[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9174-S9181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 968. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to prohibit 
the import, export, sale, purchase, and possession of bear viscera or 
products that contain or claim to contain bear viscera, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                        THE BEAR PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I introduce the Bear Protection Act. 
This measure is aimed at controlling poaching of bears such as the 
American black bear which is found in Kentucky. It addresses several 
enforcement and jurisdictional loopholes that are caused by a patchwork 
of State laws. The current inconsistencies enable a wildly profitable 
underground black market for bear parts to flourish in the United 
States.
  Mr. President, my bill would in no way affect legal hunting of bears. 
Hunters would still be allowed to keep trophies and furs of bears 
killed during legal hunts. This measure would only prohibit the sale or 
barter of the internal organs of the bear which are referred to as bear 
viscera.
  This bill is made necessary because of the booming illegal trade in 
bear viscera. At least 18 Asian countries are known to participate in 
the illegal trade in bear parts. Bear viscera are also illegally sold 
and traded in large urban areas in the United States such as San 
Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and New York City. These cities serve as 
primary ports for export shipments of these goods.
  Bear parts, such as gall bladders, are used in traditional Asian 
medicine to treat everything from diabetes to heart disease. Due to the 
increasing demand for bear viscera, the population of Asian black bears 
has been totally annihilated over the last few years. This has led 
poachers to turn to American bears to fill the increasing demand. I, 
for one, will not stand by and allow our own bear populations to be 
decimated by poachers.
  Mr. President, it is estimated that Kentucky has only 50 to 100 black 
bears remaining in the wild. Black bears once roamed free across the 
Appalachian mountains, through the rolling hills of the bluegrass, all 
the way to the Mississippi river. Although we cannot restore the 
numbers we once had, we can insure that the remaining bears are not 
sold for profit to the highest bidder.
  Poaching has become an astoundingly profitable enterprise. It is 
estimated that over 40,000 bears are poached in the United States every 
year. That equals the number that are taken by legal hunting.
  Mr. President, the main reason behind these astounding numbers is 
greed. In South Korea, bear gall bladders are worth their weight in 
gold, and an average bear gall bladder can bring as high as $10,000 on 
the black market.
  Currently, U.S. law enforcement officials have little power to 
address the poaching of bears and the sale of their parts in an 
effective manner. The Department of the Interior has neither the 
manpower nor the budget to test all bear parts sold legally in the 
United States. Without extensive testing, law 

[[Page S 9175]]
enforcement officials cannot determine if gall bladders or other parts 
have from threatened or endangered species. This problem perpetuates 
the poaching of endangered or threatened bears.
  The Bear Protection Act will establish national guidelines for trade 
in bear parts, but it will not weaken any existing State laws that have 
been instituted to deal with this issue. My bill will also instruct the 
Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Trade Representative to 
establish a dialog with the appropriate countries to coordinate efforts 
aimed at curtailing the international bear trade.
  Mr. President, this measure is crafted narrowly enough to deal with 
the poaching of the American black bear for profit, while still 
ensuring the rights of American sportsmen. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in support of this much-needed legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 968

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bear Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BEAR VISCERA.

       In this Act, the term ``bear viscera'' means the body 
     fluids or internal organs (including the gallbladder) of a 
     species of bear.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall prohibit--
       (1) the import into the United States, or export from the 
     United States, of bear viscera or products that contain or 
     claim to contain bear viscera; and
       (2) the sale, barter, offer of sale or barter, purchase, or 
     possession with intent to sell or barter, in interstate or 
     foreign commerce, of bear viscera or products that contain or 
     claim to contain bear viscera.

     SEC. 4. REPORT BY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress a report that describes--
       (1) how to improve the effectiveness of the wildlife 
     monitoring and inspection program of the Department of the 
     Interior (including the computerized information system or 
     any other system of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service or the United States Customs Service that records 
     data) with respect to the importation or exportation of bear 
     viscera and other bear and other wildlife body parts to and 
     from the United States; and
       (2) any plans of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service to monitor the illegal movement of,
      or commercial activity in, bear viscera or other bear body 
     parts.

     SEC. 5. DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING TRADE PRACTICES.

       The United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall--
       (1) discuss issues involving trade in bear viscera with the 
     appropriate representatives of such countries trading with 
     the United States as are determined jointly by the Secretary 
     of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior to be the 
     leading importers, exporters, or consumers of bear viscera; 
     and
       (2) attempt to establish coordinated efforts with the 
     countries to protect bears.

     SEC. 6. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW.

       Nothing in this Act precludes the regulation under State 
     law of the sale, barter, offer of sale or barter, purchase, 
     or possession with intent to sell or barter, of bear viscera 
     or products that contain or claim to contain bear viscera, if 
     the regulation--
       (1) does not authorize any sale, barter, offer of sale or 
     barter, purchase, or possession with intent to sell or 
     barter, of bear viscera or products that contain or claim to 
     contain bear viscera, that is prohibited under this Act; and
       (2) is consistent with the international obligations of the 
     United States.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BRADLEY (for himself, Mrs. Kassebaum, and Mr. 
        Rockefeller):
  S. 969. A bill to require that health plans provide coverage for a 
minimum hospital stay for a mother and child following the birth of the 
child, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


            THE NEWBORNS' AND MOTHERS' HEALTH PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kassebaum, the 
distinguished chairwoman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and 
Mr. Rockefeller, to introduce legislation which seeks to ensure that 
newborn babies and their mothers receive adequate health care in the 
critical first few days following birth.
  Mr. President, we all know that the first few days after birth are a 
critical and challenging time for both the infant and the mother. At 
this crucial stage in life, infants and their mothers truly need the 
support of health care providers. Yet, more and more families are 
finding their access to health providers at this time is being limited 
severely.
  I say this because it is becoming common practice for health insurers 
to require that new mothers and their infants be discharged from the 
hospital 24 hours after an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, and 72 hours 
after a cesarean section. In some parts of the country, the hospital 
stay for a normal delivery is being reduced to 12 hours, and there is 
even talk of cutting it back to 6 hours. And in many cases, the mother 
and infant receive no professional follow-up care at home. The American 
Medical Association has dubbled these practices ``drive-through 
deliveries.''
  Drive-through deliveries are not simply a matter of sending home 
mothers who are often exhausted and still in pain, and who may not have 
adequate social supports at home. They can also pose severe health 
risks for both the infant and the mother. National medical 
organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
American Medical Association, and the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, have all stated that the trend toward shorter 
hospital stays is placing the health of many newborns and mothers at 
risk.
  There are several reasons why they state this: First, numerous health 
problems faced by newborns, such as dehydration and jaundice, do not 
appear until after the first 24 hours of life. Since many of these 
illnesses can only be detected by health professionals, early hospital 
discharge can cause these conditions to go undetected, leading to brain 
damage, strokes, or even death.
  Second, the mother can also develop many serious health problems, 
including pelvic infections, breast infections, and hemorrhaging.
  Third, a 24-hour stay does not provide sufficient opportunity for the 
mother to be taught basic infant-care skills such as breastfeeding. 
This, combined with the fact that many mothers are simply too exhausted 
to care for their child 24 hours after delivery, often leads to 
newborns receiving inadequate care and nourishment during their crucial 
first few days of life.
  Let me assure you that these concerns are not just theoretical. A 
range of anecdotal and scientific evidence indicates that these 
problems are real, and growing. A researcher at Dartmouth's medical 
school recently concluded that newborns discharged less than 2 days 
after birth are more likely to be readmitted for jaundice, 
malnutrition, and other problems. Physicians across the country have 
noted a resurgence in the number of jaundiced babies they are treating. 
And newspapers across the country in recent weeks have relayed 
devastating stories about how local mothers and infants have been 
affected by these policies.
  Our bill seeks to counteract these negative effects of premature 
discharges by ensuring that newborns and mothers receive adequate care 
during those critical first days. It does this by requiring health 
insurers to allow new mothers and their infants to remain in the 
hospital for a minimum of 48 hours after a normal birth and 96 hours 
after a caesarean section. Shorter hospital stays are permitted 
provided that neither the mother nor the attending physician object, 
and that follow-up home health care is provided for the mother and 
infant.
  To those who would argue that a 48-hour stay is longer than is 
medically necessary, I would like to point out that this is a 
significantly shorter time than medical experts recommend for 
uncomplicated deliveries. In their guidelines for caring for newborns 
and mothers, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
[ACOG] and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend stays of 48 
hours for uncomplicated vaginal birth, and 96 hours following a 
caesarean birth--in addition to the day of delivery. ACOG has also 
pointed out that there is inadequate evidence to prove that early 
discharge is safe, and therefore that the recent trend toward shorter 
stays ``could be the equivalent of a large, uncontrolled, uninformed 
experiment'' on newborns and their mothers.

[[Page S 9176]]

  A 48-hour minimum stay is also consistent with steps being considered 
by some States. For example, our bill is very similar to one which 
recently was passed unanimously by the New Jersey Legislature, and 
which should soon be signed into law. Maryland has also recently passed 
a law dealing with early discharges, and similar measures are being 
considered in New York and California.
  Mr. President, insurers may argue that they will pay for stays beyond 
24 hours if there is a valid medical reason. However, many physicians 
have told me--off the record--that it is very difficult to convince 
insurers to grant an extension, no matter how valid the reason. They 
also state that the final decision is often made by someone with no 
experience in obstetrics. Finally, they state that many doctors are 
under financial pressures to avoid having patients stay beyond the 24-
hour limit, so they are faced with a real quandary when a patient needs 
an extension. A recent report by Maryland's Department of Health and 
Mental Hygiene raises further concerns about what is considered a valid 
medical reason. This report found that among babies who were born 
prematurely, who were not fully developed, or who were diagnosed with a 
significant problem, about 22 percent were discharged from the hospital 
within 24 hours of birth. This study was based on data from 1992. I can 
only assume that the situation has gotten worse in the 3 years since.
  Mr. President, there is no greater advocate for controlling health 
care costs than this Senator. And I am impressed by some health 
insurers' success in slowing health inflation by reducing unnecessary 
care. At the same time, I also recognize that there is a very fine line 
between eliminating unnecessary care and reducing access to care which 
truly is needed. And when we end up on the wrong side of that line--as 
I think is happening in the case of newborns and their mothers--I 
believe it is both appropriate and necessary for us to take steps to 
protect the health of the American public. Concerns about controlling 
costs are justified, but they must not be allowed to outweigh concerns 
about doing what is best for patients. And let us not forget, Mr. 
President, that discharging mothers and newborns early creates its own 
costs, the cost to insurers of treating patients for conditions which 
could have been prevented or lessened if caught earlier, and the costs 
to the individual and society when a child suffers brain damage or 
other permanent disabilities because they did not receive adequate 
early care.
  Mr. President, America's newborns deserve a better welcome to the 
world than they are getting under the present system. Their mothers 
also deserve better. It is very important that health care costs be 
controlled, but the ultimate decision about health care must be based 
on medical factors, not financial ones.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 969

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``New Borns' and Mothers' 
     Health Protection Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIRED COVERAGE FOR MINIMUM HOSPITAL STAY FOLLOWING 
                   BIRTH.

       (a) In General.--A health plan that provides maternity 
     benefits, including benefits for child birth, shall ensure 
     that coverage is provided for a minimum of 48 hours of in-
     patient care following a vaginal delivery and a minimum of 96 
     hours of in-patient care following a caesarean section for a 
     mother and her newly born child in a health care facility.
       (b) Exception.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a health 
     plan that provides coverage for post-delivery care provided 
     to a mother and her newly born child in the home shall not be 
     required to provide coverage of in-patient care under 
     subsection (a) unless such in-patient care is determined to 
     be medically necessary by the attending physician or is 
     requested by the mother.
       (2) Attending physician.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term ``attending physician'' shall include the 
     obstetrician, pediatrician, or other physician attending the 
     mother or newly born child.
       (c) Prohibition.--In implementing the requirements of this 
     section, a health plan may not modify the terms and 
     conditions of coverage based on the determination by an 
     enrollee to request less than the minimum coverage required 
     under subsection (a).
       (d) Notice.--A health plan shall provide notice to each 
     enrollee under such plan regarding the coverage required by 
     this section in accordance with regulations promulgated by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation 
     with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 
     Such notice shall be in writing and prominently positioned in 
     any literature or correspondence made available or 
     distributed by the health plan and shall be transmitted--
       (1) in the next mailing made by the plan to the employee;
       (2) as part of the yearly informational packet sent to the 
     enrollee; or
       (3) not later than January 1, 1996;

     whichever is earlier.
       (e) Health Plan.--
       (1) In general.--As used in this Act, the term ``health 
     plan'' means any plan or arrangement which provides, or pays 
     the cost of, health benefits.
       (2) Exclusions.--Such term does not include the following, 
     or any combination thereof:
       (A) Coverage only for accidental death or dismemberment.
       (B) Coverage providing wages or payments in lieu of wages 
     for any period during which the employee is absent from work 
     on account of sickness or injury.
       (C) A medicare supplemental policy (as defined in section 
     1882(g)(1) of the Social Security Act).
       (D) Coverage issued as a supplement to liability insurance.
       (E) Worker's compensation or similar insurance.
       (F) Automobile medical-payment insurance.
       (G) A long-term care policy, including a nursing home fixed 
     indemnity policy (unless the Secretary determines that such a 
     policy provides sufficiently comprehensive coverage of a 
     benefit so that it should be treated as a health plan).
       (H) Such other plan or arrangement as the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services determines is not a health plan.
       (3) Certain plans included.--Such term includes any plan or 
     arrangement not described in any subparagraph of paragraph 
     (2) which provides for benefit payments, on a periodic basis, 
     for--
       (A) a specified disease or illness, or
       (B) period of hospitalization,
     without regard to the costs incurred or services rendered 
     during the period to which the payments relate.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The provisions of section 2 shall apply to all health plans 
     offered, sold, issued, or renewed after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

 Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I join today with my colleague 
from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, in introducing the Newborns' and 
Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1995.
  This legislation seeks to ensure that adequate care is provided to 
mothers and newborns in the critical first few days following birth. 
Modeled after legislation recently considered in Maryland and passed 
unanimously by the New Jersey Legislature, it requires health insurers 
to allow new mothers and their infants to remain in the hospital for a 
minimum of 48 hours after a normal birth, and 96 hours after a cesarean 
delivery. If the mother and the doctor agree, shorter hospital stays 
are permitted, provided that there is a follow-up visit.
  ``Guidelines for Perinatal Care'' issued by the American Academy of 
Pediatrics [AAP] and the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists [ACOG] state that in uncomplicated deliveries the 
postpartum hospital stay should range from 48 hours for vaginal births 
to 96 hours for cesarean sections, exclusive of the day of delivery.
  However, as hospitalization costs continue to climb, it has become 
increasingly common for health insurers to require that new mothers and 
their babies be discharged from the hospital 24 hours after birth. In 
some parts of the country, hospital stays for a routine delivery can be 
as short as 12 hours.
  The American Medical Association [AMA], ACOG, and the Academy of 
Pediatrics all have stated that the trend toward shorter hospital stays 
is placing the health of newborns and their mothers at risk.
  Early hospital discharges have caused conditions such as jaundice--
that do not appear until after the first 24 hours of life and which may 
lead to brain damage--to go undetected.
  A 24-hour stay is often too short for new mothers to be taught basic 
infant care skills, such as breastfeeding. And many mothers are not 
physically capable of providing for a newborn's needs 24 hours after 
giving birth. This can lead to inadequate nourishment during a child's 
crucial first few days of life.
  Mr. President, I must say that I have agreed to cosponsor this 
legislation 

[[Page S 9177]]
with some reservation. I generally view any effort to influence private 
contracting arrangements with great skepticism. However, I view this 
situation as limited and unique. What is at stake here is not merely an 
impediment to the traditional doctor-patient relationship, but instead 
the health and safety of millions of America's children.
  My primary concern is that the most recent trend toward shorter 
hospital stays appears to be motivated primarily by financial 
considerations--instead of sound medicine.
  In calling for a moratorium on shorter hospital stays last week, ACOG 
stated that:

       The routine imposition of a short and arbitrary time limit 
     on hospital stays that does not take maternal and infant need 
     into account could be equivalent to a large, uncontrolled, 
     uninformed experiment that may potentially affect the health 
     of American women and their babies.

  Like ACOG, I fear that insurers may be acting prematurely, without 
sufficient information about the long-term health implications of 
shorter hospital stays. As more conclusive data becomes available, I 
would be open to revisiting this issue. Until then, I believe we should 
proceed with caution.
  I strongly believe that decisions regarding early discharge must be 
individualized and should place primary emphasis on the health of a 
mother and her child. I believe that the legislation we are introducing 
today will help restore that perspective to this important 
decision.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COATS (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
        Ashcroft):
  S. 971. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit 
governmental discrimination in the training and licensing of health 
professionals on the basic of the refusal to undergo or provide 
training in the performance of induced abortions, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


           the medical training nondiscrimination act of 1995

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I introduce the Medical Training 
Nondiscrimination Act of 1995. This bill would prevent any State or 
Federal Government from discriminating against a health care provider 
because that provider does not perform induced abortions or train its 
ob-gyn residents to perform induced abortions.
  It is, quite frankly, disturbing to me that this legislation is even 
necessary. I would venture that few of my colleagues could believe that 
our society is anywhere near to condoning a requirement that any person 
or any hospital be required to perform abortions or offer training in 
abortions.
  Indeed, as it stands now, our proud tradition of tolerance toward 
those who abhor abortion and any participation in that act, has 
generally protected hospitals from having to provide or train 
abortions. In fact, only 12 percent of hospitals now require training 
in induced abortion. A third more do not offer any such training and 
the rest offer it only as an option. Of course, those programs still 
are required to train residents to manage medical and surgical 
complications of pregnancy. And that includes training procedures than 
might in the case save the life of the mother, as well as training D 
and C procedures involving preborn children that died as a result of a 
spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, or stillbirth.
  But all this will change now that the Accreditation Council for 
Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] has voted to require all hospitals 
to train or arrange for training in induced abortion. The press has 
indicated that training in late-term, second-trimester abortions would 
be required. The ACGME has proposed to make exceptions only in the case 
of an institution that can formulate a cohesive, institutional 
objection based on religious or moral principles.
  What is particularly shocking is that the Federal Government no only 
condones this compulsion but actually punishes those who do not submit. 
Here's how: Failure to do the abortion training could result in loss of 
accreditation by the ACGME. Loss of accreditation would result in loss 
of Federal funding. For example, Medicare will not reimburse the Part A 
costs of intern and resident services if the teaching program is not 
accredited. Further, ob-gyn residents in a program not accredited by 
the ACGME are ineligible for deferral of repayment on Federal Health 
Education Assistance Loans [HEAL]. The HEAL loan program is 
reauthorized in S. 555, now before the Senate.
  Why the change in the standards? Internal correspondence with the 
ACGME panel suggests that the policy change was motivated by concern 
over the declining number of doctors willing to perform abortions and 
the need to destigmatize abortion providers. This concern over the 
stigmatization of abortion providers was dramatically characterized 
during the debate on the Foster nomination when one ``pro-choice'' 
Senator demanded an apology from another pro-life Senator who had 
``defamed'' Dr. Foster by calling him an abortionist. Would an apology 
have been demanded if Dr. Foster had been called a heart surgeon or a 
podiatrist? No, there remains substantial negative stigma associated 
with being an abortion provider--stigma that might be eliminated if all 
obstetricians and gynecologists had to perform abortions as part of 
their residency training.
  The Medical Training Nondiscrimination Act of 1995 would protect the 
civil rights of health care providers by preventing the Government from 
discriminating against any health care provider on the basis that it 
will not perform, train, or undergo training to perform an induced 
abortion. Discriminatory actions include denial of any benefit, 
assistance, or license, and the conditioning of such benefit, 
assistance, or license on the provider's compliance with accredition 
standards that require the performance, training, or arranging for 
training of induced abortions. The amendment applies only to State 
action and does not proscribe a private accrediting body from requiring 
abortion training.
  Providers who choose to offer abortion training, and individuals who 
seek abortion training, may continue to do so. The amendment does not 
prevent any program from offering abortion training.
  Providers will continue to train the management of complications of 
induced abortion as well as train to handle situation involving 
miscarriage and stillbirth or a threat to the life of the mother. The 
amendment requires no change in the practice of good obstetrics and 
gynecology.
  This legislation has broad bipartisan support. On the House side 
Congressman Hoekstra, LaFalce, Volkmer, Coburn, and Weldon have 
introduced identical language in the House following hearings.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and protect the rights of health 
providers against Federal and State government action that forces them 
to become involved in training or providing induced abortions against 
their will.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 971

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medical Training Non-
     discrimination Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST ABORTION-RELATED 
                   DISCRIMINATION IN TRAINING AND LICENSING OF 
                   PHYSICIANS.

       Part B of title II of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 238 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following section:


``abortion-related discrimination in governmental activities regarding 
                  training and licensing of physicians

       ``Sec. 245. (a) In General.--The Federal Government, and 
     any State that receives Federal financial assistance; may not 
     subject any health care entity to discrimination on the basis 
     that--
       ``(1) the entity refuses to undergo training in the 
     performance of induced abortions, to provide such training, 
     to perform such abortions, or to provide referrals for such 
     abortions;
       ``(2) the entity refuses to make arrangements for any of 
     the activities specified in paragraph (1); or
       ``(3) the entity attends (or attended) a postgraduate 
     physician training program, or any other program of training 
     in the health professions, that does not (or did not) 
     require, provide or arrange for training in the performance 
     of induced abortions, or make arrangements for the provision 
     of such training.
       ``(b) Accreditation of Postgraduate Physician Training 
     Programs.-- 

[[Page S 9178]]

       ``(1) In general.--With respect to the State government 
     involved, or the Federal Government, restrictions under 
     subsection (a) include the restriction that, in granting a 
     legal status to a health care entity (including a license or 
     certificate), or in providing to the entity financial 
     assistance, a service, or another benefit, the government may 
     not require that the entity be an accredited postgraduate 
     physician training program, or that the entity have completed 
     or be attending such a program, if the applicable standards 
     for accreditation of the program include the standard that 
     the program must require, provide or arrange for training in 
     the performance of induced abortions, or make arrangements 
     for the provision of such training.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--With respect to subclauses (I) 
     and (II) of section 705(a)(2)(B)(i) (relating to a program of 
     insured loans for training in the health professions), the 
     requirements in such subclauses regarding accredited 
     internship or residency programs are subject to paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) The term `financial assistance', with respect to a 
     government program, includes governmental payments provided 
     as reimbursement for carrying out health-related activities.
       ``(2) The term `health care entity' includes an individual 
     physician, a postgraduate physician training program, and a 
     participant in a program of training in the health 
     professions.
       ``(3) The term `postgraduate physician training program' 
     includes a residency training program.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Hollings, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 972. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for Medicaid coverage of all certified nurse practioners and 
clinical nurse specialists services; to the Committee on Finance.


               The Medicaid nursing incentive act of 1995

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicaid 
Nursing Incentive Act of 1995, a bill to provide direct Medicaid 
reimbursement to nurse practitioners.
  The ultimate goal of this proposal is to enhance the availability of 
cost-effective primary care to our Nation's most needy citizens.
  Studies have documented the fact that millions of Americans each year 
do without the health care services they need, because physicians 
simply are not available to care for them. This problem plagues rural 
and urban areas alike, in parts of the country as diverse as south 
central Los Angeles and Lemmon, SD.
  Medicaid beneficiaries are particularly vulnerable, since in recent 
years an increasing number of health professionals have chosen not to 
care for them or have been unwilling to locate in the inner city and 
rural communities where they live. Fortunately, there is an exception 
to this trend: Nurse practitioners frequently accept patients whom 
others will not treat and serve in areas where others refuse to work.
  Studies have shown that nurse practitioners provide care that both 
patients and cost cutters can praise. Their advanced clinical training 
enables them to assume responsibility for up to 80 percent of the 
primary care services usually performed by physicians, many times at a 
lower cost and with a high level of patient satisfaction.
  Congress has already recognized the expanding contributions of nurse 
practitioners. For more than a decade, CHAMPUS has provided direct 
payment to nurse practioners. In 1990, Congress mandated direct payment 
for nurse practitioner services under the Federal employee health 
benefit plan. Recent legislation has required direct Medicare 
reimbursement for nurse practitioners practicing in rural areas and 
direct Medicaid reimbursement for family nurse practitioners.
  Mr. President, the ramifications of this issue extend beyond the 
Medicaid program and its beneficiaries; there is a broader lesson here 
that applies to our search for ways to make cost-effective, high-
quality health care services available and accessible to all of our 
citizens.
  One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of 
primary
 and preventive care, delivered to individuals in convenient, familiar 
places where they live, work, and go to school. More than 2 million of 
our Nation's nurses currently provide care in these sites--in home 
health agencies, nursing homes, ambulatory care clinics, and schools.

  In places like my home State of South Dakota, nurses are often the 
only health care professionals available in the small towns and rural 
counties across the State.
  These nurses and other nonphysican health professionals play an 
important role in the delivery of care. And, this role will increase as 
we move from a system that focuses on the costly treatment of illness 
to one that emphasizes primary care and health promotion.
  But, first we must revaluate outdated attitudes and break down 
barriers that prevent nurses from using the full range of their 
training and skills in caring for patients. In 1994, the Pew Health 
Professions Commission concluded that nurse practitioners are not being 
fully utilized to deliver primary care services and recommended 
eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying them directly for the 
services they provide. This step will help nurse practitioners provide 
the access to primary care that so many communities currently lack.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the measure I am 
introducing today, recognizing the important role that nurse 
practitioners and other nonphysician health professionals can play in 
our health care delivery system and the increasing contribution they 
can make in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 972

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

     SECTION 1. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF ALL CERTIFIED NURSE 
                   PRACTITIONER AND CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905(a)(21) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(21)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(21) services furnished by a certified nurse practitioner 
     (as defined by the Secretary) or clinical nurse specialist 
     (as defined in subsection (t)) which the certified nurse 
     practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is legally 
     authorized to perform under State law (or the State 
     regulatory mechanism provided by State law), whether or not 
     the certified nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist 
     is under the supervision of, or associated with, a physician 
     or other health care provider;''
       (b) Clinical Nurse Specialist Defined.--Section 1905 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(t) The term `clinical nurse specialist' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(1) is a registered nurse and is licensed to practice 
     nursing in the State in which the clinical nurse specialist 
     services are performed; and
       ``(2) holds a master's degree in a defined area of clinical 
     nursing from an accredited educational institution.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective with respect to payments for calendar 
     quarters beginning on or after January 1, 1996.

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle 
as a cosponsor of the Medicaid Nursing Incentive Act of 1995. This 
legislation would provide direct Medicaid reimbursement to nurse 
practitioners and clinical nurse specialists for services they provide 
within their scope of practice, regardless of whether these services 
are performed under the supervision of a physician.
  With the current shortage of primary health care services in our 
Nation, millions of Americans are without essential health services. 
Medicaid recipients are particularly vulnerable.
  By allowing direct Medicaid reimbursement to nurse practitioners and 
clinical nurse specialists, I believe that this legislation will not 
only improve access to much needed health care services, but will 
strengthen our health care delivery system. A number of recent studies 
have documented the important roles that nurse practitioners and 
clinical nurse specialists play in providing cost-effective, quality 
health care services. For example, a December 1986 study by the Office 
of Technology Assessment detailed the significant contributions nurse 
practitioners have made in reducing health care costs, improving the 
quality of care, and increasing the accessibility of services.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It will enhance 
access to 

[[Page S 9179]]
cost-effective, quality care for individuals with limited access to 
health care services.
                                 ______

      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 973. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the tax treatment of residential ground rents, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                the residential ground rents act of 1995

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue of great 
importance to Hawaii's leasehold homeowners. In fiscal year 1992, at my 
request, the Congress appropriated $400,000 to study the feasibility of 
reforming the Internal Revenue Code to address ground lease rent 
payments and to determine what role, if any, the Federal Government 
should play in encouraging lease to fee conversions. The nationwide 
study was conducted by the Hawaii Real Estate and Research Center.
  The legislation I am introducing today is based on the 
recommendations of this study. The bill would: First, provide a 
mortgage interest deduction for residential leasehold properties by 
allowing the nonredeemable ground lease rents to be claimed as an 
interest deduction; and, second, include a tax credit for up to $5,000 
for certain transaction costs on the transfer of certain residential 
leasehold land for a 5-year period, ending on December 31, 1999. 
Transaction costs include closing costs, attorneys' fees, surveys, and 
appraisals, and telephone, office, and travel expenses.
  In most private home ownership situations in this country, a 
homeowner owns both the building and land. Under a leasehold 
arrangement a homeowner owns the building--single-family home, 
condominium, or cooperative apartment--on leased land. The research 
conducted under the leasehold study shows that residential leaseholds 
are not uncommon in other parts of the United States and elsewhere in 
the world. Residential leaseholds exist in places such as Baltimore, 
MD, Irvine, CA, native American lands in Palm Springs, CA, Fairhope, 
AL, Pearl River Basin, MS, and New York, NY.
  The study further indicates that there are few States that regulate 
residential leaseholds. Of those that do, the most common requirement 
applies only to condominium or time share units and is one requiring 
adequate disclosure of the lease terms. For the most part, States are 
unaware of any leasehold problems in their jurisdictions. However, 
residential leaseholds have proven to be problematic for the State of 
Hawaii.
  The formation of Hawaii's land tenure system can be traced back to 
1778 when British Capt. James Cook made his first contact with the 
Hawaiian civilization. Leasing was the preferred system to maintain 
control and retain a portfolio asset value. Residential leaseholds were 
first developed on the Island of Oahu after World War II. Population 
increases created a demand for housing and other types of real estate 
development. Federal income tax policy encouraged the retention of land 
to avoid payment of large capital gains taxes.
  Hawaii's land tenure system is now anomalous to the rest of the 
United States because of the concentration of land in the hands of 
government, large charitable trusts, large agriculturally-based 
companies and owners of small parcels or urban properties.
  High land prices and high renegotiated rents continue to create 
instability in Hawaii's residential leasehold system. In 1967, the 
Hawaii State legislature enacted a land reform act which did not become 
effective until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1984 decision, Hawaii 
Housing Authority versus Midkiff. The act and the Supreme Court 
decision basically divided the market into a ``single-family home 
market in which leaseholds were subject to mandatory conversion, and a 
leasehold condominium market which did not come within the scope of the 
law.''
  Mandatory conversions on the single-family home market occurred from 
1979 to 1982, and 1986 to 1990. As of 1992, there are approximately 
4,600 single-family homes remaining in residential leaseholds. However, 
resolution over condominium leasehold reform remains uncertain. In 
1990, the Honolulu City Council enacted legislation that would cap 
lease rent increases. The law was challenged in Federal district court 
as to its validity and eventually ruled as unconstitutional because the 
formula it used to arrive at permitted lease rent was irrational.
  In 1991, due to the State legislature's unwillingness to address the 
leasehold problems, the Honolulu City Council again enacted a mandatory 
leasehold conversion law for leasehold condominiums (Ordinance 01-95). 
The law is currently being challenged in the Federal courts as to its 
constitutionality. Another bill which linked lease rent increases with 
the Consumer Price Index and the level of disposable income available 
to condominium owners was also considered. This bill, similar to the 
one enacted in 1990, was found to be unconstitutional.
  The uncertainty in the residential leasehold market continues to 
create emotional distress for the leasehold residents of Hawaii. 
Voluntary conversion has helped to ease the situation and substantially 
reduce the stock of leasehold residential units in Hawaii. Yet, 
voluntary conversion is not enough to resolve the residential leasehold 
problems.
  My legislation will help reduce the economic hardship due to the 
uncertainty in Hawaii's residential leasehold system. The leasehold 
study contains an analysis of the tax revenue effects of this 
legislation by allowing individual tax deductions for residential 
ground rent. The analysis suggests that there is potential revenues to 
the Federal Government if this legislation is enacted into law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 973

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

     SECTION 1. MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED NON-
                   REDEEMABLE GROUND RENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 163(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Ground Rents.--For purposes of this subtitle, any 
     annual or periodic rental under a redeemable ground rent 
     (excluding amounts in redemption thereof) or a qualified non-
     redeemable ground rent shall be treated as interest on an 
     indebtedness secured by a mortgage.''
       (b) Treatment of Qualified Non-Redeemable Ground Rents.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of section 
     1055 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     redeemable ground rents) are amended by inserting ``or 
     qualified non-redeemable'' after ``redeemable'' each place it 
     appears.
       (2) Definition.--Section 1055 of such Code is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by 
     inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Qualified non-redeemable ground rent.--For purposes 
     of this subtitle, the term `qualified non-redeemable ground 
     rent' means a ground rent with respect to which--
       ``(1) there is a lease of land which is for a term in 
     excess of 15 years,
       ``(2) no portion of any payment is allocable to the use of 
     any property other than the land surface,
       ``(3) the lessor's interest in the land is primarily a 
     security interest to protect the rental payments to which the 
     lessor is entitled under the lease, and
       ``(4) the leased property must be used as the taxpayer's 
     principal residence (within the meaning of section 1034).''
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading for section 1055 of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``redeemable''.
       (B) The item relating to section 1055 in the table of 
     sections for part IV of subchapter O of chapter 1 of subtitle 
     A of such Code is amended by striking ``Redeemable ground'' 
     and inserting ``Ground''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     with respect to taxable years ending after such date.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TRANSACTION COSTS ON THE TRANSFER OF LAND 
                   SUBJECT TO CERTAIN GROUND RENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     foreign tax credit, etc.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 30 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 30A. CREDIT FOR TRANSACTION COSTS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the election of the taxpayer, there 
     shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the 
     transaction costs relating to any sale or exchange of land 
     subject to ground rents with respect to which immediately 
     after and for at least 1 year prior to such sale or 
     exchange--

[[Page S 9180]]

       ``(A) the transferee is the lessee who owns a dwelling unit 
     on the land being transferred, and
       ``(B) the transferor is the lessor.
       ``(2) Credit allowed to both transferor and transferee.--
     The credit allowed under paragraph (1) shall be allowed to 
     both the transferor and the transferee.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Limitation per dwelling unit.--The amount of the 
     credit allowed to a taxpayer under subsection (a) for any 
     taxable year shall not exceed the lesser of--
       ``(A) $5,000 per dwelling unit, or
       ``(B) 10 percent of the sale price of the land.
       ``(2) Limitation based on taxable income.--The amount of 
     the credit allowed to a taxpayer under subsection (a) for any 
     taxable year shall not exceed the sum of--
       ``(A) 20 percent of the regular tax for the taxable year 
     reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A 
     and sections 27, 28, 29, and 30, plus
       ``(B) the alternative minimum tax imposed by section 55.
       ``(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Transaction costs.--
       ``(A) In General.--The term `transaction costs' means any 
     expenditure directly associated with a transaction, the 
     purpose of which is to convey to the lessee, by the lessor, 
     land subject to ground rents.
       ``(B) Specific expenditures.--Such term includes closing 
     costs, attorney fees, surveys and appraisals, and telephone, 
     office, and travel expenses incurred in negotiations with 
     respect to such transaction.
       ``(C) Lost rents not included.--Such term does not include 
     lost rents due to the premature termination of an existing 
     lease.
       ``(2) Dwelling unit.--A dwelling unit shall include any 
     structure or portion of any structure which serves as the 
     principal residence (within the meaning of section 1034) for 
     the lessee.
       ``(3) Reduction in basis.--The basis of property acquired 
     in a transaction to which this section applies shall be 
     reduced by the amount of credit allowed under subsection (a).
       ``(4) Election.--This section shall apply to any taxpayer 
     for the taxable year only if such taxpayer elects to have 
     this section so apply.
       ``(d) Carryover of Credit.--
       ``(1) Carryover period.--If the credit allowed to the 
     taxpayer under subsection (a) for any taxable year exceeds 
     the amount of the limitation imposed by subsection (b)(2) for 
     such taxable year (hereafter in this subsection referred to 
     as the `unused credit year'), such excess shall be a 
     carryover to each of the 5 succeeding taxable years.
       ``(2) Amount carried to each year.--
       ``(A) Entire amount carried to first year.--The entire 
     amount of the unused credit for an unused credit year shall 
     be carried to the earliest of the 5 taxable years to which 
     (by reason of paragraph (1)) such credit may be carried.
       ``(B) Amount carried to other 4 years.--The amount of 
     unused credit for the unused credit year shall be carried to 
     each of the remaining 4 taxable years to the extent that such 
     unused credit may not be taken into account for a prior 
     taxable year because of the limitation imposed by subsection 
     (b)(2).
       ``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any 
     transaction cost paid or incurred in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1999.''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     subpart B is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 30 the following new item:
``Sec. 30A. Credit for transaction costs on the transfer of land 
              subject to certain ground rents.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 1994.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 974. A bill to prohibit certain acts involving the use of 
computers in the furtherance of crimes, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                  THE ANTI-ELECTRONIC RACKETEERING ACT
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to introduce the 
Anti-electronic Racketeering Act of 1995. This bill makes important 
changes to RICO and criminalizes deliberately using computer technology 
to engage in criminal activity. I believe this bill is a reasonable, 
measured and strong response to a growing problem. According to the 
computer emergency and response team at Carnegie-Mellon University, 
during 1994, about 40,000 computer users were attacked. Virus hacker, 
the FBI's national computer crime squad has investigated over 200 cases 
since 1991. So, computer crime is clearly on the rise.
  Mr. President, I suppose that some of this is just natural. Whenever 
man develops a new technology, that technology will be abused by some. 
And that is why I have introduced this bill. I believe we need to 
seriously reconsider the Federal Criminal Code with an eye toward 
modernizing existing statutes and creating new ones. In other words, 
Mr. President, Elliot Ness needs to meet the Internet.
  Mr. President, I sit on the Board of the Office of Technology 
Assessment. That Office has clearly indicated that organized crime has 
entered cyberspace in a big way. International drug cartels use 
computers to launder drug money and terrorists like the Oklahoma City 
bombers use computers to conspire to commit crimes.
  Computer fraud accounts for the loss of millions of dollars per year. 
And often times, there is little that can be done about this because 
the computer used to commit the crimes is located overseas. So, under 
my bill, overseas computer users who employ their computers to commit 
fraud in the United States would be fully subject to the Federal 
criminal laws. Also under my bill, Mr. President, the wire fraud 
statute which has been successfully used by prosecutors for many users, 
will be amended to make fraudulent schemes which use computers a crime.
  It is not enough to simply modernize the Criminal Code. We also
   have to reconsider many of the difficult procedural burdens that 
prosecutors must overcome. For instance, in the typical case, 
prosecutors must identify a location in order to get a wiretapping 
order. But in cyberspace, it is often impossible to determine the 
location. And so my bill corrects that so that if prosecutors cannot, 
with the exercise of effort, give the court a location, then those 
prosecutors can still get a wiretapping order. And for law enforcers--
both State and Federal--who have seized a computer which contains both 
contraband or evidence and purely private material, I have created a 
good-faith standard so that law enforcers are not shackled by undue 
restrictions but will also be punished for bad faith.

  Mr. President, this brave new world of electronic communications and 
global computer networks holds much promise. But like almost anything, 
there is the potential for abuse and harm. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill and that is why I urge industry to 
support this bill.
  On a final note, I would say that we should not be too scared of 
technology. After all, we are still just people and right is still 
right and wrong is still wrong. Some things change and some things do 
not. All that my bill does is say you can't use computers to steal, to 
threaten others or conceal criminal conduct.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 974

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Electronic Racketeering 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 1961(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1343 (relating to wire fraud)'' and 
     inserting ``1343 (relating to wire and computer fraud)'';
       (2) by striking ``that title'' and inserting ``this 
     title'';
       (3) by striking ``or (E)'' and inserting ``(E)''; and
       (4) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``or 
     (F) any act that is indictable under section 1030, 1030A, or 
     1962(d)(2)''.
       (b) Use of Computer To Facilitate Racketeering 
     Enterprise.--Section 1962 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) It shall be unlawful for any person--
       ``(1) to use any computer or computer network in 
     furtherance of a racketeering activity (as defined in section 
     1961(1)); or
       ``(2) to damage or threaten to damage electronically or 
     digitally stored data.''.
       (c) Criminal Penalties.--Section 1963(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) electronically or digitally stored data.''.
       (d) Civil Remedies.--Section 1964(c) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``his property or 
     business''.

[[Page S 9181]]

       (e) Use as Evidence of Intercepted Wire or Oral 
     Communications.--Section 2515 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
     the following: ``, unless the authority in possession of the 
     intercepted communication attempted in good faith to comply 
     with this chapter. If the United States or any State of the 
     United States, or subdivision thereof, possesses a 
     communication intercepted by a nongovernmental actor, without 
     the knowledge of the United States, that State, or that 
     subdivision, the communication may be introduced into 
     evidence''.
       (f) Authorization for Interception of Wire, Oral, or 
     Electronic Communications.--Section 2516(1) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (n);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (o) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(p) any violation of section 1962 of title 18.''.
       (g) Procedures for Interception.--Section 2518(4)(b) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting before 
     the semicolon the following: ``to the extent feasible''.
       (h) Computer Crimes.--
       (1) New prohibited activities.--Chapter 47 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1030A. Racketeering-related crimes involving computers

       ``(a) It shall be unlawful--
       ``(1) to use a computer or computer network to transfer 
     unlicensed computer software, regardless of whether the 
     transfer is performed for economic consideration;
       ``(2) to distribute computer software that encodes or 
     encrypts electronic or digital communications to computer 
     networks that the person distributing the software knows or 
     reasonably should know, is accessible to foreign nationals 
     and foreign governments, regardless of whether such software 
     has been designated as nonexportable; and
       ``(3) to use a computer or computer network to transmit a 
     communication intended to conceal or hide the origin of money 
     or other assets, tangible or intangible, that were derived 
     from racketeering activity; and
       ``(4) to operate a computer or computer network primarily 
     to facilitate racketeering activity or primarily to engage in 
     conduct prohibited by Federal or State law.
       ``(b) For purposes of this section, each act of 
     distributing software is considered a separate predicate act. 
     Each instance in which nonexportable software is accessed by 
     a foreign government, an agent of a foreign government, a 
     foreign national, or an agent of a foreign national, shall be 
     considered as a separate predicate act.
       ``(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution 
     under this section that the software at issue used a 
     universal decoding device or program that was provided to the 
     Department of Justice prior to the distribution.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of 
     chapter 47, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``1030A. Racketeering-related crimes involving computers.''.

       (3) Jurisdiction and venue.--Section 1030 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(g)(1)(A) Any act prohibited by this section that is 
     committed using any computer, computer facility, or computer 
     network that is physically located within the territorial 
     jurisdiction of the United States shall be deemed to have 
     been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the 
     United States.
       ``(B) Any action taken in furtherance of an act described 
     in subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to have been committed in 
     the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
       ``(2) In any prosecution under this section involving acts 
     deemed to be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of 
     the United States under this subsection, venue shall be 
     proper where the computer, computer facility, or computer 
     network was physically situated at the time at least one of 
     the wrongful acts was committed.''.
       (i) Wire and Computer Fraud.--Section 1343 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``or television 
     communication'' and inserting ``television communication, or 
     computer network or facility''.
       (j) Privacy Protection Act.--Section 101 of the Privacy 
     Protection Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 2000aa) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure 
     of such materials is necessary to prevent the destruction or 
     altercation of such documents.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) in the case of electronically stored data, the 
     seizure is incidental to an otherwise valid seizure, and the 
     government officer or employee--
       ``(A) was not aware that work product material was among 
     the data seized;
       ``(B) upon actual discovery of the existence of work 
     product materials, the government officer or employee took 
     reasonable steps to protect the privacy interests recognized 
     by this section, including--
       ``(i) using utility software to seek and identify 
     electronically stored data that may be commingled or combined 
     with non-work product material; and
       ``(ii) upon actual identification of such material, taking 
     reasonable steps to protect the privacy of the material, 
     including seeking a search warrant.''.
     

                          ____________________