[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3919-S3940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CLELAND:
  S. 2009. A bill to require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs to carry out joint reviews relating to 
interdepartmental cooperation in the delivery of medical care by the 
departments; to the Committee on Armed Services.


                    military health care legislation

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am particularly honored to serve as the

[[Page S3920]]

ranking Democratic member of the Senate Armed Services Personnel 
Subcommittee, a charge I have embraced to its fullest. In the first 
session of the 105th Congress, I pledged my commitment to improving 
military health care. Today, I am here to discuss proposals to offer 
both immediate assistance and a time phased legislative strategy to 
fulfill this commitment.

  The Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 105-85) included 
a Sense of the Congress Resolution which provided a finding that ``many 
retired military personnel believe that they were promised lifetime 
health care in exchange for 20 or more years of service,'' and 
expresses the sense of Congress that ``the United States has incurred a 
moral obligation'' to provide health care to members and retired 
members of the Armed Services and that Congress and the President 
should take steps to address ``the problems associated with the 
availability of health care for such retirees within two years.'' I 
authored that resolution, and today in year one of my two-year 
challenge, I stand ready to take the first of many necessary steps to 
fulfill this obligation.
  I call this obligation ``K-P Duty''--K-P as in KEEPING PROMISES. As a 
disabled veteran and retiree, as former head of the Veterans 
Administration, and as the Ranking Member on the Personnel 
Subcommittee, I am seeking to draft Congress and the entire nation and 
put us all on K-P Duty.
  Back when I was in the Army, some saw K-P or ``kitchen police'' as 
punishment. If a soldier was derelict in his duties, or if he broke the 
rules, he went on KP, where he served his fellow soldiers by working in 
the messhall.
  The K-P Duty I'm talking about is not about punishment, however. Yes, 
we as a nation have been derelict in our duties to our military 
personnel, active duty and retired. Yes, we have broken our promises. 
But the K-P Duty I'm talking about is a sacred honor. It is about a 
grateful nation paying respect to those soldiers who made tremendous 
sacrifices for our Country. The soldiers who won World War II, who won 
the Cold War--the soldiers that have made it possible for the United 
States to be the world's only super power. It is our time, indeed it is 
past time, to serve these soldiers and fulfill our obligation.
  As with any draft in an army, the first order of business is 
bootcamp. As long as I have taken the liberty of drafting the entire 
Congress, I might as well serve as drill instructor. Let me take this 
time to ``drill'' the Senate on the basics of this challenge.
  Not only do we have to fulfill our promise, we also have to 
reconsider the way in which the military and veterans health care 
systems work. It is the change in the demographics of military health 
care beneficiaries that necessitates a change in the way that we 
administer health care.
  When I went on active duty, the military was made up of mostly single 
male soldiers. Looking at the all-volunteer, totally-recruited force 
today, the picture is much different. Now, 57 percent of all enlisted 
members and 73 percent of all officers are married. Not surprisingly, 
the number of young dependents has also risen. In terms of recruitment, 
quality health care is cited as a major incentive for young men and 
women who join the military. It is that same health care for soldiers 
and their families that helps retain these soldiers in the military. 
Recently, I heard the adage, ``the military recruits a soldier, but 
retains a family.''
  Since the time I was a U.S. Army Captain 30 years ago, the number of 
active duty personnel has undergone a 58 percent reduction. 
Concurrently, the number of retirees has more than doubled. The 
Government Accounting Office reports that approximately 48 percent of 
the beneficiaries of the Department of Defense Military Health System 
are active duty members and dependents. The remaining 52 % are retirees 
and dependents. 71% of military retirees are under the age of 65, while 
29% of military retirees are over the age of 65.
  As we consider options for improving the DoD and VA health care 
systems, we need to be mindful of some basic facts. About 60% of 
retirees under the age 65 live near a military treatment facility but 
only about 52% the retirees aged 65 and older live near such a 
facility. About two thirds of retirees under age 65 used the military 
health system. In comparison, only about a quarter of the retirees aged 
65 and older used military medical facilities on a space available 
basis primarily for pharmacy services.
  According to a 1994-95 survey of DoD beneficiaries, over 40 percent 
of military retirees, regardless of age, had private health insurance 
coverage. About a third of retirees aged 65 and older also reported 
having additional insurance to supplement their Medicare benefits. 
Approximately 14% of retirees under age 65 had insurance to supplement 
their CHAMPUS coverage.
  In this same dynamic environment of the past 30 years, the medical 
portion of the DoD budget has increased dramatically from approximately 
two percent to six percent. In part, this can be attributed to cost 
growth from technology and intensity of treatment in the private and 
public sectors. It is interesting to note the converse relationship 
between the increase in health care dollars as the number of active 
duty personnel decreases and the number of retirees increases.
  The Military Health System (MHS) and the Veterans Health 
Administration are well established institutions that collectively 
manage over 1500 hospitals, clinics, and health care facilities world-
wide, providing services to over 11 million beneficiaries. Overseeing 
these systems requires a well-planned and executed effort.
  The Veterans Health Administration is a system in transition. In the 
past two years, the VA has replaced its structure of four regions, 33 
networks, and hundreds of clinics with a new system geared to 
decentralizing authority into 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks. 
The purpose of the reorganization was to improve the access, quality 
and efficiency of care provided to the Nation's veterans. The hallmark 
of the network structure is that the field has been given control over 
functions which were previously located in Washington. The majority of 
quality-related activities were transferred closer to the site of 
patient care.
  The Military Health System has also changed. During the Cold War, 
that system was designed to support full-scale, extremely violent war 
with the Soviet Union and its allies in Europe. The collapse of the 
Soviet Union and the end of the Warsaw Pact led to a major reassessment 
of the U.S. defense policy. The overall size of the active duty force 
has been reduced by one-third since the mid-1980s.
  The DoD health care system changes have included the establishment of 
a managed care program, numerous facility closures, and significant 
downsizing of military medical staff. In the last decade, the number of 
military medical personnel has declined by 15 percent and the number of 
military hospitals has been reduced by one-third. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 directed DoD to prescribe and 
implement a nationwide managed health care benefit program modeled on 
health maintenance organization plans and in 1995, beneficiaries began 
enrolling in this new program called TRICARE. With over 8 million 
beneficiaries, it is the largest health maintenance organization plan 
in the Nation.

  One of the problems with TRICARE is what happens to retirees when 
they reach the age of 65. They are ineligible to participate in 
TRICARE. The law currently provides for transition from military health 
care to Medicare for these beneficiaries. This is not the right 
solution, especially given the fact that Medicare does not currently 
reimburse the DoD for health care services, although Congress recently 
authorized a test of this concept. In addition, as the military begins 
to close and downsize military treatment facilities, retirees over 65 
are unable to seek and obtain treatment on a space available basis. The 
retirees over 65 are, in effect, being shut out of the medical 
facilities promised to them.
  The changing health care environment has created its own set of 
unique challenges. To assess these varied and special requirements, I 
formed a Military Health Care Reform Working Group of senior officials 
in government and the private sector to explore innovative solutions to 
improve the military and veterans health care systems. During the past 
few months this group analyzed the array of military and veterans 
health care issues and recently provided a comprehensive report of

[[Page S3921]]

their findings and recommendations to me.
  In March, I hosted a military health care roundtable at Fort Gordon, 
Georgia. The positive and supportive working relationship between the 
Eisenhower Army Medical Center and the Veterans Administration Medical 
Center in Augusta, Georgia was highlighted by the panel speakers and 
audience members. These facilities have established a sharing agreement 
which allows each to provide certain health care services to the 
beneficiaries of the other. This type of joint approach has the 
potential to alleviate a significant portion of the accessibility 
problem faced by military retirees, especially given the reduction in 
DoD medical treatment facilities. In spite of these benchmarked efforts 
in cooperative care, beneficiaries who were in the audience still 
attested to insufficient accessibility to resources to meet their 
needs.
  Public Law 97-174, ``The Veterans Administration and Department of 
Defense Health Resources Sharing and Emergency Operations Act,'' was 
enacted in 1982 specifically to promote cost-effective use of federal 
health care resources by minimizing duplication and underuse of health 
care resources while benefitting both VA and DoD beneficiaries. Under 
this law, VA and DoD pursue programs of cooperation ranging from shared 
services to joint venture operations of medical facilities. Sharing 
agreements are developed on a local basis, whereas, joint ventures are 
developed at the highest levels within an organization or command.
  In 1984, there were a combined total of 102 VA and DoD facilities 
with sharing agreements. By 1997, that number had grown to 420. In five 
years, between FY 1992 and FY 1997, shared services increased from 
slightly over 3,000 to more than 6,000 services ranging from major 
medical and surgical services, laundry, blood, and laboratory services 
to unusual speciality care services. VA and DoD currently have four 
joint ventures in operation in New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Oklahoma, and 
four more in planning for Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, California.
  In my opening remarks, I suggested that there are things that we can 
do immediately and others that can be accomplished through a near term 
time phased legislative strategy to fulfill our moral obligation to 
active duty and retired service personnel. Let me first discuss some of 
the options.
  There has been an overwhelming outpouring of support for offering 
Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) to military retirees. 
Although this program has achieved a successful reputation among 
federal employees, it is a costly alternative which necessitates close 
scrutiny, along with other health care options. I appreciate the fact 
that there are many advantages to FEHBP. Furthermore, I share the view 
that health care for military retirees should be at least as good as 
the health care we in the Congress afford ourselves. I am committed to 
working closely on the FEHBP option.
  The Medicare Subvention demonstration project that is scheduled to 
begin enrollment in the near future involves TRICARE Prime. 
Unfortunately, it will only benefit retirees who live near military 
treatment facilities--which is only about half of all retirees. Those 
retirees living outside catchment areas won't benefit from subvention. 
Additionally, there are ongoing efforts to initiate a Veterans Affairs 
Subvention test. The limiting criteria of these tests is that they 
require beneficiaries to live near the respective treatment facilities. 
To accommodate those beneficiaries that do not live near treatment 
facilities or within the catchment area, we must explore other 
alternatives, including, as I mentioned, the FEHBP option.
  Today, I am announcing two initiatives. The first is a bill to 
require the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to significantly enhance their cooperative efforts in the 
delivery of health care to their respective beneficiaries. Several 
measures to enhance military health care efficiencies are already being 
explored, and the initiative I am proposing would complement these 
efforts without any direct impact on current spending. Let me just 
highlight some of the elements of my plan.
  The first element directs DoD and the VA to conduct a comprehensive 
survey to determine the demographics of their beneficiaries, their 
geographic distribution, and their preferences for health care. A 
second survey would review the range of existing DoD and VA facilities 
and resources and the capacity available for cooperative efforts. The 
purpose of these reviews is simple. We need to accurately determine who 
we are serving, what they want, and what resources we currently have to 
provide to them.
  The second element directs DoD and the VA to provide to the Congress 
a report on any and all impediments which preclude optimal cooperation 
and/or integration between DoD and VA in the area of health care 
delivery. We need to know what statutory restrictions, regulatory 
constraints, and cultural issues stand in the way of full and complete 
cooperation between the two departments. They would be directed to 
recommend to the Congress what changes should be made in the law. 
Furthermore, they would be directed to eliminate any regulatory and 
cultural impediments.
  The third element addresses several projects that have been 
undertaken by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs that can 
be accelerated for near term implementation. The Electronic Transfer of 
Patient Information, a collaborative effort by DoD and VA which would 
provide for immediate transfer of and access to patient records at the 
time of treatment is a project which merits Congressional support. The 
DoD and VA have also established the DoD/VA Federal Pharmaceutical 
Steering Committee. I believe this committee should perform a 
comprehensive examination of existing pharmaceutical benefits and 
programs, including current management and utilization of mail order 
pharmaceuticals. Finally, the initiative directs DoD to review the 
extent of VA participation in TRICARE networks and to take steps to 
ensure optimal participation by the VA.
  The second initiative I am announcing today is legislation which is 
being crafted to respond to the tremendous outcry to provide health 
care for military retirees over 65. Mr. President, as you know, S. 
1334, a bill to provide for a test of the FEHBP plan has 60 cosponsors. 
It is my plan to work with my friend and colleague Senator Kempthorne 
in the Senate Armed Services Committee to include in the National 
Defense Authorization bill a proposal that addresses this matter this 
year.
  I recognize that there is a perception that our military benefits are 
eroding but I am here today to say that we can change this perception 
if we all do our share on K-P Duty. Greater cooperation among the DoD 
and VA will yield greater choices for the beneficiaries of these 
systems. Developing a viable health care alternative for our retirees 
over 65, a group that has been largely disenfranchised, will ensure 
that now all beneficiaries have access to the health care to which they 
are entitled because of their service to this Nation.
  We made a promise, now let's keep it. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2009

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The military health care system of the Department of 
     Defense and the Veterans Health Administration of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs are national institutions that 
     collectively manage more than 1,500 hospitals, clinics, and 
     health care facilities worldwide to provide services to more 
     than 11,000,000 beneficiaries.
       (2) In the post-Cold War era, these institutions are in a 
     profound transition that involves challenging opportunities.
       (3) During the period from 1988 to 1998, the number of 
     military medical personnel has declined by 15 percent and the 
     number of military hospitals has been reduced by one-third.
       (4) During the two years since 1996, the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs has revitalized its structure by 
     decentralizing authority into 22 Veterans Integrated Service 
     Networks.
       (5) In the face of increasing costs of medical care, 
     increased demands for health care services, and increasing 
     budgetary constraints, the Department of Defense and the

[[Page S3922]]

     Department of Veterans Affairs have embarked on a variety of 
     dynamic and innovative cooperative programs ranging from 
     shared services to joint venture operations of medical 
     facilities.
       (6) In 1984, there was a combined total of 102 Department 
     of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense facilities with 
     sharing agreements. By 1997, that number had grown to 420. 
     During the six years from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal 
     year 1997, shared services increased from slightly over 3,000 
     services to more than 6,000 services ranging from major 
     medical and surgical services, laundry, blood, and laboratory 
     services to unusual speciality care services.
       (7) The Department of Defense and the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs are conducting four health care joint 
     ventures in New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Oklahoma, and are 
     planning to conduct four more such ventures in Alaska, 
     Florida, Hawaii, and California.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Department of Defense and the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs are to be commended for the cooperation 
     between the two departments in the delivery of medical care, 
     of which the cooperation involved in the establishment and 
     operation of the Department of Defense and the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs Executive Council is a praiseworthy example;
       (2) the two departments are encouraged to continue to 
     explore new opportunities to enhance the availability and 
     delivery of medical care to beneficiaries by further 
     enhancing the cooperative efforts of the departments; and
       (3) enhanced cooperation is encouraged for--
       (A) the general areas of access to quality medical care, 
     identification and elimination of impediments to enhanced 
     cooperation, and joint research and program development; and
       (B) the specific areas in which there is significant 
     potential to achieve progress in cooperation in a short term, 
     including computerization of patient records systems, 
     participation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the 
     TRICARE program, pharmaceutical programs, and joint physical 
     examinations.

     SEC. 3. JOINT SURVEY ON POPULATIONS SERVED.

       (a) Survey Required.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly conduct a survey 
     of their respective medical care beneficiary populations to 
     identify, by category of beneficiary (defined as the 
     Secretaries consider appropriate), the expectations of, 
     requirements for, and behavior patterns of the beneficiaries 
     with respect to medical care. The two Secretaries shall 
     develop the protocol for the survey jointly, but shall obtain 
     the services of an entity independent of the Department of 
     Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs for carrying 
     out the survey.
       (b) Matters To Be Surveyed.--The survey shall include the 
     following:
       (1) Demographic characteristics, economic characteristics, 
     and geographic location of beneficiary populations with 
     regard to catchment or service areas.
       (2) The types and frequency of care required by veterans, 
     retirees, and dependents within catchment or service areas of 
     Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs medical facilities 
     and outside those areas.
       (3) The numbers of, characteristics of, and types of 
     medical care needed by the veterans, retirees, and dependents 
     who, though eligible for medical care in Department of 
     Defense or Department of Veterans Affairs treatment 
     facilities or other federally funded medical programs, choose 
     not to seek medical care from those facilities or under those 
     programs, and the reasons for that choice.
       (4) The obstacles or disincentives for seeking medical care 
     from such facilities or under such programs that veterans, 
     retirees, and dependents perceive.
       (5) Any other matters that the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs consider appropriate for the 
     survey.
       (c) Report.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall submit a report on the results of the 
     survey to the appropriate committees of Congress. The report 
     shall contain the matters described in subsection (b) and any 
     proposals for legislation that the Secretaries recommend for 
     enhancing Department of Defense and Department of Veterans 
     Affairs cooperative efforts with respect to the delivery of 
     medical care.

     SEC. 4. REVIEW OF IMPEDIMENTS TO COOPERATION.

       (a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly conduct a review 
     to identify impediments to cooperation between the Department 
     of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding 
     the delivery of medical care. The matters reviewed shall 
     include the following:
       (1) All laws, policies, and regulations, and any attitudes 
     of beneficiaries of the health care systems of the two 
     departments, that have the effect of preventing the 
     establishment, or limiting the effectiveness, of cooperative 
     health care programs of the departments.
       (2) The requirements and practices involved in the 
     credentialling and licensure of health care providers.
       (3) The perceptions of beneficiaries in a variety of 
     categories (defined as the Secretaries consider appropriate) 
     regarding the various Federal health care systems available 
     for their use.
       (b) Report.--The Secretaries shall jointly submit a report 
     on the results of the review to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress. The report shall include any proposals for 
     legislation that the Secretaries recommend for eliminating or 
     reducing impediments to interdepartmental cooperation that 
     are identified during the review.

     SEC. 5. PARTICIPATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS IN 
                   TRICARE.

       (a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall review 
     the TRICARE program to identify opportunities for increased 
     participation by the Department of Veterans Affairs in that 
     program. The ongoing collaboration between Department of 
     Defense officials and Department of Veterans Affairs 
     officials regarding increasing the participation shall be 
     included among the matters reviewed.
       (b) Semiannual Report.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a semiannual report on the 
     status of the review and on efforts to increase the 
     participation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the 
     TRICARE program. No report is required under this subsection 
     after the submission of a semiannual report in which the 
     Secretaries declare that the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     is participating in the TRICARE program to the extent that 
     can reasonably be expected to be attained.

     SEC. 6. PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS AND PROGRAMS.

       (a) Examination Required.--(1) The Federal Pharmaceutical 
     Steering Committee shall--
       (A) undertake a comprehensive examination of existing 
     pharmaceutical benefits and programs for beneficiaries of 
     Federal medical care programs, including matters relating to 
     the purchasing, distribution, and dispensing of 
     pharmaceuticals and the management of mail order 
     pharmaceuticals programs; and
       (B) review the existing methods for contracting for and 
     distributing medical supplies and services.
       (2) The committee shall submit a report on the results of 
     the examination to the appropriate committees of Congress.
       (b) Report.--The committee shall submit a report on the 
     results of the examination to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress.

     SEC. 7. STANDARDIZATION OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR 
                   DISABILITIES.

       The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report on the status of the efforts of the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     to standardize physical examinations administered by the two 
     departments for the purpose of determining or rating 
     disabilities.

     SEC. 8. APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DEFINED.

       For the purposes of this Act, the appropriate committees of 
     Congress are as follows:
       (1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the Senate.
       (2) The Committee on National Security and the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 9. DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS.

       (a) Report on Joint Survey of Populations Served.--The 
     report required by section 3(c) shall be submitted not later 
     than January 1, 2000.
       (b) Report on Review of Impediments to Cooperation.--The 
     report required by section 4(b) shall be submitted not later 
     than May 1, 1999.
       (c) Semiannual Report on Participation of Department of 
     Veterans Affairs in TRICARE.--The semiannual report required 
     by section 5(b) shall be submitted not later than January 1 
     and June 1 of each year.
       (d) Report on Examination of Pharmaceutical Benefits and 
     Programs.--The report on the examination required under 
     section 6 shall be submitted not later than 60 days after the 
     completion of the examination.
       (e) Report on Standardization of Physical Examinations for 
     Disabilities.--The report required by section 7 shall be 
     submitted not later than June 1, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2010. A bill to provide for business development and trade 
promotion for Native Americans, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.


the native american business development, trade promotion, and tourism 
                              act of 1998

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a 
measure to help Indians and tribal businesses foster entrepreneurship 
and vigorous reservation economies. Indian tribes face many challenges, 
but the greatest priority is in building stronger economies and 
providing jobs to tribal members. With this bill, I intend to unshackle 
Indian entrepreneurship to provide jobs and revenues for reservation 
economies.
  When the Europeans landed in the New World to explore and build 
settlements, they were greeted by Native

[[Page S3923]]

people with a long tradition of inter-tribal and regional trade. The 
tribes traded pelts and furs, hand-woven baskets, blankets, virtually 
limitless arts and crafts, weapons, and a variety of Native grown and 
gathered foods.
  Unrestrained by bureaucrats and free to roam their own lands, the 
tribes enjoyed a standard of material well-being that, while not ideal, 
was a far cry from the Third World conditions most Indian people live 
in today.
  Over the course of 200 years this tradition has been replaced by 
rules and regulations that continue to stifle Indian entrepreneurship 
and instead promise cradle-to-grave ``security'' based on federal 
transfer payments. The practical results of federal domination is 
predictable: lifeless reservation economies and the absence of a 
private sector to create wealth and sustain employment for Indian 
people.
  The current statistical profile of Indian people is poor and shows 
little sign of improvement. Despite the popular belief that gaming has 
made millionaires of all Indians, the reality is otherwise as most 
Indian gaming revenues are more like church bingo than like Las Vegas 
or Atlantic City.
  In the Great Depression, the national unemployment rate was 20 
percent and it was called a ``national crisis.'' Indian country has an 
unemployment rate running at 50 percent, and there are no comments, no 
sense of urgency and little attention being paid.
  There are other reasons job opportunities are needed. In 1996, the 
Congress enacted a welfare reform law that provides transition 
assistance to welfare recipients and rightly requires able-bodied 
Americans to get and keep jobs. In rural areas, particularly on Indian 
reservations, the welfare reform will hit hard because employment 
opportunities are scarce.
  The goal of this and future efforts is to increase value-added 
activities on reservations in such fields as manufacturing, energy, 
agriculture, livestock and fisheries, high technology, arts and crafts, 
and a host of service industries.
  The United States has the responsibility to preserve, protect and 
maximize tribal assets and resources, and an obligation to improve the 
standards of living of Indian people. In this legislation, that 
responsibility is primarily in removing the barriers to success the 
federal government itself has created over the years.
  The bill aims to make best use of and streamline existing programs to 
provide the necessary tools to enable tribes to attract outside capital 
and technical expertise. This model has proven highly successful in the 
self governance arena and in the Indian job training program, known as 
the ``477'' program. The bill would provide better coordination of 
existing business development programs in the Commerce Department and 
maximize the resources made available to tribes.
  The tribes have a responsibility as well. As a matter of Indian self 
determination, the tribes are increasingly administering federal 
services, programs, and activities in lieu of the federal government. 
This has led to more capable and accountable tribal governments. A 
fundamental precept of self-government is a reduction in the dependence 
on the federal bureaucracy and federal funds and by assuming a greater 
role in funding their own self government.
  The Committee on Indian Affairs recently held a hearing on economic 
development and one of the findings was that the tribes need to provide 
governance infrastructure and friendly business environments if they 
want to attract and retain investment. Whether by adopting commercial 
codes, or tribal courts that can address business issues, or 
regulations that do not repel the private sector, tribal efforts are 
critical if this effort is to succeed.
  Under the bill, the Native American Business Development Office in 
the Commerce Department will coordinate existing programs, including 
those for international business and tourism, aimed at development on 
Indian lands. This bill does not create any new programs but rather is 
intended to achieve more efficiency in those that already exist within 
existing budget authority. The bill also prohibits assistance under the 
act from being used for gaming on Indian lands.
  In addition, the bill directs the Secretary to create a task force on 
regulatory reform and business development to analyze existing laws and 
regulations that are restraining business and economic development on 
Indian lands. Again, the bill is not intended to create a new entity, 
but recognizes that there is great need to strip away the layers of 
unnecessary rules and regulations that stifle Indian businesses.
  I urge those that are critical of Indian gaming to join me in 
providing alternatives to build strong and diversified tribal economies 
for the benefit of tribes, tribal members, and surrounding communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the provisions of the 
bill and an article written by James Gwartney for the Wall Street 
Journal dated April 10, 1998, entitled ``Less Government, More Growth'' 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2010

       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 ``Native American Business 
     Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the United States 
     Constitution recognizes the special relationship between the 
     United States and Indian tribes;
       (2) beginning in 1970, with the inauguration by the Nixon 
     Administration, of the Indian self-determination era of the 
     Federal Government, each President has confirmed the special 
     government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes 
     and the United States;
       (3) in 1994, President Clinton issued an Executive 
     memorandum to the heads of departments and agencies that 
     obligated all Federal departments and agencies, particularly 
     those that have an impact on economic development, to 
     evaluate the potential impacts of their actions on Indian 
     tribes;
       (4) consistent with the principles of inherent tribal 
     sovereignty and the special relationship between Indian 
     tribes and the United States, tribes retain the right to 
     enter into contracts and agreements to trade freely, and seek 
     enforcement of treaty and trade rights;
       (5) Congress has carried out the responsibility of the 
     United States for the protection and preservation of Indian 
     tribes and the resources of Indian tribes through the 
     endorsement of treaties, and the enactment of other laws, 
     including laws that provide for the exercise of 
     administrative authorities;
       (6) the United States has an obligation to guard and 
     preserve the sovereignty of Indian tribes in order to foster 
     strong tribal governments, Indian self-determination, and 
     economic self-sufficiency among Indian tribes;
       (7) the capacity of Indian tribes to build strong tribal 
     governments and vigorous economies is hindered by the 
     inability of Indian tribes to engage communities that 
     surround Indian lands and outside investors in economic 
     activities on Indian lands;
       (8) despite the availability of abundant natural resources 
     on Indian lands and a rich cultural legacy that accords great 
     value to self-determination, self-reliance, and independence, 
     American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer higher rates of 
     unemployment, poverty, poor health, substandard housing, and 
     associated social ills than those of any other group in the 
     United States;
       (9) the United States has an obligation to assist Indian 
     tribes with the creation of appropriate economic and 
     political conditions with respect to Indian lands to--
       (A) encourage investment from outside sources that do not 
     originate with the tribes; and
       (B) facilitate economic ventures with outside entities that 
     are not tribal entities;
       (10) the economic success and material well-being of 
     American Indian and Alaska Native communities depends on the 
     combined efforts of the Federal Government, tribal 
     governments, the private sector, and individuals;
       (11) the lack of employment and entrepreneurial 
     opportunities in the communities referred to in paragraph (8) 
     has resulted in a multigenerational dependence on Federal 
     assistance that is--
       (A) insufficient to address the magnitude of needs; and
       (B) unreliable in availability; and
       (12) the twin goals of economic self-sufficiency and 
     political self-determination for American Indians and Alaska 
     Natives can best be served by making available to address the 
     challenges faced by those groups--
       (A) the resources of the private market;
       (B) adequate capital; and
       (C) technical expertise.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To revitalize economically and physically distressed 
     Indian reservation economies by--
       (A) encouraging the formation of new businesses by eligible 
     entities, the expansion of existing businesses; and
       (B) facilitating the movement of goods to and from Indian 
     reservations and the provision of services by Indians.

[[Page S3924]]

       (2) To promote private investment in the economies of 
     Indian tribes and to encourage the sustainable development of 
     resources of Indian tribes and tribal and Indian-owned 
     businesses.
       (3) To promote the long-range sustained growth of the 
     economies of Indian tribes.
       (4) To raise incomes of Indians in order to reduce poverty 
     levels and provide the means for achieving a higher standard 
     of living on Indian reservations.
       (5) To encourage intertribal, regional, and international 
     trade and business development in order to assist in 
     increasing productivity and the standard of living of members 
     of Indian tribes and improving the economic self-sufficiency 
     of the governing bodies of Indian tribes.
       (6) To promote economic self-sufficiency and political 
     self-determination for Indian tribes and members of Indian 
     tribes.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Board.--The term ``Board'' has the meaning given that 
     term in the first section of the Act entitled ``To provide 
     for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of foreign-
     trade zones in ports of entry in the United States, to 
     expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 18, 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81a).
       (2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means an 
     Indian tribe, tribal organization, Indian arts and crafts 
     organization, tribal enterprise, tribal marketing 
     cooperative, or Indian-owned business.
       (3) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an 
     agency, as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (4) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the Rural 
     Development Foundation.
       (5) Indian.--The term ``Indian'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 4(d) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(d)).
       (6) Indian arts and crafts organization.--The term ``Indian 
     arts and crafts organization'' has the meaning given that 
     term under section 2 of the Act of August 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 
     891, chapter 748; 25 U.S.C. 305a).
       (7) Indian goods and services.--The term ``Indian goods and 
     services'' means--
       (A) Indian goods, within the meaning of section 2 of the 
     Act of August 27, 1935 (commonly known as the ``Indian Arts 
     and Crafts Act'') (49 Stat. 891, chapter 748; 25 U.S.C. 
     305a);
       (B) goods produced or originating within an eligible 
     entity; and
       (C) services provided by eligible entities.
       (8) Indian lands.--The term ``Indian lands'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(4) of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(4)).
       (9) Indian-owned business.--The term ``Indian-owned 
     business'' means an entity organized for the conduct of trade 
     or commerce with respect to which at least 50 percent of the 
     property interests of the entity are owned by Indians or 
     Indian tribes (or a combination thereof).
       (10) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       (12) Tribal enterprise.--The term ``tribal enterprise'' 
     means a commercial activity or business managed or controlled 
     by an Indian tribe.
       (13) Tribal marketing cooperative.--The term ``tribal 
     marketing cooperative'' shall have the meaning given that 
     term by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     the Interior.
       (14) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 4(l) of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(l)).
   TITLE I--TASK FORCE ON REGULATORY REFORM AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE.

       (a) In General.--In order to identify and subsequently 
     remove obstacles to the business development and the creation 
     of wealth in the economies of Indian reservations, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 
     and other officials whom the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, shall, not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, establish a task force on regulatory 
     reform and business development in Indian country (referred 
     to in this title as the ``task force'').
       (b) Membership.--The task force established under this 
     section shall be composed of 16 members, of which 12 members 
     shall be representatives of the Indian tribes from the areas 
     of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and each such area shall be 
     represented by such a representative.
       (c) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the task force shall hold its 
     initial meeting.
       (d) Review.--Beginning on the date of the initial meeting 
     under subsection (b), the task force shall conduct a review 
     of laws relating to activities occurring on Indian lands 
     (including regulations under title 25 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations).
       (e) Meetings.--The task force shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the task force 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairperson.--The task force shall select a chairperson 
     from among its members.

     SEC. 102. REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the task force shall prepare and submit to the Committee 
     on Indian Affairs in the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Resources in the House of Representatives, and to the 
     governing body of each Indian tribe a report that includes--
       (1) the findings of the task force concerning the review 
     conducted pursuant to section 101(d); and
       (2) such recommendations concerning the proposed revisions 
     to the regulations under title 25 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations and amendments to other laws relating to 
     activities occurring on Indian lands as the task force 
     determines to be appropriate.

     SEC. 103. POWERS OF THE TASK FORCE.

       (a) Hearings.--The task force may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the task force considers advisable 
     to carry out the duties of the task force.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The task force may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the task force considers necessary to carry 
     out the duties of the task force.
       (c) Postal Services.--The task force may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (d) Gifts.--The task force may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.

     SEC. 104. TASK FORCE PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Members of the task force who 
     are not officers or employees of the Federal Government shall 
     serve without compensation, except for travel expenses, as 
     provided under subsection (b). Members of the task force who 
     are officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the task force shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the task force.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The chairperson of the task force may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws, appoint and 
     terminate such personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     task force to perform its duties.
       (2) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     The chairperson of the task force may procure temporary and 
     intermittent service under section 3109(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, at rates for individuals that do not exceed the 
     daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed 
     under GS-13 of the General Schedule established under section 
     5332 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 105. TERMINATION OF TASK FORCE.

       The task force shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the task force has submitted, to the committees of 
     Congress specified in section 102, and to the governing body 
     of each Indian tribe, a copy of the report prepared under 
     that section.

     SEC. 106. EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

       All of the activities of the task force conducted under 
     this title shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
             TITLE II--NATIVE AMERICAN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 201. OFFICE OF NATIVE AMERICAN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Commerce an office known as the Office of 
     Native American Business Development (referred to in this 
     title as the ``Office'').
       (2) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director, 
     appointed by the Secretary, whose title shall be the Director 
     of Native American Business Development (referred to in this 
     title as the ``Director''). The Director shall be compensated 
     at a rate not to exceed level V of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Duties of the Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall ensure the coordination of Federal programs 
     that provide assistance, including financial and technical 
     assistance, to eligible entities for increased business, the 
     expansion of trade by eligible entities, and economic 
     development on Indian lands.
       (2) Activities.--In carrying out the duties described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary, acting through the Director, 
     shall ensure the coordination of, or, as appropriate, carry 
     out--
       (A) Federal programs designed to provide legal, accounting, 
     or financial assistance to eligible entities;
       (B) market surveys;
       (C) the development of promotional materials;
       (D) the financing of business development seminars;
       (E) the facilitation of marketing;

[[Page S3925]]

       (F) the participation of appropriate Federal agencies or 
     eligible entities in trade fairs;
       (G) any activity that is not described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (F) that is related to the development of appropriate 
     markets; and
       (H) any other activity that the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director, determines to be appropriate to carry out 
     this section.
       (3) Assistance.--In conjunction with the activities 
     described in paragraph (2), the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall provide--
       (A) financial assistance, technical assistance, and 
     administrative services to eligible entities to assist those 
     entities with--
       (i) identifying and taking advantage of business 
     development opportunities; and
       (ii) compliance with appropriate laws and regulatory 
     practices; and
       (B) such other assistance as the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director, determines to be necessary for the 
     development of business opportunities for eligible entities 
     to enhance the economies of Indian tribes.
       (4) Priorities.--In carrying out the duties and activities 
     described in paragraphs (2) and (3), the Secretary, acting 
     through the Director, shall give priority to activities 
     that--
       (A) provide the greatest degree of economic benefits to 
     Indians; and
       (B) foster long-term stable economies of Indian tribes.
       (5) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not provide under this 
     section assistance for any activity related to the operation 
     of a gaming activity on Indian lands pursuant to the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.).

     SEC. 202. NATIVE AMERICAN TRADE AND EXPORT PROMOTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall carry out a Native American export and trade 
     promotion program (referred to in this section as the 
     ``program'').
       (b) Coordination of Federal Programs and Services.--In 
     carrying out the program, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, and in cooperation with the heads of appropriate 
     Federal agencies, shall ensure the coordination of Federal 
     programs and services designed to--
       (1) develop the economies of Indian tribes; and
       (2) stimulate the demand for Indian goods and services that 
     are available to eligible entities.
       (c) Activities.--In carrying out the duties described in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary, acting through the Director, 
     shall ensure the coordination of, or, as appropriate, carry 
     out--
       (1) Federal programs designed to provide technical or 
     financial assistance to eligible entities;
       (2) the development of promotional materials;
       (3) the financing of appropriate trade missions;
       (4) the marketing of Indian goods and services;
       (5) the participation of appropriate Federal agencies or 
     eligible entities in international trade fairs; and
       (6) any other activity related to the development of 
     markets for Indian goods and services.
       (d) Technical Assistance.--In conjunction with the 
     activities described in subsection (c), the Secretary, acting 
     through the Director, shall provide technical assistance and 
     administrative services to eligible entities to assist those 
     entities with--
       (1) the identification of appropriate markets for Indian 
     goods and services;
       (2) entering the markets referred to in paragraph (1);
       (3) compliance with foreign or domestic laws and practices 
     with respect to financial institutions with respect to the 
     export and import of Indian goods and services; and
       (4) entering into financial arrangements to provide for the 
     export and import of Indian goods and services.
       (e) Priorities.--In carrying out the duties and activities 
     described in subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary, acting 
     through the Director, shall give priority to activities 
     that--
       (1) provide the greatest degree of economic benefits to 
     Indians; and
       (2) foster long-term stable international markets for 
     Indian goods and services.

     SEC. 203. INTERTRIBAL TOURISM DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Demonstration projects.--The Secretary, acting through 
     the Director, shall conduct a Native American tourism program 
     to facilitate the development and conduct of tourism 
     demonstration projects by Indian tribes, on a tribal, 
     intertribal, or regional basis.
       (2) Projects.--
       (A) In general.--Under the program established under this 
     section, in order to assist in the development and promotion 
     of tourism on and in the vicinity of Indian lands, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Director, shall, in 
     coordination with the Foundation, assist eligible entities in 
     the planning, development, and implementation of tourism 
     development demonstration projects that meet the criteria 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Projects described.--In selecting tourism development 
     demonstration projects under this section, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Director, shall select projects that have 
     the potential to increase travel and tourism revenues by 
     attracting visitors to Indian lands and in the vicinity of 
     Indian lands, including projects that provide for--
       (i) the development and distribution of educational and 
     promotional materials pertaining to attractions located on 
     and near Indian lands;
       (ii) the development of educational resources to assist in 
     private and public tourism development on and in the vicinity 
     of Indian lands; and
       (iii) the coordination of tourism-related joint ventures 
     and cooperative efforts between eligible entities and 
     appropriate State and local governments that have 
     jurisdiction over areas in the vicinity of Indian lands.
       (3) Grants.--To carry out the program under this section, 
     the Secretary, acting through the Director, may award grants 
     or enter into other appropriate arrangements with Indian 
     tribes, tribal organizations, intertribal consortia, or other 
     tribal entities that the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director, determines to be appropriate.
       (4) Locations.--In providing for tourism development 
     demonstration projects under the program under this section, 
     the Secretary, acting through the Director, shall provide for 
     a demonstration project to be conducted--
       (A) for Indians of the Four Corners area located in the 
     area adjacent to the border between Arizona, Utah, Colorado, 
     and New Mexico;
       (B) for Indians of the northwestern area that is commonly 
     known as the Great Northwest (as determined by the 
     Secretary);
       (C) for the Oklahoma Indians in Oklahoma; and
       (D) for the Indians of the Great Plains area (as determined 
     by the Secretary).
       (b) Studies.--The Secretary, acting through the Director, 
     shall provide financial assistance, technical assistance, and 
     administrative services to participants that the Secretary, 
     acting through the Director, selects to carry out a tourism 
     development project under this section, with respect to--
       (1) feasibility studies conducted as part of that project;
       (2) market analyses;
       (3) participation in tourism and trade missions; and
       (4) any other activity that the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director, determines to be appropriate to carry out 
     this section.
       (c) Infrastructure Development.--The demonstration projects 
     conducted under this section shall include provisions to 
     facilitate the development and financing of infrastructure, 
     including the development of Indian reservation roads in a 
     manner consistent with title 23, United States Code.

     SEC. 204. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Director, shall prepare 
     and submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate a 
     report on the operation of the Office.
       (b) Contents of Report.--Each report prepared under 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) for the period covered by the report, a summary of the 
     activities conducted by the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, in carrying out this title; and
       (2) any recommendations for legislation that the Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Director, determines to be necessary 
     to carry out this title.

     SEC. 205. FOREIGN-TRADE ZONE PREFERENCES.

       (a) Preference in Establishment of Foreign-Trade Zones in 
     Indian Enterprise Zones.--In processing applications for the 
     establishment of foreign-trade zones pursuant to the Act 
     entitled ``To provide for the establishment, operation, and 
     maintenance of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
     United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
     and for other purposes'', approved June 18, 1934 (19 U.S.C. 
     81a et seq.), the Board shall consider, on a priority basis, 
     and expedite, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     processing of any application involving the establishment of 
     a foreign-trade zone on Indian lands, including any Indian 
     lands designated as an empowerment zone or enterprise 
     community pursuant to section 1391 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       (b) Application Procedure.--In processing applications for 
     the establishment of ports of entry pursuant to the Act 
     entitled ``An Act making appropriations for sundry civil 
     expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 
     thirtieth, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and for other 
     purposes'', approved August 1, 1914 (19 U.S.C. 2), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall, with respect to any 
     application involving the establishment of a port of entry 
     that is necessary to permit the establishment of a foreign-
     trade zone on Indian lands--
       (1) consider on a priority basis; and
       (2) expedite, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     processing of that application.
       (c) Application Evaluation.--In evaluating applications for 
     the establishment of foreign-trade zones and ports of entry 
     in connection with Indian lands, to the maximum extent 
     practicable and consistent with applicable law, the Board and 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall approve the applications.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 10, 1998]

                      Less Government, More Growth

                          (By James Gwartney)

       Propelled by a confidence that politicians could solve 
     problems, government spending has soared in the U.S. and 
     other Western

[[Page S3926]]

     countries since 1960. Has wise ``government planning'' 
     improved economic performance? Quite the opposite. Robert 
     Lawson, Randall Holcombe and I recently completed a study on 
     the size and functions of government for Congress's Joint 
     Economic Committee. Here are some of our findings:
       As the size of government has expanded in the U.S., growth 
     of real gross domestic product has steadily fallen. Even 
     though the U.S. economy is now moving into the eighth year of 
     an expansion, the growth of real GDP during the 1990s is only 
     about half what it was during the 1960s and well below even 
     that of the turbulent 1970s. Likewise, as the size of 
     government in other nations has increased, economic growth 
     has declined. On average, government expenditures in the 
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's 23 
     long-standing members rose to 48% of GDP in 1996 from 27% in 
     1960. The average economic growth rate fell from 5.5% in the 
     1960s to 1.9% in the 1990s.
       As the chart nearby shows, there has is a striking 
     relationship between the size of government and economic 
     growth. When government spending was less than 25% of GDP, 
     OECD countries achieved an average real growth rate of 6.6%. 
     As the size of government rose, growth steadily declined, 
     plunging to 1.6% when government spending exceeded 60% of 
     GDP.
       While growth has declined in all of the OECD countries, 
     those countries with the least growth of government have 
     suffered the least. Between 1960 and 1996, the size of 
     government as a share of GDP increased by less than 15 
     percentage points in the U.S., Britain, Iceland, Ireland 
     and New Zealand. The average growth rate for these five 
     countries was 1.6 percentage points lower in the 1990s 
     than in the 1960s. In contrast, the size of government 
     increased by 25 percentage points or more in Denmark, 
     Finland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. The growth 
     rate of these six countries fell by 5.2 percentage points.
       In the world's fastest-growing economies, furthermore, the 
     size of government is small, and there is no trend toward 
     bigger government. On average, government expenditures in 
     1995 consumed only 20% of GDP in the five economies with the 
     most rapid real economic growth rates during 1980-95: Hong 
     Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. In these 
     countries, the size of government in 1995 was virtually the 
     same as in 1975. When we looked at a diverse group of 60 
     nations, we found that the negative relationship between 
     bigger government and economic growth is present in all types 
     of economies.
       Many policy-makers seem oblivious to these facts. Even 
     though the evidence clearly shows that excessive government 
     expenditures are retarding economic growth, politicians 
     continue to focus on how to spend a possible surplus. What 
     the U.S. and other nations need instead is a long-range 
     strategy to reduce the size and scope of government.
       Had the public-sector expansion of the past four decades 
     accelerated economic growth, politicians would be rushing to 
     take credit. Since the opposite has occurred, how can we fail 
     to hold them accountable?
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Feinstein, 
        and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 2011. A bill to strengthen the Federal prosecution and seizure of 
illegal proceeds of international drug dealing and criminal activity, 
and to provide for the drug testing and treatment of incarcerated 
offenders and reduce drug trafficking in correctional facilities, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


The Money Laundering Enforcement Act and the Combating Drugs in Prisons 
                                  Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, joined by Senators Daschle, Kohl, 
Feinstein, and Cleland, I am introducing legislation which will provide 
state and federal governments with additional tools to fight drug 
trafficking, money laundering and drug use in prisons. This legislation 
is intended to complement the Administration's comprehensive 10-year 
National Drug Control Strategy by providing federal prosecutors with 
additional means to seize assets linked to illegal criminal and drug 
activity and prevent drug kingpins and others from engaging in money 
laundering. In addition, this legislation will allow states to use 
federal prison grant funds to test and treat drug-addicted inmates and 
parolees.
  I note that the Speaker of the House today is hosting a Republican 
rally to proclaim fault with the Administration's comprehensive drug 
control strategy. Mr. President, the bill that we are introducing today 
is not the easy rhetoric that some have to offer in this crucial area 
of public policy. Here is a chance to actually make a difference. I do 
not find constructive the efforts of the other body's Republican 
leadership over the past few years to slash assistance for drug 
enforcement, prevention and treatment programs. Twice, in fact, they 
tried to cut the extremely effective Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding 
by 50 percent, just as they significantly reduced support for drug 
prevention and treatment programs when they assumed leadership of the 
Congress in 1995.
  Nor do I consider it constructive for Speaker Gingrich, as he did in 
his February radio address, to fault the Administration while at the 
same time claiming credit for such Administration strategies as a 
national youth-oriented anti-drug campaign and added support for 
community programs and schools. These are key components of the 
Administration's 1998 National Drug Control Strategy, including the 
highly effective radio and TV ads now airing in 12 pilot cities. To 
really make a difference in more than just the headlines, we need to 
work together to reduce the quantity of drugs coming into this country 
and the number of drug addicts both in prison and walking our streets.


                      Money Laundering Act of 1998

  This act will help prosecutors force international criminals out of 
the darkness and into the light by greatly reducing their ability to 
hide behind foreign banking laws or other procedural tricks. It will 
also ensure that defendants arrested overseas are no longer able to use 
the U.S. courts to their benefit while fighting against being 
extradited to the United States.
  Another provision in this bill which allows federal prosecutors to 
temporarily seize U.S. assets owned by individuals arrested overseas 
will greatly enhance law enforcement's ability to shut down drug 
trafficking operations based outside the United States. National 
boundaries mean less and less to drug kingpins and other criminals 
today and this legislation will help us reform our Nation's laws to 
reflect this reality.
  This bill would allow a brief ex parte seizure of assets while any 
arrest papers are in transit to prevent individuals arrested in another 
country from moving the fruits of their crimes from the United States 
to another country. Currently, foreign defendants often move their 
assets virtually instantaneously via electronic transfers while our 
prosecutors are waiting for the arrest records. In addition, defendants 
would no longer be able to hide behind foreign bank secrecy laws while 
they claim seized property in United States courts.
  This bill makes important procedural changes for federal prosecutors: 
it extends U.S. jurisdiction over foreign banks; updates evidentiary 
rules regarding foreign records; allows federal prosecutors to charge 
defendants who engage in multiple illegal acts with course of conduct 
claims; and allows prosecutors to charge criminals with conspiracy to 
violate the laws.
  This legislation also adds several new crimes to the list triggering 
asset forfeiture, including crimes of violence, additional foreign 
crimes, and crimes committed by or against foreign governments. While I 
believe that these provisions are necessary for prosecutors to carry 
out their important work, I realize that some of these provisions may 
need to be fine-tuned to accomplish their intended goal. I pledge to 
work with members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that this 
legislation is broad enough to meet these goals without being overly 
intrusive.
  In drafting this bill, I have purposely avoided including several 
domestic asset forfeiture provisions. While we may have to face these 
thorny issues down the road, I decided to craft a bill which I believe 
can be supported by the majority of Senators. We can then bring up 
these more complicated issues after a fuller discussion has taken 
place.


                The Combating Drug Abuse in Prisons Act

  This act will allow states to use any of the funds they receive under 
the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing grant 
programs to provide drug testing and treatment for inmates and other 
court-supervised individuals, such as probationers and parolees. With 
80 percent of inmates reportedly linked to drug and alcohol activity 
and with a requirement in place that states develop and implement a 
drug testing and treatment plan for these individuals by September 1, 
1998, it is critical that this federal funding be made available for 
these purposes.

  According to a study recently released by the National Center on 
Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) based at Columbia University, 80 
percent of individuals currently incarcerated either ``violated drug or 
alcohol

[[Page S3927]]

laws, were intoxicated at the time they committed their crimes, stole 
property to buy drugs, or are `regular drug users'.'' This study also 
found that inmates who are illegal drug or alcohol abusers are the most 
likely to be repeat offenders. In fact, this study concluded that 61 
percent of state prison inmates who have two prior convictions are 
regular drug users. Another recent study, conducted by the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, found that over half of all convicted jail inmates 
in 1996 reported having used drugs in the month prior to their offense. 
Sixty percent of these inmates also reported using drugs or alcohol or 
both at the time of the offense for which they were charged.
  If we want to stem the increase in our Nation's prison population, we 
must determine which inmates are addicted to drugs or alcohol, reduce 
the availability of drugs in prisons and ensure inmates have access to 
the treatment they need while incarcerated. This bill will help states 
meet all these goals by allowing them to use as much as they choose--or 
as little--of the federal prison funds they receive for drug testing 
and intervention and to develop strategies to reduce drug trafficking 
into prisons. As Joseph Califano, former Secretary of Health, Education 
and Welfare and president of CASA, noted when the CASA study was 
released: ``Releasing drug-addicted inmates without treatment helps 
maintain the market for illegal drugs and supports drug dealers.''
  I realize some of my colleagues may be concerned about funds 
originally designated for prison construction costs being used for drug 
testing and treatment. Let me assure you that states will retain 
complete flexibility under this bill as to how they allocate their 
Truth in Sentencing and Violent Offender Incarceration grant funds. 
But, I'd also like to point out that according to the CASA study, it 
would cost states approximately $6,500 per year to provide 
comprehensive and effective residential drug treatment services to an 
inmate. While this figure may seem high, the study further determined 
that society will see an economic return of $68,800 for each inmate who 
successfully completes such a program and returns to the community 
sober and with a job. This figure represents the savings in the first 
year based on the much lower likelihood that the former inmate will be 
arrested, prosecuted or incarcerated and includes health care savings 
and the potential earnings of a drug-free individual.
  James Walton, Vermont's Commissioner of Public Safety, wholeheartedly 
supports this legislation, and I have always valued his counsel. As the 
head of Vermont's law enforcement agency, he has first-hand knowledge 
of what the real needs are in my state. Clearly, he believes that this 
legislation will have a positive effect on ongoing law enforcement and 
drug control strategies in Vermont. I'm certain it will have the same 
effect across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so 
our federal and state officials have the resources they need to combat 
our Nation's drug problems--both overseas and in our nation's prisons.
  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. 2011

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Money 
     Laundering Enforcement and Combatting Drugs in Prisons Act of 
     1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                TITLE I--INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Illegal money transmitting businesses.
Sec. 103. Restraint of assets of persons arrested abroad.
Sec. 104. Access to records in bank secrecy jurisdictions.
Sec. 105. Civil money laundering jurisdiction over foreign persons.
Sec. 106. Laundering money through a foreign bank.
Sec. 107. Specified unlawful activity for money laundering.
Sec. 108. Criminal forfeiture for money laundering conspiracies.
Sec. 109. Fungible property in foreign bank accounts.
Sec. 110. Subpoenas for bank records.
Sec. 111. Fugitive disentitlement.
Sec. 112. Admissibility of foreign business records.
Sec. 113. Charging money laundering as a course of conduct.
Sec. 114. Venue in money laundering cases.
Sec. 115. Technical amendment to restore wiretap authority for certain 
              money laundering offenses.

  TITLE II--DRUG TESTING AND INTERVENTION FOR INMATES AND PROBATIONERS

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Additional requirements for the use of funds under the 
              violent offender incarceration and truth-in-sentencing 
              incentive grant programs.
Sec. 203. Use of residential substance abuse treatment grants to 
              provide for services during and after incarceration.
                TITLE I--INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Money Laundering 
     Enforcement Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 102. ILLEGAL MONEY TRANSMITTING BUSINESSES.

       (a) Civil Forfeiture for Money Transmitting Violation.--
     Section 981(a)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``or 1957'' and inserting ``, 1957, or 
     1960''.
       (b) Scienter Requirement for Section 1960 Violation.--
     Section 1960 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Scienter Requirement.--For the purposes of proving a 
     violation of this section involving an illegal money 
     transmitting business--
       ``(1) it shall be sufficient for the Government to prove 
     that the defendant knew that the money transmitting business 
     lacked a license required by State law; and
       ``(2) it shall not be necessary to show that the defendant 
     knew that the operation of such a business without the 
     required license was an offense punishable as a felony or 
     misdemeanor under State law.''.

     SEC. 103. RESTRAINT OF ASSETS OF PERSONS ARRESTED ABROAD.

       Section 981(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Restraint of assets.--
       ``(A) In general.--If any person is arrested or charged in 
     a foreign country in connection with an offense that would 
     give rise to the forfeiture of property in the United States 
     under this section or under the Controlled Substances Act, 
     the Attorney General may apply to any Federal judge or 
     magistrate judge in the district in which the property is 
     located for an ex parte order restraining the property 
     subject to forfeiture for not more than 30 days, except that 
     the time may be extended for good cause shown at a hearing 
     conducted in the manner provided in Rule 43(e) of the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(B) Application.--An application for a restraining order 
     under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) set forth the nature and circumstances of the foreign 
     charges and the basis for belief that the person arrested or 
     charged has property in the United States that would be 
     subject to forfeiture; and
       ``(ii) contain a statement that the restraining order is 
     needed to preserve the availability of property for such time 
     as is necessary to receive evidence from the foreign country 
     or elsewhere in support of probable cause for the seizure of 
     the property under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 104. ACCESS TO RECORDS IN BANK SECRECY JURISDICTIONS.

       Section 986 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Access to Records Located Abroad.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any civil forfeiture case, or in any 
     ancillary proceeding in any criminal forfeiture case governed 
     by section 413(n) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     853(n)), the refusal of the claimant to provide financial 
     records located in a foreign country in response to a 
     discovery request or take the action necessary otherwise to 
     make the records available, shall result in the dismissal of 
     the claim with prejudice, if--
       ``(A) the financial records may be material--
       ``(i) to any claim or to the ability of the government to 
     respond to such claim; or
       ``(ii) in a civil forfeiture case, to the ability of the 
     government to establish the forfeitability of the property; 
     and
       ``(B) it is within the capacity of the claimant to waive 
     his or her rights under such secrecy laws, or to obtain the 
     financial records himself or herself, so that the financial 
     records may be made available.
       ``(2) Privilege.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to affect the rights of a claimant to refuse 
     production of any records on the basis of any privilege 
     guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or any 
     other provision of Federal law.''.

     SEC. 105. CIVIL MONEY LAUNDERING JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN 
                   PERSONS.

       Section 1956(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,

[[Page S3928]]

     and indenting each subparagraph appropriately;
       (2) by striking ``(b) Whoever'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Jurisdiction.--For purposes of adjudicating an action 
     filed or enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the 
     district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction 
     over any foreign person, including any financial institution 
     authorized under the laws of a foreign country, that commits 
     an offense under subsection (a) involving a financial 
     transaction that occurs in whole or in part in the United 
     States, if service of process upon such foreign person is 
     made in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
     or the laws of the foreign country in which the foreign 
     person is found.
       ``(3) Satisfaction of judgment.--In any action described in 
     paragraph (2), the court may issue a pretrial restraining 
     order or take any other action necessary to ensure that any 
     bank account or other property held by the defendant in the 
     United States is available to satisfy a judgment under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 106. LAUNDERING MONEY THROUGH A FOREIGN BANK.

       Section 1956(c)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) the term `financial institution' includes--
       ``(A) any financial institution described in section 
     5312(a)(2) of title 31, or the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder; and
       ``(B) any foreign bank, as defined in section 1(b)(7) of 
     the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101(7));''.

     SEC. 107. SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY FOR MONEY LAUNDERING.

       (a) In General.--Section 1956(c)(7) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) any act or acts constituting a crime of violence;''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) fraud, or any scheme to defraud, committed against a 
     foreign government or foreign governmental entity;
       ``(v) bribery of a public official, or the 
     misappropriation, theft, or embezzlement of public funds by 
     or for the benefit of a public official;
       ``(vi) smuggling or export control violations involving 
     munitions listed in the United States Munitions List or 
     technologies with military applications as defined in the 
     Commerce Control List of the Export Administration 
     Regulations; or
       ``(vii) an offense with respect to which the United States 
     would be obligated by a multilateral treaty either to 
     extradite the alleged offender or to submit the case for 
     prosecution, if the offender were found with the territory of 
     the United States;'';
       (2) in subparagraph (D)--
       (A) by inserting ``section 541 (relating to goods falsely 
     classified),'' before ``section 542'';
       (B) by inserting ``section 922(l) (relating to the unlawful 
     importation of firearms), section 924(m) (relating to 
     firearms trafficking),'' before ``section 956'';
       (C) by inserting ``section 1030 (relating to computer fraud 
     and abuse),'' before ``1032''; and
       (D) by inserting ``any felony violation of the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.),'' 
     before ``or any felony violation of the Foreign Corrupt 
     Practices Act''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (E), by inserting ``the Clean Air Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.),'' after ``the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.),''.

     SEC. 108. CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FOR MONEY LAUNDERING 
                   CONSPIRACIES.

       Section 982(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or a conspiracy to commit any such 
     offense,'' after ``of this title,''.

     SEC. 109. FUNGIBLE PROPERTY IN FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNTS.

       Section 984(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) In this subsection, the term `financial institution' 
     includes a foreign bank, as defined in section 1(b)(7) of the 
     International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101(7)).''.

     SEC. 110. SUBPOENAS FOR BANK RECORDS.

       Section 986(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``section 1956, 1957, or 1960 of this 
     title, section 5322 or 5324 of title 31, United States Code'' 
     and inserting ``section 981 of this title'';
       (2) by inserting ``before or'' before ``after''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence.

     SEC. 111. FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 163 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2467. Fugitive disentitlement

       ``Any person who, in order to avoid criminal prosecution, 
     purposely leaves the jurisdiction of the United States, 
     declines to enter or reenter the United States to submit to 
     the jurisdiction of the United States, or otherwise evades 
     the jurisdiction of a court of the United States in which a 
     criminal case is pending against the person, may not use the 
     resources of the courts of the United States in furtherance 
     of a claim in any related civil forfeiture action or a claim 
     in any third-party proceeding in any related criminal 
     forfeiture action.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 163 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``2467. Fugitive disentitlement.''.

     SEC. 112. ADMISSIBILITY OF FOREIGN BUSINESS RECORDS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 163 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2468. Foreign records

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `business' includes business, institution, 
     association, profession, occupation, and calling of every 
     kind whether or not conducted for profit;
       ``(2) the term `foreign certification' means a written 
     declaration made and signed in a foreign country by the 
     custodian of a record of regularly conducted activity or 
     another qualified person, that if falsely made, would subject 
     the maker to criminal penalty under the law of that country;
       ``(3) the term `foreign record of regularly conducted 
     activity' means a memorandum, report, record, or data 
     compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, 
     opinions, or diagnoses, maintained in a foreign country; and
       ``(4) the term `official request' means a letter rogatory, 
     a request under an agreement, treaty or convention, or any 
     other request for information or evidence made by a court of 
     the United States or an authority of the United States having 
     law enforcement responsibility, to a court or other authority 
     of a foreign country.
       ``(b) Admissibility.--In a civil proceeding in a court of 
     the United States, including a civil forfeiture proceeding 
     and a proceeding in the United States Claims Court and the 
     United States Tax Court, unless the source of information or 
     the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of 
     trustworthiness, a foreign record of regularly conducted 
     activity (or a duplicate of such record), obtained pursuant 
     to an official request, shall not be excluded as evidence by 
     the hearsay rule if a foreign certification, also obtained 
     pursuant to the same official request or subsequent official 
     request that adequately identifies such foreign record, 
     attests that --
       ``(1) the foreign record was made, at or near the time of 
     the occurrence of the matters set forth, by (or from 
     information transmitted by) a person with knowledge of those 
     matters;
       ``(2) the foreign record was kept in the course of a 
     regularly conducted business activity;
       ``(3) the business activity made such a record as a regular 
     practice; and
       ``(4) if the foreign record is not the original, the record 
     is a duplicate of the original.
       ``(c) Foreign Certification.--A foreign certification under 
     this section shall authenticate a record or duplicate 
     described in subsection (b).
       ``(d) Notice.--
       ``(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after a 
     responsive pleading has been filed, a party intending to 
     offer in evidence under this section a foreign record of 
     regularly conducted activity shall provide written notice of 
     that intention to each other party.
       ``(2) Opposition.--A motion opposing admission in evidence 
     of a record under paragraph (1) shall be made by the opposing 
     party and determined by the court before trial. Failure by a 
     party to file such motion before trial shall constitute a 
     waiver of objection to such record, except that the court for 
     cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 163 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``2468. Foreign records.''.

     SEC. 113. CHARGING MONEY LAUNDERING AS A COURSE OF CONDUCT.

       Section 1956(h) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(h) Any person'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(h) Conspiracy; Multiple Violations.--
       ``(1) Conspiracy.--Any person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Multiple violations.--Any person who commits multiple 
     violations of this section or section 1957 that are part of 
     the same scheme or continuing course of conduct may be 
     charged, at the election of the Government, in a single count 
     in an indictment or information.''.

     SEC. 114. VENUE IN MONEY LAUNDERING CASES.

       Section 1956 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Venue.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     prosecution for an offense under this section or section 1957 
     may be brought in any district in which the financial or 
     monetary transaction is conducted, or in which a prosecution 
     for the underlying specified unlawful activity could be 
     brought.
       ``(2) Exception.--A prosecution for an attempt or 
     conspiracy offense under this section or section 1957 may be 
     brought in the district in which venue would lie for the 
     completed offense under paragraph (1), or in any other 
     district in which an act in furtherance of the attempt or 
     conspiracy took place.''.

[[Page S3929]]

     SEC. 115. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE WIRETAP AUTHORITY 
                   FOR CERTAIN MONEY LAUNDERING OFFENSES.

       Section 2516(1)(g) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``of title 31, United States Code 
     (dealing with the reporting of currency transactions)'' and 
     inserting ``or 5324 of title 31 (dealing with the reporting 
     and illegal structuring of currency transactions)''.
  TITLE II--DRUG TESTING AND INTERVENTION FOR INMATES AND PROBATIONERS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Combatting Drugs in 
     Prisons Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE OF FUNDS UNDER 
                   THE VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION AND TRUTH-
                   IN-SENTENCING INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAMS.

       Section 20105(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13705(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) To be eligible'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Additional Requirements.--
       ``(1) Eligibility for a grant.--To be eligible'';
       (2) by striking ``a State shall provide assurances'' and 
     inserting the following: ``a State shall--
       ``(A) provide assurances'';
       (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) not later than September 1, 1998, have established 
     and implemented, consistent with guidelines issued by the 
     Attorney General, a program of drug testing and intervention 
     for appropriate categories of convicted offenders during 
     periods of incarceration and criminal justice supervision, 
     with sanctions (including denial or revocation of release) 
     for positive drug tests.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding section 20102, amounts 
     received by a State pursuant to section 20103 or section 
     20104 may be--
       ``(A) applied to the cost of offender drug testing and 
     appropriate intervention programs during periods of 
     incarceration and criminal justice supervision, consistent 
     with guidelines issued by the Attorney General;
       ``(B) used by a State to pay the costs of providing to the 
     Attorney General a baseline study, which shall be consistent 
     with guidelines issued by the Attorney General, on the prison 
     drug abuse problem in the State; and
       ``(C) used by a State to develop policies, practices, or 
     laws establishing, in accordance with guidelines issued by 
     the Attorney General, a system of sanctions and penalties to 
     address drug trafficking within and into correctional 
     facilities under the jurisdiction of the State.''.

     SEC. 203. USE OF RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT GRANTS 
                   TO PROVIDE FOR SERVICES DURING AND AFTER 
                   INCARCERATION.

       Section 1901 of part S of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ff) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Additional Use of Funds.--Each State that 
     demonstrates that the State has established 1 or more 
     residential substance abuse treatment programs that meet the 
     requirements of this part may use amounts made available 
     under this part for drug treatment and to impose appropriate 
     sanctions for positive drug tests, both during incarceration 
     and after release.''.
                                  ____

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, drug trafficking, money laundering and 
drug use in prisons are significant problems that will continue to 
worsen unless local, state and federal governments can work more 
closely together to determine viable solutions. Drug trafficking and 
money laundering can negatively affect our society in many different 
ways, and the use of illegal drugs by prison inmates dramatically 
deceases any chance they have of getting their lives back on track 
after their release. Local, state and federal governments are already 
hard at work to determine solutions to these corrosive problems, and I 
am very pleased to join Senators Leahy, Cleland, Feinstein, and Kohl in 
introducing The Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in 
Prison Act of 1998, which will provide state and federal governments 
with additional tools to fight drug trafficking, money laundering and 
drug use in prisons.
  This legislation will complement the Administration's comprehensive 
10-year National Drug Control Strategy by providing federal prosecutors 
with additional means to seize assets linked to illegal criminal and 
drug activity and prevent drug kingpins and others from engaging in 
money laundering. Initiatives such as the Safe and Drug Free Schools 
Act, and the Administration's highly effective radio and TV ads 
currently airing in 12 pilot cities are sending the kind of anti-drug 
messages that must reach our young people. The Money Laundering 
Enforcement and Combating Drugs in Prison Act of 1998 adds to these 
efforts by reducing the demand for drugs by allowing states to use 
federal prison grant funds to test and treat drug-addicted inmates and 
parolees.
  This legislation will greatly enhance the efforts of prosecutors to 
force international criminals out of hiding by reducing their ability 
to shield themselves behind foreign banking laws or use other 
procedural tricks. Moreover, the bill will ensure that defendants 
arrested overseas will no longer be able to take advantage of U.S. 
courts to fight against extradition to this country. It would allow 
federal prosecutors to temporarily seize U.S. assets owned by 
individuals arrested overseas and thus dramatically improve the ability 
of law enforcement agencies to shut down drug trafficking operation 
based outside the United States. Drug kingpins have little regard for 
nation boundaries, and our nations laws must provide us with the 
flexibility necessary to combat them.
  Studies prove that an overwhelming majority of incarcerated 
individuals have been heavily influenced by drugs or alcohol, and those 
who are illegal drug or alcohol abusers are the most likely to be 
repeat offenders. If we want to stem the increase in our nation's 
prison population, we must determine which inmates are addicted to 
drugs or alcohol, reduce the availability of drugs in prisons and 
ensure inmates have access to the treatment they need while 
incarcerated. This legislation will help states meet all these goals by 
allowing them to use as much--or as little--of the federal prison funds 
they receive for drug testing and intervention and to develop a 
strategy to reduce drug trafficking in prisons.
  State and federal governments are waging a battle against drug 
kingpins, and the Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in 
Prison Act of 1998 will provide much-needed assistance to these ongoing 
efforts. By enacting this bill, I believe we will make great strides 
toward removing dangerous criminals and illegal drugs from our 
neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 2012. A bill to name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
center in Gainesville, Florida, as the ``Malcolm Randall Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center''; to the Committee on Veterans 
Affairs.


     malcolm randall department of veterans affairs medical center

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my esteemed 
colleague Senator Mack, to introduce legislation to rename the 
Gainesville, Florida Veterans Affairs Medical Center after its 
distinguished and long-time Director: Malcolm Randall.
  After thirty-two years as Director of the Gainesville VAMC, and a 
total of fifty-nine years in federal service, Mr. Randall retires 
today. He leaves behind a long list of accomplishments and an even 
longer list of admirers--myself included.
  Mr. President, allow me to take a few minutes to highlight the career 
of this visionary person--a man who has redefined the term ``public 
servant'' over the last half-century.
  Malcolm Randall's accomplishments are far-reaching and are a 
testament to the loyalty and devotion he has shown the United States 
throughout his lifetime.
  His extensive service to our nation began when he enlisted in the 
Navy in July of 1942 and was sent off to the South Pacific in the midst 
of World War II. While courageously fighting on PT boats and 
battleships in the first battle of the Phillipine Sea, Mr. Randall was 
injured in the line-of-duty. After four years of valiant active 
military service, Mr. Randall continued serving his country through his 
dedicated work in the Veterans' Administration. His outstanding 
accomplishments and achievements during his tenure at the VA have been 
recognized with the two highest awards that the VA offers: the 
Meritorious Service Award, and the Exceptional Service Award, both of 
which recognize his outstanding performance and exceptional 
contributions to the improvement of health care for veterans.
  In 1984, President Reagan paid homage to Mr. Randall with the 
Presidential Rank Award for his extraordinary accomplishments in the 
administration of VA programs in Florida,

[[Page S3930]]

and for exemplifying the highest standards in leadership. Most 
flattering to Mr. Randall was that this award was recommended by 
dedicated public servants and local leadership from his own community. 
Indeed, it was this innovative and thoughtful style of leadership that 
allowed Mr. Randall to foresee the challenges and obstacles that the VA 
would face in the 21st Century.
  Mr. Randall's dogged determination to serve the veterans of Florida, 
coupled with his visionary leadership, led to his most significant 
contribution to our nation's veterans: VA restructuring. As Chairman of 
the Florida Network of VA Hospitals and Outpatient Clinics, Malcolm 
Randall realized that the VA had to undergo a major transformation to 
continue to serve veterans well. He understood that the VA health care 
system needed to modernize, become more efficient with its resources, 
and adapt to a new method for health care delivery.
  Mr. Randall saw the future--that the VA was moving towards a ``no-
new-starts'' policy for major hospital construction--and he became an 
early advocate for a new model of VA health care: a strong network of 
outpatient clinics and hospitals, designed to serve veterans in remote 
areas more effectively. As a result, 7 new outpatient clinics were 
built in Florida, a development which has allowed many thousands of 
Florida veterans to get the health care they deserve but were 
previously denied.
  Throughout his long and successful tenure as Director of the 
Gainesville VAMA, Malcolm Randall has also been a leader in introducing 
new medical technology to improve the quality of care for the heroes of 
our country. His responsibility for VA health planning throughout the 
entire state enabled Mr. Randall to initiate affiliations with three 
major teaching hospitals--the University of South Florida, the 
University of Florida, and the University of Miami--and several 
community colleges. These partnerships have allowed veterans to receive 
the finest care available from institutions renowned throughout the 
country.
  Mr. Randall's excellence has not been limited to his professional 
service. His community service throughout the state of Florida, and 
especially in his hometown of Gainesville, has resulted in several 
tributes and distinctions being bestowed upon him, including being 
named Gainesville's Citizen of the Year in 1977. The University of 
Florida also recognized his lifetime devotion to public service by 
awarding him an honorary doctorate of Public Service.
  Mr. President, it has been one of the great treasures of my life to 
have shared the friendship of Malcom Randall. As governor and now as a 
United States Senator from Florida, Malcom has allowed me to enter his 
classroom on health care policy and his heart, which is full of 
compassion for American veterans. All he has done has emanated from his 
depth of concern for American veterans, firmly attached to his rigorous 
mind and dedicated spirit to put ideas into action. Florida and America 
are fortunate to have had him as a fellow citizen.
  Mr. President, I salute Malcom Randall for all that he has done on 
behalf of all of our veterans. It is fitting that one of the best 
medical centers in the country bear his name.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am proud to support my friend and 
colleague from Florida, Mr. Graham, as we introduce legislation to 
commemorate the retirement and life's work of Mr. Malcom Randall. Mr. 
Randall has served his country for 59 years, 55 of which were spent 
with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  A native of East St. Louis, Illinois, Mr. Randall graduated from St. 
Louis University with a master's degree in hospital administration. He 
was among a handful of medical leaders who began to transform the 
health care system for veterans at the end of World War II. Mr. Randall 
is the founding Director of the VA Medical Center in Gainesville, and 
he has served in that post for 32 years. During that time, he has also 
helped establish VA hospitals and outpatient clinics in other Florida 
cities. The VA Medical Center in Gainesville now serves 10,000 
inpatients and handles 250,000 outpatient visits per year.
  Mr. Randall is America's longest serving administrator of veterans' 
health care services. He has won numerous awards for his exceptional 
service, including recognition for ``most outstanding performance'' on 
two occasions. He is retiring today, and while I am pleased that he 
will be able to take some time off to enjoy his years, I am saddened 
that the Department and the Center will be losing one of its greatest 
champions, and one of its most dedicated public servants.
  In further recognition of Mr. Randall's dedication to serving the 
needs of America's veterans, Bob Graham and I are proposing legislation 
to rename the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida 
as the ``Malcom Randall Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 
Center''. Our legislation is identical to legislation offered by 
Representative Karen Thurman in the House of Representatives, which is 
supported by most of the Florida Congressional delegation. I look 
forward to working with my Senate colleagues to recognize and honor the 
work and service of Malcom Randall, and I wish Mr. Randall well in his 
future pursuits.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2013. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
permit children covered under private health insurance under a State 
children's health insurance plan to continue to be eligible for 
benefits under the vaccine for children program; to the Committee on 
Finance.


            children's health insurance program legislation

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
clarify that children receiving health insurance under the new 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are eligible for free 
vaccines under the 1993 federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program.
  I want to especially commend the leadership of Congresswoman Jane 
Harman who is introducing an identical bill in the House today.
  We are introducing these bills because the U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services has apparently interpreted the law so narrowly that 
as many as 580,000 children in California will lose their current 
eligibility to receive free vaccines, under California's new Healthy 
Families program.
  The federal Vaccines for Children program, created by Congress in 
1993 (P.L. 105-33), provides vaccines at no cost to poor children. In 
1997, as many 775,000 poor children in my state, who were uninsured or 
on Medicaid, received these vaccines. California received $60 million 
from the federal government to provide them.
  Mr. President, what can be so basic to public health than 
immunization against disease? Do we really want our children to get 
polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and whooping cough--
diseases for which we have effective vaccines, diseases which we have 
practically eradicated by widespread immunization? Every parent knows 
that vaccines are fundamental to children's good health.
  Congress recognized the importance of immunizations in creating the 
program, with many Congressional leaders at the time arguing that 
childhood immunization is one of the most cost-effective steps we can 
take to keep our children healthy. It makes no sense to me to withhold 
them from children who (1) have been getting them when they were 
uninsured and (2) have no other way to get them once they become 
insured.
  According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation report, 28 percent of 
California's two-year old children are not immunized. Add to that the 
fact that we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. 
Our uninsured rate for non-elderly adults is 22 percent, the third 
highest in the U.S., while the national uninsured rate is 17 percent. 
As for children, 1.7 million or 18 percent of our children are without 
health insurance, compared to 13 percent nationally, according to 
UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. Clearly, there is a need.
  In creating the new children's health insurance program in 
California, the state chose to set up a program under which the state 
contracts with private insurers, rather than providing eligible 
children care through Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California). Unfortunately, 
HHS appears to be interpreting this method of providing these children 
health insurance as making them ``insured,'' as

[[Page S3931]]

defined in the vaccines law, and thus ineligible for the federal 
vaccines. I disagree.
  It is my view that in creating the federal vaccines program, Congress 
made eligible for these vaccines children who are receiving Medicaid, 
children who are uninsured, and native American children. I believe 
that in defining the term ``insured'' Congress clearly meant private 
health insurance plans. Children enrolled in California's new Healthy 
Families program are participating in a federal-state, subsidized 
insurance plan. Healthy Families is a state-operated program. Families 
apply to the state for participation. They are not insured by a 
private, commercial plan, as traditionally defined or as defined in the 
Vaccine for Children's law (42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(2)(B). On February 
23, the California Medical Association wrote to HHS Secretary Donna 
Shalala, ``As they are participants in a federal and state-subsidized 
health program, these individuals are not ``insured'' for the purposes 
of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(B).''
  The California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which is 
administering the new program with the Department of Health Services, 
wrote to HHS on February 5, ``It is imperative that states like 
California, who have implemented the Children's Health Insurance 
Program (CHIP) using private health insurance, be given the same 
support and eligibility for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program at 
no cost as states which have chosen to expand their Medicaid program.'' 
The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized on March 10, 1998, ``More 
than half a million California children should not be deprived of 
vaccinations or health insurance because of a technicality. . . ,'' 
calling the denial of vaccines ``a game of semantics.''
  Children's health should not be a ``game of semantics.'' Proper 
childhood immunizations are fundamental to a lifetime of good health. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill into law, to help 
me keep our children healthy.
  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. 2013

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

     SECTION 1. PERMIT CHILDREN COVERED UNDER PRIVATE HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE UNDER A STATE CHILD HEALTH PLAN TO 
                   CONTINUE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE 
                   VACCINE FOR CHILDREN PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1928(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396s(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, except that for purposes of this paragraph a 
     child who is only insured under title XXI shall be considered 
     as being not insured'' after ``not insured''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 2014. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to reschedule 
certain drugs that pose an imminent danger to public safety, and to 
provide for the rescheduling of the date-rape drug and the 
classification of certain ``club'' drug; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                 THE NEW DRUGS OF THE 1990s CONTROL ACT

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the best time to target a new drug with 
uncompromising enforcement pressure is before abuse of that drug has 
overwhelmed our communities.
  That is why I introduced legislation last Congress to place tight 
federal controls on the date rape drug Rohpynol--also known as 
Roofies--which was becoming known as the Quaalude of the Nineties as 
its popularity spread throughout the United States.
  My bill would have shifted Rohpynol to schedule 1 of the Federal 
Controlled Substances Act. Rescheduling is important for three simple 
reasons:
  First, Federal re-scheduling triggers increases in State drug law 
penalties, and since we all know that more than 95 percent of all drug 
cases are prosecuted at the State level, not by the Federal Government, 
it is vitally important that we re-schedule.
  Second, Federal re-scheduling to schedule 1 triggers the toughest 
Federal penalties--up to a year in prison and at least a $1,000 fine 
for a first offense of simple possession.
  And, third, re-scheduling has proven to work. In 1984, I worked to 
reschedule Quaaludes, Congress passed the law, and the Quaalude 
epidemic was greatly reduced. And, in 1990, I worked to re-schedule 
steroids, Congress passed the law, and again a drug epidemic that had 
been on the rise was reversed.
  Despite evidence of a growing Rohpynol epidemic, some argued that my 
efforts to re-schedule the drug by legislation were premature. 
Accordingly, I agreed to hold off on legislative action and wait for a 
Drug Enforcement Administration decision on whether to schedule the 
drug through the lengthy and cumbersome administrative process.
  As I predicted, the DEA report on Rohpynol--handed down in November--
correctly concludes that despite the rapid spread of Rohpynol 
throughout the country, DEA cannot re-schedule Rohpynol by rulemaking 
at this time.
  The report notes, however, that Congress is not bound by the 
bureaucratic re-scheduling process the DEA must follow. Congress can--
and in my view should--pass legislation to reschedule Rohpynol.
  Specifically the report states: ``This inability to reschedule 
[Rohpynol] administratively . . . does not affect Congress' ability to 
place [the drug] in schedule 1 through the legislative process''--as we 
did with Quaaludes in 1984 and Anabolic Steroids in 1990.
  Let me also note that the DEA report confirmed a number of facts 
about the extent of the Rohpynol problem:
  DEA found more than 4,000 documented cases--in 36 States--of sale or 
possession of the drug, which is not marketed in the United States and 
must be smuggled in.
  ``In spite of DEA's inability to reschedule [Rohypnol] through 
administrative proceedings, DEA remains very concerned about the 
abuse'' of the drug.
  ``Middle and high school students have been known to use [Rohypnol] 
as an alternative to alcohol to achieve an intoxicated state during 
school hours. [The drug] is much more difficult to detect than alcohol, 
which produces a characteristic odor.''
  ``DEA is extremely concerned about the use of [Rohypnol] in the 
commission of sexual assaults.''
  ``The number of sexual assaults in which [Rohypnol] is used may be 
underreported''--because the drug's effects often cause rape victims to 
be unable to remember details of their assaults and because rape crisis 
centers, hospitals, and law enforcement have only recently become aware 
that Rohypnol can be used to facilitate sex crimes.
  Nonetheless, ``DEA is aware of at least 5 individuals who have been 
convicted of rape in which the evidence suggests that [the Rohypnol 
drug] was used to incapacitate the victim.'' ``The actual number of 
sexual assault cases involving [the drug] is not known. It is difficult 
to obtain evidence that [the Rohypnol drug] was used in an assault.''
  I would also note that my efforts to re-schedule this drug have 
already had beneficial results: The manufacturer of Rohypnol recently 
announced that it had developed a new formula to minimize the potential 
for abuse of the drug in sexual assaults.
  This is an important step. But pills produced under the old Rohypnol 
formula are still in circulation, and pills made by other manufacturers 
can still be smuggled in. Furthermore, the new formula will not prevent 
kids from continuing to ingest this dangerous drug voluntarily for a 
cheap high.
  In short, stricter, Federal controls remain necessary; and DEA is 
powerless to respond to Rohypnol abuse until the problem gets even 
worse.
  Therefore, I am reintroducing my bill to re-schedule Rohypnol in 
schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act. I urge my colleagues to 
support this effort to take action against this dangerous drug now, 
rather than waiting for the problem to develop into an epidemic.
  My bill also places ``Special K''--ketamine hydrochloride--a 
dangerous hallucinogen very similar to PCP, on schedule III of the 
Controlled Substances Act. Despite Special K's rising popularity as a 
``club drug'' of choice among kids, the drug is not even illegal in 
most States. This has crippled State

[[Page S3932]]

authorities' ability to fight ketamine abuse.
  For example, in February 1997, two men accused of stealing ketamine 
from a Ville Platte, Louisiana veterinary clinic and cooking the drug 
into a powder could not be prosecuted under State drug control laws 
because ketamine is not listed as a Federal controlled substance.
  Similarly, a New Jersey youth recently found to be with possessing 
and distributing ketamine could be charged with only a disorderly 
persons offense.
  Prosecutors are trying to combat increased Ketamine use by seeking 
lengthy prison terms for possession of the drugs--like marijuana--that 
users mix with Ketamine, but if it is just Special K, there's nothing 
they can do about it.
  I am convinced that scheduling Ketamine will help our effort to fight 
the spread of this dangerous drug by triggering increases in State drug 
law penalties.
  Without Federal scheduling, many States will not be able to address 
the Ketamine problem until it is too late and Special K has already 
infiltrated their communities.
  Medical professionals who use Ketamine--including the American 
Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Nurse 
Anesthetists--support scheduling, having determined that it will 
accomplish our goal of ``preventing the diversion and unauthorized use 
of Ketamine'' while allowing ``continued, responsible use'' of the drug 
for legitimate purposes. [Letter from Mary Beth Leininger, D.V.M., 
President of the American Veterinary Medical Association]
  And the largest manufacturer of Ketamine has concluded that ``moving 
the product to schedule III classification is in the best interest of 
the veterinary industry and the public.'' [Letter from E. Thomas 
Corcoran, President of Fort Dodge Animal Health, a Division of American 
Home Products Corporation].
  Scheduling Ketamine will give State authorities the tools they 
desperately need to fight its abuse by young people--and end the legal 
anomaly that leaves those who sell Ketamine to our children beyond the 
reach of the law--even when they are caught ``red-handed''. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  In addition to raising controls on Rohypnol and Ketamine, the 
legislation I am introducing today would increase the ability of the 
Attorney General to respond to new drug emergencies in the future.
  Our Federal drug control laws currently allow the Attorney General 
limited authority to respond to certain new drugs on an emergency 
basis--by temporarily subjecting them the strictest Federal control 
while the extensive administrative procedure for permanent scheduling 
proceeds.
  But the Attorney General has not been able to use this authority to 
respond to the Rohypnol and Special K emergencies--because she does not 
have authority to--move drugs from one schedule to another, or to 
schedule drugs that the Food and Drug Administration has allowed 
companies to research but not to sell.
  This amendment would grant the administration this important 
authority by--authorizing the Attorney General to move a scheduled 
drug--like Rohypnol--to schedule I in an Emergency; by applying 
emergency rescheduling authority to ``investigational new drugs''--like 
Special K--that the Food and Drug Administration has approved for 
research purposes only, but not for marketing.
  And by providing that a rescheduling drug remains on the temporary 
schedule until the administrative proceedings reach a final conclusion 
on whether to schedule.
  This legislation would give the Attorney General the necessary tools 
to respond quickly when evidence appears that a drug is being abused. I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 2015. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide incentives for the 
development of drugs for the treatment of addiction to illegal drugs, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


            THE NEW MEDICINES TO TREAT ADDICTION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the New Medicines to 
Treat Addiction Act of 1998, legislation that builds upon my efforts in 
previous Congresses to promote research into and development of new 
medicines to treat the ravages of hard core drug addiction.
  Since the first call to arms against illegal drugs in 1989, we have 
learned just how insidious hardcore drug addiction is, even as the 
ravages of substance abuse--on both the addict and his victims--have 
become ever more apparent. The frustration in dealing with a seemingly 
intractable national problem is palpable, most noticeably in the heated 
rhetoric as politicians blame each other for the failure to find a 
cure. What gets lost underneath the noise is the recognition that we 
have not done everything we can to fight this problem and that, like 
all serious ills, we must take incremental steps one at a time, and 
refuse to be overwhelmed by the big picture.
  Throughout my tenure as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I 
called for a multifaceted strategy to combat drug abuse. One of the 
specific steps I advocated was the creation of incentives to encourage 
the private sector to develop medicines that treat addiction, an area 
where promising research has not led--as one would normally expect--to 
production of medicines. The bill I am introducing today, the New 
Medicines To Treat Addiction Act of 1998, will hopefully change that. 
It takes focused aim at one segment of the drug-abusing population--
hardcore addicts, namely users of cocaine and heroin--in part because 
these addicts are so difficult to treat with traditional methods, and 
in part because this population commits such a large percentage of 
drug-related crime.
  In December, 1989, I commissioned a Judiciary Committee report, 
``Pharmacotherapy: A Strategy for the 1990's.'' In that report, I posed 
the question, ``If drug use is an epidemic, are we doing enough to find 
a medical `cure' for this disease?'' The report gave the answer ``No.'' 
Unfortunately, almost a decade later, the answer remains the same. 
Developing new medicines for the treatment of addiction should be among 
our highest medical research priorities as a nation. Until we take this 
modest step, we cannot claim to have done everything reasonable to 
address the problem, and we should not become so frustrated that we 
effectively throw up our hands and do nothing.
  Recent medical advances have increased the possibility of developing 
medications to treat drug addiction. These advances include a 
heightened understanding of the physiological and psychological 
characteristics of drug addition and a greater base of neuroscientific 
research.
  One example of this promising research is the recent development of a 
compound that has been proven to immunize laboratory animals against 
the effects of cocaine. The compound works like a vaccine by 
stimulating the immune system to develop an antibody that blocks 
cocaine from entering the brain. Researchers funded through the 
National Institute of Drug Abuse believe that this advance may open a 
whole new avenue for combating addiction.
  Despite this progress, we still do not have a medication to treat 
cocaine addiction or drugs to treat many other forms of substance 
abuse, because the private sector is unsure of the wisdom of making the 
necessary investment in the production and marketing of such medicines.
  Private industry has not aggressively developed pharmacotherapies for 
a variety of reasons, including a small customer base, difficulties 
distributing medication to the target population, and fear of being 
associated with substance abusers. We need to create financial 
incentives to encourage pharmaceutical companies to develop and market 
these treatments. And we need to develop a new partnership between 
private industry and the public sector in order to encourage the active 
marketing and distribution of new medicines so they are accessible to 
all addicts in need of treatment.
  While pharmacotherapies alone are not a ``magic bullet'' that will 
solve our national substance abuse problem, they have the potential to 
fill a gap in

[[Page S3933]]

current treatment regimens. The disease of addiction occurs for many 
reasons, including a variety of personal problems which pharmacotherapy 
cannot address. Still, by providing a treatment regimen for drug 
abusers who are not helped by traditional methods, pharmacotherapy 
holds substantial promise for reducing the crime and health crisis that 
drug abuse is causing in the United States.

  The New Medicines to Treat Addiction Act would encourage and support 
the development of medicines to treat drug addiction in three ways.
  It reauthorizes and increases funding for the Medications Development 
Program at the National Institute of Health, which for years has been 
at the forefront of research into drug addiction.
  The bill also creates two new incentives for private sector companies 
to undertake the difficult but important task of developing medicines 
to treat addiction.
  First, the bill would provide additional patent protections for 
companies that develop drugs to treat substance abuse. Under the bill, 
pharmacotherapies could be designated ``orphan drugs'' and qualify for 
an exclusive seven-year patent to treat a specific addiction. These 
extraordinary patent rights would greatly enhance the market value of 
pharmacotherapies and provide a financial reward for companies that 
invest in the search to cure drug addiction. This provision was 
contained in a bill introduced by Senator Kennedy and me in 1990, but 
was never acted on by Congress.
  Second, the bill would establish a substantial monetary reward for 
companies that develop drugs to treat cocaine and heroin addiction but 
shift the responsibility for marketing and distributing such drugs to 
the government. This approach would create a financial incentive for 
drug companies to invest in research and development but enable them to 
avoid any stigma associated with distributing medicine to substance 
abusers.
  The bill would require the National Academy of Sciences to develop 
strict guidelines for evaluating whether a drug effectively treats 
cocaine or heroin addiction. If a drug meets these guidelines and is 
approved by the Food and Drug Administration, then the government must 
purchase the patent rights for the drug from the company that developed 
it. The purchase price for the patent rights is established by law: 
$100 million for a drug to treat cocaine addiction and $50 million for 
a drug to treat heroin addiction. Once the government has purchased the 
patent rights, then it is responsible for producing the drug and 
distributing it to clinics, hospitals, state and local governments, and 
any other entities qualified to operate drug treatment programs.
  This joint public/private endeavor will correct the market 
inefficiencies that have thus far prevented the development of drugs to 
treat addiction and require the government to take on the 
responsibilities that industry is unwilling or unable to perform.
  America's drug problem is reduced each and every time a drug abuser 
quits his or her habit. Fewer drug addicts mean fewer crimes, fewer 
hospital admissions, fewer drug-addicted babies and fewer neglected 
children. The benefits to our country of developing new treatment 
options such as pharmacotherapies are manifold. Each dollar we spend on 
advancing options in this area can save us ten or twenty times as much 
in years to come. The question isn't ``Can we afford to pursue a 
pharmacotherapy strategy?'' but rather, ``Can we afford not to?''
  Congress has long neglected to adopt measures I have proposed to 
speed the approval of and encourage greater private sector interest in 
pharmacotherapy. We cannot let another Congress conclude without 
rectifying our past negligence on this issue. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in promoting an important, and potentially ground breaking, 
approach to addressing one of our nation's most serious domestic 
challenges.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 2017. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide medical assistance for breast and cervical cancer-related 
treatment services to certain women screened and found to have breast 
or cervical cancer under a Federally funded screening program; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1998

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bi-partisan 
legislation which will allow states the option of providing Medicaid 
coverage to women who have been diagnosed with breast and cervical 
cancer through the federal government's breast and cervical cancer 
early detection program.
  Currently, the CDC breast and cervical cancer program provides low-
income, uninsured women with coverage for cancer screening, covering 
mammographies and pap smears. While this program begins to fill a 
crucial need, this legislation allows Congress to make this program 
even better. The result has often been that uninsured women are 
diagnosed with cancer and then left to scramble to find treatment.
  In 1990 Congress passed a bill that was a breakthrough for the early 
detection of breast and cervical cancer in women. The Breast and 
Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990 authorized the Center 
for Disease control to increase screening services for women who are 
low-income. From July of 1991 to March of 1997, CDC's program provide 
mammography screening to over 500,000 women and diagnosed nearly 3,500 
cases of breast cancer. During this same period, the program provided 
over 700,000 Pap tests and found more than 300 cases of invasive 
cervical cancer. This is good news for the early detection of cancers 
in women.
  But the bad news is that all women are not getting treated for 
cancer. Screening does not prevent cancer deaths; it must be coupled 
with treatment. Congress tried to ensure that women would get 
treatment, by requiring that state programs seek out services for the 
women they screen. But wherever I've traveled in New York, I've been 
hearing reports that programs are over burdened. Volunteers are working 
over time. Program administrators are having to rely on public 
hospitals and charity care. Women are having to hold bake sales to get 
treatment. This is wrong. It's not what Congress intended when it 
passed the Cancer Prevention Act in 1990.
  Now, a newly published study of the program documents that approaches 
for delivering treatment services are fragmented, and in danger of 
breaking down. I am very concerned, Mr. President, that the program is 
over burdened and needs help. The women of America need this program. 
Early detection saves lives. However, Mr. President, if we are unable 
to treat the women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, we have failed 
them.
  I commend the local programs that are working hard to line up 
treatment services for women. These programs are doing whatever they 
can to see that women with cancer get care. But the fact is that these 
solutions are labor-intensive and have long-range consequences of the 
program itself. The CDC study shows that programs are having a hard 
time recruiting new providers and must limit the number of women 
screened. Today the program serves only 12 to 15% of all women who are 
eligible nationally. And this percentage is likely to decrease. The 
study also shows that fewer physicians will be able to offer free or 
reduced-fee services in the future, because of changes in the health-
care system. My point is, and the study shows, that whatever fragile 
delivery systems for treatment are in place now are in jeopardy and 
overburdened. Women are not getting the treatment they need.

  In June 1997, Senator Moynihan and I were successful in including an 
amendment in the Budget Resolution that addressed this and would have 
solved this problem. Unfortunately, that amendment was passed by the 
Senate but later died in conference. Mr. President, we must not let 
these women fall through the cracks any longer. This legislation 
provides a mechanism to fix the problem that these under served women 
face.
  Mr. President, I began the fight in 1992 for more research funding 
for breast cancer. With the help of the National Breast Cancer 
Coalition and the

[[Page S3934]]

women of New York--women like Barbara Balaban, Geri Barish, and Doctor 
Susan Love, Senator Harkin and I started a research program in the Army 
that has grown to over $750 million and continues to provide research 
dollars for the latest, cutting edge technologies and research.
  We must not abandon the women of America who are diagnosed with 
breast and cervical cancer, only to find that there is no way to pay 
for their treatment. Congress has responded to the call for more 
research money for breast cancer, we must now continue that fight to 
provide increased treatment for every woman diagnosed with breast and 
cervical cancer.
  The National Breast Cancer Coalition has made me very aware of the 
problems that women are facing regarding treatment after diagnosis 
under the CDC program. And I am concerned that the problem is getting 
worse.
  We make speeches and wear pink ribbons to show our commitment to 
fight breast cancer--but now is the time to act to support a simple 
amendment that will make real contribution to the fight against breast 
cancer. It will save lives and ensure that women, when diagnosed 
through the federal program, will not have to hold bake sales to get 
treatment.
  I join my colleagues, Senator Moynihan, Senator Snowe, and Senator 
Mikulski, in sponsoring legislation that will establish a mechanism for 
women's treatment. This is a targeted measure that will allow states 
the option of providing Medicaid to women who have participated in the 
CDC program and have been diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer. I 
am determined to solve this problem before Congress is adjourned this 
year. It is irresponsible of the federal government to do otherwise.
  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. 2017

       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 ``Breast and Cervical Cancer 
     Treatment Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. OPTIONAL MEDICAID COVERAGE OF CERTAIN BREAST OR 
                   CERVICAL CANCER PATIENTS.

       (a) Coverage as Optional Categorically Needy Group.--
     Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (XIII), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subclause (XIV), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(XV) who are described in subsection (aa)(1) (relating to 
     certain breast or cervical cancer patients);''.

       (b) Group and Benefit Described.--Section 1902 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(aa)(1) Individuals described in this paragraph are 
     individuals who--
       ``(A) are not described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i);
       ``(B) have not attained age 65;
       ``(C) satisfy income and resource requirements to be 
     treated as a low-income woman for purposes of being given 
     priority under section 1504 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300n); and
       ``(D) are not otherwise covered under creditable coverage, 
     as defined in section 2701(c) of the Public Health Service 
     Act (45 U.S.C. 300gg(c)).
       ``(2) For purposes of this title, the term `breast or 
     cervical cancer-related treatment services' means services 
     that are medically necessary or appropriate for the treatment 
     of breast or cervical cancer and complications arising from 
     such treatment and for which medical assistance is made 
     available under the State plan to individuals described in 
     subsection (a)(10)(A)(i).''.
       (c) Presumptive Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     1920A the following:


    ``presumptive eligibility for certain breast or cervical cancer 
                                patients

       ``Sec. 1920B. (a) State Option.--A State plan approved 
     under section 1902 may provide for making medical assistance 
     for breast or cervical cancer-related treatment services 
     available to an individual described in section 1902(aa)(1) 
     (relating to certain breast or cervical cancer patients) 
     during a presumptive eligibility period.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Presumptive eligibility period.--The term 
     `presumptive eligibility period' means, with respect to an 
     individual described in subsection (a), the period that--
       ``(A) begins with the date on which a qualified entity 
     determines, on the basis of preliminary information, that the 
     individual is described in section 1902(aa)(1), and
       ``(B) ends with (and includes) the earlier of--
       ``(i) the day on which a determination is made with respect 
     to the eligibility of such individual for services under the 
     State plan, or
       ``(ii) in the case of such an individual who does not file 
     an application by the last day of the month following the 
     month during which the entity makes the determination 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), such last day.
       ``(2) Qualified entity.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     `qualified entity' means any entity that--
       ``(i) is eligible for payments under a State plan approved 
     under this title and provides breast or cervical cancer-
     related treatment services; and
       ``(ii) is determined by the State agency to be capable of 
     making determinations of the type described in paragraph 
     (1)(A).
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue regulations 
     further limiting those entities that may become qualified 
     entities in order to prevent fraud and abuse and for other 
     reasons.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed as preventing a State from limiting the 
     classes of entities that may become qualified entities, 
     consistent with any limitations imposed under subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(c) Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--The State agency shall provide qualified 
     entities with--
       ``(A) such forms as are necessary for an application to be 
     made by an individual described in subsection (a) for medical 
     assistance under the State plan, and
       ``(B) information on how to assist such individuals in 
     completing and filing such forms.
       ``(2) Notification requirements.--A qualified entity that 
     determines under subsection (b)(1)(A) that an individual 
     described in subsection (a) is presumptively eligible for 
     medical assistance for breast or cervical cancer-related 
     treatment services under a State plan shall--
       ``(A) notify the State agency of the determination within 5 
     working days after the date on which determination is made, 
     and
       ``(B) inform such individual at the time the determination 
     is made that an application for medical assistance under the 
     State plan is required to be made by not later than the last 
     day of the month following the month during which the 
     determination is made.
       ``(3) Application for medical assistance.--In the case of 
     an individual described in subsection (a) who is determined 
     by a qualified entity to be presumptively eligible for 
     medical assistance for breast or cervical cancer-related 
     treatment services under a State plan, the individual shall 
     apply for medical assistance under such plan by not later 
     than the last day of the month following the month during 
     which the determination is made.
       ``(d) Payment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     title, medical assistance for breast or cervical cancer-
     related treatment services that--
       ``(1) are furnished to an individual described in 
     subsection (a)--
       ``(A) during a presumptive eligibility period,
       ``(B) by a entity that is eligible for payments under the 
     State plan; and
       ``(2) are included in the care and services covered by the 
     State plan;

     shall be treated as medical assistance provided by such plan 
     for purposes of section 1903(a)(5)(B).''.
       (2) Presumptive eligibility conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 1902(a)(47) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396a(a)(47)) is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon at the end the following: ``and provide for making 
     medical assistance for breast or cervical cancer-related 
     treatment services available to individuals described in 
     subsection (a) of section 1920B during a presumptive 
     eligibility period in accordance with such section''.
       (B) Section 1903(u)(1)(D)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(u)(1)(D)(v)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``or for'' and inserting ``, for''; and
       (ii) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
     for medical assistance for breast or cervical cancer-related 
     treatment services provided to an individual described in 
     subsection (a) of section 1920B during a presumptive 
     eligibility period under such section''.
       (d) Enhanced Match.--Section 1903(a)(5) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``an'' and inserting ``(A) an'';
       (2) by adding ``plus'' after the semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) an amount equal to 75 percent of the sums expended 
     during such quarter which are attributable to the offering, 
     arranging, and furnishing (directly or on a contract basis) 
     of breast or cervical cancer-related treatment services; 
     plus''.
       (e) Limitation on Benefits.--Section 1902(a)(10) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)) is amended in 
     the matter following subparagraph (F)--
       (1) by striking ``and (XIII)'' and inserting ``(XIII)''; 
     and

[[Page S3935]]

       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (XIV) the medical assistance made 
     available to an individual described in subsection (aa)(1) 
     who is eligible for medical assistance only because of 
     subparagraph (A)(ii)(XV) shall be limited to medical 
     assistance for breast or cervical cancer-related treatment 
     services''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1905(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1)--
       (1) in clause (x), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (xi), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after clause (xi) the following:
       ``(xii) individuals described in section 1902(aa)(1),''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to medical assistance furnished on or after October 1, 
     1998, without regard to whether or not final regulations to 
     carry out such amendments have been promulgated by such date.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
a bill that will put an end to the half-promise the federal government 
has made to women screened under the National Breast and Cervical 
Cancer Protection Program. When Congress first passed this program as 
the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act in 1990, it was 
a breakthrough for early detection of breast and cervical cancer. And I 
was proud to be its chief Senate sponsor. There is still good reason to 
be proud of this program. By March of 1997, the program had provided 
mammography screening to over 500,000 women and Pap tests to over 
700,000. Nearly 3,500 women have been diagnosed with breast cancer and 
an additional 300 women with invasive cervical cancer. In Maryland 
alone, by December 1996, the state had provided more than 35,000 
mammograms and 21,000 Pap tests, and diagnosed nearly 300 women with 
breast cancer and 13 women with invasive cervical cancer.
  But when we passed that program we expected--and demanded--assurances 
that women who are found to have breast cancer be provided the 
necessary diagnostic services, including breast biopsies and treatment 
services. The program has not lived up to the promise. While a variety 
of innovative strategies have emerged across the country at the state 
and local levels to help women get treatment, the reality is that the 
system is overloaded. Some state programs require providers to arrange 
for treatment before they can participate in the program; a very few 
like Maryland have been able to come up with a small pool of general 
revenues, but generally these funds are available for breast diagnostic 
services, not treatment. In others, program administrators have to rely 
on public hospitals, donated services and charity care. In the end, 
thousands of women who run local screening programs are spending 
countless hours finding treatment services for women diagnosed with 
breast cancer.
  This is not what we had in mind. Not at all. The system for 
obtaining treatment services--which at its best was an ad-hoc 
patchwork--has broken down. Of those women diagnosed with cancer in the 
United States, nearly 3,000 women have no way to afford treatment--they 
have no health care insurance coverage or are underinsured. These women 
want to pay for their services, but they often simply don't have the 
financial resources on their own.

  It's a cruel and heart breaking irony for the federal government to 
promise to screen low-income women for breast and cervical cancer, but 
not to establish a program to treat those women who have been diagnosed 
with cancer through a federal program. Screening alone does not prevent 
cancer deaths; but treatment can.
  A recent study of the program done for the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention found that while treatment was eventually found 
for almost all of the women screened, some women did not get treated at 
all, some refused treatment, and some experienced delays. The study 
also underscores the terribly labor intensive efforts that go into 
finding treatment for these women--often at the expense of screening. 
The lack of coverage for diagnostic and treatment services has also had 
a very negative impact on the program's ability to recruit providers, 
further restricting the number of women screened. It is sad that 8 
years after enactment, the program serves only 12 to 15 percent of all 
women who are eligible nationally. And this is likely to get worse. The 
study shows there are already additional stresses on the program as 
increasing numbers of physicians do not have the autonomy in today's 
ever increasing managed care system to offer free or reduced-fee 
services.
  Breast cancer advocates from across the country are reporting that 
local programs are so badly strained that they have resorted to holding 
bake sales and community lunches to raise money for treatment services 
for the women they serve. Others have cobbled together the funds at 
great effort--when they are sickest--and most in need of taking care of 
their health. One woman in Massachusetts reported that she cashed in 
her life insurance policy to cover the costs of her treatment.
  It is clear that the short-term, ad-hoc strategies of providing 
treatment have broken down: for the women who are screened; for the 
local programs that fund the screening program; and for the states that 
face increasing burdens. Because there is no coverage for treatment, 
state programs are having a hard time recruiting providers, volunteers 
are spending a disproportionate amount of time finding treatment for 
women, and fewer women are receiving treatment. We can't grow the 
program to serve the other 78 percent of eligible women if we can't 
promise treatment to those we already screen.

  Women shouldn't have to hold a bake sale to get treated for breast 
cancer--especially if the federal government has held out the promise 
of early detection. It is an outrage that women with cancer must go 
begging for treatment. That's why I'm cosponsoring this bill. It will 
establish a mechanism for women to be treated. It will guarantee 
Medicaid coverage for necessary treatment services to women who are 
eligible for the CDC program, and found to have breast cancer or 
cervical cancer. Although I wish the bill would require the States to 
provide the benefit, the reality is such that we have made this program 
for now, an optional benefit, and place the responsibility on the 
States to choose to participate. By doing so, states would in effect, 
extend the federal-state partnership that exists for the screening 
services in the CDC program to treatment services.
  This bill is the best long-term solution. It is strongly supported by 
the National Breast Cancer Coalition representing over 400 
organizations and 100,000's of women across the nation. I urge my 
colleagues to join in and cosponsor this critical piece of legislation 
and make good on the promise of early detection.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my 
colleague Senator D'Amato, and with Senators Mikulski and Snowe, 
legislation important to ensuring that women with breast cancer and 
cervical cancer will receive coverage for their treatment. The Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a successful nationwide 
program--National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program--
that screens low-income uninsured women for breast and cervical cancer. 
However, CDC's program does not have funding to treat these women after 
they are diagnosed.
  The women eligible for cancer screening under the CDC program are 
low-income individuals and yet are not poor enough to qualify for 
Medicaid coverage. They do not have health insurance coverage for these 
screenings and for subsequent cancer treatment.
  From July of 1991 to March of 1997, the CDC program provided 
mammography screening to almost 600,000 women and diagnosed nearly 
3,500 cases of breast cancer. During this same period, the program also 
provided over 700,000 pap smears and found more than 300 cases of 
invasive cervical cancer.
  The CDC screening program has had to divert a significant amount of 
time and funding in order to find treatment opportunities for the women 
found to have breast and cervical cancer. The lack of subsequent 
funding for treatment has, therefore, jeopardized the programs' primary 
function: to screen low-income uninsured women for breast and cervical 
cancer. Currently, the program screens about 12 to 15 percent of all 
eligible women.
  A recent study conducted at Battelle Centers for Public Health 
Research and Evaluation and the University of Michigan School of Public 
Health on treatment funding for women screened

[[Page S3936]]

by the CDC program found that, although funding for treatment services 
were found for most of these women, they often experienced time delays. 
In addition, during the search for treatment funding, the CDC program 
lost contact with several women. The study also found that the sources 
of treatment funding are uncertain, tenuous and fragmented. The burden 
of funding treatment often fell upon providers themselves. The 
uncertainty and delays worsen the stress of coping with cancer. Some 
women, upon learning that they have cancer, must hold lunches and bake 
sales to raise funds to cover their needed treatment.
  Our legislation would provide treatment coverage for the women 
screened and diagnosed through the CDC program and who are uninsured. 
States will have the option to provide this coverage through its 
Medicaid program. If a state chooses this option, they will receive an 
enhanced match for the treatment coverage, similar to the federal match 
provided to the sate for the CDC screening program.
  Mr. President, the Senate has approved this proposal in the past. A 
similar provision was included in the Senate version of last year's 
Balanced Budget bill. It is my hope that the Senate will again support 
this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON:
  S. 2018. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the work opportunity tax credit to employers providing employment in 
economically distressed communities; to the Committee on Finance.


                The Reemployment Tax Credit Act of 1998

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today that will foster job growth and job creation in distressed 
communities. This important legislation, the ``Reemployment Tax Credit 
Act of 1988,'' will provide needed assistance to communities when they 
are impacted by significant job losses.
  Twice in the last year, communities in my state have suffered the 
difficult repercussions of massive job losses in the area. The 
circumstances in Huron and those in the Northern Hills region differed 
considerably, however, in both instances the job losses affected far 
reaching elements of the local economy. I proudly introduce this 
legislation to enhance the ability of distressed communities to address 
the challenges of sudden economic dislocation.
  This bill will extend the existing Work Opportunity Tax Credit to 
include dislocated workers affected by plant closings or other events 
resulting in extensive job losses. This tax credit accelerates 
opportunities for business growth and expansion in distressed 
communities therefore decreasing unemployment insurance expenditures, 
reducing the flight of dislocated workers, allowing families to remain 
in their community and in their homes. It serves to stabilize the local 
economy and minimize the negative impacts on other local businesses.
  The most successful and immediate action to address economic 
dislocation is to reemploy workers. The Reemployment Tax Credit Act of 
1998 will make a serious and positive impact on the growth and 
prosperity of our communities. I urge my colleagues to support this 
effort to provide distressed communities with this critical assistance 
to help them recover from extraordinary economic hardship.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 2019. A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to implement the 
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change unless or until the Senate has given its advice and consent to 
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and to clarify the authority of 
Federal agencies with respect to the regulation of the emissions of 
carbon dioxide; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


           the economic growth and sovereignty protection act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
protect the strength and future growth of the American economy, and to 
uphold the system of checks and balances that is central to our 
government. The Clinton Administration's irresponsibility at the Kyoto 
Summit makes it necessary for Congress to act. On December 11, 1998, 
this administration agreed to an amendment to the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  An amendment that clearly did not meet the standards for ratification 
established by this body in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95-
0. The administration simply ignored the Senate's resolution--thereby 
ignoring the will of the American people. The resolution was clear and 
unmistakable it in its criteria. It stated that the administration 
should not agree to binding emission targets unless developing 
countries also were bound by the targets and that the administration 
must not agree to anything that severely damages the economy of the 
United States. The Kyoto Protocol fails both tests.
  On the first criteria, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single 
developing nation. One hundred and thirty-four developing nations, 
including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, many of whom 
compete with the United States for trade opportunities, are completely 
exempt from any obligations or responsibilities for reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions.
  The Kyoto Protocol would legally bind the United States to reduce our 
greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by the years 
2008 to 2012. It even goes much further than President Clinton's own 
bottom line that he personally announced last October pledging would 
not accept a baseline below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions. He 
also said there must be ``meaningful participation'' from all 
developing countries.
  It is clear that the Protocol fails the second criteria. Numerous 
independent economic studies predicted serious economic harm even if 
the administration had held to its position that it enunciated last 
October. These studies found 2.4 million job losses, significant 
increases in energy costs, a 50-cent increase in gas prices per gallon, 
a drop in economic growth rates of more than 1 percent a year, and 
major American industries being driven out of business or driven out of 
the United States--industries like steel, aluminum, petroleum refining, 
chemicals, iron, paper products, and cement.
  That is why American agriculture, American labor, American business 
and industry and many consumer groups have all united in opposition to 
this treaty. Yet, our negotiators in Kyoto--the ones who were supposed 
to be looking out for the American people--cut a deal that would have 
had an even more devastating and extreme impact on the U.S. economy and 
on the lives of the American people.
  The administration's recent attempt to develop an economic analysis 
showing ``minimal'' harm to the U.S. economy clearly are flawed. No 
models, no numbers, no percentages, no economics. It is based on 
fabrication and vapor, on what Senator Hagel called ``wildly optimistic 
assumptions'' such as China, India and Mexico agreeing to the binding 
commitments in this treaty.

  This is what one observer in Kyoto--the leader on this issue in the 
United States Senate, along with Senator Byrd--Senator Hagel, had to 
say about the administration's activities in Kyoto. ``After Vice 
President Gore came to Kyoto and instructed our negotiators to show 
`increased flexibility' the doors were thrown open and the objective 
became very clear. The objective was: Let us get a deal at any cost. 
The clear advice of the U.S. Senate and the economic well-being of the 
American people were abandoned under pressure from the U.N. 
bureaucrats, international environmentalists and the 134 developing 
countries that were not even included--not even included--in the 
treaty. The United States of America was the only Nation to come out of 
these negotiations worse than it came in. In fact, there was no 
negotiation in Kyoto; there was only surrender.''
  From an environmental standpoint, the Kyoto ``deal'' is completely 
inadequate. The treaty is so flawed that it will do virtually nothing 
to slow the growth of manmade greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Even 
if one accepts the validity of the science on global warming, which is 
still uncertain and at best contradictory, this treaty would do nothing 
to stop any of these emissions. The Kyoto ``deal'' excludes the very 
developing nations who will be responsible for more than 60 percent of 
the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions early in the next century.

[[Page S3937]]

  In fact, as more and more American scientists review the available 
data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast 
majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions made by the Administration in the Kyoto ``deal'' is an 
unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat--``to an exaggerated 
threat'' that the Vice President himself is caught up in making. Last 
week, more than 15,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced academic 
degrees, released a petition they signed urging the United States to 
reject the Kyoto ``deal.'' The petition, expressly states that:

       There is no convincing scientific evidence that human 
     release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 
     is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's 
     atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

  The administration understands that the Kyoto ``deal'' does not meet 
these standards because they have made it clear that the President will 
not send this document to the Senate for ratification.
  However, not only did the administration ignore the Senate when 
agreeing to this deal, they are continuing to ignore it even today. A 
number of my constituents, particularly farmers and small business 
owners, have come to me with grave concerns over the administration's 
``back door'' implementation of the Protocol's requirements.
  For example, the Administration has requested $6.3 billion in its 
1999 budget in order to begin meeting its obligations under the Kyoto 
Protocol. This money would go to a number of federal agencies and 
departments including the Department of Energy, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, the Commerce 
Department, and the Department of Agriculture.
  The administration, in a document relating to electricity 
restructuring, which was circulating through the Environmental 
Protection Agency, referenced reducing emission to ``meet our 
greenhouse gas emission budget under the Kyoto Protocol.'' The 
memorandum further states that electricity restructuring also should 
take environmental concerns into account in order to ``deliver on the 
President's commitments.''
  Many federal agencies are in the process of establishing Kyoto 
implementation offices. The Environmental Protection Agency currently 
is discussing whether the agency has the power under the Clean Air Act 
or the Energy Policy Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions--a key 
emission limited under the Kyoto Protocol.
  In the news conference after cutting the deal in Kyoto, 
administration officials seemed to indicate that since the U.S. has ten 
years to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets established at 
Kyoto--the administration has ten years to involve the Senate in its 
activities.
  Mr. President, the Constitution clearly states that while the 
Executive Branch has the authority to negotiate international treaties, 
that only the United States Senate has the authority to ratify such 
treaties. We cannot allow the Executive Branch to usurp the power of 
Congress by implementing the treaty--a treaty that will have such a 
devastating impact on the United States--without the Senate first being 
ratified by this body.
  A treaty is the most solemn international obligation that can be 
entered upon by sovereign people. The sovereignty of the United States 
was purchased with the blood of patriots, and the Constitution defined 
the treaty making power with great care. The blood and treasure of our 
nation may not be placed at hazard by a treaty unless the President and 
Congress are in agreement. The Framers created this shared power in 
part because the United States intended to reject utterly the European 
tradition that invested the monarch with unfettered power to conduct 
foreign policy--even to the extremity of spending the lives of citizens 
in wars conducted to satisfy his vanity or dynastic ambition. Under our 
Constitution, the President may not on his own bind the sovereignty of 
the United States to the terms of a treaty unless that treaty has been 
ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.
  The treaty making power, then is not only shared and checked, but 
ratification must meet the high standard of a two-third vote. The 
Administration's Kyoto agenda is constitutionally offensive in several 
respects. First, the President is not to behave like a pre-democratic 
ruler who makes commitments at will that bind the nation. Second, the 
Executive branch is proceeding to inflict severe damage on our economy 
and our people, without deliberation by the Congress. Finally, the 
Administration is proceeding to impose an unratified--and therefore 
meaningless--treaty, a treaty so badly flawed that it would, on its 
face, be rejected by the Senate.
  Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the administration's activities 
will stop merely because members of the Senate, members of the House of 
Representatives, or citizens of the United States point out the 
Constitutional implications. Therefore, today I am offering the 
Economic Growth and Sovereignty Protection Act. This act simply would 
prohibit any federal agency from spending federal funds on implementing 
the treaty until such time that it is ratified by the United States 
Senate.

  In addition, since the EPA has raised the issue of whether it has the 
ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, this act would make it 
clear that no federal agency has such power without the express 
authority from the Congress.
  Mr. President, the Constitution cannot be ignored. It established a 
system of checks and balances which must be preserved and protected. 
The interests and the sovereignty of this great Nation cannot be 
ignored. To allow other nations' interests to become more important--to 
dictate our domestic policy--would be unconscionable. The will of the 
American people cannot be ignored. To do so would crush the very 
foundation on which this democracy was established.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 2020. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit 
beneficiaries of the military health care system to enroll in Federal 
employees health benefits plans; to improve health care benefits under 
CHAMPUS and TRICARE Standard, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Armed Services.


                 the military health care equality act

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military 
Health Care Equality Act. Mr. President, it may come a surprise to many 
that the Department of Defenses has reneged on its promise to those who 
have honorably served in our military forces. That, Mr. President, is 
the promise of lifetime, quality healthcare for the military retiree 
and his family. I now introduce legislation that will offer all 
Senators the opportunity to join with me in righting this 
unconscionable wrong.
  Today our military retirees feel betrayed. Before joining, and while 
serving, they were promised quality, lifetime healthcare. However, that 
promise is being broken. Military health care facilities have closed 
because of the downsizing of our military forces. Those military health 
facilities that remain can treat fewer and fewer retirees. The TRICARE 
system has high overhead and its provider fees are so low that many 
health care providers will not participate. In addition, in some areas, 
retirees do not have access to provider networks. Finally, the TRICARE 
system will not treat Medicare eligible retirees. Mr. President, it is 
just not right that the military retiree is the only Federal retiree 
who is prevented from using his employer provided health care when 
reaching Medicare age.
  This legislation requires the DOD to provide all military retirees 
with health care that is comparable to the care provided by the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan, or failing that, to make the FEHBP 
available. In addition, this legislation would require that TRICARE be 
improved to the FEHBP level. This Legislation will not prevent a 
retiree from using a military health care facility. However, it will 
improve and increase the health care choices for our retirees.
  Our military men and women have given much to protect our country in 
time of peace and war. We must acknowledge this by providing them the 
available, affordable, quality health care that they were promised. No 
lesser measure will suffice.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in immediately enacting 
this

[[Page S3938]]

legislation so that we can now begin to care for military retirees, as 
promised, in a manner they so richly deserve for their service to our 
great Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2021. A bill to provide for regional skills training alliances, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


             the technology skills partnership act of 1998

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, joined with Senator Lieberman, I 
am introducing legislation to provide our nation's workforce with the 
information technology and computer skills it needs to meet the 
emerging and rapidly changing requirements in our various technology 
sectors. I am delighted to have my distinguished colleague from 
Connecticut--whose efforts on behalf of the high technology sector and 
its workforce have been second to none--join as an original co-sponsor 
of the Technology Skills Partnership Act of 1998. The purpose of the 
Technology Skills Partnership Act is to establish regional initiatives 
to provide the skills that industry and workers require to remain 
competitive in the global, high technology marketplace.

  The United States is currently the world's science and technology 
leader. Technical innovation, which according to a 1995 report by the 
President's Council of Economic Advisors has been responsible for more 
than half of America's productivity growth over the past fifty years, 
has positioned us at the forefront of the global economy. In my view, 
we could not have achieved this status without the most skilled, 
innovative, and competitive workforce in the world. The high tech 
global economy is evolving at such a rapid pace however, that if we 
fail to keep our workforce honed and highly skilled --whether in 
advanced computer programming or computer based manufacturing 
technology --we risk losing this edge.
  A growing number of industries throughout the country are reporting 
serious difficulties in hiring workers with appropriate computer and 
information technology skills. Recent reports have estimated up to 
190,000 unfilled information technology jobs in the United States due 
to a shortage of qualified workers. Many businesses point to the lack 
of skilled workers as a primary reason for their limited 
competitiveness and growth.
  In my own State of Maryland, the high technology sector currently 
faces an estimated lack of 10-12,000 workers with appropriate 
technology skills. A recent Maryland Department of Business and 
Economic Development survey indicates that 80% of firms which hire 
manufacturing or skilled trades workers, reported significant 
difficulty in finding applicants with the required skills for 
technology intensive jobs. The same survey indicates that more than two 
thirds of businesses hiring computer technicians, engineers, analysts, 
or other technical or laboratory personnel experienced difficulty 
finding qualified workers. It also mentions that fifty-five percent of 
firms that hire college-level scientist or technical program graduates 
reported the same difficulty and that 62% of these firms reported that 
their need for hiring these types of graduates is expected to increase 
over the next five years.
  Without the appropriate skills for the new economy, hundreds of 
thousands of American workers face stagnation in their jobs or worse. 
While well intentioned, most existing training programs are not 
structured in a way which addresses this problem from the perspective 
of industry and directly prepares our workers for these types of 
positions. To help meet the demand in this regard, a unique approach 
which is flexible enough to address the fluctuations and transitions of 
our high technology economy is required. In order to train and educate 
new entrants to the workforce, workers dislocated by economic change, 
and workers already in the workplace facing increased demands for 
higher levels of technology related skills, we must establish an 
industry driven framework which recognizes and addresses this need on a 
continuum. Without such a framework, this country and its workers stand 
to lose significant ground in the global economy.

  While some post-secondary training institutions have reached out to 
industry and become more customer-focused, more still must identify 
ways to respond directly to the changing skills and needs of employers. 
Many community colleges, and even four-year colleges and universities, 
lack the resources to purchase up-to-date equipment on which to train 
workers in relevant knowledge and skills. In addition, while some 
colleges and universities have been able to establish partnerships with 
some larger firms that have human resource departments, building 
partnerships and a two-way dialogue with small and medium-sized firms 
has proven more difficult.
  Relevant, focused and systematic training and upgrading of infotech 
skills is essential to linking and transitioning our supply of skilled 
American workers to the powerful and emerging demand of today's high 
tech economy. Without direct participation by industry, however, and an 
understanding of regional dynamics which help us identify specific 
solutions to address specific industry and regional needs, a 
significant portion of the U.S. workforce will be left behind.
  Mr. President, having the appropriate information technology skills 
is becoming more and more important in all sectors of our economy, not 
only in high and biotech industries and the manufacturing sector, but 
also in the so-called low-tech industries. More than half of the new 
jobs created between 1984 and 2005 require or will require some 
education beyond high school. The percentage of workers who use 
computers at work has risen from 25% to 46% between 1984 and 1993. 
Moreover, firms today are not only using more technology, but are also 
reorganizing production processes in new ways, such as cellular 
production, use of teams, and other high performance structures and 
methods requiring higher levels and new kinds of skills.
  According to the American Society for Training and Development, 
company spending on training has not kept up with today's evolving 
needs. In 1995, American businesses spent $55 billion a year upgrading 
the skills of their employees, 20 percent more than a dozen years ago. 
However, the number of employees has increased by 24 percent, meaning 
that private-sector spending hasn't kept pace. In order to bridge this 
gap, we need to pool our resources and coordinate our perspectives on 
this matter.
  Most firms, but particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, have 
limited capacity to engage in significant and sustained workforce 
development efforts. Managers and owners of most firms are simply too 
busy running their business to develop training systems, especially for 
new or dislocated workers. Firms also often lack information on what 
kind of training their firms need and where to get it. As a result, 
most firms forego training initiatives and instead try to hire workers 
away from other companies in related fields.
  Moreover, because workers are so transient, individual employers are 
reluctant to bear the burden of training employees, be they new or 
incumbent workers, simply due to the likelihood is that the employee 
will leave and go to work for a competitor. In light of this 
possibility, many firms simply cannot envision an adequate return on 
the investment for paying to train their employees. This, coupled with 
an increasingly competitive global marketplace, is one reason why many 
larger companies that once supported in-house training programs have 
since eliminated these efforts.

  The legislation I am introducing would establish regional working 
groups across the country in which employers, public agencies, schools, 
and labor unions can pool resources and expertise to train workers for 
emerging job opportunities and jobs threatened by economic and 
technological transition. It will help develop targeted consortia of 
industry, workers and training entities across the country to assess 
where and what gaps in this regard exist and provide the skills that 
industry and workers require to remain competitive and get ahead.
  Specifically, it would authorize a grants program--to be overseen by 
the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and 
Technology--and provide up to a $1 million federal match, for every 
dollar invested by state and local governments and the private sector 
for these working

[[Page S3939]]

groups. The Department would budget $50 million annually for this 
purpose and funds would be allocated through a competitive grants 
process, with each consortia of firms as applicants.
  Through a sector based approach, this legislation would direct 
meaningful participation in building an alliance by ensuring that each 
consists of at least 10 firms. These alliances would allow for 
participation from state and local officials, educational leaders, 
regional chapters of trade associations and union officials. However, 
each would be predominantly made up of industry, and as I have 
mentioned, would be industry driven. Indeed, if we are going to address 
the skills crisis in this country, industry must have a leadership role 
in establishing the means by which we continue to build and upgrade the 
skills of workers in technology related fields.
  Smaller scale versions of the types of skills alliances which my 
legislation proposes to develop have already shown promise. In 
Wisconsin, metal-working firms got together with the AFL-CIO in a 
publicly sponsored effort that used an abandoned mill building as a 
teaching facility, teaching workers essential skills on state-of-the-
art manufacturing equipment. Rhode Island helped develop a skills 
alliance among plastics firms, who then worked with a local community 
college to create a polymer training laboratory linked to an 
apprenticeship program that guarantees jobs for graduates. In 
Washington, DC telecommunications firms donated computers, and helped 
to set up a program to train public high school students to be computer 
network administrators and are now hiring graduates of the program at 
an entry-level salary of $25,000-30,000.
  Each of these initiatives is an investment in our workforce for the 
21st Century. If we are to truly transition the U.S. worker to a 
technology based economy, we must ensure that these best practice 
examples become standard practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
ensuring the swift enactment of this legislation. I ask that a copy of 
this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2021

       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 ``Technology Skills 
     Partnership Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       For purposes of this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the 
     Secretary of Commerce.
                         TITLE I--SKILL GRANTS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting through 
     the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, and in consultation and coordination with the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall provide grants to eligible entities 
     described in subsection (b) to assist such entities to aid 
     workers in improving job skills necessary for employment in 
     specific industries.
       (b) Eligible Entities Described.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible entity described in this 
     subsection is a consortium that--
       (A) shall consist of representatives from not fewer than 10 
     businesses (or nonprofit organizations that represent 
     businesses) in a common industry; and
       (B) may consist of representatives from 1 or more of the 
     following:
       (i) Labor organizations.
       (ii) State and local government.
       (iii) Education organizations.
       (2) Majority of representatives.--A majority of the 
     representatives comprising the consortium shall be 
     representatives described in paragraph (1)(A).
       (3) Additional requirement.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, each of the businesses, organizations, and 
     governments whose representatives form an eligible entity 
     under paragraph (1) shall be located in the same geographic 
     region of the United States.
       (c) Priority for Small Businesses.--In providing grants 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to an 
     eligible entity if a majority of representatives forming the 
     entity represent small-business concerns, as described in 
     section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
       (d) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant 
     provided to an eligible entity under subsection (a) may not 
     exceed $1,000,000 for any fiscal year.

     SEC. 102. APPLICATION.

       (a) Certain States With Multiple Consortia.--In a State in 
     which 2 or more eligible entities seek grants under section 
     101 for a fiscal year, as determined by the Governor of the 
     State, the Governor may solicit proposals from the entities 
     concerning the activities to be carried out under the grants. 
     If the Governor solicits such proposals, based on the 
     proposals received, the Governor shall submit an application 
     on behalf of 1 or more of the entities to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require. The provisions of this 
     title relating to eligible entities shall apply to each of 
     the entities for which the Governor applies.
       (b) Other States.--In a State in which only 1 eligible 
     entity seeks a grant under section 101 for a fiscal year, as 
     determined by the Governor of the State, or in which the 
     Governor does not solicit proposals as described in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may not provide a grant under 
     section 101 to the eligible entity unless such entity submits 
     to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.

     SEC. 103. USE OF AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not provide a grant 
     under section 101 to an eligible entity unless such entity 
     agrees to use amounts received from such grant to aid workers 
     in improving job skills (which may include skills related to 
     computer technology, computer-based manufacturing technology, 
     telecommunications, and other information technologies) 
     necessary for employment by businesses in the industry with 
     respect to which such entity was established.
       (b) Conduct of Program.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program described in 
     subsection (a), the eligible entity may provide for--
       (A) an assessment of training and job skill needs for the 
     industry;
       (B) development of a sequence of skill standards that are 
     correlated with advanced industry practices;
       (C) development of curriculum and training methods;
       (D) purchase or receipt of donations of training equipment;
       (E) identification of training providers;
       (F) development of apprenticeship programs;
       (G) development of training programs for dislocated 
     workers;
       (H) development of the membership of the entity;
       (I) provision of training programs for workers; and
       (J) development of training plans for businesses.
       (2) Additional requirement.--In carrying out the program 
     described in subsection (a), the eligible entity shall 
     provide for development and tracking of performance outcome 
     measures for the program and the training providers involved 
     in the program.
       (c) Administrative Costs.--The eligible entity may use not 
     more than 10 percent of the amount of a grant to pay for 
     administrative costs associated with the program described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 104. REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.

       The Secretary may not provide a grant under section 101 to 
     an eligible entity unless such entity agrees that--
       (1) it will make available non-Federal contributions toward 
     the costs of carrying out activities under section 103 in an 
     amount that is not less than $2 for each $1 of Federal funds 
     provided under a grant under section 101; and
       (2) of such non-Federal contributions, not less than $1 of 
     each such $2 shall be from businesses with representatives 
     serving on the eligible entity.

     SEC. 105. LIMIT ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       The Secretary may use not more than 5 percent of the funds 
     made available to carry out this title to pay for Federal 
     administrative costs associated with making grants under this 
     title.

     SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, 
     and 2001.
                       TITLE II--PLANNING GRANTS

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting through 
     the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, and in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, 
     shall provide grants to States to enable the States to assist 
     businesses, organizations, and agencies described in section 
     101(b) in conducting planning to form consortia described in 
     such section.
       (b) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant 
     provided to a State under subsection (a) may not exceed 
     $500,000 for any fiscal year.

     SEC. 202. APPLICATION.

       The Secretary may not provide a grant under section 201 to 
     a State unless such State submits to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.

     SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.

       The Secretary may not provide a grant under section 201 to 
     a State unless such State agrees that it will make available 
     non-Federal contributions toward the costs of carrying out 
     activities under this title in an amount that is not less 
     than $1 for each $1 of Federal funds provided under a grant 
     under section 201.

     SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support as an

[[Page S3940]]

original cosponsor of my colleague Senator Sarbanes' bill, the 
Technology Skills Partnership Act of 1998. I am delighted that Senator 
Sarbanes has taken the initiative in developing this innovative 
approach to help solve one of the biggest problems this country is 
facing--an insufficiently skilled workforce. This bill has the bold but 
achievable goal of trying to change the mindset of U.S. companies in 
this country in favor of collaborating on training skilled workers for 
their industry.
  We are facing a shortage of skilled workers in this country. 
Estimates are as high as 190,000 unfilled jobs in the information 
technology industry alone. But it isn't just the high-tech industry 
that needs workers with high-tech skills. All industries now need 
workers with computer literacy, including what we might consider 
``lower-tech'' manufacturing and services such as auto repair shops.
  In the long-term, we need to improve our students' education in the 
math and sciences and attract more students into these areas. 
Universities need to attract more college students into scientific, 
engineering, and technical fields. Ultimately, a large part of the 
responsibility will lie with industry to attract workers into these 
careers by creating attractive career paths and financial rewards that 
can compete for the best students.
  In the short term, high-tech industry would like to raise H1-B visa 
caps. But we need to do something more than let foreign workers fill 
the gap in high-tech workers that now exists. We need to train our 
workforce with skills that fit industry's needs today. Industry must be 
a large part of the solution. Only with industry leading the skills 
training can we be sure that workers are being trained for jobs that 
actually exist. That is why this bill creates an industry-drive 
training program.
  Why does the federal government need to be involved? Because industry 
does not normally cooperate in training workers. Small companies, and 
90% of firms in the United States are small businesses, don't have the 
resources to invest in lengthy training. Larger companies used to 
provide training programs, but in the high-tech field, workers move 
quickly from one job to another chasing higher salaries. Many companies 
are reticent to invest in long-term training for employees that may 
quickly move on. Cooperation within an industry provides a solution to 
this problem.
  The government's role in this bill would be to provide the catalyst 
to bring the companies together to cooperate on training. The federal 
funds are matched dollar for dollar by, first, funds from the state 
and, second, funds from a consortium of 10 or more companies. The 
federal funds are meant only to start the process--federal funding ends 
after three years--and then the states and industry continue the 
cooperative training programs alone.
  Let me give you an example from my home state: Connecticut. A recent 
report prepared by Connecticut's Industry Cluster Advisory Board found 
that:

     . . . the demand for skilled manufacturing workers far 
     exceeds the number of students graduating from manufacturing 
     programs.'' There is a ``negative perception of manufacturing 
     as a career choice.'' People ``still think of manufacturing 
     as a dirty, low-paying environment with no hope for 
     advancement. Today, manufacturing is clean, and typically a 
     computer-based environment which pays an average annual wage 
     in the $30,000 range or more with appropriate skills and 
     training.''

  The report continues:

       Substantial investment in training is necessary for 
     companies to compete in this new environment. However, since 
     most precision manufacturing companies are small businesses--
     of the 750 in the Hartford region only 7.4% have more than 
     100 employees--companies that are dependent upon their 
     skilled workers for success are not prepared to support 
     worker training.

  The report says further:

       While Connecticut has a wealth of public technical training 
     resources, these traditional programs cannot meet the current 
     demand fast enough and do not have a direct link from 
     training to employment.

  By stimulating industry-led training, we can guarantee a direct link 
from training to employment that is missing is traditional public 
sector training programs. In addition, most public sector training 
programs are focused on unemployed, dislocated, or disadvantaged 
workers. This program is open to all workers, including incumbent 
workers who want to improve their skills and increase their 
opportunities for higher wages and advancement. Further, this program 
is specifically created to allow participation by small and medium-
sized companies.
  In the last few years, a small number of regional and industry-based 
training alliances in the United States have emerged, usually in 
partnership with state and local governments and technical colleges. In 
Rhode Island, with help from the state's Human Resource Investment 
Council, plastics firms developed a skills alliance. The Wisconsin 
Regional Training Partnership, metal-working firms in conjunction with 
the AFL-CIO, set up a teaching factory to train workers. While some 
partnerships have emerged around the country, there are documented 
difficulties in fostering this kind of collective action without some 
federal backing. Without some kind of support to create alliances, 
small- and medium-sized firms just don't have the time or resources to 
collaborate with anybody on training. In fact, almost all the existing 
regional skills alliances report that they would not have been able to 
get off the ground without an independent, staffed entity to operate 
the alliance. Widespread and timely deployment of these kinds of 
partnerships is simply not likely to happen without the incentives 
established by a federal initiative. This can help create successful 
models and templates that others can replicate across the nation.
  I am proud to support the Technology Skills Partnership Act of 1998 
and urge my colleagues to join me in taking this step toward an 
immediate, short-term solution to the shortage of skilled workers in 
our country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Abraham, 
        and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 2022. A bill to provide for the improvement of interstate criminal 
justice identification, information, communications, and forensics; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________