[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.
____________________