[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.

                          ____________________