[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11678-S11692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Conrad, 
        Mr. Reid, Ms. Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Murkowski, 
        and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1359. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the 
amount of recoupment from veterans' disability compensation that is 
required in the case of veterans who have received certain separation 
payments from Department of Defense; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.


          the veterans' disability benefits relief act of 1997

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Veterans' 
Disability Benefits Relief Act. This legislation would address an 
unfair provision that double taxes veterans who participate in military 
downsizing programs run by the Department of Defense [DOD].
  Mr. President, since 1991, in an effort by the DOD to downsize the 
armed services, certain military personnel have been eligible for 
either the special separation benefit [SSB] or the voluntary separation 
incentive [VSI] program. However, SSB or VSI recipients who are 
subsequently diagnosed with a service-connected disability must offset 
the full SSB/VSI amount paid to that individual by withholding amounts 
that would be paid as disability compensation by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs [VA].
  Additionally, veterans who participate in the DOD's downsizing by 
selecting an SSB lump sum payment or a VSI monthly annuity payment, are 
forced to pay back the full, pretax amount in disability compensation--
offsetting money that the veteran would never see with or without a 
service-connected disability. This is a gross injustice to veterans by 
double taxing their hard-earned compensation.
  My bill would ease this double taxation for all members who accept an 
SSB or VSI payment package and make these alterations retroactive to 
December 5, 1991. Thus, service members not able to receive payment 
concurrently since 1991 will be reimbursed for their lost compensation 
portion that was taxed. The cost of this bill was estimated by CBO to 
be only $195 million over 25 years. This is a fraction of a percentage 
of our annual spending on compensation and benefits for former military 
personnel. I urge Congress to correct this injustice to our Nation's 
veterans and provide these veterans with the proper compensation they 
deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Grams, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Burns, and 
        Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1360. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 to clarify and improve the requirements for 
the development of an automated entry-exit control system, to enhance 
land border control and enforcement, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


           THE BORDER IMPROVEMENT AND IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
address a problem that has been attracting significant concern not only 
in my State of Michigan, but also in many other northern border States 
as well as along the southern border. This bill, entitled ``The Border 
Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997,'' will also add desperately 
needed resources for border control and enforcement at the land 
borders.
  I am proud to have a broad range of bipartisan support on this bill 
and to have as original cosponsors Senators Kennedy, D'Amato, Leahy, 
Grams, Dorgan, Collins, Murray, Burns, and Snowe.
  This legislation is needed to clarify the applicability of a small 
provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act--section 110 of that act. That section requires the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop, by September 30, 
1998, an automated entry and exit system to document the entry and 
departure of every alien arriving in and leaving the United States. 
While that may sound straightforward enough, the truth is that there 
could be disastrous consequences if this is not amended to conform with 
Congress' intent and to provide a sensible approach to automated entry-
exit control.
  The problem is that the term ``every alien'' could be interpreted to 
include Canadians who cross our northern land border--and in fact to 
include all aliens crossing the land borders and many aliens entering 
elsewhere who are currently exempt from filling out immigration forms. 
We could literally end up with intolerable backlogs and delays at the 
land borders and could end up creating a conflict with current 
documentary requirements, such as our practice of not requiring 
Canadians to present a passport, visa or border-crossing identification 
card to enter the United States for short-term visits.
  The potential problems here are generating great concern. The United 
States Ambassador to Canada wrote to me on October 14, for example, 
that he

[[Page S11679]]

is deeply concerned about this issue and noted that ``section 110 is 
inconsistent with the concerted efforts the United States and Canada 
have made in recent years to improve and simplify cross-border traffic 
flows.'' The Canadian Ambassador to the United States expressed similar 
concerns to me when I met with him last month. I recently chaired a 
field hearing of the Immigration Subcommittee on this issue in Detroit, 
MI, at which elected officials and industry representatives testified 
about the unprecedented traffic congestion, decreased trade, lost 
business and jobs, and harm to America's international relations that 
could result from the full implementation of section 110 in its current 
form.
  Mr. President, this provision was not intended by the law's authors 
to have the impact I just outlined. Our former colleague, Senator Alan 
Simpson, who preceded me as chairman of the Senate Immigration 
Subcommittee, and Representative Lamar Smith, who is chairman of the 
House Immigration Subcommittee, wrote in a letter last year to the 
Canadian Government that they ``did not intend to impose a new 
requirement for border crossing cards on Canadians who are not 
presently required to possess such documents.''
  The INS appears to maintain, however, that the law as it stands does 
call for a record of each and every noncitizen entering or leaving the 
United States. When you look at the text of the statute, you can 
certainly see a basis for their view.
  That is why I think the most sensible course here is simply to 
correct the statute. I should note that the administration shares our 
concern and has already requested that Congress correct section 110 and 
clarify that it should not apply along the land borders.
  The full implementation of section 110 would create a nightmare at 
our land borders for several reasons. First, every alien could be 
required to fill out immigration forms and hand them to border 
inspectors. That would create added delays at entry points into the 
United States, which would be intolerable. Our land border crossings 
simply cannot support such added pressures.
  A recent study by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas points out 
that traffic congestion and delays at our land borders already create 
unneeded costs and inconvenience. What we need are increased resources 
at the land borders, not increased burdens and bureaucracy.
  Second, every alien would likewise have to hand in forms when they 
leave the United States. Our immigration officials currently inspect 
only those entering the United States, and there are thus no inspection 
facilities at locations where people leave the country. This means that 
new inspections facilities would need to be built and that we would see 
significant increases in traffic on U.S. roads leaving the country.
  This additional infrastructure could run into billions of dollars, 
but the precise cost estimates are not possible at this point since we 
do not know what technology could even make such an exit system 
feasible. Even as a simple fiscal matter, we should not be requiring 
the kind of investment that would be involved here without knowing what 
the payoff, if any, will be, particularly where an undeveloped and 
untested system is involved. Also, at many border crossings, 
particularly on bridges or in tunnels, there simply is not room to 
construct additional facilities.
  The magnitude of these problems cannot be overstated. As just one 
example, take the northern border, with which I am most familiar.
  In 1996 alone, over 116 million people entered the United States by 
land from Canada, over 52 million of whom were Canadians or United 
States lawful permanent residents. The new provision would require a 
stop on the U.S. side to record the exit of every one of those 52 
million people. That is more than 140,000 every day; it is more than 
6,000 every hour; and more than 100 every minute. And that is only in 
one direction. The inconvenience, the traffic, and delays will be 
staggering.
  If uncorrected, section 110 will also have a devastating economic 
impact. The free flow of goods and services that are exchanged every 
day through the United States and Canada has provided both countries 
with enormous economic benefits. Trade and tourism between the two 
nations are worth $1 billion a day for the United States. Canada is not 
only the United States' largest trading partner, but the United States-
Canadian trading relationship is the most extensive and profitable in 
the world.
  My own State of Michigan has been an important beneficiary of that 
relationship. And 46 percent of the volume and 40.6 percent of the 
value of United States-Canada trade crosses the Michigan-Ontario 
border. Last year alone, exports to Canada generated over 72,000 jobs 
in key manufacturing industries in my State of Michigan and over $4.68 
billion in value added for the State.
  The United States automobile industry alone conducts 300 million 
dollars' worth of trade with Canada every day. New just in time 
delivery methods have made United States-Canadian border-crossings 
integral parts of our automobile assembly lines. A delivery of parts 
delayed by as little as 20 minutes can cause expensive assembly line 
shutdowns.
  Tourism and travel industries would likewise suffer by the full 
implementation of section 110. People in Windsor, Canada who thought 
they would head to Detroit for a Tiger's baseball game or Red Wing's 
hockey game might think again and stay home--with their money.
  Canadians might decide not to bother to see the American side of 
Niagara Falls, or not to go hiking or fishing in Maine. This would 
happen all across the northern border.
  I am beginning to hear concerns from those along the southern border 
as well, and I believe that the impact of full implementation of 
section 110 there could be equally disastrous.
  Congress did not intend to wreak such havoc on the borders. The fact 
is that these issues were simply not considered last Congress.
  Section 110 was principally designed to make entry-exit control 
automated, so that the system would function better; it was not 
intended to expand documentary requirements and immigration bureaucracy 
into new and uncharted territory. A simple clarification of section 110 
will take care of these problems. At the same time, we can take steps 
to improve inspections at our borders and to begin to take a sensible 
and longer term approach to automated entry-exit control.
  Mr. President, my legislation is quite straightforward and contains 
three pieces.
  First, it provides that section 110's requirement that the INS 
develop an automated entry-exit control system would not apply at the 
land borders, to U.S. lawful permanent residents, or to any aliens of 
foreign contiguous territory for whom the U.S. Attorney General and the 
Secretary of State have already waived visa requirements under existing 
statutory authority. This would maintain the status quo for lawful 
permanent residents and for a handful of our neighboring territories, 
including Canada, whose nationals do not pose a particular immigration 
threat and are already granted special status by the Attorney General 
and the Secretary of State.
  As its second main provision, my legislation calls for a report on 
full automated entry-exit control. In my view, Congress should not 
expand entry-exit control into new territory until it has received a 
report on what that would mean.
  The bottom line here is that we simply do not know whether such a 
fully implemented system is feasible, how much it will cost, whether 
the INS has the capacity and resources to use the data from such a 
system, and whether it might make more sense to devote our resources to 
going after the problem of visa overstayers in other ways.
  Finally, my bill provides for increased personnel for border 
inspections by INS and Customs to address the backlogs and delays we 
already have on the border. For 3 years, it would increase INS 
inspectors at the land borders by 300 per year and Customs inspectors 
at the land borders by 150 per year.
  Mr. President, our borders are already crowded. In 1993, nearly 9 
million people traveled over the Ambassador Bridge, 6.4 million 
traveled through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, and approximately 6.1 
million crossed the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. Even without new 
controls, we have unacceptable delays at many points of our borders.
  We should alleviate the problems we already have, not make them worse 
by

[[Page S11680]]

adding more controls and burdens. Even in the best case scenario, the 
new entry-exit controls might take an extra 2 minutes per border 
crosser to fulfill. That is almost 17 hours of delay for every hour's 
worth of traffic. It's just not practical. We must act to prevent it 
from happening and take action to address the delays already existing 
at our borders.
  I would also like to note that placing new entry-exit control 
requirements on our border neighbors will do virtually nothing to catch 
people entering our country illegally. For that, we need to improve 
border inspections and increase resources there.
  I do agree that automated entry-exit control certainly is needed to 
improve upon the INS's current system, which has a poor track record of 
providing data on visa overstayers. Having correct and usable data 
would be extremely helpful for a number of purposes; for example, to 
determine whether countries should remain in the visa waiver program 
and which countries pose particular visa overstay problems.
  However, in my view, being able to use automated entry-exit control 
as a means of going after individual visa overstayers is a long way 
off. That is why we should be cautious in our approach.
  We need to study this problem and consider some hard questions like 
what we will do down the road with all this data. Do we really think 
that the INS is currently capable of compiling and matching the data 
correctly or that INS has the resources to track down individuals based 
on this data? Do we want to be directing the INS to use its limited 
resources in this manner?
  I recommend that for the time being we attack the visa overstayer 
problem by focussing on our current enforcement tools and by continuing 
the enforcement approach taken in last year's illegal immigration 
reform bill. I supported efforts there to increase the sanctions for 
visa overstayers and to increase the number of INS investigators 
looking into visa overstayers.
  But before we burden the vast majority who do not present an 
enforcement problem and before we add inconveniences and costs to our 
own citizens, we should continue to study the options for broader 
automated entry-exit control.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation 
quickly. Tomorrow, we will be having a hearing to consider this bill 
and these issues in the Immigration Subcommittee. Given the 
overwhelming support for this along the land borders and from the 
administration, there is no need to wait on such an important issue or 
to leave so many with uncertainty.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire 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. 1360

       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 ``Border Improvement and 
     Immigration Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND 
                   IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996.

       (a) In General.--Section 110(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1221 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) System.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 
     2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Attorney General shall develop an automated entry and exit 
     control system that will--
       ``(A) collect a record of departure for every alien 
     departing the United States and match the record of departure 
     with the record of the alien's arrival in the United States; 
     and
       ``(B) enable the Attorney General to identify, through on-
     line searching procedures, lawfully admitted nonimmigrants 
     who remain in the United States beyond the period authorized 
     by the Attorney General.
       ``(2) Exception.--The system under paragraph (1) shall not 
     collect a record of arrival or departure--
       ``(A) at a land border of the United States for any alien;
       ``(B) for any alien lawfully admitted to the United States 
     for permanent residence; or
       ``(C) for any alien for whom the documentary requirements 
     in section 212(a)(7)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act have been waived by the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary of State under section 212(d)(4)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-
     546).

     SEC. 3. REPORT.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than two years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives on the feasibility of developing 
     and implementing an automated entry-exit control system that 
     would collect a record of departure for every alien departing 
     the United States and match the record of departure with the 
     record of the alien's arrival in the United States, including 
     departures and arrivals at the land borders of the United 
     States.
       (b) Contents of Report.--Such report shall--
       (1) assess the costs and feasibility of various means of 
     operating such an automated entry-exit control system, 
     including exploring--
       (A) how, if the automated entry-exit control system were 
     limited to certain aliens arriving at airports, departure 
     records of those aliens could be collected when they depart 
     through a land border or seaport; and
       (B) the feasibility of the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, negotiating 
     reciprocal agreements with the governments of contiguous 
     countries to collect such information on behalf of the United 
     States and share it in an acceptable automated format;
       (2) consider the various means of developing such a system, 
     including the use of pilot projects if appropriate, and 
     assess which means would be most appropriate in which 
     geographical regions;
       (3) evaluate how such a system could be implemented without 
     increasing border traffic congestion and border crossing 
     delays and, if any such system would increase border crossing 
     delays, evaluate to what extent such congestion or delays 
     would increase; and
       (4) estimate the length of time that would be required for 
     any such system to be developed and implemented.

     SEC. 4. INCREASED RESOURCES FOR BORDER CONTROL AND 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Increased Number of INS Inspectors at the Land 
     Borders.--The Attorney General in each of fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, and 2000 shall increase by not less than 300 the number 
     of full-time inspectors assigned to active duty at the land 
     borders of the United States by the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, above the number of such positions 
     for which funds were made available for the preceding fiscal 
     year. Not less than one-half of the inspectors added under 
     the preceding sentence in each fiscal year shall be assigned 
     to the northern border of the United States.
       (b) Increased Number of Customs Inspectors at the Land 
     Borders.--The Secretary of the Treasury in each of fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall increase by not less than 
     150 the number of full-time inspectors assigned to active 
     duty at the land borders of the United States by the Customs 
     Service, above the number of such positions for which funds 
     were made available for the preceding fiscal year. Not less 
     than one-half of the inspectors added under the preceding 
     sentence in each fiscal year shall be assigned to the 
     northern border of the United States.

  Mr. D'AMATO. I want to congratulate the chairman of the Immigration 
Subcommittee, Senator Abraham, for focusing on this issue and am 
pleased to join him and my other colleagues in putting forth this 
legislation which is aimed at correcting deficiencies that exist in the 
current law.
  Let me say I don't intend to repeat all of the arguments put forth by 
my colleagues. But I do want to point out, very clearly, there are a 
number of my colleagues who are concerned about the impact of 
implementation of this legislation.
  We were given such assurances as it related to its enforcement--that 
there was no intent to impose various requirements that would actually 
stop people from Canada who were coming in on a daily basis--millions 
of people, millions. In New York, 2.7 million Canadians visit for at 
least 1 night. One bridge, the Peace Bridge, carries 80 million 
dollars' worth of goods and services between Canada and New York, my 
State. Mr. President, 80 million dollars' worth of merchandise a day.
  It is estimated that if we impose this law that we will impose more 
time on inspections, which is now about 30 seconds per person, and make 
that at least 2 minutes a person. We will have traffic jams of 3, 4, 5 
and 6 hours. We will cost American consumers hundreds and hundreds of 
millions of dollars. We will disrupt trade. We will create an absolute 
catastrophe at our borders.
  Now, is that what we intend to do? If we really want to go after drug 
dealers, and that is what this intends to do, then let's go after them. 
We know who the cartel leaders are.
  You are going to stop millions of people on a daily basis who are 
traveling

[[Page S11681]]

back and forth between Canada and the United States? That is not going 
to affect the drug trade. Who are we kidding?
  The implementation of this would be costly because we are talking 
about $1 billion a day in trade. That is what we are talking about, $1 
billion a day.
  Senator Simpson, who was chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
last year, along with Congressman Lamar Smith, chairman of the House 
committee, in a letter that they wrote to the Canadian Ambassador, said 
that ``We did not intend to impose a new requirement for border 
crossing cards * * * on Canadians who are not presently required to 
possess such documents.''
  Mr. President, this legislation authored by Senator Abraham, and 
which I am very pleased to support, would exclude Canadians who are 
currently exempted, just like we told the Canadian Ambassador. So this 
legislation really keeps a commitment that was made to our friends, to 
our partners in Canada, and one in which I must say is absolutely vital 
to the interests of many, many communities.
  Let me mention a number of communities who have said if this 
legislation is not amended, it would be disastrous: Buffalo, NY; 
Syracuse, NY; Onondaga County; Oswego County and Plattsburgh. I have to 
tell you, they have been absolutely aghast. These are just some of the 
communities who have written to me and expressed, by either way of 
their elected officials or by the various trade groups and 
representatives, that this would be catastrophic. I believe they are 
right.
  This bill will stop problems before they are created--traffic jams 
never envisioned before, the flow of goods and services absolutely 
brought to a stop. I don't think we should wait for the problem to take 
place, nor do I think we can continue to abdicate our responsibility. 
As Senator Abraham has pointed out quite eloquently, we have not gotten 
the kind of clarification necessary that would allow the normal 
intercourse of business between our two great countries. You can't 
jeopardize people's lives, the well-being of our communities and, 
indeed, our national prosperity. I am pleased to support this bill. I 
hope we can get Senator Abraham speedy action on this. I intend to 
support Senator Abraham in every way possible and I want to commend you 
for having brought this to the attention of the U.S. Congress and 
putting forth legislation in such a thoughtful way.
  Last but not least, this legislation does something that is pretty 
important. It calls for increasing the number of Customs and INS 
inspectors and says at least half of them have to be placed on northern 
borders. While I understand that we have some tremendous problems on 
our southern borders dealing with the flow of drugs, we cannot 
underestimate the importance of continuing the process of commerce--in 
a manner which will continue to expand upon it and not impinge upon it.
  I thank my colleague from Michigan for being so forthright on this. I 
hope we can get this legislation passed sooner rather than later.
  To reiterate, I am pleased to join with the chairman of the 
Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Abraham and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Senator Kennedy, to introduce the Border Improvement and 
Immigration Act of 1997--a bill that will preserve the smooth and 
efficient trade and travel experienced between the United States and 
Canada.

  A provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act has caused enormous trepidation among businesses and 
families living along the northern border of the United States and 
Canada. Several organizations have contacted me with their concern 
about section 110 of the 1996 act--a provision that requires ``every 
alien'' to display documents upon entry to or exit from the United 
States.
  To put this problem into perspective, let me explain what 
implementation of section 110 would mean for New York State. Over 2.7 
million Canadians visit New York each year for at least 1 night, 
spending over $400 million. Last year, my State's exports to Canada 
exceeded $9.5 billion and the first 6 months of 1997 has seen a rise in 
exports. The ties between the communities are strong and must not be 
disrupted.
  The common council of the city of Plattsburgh has submitted a 
resolution indicating the threat to the strong relationship enjoyed by 
Canada and the United States--its economic, cultural, and social 
impact. The Greater Buffalo Partnership states that there are about 
5,000 trucks moving goods through the port of Buffalo every day that 
will be subject to a time intensive document production under this 
provision. They conclude that ``this provision will cause 5-hour delays 
and jeopardize every business relying on just in time deliveries.''
  This new requirement will cause unprecedented traffic jams at the 
border and chaos in the business and travel industry in northern New 
York.
  Implementation of this border restriction would be costly for both 
American and Canadian business and tourism throughout both nations. 
Nationally, trade with Canada hovers near $1 billion a day and there 
has been up to 116 million people entered the United States from Canada 
in 1996. As bilateral trade grows every year, traffic congestion and 
back ups could be expected to last hours, translating into frustration 
and lost opportunities.
  When Congress passed this law, there was no intent to impose this 
requirement on Canadians. As expressed by Senator Alan Simpson, 
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration last year, and 
Congressman Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on 
Immigration, in a letter to the Canadian Ambassador, ``we did not 
intend to impose a new requirement for border crossing cards * * * on 
Canadians who are not presently required to possess such documents.''
  This new legislation will exclude Canadians, who are currently 
exempted from documentary requirements, from having to register every 
arrival and departure at the United States border. Because of the 
tremendous burden of enforcement on our borders, the bill also 
authorizes an increase of at least 300 INS inspectors and 150 Customs 
inspectors each year.
  There is a major problem brewing on our border with Canada. It's a 
problem that threatens vital trade and travel between our two 
countries. This bill will halt the problem, and allow our normal trade 
and tourism to continue successfully. I am proud to lead the effort to 
pass this important legislation.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, Minnesota and Michigan are two States that 
share a common border with Canada, and so I am very proud today to join 
my colleague, Senator Abraham, chairman of the Judiciary Immigration 
Subcommittee, as a cosponsor of his bill to ensure Canada will receive 
current treatment once the immigration law is implemented in 1998. 
There has been a great deal of concern, especially in Minnesota, as 
well, as to how the immigration law we passed last year will affect the 
northern U.S. border. Right now the fear is the law is being 
misinterpreted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Minnesota alone has about 817 miles of shared border with Canada and 
we share many interests with our northern neighbor--tourism, trade, and 
family visits among the most prevalent. In the last few years, passage 
back and forth over the Minnesota/Canadian border has been more open 
and free flowing, especially since the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. There were 116 million travelers 
entering the United States from Canada in 1996 over the land border. As 
our relationship with Canada is increasingly interwoven, we have sought 
a less restrictive access to each country.
  The immigration bill last year was intended to focus on illegal 
aliens entering this country from Mexico and living in the United 
States illegally. The new law states that ``every alien'' entering and 
leaving the United States would have to register at all the borders--
land, sea, and air. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was 
tasked with the effort to set up automated pilot sites along the border 
to discover the most effective way to implement this law, which was to 
become effective on September 30, 1998.
  The INS was quietly going about establishing a pilot site on the New 
York State border when the reality sunk in. A flood of calls from 
constituents came into the offices of all of us serving in Canadian 
border states. Canadian citizens also registered opposition to this

[[Page S11682]]

new restriction. It became quite clear that no one had considered how 
the new law affected Canada. Current law already waives the document 
requirement for most Canadian nationals, but still requires certain 
citizens to register at border crossings. That system has worked. There 
have been very few problems at the northern border with drug 
trafficking and illegal aliens.
  In an effort to resolve this situation, I have joined Senators 
Abraham, D'Amato, Collins, Snowe, Burns, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, 
Moynihan, and Graham of Florida in a letter asking INS Commissioner 
Meissner for her interpretation of this law and how she expects to 
implement it. We have not had a response to date, but the INS' previous 
reaction to this issue indicates that every alien would include both 
Canadian nationals and American permanent residents--everyone crossing 
the border.
  Therefore, we must make it very clear that Congress did not intend to 
impose additional documentary requirements on Canadian nationals; 
Senator Abraham's bill will restore our intent. Our legislation, the 
Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997, will not open the 
floodgates for illegal aliens to pass through--it will still require 
those who currently need documentation to continue to produce it and 
remain registered in a new INS system. This will allow the INS to keep 
track of that category of non-immigrant entering our country to ensure 
they leave when their visas expire. Senator Abraham's bill will not 
unfairly treat our friends on the Canadian side that have been deemed 
not to need documentation--they will still be able to pass freely back 
and forth across the border.
  But our bill will enable us to avoid the huge traffic jams and 
confusion which would no doubt occur if every alien was to be 
registered in and out of the United States. Such registration would 
discourage trade and visits to the United States. It would delay 
shipments of important industrial equipment, auto parts services and 
other shared ventures that have long thrived along the northern border. 
It will discourage the economic revival that northern Minnesotans are 
experiencing, helped by Canadian shoppers and tourists.
  Mr. President, I do not believe Congress intended to create this new 
mandate. We sought to keep illegal aliens and illegal drugs out, not 
our trading partners and visiting consumers. Through the Abraham bill, 
we will still do that while keeping the door open to our neighbors from 
the north. The bill is good foreign policy, good public policy and good 
economic policy. We all will benefit while retaining our ability to 
keep track of nonimmigrants who enter our borders.
  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank Senator Abraham for 
his leadership on this very important matter. I am aware that Senator 
Abraham had a successful hearing on this issue recently in Michigan. 
Many Minnesotans, through letters, calls and personal appeals, have 
also showed their opposition to a potential crisis. I look forward to 
testifying before the Immigration Subcommittee hearing tomorrow and 
assisting my colleague from Michigan in his efforts to pass this bill 
before the 1998 implementation date. Again, this is an unacceptable 
burden on our Canadian neighbors and those who depend upon their free 
access that effects the economics of all border states.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator 
Abraham, chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, as a cosponsor of 
legislation to clarify the intent of Congress under section 110 of the 
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. He 
has taken up this matter to clarify the intent of Congress and I 
appreciate his efforts and those of Senator Kennedy to deal with this 
expeditiously.
  The interest of North Dakota in this bill specifically relates to the 
impact of imposing section 110 entry-exit requirements on the land 
border between Canada and North Dakota. In September, I introduced 
legislation, S. 1212, to exempt Canadian nationals from the 
requirements of section 110. Senators Conrad, Moynihan, and Levin have 
joined me in cosponsoring the bill.
  I have subsequently heard from small businesses not only in North 
Dakota, but from New York State, Michigan, and other States. They are 
very concerned that if Congress fails to take action to exempt Canadian 
nationals from the section 110 requirements it could have a devastating 
impact on their businesses.
  In 1995, Canadian visitors spent nearly $200 million in North Dakota. 
That is one in every four total tourism dollars coming into the State 
of North Dakota. Grand Forks, ND, devastated by floods last spring, is 
seeing a return of Canadian weekend visitors. The Convention and 
Visitors Bureau there tells me that without the Canadian visitors--who 
shop there, and who stay in area motels--without the Canadian visitors 
Grand Forks may never see a full economic recovery. These visitors are 
terribly important to this city trying to make a comeback.
  Ask any small business owner in northern North Dakota--or for that 
matter any northern border State. We should be talking about policies 
to encourage more Canadians to visit the United States. It is incumbent 
on the Senate and the House to act to exempt Canadian nationals from 
the requirements of section 110 and to send a signal that we welcome 
their business.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Abraham for taking up this important 
issue at this time. I endorse the exemption of Canadian nationals from 
section 110 requirements, and I wholeheartedly support his efforts to 
authorize additional personnel for the northern border. The northern 
borders in particular have seen no growth in resources for some time 
now.
  I encourage the committee to move expeditiously to bring this bill to 
the floor. To do so will reassure small business owners and small 
communities across the northern United States that we are looking out 
for their economic interests.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleague from 
Michigan, Senator Abraham, in the introduction of the Border 
Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. This legislation will clarify 
a small provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act, specifically section 110. Section 110 requires the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop, by September 30, 
1998, an automated entry and exit control system to document the entry 
and departure of `every alien' arriving in and leaving the United 
States.
  This section, if not amended, would pose great hardship to Montana, 
and to most border States. The current procedure allows Canadians to 
cross the United States-Canadian border without requiring them to 
present a passport, visa, or border-crossing identification card. This 
assists our communities, on both sides of the border, to expand their 
economic growth. A large portion of our economic life is derived from 
the business we have that comes from Canada, whether it be from travel, 
tourism, or regular trade. The free flow of goods and services that are 
exchanged every day through the United States and Canada has provided 
both countries with enormous economic benefits. If not amended, this 
could drop dramatically.
  Congress did not intend to cause such a disruption of service when it 
passed the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Section 
110 was principally designed to make the current entry-exist control 
system automated--so that the system would function better; it was not 
intended to expand documentary requirements and bureaucracy. This 
legislation will take the steps needed to insure that the law is read 
properly. This bill would require that the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to develop an automated entry-exit control 
system would not apply at the land borders, to U.S. lawful permanent 
residents or to any nationals of foreign contiguous territory from whom 
the Attorney General and the Secretary of State have already waived 
visa requirements.
  Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will review this bill and 
understand the merits that it provides, not only for our border States, 
but also for the Nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to ensure its swift passage.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
The Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1997. This bill will 
ensure that Canadians and United States permanent residents are treated 
fairly and

[[Page S11683]]

appropriately and that the United States and Canada's long and friendly 
relationship regarding immigration issues is preserved.
  We must preserve the integrity of our open border and ensure that no 
undue hassle, inconvenience, or burden is placed upon those who cross 
the United States-Canada border. Vermont and Canada share many 
traditions, and one that we all value is the free flow of trade and 
tourism. Ours is the longest open border in the world, and we should do 
nothing to change or endanger that relationship. On Vermont's border 
with Canada, commerce, tourism and other exchanges across the border 
are part of our way of life. A general store in Norton, VT, on the 
border has the separate cash registers at either end of the shop.
  The Border Improvement Act will preserve the status quo for Canadians 
and Americans crossing the United States' northern border. It will 
ensure that tourists and trade continue to be able to freely cross the 
border, without additional documentation requirements. This bill will 
also guarantee that the over $1 billion in daily cross-border trade is 
not hindered in any way. The Border Improvement Act takes a more 
thoughtful approach to modifying U.S. immigration policies than last 
year's bill, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act [IIRIRA]. By requiring the Attorney General to 
thoroughly assess the potential cost and impact before implementing any 
sort of automated entry-exit monitoring system on the Nation's land 
borders, this bill ensures that any such system will be well planned 
and implemented. Finally, the Border Improvement Act will ensure 
adequate staffing on the northern border by requiring a substantial 
increase in the number of INS and Customs agents assigned to this 
region over the next 3 years.
  I am particularly pleased to see that this bill has clear bipartisan 
support. Last year, I worked closely with Senator Abraham to quash 
another ill-conceived proposed addition to the immigration bill--the 
implementation of border-crossing fees. We successfully defeated the 
fee proposal last year, but only after much debate and negotiation.
  Unfortunately, we did not have the same opportunity to debate fully 
the provision in section 110 of the IIRIRA which mandates that the INS 
develop an automated entry and exit control system to track the arrival 
and departure of all aliens at all borders by next October.
  The current language in section 110 of the IIRIRA, as agreed to in 
last would have a significant negative impact on trade and relations 
between the United States and Canada. By requiring an automated system 
for monitoring the entry and exit of all aliens, this provision would 
require that the INS and Customs agents stop each vehicle or individual 
entering or exiting the United States at all ports of entry. Canadians, 
United States permanent residents and many others who are not currently 
required to show documentation of their status would either have to 
carry some form of identification or fill out paperwork at the points 
of entry. This sort of tracking system would be enormously costly to 
implement along the northern border, especially since there is no 
current system or infrastructure to track the departure of citizens and 
others leaving the United States. Section 110, as currently worded, 
would also lead to excessive and costly traffic delays for those living 
and working near the border. These delays would surely have a negative 
impact on the $2.4 billion in goods and services shipped annually from 
Vermont to Canada and would likely reduce the $120 million per year 
which Canadians spend in Vermont.
  This legislation has been crafted with input from the INS and 
representatives of the Canadian Government. By including the 
administration and our northern neighbor in the discussions, Senators 
Abraham and Kennedy have developed a remedy which is sure to be 
implemented smoothly. My cosponsorship of this bill reflects my ongoing 
concern about the negative impact the implementation of the current 
language in section 110 of the IIRIRA would have on the economy in my 
home State of Vermont, as well as in the other northern border States. 
While this remedy was being negotiated, I cosponsored an amendment on 
the floor and sent letters to Attorney General Reno and INS 
Commissioner Meissner requesting that a study be undertaken before any 
sort of automated entry-exit monitoring system be implemented. I am 
pleased that this bill has a similar provision. But, the Border 
Improvement Act goes one step further to protect our Canadian 
neighbors' rights to freely cross the border into the United States 
without facing needless traffic delays or unnecessary paperwork 
requirements.
  I am pleased that Senator Abraham has called a hearing tomorrow to 
discuss this bill and the negative impact the current law would have in 
so many of our States. At the hearing, we will hear the testimony of 
Bill Stenger, the president of the Jay Peak Ski Resort in Vermont which 
is situated only a few miles from the Canadian border. Mr. Stenger will 
testify to the disastrous effect any increased documentation 
requirements for Canadians would have on his business, and so many 
other United States businesses which are dependent on the preservation 
of free trade and travel across the Canadian border.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1361. A bill to provide for the appointment of 1 additional 
Federal district judge for the eastern district of Wisconsin, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              THE WISCONSIN FEDERAL JUDGESHIP ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to introduce the Wisconsin Federal 
Judgeship Act of 1997. This bill would create one additional Federal 
judgeship for the eastern district of Wisconsin and situate it in Green 
Bay, where a district court is crucially needed. Let me explain how the 
current system hurts--and how this additional judgeship will help--
businesses, law enforcement agents, witnesses, victims, and individual 
litigants in northeastern Wisconsin.
  First, the four full-time district court judges for the eastern 
district of Wisconsin currently preside in Milwaukee. Yet for most 
litigants and witnesses in northeastern Wisconsin, Milwaukee is well 
over 100 miles away. Thus, litigants and witnesses must incur 
substantial costs in traveling from northern Wisconsin to Milwaukee--
costs in terms of time, money, resources, and effort. Indeed driving 
from Green Bay to Milwaukee takes nearly two hours each way. Add 
inclement weather or a departure point north of Green Bay--such as 
Oconto or Marinette--and the driving time alone often results in 
witnesses traveling for a far longer period of time than they actually 
spend testifying.
  Second, Mr. President, as Attorney General Janet Reno recently noted 
before the Judiciary Committee, Federal crimes remain unacceptably high 
in northeastern Wisconsin. These crimes range from bank robbery and 
kidnaping to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. However, without the 
appropriate judicial resources, a crackdown on Federal crimes in the 
upper will be made enormously more difficult.
  Third, many manufacturing and retail companies are located in 
northeastern Wisconsin. These companies often require a Federal court 
to litigate complex price-fixing, contract, and liability disputes with 
out-of-State businesses. But the sad truth is that many of these cases 
are never even filed--precisely because the northern part of the State 
lacks a Federal court. Mr. President, this hurts businesses not only in 
Wisconsin, but across the Nation.
  Fourth, prosecuting cases on the Menominee Indian Reservation creates 
specific problems that alone justify having a Federal judge in Green 
Bay. Under current law, the Federal Government is required to prosecute 
all felonies committed by Indians that occur on the Menominee 
Reservation. The reservation's distance from the Federal prosecutors 
and courts--more than 150 miles--makes these prosecutions problematic. 
And because the Justice Department compensates attorneys, 
investigators, and sometimes witnesses for travel expenses, the 
existing system costs all of us. In addition, Mr. President, we saw 
juvenile crime rates on this reservation rise by 279 percent last year 
alone. Without an additional judge in Green Bay, the administration

[[Page S11684]]

of justice, as well as the public's pocketbook, will suffer enormously.
  Fifth, Mr. President, the creation of an additional judgeship in the 
eastern district of Wisconsin is also clearly justified on the basis of 
caseload. I have commissioned the General Accounting Office to look at 
this issue and their report will be released early next year and which 
we expect will confirm our belief. However, based on standards already 
established by the Judicial Conference, the administrative and 
statistical arm of the Federal judiciary, an additional judgeship is 
clearly needed. In 1994, the Judicial Conference recommended the 
creation of additional Federal judgeships on the basis of weighted 
filings; that is, the total number of cases filed per judge modified by 
the average level of case complexity. In 1994, new positions were 
justified where a district's workload exceeded 430 weighted filings per 
judge. On this basis, the eastern district of Wisconsin clearly merits 
an additional judgeship: it tallied more than 435 weighted filings in 
1993 and averaged 434 weighted filings per judge between 1991-93. In 
fact, though our bill would not add an additional judge in the western 
district of Wisconsin, we could make a strong case for doing so because 
the average weighted filings per judge in the western district was 
almost as high as in the eastern district.
  Mr. President, our legislation in simple, effective, and 
straightforward. It creates an additional judgeship for the eastern 
district, requires that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and gives 
the chief judge of the eastern district the flexibility to designate 
which judge holds court there. And this legislation would increase the 
number of Federal district judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 
1978. During that period, more than 252 new Federal district judgeships 
have been created nationwide, but not a single one in Wisconsin.
  And don't take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the people who 
would be most affected: in 1994 each and every sheriff and district 
attorney in northeastern Wisconsin urged me to create a Federal 
district court in Green Bay. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 
these law enforcement officials be included in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, Tom 
Schneider, also be included. This letter expresses the support of the 
entire Federal law enforcement community in Wisconsin--including the 
FBI, the DEA, and the BATF--for the legislation we are introducing. 
They needed this additional judicial resource in 1994, and certainly, 
Mr. President, that need has only increased over the last 3 years.
  Perhaps most important, the people of Green Bay also agree on the 
need for an additional Federal judge, as the endorsement of our 
proposal by the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce demonstrates.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, having a Federal judge in Green Bay 
will reduce costs and inconvenience while increasing judicial 
efficiency. But most important, it will help ensure that justice is 
more available and more affordable to the people of northeastern 
Wisconsin. As the courts are currently arranged, the northern portion 
of the eastern district is more remote from a Federal court than any 
other major population center, commercial or industrial, in the United 
States. For these sensible reasons, I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation. We hope to enact this measure, either separately or 
as a part of an omnibus judgeship bill the Judiciary Committee may 
consider later this Congress.
  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. 1361

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

     SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN 
                   DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.

       (1) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Wisconsin 
     Federal Judgeship Act of 1997''.
       (b) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district 
     judge for the eastern district of Wisconsin.
       (c) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 
     133 of title 28, United States Code, shall reflect the change 
     in the total number of permanent district judgeships 
     authorized under subsection (a), such table is amended by 
     amending the item relating to Wisconsin to read as follows:

        ``Wisconsin:
``Eastern...........................................................  5
``Western..........................................................2''.
       (d) Holding of Court.--The chief judge of the eastern 
     district of Wisconsin shall designate 1 judge who shall hold 
     court for such district in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
                                                                    ____

                                                   August 8, 1994.
     U.S. Senator Herb Kohl,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: We are writing to urge your support for 
     the creation of a Federal District Court in Green Bay. The 
     Eastern District of Wisconsin includes the 28 eastern-most 
     counties from Forest and Florence Counties in the north to 
     Kenosha and Walworth Counties in the south.
       Green Bay is central to the northern part of the district 
     which includes approximately one third of the district's 
     population. Currently, all Federal District Judges hold court 
     in Milwaukee.
       A federal court in Green Bay would make federal proceedings 
     much more accessible to the people of northern Wisconsin and 
     would alleviate many problems for citizens and law 
     enforcement. Travel time of 3 or 4 hours each way makes it 
     difficult and expensive for witnesses and officers to go to 
     court in Milwaukee. Citizen witnesses are often reluctant to 
     travel back and forth to Milwaukee. It often takes a whole 
     day of travel to come to court and testify for a few minutes. 
     Any lengthy testimony requires an inconvenient and costly 
     overnight stay in Milwaukee. Sending officers is costly and 
     takes substantial amounts of travel time, thereby reducing 
     the number of officers available on the street. Many cases 
     are simply never referred to federal court because of this 
     cost and inconvenience.
       In some cases there is no alternative. For example, the 
     Federal government has the obligation to prosecute all felony 
     offenses committed by Indians on the Menominee Reservation. 
     Yet the Reservation's distance from the Federal Courts and 
     prosecutors in Milwaukee poses serious problems. Imagine the 
     District Attorney of Milwaukee being located in Keshena or 
     Green Bay or Marinette and trying to coordinate witness 
     interviews, case preparation, and testimony.
       As local law enforcement officials, we try to work closely 
     with other local, state and federal agencies, and we believe 
     establishing a Federal District Court in Green Bay will 
     measurably enhance these efforts. Most important, a Federal 
     Court in Green Bay will make these courts substantially more 
     accessible to the citizens who live here.
       We urge you to introduce and support legislation to create 
     and fund an additional Federal District Court in Green Bay.
         Gary Robert Bruno, Shawano and Menominee County District 
           Attorney; Jay Conley, Oconto County District Attorney; 
           John DesJardins, Outagamie County District Attorney; 
           Douglas Drexler, Florence County District Attorney; Guy 
           Dutcher, Waushara County District Attorney; E. James 
           FitzGerald, Manitowoc County District Attorney; Kenneth 
           Kratz, Calumet County District Attorney; Jackson Main, 
           Jr., Kewaunee County District Attorney; David Miron, 
           Marinette County District Attorney; Joseph Paulus, 
           Winnebago County District Attorney; Gary Schuster, Door 
           County District Attorney; John Snider, Waupaca County 
           District Attorney; Ralph Uttke, Langlade County 
           District Attorney; Demetrio Verich, Forest County 
           District Attorney; John Zakowski, Brown County District 
           Attorney.
         William Aschenbrener, Shawano County Sheriff; Charles 
           Brann, Door County Sheriff; Todd Chaney, Kewaunee 
           County Sheriff; Michael Donart, Brown County Sheriff; 
           Patrick Fox, Waushara County Sheriff; Bradley Gehring, 
           Outagamie County Sheriff; Daniel Gillis, Calumet County 
           Sheriff; James Kanikula, Marinette County Sheriff; 
           Norman Knoll, Forest County Sheriff; Thomas Kocourek, 
           Manitowoc County Sheriff; Robert Kraus, Winnebago 
           County Sheriff; William Mork, Waupaca County Sheriff; 
           Jeffrey Rickaby, Florence County Sheriff; David Steger, 
           Langlade County Sheriff; Kenneth Woodworth, Oconto 
           County Sheriff.
         Richard Awonhopay, Chief, Menominee Tribal Police; 
           Richard Brey, Chief of Police, Manitowoc; Patrick 
           Campbell, Chief of Police, Kaukauna; James Danforth, 
           Chief of Police, Onelda Public Safety; Donald Forcey, 
           Chief of Police, Neenah; David Gorski, Chief of Police, 
           Appleton; Robert Langan, Chief of Police, Green Bay; 
           Michael Lien, Chief of Police, Two Rivers; Mike Nordin, 
           Chief of Police, Sturgeon Bay; Patrick Ravet, Chief of 
           Police, Marinette; Robert Stanke, Chief of Police, 
           Menasha; Don Thaves, Chief of Police, Shawano; James 
           Thome, Chief of Police, Oshkosh.

[[Page S11685]]

           
                                                                    ____
         U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney, Eastern 
           District of Wisconsin,
                                    Milwaukee, WI, August 9, 1994.
     To: The District Attorney's, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs 
         Urging the Creation of a Federal District Court in Green 
         Bay.
     From: Thomas P. Schneider, U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of 
         Wisconsin.

       Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1994, urging the 
     creation of a Federal District Court in Green Bay. You point 
     out a number of facts in your letter:
       (1) Although \1/3\ of the population of the Eastern 
     District of Wisconsin is in the northern part of the 
     district, all of the Federal District Courts are located in 
     Milwaukee.
       (2) A federal court in Green Bay would be more accessible 
     to the people of northern Wisconsin. It would substantially 
     reduce witness travel time and expenses, and it would make 
     federal court more accessible and less costly for local law 
     enforcement agencies.
       (3) The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over 
     most felonies committed on the Menominee Reservation, located 
     approximately 3 hours from Milwaukee. The distance to 
     Milwaukee is a particular problem for victims, witnesses, and 
     officers from the Reservation.
       I have discussed this proposal with the chiefs of the 
     federal law enforcement agencies in the Eastern District of 
     Wisconsin, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms, Secret Service, U.S. Marshal, U.S. 
     Customs Service, and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal 
     Investigation Division. All express support for such a court 
     and given additional reasons why it is needed.
       Over the past several years, the FBI, DEA, and IRS have 
     initiated a substantial number of investigations in the 
     northern half of the district. In preparation for indictments 
     and trials, and when needed to testify before the Grand Jury 
     or in court, officers regularly travel to Milwaukee. Each 
     trip requires 4 to 6 hours of round trip travel per day, plus 
     the actual time in court. In other words, the agencies' 
     already scarce resources are severely taxed. Several federal 
     agencies report that many cases which are appropriate for 
     prosecution are simply not charged federally because local 
     law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to bring 
     these cases and officers back and forth to Milwaukee.
       Nevertheless, there have been a substantial number of 
     successful federal investigations and prosecutions from the 
     Fox Valley area and other parts of the Northern District of 
     Wisconsin including major drug organizations, bank frauds, 
     tax cases, and weapons cases.
       It is interesting to note that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 
     the Eastern District of Wisconsin holds hearings in Green 
     Bay, Manitowoc, and Oshkosh, all in the northern half of the 
     district. For the past four years approximately 29% of all 
     bankruptcy filings in the district were in these three 
     locations.
       In addition, we continue to prosecute most felonies 
     committed on the Menominee Reservation. Yet, the 
     Reservation's distance from the federal courts in Milwaukee 
     poses serious problems. A federal court in Green Bay is 
     critically important if the federal government is to live up 
     to its moral and legal obligation to enforce the law on the 
     Reservation.
       In summary, I appreciate and understand your concerns and I 
     join you in urging the certain of a Federal District Court in 
     Green Bay.
                                              Thomas P. Schneider,
                     U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and 
colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in introducing the Wisconsin 
Federal Judgeship Act of 1997. I want to commend my colleague for his 
leadership and dedication on this very important matter.
  Mr. President, the legislation being introduced will address a 
serious problem currently confronting the citizens of the eastern 
district of Wisconsin. At present, the eastern district of Wisconsin 
consists of four district court judges and two appellate judges, all of 
which sit in Milwaukee. However, the eastern district of Wisconsin is 
an expansive area which extends from Wisconsin's southern border with 
Illinois all the way to the north and the Great Lakes. Approximately 
one-third of the population of the eastern district of Wisconsin lives 
and works in the northern part of the district. While Milwaukee is 
centrally located for the majority of residents who reside in south-
eastern Wisconsin, the same cannot be said for the residents of my 
State which live in the northern portion of the district.
  The Wisconsin Judgeship Act addresses this problem by placing a fifth 
district court judgeship in Green Bay which is centrally located in the 
northern portion of Wisconsin's eastern district. The simple fact of 
the matter is that at present access to the justice system is 
burdensome and expensive for the residents and for law enforcement of 
northeastern Wisconsin. In some instances, the travel time incurred by 
victims, witnesses, and law enforcement is as much as 3 or 4 hours each 
way, often longer depending upon the weather. In some cases, the cost, 
both in time and in scarce resources, may simply mean that legitimate 
cases are not being heard. Another troubling facet of this situation is 
that northeastern Wisconsin is home to the Menominee Indian 
Reservation. Because the Federal Government retains significant 
jurisdictional responsibility for cases arising on the reservation, the 
requirement that the cases be adjudicated in Milwaukee is particularly 
problematic in these cases. Based on these facts Mr. President, it is 
little wonder that this legislation has the strong support of law 
enforcement, both from police and prosecutors, from all across the 
eastern district of Wisconsin.
  By placing a Federal judge in Green Bay, not only will the residents 
of the growing Fox River Valley have easier access to the court, but so 
too will those residents of my State which live in the north. Mr. 
President, I have long believed that access to the administration of 
justice is among the most important and fundamental rights that we as 
Americans retain. Ensuring access to the courthouse is one of the 
primary responsibilities that the Federal Government has to its 
citizens. As members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Senator 
Kohl and I see firsthand how important the timely administration of 
justice is to our Democratic Government. The inability to receive one's 
day in court because of geographic distance, as appears to be happening 
to some in my State, is unacceptable. This legislation will address 
that inequity and I look forward to working with Senator Kohl and other 
members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as this legislation 
moves forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1362. A bill to promote the use of universal product members on 
claim forms used for reimbursement under the medicare program; to the 
Committee on Finance.


           THE MEDICARE UNIVERSAL PRODUCT NUMBER ACT OF 1997

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Breaux and myself, 
I am introducing legislation today to require the use of universal 
product numbers [UPNs] for all durable medical equipment [DME] Medicare 
purchases. The purpose of this legislation is to improve the Health 
Care Financing Administration's [HCFA] ability to track and to 
appropriately assess the value of the durable medical equipment it pays 
for under the Medicare Program. Very simply, our bill will ensure 
Medicare gets what it pays for.
  According to an interim report by the General Accounting Office [GAO] 
and the Office of Inspector General's review of billing practices for 
specific medical supplies, the Medicare program is often paying greater 
than the market price for durable medical equipment and Medicare 
beneficiaries are not receiving the quality of care they should. HCFA 
currently does not require DME suppliers to identify specific products 
on their Medicare claims. Therefore it does not know for which products 
it is paying. HCFA's billing codes often cover a broad range of 
products of various types, qualities and market prices. For example, 
the GAO found that one Medicare billing code is used by the industry 
for more than 200 different urological catheters, with many of these 
products varying significantly in price, use, and quality.
  Medicare's inability to accurately track and price medical equipment 
and supplies it purchases could be remedied with the use of product 
specific codes known as bar codes or universal product numbers [UPN's]. 
These codes are similar to the codes you see on products you purchase 
at the grocery store. Use of such bar codes is already being required 
by the Department of Defense and several large private sector 
purchasing groups. The industry strongly supports such an initiative as 
well. I am submitting several letters of endorsement for the record on 
behalf of the National Association of Medical Equipment Services and 
the Health Industry Distributors Association.
  This bill represents a common-sense approach. It will improve the way 
Medicare monitors and reimburses suppliers for medical equipment and 
supplies. Patients will receive better care.

[[Page S11686]]

 And the Federal Government will save money. I ask that my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle support this legislation which I am 
introducing today with my friend and colleague, Senator Breaux.
  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. 1362

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Universal Product 
     Number Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. UNIVERSAL PRODUCT NUMBERS ON CLAIMS FORMS FOR 
                   REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Accommodation of UPNs on Medicare Electronic Claims 
     Forms.--Not later than February 1, 2000, all electronic 
     claims forms developed or used by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services for reimbursement under the medicare program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.) pursuant to part C of title XI of that Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1320d et seq.) or any other law shall accommodate the 
     use of universal product numbers (as defined in section 
     1897(a)(2) of that Act (as added by subsection (b))) for 
     covered items (as defined in section 1834(a)(13) of that Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(13))).
       (b) Requirement for Payment of Claims.--Title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) (as amended by 
     section 4015 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 
     105-33; 111 Stat. 337)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:


                   ``use of universal product numbers

       Sec. 1897. (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered item.--The term `covered item' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 1834(a)(13).
       ``(2) Universal product number.--The term `universal 
     product number' means a number that is--
       ``(A) affixed by the manufacturer to each individual 
     covered item that uniquely identifies the item at each 
     packaging level; and
       ``(B) based on commercially acceptable identification 
     standards established by the Uniform Code Council--
     International Article Numbering System and the Health 
     Industry Business Communication Council.
       ``(b) In General.--No payment shall be made under this 
     title for any claim for reimbursement for any covered item 
     unless the claim contains the universal product number of the 
     covered item.''.
       (c) Development and Implementation of Procedures.--From the 
     information obtained by the use of universal product numbers 
     (as defined in section 1897(a)(2) of the Social Security Act 
     (as added by section 2(b))) on claims for reimbursement under 
     the medicare program, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in consultation with interested parties, shall 
     periodically review the covered items billed under the Health 
     Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System 
     and adjust such coding system to ensure that functionally 
     equivalent covered items are billed and reimbursed under the 
     same codes.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to claims for reimbursement submitted on and 
     after February 1, 2001.

     SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct a study on the results of the implementation of 
     the provisions in subsections (a) and (c) of section 2 and 
     the amendment to the Social Security Act in subsection (b) of 
     that section.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services shall submit a report to 
     Congress that contains a detailed description of the results 
     of the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a), together 
     with the Secretary's recommendations regarding the use of 
     universal product numbers (as defined in section 1897(a)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act (as added by section 2(b) of this 
     Act)) and the use of data obtained from the use of such 
     numbers.
                                                                    ____



                           Health Industry Distributors Assn.,

                                 Alexandria VA., November 3, 1997.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Chairman, Special Committee on Aging,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: On behalf of the Health Industry 
     Distributors Association (HIDA), I would like to applaud your 
     support for the use of universal product number (UPNs) on 
     Medical billings. HIDA is the national trade association of 
     home care companies and medical products distribution firms. 
     Created in 1902, HIDA represents over 600 companies with 
     appropriately 2500 locations nationwide. HIDA Members provide 
     value-added distribution services to virtually every 
     hospital, physician's office, nursing facility, clinic, and 
     other health care cities across the country, as well as to a 
     growing number of home care patients.
       HIDA has long supported the use of UPN's for medical 
     products and supplies. UPNs provide a standard format for 
     identifying each individual product. UPNs are a major 
     enabling factor in the health industry's efforts to minimize 
     fraudulent billings and automate the distribution process. 
     The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken a leadership 
     position in promoting the implementation of the industry 
     standards of UPNs. As a part of their decision to use 
     commercial medical products distributors, the DOD has 
     mandated the use UPNs for all medical/surgical products 
     delivered to DOD facilities.
       HIDA believes that the Medicare Program could benefit 
     greatly from the use of UPNs. By cross-referencing each UPN 
     with the HCFA Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) and 
     requiring the UPN on each claim for durable medical 
     equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS), 
     Medicare's ability to track utilization and combat fraud and 
     abuse would be greatly enhanced. By using UPNs, the Medicare 
     system would be able to correctly identify product 
     utilization. As UPNs provide a unique, unambiguous means of 
     identifying each item of DMEPOS on the market, Medicare would 
     have a record of the exact product used by the beneficiary. 
     Trends in product utilization and claims for ``suspicious'' 
     items would be easily identifiable. HCPCS alone can not 
     provide this information as many products of varying quality 
     and cost are included in a single code.
       In addition, problems with ``upcoding'' could be greatly 
     reduced through the implementation of UPNs. Upcoding occurs 
     when a beneficiary receives a product of lesser cost/quality 
     than the HCPCS billed to Medicare. UPNs would correctly 
     identify the specific item of DMEPOS, thereby making it 
     impossible to misrepresent the cost and quality of the item. 
     Importantly, by addressing the problem of upcoding, the 
     Medicare Program would take great steps in assuring that 
     beneficiaries receive the exact items of DMEPOS that they 
     were intended to receive.
       HIDA firmly believes that the Medicare Program and DMEPOS 
     industry would benefit greatly from the use of UPNs. This 
     standard would not only increase Medicare's understanding of 
     what it pays for, but also assist in the effective 
     administration of the Program. If HIDA can provide any 
     further information or be of any assistance, please contact 
     Ms. Erin H. Bush, Associate Director of Government Relations 
     at (703) 838-6110.
       Again, thank you for your interest in this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely.

                                         Cara C. Bachenheimer,

                                 Executive Director, Home Care and
     Long Term Care Market Groups.
                                                                    ____

                                          National Association for


                                   Medical Equipment Services,

                                 Alexandria, VA, November 3, 1997.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Aging.

     Hon. John Breaux,
     U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Aging.
       Dear Senators Grassley and Breaux: The National Association 
     for Medical Equipment Services appreciates your October 27 
     letter requesting comment on your draft bill concerning use 
     of uniform product number on home medical equipment. On 
     behalf of our 1,200 member companies, NAMES is pleased to 
     endorse this bill. We look forward to working with you as it 
     proceeds through the legislative process. And, once enacted, 
     we would hope the Administration would work with the industry 
     to implement this law appropriately.
           Sincerely,
                                         William D. Coughlan, CAE,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 1364. A bill to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful Federal 
reports; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


              THE FEDERAL REPORTS ELIMINATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce 
legislation that would eliminate approximately 150 unnecessary reports 
that have been mandated by the Congress. All of these reports have been 
judged as unnecessary, wasteful, or redundant by each of the Federal 
agencies which have been required to produce them. I am also pleased to 
have the considerable assistance of the coauthor of this legislation, 
Senator Levin.
  This proposal is intended to combat the growing problem of the 
thousands of mandatory reports that Congress has been imposing upon the 
executive branch over the last decade. Each year, Members of Congress 
continue to burden the executive branch agencies by mandating numerous 
reports. The price for the wasteful reports is extraordinarily high. 
Not only do they cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars each year, but they exhaust the often limited resources of the 
Federal agencies which have to meet these reporting requirements. 
Furthermore, the thousands of Federal employees who must work for 
months on these unnecessary reports could focus their energies to work 
on far more worthy ventures on behalf of taxpayers. They are a dubious 
use of taxpayers dollars and Government productivity.
  Senator Levin and I began working on various aspects of eliminating 
and sunsetting unnecessary Federal reports

[[Page S11687]]

in 1993. We have both been long concerned about the vast amounts of 
public funds and valuable government personnel resources that are being 
wasted. Let me state just one instructive example of how reporting 
mandates drain public funds and departmental resources. The Department 
of Agriculture alone spent over $40 million in taxpayers money in 1993 
to produce the 280 reports it was required to submit to the Congress 
that year. While many of these reports may provide vital information to 
the Congress and the public, it is undeniable that many others can and 
should be repealed in order to save taxpayer dollars and staff time. 
This is true for virtually every agency of the Federal Government.
  In 1995, Senator Levin and I were able to successfully eliminate 
approximately 200 reports, and sunset several hundred others. However, 
since that time, the administration has highlighted 450 additional 
reports that they would like repealed. Here are a few examples of the 
type of reports I am talking about. Each year, the following are 
required to be sent to the Congress from Federal agencies: Report on 
the Elimination of Notice to Congress Regarding Waiver of Requirement 
for Use of Vegetable Ink in Lithographic Printing; Report on Canadian 
Acid Rain Control Program; and Report on Metal Casting Research and 
Development Activities.
  I have asked OMB to calculate the total amount of public funds we 
would save if the unnecessary or redundant reporting requirements 
contained in this legislation are repealed, and I will provide my 
colleagues with their response. Considering that we currently have over 
a $5 trillion dollar Federal deficit, Mr. President, I'm sure that you 
would agree that our citizens would not support this egregious 
expenditure of hundreds of useless reports each and every year.
  It is important to note that this reporting mandate problem continues 
to grow with each passing year. GAO determined several years ago that 
``Congress imposes about 300 new requirements on Federal agencies each 
year.'' Prompt Senate action to authorize the elimination of wasteful 
reports in this proposal will be an important service to our 
constituents and these agencies. The staffing burdens and paper 
shuffling these outdated reporting mandates cause are of little real 
value to the important work of government. We should lighten the load 
of both overburdened taxpayers and the agencies involved by ending them 
now.
  I would again like to thank Senator Levin for his hard work and 
dedication on this issue over the past few years. Furthermore, I must 
acknowledge the administration for its earnest support of this effort. 
Additionally, the proposed terminations were carefully reviewed and 
then approved by each respective committee chairman and ranking member. 
These reports represent the flagrant waste of taxpayers dollars and 
Government productivity.
  It is clear that this bipartisan effort will put an end to a 
significant part of the unnecessary cycle of waste and misspent 
resources that these reports represent. The adoption of this 
legislation would be a strong contribution toward downsizing Government 
as the American people have repeatedly called upon us to do. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation and remove the millstone of 
unnecessary and costly paperwork that Congress has hung around the neck 
of the Federal Government for too long.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator McCain in 
introducing the Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1997, which will 
eliminate or modify 187 outdated or unnecessary congressionally 
mandated reporting requirements. This legislation will reduce 
unnecessary paperwork generated, and staff time spent, in producing 
reports to Congress that are no longer relevant or useful.
  Senator McCain and I introduced and got enacted similar legislation 
in 1995, Public Law 104-66, the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset 
Act of 1995. In that legislation we eliminated or modified 207 
congressionally mandated reporting requirements and placed a 4-year 
sunset on all other reports that were required to be made on an annual 
or otherwise regular basis. We also required in that legislation that 
the President include in the first annual budget submitted after the 
date of enactment of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 
1995 a list of the congressionally mandated reports that he has 
determined to be unnecessary or wasteful. The President provided a list 
of nearly 400 reports in the fiscal year 1997 budget along with 
comments on why the agencies involved felt the reporting requirements 
should be eliminated or modified. In many instances, the administration 
states, the reports are obsolete or contain duplicate information 
already conveyed to Congress in another report or publication.
  For example, one report that is required of the Department of 
Agriculture asks the agency to provide to Congress a list of the 
advisory committee members, principal place of residence, persons or 
companies by whom they are employed, and other major sources of income. 
This information may be useful at the agency level, but is not 
significant to Congress. The administration's recommendation for 
elimination of this report stated that the ``preparation of this report 
is time consuming and may not be of particular interest to Congress. If 
the requirement for an annual report is deleted, the information 
contained in the report would still be available upon request.''
  Another example of unnecessary reporting is the requirement to 
provide reports for programs that have never been funded. The 
Department of Energy was tasked to provide a biennial update to the 
National Advanced Materials Initiative Five-Year Program Plan in 
support of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, for which funds were never 
provided. The Department of Justice never received funding for a 
program that required the submission of a report to the Judiciary 
Committee on the security of State and local immigration and 
naturalization documents and any improvements that occurred as a result 
of the Immigration Nursing Relief Act of 1989. The Department of 
Transportation has never received funding for a requirement to study 
the effects of climatic conditions on the costs of highway construction 
and maintenance. The National Advisory Commission on Resource 
Conservation and Recovery for the Environmental Protection Agency is 
tasked with providing an interim report of its activities. This 
Commission was established and commissioned in 1981 and has never met 
nor received funding for its activities.
  The Vice President's National Performance Review estimated that 
Congress requires executive branch agencies to prepare more than 5,300 
reports each year. That number has increased dramatically from only 750 
such reports required by Congress in 1970. The GAO reports that 
Congress imposes close to 300 new requirements on Federal agencies each 
year.
  And preparation of these reports costs money. The Department of 
Agriculture estimated in 1993 that it spent more than $40 million in 
preparing 280 mandated reports.
  In developing this bill, Senator McCain and I wrote to the chairmen 
and ranking members of the relevant Senate committees and asked them to 
review the list of reports, under their jurisdiction, that the 
administration identified as no longer necessary or useful and, 
therefore, ready for elimination or modification. We wanted to be sure 
that the committees of jurisdiction concurred with the administration 
in their assessment of the lack of need for these reports. Many of the 
committees responded to the request. Those responses were generally 
supportive and some contained only a few changes to the 
administration's recommendations. Some committees identified reports 
under their jurisdiction which they wanted to retain because the 
information contained in the report is still of use to the committee. 
Those suggestions were incorporated into the bill so that the bill 
reflects only those reports for which there is general agreement about 
elimination or modification.
  Senator McCain and I are introducing this bipartisan legislation to 
reduce the paperwork burdens placed on Federal agencies, streamline the 
information that flows from these agencies to Congress, and ultimately 
save millions of taxpayer dollars. I hope we can act quickly on this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI:
  S. 1365. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide that the

[[Page S11688]]

reductions in social security benefits which are required in the case 
of spouses and surviving spouses who are also receiving certain 
Government pensions shall be equal to the amount by which two-thirds of 
the total amount of the combined monthly benefit (before reduction) and 
monthly pension exceeds $1,200, adjusted for inflation; to the 
Committee on Finance.


         the government pension offset modification act of 1997

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is 
very important to me, very important to my constituents in Maryland, 
and very important to government workers and retirees across the 
Nation.
  Today, I am introducing a bill to modify a harsh and heartless rule 
of government that is unfair and prevents current workers from enjoying 
the benefits of their hard work in their retirement. I want the middle 
class of this Nation to know that if you worked hard to become middle 
class you should stay middle class when you retire.
  Under current law, there is something called the pension offset law. 
This is a harsh and unfair policy. Let me tell you why.
  If you are a retired government worker, and you qualify for a spousal 
Social Security benefit based on your spouse's employment record, you 
may not receive what you qualify for. Because the pension offset law 
reduces or entirely eliminates a Social Security spousal benefit when 
the surviving spouse is eligible for a pension from a local, state, or 
federal government job that was not covered by Social Security.
  This policy only applies to government workers, not private sector 
workers. Let me give you an example of two women, Helen and her sister 
Phyllis.
  Helen is a retired Social Security benefits counselor who lives in 
Woodlawn, MD. Helen currently earns $600 a month from her Federal 
Government pension. She's also entitled to a $645 a month spousal 
benefit from Social Security based on her deceased husband's hard work 
as an auto mechanic. That's a combined monthly benefit of $1,245.
  Phyllis is a retired bank teller also in Woodlawn, MD. She currently 
earns a pension of $600 a month from the bank. Like Helen, Phyllis is 
also entitled to a $645 a month spousal benefit from Social Security 
based on her husband's employment. He was an auto mechanic, too. In 
fact, he worked at the same shop as Helen's husband.
  So, Phyllis is entitled to a total of $1,245 a month, the same as 
Helen. But, because of the pension offset law, Helen's spousal benefit 
is reduced by two-thirds of her government pension, or $400. So instead 
of $1,245 per month, she will only receive $845 per month.
  This reduction in benefits only happens to Helen because she worked 
for the government. Phyllis will receive her full benefits because her 
pension is a private sector pension. I don't think that's right, and 
that's why I'm introducing this legislation.
  The crucial thing about the Mikulski modification is that it 
guarantees a minimum benefit of $1,200. So, with the Mikulski 
modification to the pension offset, Helen is guaranteed at least $1,200 
per month.
  Let me tell you how it works. Helen's spousal benefit will be reduced 
only by two-thirds of the amount her combined monthly benefit exceeds 
$1,200. In her case, the amount of the offset would be two thirds of 
$45, or $30. That's a big difference from $400, and I think people like 
our Federal workers, teachers, and our firefighters deserve that big 
difference.
  Why should earning a government pension penalize the surviving 
spouse? If a deceased spouse had a job covered by Social Security and 
paid into the Social Security system. That spouse expected his earned 
Social Security benefits would be there for his surviving spouse.
  Most working men believe this and many working women are counting on 
their spousal benefits. But because of this harsh and heartless policy 
the spousal benefits will not be there, your spouse will not benefit 
from your hard work, and, chances are, you won't find out about it 
until your loved one is gone and you really need the money.
  The Mikulski modification guarantees that the spouse will at least 
receive $1,200 in combined benefits. That Helen will receive the same 
amount as Phyllis.
  I'm introducing this legislation, because these survivors deserve 
better than the reduced monthly benefits that the pension offset 
currently allows. They deserve to be rewarded for their hard work, not 
penalized for it.
  Many workers affected by this offset policy are women, or clerical 
workers and bus drivers who are currently working and looking forward 
to a deserved retirement. These are people who worked hard as Federal 
employees, school teachers, or firefighters.
  Frankly, I would repeal this policy all together. But, I realize that 
budget considerations make that unlikely. As a compromise, I hope we 
can agree that retirees who work hard should not have this offset 
applied until their combined monthly benefit exceeds $1,200.
  In the few cases where retirees might have their benefits reduced by 
this policy change, my legislation will calculate their pension offset 
by the current method. I also have a provision in this legislation to 
index the minimum amount of $1,200 to inflation so retirees will see 
their minimum benefits increase as the cost of living increases.
  I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not 
be penalized by arcane, legislative technicalities. That's why I'm 
introducing this bill today.
  Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana has introduced similar 
legislation in the House. I look forward to working with him to modify 
the harsh pension offset rule.
  If the Federal Government is going to force government workers and 
retirees in Maryland and across the country to give up a portion of 
their spousal benefits, the retirees should at least receive a fair 
portion of their benefits.
  I want to urge my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort and 
support my legislation to modify the Government pension offset.
  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. 1365

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

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS FOR SPOUSES 
                   AND SURVIVING SPOUSES RECEIVING GOVERNMENT 
                   PENSIONS.

       (a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(4)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(2)(A) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (c) Widow's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(e)(7)(A) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(7)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (d) Widower's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(f)(2)(A) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (e) Mother's and Father's Insurance Benefits.--Section 
     202(g)(4)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(g)(4)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the amount (if any) by which the sum of 
     such benefit (before reduction under this paragraph) and'' 
     after ``two-thirds of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``exceeds the amount described in 
     subsection (z) for such month,'' before ``if''.
       (f) Amount Described.--Section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(z) The amount described in this subsection is, for 
     months in each 12-month period beginning in December of 1997, 
     and each succeeding calendar year, the greater of--
       ``(1) $1200; or
       ``(2) the amount applicable for months in the preceding 12-
     month period, increased by the cost-of-living adjustment for 
     such period

[[Page S11689]]

     determined for an annuity under section 8340 of title 5, 
     United States Code (without regard to any other provision of 
     law).''.
       (g) Limitations on Reductions in Benefits.--Section 202 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 402), as amended by subsection (f), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(aa) For any month after December 1997, in no event shall 
     an individual receive a reduction in a benefit under 
     subsection (b)(4)(A), (c)(2)(A), (e)(7)(A), (f)(2)(A), or 
     (g)(4)(A) for the month that is more than the reduction in 
     such benefit that would have applied for such month under 
     such subsections as in effect on December 1, 1997.''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect 
     to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the 
     Social Security Act for months after December 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1366. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
eliminate the 10 percent floor for deductible disaster losses; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                      disaster relief legislation

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, under current law, personal property 
damage is tax-deductible only to the extent that each loss is more than 
$100 and the total losses exceed 10 percent of income. Today, I am 
introducing legislation which would eliminate the 10-percent test for 
unreimbursed casualty losses resulting from a Presidentially declared 
disaster that occurs in 1997.
  Just over a week ago, Nebraska was hit by a massive winter storm that 
dumped up to 20 inches of snow and 2\1/2\ inches of rain on our State 
unusually early in the season. As a result, Nebraskans have suffered 
massive damages, the extent of which we are only beginning to discover 
as the process of digging out begins. More than 175,000 lost electrical 
power, and many of them are still waiting for it to be restored. 
Thousands still lack phone service. About 85 percent of trees--still 
heavy with fall leaves--were damaged in Omaha alone.
  Mr. President, changing this tax law won't shovel the snow, or 
restore all the phone and electrical service. But for the homeowner 
whose property was damaged by felled trees, or thousands of other 
Nebraskans who suffered losses in this storm, allowing them to deduct 
the full amount of those losses will provide a little breathing room as 
the long process of digging out--and rebuilding--begins. I hope we act 
on it soon.
  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. 1366

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

     SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF 10 PERCENT FLOOR FOR DEDUCTIBLE 
                   DISASTER LOSSES.

       (a) General Rule.--Section 165(h)(2)(A) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to net casualty loss allowed 
     only to the extent it exceeds 10 percent of adjusted gross 
     income) is amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and 
     inserting the following new clauses:
       ``(i) the amount of the personal casualty gains for the 
     taxable year,
       ``(ii) the amount of the federally declared disaster losses 
     for the taxable year (or, if lesser, the net casualty loss), 
     plus
       ``(iii) the portion of the net casualty loss which is not 
     deductible under clause (ii) but only to the extent such 
     portion exceeds 10 percent of the adjusted gross income of 
     the individual.

     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `net 
     casualty loss' means the excess of personal casualty losses 
     for the taxable year over personal casualty gains.''.
       (b) Federally Declared Disaster Loss Defined.--Section 
     165(h)(3) of such Code (defining personal casualty gain and 
     personal casualty loss) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Federally declared disaster loss.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `federally declared disaster 
     loss' means any personal casualty loss attributable to a 
     disaster occurring during 1997 in an area subsequently 
     determined by the President of the United States to warrant 
     assistance by the Federal Government under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
       ``(ii) Dollar limitation.--Such term shall not include 
     personal casualty losses to the extent such losses exceed 
     $10,000 for the taxable year.'', and
       (2) by striking ``of personal casualty gain and personal 
     casualty loss'' in the heading.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 
     165(h)(2) of such Code is amended by striking ``Net casualty 
     loss'' and inserting ``Net nondisaster casualty loss''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to losses attributable to disasters occurring 
     after December 31, 1996, including for purposes of 
     determining the portion of such losses allowable in taxable 
     years ending before such date pursuant to an election under 
     section 165(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 1367. A bill to amend the act that authorized the Canadian River 
reclamation project, Texas to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
allow use of the project distribution system to transport water from 
sources other than the project; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


        the canadian river municipal water authority act of 1997

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
that would enable the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority in Texas 
to use the Canadian River Project's water distribution system to 
transport water from sources other than those envisioned when the 
project was conceived nearly 50 years ago.
  The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority is a State agency which 
supplies water to over 500,000 citizens in 11 cities on the Texas high 
plains, including Lubbock and Amarillo. The water authority was created 
by the Texas Legislature which authorized it to contract with the 
Federal Government under Federal reclamation laws to build and develop 
the Canadian River Project, also known as Lake Meredith. While the 
operation and maintenance responsibilities of the project were 
transferred to the water authority, the Bureau of Reclamation retained 
the title and ownership of the project.
  The quality and supply of water from the Canadian River Project has 
not met the expectations of either the Bureau of Reclamation or the 
residents of the Texas high plains. Not only is their insufficient 
water to provide adequately for the needs of the communities Lake 
Meredith serves, but the water has high levels of salt.
  The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority has proposed to 
supplement the water in Lake Meredith with better quality groundwater 
from nearby aquifers. While this will not require any Federal funding, 
the Bureau of Reclamation has ill-conceived guidelines precluding 
nonproject water from flowing through their reservoirs or distribution 
systems.
  The legislation I am introducing today would allow the use of the 
Canadian River Project water distribution system to transport better 
quality water from the nearby aquifers which are outside the originally 
defined project scope. An environmental review, as required by law, 
would be conducted and completed within 90 days of enactment of this 
legislation. Congressman Mac Thornberry has introduced similar 
legislation in the House of Representatives.
  The citizens of the Texas Panhandle have long suffered from 
insufficient water and poor water quality. The Bureau of Reclamation 
has worked with the water authority to develop a solution to the high 
salt content in the water. Local officials believe that one solution is 
to simply dilute the poor quality water with better quality water from 
the nearby aquifers.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation quickly to meet the 
long-term water needs of many Texas Panhandle residents.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1368. A bill to provide individuals with access to health 
information of which they are the subject, ensure personal privacy with 
respect to personal medical records and health care-related 
information, impose criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized use 
of personal health information, and to provide for the strong 
enforcement of these rights; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                the medical records privacy act of 1997

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the time has come for Congress to enact a 
strong and effective federal law to protect the privacy of medical 
records.

  To address this need, today, Senator Kennedy and I are introducing 
the Medical Information Privacy and Security Act (MIPSA).
  Americans strongly believe that their personal, private medical 
records

[[Page S11690]]

should be kept private. The time-honored ethics of the medical 
profession also reflect this principle. The physicians' oath of 
Hippocrates requires that medical information be kept ``as sacred as 
secrets.''
  A guiding principle in drafting this legislation is that the movement 
to more a integrated system of health care in our country will only 
continue to be supported by the American people if they are assured 
that the personal privacy of their health care information is 
protected. In fact, without the confidence that one's personal privacy 
will be protected, many will be discouraged from seeking medical help.
  I am encouraged that a variety of public policy and health 
professional organizations, across the political spectrum, are 
signaling their intentions to step forward to join forces with 
consumers during this debate.
  For the American public, and for the Congress, this debate boils down 
to a fundamental question: Who controls our medical records, and how 
freely can others use them?
  Many of us in this chamber quickly criticized the Social Security 
Administration and the IRS regarding the security of computer records. 
We blasted the IRS for allowing employees to randomly scan through our 
personal financial records.
  If we are concerned about IRS employees looking at our tax records, 
should we not be concerned about the millions of employers, insurers, 
pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and others who have 
nearly unfettered access to the personal medical records of more than 
250 million Americans?
  All of us are health care consumers--every individual and every 
American family. As Congress works toward answering this question, the 
privacy interests of the American public will be at odds with powerful 
economic interests and with the penchant for large organizations and 
complex systems to control this kind of personal information. Well-
funded and sharply focused special interests often win in a match-up 
like this.
  Senator Bob Dole, the former majority leader of the Senate, put his 
finger on this problem when he observed that a ``compromise of 
privacy'' that sends information about health and treatment to a 
national data bank without a person's approval would be something that 
none of us would accept.
  Unfortunately, this nightmare that Senator Dole envisioned is being 
brought to life by provisions insisted upon by the House in last year's 
health insurance portability bill that require a system of health care 
information exchanges by computers and through computer clearinghouses 
and data networks.
  We are now confronted with the fact that the computerization of 
health care record provisions are going into effect in the next few 
months but we are still contemplating the delay of promulgating privacy 
protection until August of 1999, unless Congress acts sooner.
  The Information Age opens the door to endless new possibilities and 
has empowered individuals with marvelous new tools and freedoms. But 
technology is our servant; we should not let it become our master. 
Unless we are vigilant, the Information Age can overwhelm our privacy 
rights before we even know it has happened.
  I do not want advancing technology to lead to a loss of personal 
privacy and do not want the fear that confidentiality is being 
compromised to deter people from seeking medical treatment or stifle 
technological or scientific development.
  The outlines of the challenge we face in stemming the erosion of 
medical privacy are already clear. Insurance companies have set up 
their Medical Information Bureau (MIB) which stores personal medical 
information on millions of Americans. M.I.B. may have personal 
information on all of us in Congress and our families.
  Managed care companies, HMOs, drug companies, and hospitals are 
spending up to $15 billion a year on information technology to acquire 
and exchange vast amounts of medical information about Americans.
  While this in and of itself may not be the issue--the question is how 
and why is it being collected and for what specific use is this 
information being used and do individuals know about this? Patients 
should be advised about the existence of data bases in which medical 
information concerning the patients is stored.
  This information can be very useful for quality assurance, and to 
provide more cost effective health care. But I am not certain that the 
American public would agree with a recent Fortune magazine article 
which lauded a health insurer that poked through the individual medical 
records of clients to figure out who may be depressed and could benefit 
from the use of the anti-depressant Prozac. Are we now encouraging 
replacing sound clinical judgment of doctors with health insurance 
clerks who look at records to determine whether you are not really 
suffering from a physical illness, but a mental illness?
  Contrary to some, I believe that computerization can assure more 
privacy to individuals than the current system if my legislation is 
enacted. But if we do not act the increased potential for embarrassment 
and harassment is tremendous.
  There are many more stories which highlight the problems that are out 
there due with the lack of privacy and security of individuals medical 
records, unfortunately so many other breaches of privacy are more 
subtle.
  Singer Tammy Wynette entered the hospital in 1995 for a bile duct 
problem. She used a pseudonym, but a hospital staff member broke into 
her computerized medical records and sold the information to the press, 
supposedly for thousands of dollars. The sensational National Enquirer 
then erroneously reported that Wynette was near death and in need of a 
liver transplant.
  A current Member of Congress had her medical records faxed to the New 
York Post on the eve of her primary. In 1994, she offered eloquent 
testimony before Congress detailing her ordeal.
  In another example, an insurance agent advised a couple that they 
would be denied coverage for any more pregnancies since they had a 25 
percent chance that their children would have a fatal disease.
  In Florida, a state public health worker improperly brought home a 
computer disk with the names of 4,000 HIV positive patients. The disks 
were then sent to two Florida newspapers.
  Medical privacy issues in today's world also take on international 
implications. Canada and the nations of Europe are taking concrete 
steps to protect the confidentiality of computerized medical records.
  Our nation lags so far behind others in its protection of medical 
records that companies in Europe may not be allowed to send medical 
information to the United States electronically. European countries--
through an EU privacy directive--are ensuring that private medical 
records are kept private. The EU prohibits the transfer of personal 
information from Europe to the U.S. if the EU finds U.S. privacy law 
inadequate. The implications for U.S. trade are staggering.
  The legislation we are introducing today addresses the issues I have 
outlined to close the existing gaps in federal privacy law to cover 
personally identifiable health information.
  MIPSA is broad in scope--it applies to medical records in whatever 
form--paper or electronic. It applies to each release of medical 
information--including re-releases. It comprehensively covers entities 
other than just health care providers and payers, such as life 
insurance companies, employers and marketers and others that may have 
access to sensitive personal health data.
  It establishes a clear and enforceable right of privacy with respect 
all personally identifiable medical information including information 
regarding the results of genetic tests.
  It gives individuals the right to inspect, copy and supplement their 
protected health information. Today, only 28 states grant this right.
  It allows individuals to segregate portions of their medical records, 
such as mental health records, from broad viewing by individuals who 
are not directly involved in their care.
  It gives individuals a civil right of action against anyone who 
misuses their personally identifiable health information. It 
establishes criminal and civil penalties that can be invoked if 
individually identifiable health information is knowingly or 
negligently misused.

[[Page S11691]]

  It sets up a national office of health information privacy to aid 
consumers in learning about their rights and how they may seek recourse 
for violations of their rights.
  It creates a set of rules and norms to govern the disclosure of 
personal health information and narrows the sharing of personal details 
within the health care system to the minimum necessary to provide care, 
allow for payment and to facilitate effective oversight. Special 
attention is paid to situations such as emergency medical care and 
public health requirements.
  We have tried to accommodate legitimate oversight concerns so that we 
do not create unnecessary impediments to health care fraud 
investigations. Effective health care oversight is essential if our 
health care system is to function and fulfill its intended goals. 
Otherwise, we risk establishing a publicly-sanctioned playground for 
the unscrupulous. Health care is too important a public investment to 
be the subject of undetected fraud or abuse.
  MIPSA also extends to all research facilities using personally 
identifiable information the current requirements met by federally 
funded researchers. I am troubled that research is viewed by some as an 
area where privacy rights should be sacrificed and consent not required 
for use of individually identifiable health information. If there are 
to be any exceptions in a federal medical privacy law for research 
using personally identifiable health information, the Congress and the 
American people need to understand better why this may be necessary. To 
address this concern our bill mandates an evaluation of the waiver of 
informed consent that is allowed under current regulations.
  It does not preempt state laws that are more protective of privacy. 
This is consistent with all other federal civil rights and privacy 
laws.
  It prohibits law enforcement agents from searching through medical 
records without a warrant. It does not limit law enforcement agents to 
gain information while in hot pursuit of a suspect.
  I know that these are important matters about which many of us feel 
very strongly. It is never easy to legislate about privacy.
  I invite other Members of Congress, federal agencies and outside 
interest groups to examine the legislation we have introduced today. 
This bill is a work in progress and we welcome any comments or 
suggestions to make improvements to this legislation.
  I am pleased that my colleague from Vermont, the Chairman of the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Jeffords, has already held 
two hearings this year on the issue of medical privacy. The clock, 
however, is ticking and other Members of Congress need to join us to 
move forward to pass strong and workable medical privacy legislation.
  As policy makers, we must remember that the right to privacy is one 
of our most cherished freedoms--it is the right to be left alone and to 
choose what we will reveal of ourselves and what we will keep from 
others. Privacy is not a partisan issue and should not be made a 
political issue. It is too important.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 1369. A bill to provide truancy prevention and reduction, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                 THE PREVENTION OF TRUANCY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would help our communities respond to an increasingly serious problem 
in our country: truancy. Truancy is a dangerous and growing trend in 
our nation's schools. It not only prevents our children from receiving 
the education they need, but it is often the first warning of more 
serious problems to come. Truant students are at greater risk of 
falling into substance abuse, gangs, and violent behavior. Truancy is a 
gateway into all of these activities.
  In the past ten years, truancy has increased by 67 percent. In 1994, 
courts formally processed 36,400 truancy cases. And in some inner city 
schools, absentee rates approach 50 percent. Fortunately, truancy is a 
solvable problem. Many communities have begun to set up early 
intervention programs--to reach out and prevent truancy before it leads 
to delinquency and criminal behavior. These programs are showing signs 
of success, as several towns have reported drops in daytime burglary 
rates of as much as 75 percent after instituting truancy prevention 
initiatives.
  Unfortunately, implementing these programs has been a challenge. 
Truancy is considered an educational rather than a criminal issue, and, 
with growing classroom enrollments, many financially-strapped schools 
don't have the resources to adequately address this problem.
  Today, I am introducing ``The Prevention of Truancy [PTA] Act of 
1997'' whose goal is to promote anti-truancy partnerships between 
schools, parents, law enforcement agencies, and social service and 
youth organizations. This bill would provide $80 million in grant 
funding for the purpose of developing, implementing, or operating 
partnerships for the prevention and reduction of truancy. The 
partnerships would be administered by the Department of Education.
  All of the partnership programs would be required to sanction 
students engaging in truancy, as well as provide incentives for parents 
to take responsibility for their children. These programs would also be 
evaluated for their effectiveness in preventing truancy, increasing 
school attendance, and reducing juvenile crime.
  Truancy prevention programs produce long-term savings. By some 
estimates, truants cost this nation more than $240 billion in lost 
earnings and foregone taxes over their lifetimes. And billions more are 
spent on law enforcement, prisons, welfare, health care, and other 
social services for these individuals. Imagine what we could do with 
this money if we could keep our kids in school? Imagine how bright 
their futures could be? I hope my legislation will help communities 
build successful programs to prevent and reduce truancy so that one day 
we will realize these concrete savings and admire the accomplishments 
of the youth who benefitted from these programs.
  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. 1369

       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 ``Prevention of Truancy Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) in 1994, courts in the United States formally processed 
     36,400 truancy cases, representing a 35 percent increase 
     since 1990, and a 67 percent increase since 1985, in the 
     formal processing of truancy cases;
       (2) in 1993, among individuals aged 16 through 24, 
     approximately 3,400,000,000 (11 percent of all individuals in 
     this age group) had not completed high school and were not 
     enrolled in school;
       (3) the economic and social costs of providing for the 
     increasing population of youth who are at risk of leaving or 
     who have left the educational mainstream are an enormous 
     drain on the resources of Federal, State, and local 
     governments and the private sector;
       (4) truancy is the first indicator that a young person is 
     giving up and losing his or her way;
       (5) students who become truant and eventually drop out of 
     school put themselves at a long-term disadvantage in becoming 
     productive citizens;
       (6) high school drop-outs are two and one-half times more 
     likely to be on welfare than high school graduates;
       (7) high school drop-outs are almost twice as likely to be 
     unemployed as high school graduates;
       (8) in 1993, 17 percent of youth under age 18 who entered 
     adult prisons had not completed grade school, one-fourth of 
     such youth had completed 10th grade, and 2 percent of such 
     youth had a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent;
       (9) truancy contributes to increased use of the foster care 
     and court systems;
       (10) truancy is a gateway to crime, and high rates of 
     truancy are linked to high daytime burglary rates and high 
     vandalism rates;
       (11) communities that have instituted truancy prevention 
     programs have seen daytime burglary rates decline by as much 
     as 75 percent; and
       (12) truancy prevention and reduction programs result in 
     significant increases in school attendance.

     SEC. 3. GOALS.

       The goals of this Act are to prevent and reduce truancy.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Elementary school; secondary school.--The terms 
     ``elementary school''

[[Page S11692]]

     and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given the terms in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (2) Parent.--The term ``parent'' means the biological 
     parent, adoptive parent, or legal guardian, of a child.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUANCY PREVENTION AND CRIME CONTROL 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Demonstrations Authorized.--The Secretary shall make 
     grants to partnerships consisting of an elementary school or 
     secondary school, a local law enforcement agency, and a 
     social service and youth serving organization, for the 
     purpose of developing, implementing, or operating projects 
     for the prevention or reduction of truancy.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Grant funds under this section may be 
     used for programs that prevent or reduce truancy, such as 
     programs that use police officers or patrol officers to pick 
     up truant students, return the students to school, or take 
     the students to centers for assessment.
       (c) Application and Selection.--Each partnership desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require. Each such 
     application shall--
       (1) contain a description of the proposed truancy 
     prevention or reduction project to be established or improved 
     with funds provided under this Act;
       (2) specify the methods to be used to involve parents in 
     truancy prevention or reduction activities;
       (3) specify the types of sanctions that students will face 
     for engaging in truant behavior;
       (4) specify the incentives that will be used for parental 
     responsibility;
       (5) specify the types of initiatives, if any, that schools 
     will develop to combat the underlying causes of truancy; and
       (6) specify the linkages that will be made with local law 
     enforcement agencies.
       (d) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall give priority 
     in awarding grants under this Act to partnerships--
       (1) serving areas with concentrations of poverty, including 
     urban and rural areas; and
       (2) that meet any other criteria that the Secretary 
     determines will contribute to the achievement of the goals of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 6. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.

       (a) Project Evaluations.--
       (1) In general.--Each partnership receiving a grant under 
     this section shall--
       (A) provide for the evaluation of the project assisted 
     under this Act, which evaluation shall meet such conditions 
     and standards as the Secretary may require; and
       (B) submit to the Secretary reports, at such times, in such 
     formats, and containing such information, as the Secretary 
     may require.
       (2) Required information.--A report submitted under 
     subparagraph (1)(B) shall include information on and analysis 
     of the effect of the project with respect to--
       (A) prevention of or reduction in truancy;
       (B) increased school attendance; and
       (C) reduction in juvenile crime.
       (b) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary, on the basis of 
     the reports received under subsection (a), shall submit 
     interim reports, and, not later than March 1, 2002, submit a 
     final report, to Congress. Each report submitted under this 
     subsection shall contain an assessment of the effectiveness 
     of the projects assisted under this Act, and any 
     recommendations for legislative action that the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act--
       (1) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 1999, 2000, and 2001.
       (b) Availability.--Funds appropriated under subsection (a) 
     shall remain available until expended.

                          ____________________