     Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the following 
     provisions of law are repealed:
       (A) Section 603(c) of the Social Security Amendments of 
     1983 (Public Law 98-21).
       (B) Section 9220 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-272).
       (C) Section 9412(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-509).
       (2) Delay in application.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the repeals 
     made by paragraph (1) shall not apply to waivers granted 
     before the initial effective date of regulations described in 
     subsection (a).
       (B) Application to approved waivers.--Such repeals shall 
     apply to waivers granted before such date only after allowing 
     such organizations a transition period (of up to 24 months) 
     in order to permit sufficient time for an orderly transition 
     from demonstration project authority to general authority 
     provided under the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 5. STUDY AND REPORTS.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (in close consultation with State administering agencies, as 
     defined in section 1894(a)(8) of the Social Security Act) 
     shall conduct a study of the quality and cost of providing 
     PACE program services under the medicare and medicaid 
     programs under the amendments made by this Act
       (2) Study of private, for-profit providers.-- Such study 
     shall specifically compare the costs, quality, and access to 
     services by entities that are private, for-profit entities 
     operating under demonstration projects waivers granted under 
     section 1894(h) of the Social Security Act with the costs, 
     quality, and access to services of other PACE providers.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide for a 
     report to Congress on the impact of such amendments on 
     quality and cost of services. The Secretary shall include in 
     such report such recommendations for changes in the operation 
     of such amendments as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (2) Treatment of private, for-profit providers.--The report 
     shall include specific findings on whether any of the 
     following findings is true:
       (A) The number of covered lives enrolled with entities 
     operating under demonstration project waivers under section 
     1894(h) of the Social Security Act is fewer than 800 (or such 
     lesser number as the Secretary may find statistically 
     sufficient to make determinations respecting findings 
     described in the succeeding subparagraphs).
       (B) The population enrolled with such entities is less 
     frail than the population enrolled with other PACE providers.
       (C) Access to or quality of care for individuals enrolled 
     with such entities is lower than such access or quality for 
     individuals enrolled with other PACE providers.
       (D) The application of such section has resulted in an 
     increase in expenditures under the medicare or medicaid 
     programs above the expenditures that would have been made if 
     such section did not apply.
       (c) Information Included in Annual Recommendations.--The 
     Physician Payment Review Commission shall include in its 
     annual recommendations under section 1845(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-1), and the Prospective Payment 
     Review Commission shall include in its annual recommendations 
     reported under section 1886(e)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(e)(3)(A)), recommendations on the methodology and 
     level of payments made to PACE providers under section 
     1894(d) of such Act and on the treatment of private, for-
     profit entities as PACE providers.
 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing 
the PACE Provider Act of 1997. I am pleased to support this very worthy 
program, aimed at increasing community based long term care options for 
seniors which was initiated and pursued by Senator Dole over the past 
several years.
  This bill amends present law by increasing the number of high 
quality, comprehensive, community based services available to seniors 
who would otherwise be forced into nursing homes.
  Frail older people, particularly those 85 years and older are the 
fastest growing population group in this country and have multiple and 
complex chronic illnesses. More than 50 percent of this population 
require some assistance with activities of daily living.
  At the same time, the cost of caring for the frail elderly is 
skyrocketing. Many elderly and individuals with disabilities are 
eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. These dual eligibles have 
multidimensional, interdependent, and chronic health care needs. They 
are at risk for nursing home placement and require acute and long-term 
care service integration if they are to remain at home. However, as 
currently structured, the Medicare and Medicaid Programs are not 
sufficiently coordinated to serve many of these complex health needs. 
In addition, these programs have traditionally favored institutional 
care rather than community based or home care. These problems result in 
duplication and fragmentation of services as well as increased health 
costs.
  In my own State of Tennessee, the home health industry has come under 
fire because of high Medicare utilization rates. This is partly because 
there are almost no Medicaid long term care options available to 
Tennesseans who want to stay at home. Consequently, nursing home care 
is the only option for frail elders unless they have enough money to 
pay privately for their care or if family members can afford to be the 
primary giver. Tennesseans should be able to choose from a broad array 
of community based long term care services and should not be limited to 
institutional care.
  So, if we are to control costs while providing high quality care to 
this vulnerable population, we must increase long term care 
opportunities and provide better coordination between Medicare and 
Medicaid reimbursement systems.
  PACE, Program for All-inclusive Care of the Elderly, is the only 
program which integrates acute and long term care service delivery and 
finance. Designed to help the at-risk elderly who need service 
integration, it represents a fundamental shift in the way needed health 
services are accessed. By using capitation mechanisms which pool funds 
from Medicare, Medicaid and private pay sources, this program joins 
medical services with established long term care services. Care is 
managed and coordinated by an interdisciplinary team that is 
responsible for service allocation decisions.

[[Page S4232]]

  As a result: duplicate services and ineffective treatments are 
eliminated; participants have access to the entire spectrum of acute 
and long-term care services, all provided and coordinated by a single 
organization; and enrollees are relieved of the burden of independently 
navigating the bewildering health-care maze.
  How well has it worked? The accomplishments of PACE include: 
controlled utilization of both outpatient and inpatient services; 
controlled utilization of specialist services; high consumer 
satisfaction; capitation rates which provide significant savings from 
per capita nursing home costs or community long term care costs; and 
ethnic and racial distributions of beneficiaries served which reflect 
the communities from which PACE draws its participants.
  Most importantly, PACE has been able to shift location of care from 
the inpatient acute care setting to the community setting. By 
integrating social and medical services through adult day health care, 
PACE has made it possible for frail elders to continue to live at home, 
not in a nursing care facility.
  Are there other alternatives? Medicare HMO's and Social HMO's have 
also attempted to control costs while providing access to high quality 
care. However, Medicare HMO's exclude long term care and typically do 
not serve many frail older persons on an ongoing basis. Social HMO's 
also limit the long term care benefits available to their members. 
These programs are important, but simply do not meet the needs of this 
particular population. PACE, on the other hand, serves frail elders 
exclusively and provide a continuum of care. It provides all acute and 
long term care services according to participant needs and without 
limits on benefits.
  Unfortunately, the number of persons enrolled in PACE nationally is 
minuscule compared with other managed care systems. States such as 
Tennessee are eager to participate. However, the number of 
participating sites has been capped under current legislation.

  The PACE Provider Act of 1997 increases the number of sites 
authorized to provide comprehensive, community-based services to frail, 
older adults from 15 to 40 with an additional 20 to be added each year; 
and affords regular provider status to existing sites.
  Specifically, the bill:
  Specifies that PACE sites be lower in cost than the alternative 
health care services available to PACE enrollees, a goal which has 
already been accomplished; includes quality of care safeguards; gives 
States the option of utilizing PACE programs based on their need for 
alternatives to long-term institutional care and the program's 
continuing cost-effectiveness; and allows for-profit entities to 
participate in PACE as a demonstration project.
  PACE services frail older people of diverse ethnic heritage and has 
operated successfully under different state and local environments. 
This program deserves expansion.
  The PACE Provider Act of 1997 does exactly that. It makes the PACE 
alternative available for the first time to many communities. It also 
allows more entities in the healthcare marketplace to participate in a 
new way of providing care for frail elders. PACE gives us a chance to 
contain costs while providing high quality care to one of our most 
vulnerable populations.
  The PACE program's integration of health and social services, its 
cost-effective, coordinated system of care delivery and its method of 
integrated financing have wide applicability and appeal. It is an 
exciting way to satisfying an urgent need and I wholeheartedly support 
it.
 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce the PACE Provider Act 
of 1997 with my distinguished colleague Senator Grassley.
  The Program for All-inclusive Care for the Elderly [PACE] Act of 1997 
began in 1983 with the passage of legislation authorizing On Lok, the 
prototype for the PACE model, as a demonstration program. In 1986 
Congress passed legislation to test the replicability of On Lok's 
success by authorizing Medicare and Medicaid waivers for up to 10 
replication sites; and in 1989 the number of authorized sites was 
increased to 15. The PACE Provider Act of 1997 is the next step in a 
series of legislative actions taken by Congress to develop PACE as a 
community-based alternative to nursing home care.
  Currently PACE programs provide services to approximately 3,000 
individuals in eight States: California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New 
York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. There are also 15 
PACE programs in development which are operational, although not 
involved in Medicare capitation. In addition, a number of other 
organizations are actively working to develop PACE programs in other 
States including: Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, Michigan, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.
  PACE is unique in a variety of ways. First, PACE programs serve only 
the very frail--older persons who meet their States' eligibility 
criteria for nursing home care. This high-cost population is of 
particular concern to policy makers because of the disproportionate 
share of resources they use relative to their numbers.
  Second, PACE programs provide a comprehensive package of primary 
acute and long-term care services. All services, including primary and 
specialty medical care, adult day care, home care, nursing, social work 
services, physical and occupational therapies, prescription drugs, 
hospital and nursing home care are coordinated and administered by PACE 
program staff.
  Third, PACE programs are cost-effective in that they are reimbursed 
on a capitated basis, at rates that provide payers savings relative to 
their expenditures in the traditional Medicare, Medicaid, and private 
pay systems. Finally, PACE programs are unique in that a mature program 
assumes total financial risk and responsibility for all acute and long-
term care without limitation.
  The PACE Provider Act does not expand eligibility criteria for 
benefits in any way. Rather, it makes available to individuals already 
eligible for nursing home care, because of their poor health status, a 
preferable, and less costly alternative.
  By expanding the availability of community-based long-term care 
services, On Lok's success of providing high quality care with an 
emphasis on preventive and supportive services, can be replicated 
throughout the country. PACE programs have substantially reduced 
utilization of high-cost inpatient services. Although all PACE 
enrollees are eligible for nursing home care, just 6 percent of these 
individuals are permanently institutionalized. The vast majority are 
able to remain in the community and PACE enrollees are also 
hospitalized less frequently. Through PACE, dollars that would have 
been spent on hospital and nursing home services are used to expand the 
availability of community-based long-term care.
  This bill would expand the number of non-profit entities to become 
PACE providers to 45 within the first year and allow 20 new such 
programs each year thereafter. In addition, the PACE Provider Act of 
1997 will establish a demonstration project to allow no more than 10 
for-profit organizations to establish themselves as PACE providers. The 
number of for-profit entities will not be counted against the numerical 
limitation specified for non-profit organizations.
  Analyses of costs for individuals enrolled in PACE show a 5- to 15-
percent reduction in Medicare and Medicaid spending relative to a 
comparably frail population in the traditional Medicare and Medicaid 
systems.
  States have voluntarily joined together with community organizations 
to develop PACE programs out of their commitment to developing viable 
alternatives to institutionalization. This legislation provides States 
with the option of pursuing PACE development; and, as under present 
law, State participation would remain voluntary.
  As our population ages, we must continue to place a high priority on 
long-term care services. Giving our seniors alternatives to nursing 
home care and expanding the choices available, is not only cost-
effective, but will also improve the quality of life for older 
Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 721. A bill to require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a 
study of the marketing and advertising practices of manufacturers and 
retailers of personal computers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.

[[Page S4233]]

         THE PERSONAL COMPUTER TRUTH IN ADVERTISING ACT OF 1997

 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The 
Personal Computer Truth in Advertising Act of 1997,'' which is designed 
to ensure that consumers are provided with accurate information about 
the performance of what is becoming one of the most important consumer 
products in the Nation, the personal computer.
  My bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and 
conduct a study of the marketing and advertising practices of personal 
computer manufacturers and retailers with regard to possibly misleading 
claims made about the performance of their products.
  As we head into the next century, the personal computer is quickly 
becoming one of the most important consumer products. Indeed, the 
market for computers in the home has exploded in recent years with the 
market expected to double by 2000. Still, despite their growing 
popularity, purchasing a personal computer involves technology and 
terminology that can be very intimidating and confusing to the average 
consumer.
  Of particular concern to me is a practice by personal computer 
retailers and manufacturers in how they advertise the speed of the 
central processing unit (CPU) of the personal computer. Indeed, when 
marketing and advertising personal computers, the CPU speed is a 
prominent selling point and consumers are frequently charged hundreds 
of dollars more for models with faster CPU's.
  The CPU is to the personal computer as an engine is to an automobile. 
Measured in millions of cycles per second [mhz], the faster the CPU, 
the better the software performs. The CPU's in personal computers, 
including the popular Pentium chip, operate at two speeds, an external 
speed and an internal speed. The external speed affects computing 
activity the user sees in action--the scrolling of a web page or a word 
processing document, the smoothness of an animated interactive 
storybook and the complexity and frame rate of a flight simulator. The 
internal speed of the CPU involves activity invisible to the user--
spreadsheet calculations, spell checking and database organization.
  Nonetheless, personal computers are commonly marketed according to 
their internal, and faster, speed. For example, a Pentium computer 
advertised as a 200 mhz screamer runs at only 66 mhz externally. Still, 
most advertisements fail to mention this discrepancy and retailers and 
manufacturers charge hundreds of dollars more for the 200 mhz than they 
would for a 66 mhz model.
  Moreover, driving the sales of personal computers has been the 
availability of advanced multimedia and interactive entertainment 
software. This is the very software whose performance depends greatly 
on the CPU's external clock speed.
  My legislation would require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct 
a study of the marketing and advertising practices of manufacturers and 
retailers of personal computers, with particular emphasis on claims 
made about the CPU. My bill requires the FTC to perform their study 
within 180 days of enactment of the bill. I had previously written to 
the FTC on this issue as a member of the House.
  Car manufacturers provide both highway and city mileage performance 
figures for the performance of their engines and computer manufacturers 
should follow the same logic with the engines of the personal computer, 
the CPU.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and I will work hard for 
its enactment into law.
  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. 721

       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 ``Personal Computer Truth in 
     Advertising Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) computer manufacturers and retailers commonly refer to 
     the speed of the central processing unit of a personal 
     computer in selling a personal computer;
       (2) computer manufacturers and retailers commonly charge 
     hundreds of dollars more for a CPU that has a faster speed;
       (3) all CPUs operate at 2 speeds (measured in megahertz 
     (MHz)), an external speed and an internal speed;
       (4) the external speed of a personal computer affects 
     computing activities that computer users experience, 
     including the scrolling of a word processing document, the 
     smoothness of an animation, and the complexity and frame rate 
     of a flight simulator;
       (5) the internal speed of a personal computer, which is 
     faster than the external speed of the computer, affects 
     activities, such as spreadsheet calculations, spelling 
     checks, and database organizations;
       (6) it is common for manufacturers and retailers to mention 
     the internal speed of a CPU without mentioning its external 
     speed for the marketing and advertising of a personal 
     computer; and
       (7) a study by the Federal Trade Commission would assist in 
     determining whether any practice of computer retailers and 
     manufacturers in providing CPU speeds in advertising and 
     marketing personal computers is deceptive, for purposes of 
     the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Central processing unit; cpu.--The term ``central 
     processing unit'' or ``CPU'' means the central processing 
     unit of a personal computer.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (3) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' shall have the 
     meaning provided that term by the Commission.
       (4) Megahertz.--The term ``megahertz'' or ``MHz'', when 
     used as a unit of measurement of the speed of a CPU, means 
     1,000,000 cycles per second.
       (5) Retailer.--The term ``retailer'' shall have the meaning 
     provided that term by the Commission.

     SEC. 4. PERSONAL COMPUTER MARKETING AND ADVERTISING STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall conduct a study 
     of the marketing and advertising practices of manufacturers 
     and retailers of personal computers.
       (b) Contents of Study.--In conducting the study under this 
     subsection, the Commission shall give particular emphasis to 
     determining--
       (1) whether the practice of the advertising of the internal 
     speed of a CPU in megahertz, without mentioning the external 
     speed of a CPU, could be considered to be an unfair or 
     deceptive practice, within the meaning of section 5 of the 
     Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45); and
       (2) the extent to which the practice referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is used in the marketing and advertising of 
     personal computers.
       (c) Report.--Upon completion of the study under subsection 
     (a), the Chairman of the Commission shall transmit to 
     Congress a report that contains--
       (1) the findings of the study conducted under this section; 
     and
       (2) such recommendations as the Commission determines to be 
     appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 722. A bill to benefit consumers by promoting competition in the 
electric power industry, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


The Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act 
                            of 1997 [EURECA]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric 
Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1997. This 
legislation, which gives states the authority to order the delivery of 
electric energy to all retail consumers, is based on the idea that less 
government intervention is the best way to achieve affordable, reliable 
and competitive options for retail electric energy services.
  This is a substantially different approach from other measures that 
have been introduced in both the House and Senate to restructure the 
nation's electric utility industry. I do not believe that a federal 
mandate on the states requiring retail competition by a date certain is 
in the best interest of all classes of customers. I am concerned that 
this method could result in increased electricity rates for low-density 
states or states that have relatively low-cost power. Electricity is an 
essential commodity critical to everyday life in this country. It is 
also an industry heavily regulated at the Federal and State levels. If 
the Congress is going to make fundamental changes to the last major 
regulated monopoly, its role should be to help implement competitive 
changes in a positive manner, rather than interject the heavy hand of 
government with a ``Washington-knows-best'' mentality.
  This legislation comes down on the side of States' rights. Having 
been involved in the electric power industry, I understand the unique 
characteristics of each State. As most everyone knows, California was 
the first State to

[[Page S4234]]

pass a retail choice law. Since that time, Arizona, Massachusetts, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Texas, Montana, Oklahoma and 
others have followed suit.
  According to Bruce Ellsworth, President of the National Association 
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners [NARUC], ``more than one-third of 
the Nation's population live in states that have chosen within the last 
year to move to open-access, customer choice markets.'' All told, every 
state except one is in the process of either examining or implementing 
policies for retail consumers of electric energy. States are clearly 
taking the lead--they should continue to have that role--and this bill 
confirms their authority by affirming States' ability to implement 
retail choice policies.
  This initiative leaves important functions, including the ability to 
recover stranded costs, establish and enforce reliability standards, 
promote renewable energy resources and support public benefit and 
assistance to low-income and rural consumer programs in the hands of 
State Public Service Commissions [PUC's]. If a State desires to impose 
a funding mechanism--such as wires charges--to encourage that a certain 
percentage of energy production comes from renewable alternatives, they 
should have that opportunity. However, I do not believe a nationally 
mandated set-aside is the best way to promote competition. Likewise, 
individual states would have the authority over retail transactions. 
This ensures that certain customers could not bypass their local 
distribution system and avoid responsibility for paying their share of 
stranded costs.

  One of the most important aspects of this debate--assuring that 
universal service is maintained--is a critical function that each State 
PUC should have the ability to oversee and enforce. In my legislation, 
nothing would prohibit a state from requiring all electricity providers 
that sell electricity to retail customers in that state to provide 
electricity service to all classes and consumers of electric power.
  Mr. President, at the wholesale level, my proposal attempts to create 
greater competition by prospectively exempting the sale of electricity 
for resale from rates determined by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission [FERC]. Although everyone talks about ``deregulating'' the 
electricity industry, it is really the generation segment that will be 
deregulated. The FERC will continue to regulate transmission in 
interstate commerce, and State PUC's will continue to regulate retail 
distribution services and sales.
  When FERC issued Order 888 last year, it allowed utilities to seek 
market-based rates for new generating capacity. This provision goes a 
step further and allows utilities to purchase wholesale power from 
existing generating facilities, after the date of enactment of this 
Act, at prices solely determined by market forces.
  Furthermore, the measure expands FERC authority to require non-public 
utilities that own, operate or control transmission to open their 
systems. Currently, the Commission cannot require the Federal Power 
Marketing Administrations [PMA's], the Tennessee Valley Authority 
[TVA], municipalities and cooperatives that own transmission, to 
provide wholesale open access transmission service. According to 
Elizabeth Moler, Chairwoman of FERC, approximately 22 percent of all 
transmission is beyond open access authority. Requiring these non-
public utilities to provide this service will help ensure that a true 
wholesale power market exists.
  One of the key elements of this measure is streamlining and 
modernizing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 [PURPA] 
and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 [PUHCA]. While both 
of these initiatives were enacted with good intentions, and their 
obligations fulfilled, there is widespread consensus that the Acts have 
outlived their usefulness.
  My bill amends section 210 of PURPA on a prospective basis. Current 
PURPA contracts would continue to be honored and upheld. However, upon 
enactment of this legislation, a utility that begins operating would 
not be required to enter into a new contract or obligation to purchase 
electricity under section 210 of PURPA.
  With regard to PUHCA, I chose to incorporate Senator D'Amato's 
recently introduced legislation in my bill. As Chairman of the Senate 
Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over the issue, he has 
crafted a proposal that I believe will successfully reform the statute 
and I support his efforts. Under his proposal, the provisions of PUHCA 
would be repealed 18 months after the Act is signed into law. 
Furthermore, all books and records of each holding company and each 
associate company would be transferred from the Securities and Exchange 
Commission [SEC]--which currently has jurisdiction over the 15 
registered holding companies--to the FERC. This allows energy 
regulators, who truly know the industry, to oversee the operations of 
these companies and review acquisitions and mergers. These consumer 
protections are an important part of PUHCA reform.
  Mr. President, an issue which must be resolved in order for a true 
competitive environment to exist is that of utilities receiving special 
``subsidies'' by the federal government and the U.S. tax code. For 
years, investor-owned utilities [IOU's] have claimed inequity because 
of tax-exempt financing and low-interest loans that municipalities and 
rural cooperatives receive. On the other side of the equation, these 
public power systems maintain that IOU's are able to receive special 
tax treatment, not offered to them, which amounts to a ``tax free'' 
loan. The jury is still out on how best to deal with this thorny and, 
undoubtedly complex matter, but make no mistake about it, changes will 
be made.
  A viable option the Congress should consider is to ``build a fence'' 
around governmental utilities. Sales in existing service territories 
could continue to be financed using current methods. However, for sales 
outside of their traditional boundaries, these systems should operate 
on the same basis and play by the same rules as other competitors.
  The Congress should also address existing tax structures to determine 
if the ``benefits'' tax-paying utilities receive results in unfair 
advantages against their competitors. While tax initiatives, such as 
accelerated depreciation and investment tax credits, are available to 
all businesses that pay income tax, if this amounts to ``subsidies'' 
reforms may have to be made.
  My bill would direct the Inspector General of the Department of 
Treasury to file a report to the Congress detailing whether and how tax 
code incentives received by all utilities should be reviewed in order 
to foster a competitive retail electricity market in the future. 
Furthermore, I am pleased that Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, requested a report by 
the Joint Committee on Taxation to review all subsidies and incentives 
that investor-owned, publicly-owned and cooperatively-owned utilities 
receive.
  Mr. President, I believe EURECA is a common-sense approach that 
attempts to build consensus to solve some of the critical questions 
associated with this important issue. The states are moving and should 
continue to have the ability to craft electricity restructuring plans 
that recognize the uniqueness of each state. This legislation is the 
best solution to foster the debate and allow us to move forward with a 
better product for all classes of consumers and the industry as a 
whole.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 723. A bill to increase the safety of the American people by 
preventing dangerous military firearms in the control of foreign 
governments from being imported into the United States, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                   THE ANTI-GUN INVASION ACT OF 1997

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senators Boxer and Kerry 
and I are introducing legislation to ensure that millions of lethal 
American-manufactured military weapons will not be imported into this 
country. Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Maloney are introducing 
companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
  The bill we are introducing repeals a loophole in the law that could 
allow U.S. military weapons that were provided to foreign countries to 
be sold back to gun dealers in this country. The loophole permits the 
import of so-called ``curios or relics'' --weapons considered to have 
historic value or which are more than 50 years old.

[[Page S4235]]

 About 2.5 million American-manufactured military weapons that the U.S. 
Government gave away, sold, or were taken as spoils of war by foreign 
governments are at issue. This includes 1.2 million M-1 carbines, which 
are easily converted to fully automatic weapons. Though these weapons 
are older, they are lethal. I don't want them flooding America's 
streets. And I don't want foreign governments making a windfall by 
selling them to commercial gun dealers.
  As some of my colleagues may know, the term ``curios or relics'' was 
originally used in the Gun Control Act of 1968 to make it easier for 
licensed collectors to buy curios or relics weapons from outside his or 
her State of residence. The Treasury Department came up with a 
definition and list of ``curios or relics'' for this purpose. At that 
time, importation of surplus military weapons--whether of United States 
or foreign origin--was prohibited, and the curios or relics list had 
nothing to do with importing weapons.
  Nearly 20 years later, in 1984, a law was passed that expanded the 
scope of the curios or relics list in ways never foreseen at the time 
the list was first created. The modified law said that guns that were 
on the curios or relics list could not just be sold interstate within 
this country, but could be imported as well.
  However, the Arms Export Control Act still prohibited the importation 
of U.S. military weapons that had been furnished to foreign 
governments. Although a 1987 amendment to that Act authorized the 
importation of U.S.-origin military weapons on the curios or relics 
list as well, only one import license has been granted under the curios 
or relics exception. Since that isolated incident, every 
administration--Reagan, Bush, and Clinton--has adopted a policy 
established by the Reagan administration and based on the Arms Export 
Control Act of denying these kinds of import licenses.
  Though the Clinton administration and the past two Republican 
administrations have opposed importing these lethal weapons, the NRA 
supports importing them and it has allies on the Hill. Last year, an 
effort was made in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill to 
force the State Department to allow these weapons to be imported for 
any reason. That effort was killed as part of the negotiations on the 
catchall appropriations bill that was signed into law on September 30.
  The provision included in the Senate version of the C, J, S 
appropriations bill last year, section 621, would have prohibited any 
agency of the Government--notwithstanding any other provision of law--
from using appropriated funds to deny an application for a permit to 
import previously exported United States-origin military firearms, 
parts, or ammunition that are considered to be curios or relics. The 
provision would have forced the State Department to allow large numbers 
of U.S. military firearms that are currently in the possession of 
foreign governments to enter the United States commercially. Because so 
many of those firearms can be easily converted to automatic weapons, it 
would have undermined efforts to reduce gun violence in this country. 
In addition, it could have provided a windfall for foreign governments 
at the expense of the taxpayer.

  Certainly the dangers posed by many guns on the curios or relics 
list--in particular the M-1 carbine, which is easily converted into an 
automatic weapon--are an important reason for preventing imports of 
those guns. It is the main reason I am proposing legislation to clarify 
the law to prevent imports in the future. But the provisions of the 
Arms Export Control Act that limit the imports are not merely 
technical. They support a principle, included in the Arms Export 
Control Act, that is basic to the integrity of our foreign military 
assistance program: No foreign government should be allowed to do 
anything with weapons we have given them that we ourselves would not do 
with them. For example, the Department of Defense does not transfer 
weapons to a country that is our enemy; no foreign government should be 
allowed to use U.S.-supplied weapons in that way. The Department of 
Defense does not sell its excess guns directly to commercial dealers in 
the United States, and foreign governments should not be able to do so 
either.
  As recently as 1994, the General Services Administration Federal 
weapons task force reviewed U.S. policy for the disposal of firearms 
and confirmed a longstanding Government policy against selling or 
transferring excess weapons out of Government channels. The Federal 
Government has made a decision that it should not be an arms merchant. 
The Federal regulations that emerged from that task force review are 
clear. They say surplus firearms may be sold only for scrap after total 
destruction by crushing, cutting, breaking, or deforming to be 
performed in a manner to ensure that the firearms are rendered 
completely inoperative and to preclude their being made operative. 
These are sound regulations. The Department of Defense does not sell 
its guns to private arms dealers. Under the Arms Export Control Act, we 
should not allow foreign governments to sell 2.5 million U.S. military 
weapons to private arms dealers either.
  Flooding the market with these curios and relics would only make it 
harder for law enforcement to do its job. The Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms has already seen an increase in M-1 carbines that 
have been converted to fully automatic machine guns due to the 
availability and relatively low cost of the weapons. The more military 
weapons there are in this country, the more likely they are to fall 
into criminal hands. Surplus military weapons are usually cheap, and, 
if a government sells its whole stockpile, plentiful. A sudden increase 
in supply of M-1 garands and carbines and M-1911 pistols would drive 
down the price, making them less attractive to the collector and more 
attractive to the criminal.
  In fact, the administration opposed last year's provision, in part, 
because of the increased availability of low-cost weapons for criminals 
that invariably would have resulted. According to the administration, 
``The criminal element thrives on low-cost firearms that are 
concealable, or capable of accepting large-capacity magazines, or 
capable of being easily converted to fully automatic fire. Thus, such 
weapons would be particularly enticing to the criminal element. In 
short, the net effect of the proposal would be to thwart the 
administration's efforts to deny criminals the availability of 
inexpensive, but highly-lethal, imported firearms.''
  We know that the M-1 carbine has already been used to kill at least 6 
police officers. Another 3 were killed with M-1911 pistols. As recently 
as this January, two sheriff's deputies, James Lehmann, Jr. and Michael 
P. Haugen, were killed with an M-1 carbine while responding to a 
domestic violence call in Cabazon, CA. In October 1994, in Gilford, NH, 
Sgt. James Noyes of the State Police Special Weapons and Tactics Unit 
was killed in the line of duty with an M-1 carbine. In December 1992, 
two Richmond, CA police officers were killed with an M-1 carbine. In 
just one State, Pennsylvania, at least 10 people were killed using 
U.S.-origin military weapons during a recent 5-year period. To those 
who would argue that ``curios and relics'' are not used in crimes, I 
would say talk to the families of these victims.

  American-manufactured weapons were sold to foreign governments--often 
at a discount rate subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer--because we believed 
it was in our foreign policy interest to strengthen and assist our 
allies. We did not intend to enable foreign governments to make a 
profit by turning around and selling them back to commercial gun 
dealers in the U.S. We certainly did not help our allies so they could 
turn around and flood America's streets with lethal guns.
  We also did not provide weapons to foreign governments so they could 
reap a financial windfall at the expense of the taxpayer. Although the 
law could allow the United States Government to receive the net 
proceeds of any sales made by foreign governments of defense articles 
it received on a grant basis, the provision in the appropriations bill 
last year would have forced the administration--notwithstanding any 
other law --to approve the import license, even if a foreign government 
would not agree to provide proceeds of the sale. As such, it would 
undermine our government's ability to require foreign governments to 
return proceeds to the United States and could result in a windfall for 
foreign governments.

[[Page S4236]]

  Even more, some countries like Vietnam, which hold a significant 
quantity of spoils of war weapons, including ``curios or relics,'' 
could sell those ``spoils of war'' to U.S. importers at a financial 
gain. And, the Government of Iran, which received more than 25,000 M-
1911 pistols from the United States Government in the early 1970's, 
could qualify to export weapons to the United States at a financial 
gain as well.
  Allowing more than 2 million U.S.-origin military weapons to enter 
the United States would profit a limited number of arms importers. But 
it is not in the interest of the American people. I don't believe 
private gun dealers should have the ability to import these weapons 
from foreign governments. These weapons are not designed for hunting or 
shooting competitions. They are designed for war. Our own Department of 
Defense does not sell these weapons on the commercial market for 
profit. Why should we allow foreign countries to do so?
  Mr. President, this bill would confirm the policy against importing 
these lethal weapons by removing the ``curios or relics" exception from 
the Arms Export Control Act. Under this legislation, U.S. military 
weapons that the U.S. Government has provided to foreign countries 
could not be imported to the United States for sale in the United 
States by gun dealers. If a foreign government had no use for surplus 
American military weapons, those weapons could be returned to the Armed 
Forces of the United States or its allies, transferred to State or 
local law enforcement agencies in the United States, or destroyed. The 
legislation also asks the Treasury Department to provide a study on the 
importation of foreign-manufactured surplus military weapons.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this 
legislation appear in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 723

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Gun Invasion Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1950, the United States Government has furnished 
     to foreign governments at least 2,500,000 military firearms 
     that are considered to be ``curios or relics'' under the Gun 
     Control Act of 1968.
       (2) These firearms include more than 1,200,000 M-1 Carbine 
     rifles and 250,000 M1911 pistols of United States manufacture 
     that have been furnished to foreign governments under United 
     States foreign military assistance grant, loan, or sales 
     programs.
       (4) Criminals tend to use low-cost firearms that are 
     concealable, capable of accepting large-capacity magazines, 
     or are capable of being easily converted to fully automatic 
     fire.
       (5) An M-1 Carbine can be converted easily to a fully 
     automatic weapon by disassembling the weapon and reassembling 
     the weapon with a few additional parts.
       (6) An M1911 or M1911A pistol is easily concealable.
       (7) At least 9 police officers have been murdered in the 
     United States using M-1 Carbines or M1911 pistols in the past 
     7 years.
       (8) The importation of large numbers of ``curio or relic'' 
     weapons would lower their cost, make them more readily 
     available to criminals, and constitute a threat to public 
     safety and to law enforcement officers.
       (9) The importation of these ``curios or relics'' weapons 
     could result in a financial windfall for foreign governments.
       (10) In order to ensure that these weapons are never 
     permitted to be imported into the United States, a provision 
     of the Arms Export Control Act must be deleted.

     SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF EXEMPTION FROM PROHIBITION ON IMPORTS OF 
                   CERTAIN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION.

       (a) Removal of Exemption.--Section 38(b)(1) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (B), as added by section 8142(a) of the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1988 (contained in 
     Public Law 100-202).
       (b) Savings Provision.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall not affect any license issued before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. REPORT ON IMPORTS OF FOREIGN-MADE SURPLUS MILITARY 
                   FIREARMS THAT ARE CURIOS OR RELICS

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the scope and effect of the importation of 
     foreign-made surplus military firearms under section 925(e) 
     of title 18, United States Code. The report shall contain the 
     following:
       (1) Current importation.--A list of types and models of 
     military firearms currently being imported into the United 
     States as ``curios or relics'' under section 925(e) of title 
     18, United States Code, which would otherwise be barred from 
     importation as surplus military firearms under section 
     925(d)(3) of that title.
       (2) Importation during preceding 5 years.--A list of the 
     number of each type and model listed under paragraph (1) that 
     has been imported into the United States during the 5 years 
     preceding the date of submission of the report.
       (3) Ease of conversion.--A description of the ease with 
     which each type and model listed under paragraph (1) may be 
     converted to a semi-automatic assault weapon as defined in 
     section 921(a)(30)(B) of that title or to a fully automatic 
     weapon.
       (4) Involvement in criminal activities.--Statistics that 
     may be relevant to the use for criminal activities of each 
     type and model of weapons listed in paragraph (1), 
     including--
       (A) statistics involving the use of the weapons in 
     homicides of law enforcement officials; and
       (B) the number of firearm traces by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms that involved those weapons.
       (5) Comprehensive evaluation.--A comprehensive evaluation 
     of the scope of imports under section 925(e) of that title 
     and the use of such weapons in crimes in the United 
     States.
       By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
     Breaux, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Mosley-Braun, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
     D'Amato, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Mack, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Enzi and Mr. Hutchinson):

  S. 724. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
corporate alternative minimum tax reform; to the Committee on Finance.


             THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX REFORM ACT OF 1997

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, to introduce legislation to reform the 
Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT. We are joined in this effort by 13 of 
our colleagues, including a total of 10 Finance Committee members.
  Congress created the AMT in 1986 to prevent businesses from using tax 
loopholes, such as the investment tax credit or safe harbor leasing, to 
pay little or no tax. The use of these tax preferences sometimes 
resulted in companies reporting healthy ``book'' income to their 
shareholders but little taxable income to the government.
  Therefore, to create a perception of fairness, Congress created the 
AMT. The AMT requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes once under 
regular tax rules, and again under AMT rules which deny accelerated 
depreciation, net operating losses, foreign tax credits, and other 
deductions and credits. The taxpayer then pays the higher amount, and 
the difference between their AMT tax and their regular tax is credited 
to offset future regular tax liability if it eventually falls below 
their AMT tax liability.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, in the real world the AMT has reached 
far beyond its original purpose. As it is currently structured, the AMT 
is a massive, complicated, parallel tax code which places huge burdens 
on capital intensive companies. Corporations must now plan for and 
comply with two tax codes instead of one. Further, the elimination of 
accelerated depreciation increases the cost of investment and makes 
U.S. businesses uncompetitive with foreign companies.
  It makes little sense, Mr. President, to allow a reasonable business 
deduction under one tax code, and then take it away through another tax 
code. Perhaps there are some bureaucrats who believe regular tax 
depreciation is too generous and should be curtailed, but the AMT is an 
extremely complicated and convoluted way to accomplish that goal.
  The legislation I am introducing today would correct this problem by 
allowing businesses to use the same depreciation system for AMT 
purposes as they use for regular tax purposes. This one simple reform 
removes the disincentive to invest in job-producing assets and greatly 
simplifies compliance and reporting. In fact, this reform was first 
suggested by President Clinton in 1993.
  Further, my bill helps AMT taxpayers recover their AMT credits in a 
more reasonable timeframe than under current law. Many capital-
intensive businesses have become chronic AMT taxpayers, a situation 
that was not contemplated when the AMT was created. These companies 
continue to pay AMT year after year with no relief in

[[Page S4237]]

sight, and as a matter of function they accumulate millions in unused 
AMT credits. These credits are a tax on future, unearned revenues which 
may never materialize, and because of the time-value of money their 
value to the taxpayer decreases every year.
  Since Congress did not intend for the AMT to become a permanent tax 
system for certain taxpayers, my bill would allow chronic AMT taxpayers 
to use AMT credits which are 5-years-old or older to offset up to 50 
percent of their current-year tentative minimum tax. This provision 
will help chronic AMT taxpayers dig their way out of the AMT and allow 
them to recoup at least a portion of these accelerated tax payments in 
a reasonable manner and time-frame.
  Mr. President, as the Senate begins working out the details of the 
recent bipartisan budget accord and the resulting tax bill, I hope we 
will not forget the importance of savings and investment. In that 
regard, there are few tax code changes we could make which are more 
important than eliminating the investment disincentives created by the 
AMT.
  Does my legislation fix all of the AMT's problems? No, it does not. 
This bill specifically addresses the depreciation adjustment, but there 
are many other AMT adjustments, preferences, and limitations which are 
unchanged. Some of these, such as the 90-percent net operating loss 
limitation and the foreign tax credit limitation, are very damaging to 
business profitability and competitiveness. I hope all these issues 
will be examined when the Senate Finance Committee considers AMT 
reform.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there appear in the 
Record a list of the original cosponsors of this legislation, as well 
as statements of support by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 
National Association of Manufacturers. I encourage my colleagues to 
join Senator Rockefeller and me in this important initiative.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Alternative Minimum Tax Reform Act Cosponsors, 105th Congress

                (15 total, 10 from Committee on Finance)

       Sponsor: Nickles.
       Cosponsors: Rockefeller, Lott, Breaux, Hatch, Moseley-
     Braun, Murkowski, D'Amato, Gramm, Mack, Lieberman, Cochran, 
     Brownback, Enzi, and Hutchinson.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 1997.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Assistant Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--the 
     world's largest business federation representing an 
     underlying membership of more than three million businesses 
     and organizations of every size, sector, and region--supports 
     your legislation to reform the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
       The current AMT system unfairly penalizes businesses that 
     invest heavily in plant, machinery, equipment and other 
     assets. The AMT significantly increases the cost of capital 
     and discourages investment in productivity-enhancing assets 
     by negating many of the capital formation incentives provided 
     under the regular tax system, most notably accelerated 
     depreciation. To make matters worse, many capital-intensive 
     businesses have been perpetually trapped in the AMT system, 
     and unable to utilize their suspended AMT credits. 
     Furthermore, the AMT is extremely complex, burdensome and 
     expensive to comply with.
       Your legislation addresses many of the problems of the 
     current AMT and its passage will spur capital investment, 
     help businesses to sustain long-term grown and create jobs. 
     Recent analysis by Data Resources, Inc. demonstrates that 
     your reform bill will result in an increase in GDP of 1.6 
     percent, the creation of 100,000 new jobs each year, and an 
     increase in worker productivity of about 1.6 percent.
       Thank you for introducing this important legislation, and 
     we look forward to working with you for its passage.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____


           Statement of National Association of Manufacturers


  nam calls the alternative minimum tax the ``anti-manfacturing tax''

                Urges Support of AMT Reform Legislation

       Washington, DC., May 8, 1997.--Calling the alternative 
     minimum tax (AMT) a disincentive for capital investment and 
     job creation, the National Association of Manufacturers urged 
     lawmakers to support AMT reform legislation introduced today 
     by Senators Don Nickles (R-OK) and John D. Rockfeller (D-WV).
       ``The alternative minimum tax is a fundamentally flawed, 
     counter-productive tax that stifles the creation of high-
     skilled, high-paying manufacturing jobs,'' said Gil Thurm, 
     vice president taxation and economic policy, in support of 
     the reform bill. ``It's little wonder that many believe that 
     AMT really stands for `Anti-Manufacturing Tax.' ''
       The legislation substantially reforms the AMT to allow 
     businesses to use the same depreciation rules for AMT 
     purposes as they use for their regular tax depreciation 
     rules. It also allows AMT taxpayers to recover their existing 
     tax credits quicker than under current law.
       ``No other industrialized country imposes such a penalty 
     tax on investment made by capital intensive companies. 
     Furthermore, when businesses report little or no profit, they 
     are still frequently required to pay the AMT,'' said Thurm.
       ``Substantially reforming the alternative minimum tax will 
     result in greater economic growth by creating thousands of 
     new jobs, stronger growth in GDP, increased productivity and 
     improved cash flow, especially for those companies that have 
     been penalized the most under the AMT,'' according to Thurm.
       The NAM continues to lead a coalition of more than 100 
     companies and associations in support of complete repeal of 
     the AMT. However, absent complete repeal, the AMT Coalition 
     for Economic Growth supports substantive AMT reform.

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my Senate 
Finance Committee colleague, Senator Nickles, in introducing an 
Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] reform bill. Our bill will: first, allow 
businesses to use the same depreciation system for AMT as they do under 
regular tax, and second, permit businesses to use their AMT credits 
more easily than under current law. It will help make it easier for 
U.S. businesses to compete and reduce the unintended inequity of 
current law.
  For several years, I have looked for an opportunity to fix the 
problems that AMT creates especially for capital intensive industries. 
Two years ago, I introduced my own bill to reform the aspects of AMT 
that I believe are most detrimental to businesses for which AMT is 
frequently their method of tax payment. Unfortunately, with the 
controversies and difficulties that made it impossible to enact a 
budget plan in the last Congress, there was no ability to move that 
effort forward.
  This year, I am pleased to work with Senator Nickles to make the AMT 
fairer. I hope this means we have a real chance of working together in 
a bipartisan manner to compel Congress, the Finance Committee in 
particular, to figure out a way to deal with some of the unintended 
consequences of AMT as part of this year's budget deal. I think 
previous efforts at AMT reform have failed in the part because it is 
very tough to focus on the merits of certain corporate tax changes. 
That remains true today in the context of a larger budget agreement, 
but if we keep our perspective, I think AMT reform will win support on 
its merits and Congress can responsibly find a way to finance it.
  I am well aware of the fact that as we introduce this legislation, 
there is no specific provision for AMT relief in the budget deal which 
the President and Congressional leadership have struck in outline form. 
As I have noted, the constraints of balancing the budget will require 
us to carefully examine how much AMT relief is practical this year, as 
part of an agreement to balance the budget over the next 5 years. I 
understand that very well, as does Senator Nickles. I think that means 
we will have to zero in on the aspects of AMT relief that are most 
doable this year--and which can be financed without harming other 
priorities. I am prepared to do that and recognize that it also means 
the scope of the AMT bill we submit today will have to be tailored 
accordingly. That does not mean that we should put off AMT relief for 
another day, it just means we will have to be honest about what is 
critical to do and what portions of this bill will have to remain on 
the to-do list. I say all this because it is important to understand 
the context for our introducing this relief bill now, and as the budget 
agreement places some high hurdles on what can realistically be 
accomplished.
  I also would like to say that it is my strong belief that the 
excruciating specifics of the budget agreement which relate to matters 
under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee are best left to the 
expertise on that Committee. The Finance Committee serves an extremely 
important role in the legislative process. That role cannot and

[[Page S4238]]

should not be supplanted by private negotiations between the 
administration and congressional leadership--however worthwhile the 
overall purpose. Reaching consensus on the approach to balancing the 
budget and protecting priorities of the administration and both sides 
of the aisle in congressional leadership provides the Finance Committee 
with the framework for its detailed work. The Finance Committee will 
soon have to work its will within the appropriate parameters of its 
reconciliation instructions. When that happens, I think the committee 
must address AMT relief, and I intend to work to build support for it 
as we wend our way through the committee process.
  Let me return to the substance of the bill we submit for our 
colleagues' consideration today. First, I want to make it absolutely 
clear--this bill does not repeal AMT. AMT has created during the 1986 
Tax Reform Act in response to the problem raised when companies would 
report profits to stockholders and yet claim losses to the IRS. 
However, in an effort to simplify the code depreciation under AMT was 
treated as an adjustment--which amounts to an increase in income. This 
penalizes low-profit, capital intensive companies, like steel 
companies. Compared to other countries, after 5 years, a U.S. 
steelmaker under AMT recovers only 37 percent of its investment in a 
new plant and equipment. The recovery of investment in other countries 
is much higher--for example, in Japan it's 58 percent, in Germany 
companies recover 81 percent, Korea is 90 percent, and in Brazil it's 
100 percent.
  The problem is not unique to the steel industry though. Other 
capital-intensive industries that also have long-lived assets lose 
under the current AMT. The chemical industry has 9\1/2\ years to 
depreciate under the AMT, as opposed to 5 years under the regular tax. 
And for paper, they have 13 years to depreciate under the AMT, as 
opposed to 7 years under the regular tax. We need to fix the AMT so 
that industries with very high capital costs which they cannot recover 
for years are not put at such a disadvantage.

  Today's AMT discourages investment in new plants and equipment, while 
under our regular tax system depreciation investments are encouraged. 
The need to improve our tax system to make it fairer to capital 
intensive industries is clear--fixing the AMT is one way to do that.
  U.S. companies have to be able to compete in an increasingly 
competitive global market--that's almost an adage. It's what our trade 
laws and agreements seek to ensure. We'll never be able to sufficiently 
promote U.S. exports if we don't being to equalize the effects of our 
tax laws on American companies as well.
  This bill would eliminate depreciation as an adjustment under AMT--
treating AMT taxpayers the same as those companies that pay under our 
regular tax system. It would also allow tax payers who have not used 
their accumulated minimum tax credits which are at least 5 years old to 
use those credits to offset up to 50 percent of their current year AMT 
liability--with a provision to ensure that taxpayers could not reduce 
their current payment below their regular tax liability for that year.
  AMT has become the standard method of tax payment for many of our 
Nation's capital intensive industries and it is not working the way 
Congress initially intended. It's time to fix it.
  The bill Senator Nickles and I submit for your consideration today 
will fix the AMT so it works the way I believe Congress originally 
intended. It will have the consequence of improving the competitiveness 
of American business. It is time to stop talking about AMT and do 
something that figures out how to address this real problem. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with me and my 
Finance Committee colleagues to find a way to act on this important 
issue in this year's budget bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 725. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the 
Collbran Reclamation Project to the Ute Water Conservancy District and 
the Collbran Conservancy District; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                the collbran project unit conveyance act

 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I reintroduce legislation 
to transfer the Collbran project from the Federal Government back to 
the people it serves. The bill is designed with only one goal in mind, 
to guarantee the growing population in the Grand Valley of Colorado a 
supply of water that they have relied on for the last 30 years.
  At the same time, this legislation will be a model for transitioning 
the Federal Government out of the daily operations of facilities where 
its useful participation has ceased. This transfer will also be an 
important and symbolic step in downsizing the Federal Government, 
returning power to the States and localities, while contributing to our 
continuing efforts to balance the Federal budget.
  The Western slope of Colorado, like the rest of the Colorado Plateau, 
has a unique blend of rich natural resources and beautiful scenery. 
This fortunate combination attracts and sustains a strong economy of 
both industry and tourism. Much of this booming economic development 
and recreational opportunities would not exist if not for the water and 
electricity provided by the various Federal reclamation projects in the 
West. These projects were authorized in the Federal Reclamation Act in 
1902 by a visionary Congress which saw the need and importance of water 
projects to the development of the West. Without such projects, there 
would be virtually no farming, mining, or ranching and little tourism.
  It is appropriate for the Federal Government to shed the Collbran 
project at this time because the goals of the project have been met. 
The project, completed in 1964, provides a reliable supply of 
irrigation water to the users on the arid west slope of Colorado. This 
project is the main water supplier for a growing population in the 
Grand Valley, currently serving over 55,000 people. It also provides 
electric power to the grid that serves several Western States.
  It is also time now to transfer the Collbran project because, as the 
Bureau of Reclamation has acknowledged, due to unanticipated 
circumstances this project has been a net-cash drain on the Treasury. 
The Ute Water Conservancy District, the public entity that will 
purchase the project, will pay the remaining debt on the project, 
reimbursing the Government completely, returning over $12 million to 
the Federal Treasury. It is time for the Government to stand aside.
  Let me stress that this transfer will not in any way jeopardize any 
of the recreation opportunities available in Vega Reservoir and related 
Collbran project reservoirs. In fact, this legislation will transfer 
the Vega Reservoir from the Federal Government to the State of 
Colorado, ensuring continued recreation opportunities there. This bill 
also preserves all water and power operations of the existing Collbran 
project.
  I also want to emphasize that we have striven to accommodate 
environmental groups' concerns. Although there is no reason to think 
that a mere transfer of ownership, without affecting the operations, 
should require the water district to perform an environmental impact 
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, I have 
accommodated the environmental community's requests and eliminated any 
reference to NEPA. In this way, I have ensured that the transfer will 
fully comply with all environmental laws.
  Finally, as a symbol of the Ute Water Conservancy's good faith, this 
bill explicitly requires that the conservancy district contributes 
$600,000 to the Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and 
that the project itself will remain subject to future ESA-related 
obligations that could be imposed on similar projects.
  Again, the object of this legislation is merely to ensure a reliable 
supply of quality water for the residents of the Grand Valley who have 
depended upon this supply for the last 30 years. This bill proposes a 
fiscally and environmentally sound and sensible transfer of an existing 
Federal project to the people it serves.
  I look forward to working with all interested parties as this bill 
proceeds. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this bill.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page S4239]]

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

                                 S. 725

       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 ``Collbran Project Unit 
     Conveyance Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Ute Water 
     Conservancy District and the Collbran Conservancy District 
     (including their successors and assigns), which are political 
     subdivisions of the State of Colorado.
       (2) Federal reclamation laws.--The term ``Federal 
     reclamation laws'' means the Act of June 17, 1902, and Acts 
     amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto (32 Stat. 388, 
     chapter 1093; 43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.) (including regulations 
     adopted under those Acts).
       (3) Project.--The term ``project'' means the Collbran 
     Reclamation project, as constructed and operated under the 
     Act of July 3, 1952 (66 Stat. 325, chapter 565), including 
     all property, equipment, and assets of or relating to the 
     project that are owned by the United States, including--
       (A) Vega Dam and Reservoir (but not including the Vega 
     Recreation Facilities);
       (B) Leon-Park dams and feeder canal;
       (C) Southside Canal;
       (D) East Fork diversion dam and feeder canal;
       (E) Bonham-Cottonwood pipeline;
       (F) Snowcat shed and diesel storage;
       (G) Upper Molina penstock and power plant;
       (H) Lower Molina penstock and power plant;
       (I) the diversion structure in the tailrace of the Lower 
     Molina power plant;
       (J) all substations and switchyards;
       (K) a nonexclusive easement for the use of existing 
     easements or rights-of-way owned by the United States on or 
     across non-Federal land that are necessary for access to 
     project facilities;
       (L) title to land reasonably necessary for all project 
     facilities (except land described in subparagraph (K) or 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of section 3(a));
       (M) all permits and contract rights held by the Bureau of 
     Reclamation, including contract or other rights relating to 
     the operation, use, maintenance, repair, or replacement of 
     the water storage reservoirs located on the Grand Mesa that 
     are operated as part of the project;
       (N) all equipment, parts inventories, and tools;
       (O) all additions, replacements, betterments, and 
     appurtenances to any of the land, interests in land, or 
     facilities described in subparagraphs (A) through (N); and
       (P) a copy of all data, plans, designs, reports, records, 
     or other materials, whether in writing or in any form of 
     electronic storage, relating specifically to the project.
       (4) Vega recreation facilities.--The term ``Vega Recreation 
     Facilities'' includes--
       (A) buildings, campgrounds, picnic areas, parking lots, 
     fences, boat docks and ramps, electrical lines, water and 
     sewer systems, trash and toilet facilities, roads and trails, 
     and other structures and equipment used for State park 
     purposes (such as recreation, maintenance, and daily and 
     overnight visitor use), at and near Vega Reservoir;
       (B) lands above the high water level of Vega Reservoir 
     within the area previously defined by the Secretary as the 
     ``Reservoir Area Boundary'' that have not historically been 
     utilized for Collbran project water storage and delivery 
     facilities, together with an easement for public access for 
     recreational purposes to Vega Reservoir and the water surface 
     of Vega Reservoir and for construction, operation, 
     maintenance, and replacement of facilities for recreational 
     purposes below the high water line; and
       (C) improvements constructed or added under the agreements 
     referred to in section 3(f).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Conveyance to districts.--
       (A) In general.--On or before the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey 
     to the Districts all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the project by quitclaim deed and bill of 
     sale, without warranties, subject only to the requirements of 
     this Act.
       (B) Action pending conveyance.--Until the conveyance under 
     subparagraph (A) occurs, the Director of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation shall continue to exercise the responsibility to 
     provide for the operation, maintenance, repair, and 
     replacement of project facilities and the storage reservoirs 
     on the Grand Mesa to the extent that the responsibility is 
     the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation and has not 
     been delegated to the Districts before the date of enactment 
     of this Act or is delegated or transferred to the Districts 
     by agreement after that date, so that at the time of the 
     conveyance the facilities are in the same condition as, or 
     better condition than, the condition of the facilities on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Easements on national forest system lands.--
       (A) In general.--On or before the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall grant, subject only to the requirements of 
     this section--
       (i) a nonexclusive easement on and across National Forest 
     System land to the Districts for ingress and egress on access 
     routes in existence on the date of enactment of this Act to 
     each component of the project and storage reservoir on the 
     Grand Mesa in existence on the date of enactment of this Act 
     that is operated as part of the project;
       (ii) a nonexclusive easement on National Forest System land 
     for the operation, use, maintenance, repair, and replacement 
     (but not enlargement) of the storage reservoirs on the Grand 
     Mesa in existence on the date of enactment of this Act to the 
     owners and operators of the reservoirs that are operated as a 
     part of the project; and
       (iii) a nonexclusive easement to the Districts for the 
     operation, use, maintenance, repair, and replacement (but not 
     enlargement) of the components of project facilities that are 
     located on National Forest System land, subject to the 
     requirement that the Districts shall provide reasonable 
     notice to and the opportunity for consultation with the 
     designated representative of the Secretary of Agriculture for 
     nonroutine, nonemergency activities that occur on the 
     easements.
       (B) Exercise of easement.--The easement under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) may be exercised if the land use authorizations for 
     the storage reservoirs described in subparagraph (A)(ii) are 
     restricted, terminated, relinquished, or abandoned, and the 
     easement shall not be subject to conditions or requirements 
     that interfere with or limit the use of the reservoirs for 
     water supply or power purposes.
       (3) Easements to districts for southside canal.--On or 
     before the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall grant to the Districts, subject 
     only to the requirements of this section--
       (A) a nonexclusive easement on and across land administered 
     by agencies within the Department of the Interior for ingress 
     and egress on access routes to and along the Southside Canal 
     in existence on the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) a nonexclusive easement for the operation, use, 
     maintenance, repair, and replacement of the Southside Canal, 
     subject to the requirement that the Districts shall provide 
     reasonable notice to and the opportunity for consultation 
     with the designated representative of the Secretary for 
     nonroutine, nonemergency activities that occur on the 
     easements.
       (b) Reservation.--
       (1) In general.--The conveyance of easements under 
     subsection (a) shall reserve to the United States all 
     minerals (including hydrocarbons) and a perpetual right of 
     public access over, across, under, and to the portions of the 
     project that on the date of enactment of this Act were open 
     to public use for fishing, boating, hunting, and other 
     outdoor recreation purposes and other public uses such as 
     grazing, mineral development, and logging.
       (2) Recreational activities.--The United States may allow 
     for continued public use and enjoyment of such portions of 
     the project for recreational activities and other public uses 
     as are conducted as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Conveyance to State of Colorado.--All right, title, and 
     interest in the Vega Recreation Facilities shall remain in 
     the United States until the terms of the agreements referred 
     to in subsection (f) have been fulfilled by the United 
     States, at which time all right, title, and interest in the 
     Vega Recreation Facilities shall be conveyed by the Secretary 
     to the State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor 
     Recreation.
       (d) Payment.--
       (1) In general.--At the time of the conveyance under 
     subsection (a)(1), the Districts shall pay to the United 
     States $12,900,000 ($12,300,000 of which represents the net 
     present value of the outstanding repayment obligations for 
     the project), of which--
       (A) $12,300,000 shall be deposited in the general fund of 
     the Treasury of the United States; and
       (B) $600,000 shall be deposited in a special account in the 
     Treasury of the United States and shall be available to the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, without 
     further Act of appropriation, for use in funding Colorado 
     operations and capital expenditures associated with the Grand 
     Valley Water Management Project for the purpose of recovering 
     endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin, as 
     identified in the Recovery Implementation Program for 
     Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin, or 
     such other component of the Recovery Implementation Program 
     within Colorado as may be selected with the concurrence of 
     the Governor of the State of Colorado.
       (2) Source of funds.--Funds for the payment to the extent 
     of the amount specified in paragraph (1) shall not be derived 
     from the issuance or sale, prior to the conveyance, of State 
     or local bonds the interest on which is exempt from taxation 
     under section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (e) Operation of Project.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Declaration.--The project was authorized and 
     constructed under the Act of July 3, 1952 (66 Stat. 325, 
     chapter 565) for the purpose of placing water to beneficial 
     use for authorized purposes within the State of Colorado.

[[Page S4240]]

       (B) Operation.--The project shall be operated and used by 
     the Districts for a period of 40 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act for the purpose for which the project 
     was authorized.
       (C) Changes in operation.--The Districts shall attempt, to 
     the extent practicable, taking into consideration historic 
     project operations, to notify the State of Colorado of 
     changes in historic project operations which may adversely 
     affect State park operations.
       (2) Requirements.--During the 40-year period described in 
     paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) the Districts shall annually submit to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources 
     a plan for operation of the project, which plan shall--
       (i) report on project operations for the previous year;
       (ii) provide a description of the manner of project 
     operations anticipated for the forthcoming year, which shall 
     be prepared after consultation with the designated 
     representatives of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Board of 
     County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado, and the 
     Colorado Department of Natural Resources; and
       (iii) certify that the Districts have operated and will 
     operate and maintain the project facilities in accordance 
     with sound engineering practices; and
       (B) subject to section 4, all electric power generated by 
     operation of the project shall be made available to and be 
     marketed by the Western Area Power Administration.
       (f) Agreements.--Conveyance of the project shall be subject 
     to the agreements between the United States and the State of 
     Colorado dated August 22, 1994, and September 23, 1994, 
     relating to the construction and operation of recreational 
     facilities at Vega Reservoir, which agreements shall continue 
     to be performed by the parties to the agreements according to 
     the terms of the agreements.

     SEC. 4. OPERATION OF THE POWER COMPONENT.

       (a) Conformity to Historic Operations.--The power component 
     and facilities of the project shall be operated in 
     substantial conformity with the historic operations of the 
     power component and facilities (including recent operations 
     in a peaking mode).
       (b) Power Marketing.--
       (1) Existing marketing arrangement.--The post-1989 
     marketing criteria, which provide for the marketing of power 
     generated by the power component of the project as part of 
     the output of the Salt Lake City area integrated projects, 
     shall no longer be binding on the project upon conveyance of 
     the project under section 3(a).
       (2) After termination of existing marketing arrangement.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) First offer.--After the conveyance under section 3(a), 
     the Districts shall offer all power produced by the power 
     component of the project to the Western Area Power 
     Administration or its successors or assigns (referred to in 
     this paragraph as ``Western''), which, in consultation with 
     its affected preference customers, shall have the first right 
     to purchase such power at the rates established under 
     subparagraph (B).
       (ii) Second offer.--If Western declines to purchase the 
     power after consultation with its affected preference 
     customers, the power shall be offered at the same rates first 
     to Western's preference customers located in the Salt Lake 
     City area integrated projects marketing area (referred to in 
     this paragraph as the ``SLCAIP preference customers'').
       (iii) Other offers.--After offers have been made under 
     clauses (i) and (ii), power may be sold to any other party, 
     but no such sale may occur at a rate less than a rate 
     established under subparagraph (B) unless the power is 
     offered at the lesser rate first to Western and second to the 
     SLCAIP preference customers.
       (B) Rate.--The rate for power initially offered to Western 
     and the SLCAIP preference customers under this paragraph 
     shall not exceed that required to produce revenues sufficient 
     to provide for--
       (i) annual debt service or recoupment of the cost of 
     capital for the amount specified in section 3(d)(1)(A) less 
     the sum of $310,000 (which is the net present value of the 
     outstanding repayment obligation of the Collbran Conservancy 
     District); and
       (ii) the cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of 
     the power component of the project.
       (C) Determination of costs and rate.--Costs and a rate 
     under subparagraph (B) shall be determined in a manner that 
     is consistent with the principles followed, as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, by the Secretary and by Western in its 
     annual power and repayment study.

     SEC. 5. LICENSE.

       (a) In General.--Before conveyance of the project to the 
     Districts, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall 
     issue to the Districts a license or licenses as appropriate 
     under part I of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791 et seq.) 
     authorizing for a term of 40 years the continued operation 
     and maintenance of the power component of the project.
       (b) Terms of License.--
       (1) In general.--The license under subsection (a)--
       (A) shall be for the purpose of operating, using, 
     maintaining, repairing, and replacing the power component of 
     the project as authorized by the Act of July 3, 1952 (66 
     Stat. 325, chapter 565);
       (B) shall be subject to the condition that the power 
     component of the project continue to be operated and 
     maintained in accordance with the authorized purposes of the 
     project; and
       (C) shall be subject to part I of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 791 et seq.) except as stated in paragraph (2).
       (2) Laws not applicable.--
       (A) Federal power act.--
       (i) In general.--The license under subsection (a) shall not 
     be subject to the following provisions of the Federal Power 
     Act: the 4 provisos of section 4(e) (16 U.S.C. 797(e)); 
     section 6 (16 U.S.C. 799) to the extent that the section 
     requires acceptance by a licensee of terms and conditions of 
     the Act that this subsection waives; subsection (e) (insofar 
     as the subsection concerns annual charges for the use and 
     occupancy of Federal lands and facilities), (f), or (j) of 
     section 10 (16 U.S.C. 803); section 18 (16 U.S.C. 811); 
     section 19 (16 U.S.C. 812); section 20 (16 U.S.C. 813); or 
     section 22 (16 U.S.C. 815).
       (ii) Not a government dam.--Notwithstanding that any dam 
     under the license under subsection (a) may have been 
     constructed by the United States for Government purposes, the 
     dam shall not be considered to be a Government dam, as that 
     term is defined in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 796).
       (iii) Standard form license conditions.--The license under 
     subsection (a) shall not be subject to the standard ``L-
     Form'' license conditions published at 54 FPC 1792-1928 
     (1975).
       (B) Other laws.--The license under subsection (a) shall not 
     be subject to--
       (i) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);
       (ii) section 2402 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (16 
     U.S.C. 797c);
       (iii) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (iv) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.);
       (v) the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et 
     seq.);
       (vi) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly 
     known as the ``Clean Water Act'') (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
       (vii) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       (viii) the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 
     1451 et seq.);
       (ix) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 
     et seq.); or
       (x) any other Act otherwise applicable to the licensing of 
     the project.
       (3) Laws enacted after issuance of license.--The operation 
     of the project shall be subject to all applicable State and 
     Federal laws enacted after the date of issuance of the 
     license under subsection (a).
       (c) Licensing Standards.--The license under subsection (a) 
     is deemed to meet all licensing standards of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791 et seq.).
       (d) Power Site Reservation.--Any power site reservation 
     established under section 24 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 818) or any other law that exists on any land, whether 
     federally or privately owned, that is included within the 
     boundaries of the project shall be vacated by operation of 
     law on issuance of the license for the project.
       (e) Expiration of License.--All requirements of part I of 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791 et seq.) and of any 
     other Act applicable to the licensing of a hydroelectric 
     project shall apply to the project on expiration of the 
     license issued under this section.

     SEC. 6. INAPPLICABILITY OF PRIOR AGREEMENTS AND OF FEDERAL 
                   RECLAMATION LAWS.

       On conveyance of the project to the Districts--
       (1) the repayment contract dated May 27, 1957, as amended 
     April 12, 1962, between the Collbran Conservancy District and 
     the United States, and the contract for use of project 
     facilities for diversion of water dated January 11, 1962, as 
     amended November 10, 1977, between the Ute Water Conservancy 
     District and the United States, shall be terminated and of no 
     further force or effect; and
       (2) the project shall no longer be subject to or governed 
     by the Federal reclamation laws.

     SEC. 7. LIABILITY OF THE DISTRICTS.

       The Districts shall be liable, to the extent allowed under 
     State law, for all acts or omissions relating to the 
     operation and use of the project by the Districts that occur 
     subsequent to the conveyance under section 3(a), including 
     damage to any Federal land or facility that results from the 
     failure of a project facility.

     SEC. 8. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.

       Nothing in this Act impairs the effectiveness of any State 
     or local law (including a regulation) relating to land use.

     SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF SALES FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN LAWS.

       The sales of assets under this subchapter shall not be 
     considered to be a disposal of Federal surplus property 
     under--
       (1) section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484); or
       (2) section 13 of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 1622).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. 
        Snowe, Mr. Reid, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
        Mack):
  S. 726. A bill to allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for 
breast cancer research through the voluntary

[[Page S4241]]

purchase of certain specially issued United States postage stamps; to 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                  the breast cancer research stamp act

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Boxer, 
Graham, Snowe, Moseley-Braun, Landrieu, Harkin, Specter, D'Amato, Mack, 
Johnson, Reid, and Murray would like to introduce the Breast Cancer 
Research Stamp Act.
  In a time of shrinking budgets and resources for breast cancer 
research, this legislation would provide an innovative way to provide 
additional funding for breast cancer research.
  This bill would: authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue an 
optional special first class stamp to be priced at 1 cent above the 
cost of normal first-class postage; earmark a penny of every stamp for 
breast cancer research; provide administrative costs from the revenues 
for post office expenses; allow 100 percent of the proceeds from the 
stamp to fund HHS breast cancer research projects; clarify current law, 
in that any similar stamp would require an act of Congress to be issued 
in the future.
  If only 10 percent of all first class mail used this optional 33 cent 
stamp, $60 million could be raised for breast cancer research annually.
  There is wide support for this legislation. Congressman Fazio, along 
with over 100 cosponsors have already introduced the companion bill 
(H.R. 407) in the House.
  The breast cancer epidemic has been called this Nation's best kept 
secret. There are 2.6 million women in America today with breast 
cancer, one million of whom have yet to be diagnosed with the disease.
  In 1996, an estimated 184,000 were diagnosed with breast cancer. It 
is the number one killer of women ages 40 to 44 and the leading cause 
of cancer death in women ages 15 to 54, claiming a woman's life every 
12 minutes in this country (source: National Breast Cancer Coalition).
  For California, 17,100 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 
4,100 women will die from the disease (source: American Cancer Society 
cancer facts and figures, 1996).
  In addition to the cost of women's lives, the annual cost of 
treatment of breast cancer in the United States is approximately $10 
billion.
  Over the last 25 years, the National Institutes of Health has spent 
over $31.5 billion on cancer research--$2 billion of that on breast 
cancer. In the last 6 years alone, appropriations for breast cancer 
research have risen from $90 million in 1990 to $600 million today. 
That's the good news.
  But, the bad news is that the national commitment to cancer research 
overall has been hamstrung since 1980. Currently, NIH is able to fund 
only 23 percent of applications received by all the institutes. For the 
Cancer Institute, only 23 percent can be funded--a significant drop 
from the 60 percent of applications funded in the 1970's.
  Most alarming is the rapidly diminishing grant funding available for 
new researcher applicants.
  In real numbers, the National Cancer Institute will fund 
approximately 3,600 research projects, of which about 1,000 are new, 
previously unfunded activities. For investigator-initiated research, 
only 600 out of 1,900 research projects will be new.
  The United States is privileged to have some of the most talented 
scientists and many of the leading cancer research centers in the world 
such as UCLA, UC San Francisco, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and the M.D. 
Anderson.
  This lack of increase in funding is starving some of the most 
important research, because scientists will have to look elsewhere for 
their livelihood.
  The U.S. must increase the research funds if these scientists and 
institutions are to continue to contribute their vast talents to the 
war on cancer and finding a cure.
  What is clear is that there is a direct correlation between increase 
in research funding and the likelihood of finding a cure.
  Cancer mortality has declined by 15 percent from 1950 to 1992 due to 
increases in cancer research funding. In fact, federally-funded cancer 
research has yielded vast amounts of knowledge about the disease--
information which is guiding our efforts to improve treatment and 
search for a cure. We have more knowledge and improvements in 
prevention through: identification of a ``cancer gene'', use of 
mammographies, clinical exams, and encouragement of self breast exams. 
Yet there is still no cure.
  The Bay Area has one of the highest rates of breast cancer incidence 
and mortality in the world. According to data given to my staff by the 
Northern California Cancer Center, Bay Area white women have the 
highest reported breast cancer rate in the world, 104 per 100,000 
population. Bay Area African-American women have the fourth highest 
reported rate in the world at 82 per 100,000 (source: Northern 
California Cancer Center).
  I want to recognize Dr. Balazs (Ernie) Bodai who suggested this 
innovative funding approach. Dr. Bodai is the Chief of the Surgery 
Department at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento, 
California. He is the founder of Cure Cancer Now, which is a nonprofit 
organization committed to developing a funding source for breast cancer 
research.
  This legislation is supported by the American Cancer Society, 
American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, 
Association of Operating Room Nurses, California Health Collaborative 
Foundations, YWCA-Encore Plus, the Sacramento City Council and Mayor 
Joe Serna, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, Sutter County Board of 
Supervisors, Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Yuba City Council, 
California State Senator Diane Watson and California State 
Assemblywoman Dede Alpert as well as the Public Employees Union, San 
Joaquin Public Employees Association, and Sutter and Yuba County 
Employees Association and many more on the attached list.
  Given the intense competition for Federal research funds in a climate 
of shrinking budgets, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act would allow 
anyone who uses the postal service to contribute in finding a cure for 
the breast cancer epidemic.
  In a sense, this particular proposal is a pilot. I recognize that the 
postal service may oppose this since it hasn't been done before. I also 
recognize that in a day of diminishing federal resources, this 
innovation is an idea whose time has come.
  It will make money for the post office and for breast cancer 
research. No one is forced to buy it, but women's organizations may 
even wish to sell the stamps in a fundraising effort.
  The administrative costs can be handled with the 1 cent added on to 
the cost of a first class stamp and conservatively it can make from $60 
million per year for breast cancer research.
  We need to find a cure for breast cancer and I believe the Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp Act is an innovative response to the hidden 
epidemic among women. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 726

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

     SECITON 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Breast-Cancer Research Stamp 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMPS.

       (a) In General.--In order to afford the public a convenient 
     way to contribute to funding for breast-cancer research, the 
     United States Postal Service shall establish a special rate 
     of postage for first-class mail under this section.
       (b) Higher Rate.--The rate of postage established under 
     this section--
       (1) shall be 1 cent higher than the rate that would 
     otherwise apply;
       (2) may be established without regard to any procedures 
     under chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code, and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law; and
       (3) shall be offered as an alternative to the rate that 
     would otherwise apply.
       The use of the rate of postage established under this 
     section shall be voluntary on the part of postal patrons.
       (c) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Payments.--The amounts attributable to the 1-cent 
     differential established under this Act shall be paid by the 
     United States Postal Service to the Department of Health and 
     Human Services.
       (B) Use.--Amounts paid under subparagraph (A) shall be used 
     for breast-cancer research and related activities to carry 
     out the purposes of this Act.

[[Page S4242]]

       (C) Frequency of payments.--Payments under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be paid to the Department of Health and Human Services 
     no less than twice in each calendar year.
       (2) Amounts attributable to the 1-cent differential.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term ``amounts attributable 
     to the 1-cent differential established under this Act'' 
     means, as determined by the United States Postal Service 
     under regulations that it shall prescribe--
       (A) the total amount of revenues received by the United 
     States Postal Service that it would not have received but for 
     the enactment of this Act, reduced by
       (B) an amount sufficient to cover reasonable administrative 
     and other costs of the United States Postal Service 
     attributable to carrying out this Act.
       (d) Special Postage Stamps.--The United States Postal 
     Service may provide for the design and sale of special 
     postage stamps to carry out this Act.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) nothing in this Act should directly or indirectly cause 
     a net decrease in total funds received by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services or any other agency or 
     instrumentality of the Government (or any component or other 
     aspect thereof) below the level that would otherwise have 
     been anticipated absent this Act; and
       (2) nothing in this Act should affect regular first-class 
     rates or any other regular rate of postage.

     SEC. 3. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       The Postmaster General shall include in each annual report 
     rendered under section 2402 of title 39, United States Code, 
     information concerning the operation of this Act.
                                  ____


                          Original Cosponsors

       Tony Hall (OH)--original.
       Charles Norwood (GA)--original.
       Lynn Woolsey (CA)--original.
       George Brown (CA).
       Tom Barrett (WI).
       Carrie Meek (FL).
       Nancy Pelosi (CA).
       Bernie Sanders (VT).
       Robert Matsui (CA).
       Corrine Brown (FL).
       Eni Faleomavaega (AS).
       Barney Frank (MA).
       Tom Lantos (CA).
       Gene Green (TX).
       Lynn Rivers (MI).
       Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX).
       Gary Condit (CA).
       Jose Serrano (NY).
       Zoe Lofgren (CA).
       Sam Farr (CA).
       Carolyn Maloney (NY).
       Bob Filner (CA).
       Connie Morella (MD).
       Martin Frost (TX).
       Mike McNulty (NY).
       Loretta Sanchez (CA).
       Tom Coburn (OK).
       John Dingell (MI).
       Mel Watt (NC).
       Sherrod Brown (OH).
       Pete Stark (CA).
       Anna Eshoo (CA).
       John Olver (MA).
       Paul McHale (PA).
       Susan Molinari (NY).
       Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC).
       Gary Ackerman (NY).
       Jerry Lewis (CA).
       Louise Slaughter (NY).
       Frank Lobiando (NJ).
       Kay Granger (TX).
       Sam Gejdenson (CT).
       Henry Gonzalez (TX).
       Floyd Flake (NY).
       Danny K. Davis (IL).
       Elizabeth Furse (OR).
       Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX).
       Major Owens (NY).
       William Jefferson (LA).
       Thomas Foglietta (PA).
       Ed Pastor (AZ).
       John Ensign (NV).
       John Tierney (MA).
       Ron Packard (CA).
       Ellen Tauscher (CA).
       Rosa DeLauro (CT).
       Brian Bilbray (CA).
       Barbara Kennelly (CT).
       Scott Klug (WI).
       James McGovern (MA).
       John Conyers (MI).
       Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI).
       J.D. Hayworth (AZ).
       Gerald Kleczka (WI).
       Robert Wexler (FL).
       Richard Neal (MA).
       Sue Kelly (NY).
       John Doolittle (CA).
       George Miller (CA).
       Donna Christian-Green (Virgin Islands).
       David Camp (MI).
       Martin Meehan (MA).
       Carlos Romero-Barcello (PR).
       David Minge (MN).
       Sonny Callahan (AL).
       Peter Deutsch (FL).
       John Baldacci (ME).
       Harold Ford (TN).
       Cynthia McKinney (GA).
       Charlie Rangel (NY).
       Nick Lampson (TX).
       Richard Burr (NC).
       Jim McDermott (WA).
       Earl Hilliard (AL).
       David Bonior (MI).
       Frank Pallone (NJ).
       88 as of 4/23/97.
                                  ____


                         Supporters of H.R. 407

       American Association of Health Education.
       American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.
       American Cancer Society--National.
       American College of Surgeons.
       American Medical Association.
       American Medical Student Association.
       American Society of Anesthesiologists.
       American Society of Clinical Pathologists.
       American Society of Internal Medicine.
       American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons.
       Association of Operating Room Nurses.
       California Health Collaboration Foundations.
       California Medical Association.
       California Nurses Association.
       California Schools Employees Association.
       California State.
       Committee for Freedom of Choice in Medicine, Inc.
       Emergency Nurses Association.
       Health Education Council.
       Kaiser Permanente--Sacramento.
       Louisiana Breast Cancer Task Force.
       Merced County Board of Supervisors.
       National Cancer Registrars Association.
       National Lymphedema Network.
       National Osteoporosis Foundation.
       Nevada County Board of Supervisors.
       ONE-California, organization of nurse leaders.
       Public Employees Union--Local One.
       Sacramento Area Mammography Society.
       Sacramento City Council.
       Sacramento-El Dorado Medical Society.
       San Joaquin Public Employees Association.
       Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors.
       Save Ourselves-Y-Me.
       Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
       Sutter County Board of Supervisors.
       The Breast Cancer Fund.
       United Farm Workers of America AFL-CIO.
       Vital Options TeleSupport Cancer Network.
       WIN Against Breast Cancer.
       YWCA-ENCORE.
       Hadassah The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.
       Foundation Health Corporation.
       American Association of Health Plans.
       American College of Osteopathic Surgeons.
       Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
        Johnson, and Mrs. Murray):

  S. 727. A bil to amend the Public Health Service Act and Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require that group and 
individual health insurance coverage and group health plans provide 
coverage for annual screening mammography for women 40 years of age or 
older if the coverage or plans include coverage for diagnostic 
mammography; to the Committee on Finance.


     PRIVATE INSURANCE UNIFORM COVERAGE OF MAMMOGRAPHY LEGISLATION

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today 
to try to bring some uniform coverage of mammography to private 
insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, consistent with the American Cancer 
Society and the National Cancer Institute guidelines. Joining me as 
cosponsors are Senators Mikulski, Wellstone and Johnson.
  I am introducing this bill because I believe mammography is our best 
tool for finding breast cancer early and women will not get mammograms 
without good insurance coverage. We now have the two leading 
organizations, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer 
Institute, agreeing on screening guidelines and we cannot assume that 
insurance companies will rush to follow those guidelines. In the 
current highly competitive climate of managed care, with plans and 
providers reducing services and benefits, with employers cutting back 
on coverage, only congressional action will guarantee women the health 
care they need, especially preventive services like this.


                          Breast Cancer's Toll

  Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, after skin 
cancer. In 1996, 184,300 new cases were diagnosed and 44,300 women 
died. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among 
women, after lung cancer. Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer 
death in women between ages 40 and 55.
  Most women diagnosed with breast cancer are over age 50. For women 
age 40 to 44, the incidence rate is 125.4 per 100,000 women; for women 
ages 50 to 54, it jumps to 232.7 per 100,000.


                      Early Detection Saves Lives

  The sooner breast cancer is detected, the better the survival rate. 
If breast cancer is diagnosed when it is local--

[[Page S4243]]

confined to the breast--the 5-year survival rate is 96 percent. If 
diagnosed later, when cancer has metastasized, the survival rate is 20 
percent.
  Regularly scheduled mammography screening offers the single best 
method of finding breast cancer early. Mammograms, while never 
absolutely certain, can detect cancer several years before physical 
symptoms are obvious to a women or her doctor. Mammography has a 
sensitivity that is 76-94 percent higher than that of a clinical breast 
exam. Its ability to find an absence of cancer is greater than 90 
percent. For women over 50, mammography can reduce breast cancer 
mortality by at least 30 percent.
  Earlier this year, the National Cancer Institute recommended that 
asymtomatic women in their 40s have a screening mammogram every one to 
two years. The American Cancer Society recommends that all women over 
age 40 should have annual screening mammograms.
  A February 1997 CBS poll found that 71 percent of women think early 
detection of breast cancer significantly increases a woman's chances of 
surviving. 85 percent believe mammograms are safe and 88 percent trust 
the accuracy of mamograms. Between 1987 and 1992, the National Health 
Interview survey found that there was at least a two-fold increase in 
the percentage of women of all ages who had a recent mammogram.


                     Compliance with Guidelines Low

  So women by and large understand the need for mammograms. However, a 
study by the Centers for Disease Control found that only 41 percent of 
women age 40 to 49 reported having a recent mammogram. Only half of 
women aged 50 to 64 had a recent mammogram. And only 39 percent of 
women over age 65 reported a recent mammogram.


                     Lack of Insurance a Deterrent

  So the question is, if women understand the importance of mammograms, 
why is adherence to the guidelines so low? The CDC study said, ``Health 
insurance coverage and educational attainment were both strongly 
associated with [mammograms] for women 40-49 years of age.''
  A survey by the Jacob Institute of Women's Health likewise found that 
56 percent of women in their 40's and 47 percent of women in the 50's 
were meeting the ACS screening guideline. After lack of a family 
history, the cost of a mammogram was the principal reason for not 
having a mammogram.
  The lack of insurance coverage, the CDC study found, is an important 
factor in determining which women follow the recommended guidelines. 
Among commercially insured women, more than half were following the 
guidelines. However, for women in government insurance programs, 
between 58 percent and 66 percent were not following the guidelines. 
For women with no insurance of any kind, 84 percent were not in 
compliance with the guidelines.
  The cost of a mammogram also varies widely, depending on the 
radiologist's technique, the location, the interpretation needed. One 
unofficial estimate of cost is that a mammogram ranges from $75.00 to 
$200.00 per visit. A $200 medical charge is not something most 
Americans want to bear out of pocket. They expect their insurance plan 
to cover medically necessary services.


                         Coverage Varies Widely

  Commercial insurance coverage for mammograms varies widely, differing 
in terms of the age of the covered person and frequency of the service. 
Many plans follow the American Cancer Society's guidelines, but this is 
not documented. At least 38 states have mandated some type of coverage 
for commercial plans, but again the details vary. Medicare covers 
mammograms every other year. Federal law does not require Medicaid to 
have specific coverage. A 1993 Alan Guttmacher study attempting to 
describe coverages of commercial health insurance coverage of 
reproductive services is aptly titled ``Uneven & Unequal.'' So in 
summary, insurance coverage is ``all over the map.''


                                The Bill

  The bill addresses private commercial group and individual insurance 
plans, Medicare and Medicaid. It would--
  Require private plans that cover diagnostic mammograms for women 
under 40 to also cover annual screening mammography.
  Require Medicare and Medicaid to cover annual screening mammography 
for women over age 40. (Medicare now covers biannual screening. Federal 
law does not require State Medicaid programs to cover mammography for 
any age and State approaches vary widely.)
  Prohibits plans from denying coverage for annual screening 
mammography because it is not medically necessary or not pursuant to a 
referral or recommendation by any health care provider;
  Deny a woman eligibility or renewal to avoid these requirements;
  Provide monetary payments or rebates to women to encourage women to 
accept less than the minimum protections of the bill;
  Financially reward or punish providers for withholding mammographies.


                          Support for the Bill

  The bill is supported by the American Cancer Society, the National 
Breast Cancer Coalition, the Susan B. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, 
the Breast Cancer Resource Committee, the Association of Women's 
Health, Obstetrics, and Neonatal Nurses.
  I believe this bill will put some important principles into insurance 
coverage for this very necessary service. I hope my colleagues will 
join me in promptly moving this bill to enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Mack, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Reid, 
        and Mr. Johnson):

  S. 728. A bill to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to 
establish a Cancer Research Trust Fund for the conduct of biomedical 
research; to the Committee on Finance.


                  THE CANCER RESEARCH FUND ACT OF 1997

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Mack, D'Amato, 
Reid, and I are introducing a bill to give citizens two ways to 
contribute to the Nation's cancer research program. In connection with 
their annual tax return, taxpayers could make a tax deductible 
contribution for cancer research of not less than $1 and could check 
off or designate a contribution of not less than $1 from their tax 
refund owed them by the Government.
  The bill establishes a Cancer Research Trust Fund and directs the 
National Institutes of Health to use the funds for research on cancer. 
It prohibits expenditures from the fund if appropriations in any year 
for the NIH are less than the previous year so that these funds do not 
supplant appropriated funds.
  In fiscal 1997, the National Cancer Institute could only fund 26 
percent of grants received with appropriated funds. This approval rate 
dropped from 29 percent in 1996 and 32 percent in 1992. Under the 
President's budget request for fiscal 1998, the success rate is 
estimated to drop again, to 25 percent.
  While we do not have a specific estimate for how much our bill for 
cancer research would raise, a Federal tax checkoff for health research 
could raise $35 million in revenues for health research, if the average 
contribution were $2, according to Research America. If taxpayers gave 
$10, it would raise $410 million. Their study shows that the average 
contribution would be $23 and at that rate, $1.1 billion could be 
raised. In 1994, U.S. taxpayers contributed $25.7 million through State 
checkoffs.
  I believe Americans would be very willing to make a contribution to 
health research and using the tax return is a very easy way. Sixty 
percent of Americans say they would check off a box on the tax return 
for medical research. The median amount people are willing to designate 
is $23.
  Virtually everyone is touched by disease and has had some experience 
with incurable diseases. We all fear dreaded diseases. A May 1996 
California poll found that 59 percent of my constituents would pay an 
extra dollar a week in taxes to support medical research. An 
overwhelming 94 percent of Americans believe it is important that the 
United States maintains its role as a world leader in medical research 
and medical research takes second place only to national defense for 
tax dollar value.
  Cancer mortality has risen in the past half-century. By the year 
2000, cancer will overtake heart disease as the leading cause of death 
of Americans. Over 40 percent of Americans will develop cancer and over 
20 percent of us will die from cancers. Cancer is

[[Page S4244]]

causing twice as many deaths as in 1971. Cancer's total economic costs 
in 1995, according to the National Institutes of Health, came to $104 
billion.
  In my own State of California, in 1996, 125,800 new cases of cancer 
were diagnosed and 51,200 people died. The incidence of certain 
cancers, specifically cervical, stomach, and liver, is higher than 
national rates. The San Francisco area has some of the highest rates of 
breast cancer in the world. There are areas in my State, such as 
Alameda County, where prostate cancer incidence exceeds the national 
rate. In my State, African-American women have a 60-percent higher risk 
of developing cervical cancer than white women. Hispanic women have the 
highest risk of cervical cancer in my State. Asian-Americans in 
California are twice as likely to develop stomach cancer and five times 
more likely to develop liver cancer than whites.
  We have made great strides in understanding cancer, particularly the 
genetics of cancer and what makes a normal cell become a cancer cell. 
Because of research, cancer survival rates have increased for some 
cancers. But we cannot rest until we find a cure.
  The National Cancer Institute's bypass budget identifies five 
promising areas of research and with 74 percent of grants going 
unapproved, the scientific talent is there. As the National Cancer 
Advisory Board said in its 1994 report to Congress, ``Current 
investment is insufficient to capitalize on unprecedented opportunities 
in basic science research.'' Clearly additional funds can be well used 
by some of the world's leading cancer researchers.
  By introducing this bill, I do not believe giving taxpayers an 
opportunity to contribute to cancer research will or should be the 
mainstay of funding for our national war on cancer. Congress needs to 
continue increasing appropriations and I am disappointed that the 
President's fiscal year 1998 budget for the National Cancer Institute 
represents only a 2.5-percent increase over fiscal 1997. I hope we can 
do better and I pledge my help in doing that. To insure that these 
taxpayer contributions generated by this bill do not supplant 
Congressionally appropriated funds, the bill includes a provision that 
prohibits expenditures from the cancer research fund if appropriations 
in any year for the NIH are less than the previous year.
  Twenty-six years of research since the 1971 passage of the National 
Cancer Act has brought great progress, but some say that the war on 
cancer has really only been a skirmish. We must escalate that war, we 
must launch an armada of scientists, we must push vigorously ahead, we 
must find a cure for cancer. I hope this bill will help to escalate 
that battle.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KEMPTHORNE (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
        Thomas, and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 730. A bill to make retroactive the entitlement of certain Medal 
of Honor recipients to the special pension provided for persons entered 
and recorded on the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal of 
Honor Roll; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                    medal of honor roll legislation

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that is the final step toward correcting a wrong--a wrong which 
lingered for more than 50 years.
  In January of this year, I attended a moving ceremony at the White 
House where the Congressional Medal of Honor was presented to seven 
African-Americans who had been denied the award during World War II. I 
can tell you, it was a solemn and dignified ceremony in the East Room 
of the White House last January, when the medals were awarded. 
Unfortunately, only one of the soldiers--Lt. Vernon Baker--was able to 
receive the medal in person. The other six died, unaware their heroism 
would one day be acknowledged.
  Like the medal itself, the financial rewards that normally accompany 
the honor are also past due. My bill offers the stipend that would have 
been earned by the three heroes who survived the heroic act which 
earned them the Congressional Medal of Honor.
  This bill, co-sponsored by Senators Craig, Torricelli, Thomas, and 
Enzi, provides Lt. Vernon Baker and the surviving spouse or children of 
S. Sgt. Edward A. Carter, Jr., and Maj. Charles L. Thomas with the 
financial benefits normally given to recipients of the Congressional 
Medal of Honor. The other Medal of Honor recipients, S. Sgt. Ruben 
Rivers, 1st Lt. John R. Fox, Pfc. Willy F. James, Jr., and Pvt. George 
Watson were all killed in action performing acts of heroism, and have 
no surviving family members.
  Mr. Vernon Baker, the only living survivor, now makes his home in the 
quiet north Idaho community of St. Maries. He is a soft spoken, humble 
man, almost embarrassed by all the national and international attention 
given him as a result of heroism. In April 1945, on a hill in Italy, 
Lt. Vernon Baker performed acts of bravery above and beyond the normal 
call of duty, risking his life to save the lives of others and taking a 
strategically important position, which saved countless other American 
lives.
  Following the battle, Lieutenant Baker's commander recommended this 
hero for our Nation's top military honors. But during World War II, no 
African-American soldier received the Medal of Honor, and so Lieutenant 
Baker never received the commendation due him--until 50 years after the 
fact.
  An Army review board studied thousands of service records and 
reports, and determined that seven African-Americans should have been 
awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I am proud the last Congress 
finally stepped up to the challenge and overturned this stain on the 
Nation's history, when it authorized the President to award the 
Congressional Medal of Honor to Vernon Baker.
  My bill will provide Mr. Baker and the surviving spouse or children 
of S. Sgt. Edward A. Carter, Jr., and Maj. Charles L. Thomas with the 
Congressional Medal of Honor pension that they would have received had 
they been rightly given the award in 1945. My bill does not adjust the 
pension for inflation nor does it offer interest. Instead, the bill I 
am introducing today offers three American heroes only what they 
rightly earned in combat defending our Nation and the free world.
  The people of Idaho have embraced Vernon Baker as a true American 
hero. The State's Governor has awarded Mr. Baker Idaho's top civilian 
honor. The Nation has bestowed upon him its highest military honor.
  This is a fair bill that will help provide three American heroes with 
the reward they rightly earned. I urge my colleagues to take a look at 
this important bill and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, in closing, I will just say that as an Idahoan and as 
an American, I am so proud to have been able to get to know Vernon 
Baker, a truly great American, and his wife Heidi. I wish them all the 
best success and joy as they continue a wonderful life in the State of 
Idaho.
  Again, as an American, I salute him and the other six African 
Americans who are true American heroes.
  Mr. President, I send to the desk the bill. I know that Senator Craig 
wishes to now address this issue as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me first thank my colleague, Senator 
Kempthorne, for his action and the work in developing this legislation 
that appropriately recognizes Vernon Baker, Edward A. Carter, Jr., and 
Charles L. Thomas in what I think can best be called retroactivity, 
certainly recognizing that there is a special pension tied to the Medal 
of Honor.
  The Medal of Honor was given to these African American soldiers and 
citizens and wonderful people in the appropriate fashion, finally, 
after a long, long wait. We had the opportunity to be at the White 
House for the ceremonies, and it was truly moving.
  Recognition of their outstanding courage and daring leadership during 
their service to their country in World War II was far too long coming, 
as I mentioned. However, their rewards should not be based upon the 
delay in their recognition, but based on the moment of their heroism.
  In the case of Vernon Baker, one of my fellow Idahoans--as Senator 
Kempthorne said, we had the privilege of getting to know he and his 
wife--more than 50 years have passed before the Nation did the 
appropriate thing in recognizing their courageous actions and bestowing 
them with the Congressional Medal of Honor. Now fairness demands that 
we couple this honor with

[[Page S4245]]

the benefits entitled to them and the next of kin in the case of the 
deceased, effective to the dates corresponding to their actions.
  Mr. President, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I once more thank 
Vernon Baker for his gallant actions on that April day so long ago and 
encourage the support of my colleague's legislation to resolve this 
issue for America for all time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of 
Senator Kempthorne's effort to provide Medal of Honor recipient Vernon 
Joseph Baker, and the heirs of Medal of Honor recipients Edward Carter 
and Charles Thomas, with retroactive compensation for their awards.
  During World War II, Mr. Baker was an Army 2d lieutenant serving with 
the 92d Infantry Division in Europe. During a 2-day action near 
Viareggio, Italy, he single handedly wiped out two German machinegun 
nets, led successful attacks on two others, drew fire on himself to 
permit the evacuation of his wounded comrades, and then led a battalion 
advance through enemy minefields. Mr. Baker is the only one of these 
three men still alive today, and he currently resides in St. Maries, 
ID.
  Edward Carter, of Los Angles, was staff sergeant with the 12th 
Armored Division when his tank was destroyed in action near Speyer, 
Germany, in March 1945. Mr. Carter led three men through extraordinary 
gunfire that left two of them dead, the third wounded and himself 
wounded five times. When eight enemy riflemen attempted to capture him, 
he killed six of them, captured the remaining two and, using his 
prisoners as a shield, recrossed an exposed field to safety. The 
prisoners yielded valuable information. Mr. Carter died in 1963.
  Charles Thomas, of Detroit, was a major with the 103d Infantry 
Division serving near Climbach, France, in December 1944. When his 
scout car was hit by intense artillery fire, Mr. Thomas assisted the 
crew to cover and, despite severe wounds, managed to signal the column 
some distance behind him to halt. Despite additional multiple wounds in 
the chest, legs, and left arm, he ordered and directed the dispersion 
and emplacement of two antitank guns that effectively returned enemy 
fire. He refused evacuation until certain his junior officer was in 
control of the situation. Mr. Thomas died in 1980.
  I commend Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas for their bravery and 
Senator Kempthorne for leading this effort.
  As a result of their heroics these men had clearly met the criteria 
for being awarded a Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest award for 
valor. This medal is only awarded to a member of the U.S. armed 
services who ``distinguishes themselves conspicuously by gallantry and 
intrepidity at the risk of their life and beyond the call of duty,'' 
with an act ``so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual 
above their comrades.'' However, because of the racial climate of the 
time and the segregated nature of the Army in 1945, African-Americans 
were denied the Medal of Honor. It is a sad testament to America's 
legacy of discrimination that although 1.2 million African-Americans 
served in the military during the Second World War, including Mr. 
Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas, none received 1 of the 433 Medals of 
Honor awarded during the conflict.
  This past January our Nation took an important step in correcting 
this injustice by awarding Mr. Vernon Joseph Baker, and six of his dead 
comrades, the Medal of Honor during a long-overdue ceremony at the 
White House. This recognition of these men's extraordinary courage was 
a vindication for all African-American heroes of World War II. In order 
to further demonstrate our profound thanks to these brave men, I 
support Senator Kempthorne's effort to retroactively compensate Mr. 
Baker, and the heirs of Mr. Carter and Mr. Thomas for the money that 
they would have received from the Army for receiving the Medal of 
Honor. The other three heroes died as a result of the brave deeds which 
qualified them to receive the Medal, and thus would not have received 
any compensation by the military.
  Each recipient of this Medal is entitled to receive a token monthly 
stipend from their respective branch of the military after they leave 
active duty service. In 1945 the stipend was $10 and today it has risen 
to $400. Since he was denied the Medal more than a half century ago, 
Mr. Baker and the survivors of Mr. Carter and Mr. Thomas, deserve to 
receive the same amount of money that they would have received had they 
been awarded the Medal at the close of World War II. American is 
profoundly thankful for the patriotism of these men, and awarding 
retroactive compensation to them is a simple way to express our 
gratitude for their service. For these reasons I stand today to 
recognize Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas, and support 
retroactively compensating them for their accomplishments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Snowe, 
        Ms. Collins, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Mack, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Abraham, 
        Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Warner, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Cochran, 
        and Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 732. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and 
issue coins in commemoration of the centennial anniversary of the first 
manned flight of Orville and Wilbur Wright in Kitty Hawk, North 
Carolina, on December 17, 1903; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.


                THE FIRST FLIGHT COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague 
from North Carolina, Senator Helms, and 12 other Senators to introduce 
the First Flight Commemorative Coin Act. This revenue-neutral 
legislation instructs the Treasury Secretary to mint coins in 
commemoration of the Wright Brothers' historic 1903 flight on the North 
Carolina coast.
  Mr. President, in the cold morning hours of December 17, 1903, a 
small crown watched the Wright Flyer lift off the flat landscape of 
Kitty Hawk. Orville Wright traveled just 120 feet--less than the 
wingspan of a Boeing 747--in his 12-second flight. It was, however, the 
first time that a manned machine sailed into the air under its own 
power. The residents of Kitty Hawk, then an isolated fishing village, 
thus bore witness to the realization of the centuries-old dream of 
flight.
  The significance of the Wright Brothers' flight reaches far beyond 
its status as the first flight. Their flight represented the birth of 
aviation. On that morning, aeronautics moved from untested theory to 
nascent science, and it triggered a remarkable technological evolution. 
In fact, just 24 years after their fragile craft rose unsteadily and 
took to the air, Charles Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic Ocean. In 1947, 
less than half a century after the pioneer 31 m.p.h. flight over Kitty 
Hawk, Chuck Yeager shattered the sound barrier over the Mojave Desert.
  The rapid aeronautical progression, which the Wright Brothers 
initiated on that December morning in Kitty Hawk, is, of course, 
remarkable. Mr. President, it was just 66 years after the Wright 
Brothers' 120-foot flight--a timespan equivalent to the age of many 
Members of this body--that Neil Armstrong traveled 240,000 miles to 
plant the American flag on the moon. Today, some 86,000 planes lift off 
from American airports on a daily basis, and air travel is routine. It 
was with a sprinkling of onlookers, however, that the Wright Brothers 
ushered in the age of flight on that cold winter morning in Kitty Hawk.
  The site of the first flight, at the foot of Kill Devil Hill, was 
initially designated as a national memorial in 1927 and is visited by 
close to a half-million people each year.
  I think that First Flight Commemorative Coin Act is a most 
appropriate tribute to the Wright Brothers as the centennial 
anniversary of the first flight approaches. The coin will be minted in 
$10, $1, and 50 denominations, and its sales will fund educational 
programs and improvements to the visitor center at the memorial. These 
commemorative coins are struck to celebrate important historical 
events, and, of course, the proceeds are an important revenue source to 
the custodians of these legacies. The centennial anniversary of the 
Wright Brothers' flight merits our observance.
  Mr. President, because all of the funds raised under this legislation 
will be used to, build, repair or refurbish structures all within a 
national park, I have added an exemption to the mintage levels as 
required by coin reform

[[Page S4246]]

legislation last year. Nevertheless, so that coin collectors can enjoy 
some certainty that the coin will be of value in the future, the Mint 
can reduce the mintage levels as it deems necessary.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues for their support, and 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. 732

       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 ``First Flight Commemorative 
     Coin Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

       (a) Denominations.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall mint and issue the following coins:
       (1) $10 gold coins.--Not more than 500,000 $10 coins, each 
     of which shall--
       (A) weigh 16.718 grams;
       (B) have a diameter of 1.06 inches; and
       (C) contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy.
       (2) $1 silver coins.--Not more than 3,000,000 $1 coins, 
     each of which shall--
       (A) weigh 26.73 grams;
       (B) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
       (C) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
       (3) Half dollar clad coins.--Not more than 10,000,000 half 
     dollar coins each of which shall--
       (A) weigh 11.34 grams;
       (B) have a diameter of 1.205 inches; and
       (C) be minted to the specifications for half dollar coins 
     contained in section 5112(b) of title 31, United States Code.
       (b) Reduced Amounts.--If the Secretary determines that 
     there is clear evidence of insufficient public demand for 
     coins minted under this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     may reduce the maximum amounts specified in paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3) of subsection (a).
       (c) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be 
     legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.

       The Secretary shall obtain gold and silver for minting 
     coins under this Act pursuant to the authority of the 
     Secretary under other provisions of law, including authority 
     relating to the use of silver stockpiles established under 
     the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act, as 
     applicable.

     SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.

       (a) Design Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be emblematic of the first flight of Orville and 
     Wilbur Wright in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, on December 17, 
     1903.
       (2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted 
     under this Act there shall be--
       (A) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (B) an inscription of the year ``2003''; and
       (C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We 
     Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus 
     Unum''.
       (b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be--
       (1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the 
     Board of Directors of the First Flight Foundation and the 
     Commission of Fine Arts; and
       (2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory 
     Committee.

     SEC. 5. PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF COINS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     Secretary may issue coins minted under this Act only during 
     the period beginning on August 1, 2003, and ending on July 
     31, 2004.
       (b) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that there is 
     sufficient public demand for the coins minted under section 
     2(a)(3), the Secretary may extend the period of issuance 
     under subsection (a) for a period of 5 years with respect to 
     those coins.

     SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.

       (a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be 
     sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coins;
       (2) the surcharge provided in subsection (d) with respect 
     to such coins; and
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping).
       (b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the 
     coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
       (c) Prepaid Orders.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders 
     for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of 
     such coins.
       (2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders 
     under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
       (d) Surcharges.--All sales shall include a surcharge of--
       (1) $35 per coin for the $10 coin;
       (2) $10 per coin for the $1 coin; and
       (3) $1 per coin for the half dollar coin.
       (e) Marketing Expenses.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
       (1) a plan is established for marketing the coins minted 
     under this Act; and
       (2) adequate funds are made available to cover the costs of 
     carrying out that marketing plan.

     SEC. 7. GENERAL WAIVER OF PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     provision of law governing procurement or public contracts 
     shall be applicable to the procurement of goods and services 
     necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
       (b) Equal Employment Opportunity.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     relieve any person entering into a contract under the 
     authority of this Act from complying with any law relating to 
     equal employment opportunity.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

       (a) In General.--All surcharges received by the Secretary 
     from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be 
     promptly paid by the Secretary to the First Flight Foundation 
     for the purposes of--
       (1) repairing, refurbishing, and maintaining the Wright 
     Brothers Monument on the Outer Banks of North Carolina; and
       (2) expanding (or, if necessary, replacing) and maintaining 
     the visitor center and other facilities at the Wright 
     Brothers National Memorial Park on the Outer Banks of North 
     Carolina, including providing educational programs and 
     exhibits for visitors.
       (b) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall have the right to examine such books, records, 
     documents, and other data of the First Flight Foundation as 
     may be related to the expenditures of amounts paid under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

       The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary 
     to ensure that minting and issuing coins under this Act will 
     not result in any net cost to the United States Government.

     SEC. 10. WAIVER OF COIN PROGRAM RESTRICTIONS.

       The provisions of section 5112(m) of title 31, United 
     States Code, do not apply to the coins minted and issued 
     under this Act.

                          ____________________