[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3356-S3361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. Brownback):
S. 1959. A bill to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to
provide or support programs to provide individuals with hypodermic
needles or syringes for the use of illegal drugs; to the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources.
the needle exchange programs prohibition act of 1998
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am today introducing, along with
Senators Ashcroft and Brownback, a bill to prohibit the use of federal
funds to carry out or support programs for the distribution of sterile
hypodermic needles or syringes to illegal drug users.
This bill would effectively continue and make permanent the ban
imposed through the appropriations process which expired at the end of
March. We are pleased that the Administration has decided not to use
federal tax dollars to fund needle exchanges despite the expiration of
the ban. But coinciding with this announcement, Health and Human
Services Secretary Donna Shalala strongly endorsed needles exchanges
and encouraged local communities to use their own dollars to fund
needle exchange programs. This legislation is therefore needed to
foreclose any temptation the Administration may feel to federally fund
needle exchanges in the future.
The Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, has laid out the strong case
against needle exchange programs. Handing out needles to drug users
sends a message that the government is condoning drug use. It
undermines our anti-drug message and undercuts all of our drug
prevention efforts.
A report by General McCaffrey's office reviewed the world's largest
needle exchange program in Vancouver, British Colombia, in operation
since 1988. It found the program to be a failure. HIV infections were
higher among users of free needles than those without access to them.
The death rate from drugs jumped from 18 a year in 1988 to 150 in 1992.
In addition, higher drug use followed implementation of the program.
Dr. James L. Curtis of New York, who has studied needle exchange
programs was quoted in the Washington Times stating that the programs
``should be recognized as reckless experimentation on human beings, the
unproven hypothesis being that it prevents AIDS.''
According to recent scientific studies, eight persons a day are
infected with the HIV virus by using borrowed needles, while 352 people
start using heroin each day and 4,000 die every year from heroin-
related causes other than HIV. Far more addicts die of drug overdoses
and related violence than from AIDS. It is wrong to aid and abet those
deaths by handing out free needles to drug addicts. We should not be
encouraging higher rates of heroin use.
Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in making permanent the
prohibition on federal funding and support of needle giveaway 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. 1959
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S3357]]
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR HYPODERMIC
NEEDLES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal
funds shall be made available or used to carry out or
support, directly or indirectly, any program of distributing
sterile hypodermic needles or syringes to individuals for the
hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with
Senator Coverdell, a very important piece of legislation. It is a
tragedy that this legislation is necessary. However, following
yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services
that this Administration supports giving clean needles to drug addicts,
I believe that Congress must now act. Congress must act to ensure that
federal funds are never used to support these programs. This decision
by the Administration, to support clean needle programs--but to
withhold federal funding--is an intolerable message that it's time to
accept drug use as a way of life.
Not surprisingly, the American people do not want their hard earned
tax dollars spent to give illegal drug users the tool to continue their
habit. We already take too much money from the American people. We
should not use it to subsidize a lifestyle of which the people so
fundamentally disagree. When we pass this bill we will send a message
that giving free needles to drug addicts is not a policy that this
nation should embrace.
Federal policy should call Americans to their highest and best and
not accommodate them at their lowest and least. That is exactly what
needle exchange programs do. They tell drug addicts, ``we know that you
are too weak to beat your addiction; therefore, we are going to make
the lifestyle you have chosen easier.''
This approach is called ``harm reduction.'' The Harm Reduction
Coalition states on their webpage that the organization ``accepts drug
use as a way of life.'' Therefore, they support policies which make
drugs as harmless as possible. There are many that are part of this
harm reduction movement who believe that legalization of drugs is the
appropriate policy. In fact, the logical conclusion to their belief
that drug use is a way of life and that it should be made as harmless
as possible is legalization. The harm reduction philosophy is the basis
of needle exchange programs. They say that if we provide people with
clean needles, there will be less risk involved in using drugs. I am
here today to reject that view.
Since 1988, the United States Congress has banned the use of federal
funds for needle exchange programs. Recognizing that government
subsidies for drug addicts is bad policy, this ban consistently has
been supported by both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the 1998
Labor and Health and Human Services Appropriations bill included
language to allow the Secretary of HHS to lift the ban after March 31,
1998. Yesterday, the Administration stated--wisely--that the federal
funding ban should not be lifted. However, the Administration foolishly
recommended that local communities fund these programs.
This endorsement of needles on demand opens the door to a subsequent
decision to fund needle exchanges with the hard-earned money of
American taxpayers. Yesterday's endorsement of clean needle programs
sends the intolerable message that the Administration accepts illegal
drug use as a way of life. It says clearly that this Administration
will give approval to taxpayer funding the moment it appears that the
decision can be sneaked past Congress. That is why this legislation has
become necessary.
Mr. President, needle exchange programs are touted as a way of
reducing HIV rates among intravenous drug users. First, there is no
sound scientific evidence to support that assertion. Second, even if
there were, there are other public health and moral reasons to oppose
needle exchange programs.
Experts agree that the only scientifically sound method of making an
affirmative showing that NEPs reduce the rate of HIV is to withhold
clean needles from one group of drug users while providing clean
needles to another. Since there are obvious problems in conducting such
a study, it has not been done. In fact, there are studies which find
just the opposite--that there are significant increases in HIV among
clean needle program participants.
Participants in the Montreal needle exchange program were two times
more likely to become infected than those who did not participate in
the program. Vancouver has the largest needle exchange program in North
America which was started in 1988. In 1987, the estimated HIV
prevalence among IV drug users was 1-2 percent, in 1997, it was 23
percent.
Even the so-called ``California'' study which is heavily relied upon
by needle exchange proponents, merely found that it is ``likely'' that
NEPs decrease the rate of new HIV infection in intravenous drug users.
The nation's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey agrees that studies have
not yet scientifically substantiated the claims embraced by Secretary
Shalala in her announcement. In an April 17, 1998, letter to my office
outlining the concerns of General McCaffrey, the Office of National
Drug Control policy states that ``science [on needle exchange programs]
is uncertain.'' The letter states further that ``[s]upporters of needle
exchange frequently gloss over gaping holes in the data--holes which
leave significant doubt regarding whether needle exchanges exacerbate
drug use and whether they uniformly lead to decreases in HIV
transmission.''
A significant concern of those of us who oppose federal funding of
needle exchange programs--and I oppose all needle exchange programs,
whether federally funded or not--is that they will increase drug use.
That is the precise reason that the Secretary was required to show that
NEPs do not increase drug use before lifting the ban. There is
absolutely no data to support the Secretary's finding that NEPs do not
increase drug use.
While the California study found ``no evidence'' of increased drug
use, the conclusion was based on interviews with drug users--illegal
drug users.
In Vancouver, deaths from drug overdoses have increased more than 5
times since 1988--the year the needle exchange program started. Since
their needle exchange program began, hospital admissions for heroin
have increased 66 percent in San Francisco. In fact, the researcher who
founded the San Francisco program and the founder of the New York
program have both died of heroin overdoses during the last two years.
I think the letter outlining General McCaffrey's concerns says it
best. ``The bottom line is that General McCaffrey believes that we need
a better understanding of how needle exchange programs will impact our
nation's fight against drugs before we consider altering the current
policy.''
I believe that needle exchange programs send the wrong message to the
youth of America. To say on the one hand, that drug use is wrong, and
then on the other hand--to provide the tools necessary to safely use
illegal drugs--undoubtedly will confuse the nation's youth. When their
parents are paying taxes to the federal government that ultimately will
be used to inject heroin into an addict's arm--how do you tell them
that the government thinks drug use is wrong?
According to the drug czar's office, each day over 8,000 young people
will try an illegal drug for the first time. While perhaps eight
persons contract HIV directly or indirectly from dirty needles, 352
people start using heroin each day. More than 4,000 people die each
year from heroin/morphine related causes.
General McCaffrey, who has been entrusted by this administration to
advise the President on drug policy agrees. He says: ``The problem is
not dirty needles, the problem is heroin addiction. . . . The focus
should be on bringing help to this suffering population--not give them
more effective means to continue their addiction. One does not want to
facilitate this dreadful scourge on mankind.''
Secretary Shalala also said that NEPs are effective when supported by
the communities. I think she would be hard pressed to find a community
that embraces the needle exchange program in their neighborhood. I
wonder if the Secretary would like a clean needle program in her
neighborhood.
As the name suggests, needle exchange programs are supposed to get a
dirty needle back from an addict for every needle they hand out. The
idea is that these dirty needles will not be
[[Page S3358]]
used again or left on the streets. However, according to needle
exchange workers, an ``exchange'' usually does not take place.
According to the Associated Press, in Willimantic, Connecticut,
``more than 350 discarded hypodermic needles were collected from the
city's streets, lots, and alleys in a single week.'' These were found
after a two year old girl found and accidentally pricked herself with a
dirty needle.
One needle exchange worker, who said they got approximately one-third
to one-half of the needles back, handed out 950 needles in just one
night. That means that about 475 dirty needles are either being used
again--defeating the stated objective of these programs--or they are
lying on our cities' streets, parks and playgrounds. In response to low
number of needles they get back, the worker casually said that ``one-
for-one exchange does not fit the reality of how injection drug users
live.''
Needle exchanges also turn into one-stop shopping for drug addicts.
Even the needle exchange proponents recognize this and talk about it as
though it were a virtue of the program. From Harm Reduction
Communication--``A user might be able to do the networking needed to
find good drugs in the half hour he spends at a street-based needle
exchange site--networking that might otherwise have taken half a day.''
There are many tragic examples all over the nation. However, one
article from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette best explains what this does
to America's neighborhoods. ``Our community has worked hard to battle
the drug problem that plagues our neighborhoods at many levels. But the
needle exchange program gives dealer and users one more reason to stay
here. In addition, drug users from outside our community now find
reasons to frequent our neighborhood. Drug addiction is not a
victimless crime. Not only does it kill the addict, but also, in the
process, the addict preys on those around him. Prostitution, burglary,
and now violence are an increasing problem in our community. So while
the needle exchange people try to help addicts, they do so at the
expense of our neighborhoods.''
This legislation is simple. It says that federal funds cannot be used
to support directly, or indirectly, needle exchange programs.
The Nation's drug policy should be one of zero tolerance. It should
not be a policy of accommodation. Drugs are turning our once vibrant
cities into the centers of despair and hopelessness. We need an
Administration who has no tolerance for the drug culture. An
Administration who says that America can be called to a higher standard
rather then accommodated in a culture of consuming drugs.
This Administration has shown that it is willing to ignore the
record, ignore sound drug policy, and ignore the will of the American
people. This is just another example of Washington, D.C. attacking,
through policy, American values. Giving bulletproof vests to bank
robbers would make bank robbery safer and simpler, and send the message
that we accept bank robbery. A free needle policy is no different. What
advocates of free needles on demand would clothe in rhetoric of `harm
reduction' and `public health' is, instead a decision to subsidize,
tolerate, and facilitate the use of illegal drugs.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues
Senator Coverdell and Senator Ashcroft in introducing legislation that
would prohibit the use of federal funds for any program that gives out
hypodermic needles or syringes for use with illegal drugs.
Mr. President, last Friday, the Clinton Administration announced
their intention to use federal funds to distribute free drug needles.
Although they abruptly reversed course this week, they have maintained
their intention of encouraging state and local governments and other
institutions to distribute drug needles.
This is bad policy, bad science, and bad news for our country. A
comprehensive study of the needle exchange program in Vancouver,
British Columbia--the city with the world's largest needle give-away
program--found that drug use, crime, and HIV transmission all increased
where drug needles were handed out.
This should come as no surprise. One of the primary principles of
economics is that you get more of what you subsidize and less of what
you tax. You do not discourage drug use by giving out free needles. You
cannot reduce disease by encouraging addiction.
More than ever before, we need strong leadership in the war on drugs,
and a clear message that drugs are wrong, and harmful. Consider the
facts: Over the past three years, casual drug us among teens has almost
doubled. A survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that
the proportion of eighth graders who had tried heroin had doubled
between 1991 and 1996. Every year, there are thousands of young people
who fall prey to drugs. We need to send the clear message that using
drugs is illegal and wrong. Drug use must be stopped, not subsidized.
That is why I am proud to stand with Senators Coverdell and Ashcroft
in introducing legislation that to prohibit spending taxpayer dollars
on drug needle give-aways, and urge my colleagues to expedite passage
of this legislation.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1961. A bill for the relief of Suchada Kwong; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
private relief legislation
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today, legislation that
would provide permanent residency to Suchada Kwong, a recently widowed
young mother of a U.S. citizen child who faces the devastation of being
separated from her child and family here in the United States.
Suchada Kwong's U.S. citizen husband, Jimmy Kwong, was tragically
killed in an automobile accident in June of 1996, leaving a 3-month-old
U.S.-born son and his 29-year-old bride.
Because current law does not allow Suchada to adjust her status to
permanent residency without her husband, Suchada now faces deportation.
Suchada and Jimmy Kwong met in Bangkok, Thailand, through a mutual
friend in 1993. He communicated with her frequently by phone and
visited her every time he was in Bangkok. They fell in love and were
married in September 1995, and Suchada gave birth to Ryan Stephen Kwong
in May 1996.
Suchada was supposed to have her INS interview on August 15, 1996.
However, Jimmy was killed in an accident in June, less than 3 weeks
after his son was born and 2 months short of the INS interview. Now,
because the petitioner is deceased, Suchada is ineligible to adjust her
status. While the immigration law provides for widows of U.S. citizens
to self-petition, that provision is only available for people who have
been married for over 2 years.
Suchada's deportation will not only cause hardship to her and her
young child but to Suchada's mother-in-law, Mrs. Kwong, who faces
losing her grandson, only a short time after she lost her only son.
Mrs. Kwong is elderly, and though she is financially capable, could
not care for her grandson herself. Mrs. Kwong is proud to be self-
supporting, having owned and worked in a small business until her
retirement. The family has never used public assistance, and through
Jimmy's job, the family has sufficient resources to support Suchada and
Ryan. It would also be difficult for Suchada as a single mother in
Thailand. Here in the United States, she has the support of Mrs. Kwong
and their church.
Suchada was granted voluntary departure for one year on October 1996
to explore other options or prepare to leave the United States. During
that time period, Suchada and her family have explored all options but
failed. Now, the voluntary departure period has expired and Suchada
must leave the country, leaving behind her young child and her family
here in the United States.
Suchada has done everything she could to become a permanent resident
of this country--except for the tragedy of her husband's death 2 months
before she could become a permanent resident. I hope you support this
bill so that we can help Suchada begin rebuilding her life in the
United States.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1961
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S3359]]
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.),
Suchada Kwong shall be held and considered to have been
lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon
payment of the required visa fees.
______
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
S. 1962. A bill to provide for an Education Modernization Fund, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the education modernization fund act of 1998
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would provide nearly $5 billion in federal loans for school
modernization and construction.
Mr. President, this legislation would transfer $5 billion from the
Exchange Stabilization Fund at the Treasury Department to the
Department of Education and create an Education Modernization Fund.
The legislation would create a new account called the ``Education
Modernization Fund'' that would be used to offer low interest, long
term, loans to states for the purpose of building and modernizing
elementary and secondary schools. The loans would be used for school
districts with fast growing elementary and secondary student
populations.
The GAO has estimated that one-third of all schools, housing 14
million students are in need of repair. In my home state of North
Carolina--36% of schools report that they have at least one inadequate
building. Fully 90% of schools report that they have some construction
needs. The state estimates that $3.5 to $10 million is needed for
school repair needs. North Carolina has one of the fastest growing
student populations.
The purpose of my legislation Mr. President is very simple. We have a
slush fund at the Treasury Department called the ``Exchange
Stabilization Fund.'' This fund is under the personal control of the
Secretary of the Treasury. He can do whatever he wants with it. Over
the past four years--he has used it to supplement international
bailouts, which I think is very wrong.
He loaned $12 billion to Mexico. I have to ask, why not $12 billion
for schools if New Mexico?
He has promised Indonesia $3 billion. Why not funds for schools in
Indiana?
He has promised South Korea $5 billion. Why not $5 billion for South
Carolina?
We have our priorities backwards with this Administration.
The ESF has all been used without any Congressional approval or
authorization. Further, the fund has more than $30 billion available to
it.
I think it is time that we transfer a small part of this money and
put it to good use by using it for school construction.
Additionally, Mr. President, in my opinion this plan is far better
that the Democrat alternative that is being offered today, the one
offered by Senator Moseley-Braun.
The Moseley-Braun formula is skewed so that much of the money will go
to the larger cities and low income communities--whether or not there
is a need for new schools. My plan is formulated for student population
growth. For example, under the Coverdell, Republican bill--Rockingham
County, North Carolina would be the first school district eligible for
school construction bonds because of student growth.
But under the Democrats' plan, my state would receive less than its
fair share. For example, North Carolina ranks 11th in national
population, and Massachusetts, ranks 13th, but under the Moseley-Braun
bill, Massachusetts would receive $20 million more in funds. Louisiana
which ranks 22nd in population would receive nearly $90 million more
than North Carolina. Of course, its no surprise that New York,
California and Illinois, under their plan, receive nearly 25% of all
the money.
The Democrats alternative would also put the Department of Education
in charge of school districts. The DOE would have to approve any school
construction plans. Schools that receive the federal benefit would have
to meet certain curriculum standards and have federal mandates about
graduation and employment rates.
Finally, in order to finance the government's school construction, it
wipes out the increased IRA savings for education. There is no more
starker contrast between two visions of education: parents being
allowed to keep their money for their children's education --or the
federal government taking it to enhance the power of the Department of
Education.
In my view the solution is simple, we don't need to rob parents of
their savings for education to pay for school construction--we need to
take the foreign aid slush fund from the Treasury Department and put it
to worthy domestic uses, like school construction.
______
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 1963, A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit
certain beneficiaries of the military health care system to enroll in
Federal employees health benefits plans; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
THE MILITARY HEALTH CARE FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military
Health Care Fairness Act. A companion measure, H.R. 3613, was recently
introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman J.C. Watts
and 38 cosponsors. I am pleased to have Senator Coverdell as an
original cosponsor of this measure.
Mr. President, this bill allows those military retirees over the age
of sixty-five to sign up for the Federal Employees Health Benefits
program (FEHBP) so that they may have another option for health care
coverage. It is estimated that approximately 1.3 million retirees,
dependents, and survivors meet this criteria. However, it is doubtful
that all of them will sign up for the FEHBP.
The recent base closures and realignments have limited the number of
places where some retirees can receive health care. By joining the
FEHBP, health care choices will increase. The FEHBP will probably be
desirable to those retirees that do not have prescription drug plans or
want to limit catastrophic out-of-pocket cost. Further, the retiree is
not excluded from using the traditional military medical treatment
facilities on a space available basis. When a retiree, under the FEHBP,
uses a military facility, the health care plan reimburses the military
for the cost of treatment.
Mr. President, during the first year of this program the costs will
be capped at $100 million. This amount increases $100 million per year
for five years to cap the costs at $500 million per year. The costs to
the individual should be the same as to any other federal employee in a
given geographical area. In order to determine the actual premiums, the
health plans will be required to establish a separate risk pool to
determine whether the military group's risk characteristics such as
age, gender, and care-use affect the other federal employees' premiums.
While I realize that some might say the costs of this measure are high,
something must be done to give health care coverage to those retirees
that do not have adequate coverage under the current military health
care system. The many men and women who have given so much to protect
our Country by serving in the military are to be commended for their
sacrifices and we should acknowledge this by giving them adequate
health care choices.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1963
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 ``Military Health Care
Fairness Act''.
SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN COVERED BENEFICIARIES IN FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.
(a) FEHBP Option.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1079a the
following new section:
``Sec. 1079b. Health care coverage through Federal Employees
Health Benefits program
``(a) FEHBP Option.--(1) Subject to the availability of
funds to carry out this section for a fiscal year, eligible
beneficiaries described in subsection (b) shall be afforded
an opportunity to enroll in any health benefits plan under
the Federal Employee Health Benefits program under chapter 89
of title 5, United States Code, offering medical care
comparable to the care authorized by section 1077 of this
title to be provided under section 1076 of this title (in
this section referred to as an `FEHBP plan').
[[Page S3360]]
``(2) The Secretary of Defense and the other administering
Secretaries shall jointly enter into an agreement with the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management to carry out
paragraph (1).
``(b) Eligible Beneficiaries.--(1) An eligible beneficiary
referred to in subsection (a) is a covered beneficiary who is
a military retiree (except a military retiree retired under
chapter 1223 of this title), a dependent of such a retiree
described in section 1072(2)(B) or (C), or a dependent
described in section 1072(2)(A), (D), or (I) of such a
retiree who enrolls in an FEHBP plan, who,--
``(A) is not guaranteed access under TRICARE to health care
that is comparable to the health care benefits provided under
the service benefit plan offered under the Federal Employee
Health Benefits program;
``(B) is eligible to enroll in the TRICARE program but is
not enrolled because of the location of the beneficiary, a
limitation on the total enrollment, or any other reason; or
``(C) is entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part
A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c
et seq.).
``(2) In addition to the eligibility requirements described
in paragraph (1), during the first two years that covered
beneficiaries are offered the opportunity to enroll in an
FEHBP plan under subsection (a), eligible beneficiaries shall
be limited to--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), military
retirees 65 years of age or older; and
``(B) military retirees retired under chapter 61 of this
title.
``(3) An eligible beneficiary shall not be required to
satisfy any eligibility criteria specified in chapter 89 of
title 5 as a condition for enrollment in an FEHBP plan.
``(c) Priority of Enrollment.--(1) Eligible beneficiaries
shall be permitted to enroll in an FEHBP plan based on the
order in which such beneficiaries apply to enroll in the
plan.
``(2) The Secretary shall maintain a list of eligible
beneficiaries who apply to enroll in an FEHBP plan, but whom
the Secretary is not able to enroll because of the lack of
available funds to carry out this section.
``(d) Period of Enrollment.--The Secretary shall provide a
period of enrollment for eligible beneficiaries in an FEHBP
plan for a period of 90 days--
``(A) before implementation of the program described in
subsection (a); and
``(B) each subsequent year thereafter.
``(e) Term of Enrollment.--(1) The minimum period of
enrollment in an FEHBP plan shall be three years.
``(2) A beneficiary who elects to enroll in an FEHBP plan,
and who subsequently discontinues enrollment in the plan
before the end of the period described in paragraph (1),
shall not be eligible to reenroll in the plan.
``(f) Receipt of Care in MTF.--(1) An eligible beneficiary
enrolled in an FEHBP plan may receive care at a military
medical treatment facility subject to the availability of
space in such facility, except that the plan shall reimburse
the facility for the cost of such treatment. The plan may
adjust beneficiary copayments so that receipt of such care at
a military medical treatment facility results in no
additional costs to the plan, as compared with the costs that
would have been incurred if care had been received from a
provider in the plan.
``(g) Contributions.--(1) Contributions shall be made for
an enrollment of an eligible beneficiary in a plan of the
Federal Employee Health Benefits program under this section
as if the beneficiary were an employee of the Federal
Government.
``(2) The administering Secretary concerned shall be
responsible for the Government contributions that the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management determines
would be payable by the Secretary under section 8906 of title
5 for an enrolled eligible beneficiary if the beneficiary
were an employee of the Secretary.
``(3) Each eligible beneficiary enrolled in an FEHBP plan
shall be required to contribute the amount that would be
withheld from the pay of a similarly situated Federal
employee who is enrolled in the same health benefits plan
under chapter 89 of title 5.
``(h) Management of Participation.--The Director of the
Office of Personnel Management shall manage the participation
of an eligible beneficiary in a health benefits plan of the
Federal Employee Health Benefits program pursuant to an
enrollment under this section. The Director shall maintain
separate risk pools for participating eligible beneficiaries
until such time as the Director determines that inclusion of
participating eligible beneficiaries under chapter 89 of
title 5 will not adversely affect Federal employees and
annuitants enrolled in health benefits plans under such
chapter.
``(i) Reporting Requirements.--(1) Not later than November
1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of
the Office of Personnel Management shall jointly submit to
Congress a report describing the provision of health care
services to enrollees under this section during the preceding
fiscal year. The report shall address or contain the
following:
``(A) The number of eligible beneficiaries who are
participating in health benefits plans of the Federal
Employee Health Benefits program pursuant to an enrollment
under this section, both in terms of total number and as a
percentage of all covered beneficiaries who are receiving
health care through the health care system of the uniformed
services.
``(B) The extent to which eligible beneficiaries use the
health care services available to the beneficiaries under
health benefits plans pursuant to enrollments under this
section.
``(C) The cost to enrollees for health care under such
health benefits plans.
``(D) The cost to the Department of Defense, the Department
of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human
Services, and any other departments and agencies of the
Federal Government of providing care to eligible
beneficiaries pursuant to enrollments in such health benefits
plans under this section.
``(E) A comparison of the costs determined under paragraphs
(C) and (D) and the costs that would otherwise have been
incurred by the United States and enrollees under alternative
health care options available to the administering
Secretaries.
``(F) The effects of the exercise of authority under this
section on the cost, access, and utilization rates of other
health care options under the health care system of the
uniformed services.
``(2) Not later than the date that is four years after the
date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 1999, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report describing--
``(A) whether the Secretary recommends that a health care
option for retired covered beneficiaries equivalent to the
option described in subsection (a) be permanently offered to
such beneficiaries; and
``(B) the estimated costs of offering such an option.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1079a the following:
``1079b. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health Benefits
program.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 8905 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection (d):
``(d) An individual whom the Secretary of Defense
determines is an eligible beneficiary under subsection (b) of
section 1079b of title 10 may enroll in a health benefits
plan under this chapter in accordance with the agreement
entered into under subsection (a) of such section between the
Secretary and the Office and with applicable regulations
under this chapter.''.
(2) Section 8906 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and
(3)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``paragraphs (2), (3),
and (4)''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) In the case of individuals who enroll in a health
plan under section 8905(d) of this title, the Government
contribution shall be determined under section 1079b(g) of
title 10.''; and
(B) in subsection (g)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The Government contribution described in subsection
(b)(4) for beneficiaries who enroll under section 8905(d) of
this title shall be paid as provided in section 1079b(g) of
title 10.''.
(c) Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense--
(1) shall begin to offer the health benefits option under
section 1079b(a) of title 10, United States Code (as added by
subsection (a)) not later than the date that is 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) shall continue to offer such option through the year
2003, and to provide care to eligible covered beneficiaries
under such section through the year 2005.
(d) Funding From Authorized Appropriations.--Of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense
for military personnel for fiscal years 1999 through 2005,
amounts shall be available for carrying out section 1079b of
title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), as
follows
(1) For fiscal year 1999, $100,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2000, $200,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2001, $300,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2002, $400,000,000.
(5) For fiscal year 2003, $500,000,000.
(6) For each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, such sums as
are necessary.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I am proud to join my esteemed
colleague, Senator Thurmond, in introducing legislation that will
address a growing crisis our nation's military retirees now face. These
soldiers who all served so valiantly for our country now find it
increasingly difficult to access the lifetime health care promised to
them in exchange for 20 years of service. As a veteran myself, I
believe that the government must honor the promises which the country
made to those men and women who have served so faithfully in defense of
the United States. America's veterans fulfilled
[[Page S3361]]
their part of the bargain--now the government has a responsibility to
do likewise. The legislation we introduce today is a Senate companion
to House legislation introduced by Representative J.C. Watts.
Congressman Watts has put a great deal of effort and leadership into
this issue and I applaud his efforts.
Military retirees are the only Federal Government personnel who have
been prevented from using their employer-provided health care once they
reach Medicare-eligible age. In the past, Medicare-eligible retirees
have received health care in military treatment facilities on a ``space
available'' basis. However, cutbacks in health care funding, force
reductions and base closures are forcing many Medicare-eligible
retirees out of the military medical system. The legislation we have
introduced today would correct this inequity by giving all military
retirees health care coverage equal to our FEHBP health plan or the
option to enroll in FEHBP. As you know, Mr. President, FEHBP is the
same plan in which you, I, and all our colleagues and staff in the
Congress, have the option of enrolling. FEHBP is a successfully
administered health benefits plan. The least we can do is offer to our
nation's military retirees the same choices in health care as are
available to us. I dare say they deserve it.
This legislation would do more than allow access to FEHBP to
retirees. It would also allow retirees experiencing difficulties with
the TRICARE/CHAMPUS health plans. Due to TRICARE/CHAMPUS reimbursement
rates, which are 15 percent below Medicare reimbursement rates, many
doctors do not participate in TRICARE/CHAMPUS. When a military hospital
has no space available for a military retiree, the retiree is referred
to a private facility. If a private facility does not accept TRICARE/
CHAMPUS, the retiree is left waiting for available space in a military
hospital. This is unjust. Under this legislation, military retirees who
cannot receive under TRICARE/CHAMPUS the same level of care provided
under FEHBP have the option of enrolling in FEHBP. Again, Mr.
President, these are the same options available to us as federal
employees.
Mr. President, the Congress understands the need to fix the military
health care system. Just last year in the 1998 Defense Authorization
Act, this body recognized through an amendment I proudly cosponsored,
the moral obligation we have incurred to provide health care to members
and former members of the Armed Forces who are entitled to retired or
retainer pay. This is a huge undertaking and important considerations
such as the cost of such an endeavor must be made. While this
legislation places caps on annual spending, providing those with
funding concerns concrete numbers which to work, I firmly believe we
can ill-afford not to honor the promises our nation made to these men
and women.
Mr. President, this nation has long stood by the men and women who
have fought for, and secured, our country's freedom. Without these
soldiers America would not stand today as the world's example of
democracy and cornerstone of freedom. We owe it to our nation, to our
nation's military retirees and to ourselves to make the small sacrifice
that passage of this bill would require.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 1964. A bill to provide for the sale of certain public land in the
Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to the Clark County Department of Aviation; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the ivanpah valley airport public lands transfer act
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Ivanpah Valley
Airport Public Lands Transfer Act for myself and Senator Bryan, which
provides for the sale of public lands in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to
the Clark County Department of Aviation.
Mr. President, Las Vegas Valley has the fastest growing population in
the United States. Fifty percent of the visitors to Las Vegas come
through McCarran Airport. This percentage is increasing as Las Vegas
grows and increases in importance as an international travel
destination.
Mr. President, Las Vegas Valley needs to begin developing other
airports to accommodate passenger, air cargo, and charter flights. It
is inevitable that McCarran Airport is reaching its capacity.
Mr. President, Las Vegas Valley has a unique opportunity to combine
6,650 acres of public land with up to $400 million in private capital
to provide a new publicly-owned and operated airport for Clark County.
The Ivanpah Valley Airport site is located about 30 miles south of Las
Vegas and would provide a secondary, southern gateway to the Las Vegas
metropolitan area. Of the total acreage, about 2,000 acres will be
developed for the airport and the balance will be developed as an
industrial center. The Ivanpah Valley Airport will be integrated into a
global air cargo distribution network.
Mr. President, let me assure you that this is not a giveaway of
public lands. My bill requires Clark County to pay fair market value
for the land. Additionally, even though private dollars will be used to
help develop this complex, the airport will remain publicly-owned and
managed.
Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the Ivanpah Valley
Airport Public Lands Transfer Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1964
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 ``Ivanpah Valley Airport
Public Land Transfer Act''.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1712, 1713), the Secretary of the Interior shall convey,
under such terms and conditions as the Secretary considers
appropriate, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the public land identified for disposition
on the map entitled ``Ivanpah Valley, Nevada-Airport
Selections'', numbered ___, and dated _____, to the
Department of Aviation of Clark County, Nevada, for the
purpose of developing an airport facility and infrastructure.
(b) Availability of Map.--The Secretary shall ensure that
the map described in subsection (a) is on file and available
for public inspection in the offices of the Director, and the
Las Vegas District, of the Bureau of Land Management.
(c) Phased Conveyance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey the public land
described in subsection (a) in small parcels over a period of
up to 20 years, as is required to carry out the phased
construction and development of the airport facility and
infrastructure.
(2) Appraisal.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall ensure that an
appraisal of the fair market value is conducted for each
parcel of public land to be conveyed.
(3) Payment of fair market value.--A parcel shall be
conveyed by the Secretary on payment by the Department of
Aviation of Clark County, Nevada, to the Secretary, of the
fair market value of the parcel, as determined under
paragraph (2).
(d) Withdrawal.--The public land described in subsection
(a) is withdrawn from the operation of the mining and mineral
leasing laws of the United States.
____________________