(Senate - September 12, 1996)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S10383-S10400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office []


  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.

                           Amendment No. 5244

  (Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to gun 
free schools, and for other purposes)
  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. I send an amendment to the desk for immediate 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5244.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

       The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 


       Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that--
       ``(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, 
     is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
       ``(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the 
     interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
       ``(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate 
     commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and 
     around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 

[[Page S10384]]

       ``(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, 
     its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from 
     which they are made have considerably moved in interstate 
       ``(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, 
     ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to 
     or through certain parts of the country due to concern about 
     violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to 
     send their children to school for the same reason;
       ``(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has 
     resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our 
       ``(G) this decline in the quality of education has an 
     adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign 
     commerce of the United States;
       ``(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost 
     impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves--even 
     States, localities, and school systems that have made strong 
     efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find 
     their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or 
     inability of other States or localities to take strong 
     measures; and
       ``(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate 
     commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to 
     enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the 
     Nation's schools by enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly 
     to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise 
     affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the 
     individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a 
     school zone.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of 
     a firearm--
       ``(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
       ``(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed 
     to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or 
     a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the 
     State or political subdivision requires that, before an 
     individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement 
     authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that 
     the individual is qualified under law to receive the 
       ``(iii) that is--
       ``(I) not loaded; and
       ``(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack 
     that is on a motor vehicle;
       ``(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a 
     school in the school zone;
       ``(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract 
     entered into between a school in the school zone and the 
     individual or an employer of the individual;
       ``(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her 
     official capacity; or
       ``(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual 
     while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining 
     access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the 
     entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall 
     be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless 
     disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt 
     to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise 
     affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the 
     person knows is a school zone.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a 
       ``(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
       ``(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the 
     school zone, by an individual who is participating in the 
       ``(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract 
     entered into between a school in a school zone and the 
     individual or an employer of the individual; or
       ``(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her 
     official capacity.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
     preempting or preventing a State or local government from 
     enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as 
     provided in this subsection.''.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today's Washington Post tells the story of 
young children being shot in their own neighborhoods by feuding gangs 
who are targetting innocent bystanders. It tells us eloquently why we 
must do all that we can to keep guns out of the hands of children. And 
the most insidious form of juvenile violence is violence in our 
schoolyards. We must take this opportunity to do what we can to keep 
our school zones from becoming war zones. So I would like to offer the 
Gun Free School Zones Act as an amendment.
  The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 is a commonsense, bipartisan, 
constitutional approach to combating violence in our schools. It bars 
bringing a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, with a few commonsense 
exceptions. It modifies the Supreme Court's 1995 Lopez decision to 
ensure the law's constitutionality. So, let me make a few points.
  First, we need a Federal law. The Federal Government has a crucial 
role to play in dealing with the gun traffic that leads right into our 
classrooms. After all, how can we turn our backs on a national problem 
that we can help solve?
  The problem is national is scope. Anyone who thinks that this is a 
local problem isn't looking at the evidence. Interstate commerce is 
exactly what is causing the problem. Sometimes these guns get into 
children's hands through the efforts of nationwide gangs.
  One 14-year-old Madison, WI, gang member told the Wisconsin State 
Journal that the older leaders of his gang brought car loads of guns 
from Chicago to the younger gang members. For example, the Boston 
police recently discovered that all of the handguns being bought by 
gang members in one neighborhood came from Mississippi. The young man 
who was running guns up to Boston was arrested and shootings in the 
neighborhood dropped more than 60 percent, from 91 to 20.
  These guns have infiltrated our school system and created a national 
crisis. A Lou Harris survey this year found that one in eight youths--
two in five in high crime neighborhoods--reported having carried a gun 
for protection. One in nine said they had stayed away from school 
because of fear of violence. That number jumped to one in three in 
high-crime neighborhoods.
  Although State laws can help address this national problem, not every 
State has a law. And not every State law is adequately drafted to do 
the job. Moreover, in many of these States, people do not serve any 
time for violating the law. In Federal cases, they do. With a Federal 
law, we can fill in loopholes and put violators behind bars for up to 5 
years. In short, the Gun Free School Zones Act gives prosecutors the 
flexibility to bring violators to justice under either State or Federal 
statutes, whichever is appropriate--or tougher.
  No one claims that our legislation is a panacea. No one claims that 
the violence will go away if we pass it, just as the violence did not 
go away when the original law was passed. But a Federal law can help. 
The Federal Government can step in and assist State prosecutors when 
they do not have the resources they need. The Federal Government can 
take on particularly bad offenders who will receive stiffer penalties 
in a Federal prosecution. And this measure has bipartisan support: The 
underlying bill is cosponsored by Senators Specter, Chafee, Simon, 
Kennedy, Kerry, Kerrey, and others.
  Finally, the new act addresses the constitutional concerns of the 
Supreme Court which struck down the original Gun Free School Zones Act 
last year. What we have done to ensure this result is simple and 
sufficient: In every prosecution under the act, the Government will now 
have to prove that the gun traveled in or affected interstate commerce. 
This very provision was suggested by language in Chief Justice 
Rehnquist's majority opinion. And the vast majority of constitutional 
scholars agree that this new bill complies with the Supreme Court.
  In conclusion, it does not make much sense to treat a modest and 
sensible proposal as a major threat to the Federal-State balance. Our 
founding fathers were concerned with commonsense, not with alarmist 
predictions about the fate of Federal-State relations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my extended remarks be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Extended Remarks of Senator Herb Kohl on the Gun Free School Zones 

       The problem of school violence is a national one that begs 
     for national attention. Anyone who argues that the problem is 
     an exclusively intrastate problem is not looking at the 
     evidence. Interstate commerce is creating this problem.
       The unchecked proliferation of guns and their delivery into 
     the hands of school-aged children is national in scope. The 
     raw materials for guns are mined in one state, are turned 
     into guns in another state, and are put into a child's hands 
     in another state. The gangs that arm these children and 
     encourage them to bring guns to school operate across state 
       The effects of guns in schools stretches across this 
     nation. Schools and districts with particularly bad gun 
     problems sink deeper and deeper into despair. They have 
     difficulty procuring Federal aid or grants from national 
     foundations. People will not move from out-of-state to that 
     school area because they do not want their children in 
     dangerous schools. Businesses will not relocate or establish 
     themselves in areas with dangerous school zones.

[[Page S10385]]

       Finally, and perhaps most tragically, the children in those 
     schools are prevented from learning their ABC's. All they 
     learn is to live in terror. Children from Maine to Wisconsin 
     to Alabama to Oregon go to school in fear--fear that they may 
     be shot, that their teacher may be terrorized by a gun-
     wielding student, that their school day will consist of 
     nothing but dodging from one perilously dangerous situation 
     to another. These children cannot learn and the educational 
     system cannot teach. Our national economy is crippled.
       The Federal Government has a role to play in combatting 
     this national problem. We must put the full weight and 
     investigative abilities of the Federal Government behind the 
     drive to keep guns out of school. No state should be forced 
     to stand alone in confronting this problem.
       Although many states have their own laws, we need a Federal 
     law for two reasons: first, many of these State laws are 
     inadequate; and second, a Federal law will serve as a 
     critical support and back-up system for state law enforcement 
       But before dealing with these reasons, I want to point out 
     that the amendment we have introduced today will not hamper, 
     preempt or harm the enforcement of those laws in any way 
       However, about 5 to 10 states do not have laws which deal 
     with guns in schoolyards.
       In addition, of the forty plus states that have laws, 
     almost half of them simply make it a misdemeanor to bring a 
     gun into school. Unfortunately, that has almost no effect on 
     a juvenile who knows that a juvenile misdemeanor record is 
     virtually meaningless. A stiff Federal penalty means a lot 
       Some of the states also have weaker laws. Take, for 
     example, Alabama. Alabama requires that the person charged 
     have brought the gun to school with ``intent to do bodily 
     harm.'' So you can bring a gun to school, disrupt and 
     frighten all of the students but still get off because you 
     did not intend to actually shoot anyone. That is 
     unacceptable. Alabama's statute also only applies to guns on 
     public school grounds. Private schools are uncovered, so 
     anyone can walk into a parochial or private school with a gun 
     and without a fear of prosecution.
       And there is still another reason why a federal law is 
     needed. We need federal and state cooperation to deal with 
     this problem. The states need our help. Sometimes they are 
     overwhelmed and need backup. Other times, they want to use 
     stiffer Federal penalties. This Gun-Free School Zones Act 
     will not preempt a single state law. And after decades of 
     dealing with complementary Federal-State laws, good State and 
     Federal prosecutors know how to coordinate their efforts--and 
     Federal prosecutors know to step aside when the state has a 
     stiffer law. Just ask Bob Wortham, the former Texas U.S. 
     Attorney nominated by Senator Gramm. Wortham prosecuted 
     more people under the Gun-Free School Zones Act than 
     anyone else. And he did it while getting rave reviews from 
     state police, prosecutors, and teachers. This Act is a 
     modest but useful measure that surely cannot threaten our 
     State governments.
       You will not hear state officials complaining about 
     meddling federal officials. Instead, state officials welcome 
     federal assistance in this area.
       The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 assures a Federal-
     State joint venture.
       This amendment is clearly constitutional. Our original Gun 
     Free School Zones Act was struck down as unconstitutional in 
     United States versus Lopez. In drafting this amendment, we 
     consulted with the Justice Department and a variety of legal 
     experts who carefully scrutinized this bill and concluded it 
     would easily pass the Lopez test.
       In fact, the very provision that has been inserted into the 
     bill to make it constitutional was suggested by a section in 
     the Chief Justice's opinion in Lopez. In a portion of that 
     opinion, the Chief Justice noted that if the law 
     ``contain[ed] . . . [a] jurisdictional element which would 
     ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm 
     possession in question affects interstate commerce,'' then 
     the law would probably be constitutional.
       By requiring an ``explicit connection with or effect on 
     interstate commerce'' Congress will be clearly regulating 
     interstate commerce pursuant to its constitutional Commerce 
     Clause power. And the fact is that guns in schools are an 
     interstate commerce problem. There are many known instances 
     of gangs travelling to other states to equip themselves with 
     guns which they then bring into schools. That is what this 
     bill seeks to regulate: the travel of guns through interstate 
     commerce to our schoolhouse steps.
       This measure does not, as some opponents have argued pave 
     the way to federal regulation of state education. I firmly 
     believe that education is first and last the business of the 
     state governments. And this law does not get the Federal 
     Government in the business of regulating schools. It simply 
     gets the government in the business of controlling the 
     interstate commerce in guns. Since this bill rests on the 
     Federal Government's power to regulate interstate gun 
     commerce, I do not believe it could be used to justify 
     Federal regulation of state education.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor 
of the Gun Free School Zones amendment offered by Senator Kohl, which 
is critical to protecting the sanctity of our schools and the safety of 
our students.
  Mr. President, each day, an estimated 135,000 students pack a gun 
with their books on their way to school. In 1990, the Centers for 
Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30-day 
period. Three years later, that figure was 1 in 12.
  At a time when guns are becoming increasingly prevalent on 
neighborhood streets, we cannot simply stand by and allow our 
playgrounds to become battlegrounds. We cannot expect our students to 
thrive in an atmosphere where they must fear for their lives and for 
their safety.
  In 1990, Congress passed the original Gun Free School Zones Act with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. As many of my colleagues know, a 
sharply divided Supreme Court has invalidated that bill, saying that it 
exceeded congressional power.
  I personally disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, and signed an 
amicus brief supporting the law's validity. But that is not the issue 
before us today. Today, the issue is the safety of our children.
  This amendment ensures the constitutionality of the Gun Free School 
Zones Act by requiring the prosecutor to prove as part of each 
prosecution that the gun moved in, or affected, interstate commerce. 
That provision will place only a small burden on prosecutors and will 
ensure our power to keep America's schools safe.
  Mr. President, this legislation has the support of the law 
enforcement and education communities. It has been endorsed by the 
National Education Association, the American Association of School 
Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the National 
Association of Elementary School Principals and the American Academy of 
  Is this legislation a panacea, Mr. President? Of course, not. 
However, it is a worthwhile effort to keep our children away from the 
dangers of guns and violence.
  Mr. President, the National Rifle Association likes to say that guns 
do not kill; people do. But the gun statistics I have seen belie their 
contentions. Firearms kill more teenagers than cancer, heart disease, 
AIDS, and natural diseases combined. Guns are now the leading cause of 
death for both white and black teenage boys.
  We need to fight back the wave of gun violence that is overtaking our 
streets and neighborhoods once and for all. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important amendment and to help protect our children and 
our teachers from gun violence.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this is a very good amendment, a change in 
the law that is needed as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision. 
I support the amendment fully.
  If the Senator wants to request the yeas and nays we can move 
immediately to a rollcall vote.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I add Senator Biden as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. I would like a rollcall vote, and I ask for the yeas and 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                           Amendment No. 5295

    (Purpose: To provide for the rescheduling of flunitrazepam into 
 schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, and for other purposes.)

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment 5295 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5295.

  Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page S10386]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:


       Notwithstanding sections 201 and 202 (a) and (b) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811, 812 (a), (b)), 
     respecting the scheduling of controlled substances, the 
     Attorney General shall, by order--
       (1) transfer flunitrazepam from schedule IV of such Act to 
     schedule I of such Act; and
       (2) add ketamine hydrochloride to schedule II of such Act.

                   TO FACILITATE A FELONY.

       (a) In General.--The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     100 et. seq.) is amended by adding at the end of part D the 
     following new section:

  ``penalty for administering a controlled substance to facilitate a 

       ``Sec. 423. Whoever administers a controlled substance to a 
     person without that person's knowledge for the purpose of 
     facilitating the commission or attempted commission of a 
     felony under Federal or State law shall, in addition to any 
     other penalty imposed, be imprisoned for up to 10 years, 
     fined as provided under title 18, United States Code, or 
       (b) Federal and State Coordination.--The United States 
     Attorney shall coordinate the prosecution of any defendant 
     charged with an offense under section 423 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act with State and local law enforcement agencies.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part D 
     of the Controlled Substances Act is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 422 the following new 
``Sec. 423. Penalty for administering a controlled substance to 
              facilitate a felony.''

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me get right to the point. What I am 
attempting to do here, so I do not confuse my colleagues who do not 
have the opportunity or requirement to deal with the drug issue as much 
as I do, I am attempting to change the schedule--that is the term of 
art--of these two particular drugs, Rohypnol, and another drug which is 
referred to as ``Special K,'' and I will get into this in a minute.
  They are now the lowest classified drug that you are not able to use. 
I want to move them up into the highest classification, which make them 
a schedule 1 drug, the most dangerous drugs that are out there. When 
you change the schedule, you change all the resources of the Government 
as to how much attention they pay to the illicit use of these drugs.
  Now, the best time, Mr. President, to target a new drug which is 
coming on to the scene is at the front end. For example, I remember 
Senator Moynihan in the early 1980's standing on the floor of the 
Senate and saying, ``Hey, look, there is a new drug called crack 
cocaine.'' It had not been around before. ``There is a new drug called 
crack cocaine that is being used heavily in the Bahamas. We are 
beginning to see it being imported in New York. We really should set a 
priority to deal with that drug.''
  Now, that is one of the whole purposes for drug strategy: You pick 
priorities and say, ``Look, we will focus on this drug or that drug.'' 
I know the Presiding Officer knows what happened. He knew in Utah long 
before they found out in Iowa, and they have not found out yet in 
Delaware, but they knew before him in California about a thing called 
methamph- etamines--``meth.'' What most people do not know, but the 
distinguished Presiding Officer knows, is that there are more drive-by 
shootings in Salt Lake City than any other major city in the country--
one of finest cities, lowest crime rates in the country.
  What happened? Along came this drug called ``ice,'' or 
methamphetamine. It is a drug that is manufactured, that has properties 
that are similar in effect and that are more intense than cocaine. All 
of a sudden, the gangs that were manufacturing this synthetic drug, the 
Bloods and Crips in Southern California--things got too hot for them 
there, so they literally moved to Utah. Then things got too hot for 
them in Utah, and they moved up into Montana and Idaho. Now they have 
moved, literally, into Iowa, which is a major producing State now.
  So what is happening then? It is like a wave. See, ``ice'' started in 
Hawaii, and we had notice of it. I have been hollering about it for 6 
years now. But we did not focus on it. We always wait until the wave 
hits us before we focus on it. Then it hit California, and literally, 
you could see it working its way across America.
  Now, the reason I bother to say that is that when we have moved 
before an abuse of a particular drug has overwhelmed our communities, 
we have been successful. The advantages of moving early are clear. 
There are fewer pushers trafficking in that drug, and, most important, 
there are fewer dependencies, fewer people dependent on the drug, so 
there are fewer people needing to go out and push the drug they are 
dependent on to make the money to consume the drug. Literally, we can 
get it before the networks are in place.
  There are organized networks, and there are networks that come about 
as a consequence of the consumption, because the people consuming need 
to make money to continue to consume their drugs. So what do they do? 
They make a deal with their pusher and say, ``I will get you two more 
customers.'' It is kind of like the old pyramid scheme. But the problem 
is, once the pyramid has been built, we play heck with trying to break 
it up at that point.
  So today, we are tracking the arrival of two new drugs, Rohypnol, and 
a drug called ``Special K''--I will get into that in a moment--as they 
begin their slow popularity across the country and begin to show 
extreme popularity in several States. So today--now--is the time to act 
on trying to snuff them out before they become too popular.
  There is a heightened urgency because of one stark fact. These new 
drugs--the one with the slang name ``Special K,'' which is an animal 
tranquilizer, I might add, and Rohypnol, which is a different drug--are 
being used primarily by our children. Now, all of a sudden, everyone 
from the administration to the Republican-controlled Congress, 
including Democrats in the Congress, has discovered that drug use among 
youth is up.
  I came to the floor of the U.S. Senate a year and a half ago and laid 
out the facts, figures, numbers, and even wrote a report that you all 
got stuck on your desk. Understandably, like most reports, none of us 
read them. In the report, I start off saying, ``Our Nation has already 
seen the first signs of a trend that chills every parent--a rising drug 
use among young children. This is the proper focus of our national 
crime debate in the months ahead.''
  That was a year and a half ago. I laid out all the reasons why it was 
there. To anybody involved in the drug problem, dealing with the drug 
issue, they are not surprised by the figures. But all of a sudden, in 
this election year, Democrats and Republicans alike have found that we 
have a problem with youth violence and a problem with drug abuse among 
our young.
  Well, I am here to tell you all again that we have an additional 
problem. We have an additional problem. There are two particular drugs 
that are gaining vast popularity among young people, and they have an 
incredibly negative effect, which I will describe in a moment, and we 
are not targeting them. They are schedule 4 drugs, which means they are 
at the bottom of the heap. They are viewed as the least dangerous of 
all the things out there. As a consequence of that, Mr. President, what 
happens is, local police don't focus on them, Federal resources don't 
focus on them, parents don't pay attention to them, nobody looks at 
them because they are the thing that is the least problematic. Well, 
these two are incredibly pernicious.
  So that is why I am calling on the Senate to pass legislation to make 
both of these drugs subject to much stricter regulation. This can be 
accomplished by moving these drugs to a different schedule under the 
Federal Controlled Substance Act. I realize that sounds bureaucratic. 
But it is a big deal, how you schedule the drug. This is not a step, I 
might add, to be taken lightly, because there is a regulatory procedure 
in place for scheduling controlled substances. Unfortunately, this 
regulatory procedure can take years to accomplish and change. It has to 
be done now. It has to be done now.
  In the past decade--to underscore my point here--Congress has taken 
legislative action by going around or over the bureaucratic procedure 
to reschedule drugs. Guess what? It has worked. In 1984, Mr. President, 
I came to the floor

[[Page S10387]]

of the Senate and I said, ``Hey, look, what I am hearing from all the 
drug experts in the country is that Quaaludes are being abused in 
proportions that we should be very worried about. They are on the verge 
of becoming an epidemic that, in fact, will impact upon young people.'' 
And so, with the help of many of my colleagues, we passed a law to make 
Quaaludes, a previously medically approved sedative, a controlled 
substance, a schedule 3 controlled substance.
  Now, Mr. President, in the decade since that legislation took effect, 
Quaalude abuse has dropped significantly. Emergency room Quaalude 
overdoses--the best way to measure abuse is by the overdoses in the 
hospital emergency rooms--are down 80 percent. It worked; they are down 
80 percent from 1984 to 1994.
  In legislation I sponsored, which was passed as part of the 1990 
Crime Control Act, steroids were reclassified as a schedule 3 
substance, scheduling them to more strict controls. I see my friend 
from Florida on the floor. He has been deeply involved in these drug 
abuse issues. He can tell you that we were hearing from every athletic 
director, we were hearing from every coach, we were hearing from 
schoolteachers, we were hearing about this incredible abuse of 
steroids. All you had to do was pick up any magazine, from Sports 
Illustrated to Time magazine, several years ago, in the late 1980's and 
early 1990's, and they are saying, ``Wow, this is a big-deal problem.'' 
It was a big-deal problem. So we rescheduled the drug. Since we 
rescheduled the drug, subjecting it to stricter regulation, the annual 
use of steroids is down 42 percent in the first 2 years after enacting 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, I just cite this to point out to the skeptics--like in 
California the referendum for the use of marijuana for medical uses--to 
the people who have given up--whether it is William Buckley, Mayor 
Schmoke, George Shultz, or whoever, who are talking about 
legalization--the reason they are giving up on that stuff is not 
because they think it is good to legalize it, but they don't think we 
can do anything about the problem. Well, we can. It is like any 
disease. It is like anything, from breast cancer to any other disease 
you can name, the earlier you detect it, the quicker you act on it 
before it spreads, the better your chances are of dealing with it.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, it is time to legislate stricter 
controls for Rohypnol and ``Special K.'' The record-high abuse rates of 
the 1970's were accompanied by a unique drug culture, signified by the 
presence of what used to be called ``club drugs.'' By a club drug, I 
mean a drug popular with youth and young adults who frequent dance 
clubs and often mix drugs with alcohol and other substances.
  Quaaludes are one of those club drugs. That is the manner in which 
they were consumed because it enhanced the high and you were very 
  Recently club drugs have made a resurgence in popularity, and they 
are now showing up in both bars and what they call ``raves.'' For some 
of you who are not as old as I am, ``raves'' are all-night dance 
marathons popular with teenagers.
  Club drugs are typified by the way they have suddenly gained 
popularity and have become a drug of choice. They have become trendy 
among youth, and often these drugs are legally manufactured, but are 
being used by youth in ways unintended by the manufacturer and 
unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration.
  Rohypnol and ``Special K'' are two of the drugs which have recently 
hit the youth scene and quickly become popular. Both of these drugs are 
very dangerous drugs whose current legal status does not reflect the 
dangers inherent in their abuse.
  Rohypnol abuse was first documented in the United States in 1993. 
Although abuse was first noted in southern Florida, in the past 2 years 
abuse has spread rapidly, and Rohypnol activity has been reported in 
more than 30 States.
  Without rapid and strong Government action, I predict that this abuse 
will continue. It will spread. Teenagers find Rohypnol an attractive 
drug for a number of reasons. Frighteningly, one of the major reasons 
that youth do not see Rohypnol as a dangerous drug is because it has 
legitimate medical use in some areas of the world, and they mistakenly 
believe that if they are taking that drug in its original packaging 
form, the manufacturer indicates that it is both safe and 
unadulterated. They think, ``Well, how can that hurt me? Why is that a 
  In addition, there are few existing means for testing and prosecuting 
youth for Rohypnol possession and intoxication. The combination of 
Rohypnol and alcohol makes it possible for a young person to feel very 
intoxicated while remaining under the legal blood-alcohol level for 
driving. That is one of the reasons for its popularity.
  In addition to gaining attention for the increasing rate of abuse, 
Rohypnol has also been the focus of another social problem, a 
particularly ugly crime: that is what is referred to as date rape. In 
fact, in many areas and in a number of newspaper accounts, Rohypnol is 
referred to as the ``date rape drug.''
  Let me explain why. This connection between Rohypnol and rape is due 
to the drug's disinhibitory effects and its likelihood of causing 
amnesia when it is taken with alcohol. Unfortunately, the amnesia 
effect is one of the reasons why many people who abuse Rohypnol are 
attracted to it. It is commonly reported that people taking Rohypnol in 
combination with alcohol typically have blackouts and memory losses 
that last 8 to 24 hours. The novelty of the blackouts attract youth, 
particularly youth who are combining drugs and alcohol.
  In addition, this has led to it being referred to as the ``forget me 
pill'' or the ``forget pill.'' Even more frightening, many of the 
people are finding the drug attractive as a way of creating blackouts 
in other people.
  So we have increasing accounts of unscrupulous males in almost every 
instance literally--back in our day you would hear the phrase, or my 
grandfather used to talk about a Mickey Finn--spiking somebody's drink. 
There is a real reward when a young man spikes a drink of a young 
woman: (a) she becomes much more uninhibited; and, (b) when he takes 
advantage of her, rapes her, has sex with her, molests her, she is 
incapable of remembering with enough specificity to prosecute him that 
he is the one. Let me give you an example.

  She will be able to remember that she has been violated. So the 
damage is done physically and psychologically. But when in a courtroom 
being asked by a cross-examining defense attorney, ``Well, tell me 
where you were exactly. Tell me what he was wearing. Tell me what room 
you were in.'' All of the things that go to credibility, she is 
incapable of remembering.
  So it has become increasingly popular to abuse young women. That is 
why they call it--not just young women, any woman. But because it is 
used in this club scene, that is the place that it is used most often.
  So the combination of a lack of inhibition and memory loss caused by 
Rohypnol mixed with alcohol makes women especially vulnerable to being 
victims of date rape by people who convince women to take Rohypnol 
while drinking, or who put the drug in the woman's drink without her 
  Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
  Mr. KERREY. We have just been notified by the majority leader that it 
is his intention to file and say no more votes past 9 o'clock, which 
means we would have, unless we are able to finish this bill up tonight 
by 9, votes on Friday.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, is there any likelihood that my colleagues 
will be willing to accept this amendment?
  Mr. KERREY. Apparently there is some Republican on this side of the 
aisle that has a problem.
  We are talking about the Rohypnol amendment?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes. Because the drug companies, the outfit that 
manufactures Rohypnol, does not like it being moved into schedule 1.
  I will take 2 more minutes to talk about Ketamine, and then I will 
yield the floor, and I am ready for a vote.
  Mr. KERREY. Are you going to need a second amendment?
  Mr. BIDEN. No. This is all in one amendment.
  So let me just briefly explain what Ketamine is. Ketamine is an 

[[Page S10388]]

tranquilizer. Ketamine is a hallucinogen that is very similar to PCP. 
It is called ``Special K.'' It has become a new, popular ``designer'' 
  Although the drug has been in existence for several years, its abuse 
has rapidly become more prevalent in recent years.
  In fact, a club in New Jersey was recently closed by police after it 
discovered teens were attending these things called ``raves'' where 
club employees distribute bottled water for the purpose of being able 
to take this drug called ``Special K.''
  In addition to seizures in New Jersey, recent newspaper articles have 
mentioned seizures in Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Arizona, 
California, and Florida. Drug trafficking experts have also cited the 
presence of ``Special K'' in Georgia and the District of Columbia and 
in my home State of Delaware.
  It is considered the successor to PCP, or ``angel dust,'' as it is 
known in the streets, due to the similarity of the two drugs' chemical 
compositions and mind-altering effects. There have also been reports of 
PCP being sold to people who think they are buying ``Special K.''
  The bottom line is that this is becoming an incredibly popular drug.
  The point I will conclude with is I say to my colleagues that by 
moving Rohypnol to schedule 1 of the Federal Controlled Substances Act 
and adding ``Special K,'' Ketamine, to schedule 2 of the act, this 
legislation will subject both drugs to tough controls, increased 
penalties for unlawful activities involving the two drugs, and it will 
increase the attention of law enforcement and direct Federal efforts 
against this.
  Mr. President, It also enhances the penalties for people who abuse 
both these drugs.
  In an attempt to cooperate as much as I can, I will yield the floor 
unless there is somebody who will argue against it.
  Mr. KERREY. Would the Senator like to have the yeas and nays?
  Mr. BIDEN. I would like to have the yeas and nays.
  I would be delighted if it could be accepted. If it can be accepted, 
I will not seek a vote.
  Mr. SHELBY. At this point we cannot.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to tell all the Members that 
have been conferring with the majority leader that he wants us to be 
out of here at 9 o'clock. There are a number of amendments. We have 
made a lot of progress. People have come over here. I know Senator 
McCain is ready to move. He has been detained somewhere else. In just a 
few minutes he will get moving. There are others who have been called 
to the floor. If we are not through at 9 o'clock--which is in 2 hours 
and 20 minutes--the majority leader has informed me and asked me to 
share with everybody that we will be in session tomorrow on this bill.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, to underscore again, we had an amendment 
earlier that Senator Kohl brought down. We were ready to vote on it. A 
Member somewhere--Lord knows where they are --said, no, we want to come 
down and speak against it. They still are not here.
  We would have accepted this amendment that Senator Biden just 
offered. We have a rollcall vote. I have a couple Members who want to 
speak against. They are not here. It is quarter to 7. It is one thing 
to say I want a chance to offer an amendment but if, for gosh sakes, 
all you want to do is speak on the amendment, put a statement in. Let 
us go to a vote. Do not tie this thing up forever just because you want 
to come and make a statement. If you are not prepared to come down to 
the floor to talk, then put in a written statement. I will put a 
written statement in for you, speak passionately for you, whatever it 
takes, but let us get to these votes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                           Amendment No. 5266

    (Purpose: To increase funding for drug interdiction efforts by 

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 5266 at the desk. I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 5266.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 22, line 14, strike ``$4,085,355,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$4,052,586,000'';
       On page 42, line 26, strike ``$103,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$135,769,000''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am aware, as I propose this amendment, 
there are I believe a couple of other speakers who wanted to come over 
and speak in opposition to the amendment. I hope they will display the 
courtesy to the managers of the bill by coming over so that we can 
complete our work by 9 o'clock this evening.
  Mr. President, this amendment would increase funding for the High-
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program by $32.7 million. That $32.7 
million is derived by cutting the tax law enforcement appropriated 
level to the amount that was passed by the House.
  Sunday's Washington Post stated:

       President Clinton signed Presidential decision Directive 
     No. 14 shifting U.S. antidrug efforts away from intercepting 
     cocaine as it passed through Mexico and the Caribbean and 
     instead attacking the drug supply at its sources in Colombia, 
     Bolivia, and Peru.
       The two policy changes marked 1993 as a watershed year in 
     the hemispheric war on drugs and now the results are in. 
     Mexico became the main gateway into the United States for 
     illegal narcotics . . . and teenage drug use in the United 
     States doubled.

  Let me repeat that, Mr. President.

       Mexico became the main gateway way into the United States 
     for illegal narcotics . . . and teenage drug use in the 
     United States doubled.

  Mr. President, the problem of teenage drug use is growing rapidly. 
According to published reports, drug use by teens in general is up 105 
percent, teenage marijuana use is up by 141 percent, and teenage 
cocaine use has risen a startling 166 percent. Clearly, something must 
be done.
  The High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program was established by 
the Antidrug Abuse Act of 1988 and provides Federal assistance to State 
and local law enforcement agencies in the areas of our Nation most 
affected by drug trafficking. This program has been very successful.
  It is clear that we must do more, much more. The fact that drug use 
among teenagers has doubled is a startling and disturbing statistic. It 
should cause us all to stop what we are doing and question our 
children's future. The facts are clear. Their future will be in 
jeopardy if the drug epidemic continues unabated.
  Rhetoric is not going to solve the problem. The President has tried 
the political approach. He gutted the drug czar's office and changed 
our Nation's drug interdiction strategy. Now that an election is 
approaching and startling facts regarding the skyrocketing use of drugs 
are in the press, the President is paying this issue lip service. This 
is not enough.
  We need action. We need to curb drug use. That is exactly what this 
amendment will do. It will fund more police on our border. It will fund 
more interdiction programs. It will fund a special project to curb the 
production and distribution of methamphetamines in the Midwest.
  According to Monday's Washington Post, the President wrote:

       In the national drug control strategy, I asked Congress to 
     be a bipartisan partner and provide the resources we need to 
     get the job done. That is why I urge you to ensure that 
     Congress fully funds my antidrug budget requests before you 
     conclude your work and return home.

  I think we should comply with the President's request. He said, ``I 
urge you to ensure that Congress fully funds my antidrug budget 
requests before you conclude your work and return home.''
  This amendment represents a good start. I admit the $32 million this 
amendment would add to our drug

[[Page S10389]]

interdiction program will not solve the problem. But it is a necessary 
first step.
  We must fund these programs. As the data demonstrates, we are clearly 
not doing enough now.
  The money to fund this increase in our drug interdiction program is 
derived by funding the IRS tax auditor section of the bill at the 
House-passed level rather than at the higher Senate amount. The House 
believes the IRS can fulfill its duties on the amount appropriated, 
especially in the auditor section. I am inclined to agree and believe 
the Senate add-on will be better spent on our drug control efforts. The 
effects of this cut have been incorporated into the bill and will not 
cause any budgetary problems.
  Mr. President, we have to act on this matter. The future of our young 
people depends on stopping our country's drug epidemic, and this 
amendment I believe is a reasonable restraint and logical first step. I 
hope it will be adopted.
  In deference to the fact we are working on a 9 o'clock time 
constraint, in deference to the fact that my colleague from Georgia, I 
believe, Senator Coverdell, is waiting here to speak, and we have other 
amendments, I will abbreviate my remarks. But the abbreviation of my 
remarks should not be interpreted as a lack of concern or a lack of 
priority that I feel about this drug problem in America.
  I happen to come from a State that cocaine is pouring through. 
Unfortunately, it is not all going through my State. A lot of it is 
stopping in Arizona. Tragically, in the poorer sections of Phoenix, AZ, 
and Tucson, AZ, and around my State the use of drugs is dramatically on 
the increase. I have met with individuals who have had personal 
experiences, residents of these areas, and they are deeply alarmed and 
deeply concerned. They blame the rise of gang activities on the 
economic aspects of the sale of drugs. They blame the deaths and 
wounding of young individuals on gang wars and gang-related activities. 
They blame a great deal of the problems that exist in their 
neighborhoods on this horrific drug problem that is going up and up and 
  I had hoped that this amendment would have been accepted. I 
understand that Senator Shelby may have a motion to table this 
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. KERREY. Sometimes brevity is the best thing to do. I must say 
initially perhaps it is pride of authorship; when you put a bill 
together yourself, you think nobody can make an improvement upon it. I 
have had a lot of experience with it, and especially in the Midwest we 
have a very serious methamphetamine problem in Nebraska.
  I just checked with the chairman's staff person on this, and I 
believe we would be prepared to accept this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  I do thank my friend from Nebraska. And I hope my friend from 
Nebraska will keep in mind its importance as they go to conference.
  I thank my friend. I am grateful to my friend from Nebraska.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Coverdell as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Nebraska. I do want to point out 
that as on many issues the Senator from Nebraska has been a leader 
against this fight in the drug war and I thank him for it.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona, [Mr. McCain] to provide an 
additional $32.7 million dollars to fight the deluge of illegal hard 
drugs into the United States. This additional funding will go to the 
High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, the purpose of which is 
to provide increased Federal assistance to the most critical drug 
trafficking areas in our country.
  This amendment is fully offset by a reduction in the Senate 
recommended IRS enforcement funding level to the level passed by the 
  Mr. President, the pending amendment is another necessary step toward 
recommitting our government and the American people to the war on 
drugs. It supplements an amendment, builds on one I offered last week 
during consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The Senate 
unanimously passed that amendment to provide an additional $20 million 
to fight drug use in public housing projects. I hope we will see that 
same level of support for the pending amendment.
  This amendment is consistent with the testimony of the experts who 
testified at the recent Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
international drug trafficking. At that hearing, over which I presided, 
two North Carolina law enforcement officers, Charlotte- Mecklenburg 
Police Dept. Sgt. Terry Sult and Sheriff B.J. Barnes of Guilford 
County, NC, along with a member of the L.A. gang known as the 
``bloods,'' described in graphic detail, the devastating effects of the 
drug trade at the local level. They also confirmed what national 
experts, such as John Walters, the deputy drug czar in the Bush 
administration, who also testified at our hearing, told us about 
changes in the distribution of drugs at the national level.

  Mr. President, these experts all spoke of the increasing influx of 
illegal narcotics, the vast majority of which are produced in South 
America, into their communities. They also addressed the violence 
associated with the drug trade and the despicable practice of employing 
ever younger children in the peddling of this poison. According to the 
DEA, much of our Nation's violent crime, particularly among juveniles, 
is linked to drug trafficking and drug use. Recent statistics have 
shown that over one-third of all violent acts and almost half of all 
homicides among juveniles are linked to drugs.
  Recent drug abuse statistics have confirmed what many of us already 
knew. Namely, that our Nation has been losing ground in the war against 
drugs. The most recent annual survey of drug use among our Nation's 
youth revealed some shocking statistics. Just two examples from the 
survey will demonstrate the enormity of the problem we now face. For 
example, the survey found:
  First, drug use by U.S. teenagers skyrocketed 105 percent between 
1992 and 1995; and
  Second cocaine use among teens increased 166 percent in the 1 year 
from 1994 to 1995.
  These statistics reflect a continued breakdown in our social fabric. 
The damage this poison inflicts is measured not merely in terms of 
dollars and cents, but more importantly, in lost and squandered lives. 
Each year, illegal drugs claim the lives of 25,000 Americans and 
devastate countless thousands of family and friends who are left 
  Mr. President, while there is no single solution to the problem of 
illegal drug use, it is abundantly clear that we must redouble our 
efforts if we are to stop the loss of yet another generation to the 
scourge of illegal drugs. The McCain amendment will focus resources on 
one of the areas that they are most urgently needed--in those cities 
and ports of entry that are most heavily impacted by drug-trafficking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5266) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Florida is here to 
offer an amendment. I wonder if he can tell me how much time he has, 
because what I would like to do is propound a unanimous-consent 
request. We have two amendments up here that are waiting for votes. We 
are waiting for Members to come down and speak. In one case, it was an 
hour ago they were on the way down here. I would like to propound a 
unanimous-consent request that we proceed to a vote on the Kohl 
amendment, a 15-minute rollcall vote on the Kohl amendment, immediately 
followed thereafter by a 15-minute vote on the Biden amendment.
  How long did the Senator want to speak?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe 15 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Kohl amendment 
vote begin at 7:20, immediately followed by the rollcall vote on the 
Biden amendment.

[[Page S10390]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have two unanimous-consent requests. 
First, that Ms. Nani Coloretti, of our office, be allowed the privilege 
of the floor during the consideration of the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. And, second, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a 
cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for a moment so I can inform 
colleagues, once again, the objection was offered for the purpose of 
allowing Senators to come over to offer a perfecting amendment on the 
Biden amendment. We have 2 hours and 5 minutes. Otherwise, we get votes 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask the pending amendments be laid aside for purposes 
of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                           Amendment No. 5245

 (Purpose: To ensure medicare beneficiaries have emergency and urgent 
care provided and paid for by establishing a definition of an emergency 
  medical condition that is based upon the prudent layperson standard)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5245.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


       (a) Access to Emergency Services.--Subparagraph (B) of 
     section 1876(c)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395mm(c)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) meet the requirements of section 3 of the Access to 
     Emergency Medical Care Act of 1995 with respect to members 
     enrolled with an organization under this section.''.
       (b) Timely Authorization for Promptly Needed Care 
     Identified as a Result of Required Screening Evaluation.--
     Section 1876(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(c)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9)(A) The organization must provide access 24 hours a 
     day, 7 days a week to individuals who are authorized to make 
     any prior authorizations required by the organization for 
     coverage of items and services (other than emergency 
     services) that a treating physician or other emergency 
     department personnel identify, pursuant to a screening 
     evaluation required under section 1867(a), as being needed 
     promptly by an individual enrolled with the organization 
     under this part.
       ``(B) The organization is deemed to have approved a request 
     for such promptly needed items and services if the physician 
     or other emergency department personnel involved--
       ``(i) has made a reasonable effort to contact an individual 
     described in subparagraph (A) for authorization to provide an 
     appropriate referral for such items and services or to 
     provide the items and services to the individual and access 
     to the person has not been provided (as required in 
     subparagraph (A)), or
       ``(ii) has requested such authorization from the person and 
     the person has not denied the authorization within 30 minutes 
     after the time the request is made.
       ``(C) Approval of a request for a prior authorization 
     determination (including a deemed approval under subparagraph 
     (B)) shall be treated as approval of a request for any items 
     and services that are required to treat the medical condition 
     identified pursuant to the required screening evaluation.
       ``(D) In this paragraph, the term `emergency services' 
       ``(i) health care items and services furnished in the 
     emergency department of a hospital (including a trauma 
     center), and
       ``(ii) ancillary services routinely available to such 

     to the extent they are required to evaluate and treat an 
     emergency medical condition (as defined in subparagraph (E)) 
     until the condition is stabilized.
       ``(E) In subparagraph (D), the term `emergency medical 
     condition' means a medical condition, the onset of which is 
     sudden, that manifests itself by symptoms of sufficient 
     severity, including severe pain, that a prudent layperson, 
     who possesses an average knowledge of health and medicine, 
     could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical 
     attention to result in--
       ``(i) placing the person's health in serious jeopardy,
       ``(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or
       ``(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.''.
       ``(F) In subparagraph (D), the term `stabilizationn' means, 
     with respect to a emergency medical condition, that no 
     material deteriorationn of the condition is likely, within 
     reasonable medical probability, to result or occur before an 
     individual can be transferred in compliance with the 
     requirements of section 1867 of the Social Security Act.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall be effective for contract years beginning on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Congress has created an anomaly, a catch-
22 situation which occurs in one of the most traumatic areas of our 
society, the hospital emergency room. The anomaly is that under the 
Federal Emergency Medical Treatment Act, physicians in hospitals which 
participate in Medicare must provide ``an appropriate medical screening 
examination to any patient who presents himself or herself in an 
emergency room without regard to insurance coverage or ability to pay. 
If the emergency condition exists, the patient must be stabilized 
before transfer or release.''
  So, the hospital which provides Medicare services is required to 
receive any persons presenting themselves to the emergency room and to 
provide initial stabilization and screening, without regard to the 
persons' ability to pay.
  Second, health maintenance organizations, which, today, provide 
Medicare services for almost 1 out of 10 Medicare beneficiaries, are 
not required to reimburse the emergency room if it performs the 
services that we have statutorily required the emergency room and its 
professional staff to perform.
  Who is affected by this anomaly? Who is caught in the catch-22 which 
we have created? Obviously, it is the Medicare beneficiaries, the 
Medicare beneficiaries who, as we have increasingly encouraged them to 
do, have signed a contract with a health maintenance organization and 
now have found that, after having gone to the emergency room, had 
services provided, finds that they are denied reimbursement and become 
financially obligated for what, in many cases, is a very substantial 
  Mr. President, I have, and I would like to offer as one of several 
items to appear immediately after my remarks, a letter from a health 
care organization in Clinton Township, MI, St. John Emergency 
Physicians. They outline an example of this instance in which a 46-
year-old female patient presented herself to their emergency room 
department. The patient was traveling in a car with her husband when 
she experienced a sudden onset of shortness of breath and collapsed. 
She was rushed to the emergency department in an ambulance.
  Despite the best efforts of the emergency room personnel, the 
patient, unfortunately, did not respond to any of the emergency 
treatment. She was pronounced dead. The cause of death was cardio-
pulmonary arrest. The patient belonged to a HMO organization. They 
refused coverage and have sent a bill of $1,200 to the widower of the 
deceased patient.
  That is illustrative of situations which relate to emergency rooms in 
  You might say this certainly is an anomaly; this is aberrant; this 
cannot be a recurring condition. In fact, presently 60 percent of all 
of the claims disputed between Medicare beneficiaries and managed care 
plans involve emergency services. Sixty percent of the disputes between 
Medicare beneficiaries and an HMO plan relate to circumstances that 
revolve around emergency room services.
  The purpose of this amendment is to resolve that dispute. We are not 
doing this for the first time. In November 1995, this Senate, by 
unanimous vote, adopted this amendment as part of the Medicare 
component of the Balanced Budget Act.
  We are not the only ones to be concerned about this. Increasingly, 
States are adopting provisions to resolve this dispute between HMO 
patients and emergency rooms. To date, Maryland, Virginia, and the 
State of Arkansas, have all adopted legislation that relates to this 
subject, and action is

[[Page S10391]]

being taken by the leaders of the industry, of the health maintenance 
organizations. Washington Health Week of August 26, 1996, states that:

       HMO patients who make emergency room visits may benefit 
     from the unlikely alliance of a leading HMO company and an 
     emergency physicians group, jointly pushing for federal 
     standards that would make it harder to deny coverage for such 
       Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and the American College of 
     Emergency Physicians are advocating standards for emergency 
     care coverage that include the controversial ``prudent 
     layperson'' standard.

  It goes on to say:

       The jointly developed standards would require managed care 
     plans to cover non-emergency services provided in an 
     emergency department if a prudent lay person would reasonably 
     think that his or her condition needed emergency treatment. 
     HMOs would have to cover medically necessary ER [emergency 
     room] services without preauthorization. Emergency MDs 
     [physicians] would have to notify the plan within 30 minutes 
     after the enrollee's condition is stabilized to obtain 
     authorization for promptly needed services. HMO's would have 
     30 minutes to respond. If the HMO and the doctor couldn't 
     agree on a post-stabilization treatment, the plan would have 
     to arrange alternative treatment.

  Mr. President, that is the essence of the amendment we have offered. 
It is an amendment which the Senate has already adopted. It is an 
amendment which is increasingly being adopted by States, not just for 
Medicare patients but for all patients who are members of a health 
maintenance organization. And it is the position that is now being 
advocated by one of the leading HMO's in the country and the College of 
Emergency Physicians.
  I recently had an experience, as I do on a monthly basis, taking a 
different job. In this case, it was working with the fire and rescue 
department of Palm Beach County, FL, in an area of the county which has 
a large number of Medicare beneficiaries in their population. I was at 
one of the fire and rescue stations which said they got as many as 40 
calls in a 24-hour period for emergencies.
  I asked them, ``What would you do, for instance, if you came to the 
home of an older person, a home of any person, who was suffering from 
chest pains?''
  Their answer was: ``Our instructions are to provide stabilization and 
immediately deliver that individual to an emergency room. We are not to 
make any independent attempts to assess what the cause of those chest 
pains may be. We rely on the reasonable judgment of this lay person 
that those chest pains would be symptomatic of a serious life-
threatening condition. We deliver that individual into the hands of 
persons who are capable of making the judgment as to whether, in fact, 
that is the circumstance.''
  Mr. President, that is the essence of this amendment. It is to use 
the standard of a prudent lay person who felt that their condition was 
such that it required emergency medical evaluation, and if that 
standard of a prudent lay person is met, then that individual should be 
eligible, or the physicians or the emergency room which provided the 
services, should be eligible for the reimbursement for the services 
which they provide.
  As I say, that is the standard the Senate has adopted. It is the 
standard increasingly States have adopted. It is the standard which the 
leaders in the health maintenance organization industry and the College 
of Emergency Physicians recommended be adopted.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment which will give peace of mind 
to millions of Americans and will help resolve the largest single 
source of contention between Medicare beneficiaries, for whom we have a 
particular responsibility, and health maintenance organizations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles and a 
letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          St. John Emergency Physicians, P.C.,

                           Clifton Township, MI, October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Spencer R. Abraham,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: As you know, the Medicare portion of 
     Budget Reconciliation is currently being debated upon the 
     Senate Floor. I write to you with an urgent request to 
     support an amendment to be offered by Senator Bob Graham of 
     Florida regarding access to emergency medical services.

                   an example of my own from michigan

       I am the Vice Chief of Emergency Medicine at St. John 
     Hospital & Medical Center in Detroit. On March 21st of this 
     year a 46 year old female presented to our emergency 
     department. The patient was traveling in a car with her 
     husband when she experienced a sudden onset of shortness of 
     breath and then collapsed. She was rushed to our emergency 
     department by ambulance. To make a sad story short, despite 
     the best efforts of my colleague and the personnel in our 
     department, the patient unfortunately did not respond to any 
     sort of emergency treatment. She was pronounced dead. Cause 
     of death was cardiopulmonary arrest. (I've attached a copy of 
     the notes from this event.)
       The patient belonged to Blue Care Network, a health 
     maintenance organization for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 
     Michigan. Blue Care Network has denied coverage for these 
     services because the services were not pre-authorized. What 
     is even more disturbing is that the patient's husband has 
     been left with a bill of over $1,200.00 during this time of 
     personal loss.
       Senator, this example speaks for itself. Even with the best 
     emergency medical transport and treatment available to us, 
     she died. There was no time to call the HMO ``gatekeeper'' to 
     get permission. There was no time for anyone to do anything 
     but to try and save this poor young woman's life. The denial 
     associated with this case is simply unbelievable.
       This is why Senator Bob Graham's amendment concerning the 
     definition of an emergency is necessary. I urge your support 
     of his effort when he offers his amendment later today or 
     tomorrow. Thank you for your consideration.

                                           James M. Fox, M.D.,

                                                       Vice Chief,
     Department of Emergency Medicine.

   HMO, Emergency Docs Join to Seek Federal Standards for ER Coverage

       HMO patients who make emergency room (ER) visits may 
     benefit from the unlikely alliance of a leading HMO company 
     and an emergency physician group jointly pushing for federal 
     standards that would make it harder to deny coverage for such 
       Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and the American College of 
     Emergency Physicians are advocating standards for emergency 
     care coverage that include the controversial ``prudent 
     layperson'' standard.
       ER coverage mandates, particularly the prudent layperson 
     language, have been a source of conflict between physicians 
     and the managed care industry.
       Kaiser, the nation's second largest HMO chain, is trying to 
     get other managed care companies to support the standards, 
     but doesn't have any takers yet. The national HMO chain broke 
     with the managed care industry on the issue because at least 
     12 states have enacted varying ER coverage mandates, and 
     compliance with a national standard would be preferable.
       The jointly developed standards would require managed care 
     plans to cover non-emergency services provided in an 
     emergency department if a prudent layperson would reasonably 
     think that his or her condition needed emergency treatment. 
     HMOs would have to cover medically necessary ER services 
     without preauthorization. Emergency MDs would have to notify 
     the plan within 30 minutes after the enrollee's condition is 
     stabilized to obtain authorization for promptly needed 
     services; HMOs would have 30 minutes to respond. If the HMO 
     and doctor couldn't agree on a post-stabilization treatment, 
     the plan would have to arrange alternate treatment.
       Rep. Ben Cardin (D-Md) introduced legislation (HR 2011), 
     with over 140 co-sponsors, that's similar to what Kaiser and 
     the emergency docs are advocating. Although it is not 
     expected to pass this year, the issue expected to reemerge in 

                [From the New York Times, July 9, 1995]

 H.M.O's Refusing Emergency Claims, Hospitals, Assert--Two Missions in 

    `managed care' groups insist they must limit costs--doctors are 

                            (By Robert Pear)

       Washington, July 8.--As enrollment in health maintenance 
     organizations soars, hospitals across the country report that 
     H.M.O.'s are increasingly denying claims for care provided in 
     hospital emergency rooms.
       Such denials create obstacles to emergency care for H.M.O. 
     patients and can leave them responsible for thousands of 
     dollars in medical bills. The denials also frustrate 
     emergency room doctors, who say the H.M.O. practices 
     discourage patients from seeking urgently needed care. But 
     for their part, H.M.O.'s say their costs would run out of 
     control if they allowed patients unlimited access to hospital 
     emergency rooms.
       How H.M.O.'s handle medical emergencies is an issue of 
     immense importance, given recent trends. Enrollment in 
     H.M.O.'s doubled in the last eight years, to 51 million, 
     partly because employers encouraged their use as a way to 
     help control costs.
       In addition, Republicans and many Democrats in Congress say 
     they want to increase the use of H.M.O.'s because they 
     believe that such prepaid health plans will slow the growth 
     of Medicare and Medicaid, the programs for the elderly and 
     the poor, which serve 73 million people at a Federal cost of 
     $267 billion this year.
       Under Federal law, a hospital must provide ``an appropriate 
     medical screening examination'' to any patient who requests 
     care in its

[[Page S10392]]

     emergency room. The hospital must also provide any treatment 
     needed to stabilize the patient's condition.
       Dr. Toni A. Mitchell, director of emergency care at Tampa 
     General Hospital in Florida, said: ``I am obligated to 
     provide the care, but the H.M.O. is not obligated to pay for 
     it. This is a new type of cost-shifting, a way for H.M.O.'s 
     to shift costs to patients, physicians and hospitals.''
       Most H.M.O.'s promise to cover emergency medical services, 
     but there is no standard definition of the term. H.M.O.'s can 
     define it narrowly and typically reserve the right to deny 
     payment if they conclude, in retrospect, that the conditions 
     treated were not emergencies. Hospitals say H.M.O.'s often 
     refuse to pay for their members in such cases, even if H.M.O. 
     doctors sent the patients to the hospital emergency rooms. 
     Hospitals then often seek payment from the patient.
       Dr. Stephan G. Lynn, director of emergency medicine at St. 
     Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan, said: ``We are 
     getting more and more refusals by H.M.O.'s to pay for care in 
     the emergency room. The problem is increasing as managed care 
     becomes a more important source of reimbursement. Managed 
     care is relatively new in New York City, but it's growing 
       H.M.O.'s emphasize regular preventive care, supervised by a 
     doctor who coordinates all the medical services that a 
     patient may need. The organizations try to reduce costs by 
     redirecting patients from hospitals to less expensive sites 
     like clinics and doctors' offices.
       The disputes over specific cases reflect a larger clash of 
     missions and cultures. An H.M.O. is the ultimate form of 
     ``managed care,'' but emergencies are, by their very nature, 
     unexpected and therefore difficult to manage. Doctors in 
     H.M.O.'s carefully weigh the need for expensive tests or 
     treatments, but in an emergency room, doctors tend to do 
     whatever they can to meet the patient's immediate needs.
       Each H.M.O. seems to have its own way of handling 
     emergencies. Large plans like Kaiser Permanente provide a 
     full range of emergency services around the clock at their 
     own clinics and hospitals. Some H.M.O.'s have nurses to 
     advise patients over the telephone. Some H.M.O. doctors take 
     phone calls from patients at night. Some leave messages on 
     phone answering machines, telling patients to go to hospital 
     emergency rooms if they cannot wait for the doctors' offices 
     to reopen.
       At the United Healthcare Corporation, which runs 21 
     H.M.O.'s serving 3.9 million people. ``It's up to the 
     physician to decide how to provide 24-hour coverage,'' said 
     Dr. Lee N. Newcomer, chief medical officer of the 
     Minneapolis-based company.
       George C. Halvorson, chairman of the Group Health 
     Association of America, a trade group for H.M.O.'s, said he 
     was not aware of any problems with emergency care. ``This is 
     totally alien to me,'' said Mr. Halvorson, who is also 
     president of Health-Partners, an H.M.O. in Minneapolis. 
     Donald B. White, a spokesman for the association, said, ``We 
     just don't have data on emergency services and how they're 
     handled by different H.M.O.'s''.
       About 3.4 million of the nation's 37 million Medicare 
     beneficiaries are in H.M.O.'s. Dr. Rodney C. Armstead, 
     director of managed care at the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, said the Government had received many 
     complaints about access to emergency services in such plans. 
     He recently sent letters to the 164 H.M.O.'s with Medicare 
     contracts, reminding them of their obligation to provide 
     emergency care.
       Alan G. Raymond, vice president of the Harvard Community 
     Health Plan, based in Brookline, Mass., said, ``Employers are 
     putting pressure on H.M.O's to reduce inappropriate use of 
     emergency services because such care is costly and episodic 
     and does not fit well with the coordinated care that H.M.O.'s 
     try to provide.''
       Dr. Charlotte S. Yeh, chief of emergency medicine at the 
     New England Medical Center, a teaching hospital in Boston, 
     said: H.M.O.'s are excellent at preventive care, regular 
     routine care. But they have not been able to cope with the 
     very unpredictable, unscheduled nature of emergency care. 
     They often insist that their members get approval before 
     going to a hospital emergency department. Getting prior 
     authorization may delay care.
       ``In some ways, it's less frustrating for us to take care 
     of homeless people than H.M.O. members. At least, we can do 
     what we think is right for them, as opposed to trying to 
     convince an H.M.O. over the phone of what's the right thing 
     to do.''
       Dr. Gary P. Young, chairman of the emergency department at 
     Highland Hospital in Oakland, Calif., said H.M.O.'s often 
     directed emergency room doctors to release patients or 
     transfer them to other hospitals before it was safe to do so. 
     ``This is happening every day,'' he said.
       The PruCare H.M.O. in the Dallas-Forth Worth area, run by 
     the Prudential Insurance Company of America, promises ``rock 
     solid health coverage,'' but the fine print of its members' 
     handbook says, ``Failure to contact the primary care 
     physician prior to emergency treatment may result in a denial 
     of payment.''
       typically, in an H.M.O., a family doctor or an internist 
     managing a patient's care serves as ``gatekeeper,'' 
     authorizing the use of specialists like cardiologists and 
     orthopedic surgeons. The H.M.O.'s send large numbers of 
     patients to selected doctors and hospitals; in return, they 
     receive discounts on fees. But emergencies are not limited to 
     times and places convenient to an H.M.O.'s list of doctors 
     and hospitals.
       H.M.O.'s say they charge lower premiums than traditional 
     insurance companies because they are more efficient. But 
     emergency room doctors say that many H.M.O.'s skimp on 
     specialty care and rely on hospital emergency rooms to 
     provide such services, especially at night and on weekends.
       Dr. David S. Davis, who works in the emergency department 
     at North Arundel Hospital in Glen Burnie, Md., said: 
     ``H.M.O.'s don't have to sign up enough doctors as long as 
     they have the emergency room as a safety net. The emergency 
     room is a backup for the H.M.O. in all it operations.'' Under 
     Maryland law, he noted, an H.M.O. must have a system to 
     provide members with access to doctors at all hours, but it 
     can meet this obligation by sending patients to hospital 
     emergency rooms.
       To illustrate the problem, doctors offer this example: A 
     57-year-old man wakes up in the middle of the night with 
     chest pains. A hospital affiliated with his H.M.O. is 50 
     minutes away, so he goes instead to a hospital just 10 blocks 
     from his home. An emergency room doctor orders several common 
     but expensive tests to determine if a heart attack has 
       The essence of the emergency physician's art is the ability 
     to identify the cause of such symptoms in a patient whom the 
     doctor has never seen. The cause could be a heart attack. But 
     it could also be indigestion, heartburn, stomach ulcers, 
     anxiety, a panic attack, a pulled muscle or any of a number 
     of other conditions.
       If the diagnostic examination and tests had not been 
     performed, the hospital and the emergency room doctors could 
     have been cited for violating Federal law.
       But in such situations, H.M.O.'s often refuse to pay the 
     hospital, on the ground that the hospital had no contract 
     with the H.M.O., the chest pain did not threaten the 
     patient's life or the patient did not get authorization to 
     use a hospital outside the H.M.O. network.
       Representative Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, 
     said he would soon introduce a bill to help solve these 
     problems. The bill would require H.M.O.'s to pay for 
     emergency medical services and would establish a uniform 
     definition of emergency based on the judgment of ``a prudent 
     lay person.'' The bill would prohibit H.M.O.'s from requiring 
     prior authorization for emergency services. A health plan 
     could be fined $10,000 for each violation and $1 million for 
     a pattern of repeated violations.
       The American College of Emergency Physicians, which 
     represents more than 15,000 doctors, has been urging Congress 
     to adopt such changes and supports the legislation.
       When H.M.O.'s deny claims filed on behalf of Medicare 
     beneficiaries, the patients have a right to appeal. The 
     appeals are heard by a private consulting concern, the 
     Network Design Group of Pittsford, N.Y., which acts as agent 
     for the Government. The appeals total 300 to 400 a month, and 
     David A. Richardson, president of the company, said that a 
     surprisingly large proportion--about half of all Medicare 
     appeals--involved disagreements over emergencies or other 
     urgent medical problems.

                 [From the Miami Herald, July 30, 1995]

                HMOs in the ER: A View From the Trenches

                         (By Paul R. Lindeman)

       I arrived for my 12-hour shift in the Emergency Department 
     at 7 p.m. As the departing physician and I went over the 
     cases of the current patients, I was told the woman in Room 2 
     was being transferred to a psychiatric facility. The patient 
     was pregnant, addicted to crack cocaine and had been assessed 
     as suicidal by a psychiatrist.
       An obstetrician was required to care for the patient during 
     her stay at the mental health facility. The only two groups 
     of practicing obstetricians who were on this woman's HMO 
     ``panel'' and on staff at this facility both refused to 
     accept this high-risk case. That left this unfortunate woman, 
     and our staff, caught in the ``never-never land'' of managed 
       When I left the Emergency Department at 7:30 the following 
     morning, she was still in Room 2. It took hospital 
     administrators and attorneys all day to arrange disposition, 
     and the patient was eventually transferred--at 6:30 that 
       Managed-care health plans typically limit choice of doctors 
     and hospitals and attempt to closely monitor services 
     provided. Their goal is to curb unnecessary tests and 
     hospitalizations to keep costs down. In the case of for-
     profit managed-care companies, the additional purpose is 
     obvious. But what happens when managed care meets the 
     emergency room?
       Federal law requires a screening exam at emergency 
     facilities, but HMOs are not required to pay. By exploiting 
     this fact, managed care is able to shift costs onto 
     hospitals, doctors and policyholders, thereby ``saving'' 
       Consider the case of a 50-year-old male who awakes at 4 
     a.m. with chest pain and goes to the hospital 10 blocks 
     away--instead of his HMO hospital an extra 30 minutes away. 
     After examination and testing, it's determined that the 
     patient is not having a heart attack and that it's safe for 
     him to go home.
       His diagnosis is submitted on a claim form with a code for 

[[Page S10393]]

       His insurance company denies payment, stating that 
     ``gastritis'' is not an emergency. As a result, the hospital 
     and the company who employs the emergency department 
     physician both bill the patient.
       While this ``retrospectoscope'' is widely employed and an 
     industry standard for denying payment, there are many other 
     ``savings'' techniques. For instance, many HMOs require 
     ``pre-authorization'' to treat a patient in the ER.
       Consider now a 60-year-old female who arrives at the 
     emergency room complaining also of chest pain. The triage 
     nurse examines the patient, obtaining a brief history and 
     vital signs. A call is placed to the insurance company and a 
     recorded message is obtained without specific instruction 
     regarding emergencies. The patient is treated but the payment 
     is denied. Reason: Authorization was never obtained.
       Here's an alternate scenario, same patient, again waiting 
     for pre-authorization. (Noncritical patients often wait for 
     more than an hour.) This time ``the insurance company'' 
     answers the phone. Reading from a list, a series of questions 
     is asked, limited almost exclusively to obtaining recorded 
     numbers. Based on these numbers, the individual speaking for 
     the company determines that it is safe for the patient to be 
     transferred to its hospital. The emergency physician 
     disagrees. The patient stays and is admitted to the hospital.
       The HMO denies payment for the ER visit and the 24-hour 
     hospitalization, stating that the patient should have been 
     transferred. Again, the patient/policyholder, who pays a 
     monthly premium for his or her insurance, is billed for all 
     hospital and physician services.
       The representative for the insurance company who decides on 
     pre-authorization can range from someone with no medical 
     background at all to another physician (albeit with a vested 
     economic incentive). Generally the level of expertise is 
     somewhere between this. Thus, the near-Orwellian scenario 
     frequently plays out whereby a doctor who has seen and 
     examined a patient is trying to convince a nurse, over the 
     telephone, that a patient is sick.
       Rudy Braccili Jr., business operations director for the 
     North Broward Hospital District, was quoted in The Herald as 
     saying. ``It's just a game they play to avoid paying, and 
     it's one of the ways they save money. They do not see the 
     realities of people who in the middle of the night come into 
     emergency rooms.'' He estimates that North District hospitals 
     have lost millions of dollars a year because of HMOs' 
     reluctance to pay bills.
       Part of the problem is that what managed-care organizations 
     are trying to do is often quite difficult: determine 
     prospectively which patients are truly deserving of 
     emergency-room care. Indeed, this may in fact be a Catch-22. 
     I know of no way to accurately discern acute appendicitis 
     from a ``tummy ache'' without a history and physical 
     examination. Furthermore, medicine does not always lend 
     itself to black and white. For instance, is a woman who 
     screams and gyrates hysterically as a result of a squirming 
     cockroach in her car an emergency?!
       Unfortunately, problems with HMOs in the ER go beyond cost 
     shifting and denial of payment. They often turn an otherwise 
     brief encounter into a harrowing ordeal. Another example from 
     ``the trenches'' is illustrative.
       Our patient this time is an 85-year-old woman with a hip 
     fracture. But instead of being admitted, her HMO mandates 
     that she be transferred across town to the emergency 
     department at another facility where they contract their 
     surgical hip repairs. The patient waits three hours for the 
     HMO ambulance service, which is ``backed up.''
       Consumers note: Had the patient not sold her Medicare 
     privileges to this HMO, she would have been admitted to our 
     hospital uneventfully in a fraction of the time required to 
     complete her managed-care sojourn.
       No matter how well trained or talented the emergency 
     physician, there are also times when she or he requires the 
     urgent services of a consultant to provide definitive care 
     for a patient (for instance, vascular and orthopedic surgeons 
     to repair a severely traumatized limb). In these cases, 
     delays in care due to managed-care bureaucracy can become a 
     legitimate hazard to the patient.
       Dr. Charlotte S. Yeh. chief of emergency medicine at the 
     New England Medical Center, has said. ``In some ways, it's 
     less frustrating for us to take care of homeless people than 
     HMO members. At least we can do what we think is right for 
     them, as opposed to trying to convince an HMO over the phone 
     of what's the right thing to do.''
       In my experience that is not an exaggeration. In the 
     emergency department, the homeless--while certainly deserving 
     of medical care--often receive better and more prompt care 
     than the HMO policyholder.
       Conventional political wisdom holds that health-care reform 
     is dead. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. 
     Reform has been taking place at breakneck speed entirely 
     independent of Washington. In the last five to 10 years, 
     managed-care companies and the private sector have changed 
     profoundly the manner in which many Americans now receive 
     their health care.
       As for-profit managed care has usurped decision-making 
     authority from physicians, so have they also diverted funds 
     from hospitals, physicians and policyholders to their own 
     CEOs and stockholders. Last year, HMO profits grew by more 
     than 15 percent with the four largest HMOs each reporting 
     more than $1 billion in profits. What Democrats and 
     Republicans alike fail to appreciate is that the allegiance 
     of managed care is to neither the patient nor the reduction 
     of the federal deficit, but to its CEOs and stockholders.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. KERREY. Does the Senator wish to request the yeas and nays?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays, unless the 
managers of the bill are prepared to accept this amendment. If they are 
so prepared, I will waive the yeas and nays. If not, I will ask for 
  Mr. SHELBY. If the Senator from Florida will yield, we have a Member 
who is on his way who wants to look at this amendment, perhaps talk on 
it. Whether we can accept it might be premature right now. If the 
Senator will just withhold that request.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to ask for the yeas and nays, 
and if this amendment is capable of being accepted, I will ask that 
request be vitiated and will accept a voice vote.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment of the 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. HATCH. It has not been adopted yet?
  Mr. KERREY. Do you want to set it aside and go to the Biden 
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside so we can return to the Biden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                Amendment No. 5315 to Amendment No. 5295

 (Purpose: To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide a penalty 
for the use of a controlled substance with the intent to commit a crime 
          of violence, including rape, and for other purposes)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr. 
     Coverdell, proposes an amendment numbered 5315 to amendment 
     No. 5295.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike all after the 1st word and insert the following:


       (a) Penalties for Distribution.--Section 401(b) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act is amended by adding at the end the 
       ``(7)(A) Whoever, with intent to commit a crime of violence 
     as defined in section 16, United States Code (including rape) 
     against an individual, violates subsection (a) by 
     distributing a controlled substance to that individual 
     without that individual's knowledge, shall be imprisoned not 
     more than 20 years and fined as provided under title 18, 
     United States Code.
       ``(B) As used in this paragraph, the term `without that 
     individual's knowledge' means that the individual is unaware 
     that a substance with the ability to alter that individual's 
     ability to appraise conduct or to decline participation in or 
     communicate unwillingness to participate in conduct is 
     administered to the individual.''.
       (b) Additional Penalties Relating to Flunitrazepam.
       (1) General penalties.--Section 401 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1)(C), by inserting ``or 1 gram of 
     flunitrazepam'' after ``I or II''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1)(D), by inserting ``or 30 
     milligrams of flunitrazepam,'' after ``schedule III,''.
       (2) Import and export penalties.--
       (A) Section 1009(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and 
     Export Act (21 U.S.C. 959(a)) is amended by inserting ``or 
     flunitrazepam'' after ``I or II''.
       (B) Section 1010(b)(3) of the Controlled Substances Import 
     and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)) is amended by inserting 
     ``or flunitrazepam'' after ``I or II,''.
       (C) Section 1010(b)(4) of the Controlled Substances Import 
     and Export Act is amended by inserting ``(except a violation 
     involving flunitrazepam)'' after ``III, IV, or V,''.
       (3) Sentencing guidelines.--The United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall amend the Sentencing Guidelines so that one 
     dosage unit of flunitrazepam shall be equivalent to

[[Page S10394]]

     one gram of marihuana for determining the offense level under 
     the Drug Quantity Table.
       (d) Increased Penalties for Unlawful Simple Possession of 
     Flunitrazepam.--Section 404(a) of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 844(a)) is amended by inserting after the 
     sentence ending with ``exceeds 1 gram.'' the following new 
     sentence: ``Notwithstanding any penalty provided in this 
     subsection, any person convicted under this subsection for 
     the possession of flunitrazepam shall be imprisoned for not 
     more than 3 years and shall be fined as otherwise provided in 
     this section.''

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is an amendment to the Biden 
amendment, both of which address a horrible problem of considerable 
concern to this body and, indeed, to everyone in this country who has 
become aware of it.
  Several months ago, law enforcement officers began to find an unusual 
phenomenon: that unscrupulous men were abusing a prescription drug to 
take advantage of women, particularly young women, by sedating them and 
raping them.
  That drug, Rohypnol--or, as it is called on the street, ``roofies''--
is a sedative marketed in literally dozens of countries.
  Rohypnol is not sold legally in the United States, nor can it be, 
because the manufacturer made the business decision that the already-
crowded market for sedatives did not warrant the considerable time and 
expense of subjecting the product to the lengthy Food and Drug 
Administration approval process.
  Rohypnol is one of the widely used class of prescription medications 
known as benzodiazepine. These Valium-like drugs are commonly used to 
treat anxiety, sleep disorders, seizure disorders, and muscle spasms. 
Rohypnol is currently approved for human use in 64 countries.
  Many of my colleagues have seen reports about the use of Rohypnol in 
date rape, during which men have apparently placed Rohypnol in their 
date's drink and then, after the drug has taken effect, proceeded with 
a sexual assault.
  In response to the growing abuse of Rohypnol, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration instituted the formal rescheduling process for this drug 
by submitting a request on April 11, 1996, to the Food and Drug 
Administration to conduct an evaluation of the scientific and medical 
issues with regard to Rohypnol. That evaluation, an appropriate 
examination of the law enforcement and the health aspects of Rohypnol 
use, is continuing and ongoing.
  In a letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala 
to me on July 24, 1996, Secretary Shalala said that the goal of the 
rescheduling process was to make Rohypnol subject to increased 
penalties for illicit use and trafficking.
  Since this particular drug has become an agent of abuse and the focus 
of considerable debate, I agree with Secretary Shalala that it is 
appropriate to increase the penalties for illegal trafficking in 
  The amendment that I have just filed accomplishes that purpose, 
without depriving 64 countries of a drug that they find to be safe and 
efficacious, a drug which we have every reason to believe would have 
been found to be safe and efficacious in this country if the company 
were willing to go through our arduous and lengthy Food and Drug 
Administration approval procedures.
  The drug comes into our country is clandestinely, generally through 
Mexico, and certainly not legally. And the company that produces 
Rohypnol has nothing to do with that.
  Mr. President, none of us are sure how many times these drug-induced 
rapes have occurred.
  As far as I am concerned, one occurrence is one too many. I find that 
situation deplorable; it is a heinous crime for someone to use any 
sedative for the purpose of date-raping a partner.
  Our amendment is a strike back at those who would use controlled 
substances to engage in the most reprehensible of crimes--that is, 
rape. That is why we need the toughened penalties for the illegal use 
of Rohypnol, which is what Senator Coverdell and I are advocating with 
this amendment.
  The approach advocated in the Biden amendment, to reschedule the drug 
to schedule I, is seriously flawed.
  My major concern is that schedule I is the most restrictive category, 
which is reserved for the drugs which have a high potential for abuse, 
drugs which have no currently accepted medical use in treatment, and 
drugs for which there is a lack of accepted safety for use under 
medical supervision. That is what a schedule I drug is.
  These standards clearly do not apply to Rohypnol, a member of the 
benzodiazepine class which generally falls within the less restrictive 
schedule IV.
  If the United States were to single out this drug and place it in 
schedule I, it would send a strong, and inappropriate, signal to other 
countries that we find there is no medical use for Rohypnol. Such a 
signal would be false.
  To reschedule Rohypnol this way simply is not right. It could 
unfairly result in the drug being rescheduled in some of the 64 other 
countries where it is not being abused as it is in the United States, 
where it is being used safely and efficaciously as a legitimate 
  Rohypnol is no different from any other drug in its class, and many 
health care professions are fearful that if this benzodiazepine were 
removed from clinical use, ultimately the others will be removed also, 
if and when they are implicated in similar crimes.
  These pharmaceuticals are some of the most beneficial drugs in some 
of the most difficult areas of medical treatment, such as mental 
  Mr. President, the more appropriate--and expeditious--alternative 
that we offer today is to impose all the penalties that apply to 
schedule I drugs to Rohypnol without rescheduling the drug.
  Specifically, our amendment would create an express violation under 
the Controlled Substances Act for unlawful distribution, with intent to 
commit a crime of violence, including rape, of a controlled substance 
to a person without that person's knowledge. The penalty will be up to 
20 years without probation, and fines will be imposed of up to $2 
million for an individual. The definition of ``crime of violence'' is 
provided in section 16 of title 18 of the United States Code.
  We believe our amendment advocates the appropriate way to solve this 
problem. It does not interfere with the safe and efficacious use of a 
drug which is approved in 64 countries, but not our own.
  I think my colleagues should agree it is not the manufacturer's fault 
that people are abusing this drug, bringing it across the border so it 
can be abused in this country in the way that Senator Biden has so ably 
explained. I deplore the situation as much as he; I just do not agree 
with his proposed solution to the problem.
  The Hatch-Coverdell amendment also provides enhanced penalties for 
manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with the intent 
to manufacture, dispense, or distribute large quantities of the drug 
flunitrazepam, marketed as Rohypnol. One gram or more of the drug will 
carry a penalty of not more than 20 years in prison and 30 milligrams a 
penalty of not more than 5 years in prison. In addition, the amendment 
extends the so-called long-arm provisions of 21 U.S.C. 959(a) to the 
unlawful manufacture and distribution of flunitrazepam outside the 
United States with the intent to import it unlawfully into this 
country. It also directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the 
sentencing guidelines so flunitrazepam will be subject to the same base 
offense level as schedule I or II depressants.
  Finally, at the request of law enforcement officials, we have added a 
new penalty for unlawful simple possession of Rohypnol. Law enforcement 
officers have indicated to me their concern that they need additional 
tools to apprehend would-be rapists before the crime is committed. 
Accordingly, the final provision provides increased penalties for 
simple possession of flunitrazepam of not more than 3 years.
  Mr. President, it has become obvious that we have a serious problem 
in this country with abuse of drugs by teenagers. While the 
overwhelming abuse of drugs by teenagers focuses on illicit drugs, the 
illegal diversion and misuse of medicines is also a growing problem in 
our country.
  And I have to say that many manufacturers are concerned that if the 
United States takes the approach advocated by the Senator from 

[[Page S10395]]

then we could end up harming many people who need benzodiazepines 
throughout the world. In other words, what my colleague is 
contemplating could end up affecting all drugs in this class of 
sedatives, drugs which are of value. And this would work to the 
detriment of patients all over this country, and indeed, all over the 
  I believe that the Federal Government must show it will not tolerate 
the use of this drug--or any drug--to facilitate rape. It is necessary 
and prudent that the Congress act, and approval of our amendment would 
be a good start.
  Mr. President, in closing, I must point out that 64 other countries 
have found this drug to be safe and efficacious. The manufacturer has 
chosen not to market it in this country because of the cost of the 
lengthy approval process at the FDA and the number of other similar 
products on the market.
  I cannot fault the manufacturer for that decision, because the drug 
approval process is too lengthy, in my estimation. Studies have shown 
approval times can extend from 10 to 15 years, at a cost of half a 
billion dollars. Approval of this drug probably would not have taken 
that long, but who knows? Of course, we will never know, because the 
manufacturer made the conscious choice not to introduce Rohypnol in the 
American market.
  The fact remains that use of these controlled substances in violent 
crimes, such as rape, ought to result in a sure-fire penalty, a penalty 
which sends the signal to would-be perpetrators that the United States 
will not tolerate such crimes. That is what our amendment does.
  If we want to do something about the misuse of this drug and other 
drugs of a similar nature, the benzodiazepines, then it seems to me 
this is the way to do it--impose tough penalties, let people know there 
are tough penalties, see a few people go to jail for years. Perhaps 
then we will find such drugs will not be abused anymore in this 
country. That is the signal we should be sending.
  So, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, because it is 
an important amendment.
  I thank my colleague from Delaware for raising this issue. He has 
been one of the principal legislators raising the issue about date 
rape. I give him a lot of credit for that.
  I give him credit for this amendment, as well, as I do my dear 
colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, who has worked very closely 
with me in formulating this amendment and bringing it to the floor 
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hatch-
Coverdell amendment. It has been an honor to work with Senator Hatch, 
with his longstanding efforts to engage the drug war.
  I point out to my colleagues in the Senate that just last week we 
discovered the first death from Rohypnol, a young teenager who 
apparently was given Rohypnol in a drink of soda, who has now lost her 
life as a result of this awful drug, and some predator yet to be 
  The Hatch amendment embraces the legislation that I introduced 
shortly after our hearing where we heard from two young American 
females who were stricken and the victims of predators with this drug 
called Rohypnol. It is important to note that Rohypnol cannot be 
detected: You cannot smell it; you cannot see it; and you cannot taste 
  The effect of our amendment is to say that anybody who uses Rohypnol 
or any other drug as a weapon, becomes a predator against someone, who 
creates a victim, will be subject to increased penalties of up to 20 
years. So this legislation, just as the Senator from Utah said, puts 
would-be abusers of this drug and would-be predators of this drug on 
notice. And, hopefully, as in the case of several other drugs in our 
history, we will be able to corral them through, in a sense, the 
warning system that this legislation creates. It creates a new Federal 
crime if you use a drug as a predator, as a weapon, against a victim.
  So I rise in support of this amendment and urge our colleagues to 
pass it. I think that the quicker we make it clear how tough we are 
going to be on Rohypnol or the date rape drug--and it is a bipartisan 
effort; Senator Biden, from Delaware, has been working on this for some 
time--the more likely we are to make it clear that it is a danger.
  The packaging and other features of this drug have made some 
teenagers almost view it as a safe drug. This stuff is a clear 
knockout. Ten minutes and you do not know what hit you. Worse yet, you 
cannot remember anywhere from 24 to 72 hours what happened. All you 
have to do is go to one hearing and hear one victim tell you what 
transpired with this awful drug in the hands of a predator, and you not 
only will be supporting this amendment, but you probably will be trying 
to think of how we can improve it and make it more effective than even 
  So, Mr. President, I do rise in support of the amendment, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

                           Amendment No. 5244

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I now ask that the Senate return to the 
Kohl amendment No. 5244.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. This 
amendment basically makes the possession of a firearm in a school a 
Federal offense. I share the concern of my colleague from Wisconsin 
about the growing problem we have about guns in schools, but I simply 
believe we cannot afford to start federalizing every offense that 
States have traditionally been called upon to handle.
  This is not only traditionally a State matter with regard to the law 
enforcement matter, it is also involving another traditional State 
matter in terms of education. So you have law enforcement with regard 
to an educational institution, two matters traditionally handled by the 
State which we are now seeking to federalize.
  One of the findings in the amendment is that States and localities in 
school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crimes 
by themselves. Even States, localities, and school systems that have 
made strong efforts to prevent and punish gun-related crimes find their 
efforts unavailing, due in part to the failure or inability of other 
States or localities to take strong measures.
  Mr. President, I do not believe that is a valid finding that this 
Congress ought to make. My understanding is that 48 States, I believe, 
have passed legislation dealing in this very area. States should be 
left to address this particular problem in ways that they see fit. They 
may be more effective on a State and local level in determining how to 
address this problem than we in Washington, DC, for example. There 
might be some States that have had inducements to inform on violators. 
Some States have gone in the direction of voluntary surrender of guns, 
with amnesty provided. Some States penalize parents for failure to 
supervise children, as my State in Tennessee has done.
  I do not believe that we should be taking an area which has 
traditionally been under the auspice of State and local government, and 
tax people at that level, and then bring the money to Washington to put 
in the hands of Federal officials to enforce these laws.
  Schools do have problems with guns. Part of it has to do with the 
breakdown in discipline. Part of it has to do with regulations that 
have been placed on schools and lawsuits that schools have been 
subjected to, making it more difficult for schools to effectively 
handle all kinds of disciplinary problems, including guns in schools. 
They have not been suffering from a lack of FBI agents going around 
schools investigating these matters. They are serious enough offenses 
of a traditional Federal nature for FBI agents to be investigating. We 
do not need this.
  This bill is very similar to a bill that Congress passed by voice 
vote in 1990, the gun-free school zone law, which made it a Federal 
offense for any person to possess a gun in a school. The Supreme Court 
ruled it unconstitutional and said it was beyond the power of Congress 
to regulate in regulating interstate commerce and held that gun 
possession is not an economic activity

[[Page S10396]]

that substantially affected interstate commerce.
  At a time when the Supreme Court is telling us that you cannot just 
have some theoretical basis, some very attenuated basis for interstate 
commerce, we once again are making an attempt at the Federal level. Of 
course, it is a very popular issue, but is an attempt at the Federal 
level to federalize another State and local matter.

  I think Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in that case is just as 
instructive today as it was back then. He said were the Federal 
Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional 
State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of 
commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of Federal 
and State authority would blur and political responsibility would 
become illusionary. I think he is absolutely right. I think that States 
and local governments need to know it is their responsibility. People 
in these communities need to know it is their responsibility and they 
cannot pass off any problem that comes down the pike to the Federal 
  This amendment would do nothing in terms of additional funding to 
rectify the problem. It would do nothing in terms of metal detectors or 
any other supervisory personnel or anything to assist any teachers, or 
anything of that nature. It would simply allow Federal agents to come 
into these schools and make a Federal crime out of this traditional 
State area and further load up our Federal dockets, which are now 
trying to stay afloat as it is.
  Mr. President, as I say, I am very sympathetic with the problem. It 
is something that we are all dealing with in one way or another. As 
chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee, we certainly spent a lot 
of time in dealing with the problem that we have among our young people 
today. Part of that has to do with schools. Part of that has to do with 
guns. But keep the responsibility where it is. Do not get so caught up 
in trying to make a point, as popular as it might be, temporarily, that 
we one by one by one federalize shoplifting or federalize illegal 
parking or whatever happens to be the rage at the moment, and we wind 
up with one system at the Federal level, Federal agents handling 
everything, and as soon as we perceive a new problem, everybody in the 
State and local level thinks of the Federal Government first.
  That is not the way we have traditionally handled these matters in 
this country. That is not the way we need to proceed in order to make 
sure we keep that separation between State and local and Federal 
Government. So at a time when so many of us are trying to move more and 
more responsibility back to the States and closer to the people who 
know how to handle it more effectively, I think it would be indeed 
ironic for us to be taking this matter, which for 200 years has been 
the responsibility of State and local government, and federalize it.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table the 
Kohl amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 72, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg.]





                             NOT VOTING--1

  The motion to table the amendment (No. 5244) was rejected.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5244) was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                           Amendment No. 5234

  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect 
to the Daschle amendment numbered 5234.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5234.

                Amendment No. 5316 to Amendment No. 5234

(Purpose: To provide for workforce flexibility for employees of certain 
                          Federal contractors)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree 
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5316 to amendment No. 5234.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add the 
       Sec.   . Workplace Flexibility for Employees of Federal 
     Contractors.--Subchapter II of chapter 61 of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall apply to contractors and employees 
     specified in section   3(a)(1) and to contractors with an 
     entity of the executive branch of the Federal Government, and 
     employees of such contractors, in the same manner, and to the 
     same extent, as such subchapter applies to agencies and 
     employees, respectively, as defined in section 6121 of title 
     5, United States Code.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity. The 
Daschle amendment No. 5234 seeks to address a disparity between the 
insurance coverage that would inure to the benefit of Federal workers 
as compared to the workers in companies that do contract business with 
the Federal Government. There are far many more disparities than the 
disparities that just relate to health insurance. As a matter of fact, 
conditions of employment are substantially different for individuals in 
the Federal Government from individuals in the private sector who do 
business with the Federal Government.
  One of the most substantial areas in which there are significant 
differences between those who work for the Federal Government and those 
who are in the private sector who contract with or provide services to 
the Federal Government is in the area of the opportunity for employees 
and employers to cooperate for work schedules which are helpful to 
families or for employees to opt to take compensatory time instead of 
to take time and a half in terms of overtime pay.
  One of the serious tensions that exists in the workplace today is the 
tension between the demands of the home environment and the demands of 
the work environment. The Federal Government addressed this a long time 
ago. We began in the late forties by having compensatory time available 
to Federal workers, and then in the 1980's, or in the late 1970's and 
into the 1980's, we began experimenting with allowing

[[Page S10397]]

cooperation between Federal workers and their employers to provide for 
flexible time arrangements for work, so that in the Federal Government, 
at the option of the worker, you can work a little more than 40 hours 
in 1 week in order to take some time off the next week, or vice versa.
  The idea is that if your daughter, for example, is getting an award 
at the high school sometime on a Friday afternoon, you can say to your 
employer, ``If I can make up the time on Monday, will that be 
allowable?'' And with that 80-hour work frame instead of the 40-hour 
work frame, that is something that can be done. It is achievable.
  The Daschle amendment really seeks to provide an equity between those 
who work in the Federal Government and those who do Federal-type 
responsibilities but are working in the private area. It does so in the 
area of health care. My second-degree amendment is to take that 
philosophy and extend it to other benefits, benefits that help both the 
worker and the employer in a special way.
  The GAO, for example, has studied the situation at the Federal level 
and found that the flex time opportunities and the compensatory time 
opportunities that are available to workers under the Federal system 
have resulted in substantial work satisfaction among Federal workers in 
this respect. The satisfaction was attendant by higher productivity, 
and the satisfaction resulted in a greater return on the resource that 
was devoted; on the tax dollars that were being spent, we received more 
for our money.
  If that works for Federal workers in the setting of their Federal 
employment, I think it should work for the private workers who are 
working side by side frequently with the Federal employees on jobs, 
doing contracts frequently in the same work setting and the same work 
environment. Yet, we have a different set of work rules. And if the 
thrust and effect of the Daschle amendment would be to extend benefits 
that are consistent with the Federal job site to those who are working 
in conjunction with the Federal job site vis-a-vis health, it seems to 
me it is more than reasonable to say those things that would enhance 
the productivity, those things that would increase the capacity of the 
contractor to work effectively to fulfill his or her contract with the 
Federal Government is important, as well.

  In my office recently I received a letter from a contractor who works 
with the Federal Government, and he complains that his employees work 
side by side with Federal Government employees and there is an ability 
on the part of the Federal employees to accumulate comp time and to use 
comp time instead of overtime because they want to spend time with 
their families rather than increase their earnings, for example, and 
that there are flex time opportunities for the Federal employees, but 
his employees who work right alongside them in the same work 
environment are subjected to a different set of work rules, a different 
set of benefits.
  It simply does not make sense to have this duplicity in the 
workplace, especially when we have had the transition in the way people 
accommodate work and home life. If you will look, 35 years ago when the 
labor relations laws of this country were created, only 18.6 percent of 
married women with a spouse present and children under 6 years of age 
were in the labor force. By 1990, nearly 60 percent of such women were 
in the labor force.
  A 1985 survey of the Federal employees participating with Federal 
work schedules found 72 percent said they had more flexibility to spend 
time with their families; 74 percent said the schedules improved their 
morale. It seems to me that if these are benefits to being involved in 
the workplace and the thrust of the amendment is to extend the benefits 
similar to those that would have been earned in the Federal workplace 
to those who are contracting with the Federal Government, we ought to 
extend these flexible work time benefits, these compensatory time 
benefits, the potential of compressed workweek benefits that have been 
a part of the Federal Government for years now.
  It is not that these are just something new to the Federal 
Government. In the late 1970's an experiment was begun and that 
experiment, or pilot project, was renewed over and over again until the 
mid-1980's, when it was decided that the program was simply so 
successful that it should be extended to Federal employees generally. 
So that in the mid-1980's, the Federal Government employees were 
accorded, on a broad scale, this benefit. Some in the executive branch 
were not accorded the benefit. And just 2 or 3 years ago, President 
Clinton, in an Executive order, extended these benefits to other 
Federal employees, recognizing their value to the employees in terms of 
the ability of employees to work effectively on their jobs and 
accommodate the needs of their families and recognizing the value of 
these rules to the Government.
  It occurs to me the extension of these rules to those who contract 
with the Government, both the executive and legislative branches, is 
the better part of wisdom. We have seen these rules work very 
effectively for the achievement of governmental objectives. And when we 
are talking about individuals who are licensed or contracting with the 
Federal Government, it seems to me, in the achievement of those 
objectives for the Federal Government, these work rules ought to apply. 
It is in that respect that I have submitted this amendment and I 
believe it ought to be acted upon favorably by the Senate.
  Favorable action here says to the work force of America: We respect 
the kind of tension you feel between work and home. We will help you 
accommodate those tensions as well as you can. And that will result in 
greater productivity, in more being done because the workers have 
higher morale and better capacity under this kind of situation. It is 
with that in mind I offer this second-degree amendment to the Daschle 
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield? If my colleague will yield, I 
just got the amendment. I have been trying to get the amendment. Does 
this apply to Federal workers only or does this apply to the entire 
work force?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. As I think my colleague from Illinois knows, I would 
like to apply this to the work force generally, but this applies to 
companies doing business with the U.S. Government, in a sense as a part 
of being consistent with the underlying amendment which sought to 
extend benefits, in the Daschle amendment, to those who are doing 
business with the Federal Government and had a relationship that 
provided a basis for a comparison of health care benefits.
  Mr. SIMON. I do not know whether I am for or against his amendment 
now. If we can avoid voting for a little while, while we consult with 
some people on this, I would appreciate it.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I asked for the yeas and nays, but I have no objection 
to the vote not being taken immediately. I have no objection to a pause 
between the yeas and nays being ordered and the vote being taken.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in line with what the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri just said, I ask unanimous consent this temporarily be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The amendment to the 
amendment will be temporarily set aside.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I support the Regulatory Accounting 
amendment offered by Senator Stevens. Senator Levin and I have worked 
with our Governmental Affairs Committee chairman, Senator Stevens, to 
refine the language since it was initially added to the Treasury, 
Postal appropriations bill. While I have reservations about legislating 
on appropriations, the result of our collaborative effort is a bi-
partisan amendment that should be supported. It will provide one 
significant step towards regulatory reform, a goal to which I continue 
to be committed.
  Government regulation has proven an important element in our Nation's 
effort to protect public health and safety, restore our natural 
environment, and provide for the welfare of the American people. I 
believe, however, that our Government often relies too

[[Page S10398]]

heavily on regulation, for example, without considering costs that can 
significantly burden businesses, State and local governments, or 
  Our task in regulatory reform is to address the excesses and 
weaknesses of our regulatory system without undermining the protections 
it has provided. As I said many times during the regulatory reform 
debate of this Congress, true regulatory reform must strike a balance 
between the public's concern over too much government and the public's 
strong support for regulations to protect the environment, public 
health and safety.
  A necessary element of true regulatory reform is the development of 
objective information on which to base and question regulatory 
decisions. The amendment before us today should assist in this regard.
  The proposal for an estimate of the costs and benefits of all Federal 
regulation was first made this Congress in our bipartisan Governmental 
Affairs Committee regulatory reform bill (S. 291). It was also in 
subsequent bills. A modified version was most recently added to the 
Treasury, Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756) during the Senate 
Appropriations Committee markup. Senator Stevens' floor amendment--
amendment No. 5226--refines that language, revising section 645 of H.R. 
3756. The revised language reflects a collaborative effort by Senator 
Stevens, Senator Levin, and me to craft a practical requirement for a 
useful report on Federal regulation.
  Under the amendment, OMB will compile in a one-time report existing 
analyses and estimates of regulatory costs and benefits, both in terms 
of estimates of the total annual costs and benefits of all Federal 
regulation and in terms of specific major rules--these would be the 
significant rules that have gone through OMB regulatory review with a 
cost/benefit analysis. OMB will also provide a discussion of those 
costs and benefits as direct and indirect impacts on sectors of our 
Nation. This assessment should encompass not only various estimates of 
impacts, but also alternative approaches to making such estimates.
  In each of these steps, OMB will not have to engage in extensive 
analyses of its own, but rather is expected to use existing 
information. The sponsors of this amendment are aware of OMB's resource 
constraints and intend that the report be based on a compilation of 
existing information, rather than new analysis. OMB should insure, of 
course, that all considerations of costs and benefits take into account 
relevant quantifiable and nonquantifiable impacts. For example, 
visibility over the Grand Canyon is important to our country, yet is 
difficult to value as an economic benefit. Thus, to be useful in 
regulatory decisionmaking, cost/benefit analyses must be able to 
address both quantifiable and nonquantifiable impacts.
  Finally, the amendment requires OMB to provide recommendations for 
reforming existing regulatory programs along with a description of 
significant public comments made on its report before submission to 
Congress. The recommendations for reform should include programs that 
should be eliminated or altered because, for example, they are too 
burdensome or are obsolete, as well as programs that should be 
strengthened to more effectively implement public policy.
  While the study of regulatory costs and benefits is far from an exact 
science, and definitely does not provide the detail or accuracy of 
financial accounting, it is an area of study in which we do need to 
develop more widely accepted measures and methodologies. The OMB report 
should highlight areas in which analysis is clear and productive and 
those areas in which more work is needed to refine analytic techniques. 
It should also suggest approaches for analyzing non-quantitative 
impacts and for integrating them with economic analyses. In these ways, 
the OMB report should provide an important service by informing 
agencies, Congress, and the public about evaluating the costs and 
benefits of Federal regulation.

                         regulatory accounting

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the managers of the bill have accepted an 
amendment by Senator Stevens which would require the Office of 
Management and Budget to submit, no later than September 30, 1997, a 
report to Congress that provides estimates of the total costs of 
Federal regulatory programs currently in place. I have agreed to 
support this amendment because of a number of changes Senator Stevens 
was willing to make to the amendment.
  As many of us know, there are several figures that are routinely used 
to decry the cost of regulation. Some reference a study that say 
regulation costs each of us $6,000 a year. Others reference studies 
that say the total cost of regulation is some $600 billion. These 
numbers are bandied about in an effort to drive home the message that 
regulation is expensive and to push for legislation to limit 
  Senator Glenn recently had GAO look at one of these studies to 
determine whether it used appropriate and reasonable methods. The GAO 
analysis was critical of the private study and highlighted several 
points at which the assumptions used were inappropriate or highly 
  Robert Hahn, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, 
issued a report earlier this year in which he attempted to ascertain 
whether Federal regulation results in net benefits. Mr. Hahn concluded 
that, taken in aggregate, the net benefits from Federal environmental, 
health and safety regulations from 1990-1995 are $280 billion. This 
figure is calculated as total benefits minus total costs.
  However, when Mr. Hahn examined individual regulations, he found that 
less than 50 percent do not pass a cost-benefit test (total benefits 
less total costs). But since most of those regulations giving net costs 
were in the $0-10 billion dollar range, while most of those giving net 
benefits were in the $10-100 billion range, in the aggregate the 
regulations give a large net benefit.
  This finding suggests that any aggregate number may not be as useful 
in understanding the quality of our Federal regulatory programs as 
analysis of each individual program. For example, Mr. Hahn found that 
safety regulations pass cost-benefit analyses more often than health 
regulations and that the Clean Air Act regulations give significantly 
larger benefits than any other program.
  This amendment would ask the Office of Management and Budget to come 
up with its best estimate of not only the costs of our Federal 
regulatory programs, but also the benefits of such programs. It would 
put to use the best information the Federal agencies have about the 
impact of the various Federal regulatory programs.

  The amendment does not, and this is why I am able to support it, does 
not require OMB to conduct new studies or analyses or develop new data 
or information. That would be a time-consuming, and expensive use of 
taxpayer money. Better that the OMB staff use its time and money to 
help make new regulations follow the dictates of common sense and be 
cost-effective regulations.
  No, this amendment simply directs OMB to put together the already 
available information that it has on existing Federal regulatory 
programs and use that to estimate the total annual costs and benefits 
of each. If information is unavailable, or such estimates are not 
possible, then the OMB should tell us in the report what is not 
available and why and describe the extent to which the OMB estimates 
are or are not reliable.
  In doing his analysis, Mr. Hahn found that if cost-benefit analysis 
is to play a greater role in agency rule making, the quality of the 
analysis should be improved dramatically. Changes that he thinks would 
improve the quality of analysis include: standardizing and summarizing 
key economic assumptions; using best estimates and appropriate ranges 
to reflect uncertainty; and introducing peer review of the analyses and 
putting more weight on peer-reviewed scholarship. He recommends that 
OMB develop a standard format for presenting results in a clear and 
succinct manner. The report required by this amendment could be helpful 
in achieving that goal.
  Mr. President, in a way, this is an experiment to see what we already 
have available to us, if it were put together in a useable format. It 
is a one-time only report which we can then use to determine the 
utility of continuing the requirement.
  The report by OMB is also to include the estimates of the costs and 
benefits of the major rules that are in effect, an

[[Page S10399]]

assessment of the direct and indirect impacts of Federal rules on both 
the public and private sector, and any recommendations from OMB about 
revising a Federal regulatory program to make it more effective or 
efficient. Reporting on the costs and benefits of major rules is 
expected to require no more than reporting, in an organized and 
readable manner, the cost-benefit analyses of the major rules in effect 
that were already done prior to promulgation. To the extent there is 
up-dated information that would change the estimates in those analyses, 
such updates should be included in this part of the report if it is 
  The assessment of impacts is intended to be a narrative discussion of 
OMB's opinion on this subject. It does not require additional 
information gathering; rather, the intent, here, is that the Director 
use the information contained in the report on the costs and benefits 
of Federal regulatory programs and describe the expected impacts of 
such programs on State and local governments, business, and 
individuals. Flowing from this assessment would be any recommendations 
the Director may have to improve the existing regulatory programs.

  Mr. President, cost-benefit analysis has been at the heart of the 
regulatory reform debate for the past decade. Those who are 
knowledgeable in the field will agree that it is more art than science.
  Mr. Hahn, in the report I earlier mentioned stated, ``Despite my 
enthusiasm for cost-benefit analysis, I am leery about proposals that 
require the agency head to implement regulations solely on the basis of 
whether benefits exceed costs. Given the uncertainties in the analysis, 
we should not ask too much of the tool.''
  Precision in these analyses and assessments is far from achievable. 
But that doesn't mean they aren't useful. We shouldn't be bound by 
them, but we also shouldn't ignore them. Use of cost-benefit analysis 
in developing regulatory programs goes back to President Nixon. Each 
administration has expanded on its use. Today, such analysis is 
commonplace with respect to regulatory proposals that have a 
significant impact.
  We tried to place a requirement for cost-benefit analysis for all 
significant rules in law last year. We failed, in part, because some 
Members wanted to make the requirements for using cost-benefit analysis 
more exacting than experience has shown us they can be. I remain 
hopeful that next Congress we can reach agreement and develop a 
reasonable proposal that guarantees that solid cost-benefit analysis of 
important regulations will always be done, and that such analysis will 
be used appropriately.

                  High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, like many citizens across the country, the 
residents of Washington State have witnessed a dramatic increase in 
drug smuggling and drug abuse throughout Washington State in recent 
years. Unfortunately, these negative trends are continuing to rise, and 
for that reason, I believe that Washington State is an excellent 
candidate for designation as a high-intensity drug trafficking area 
  For example, drug addiction and abuse is a major public health 
problem. Overall, according to the latest available statistics, drug-
related emergency room visits in Washington State per 100,000 persons 
are running over 50 percent higher than the national average. Local 
authorities are also concerned by both the increased level of drug 
usage, trafficking, and gang violence associated with illicit drug 
  Moreover, the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, the Blaine border 
crossing at the international border between the United States and 
Canada, and the Yakima Valley in central Washington are gateways for 
the introduction of illegal drugs into the United States. The threats 
posed by heroin, marijuana, cocaine, hashish and methamphetamine merit 
special attention as the volume of these drugs passing through the area 
has a direct impact on other areas of the country.
  Mr. President, because I believe that Washington State should be 
designated as a high-intensity drug trafficking area does not 
automatically qualify me as an expert on national drug control policy. 
In fact, I would submit that Gen. Barry McCaffery, the new Director of 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, probably has a much better 
understanding of how different programs should be implemented to 
control drug trafficking and drug abuse in different regions throughout 
the country.
  Accordingly, the Senate version of the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, 
Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill provides $13 
million in additional funds for the designation of new high-intensity 
drug trafficking areas. It also directs the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy to review all of the pending applications for high-
intensity drug trafficking area designations including the gulf coast, 
the Northeast, the Northwest, the Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountain 
regions. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their 
efforts in drafting this bill in such a manner. It allows the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, not Congress, to designate new high-
intensity drug trafficking Areas in the United States, which I believe 
is entirely appropriate.
  In the House version of the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal 
Service, and General Government Appropriations bill, the bill provides 
an additional $10 million for new high-intensity drug trafficking areas 
programs. Unfortunately, the accompanying Report designates three new 
high-intensity drug trafficking areas, which completely circumvents the 
current designation process formulated by the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. I believe this is an inappropriate way to do business. 
The Office of National Drug Control Policy, not the Congress, should 
have the authority to designate new high-intensity drug trafficking 
  I appreciate Senator Shelby's and Senator Kerry's attention to this 
matter, and I would encourage the Senate conferees to maintain the 
Senate's position when this issue comes before the conference.


  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, it should be noted that the report 
accompanying the Treasury appropriations bill contains language 
directing the release of the solicitation for the Post-FTS2000 Program 
by the Government no earlier than May of 1997. I want to make clear 
that we do not seek to delay the transition to the Post-FTS2000 Program 
in delaying the release of the solicitation.
  As many of us know, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was designed 
to open the entire telecommunications industry to competitive market 
forces. This landmark legislation will put local exchange carriers, 
cable companies and utilities in fierce competition in their respective 
markets. With proper implementation by the Federal Communications 
Commission [FCC] and State public service commission, the long-term 
impact of telecommunications reform undoubtedly will be new technology, 
better services, and new market entrants available to our citizens.
  By calling for a release date for the Post-FTS2000 solicitation in 
the Spring of 1997, we are manifesting our view that the Federal 
Government customers and American taxpayers will be best served if the 
Post-FTS2000 Program were designed to take advantage of the benefits of 
increased competition which is intended to result from the 1996 
Telecommunications Act and which we believe most certainly will take 
place. Currently, the FCC and State public service commissions are in 
the process of implementing the act's provisions, and thus, it seems 
wasteful and premature for the Government to initiate the Post-FTS2000 
enterprise sooner than next May.
  We owe it to our constituents to ensure the GSA pursues a Post-
FTS2000 strategy that can guarantee the best quality service at a price 
that makes sense. However, as chairman of the subcommittee responsible 
for funding the GSA's activities, I have asked GSA a series of detailed 
questions that are intended to ensure that the Post-FTS2000 Program is 
the best possible strategy for meeting the Government's communications 
needs well into the next millennium. However, the GSA cannot address 
the issues I raised, and I do not believe GSA can begin its solutions 
with the original schedule of October, 1996.
  For instance, I envision some of the largest savings in the Post-
FTS2000 contract from integrating local services acquisition as that 
market faces

[[Page S10400]]

competition. Yet, the current reported scope of the Post-FTS2000 
contract does not provide for local services competition, or a 
comparison of end-to-end service cost versus a piecemeal acquisition of 
telecommunication services. Instead, GSA seeks competition in only a 
few cities under a separate acquisition. This strategy fails to address 
the disparity between urban and rural government locations with respect 
to end-to-end communications and fails to bring the benefit of 
competition for all telecommunications services to the Federal 
Government. We also want to see a business plan and requirements that 
reflect the Telecommunications Act, as well as the Government's plan 
for addressing security and interoperability.
  I also point out, Mr. President, that I have consulted with my friend 
and colleague, Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction over this program, 
and he agrees with our approach. In addition, my friend and colleague, 
the ranking minority member, Senator Kerrey, is intimately aware and 
knowledgeable in this matter and also endorses the direction set forth 
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3756, 
the Treasury, Postal Service, and general Government appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1997.
  This bill provides new budget authority of $23.3 billion and new 
outlays of $20.5 billion to finance operations of the Department of the 
Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Customs Service, 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Financial Management 
Service; as well as the Executive Office of the President, the Office 
of Personnel Management, the General Services Administration, and other 
agencies that perform central Government functions.
  I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for producing a bill 
that is within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. When outlays from 
prior-year budget authority and other adjustments are taken into 
account, the bill totals $23.7 billion in budget authority and $23.5 
billion in outlays. The total bill is at the Senate subcommittee's 
602(b) nondefense allocation for budget authority and under its 
allocation for outlays by $133 million. The subcommittee is also at its 
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund allocation for budget authority and 
under its allocation for outlays by $4 million.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of H.R. 3756, as 
reported by the Senate.
  I urge Members to support the bill and to refrain from offering 
amendments that would cause the subcommittee to exceed its 602(b) 
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

               [Fiscal year 1997, in millions of dollars]               
                                                     authority   Outlays
Nondefense discretionary:                                               
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed.......................................  .........     2,381
  H.R. 3756, as reported to the Senate.............     11,081     8,498
  Scorekeeping adjustment..........................  .........  ........
      Subtotal nondefense discretionary............     11,081    10,879
Violent crime reduction trust fund:                                     
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed.......................................  .........         9
  H.R. 3756, as reported to the Senate.............        120        93
  Scorekeeping adjustment..........................  .........  ........
      Subtotal violent crime reduction trust fund..        120       102
  Outlays from prior-year BA and other actions                          
   completed.......................................        129       128
  H.R. 3756, as reported to the Senate.............     12,081    11,936
  Adjustment to conform mandatory programs with                         
   Budget Resolution assumptions...................        301       445
      Subtotal mandatory...........................     12,511    12,509
      Adjusted bill total..........................     23,712    23,490
Senate Subcommittee 602(b) allocation:                                  
  Defense discretionary............................  .........  ........
  Nondefense discretionary.........................     11,081    11,012
  Violent crime reduction trust fund...............        120       106
  Mandatory........................................     12,511    12,509
      Total allocation.............................     23,712    23,627
Adjusted bill total compared to Senate Subcommittee                     
 602(b) allocation:                                                     
  Defense discretionary............................  .........  ........
  Nondefense discretionary.........................  .........      -133
  Violent crime reduction trust fund...............  .........        -4
  Mandatory........................................  .........  ........
      Total allocation.............................  .........      -137
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted   
  for consistency with current scorekeeping conventions.                

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, at the request of the Senator from Utah, 
Senator Hatch, before we move to the next action, I ask for the yeas 
and nays on amendment numbered 5295.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.