[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11290-S11299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Sarbanes, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1321. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
permit grants for the national estuary program to be used for the
development and implementation of a comprehensive conservation and
management plan, to reauthorize appropriations to carry out the
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
the national estuary conservation act of 1997
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senators Graham, Mack,
Sarbanes, Lautenberg, and I are introducing the National Estuary
Conservation Act. I rise to draw this country's attention to our
nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution,
development, or overuse. With 45 percent of the Nation's population
residing in estuarine areas, there is a compelling need for us to
promote comprehensive planning and management efforts to restore and
protect them.
Estuaries are significant habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife
because they provide safe spawning grounds and nurseries. Seventy-five
percent of the U.S. commercial fish catch depends on estuaries during
some stage of their life. Commercial and recreational fisheries
contribute $111 billion to the Nation's economy and support 1.5 million
jobs. Estuaries are also important to our Nation's tourist economy for
boating and outdoor recreation. Coastal tourism in just four States--
New Jersey, Florida, Texas, and California--totals $75 billion.
Due to their popularity, the overall capacity of our Nation's
estuaries to function as healthy productive ecosystems is declining.
This is a result of the cumulative effects of increasing development
and fast-growing year-round populations which increase dramatically in
the summer. Land development, and associated activities that come with
people's desire to live and play near these beautiful resources, cause
runoff and stormwater discharges that contribute to siltation,
increased nutrients, and other contamination. Bacterial contamination
closes many popular beaches and shellfish harvesting areas in
estuaries. Also, several estuaries are afflicted by problems that still
require significant research. Examples include the outbreaks of the
toxic microbe, Pfiesteria piscicida, in rivers draining to estuaries in
Maryland and Virginia.
Congress recognized the importance of preserving and enhancing
coastal environments with the establishment of the National Estuary
Program in the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. The program's
purpose is to facilitate State and local governments preparation of
comprehensive conservation and management plans for threatened
estuaries of national significance. In support of this effort, section
320 of the Clean Water Act authorized the EPA to make grants to States
to develop environmental management plans. To date, 28 estuaries across
the country have been designated into the program. However, the law
fails to provide assistance once plans are complete and ready for
implementation. Already, 17 of the 28 plans are finished.
As the majority of plans are now in the implementation stage, it is
incumbent upon us to maintain the partnership the Federal Government
initiated 10 years ago to insure that our nationally significant
estuaries are protected. The legislation we are introducing will take
the next step by giving EPA authority to make grants for plan
implementation and authorize annual appropriations in the amount of $50
million. To insure the program is a true partnership and leverage
scarce resources, there is a direct match requirement for grant
recipients so funds will be available to upgrade sewage treatment
plants, fix combined sewer overflows, control urban stormwater
discharges, and reduce polluted runoff into estuarine areas.
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. 1321
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) Grants.--Section 320(g) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)) is amended by striking
paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the following:
``(2) Purposes.--Grants under this subsection shall be made
to pay for assisting activities necessary for the development
and implementation of a comprehensive conservation and
management plan under this section.
``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant to any
person (including a State, interstate, or regional agency or
entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year--
``(A) shall not exceed--
``(i) 75 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the
development of a comprehensive conservation and management
plan; and
``(ii) 50 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the
implementation of the plan; and
``(B) shall be made on condition that the non-Federal share
of the costs are provided from non-Federal sources.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(i)) is
amended by striking ``$12,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991'' and insert
``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2004''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 1998.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1322. A bill to establish doctoral fellowships designed to
increase the pool of scientists and engineers trained specifically to
address the global energy and environmental challenges of the 21st
century; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
THE SENATOR PAUL E. TSONGAS FELLOWSHIP ACT
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Paul
E. Tsongas Fellowship Act. This bill commemorates an outstanding leader
and former colleague in the Senate who was an impressive and dedicated
advocate of technology and environmental protection. Congressman Joe
Kennedy is the sponsor of a companion bill in the House of
Representatives.
As a Senator, Paul Tsongas worked skillfully to guarantee that
technology and environmental concerns are at the forefront of our
country's priorities. He was an extraordinary leader who understood the
importance of addressing the serious energy and environmental
challenges we face at home and around the world. Today, we honor his
commitment to these important priorities by proposing a national
fellowship program to support graduate students in science and
engineering.
As a nation, we need to do more to encourage the best students to
pursue graduate studies in these basic fields, which are so essential
to a strong future for the Nation. As much as 50 percent of economic
growth is attributed to technological innovation. The Paul E. Tsongas
Fellowship will support the modern pioneers who will keep the Nation at
the cutting edge of the technology revolution.
The fellowship is modeled on the successful Office of Naval Research
Graduate Fellowship Program, which over the past 15 years has provided
fellowships to 592 graduate students in 11 disciplines, and has made
significant contributions to research. The Tsongas fellowships in
science and engineering can
[[Page S11291]]
make a comparable contribution in these fields. They will enhance our
efforts to improve educational opportunity for students, and strengthen
our country's economy by investing wisely in the future.
The Tsongas fellowships will be a living memorial to one of the
outstanding Senators of our time, and I hope that Congress will act
quickly on this important legislation.
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. 1322
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 ``Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship
Act''.
SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to encourage individuals of
exceptional achievement and promise, especially members of
traditionally underrepresented groups, to pursue careers in
fields that confront the global energy and environmental
challenges of the 21st century.
SEC. 3. DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS AUTHORIZED.
(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Energy is
authorized to award doctoral fellowships, to be known as Paul
E. Tsongas Doctoral Fellowships, in accordance with the
provisions of this Act for study and research in fields of
science or engineering that relate to energy or the
environment such as physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology,
computer science, materials science, environmental science,
behavioral science, and social sciences at institutions
proposed by applicants for such fellowships.
(b) Period of Award.--A fellowship under this section shall
be awarded for a period of three succeeding academic years,
beginning with the commencement of a program of doctoral
study.
(c) Fellowship Portability.--Each Fellow shall be entitled
to use the fellowship in a graduate program at any accredited
institution of higher education in which the recipient may
decide to enroll.
(d) Number of Fellowships.--As many fellowships as may be
fully funded according to this Act shall be awarded each
year.
(e) Designation of Fellows.--Each individual awarded a
fellowship under this Act shall be known as a ``Paul E.
Tsongas Fellow'' (hereinafter in this Act referred to as a
``Fellow'').
SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY AND SELECTION OF FELLOWS.
(a) Eligibility--Only United States citizens are eligible
to receive awards under this Act.
(b) Fellowship Board.--
(1) Appointment.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the National Science Foundation, shall appoint a
Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship Board (hereinafter in this part
referred to as the ``Board'') consisting of 5 representatives
of the academic science and engineering communities who are
especially qualified to serve on the Board. The Secretary
shall assure that individuals appointed to the Board are
broadly knowledgeable about and have experience in graduate
education in relevant fields.
(2) Duties.--The Board shall--
(A) establish general policies for the program established
by this part and oversee its operation;
(B) establish general criteria for awarding fellowships;
(C) award fellowships; and
(D) prepare and submit to the Congress at least once in
every 3-year period a report on any modifications in the
program that the Board determines are appropriate.
(4) Term.--The term of office of each member of the Board
shall be 3 years, except that any member appointed to fill a
vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term for which
the predecessor of the member was appointed. No member may
serve for a period in excess of 6 years.
(5) Initial meeting; vacancy.--The Secretary shall call the
first meeting of the Board, at which the first order of
business shall be the election of a Chairperson and a Vice
Chairperson, who shall serve until 1 year after the date of
their appointment. Thereafter each officer shall be elected
for a term of 2 years. In case a vacancy occurs in either
office, the Board shall elect an individual from among the
members of the Board to fill such vacancy.
(6) Quorum; additional meetings.--(A) A majority of the
members of the Board shall constitute a quorum.
(B) The Board shall meet at least once a year or more
frequently, as may be necessary, to carry out its
responsibilities.
(7) Compensation.--Members of the Board, while serving on
the business of the Board, shall be entitled to receive
compensation at rates fixed by the Secretary, but not
exceeding the rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the
Executive Schedule, including traveltime, and while so
serving away from their homes or regular places of business,
they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in
lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title
5, United States Code, for persons in Government service
employed intermittently.
(c) Underrepresented Groups.--In designing selection
criteria and awarding fellowships, the Board shall--
(1) consider the need to prepare a larger number of women
and individuals from minority groups, especially from among
such groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in
the professional and academic fields referred to in section
2, but nothing contained in this or any other provision of
this Act shall be interpreted to require the Secretary to
grant any preference or disparate treatment to the members of
any underrepresented group; and
(2) take into account the need to expand access by women
and minority groups to careers heretofore lacking adequate
representation of women and minority groups.
SEC. 5. PAYMENTS, STIPENDS, TUITION, AND EDUCATION AWARDS.
(a) Amount of Award.--
(1) Stipends.--The Secretary shall pay to each individual
awarded a fellowship under this Act a stipend in the amount
of $15,000, $16,500, and $18,000 during the first, second,
and third years of study, respectively.
(2) Tuition.--The Secretary shall pay to the appropriate
institution an amount adequate to cover the tuition, fees,
and health insurance of each individual awarded a fellowship
under this Act.
(3) Administrative and Travel Allowance.--The Secretary
shall pay to each host institution an annual $5,000 allowance
for the purpose of covering--
(A) administrative expenses;
(B) travel expenses associated with Fellow participation in
academic seminars or conferences approved by the host
institution; and
(C) round-trip travel expenses associated with Fellow
participation in the internship required by section 6 of this
Act.
SEC. 6. REQUIREMENT.
Each Fellow shall participate in a 3-month internship
related to the dissertation topic of the Fellow at a national
laboratory or equivalent industrial laboratory as approved by
the host institution.
SEC. 7. FELLOWSHIP CONDITIONS.
(a) Academic Progress Required.--No student shall receive
support pursuant to an award under this Act--
(1) except during periods in which such student is
maintaining satisfactory progress in, and devoting
essentially full time to, study or research in the field in
which such fellowship was awarded, or
(2) if the student is engaging in gainful employment other
than part-time employment involved in teaching, research, or
similar activities determined by the institution to be in
support of the student's progress toward a degree.
(b) Reports From Recipients.--The Secretary is authorized
to require reports containing such information in such form
and filed at such times as the Secretary determines necessary
from any person awarded a fellowship under the provisions of
this Act. The reports shall be accompanied by a certificate
from an appropriate official at the institution of higher
education, or other research center, stating that such
individual is fulfilling the requirements of this section.
(c) Failure To Earn Degree.--A recipient of a fellowship
under this Act found by the Secretary to have failed in or
abandoned the course of study for which assistance was
provided under this Act may be required, at the discretion of
the Secretary, to repay a pro rata amount of such fellowship
assistance received, plus interest and, where applicable,
reasonable collection fees, on a schedule and at a rate of
interest to be prescribed by the Secretary by regulations
issued pursuant to this Act.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for this Act
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and such sums as may be
necessary for the succeeding fiscal years.
SEC. 9. APPLICATION OF GENERAL EDUCATIONAL PROVISIONS ACT.
Section 421 of the General Educational Provisions Act,
pertaining to the availability of funds, shall apply to this
Act.
SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.
(2) The term ``host institution'' means an institution
where a Paul E. Tsongas Fellow is enrolled for the purpose of
pursuing doctoral studies for which support is provided under
this Act.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 1323. A bill to regulate concentrated animal feeding operations
for the protection of the environment and public health, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
THE ANIMAL AGRICULTURE REFORM ACT
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, today I am introducing the Animal
Agriculture Reform Act, a bill that for the first time sets tough
environmental standards governing how large livestock and poultry
operations handle their animal waste. Animal waste pollution is a
national problem that demands a national solution.
Nationwide, 200 times more animal manure is produced than human
waste--five tons for every person in the
[[Page S11292]]
United States--making large livestock operations the waste equivalent
of a town or city. For example, 1,600 dairies in the Central Valley of
California produce more waste than a city of 21 million people. And
right here outside of Washington, DC, the annual production of 600
million chickens on the Delmarva Peninsula leaves as much nitrogen as a
city of almost 500,000 people.
The shrinking number of farms producing an ever greater share of
animals means that too much manure is produced in some areas of the
country to be put on land without causing water pollution. Nitrogen and
phosphorous in animal manure are valuable crop nutrients--but in
excessive levels in water they are serious pollutants.
High levels of nitrogen and phosphorous cause the excessive algae
growth of algae, whose bacterial decomposition uses up oxygen in the
water and kills fish. Animal waste also carries parasites, bacteria and
viruses--and can pollute drinking water with nitrates, potentially
fatal to infants.
While towns must have sewage treatment plants, excess waste from
large-scale animal feeding operations is simply stored indefinitely or
over-applied on land. That means water pollution from over-application,
and the ongoing risk of pollution and even massive spills from stored
waste.
In 1995 in North Carolina 35 million gallons of animal waste were
spilled, killing 10 million fish. And last year more than 40 animal
waste spills were recorded in Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri, up from 20
in 1992.
In 1997, the toxic microbe Pfiesteria, whose increased presence is
linked to excessive nutrients in the water, killed approximately 30,000
fish in the Chesapeake Bay and approximately 450,000 fish in North
Carolina. Major attacks by harmful microbes in U.S. coastal and
estuarial waters between 1972 and 1995 have doubled--and excessive
nutrients are the suspected catalyst.
In the Gulf of Mexico, farm runoff including animal waste is linked
to the formation of a so-called ``dead zone'' of hypoxia (low oxygen)--
up to 7,000 square miles of water that cannot support most aquatic
life.
The Environmental Protection Agency's regulations in this area have
not been revised since they were written in the 1970s, and they do not
go nearly far enough to address current animal waste problems.
Animal waste management practices must include limiting the
application of both phosphorous and nitrogen to amounts that can be
used by crops. In addition, environmentally sound standards are needed
for the handling, storage, treatment and disposal of excess animal
waste.
Under my bill, large animal feeding operations must submit an
individual animal waste management plan to USDA designed to minimize
the risk of surface and ground water pollution. My bill would require
that USDA work with farmers in developing plans to address potential
problems before they happen. USDA will do this by establishing
guidelines and providing technical assistance and information to
develop farm-specific plans to be approved on an individual basis.
I am using the term animal waste, but it is important that we
recognize that manure is a valuable resource for farmers who need
nutrients for their crops. Promoting wise use of manure for crop
nutrients is the guiding principle of my bill. For a plan to be
approved, an operator must agree to apply animal waste to land only in
amounts meeting crop nutrient requirements. Furthermore, liquid waste
that cannot be safely used for nutrients or another environmentally
sound use must be treated in accordance with waste water treatment
standards.
My bill also applies sound technical standards to the construction of
all new earthen manure lagoons to prevent leaks and spillage of animal
waste. Existing earthen manure lagoons are given a reasonable phase-in
period to meet appropriate standards.
In addition, my bill puts the burden of complying with these
requirements on the animal owners. The bill would prevent animal owners
from using contracts or similar arrangements to avoid responsibility
for animal waste management.
The bill covers operations with an approximate one-time animal
capacity above 1,330 hogs; 57,000 chickens; 270 dairy cattle; or 530
slaughter cattle. Each animal owner with at least that many animals
must submit a waste management plan to USDA for approval, whether or
not the animals are kept in one place. Animal feeding operations under
those sizes will qualify under USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives
Program for additional technical and cost-share assistance to implement
animal waste management plans.
I want to be clear that my bill does not interfere with the role of
EPA and the States in monitoring pollution, or is it a substitute for
EPA strengthening its current regulations. I see it as an essential
part of a cooperative approach to the problem by both EPA and USDA--and
I look forward to EPA's proposals in this area. I also look forward to
reviewing the recommendations of the National Environmental Dialogue on
Pork Production, which is working on these issues in great detail.
We must take strong action now to halt the pollution of our water
from animal waste and other farm runoff. Other issues that are outside
the scope of this bill also need to be addressed, including management
of municipal and industrial wastewater and more careful application of
commercial fertilizers. My proposal is one part of a national solution
to our water quality concerns.
______
By Mr. LOTT:
S. 1324. A bill to deauthorize a portion of the project for
navigation, Biloxi Harbor, MS; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
deauthorization legislation
Mr. LOTT. 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. 1324
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
section 1. biloxi harbor, mississippi.
The portion of the project for navigation, Biloxi Harbor,
Mississippi, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(74 Stat. 481), for the Bernard Bayou Channel beginning near
the Air Force Oil Terminal at approximately navigation mile
2.6 and extending downstream to the North-South \1/2\ of
Section 30, Township 7 South, Range 10 West, Harrison County,
Mississippi, just west of Kremer Boat Yards, is not
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Rockfeller, Mr. Burns, and Mr.
Hollings):
S. 1325. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Technology
Administration of the Department of Commerce for fiscal years 1998 and
1999, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
THE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998
AND 1999
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to authorize
appropriations for the Technology Administration [TA] of the Department
of Commerce for fiscal year 1998 and 1999. This bill funds activities
in the National Institutes of Standards and Technology [NIST].
I am keenly aware of my responsibilities to the American people for
ensuring that the people's money is spent wisely. I have a
responsibility to exercise prudent fiscal management over programs that
cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Each program must be
examined, and wasteful, ineffective programs must be changed or
eliminated. I also have a responsibility to make appropriate long term
investments that will help Americans create the technology and wealth
of tomorrow. I view both of these duties as part of the principle of
``wise stewardship'. The TA legislation represents a challenging
application of wise stewardship. This bill covers some of the most
productive and necessary areas of governments, as well as a few of the
most controversial.
There is no question that the work done by NIST's Standards
Laboratory is essential to U.S. commerce. These laboratories house of
the best scientific minds in the world. A perfect example is the award
of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Science to Dr. William Phillips in the area
of low temperature physics. His accomplishment, as well as the
achievements of the world class scientific cadre at NIST are reminders
of
[[Page S11293]]
the necessity for investment in the Standards Laboratory, the people
most of all, but the buildings and infrastructure as well. This
legislation provides for continued investment into this research and
those services
The reauthorization bill contains a provision to add accountability
and controls to the new Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Technology [EPSCoT] program. Modeled after National Science
Foundation's successful and effective EPSoR program, the goal of EPSCoT
is to increase the technological competitiveness of these States that
have historically received less Federal research and development funds
than the majority of the States. While I believe that the aims of this
program are good, we cannot afford to put this or any other Federal
grant program on automatic pilot. Our legislation contains a
graduations criteria, that moves a State out of the program when that
State has become competitive. The bill contains a provision that
mandates periodic evaluation of this program. Using this data we can
tell if and when the program ceases to be effective. If that happens we
have the information needed to see if the program can be fixed, or
should be terminated.
This legislation contains provisions for two programs that have been
particularly contentious: the Advanced Technology Program [ATP], and
the manufacturing Extension Program [MEP]. Both are technology
enhancement programs designed with the intent of increasing the ability
of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace.
Under existing law each MEP center is funded for a maximum of 6
years. This legislation removes the hard and fast sunset provision and
replaces it with a 2-year renewal cycle. Each center must win renewal,
and with it eligibility for Federal funds by receiving a satisfactory
grade from this new biennial review. If the center is not fulfilling
its expectation for assistance of manufacturing technology, then it
will fail its review and will not be able to receive Federal funding.
The Advanced Technology Program has been improved under this
legislation. Large companies will no longer be able to participate as
single applicants. They must partner with one or more small businesses
in order to be eligible to apply for an ATP grant. This provision
maximizes the benefit of this program by encouraging the transfer of
technology and expertise from large businesses to the most dynamic
section of our economy--small business. The legislation also takes
steps to ensure that ATP does not displace private venture capital.
finally, the bill takes an important step to continued evaluation and
possible evolution of the program. It instructs the Department of
Commerce to commission the National Academy of Sciences to study the
effectiveness of the Advanced Technology Program. In addition the study
will investigate alternative methods for the Federal Government to help
keep U.S. businesses competitive.
Finally, the TA NIST reauthorization bill creates a new educational
resource for the country. There has never been a time in our country's
history when science and technology has been more important. It is
playing an increasingly critical role in our economy, and most of all
to our economic future. It is all too clear that our children are not
well enough prepared to take their places as part of the world's
scientific leaders. As the recent NAEP and TIMSS science results show,
there is a gap between our children's science abilities and those from
other countries. In this bill, we have created the Teacher Science and
Technology Enhancement Institute Program to help bridge that gap. The
program is structured to afford primary and secondary educators the
chance to become reacquainted with science. Armed with fresh
experiences, the teachers will be better equipped to excite our
children about technology and scientific inquiry. This is an investment
that we cannot afford to pass up.
I believe that this legislation embodies the concept of wise
stewardship. The bill reflects input that we have received from my
colleagues in the Senate, the House and the administration. More
importantly, we have heard from constituents from my own State of
Tennessee, as well as businesses, professional groups and academia from
around the country. I am sure that the result will not please everyone.
I believe, however, that it represents a necessary step in the constant
evolution of these Federal programs. I take my congressional oversight
obligations extremely seriously. Creating responsible, fair, timely
authorizing legislation is a key part of that obligation. I believe
that this legislation meets these requirements. I hope you will join me
in honoring our obligation to the American people by supporting this
legislation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues
Senator Frist, Senator Hollings, Senator Burns in introducing
legislation to reauthorize the programs of the Technology
Administration for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. This bill reauthorizes
the Office of Science and Technology Policy as well as the NIST labs
and facilities about the President's budget request. It also funds the
Advanced Technology Program at $198 million and the Manufacturing
Extension Program at $111 million.
It is noteworthy that after several hearings on ATP, and after
assessing Secretary of Commerce Daley's detailed review of the program,
we are now putting forward a bill that continues to authorize this
important form of investment in America's economic competitiveness. As
I, along with many others in this Chamber, have stated before, this
program supports American industry's own efforts to develop new,
cutting-edge technologies which create the new industries and jobs of
the 21st century.
Let me remind my colleagues that ATP does not, and I repeat, does not
fund the development of commercial products. Instead, this program
provides matching funds to both individual companies and joint ventures
for pre-product research on high-risk technologies which have the
potential to place U.S. industry as the leader in new industrial areas.
This high-risk, high-reward strategy has already led to the creation of
new U.S. industries based on information transfer, biotechnology, and
new materials synthesis.
In spite of the merits of this program ATP has been criticized by
some Members for the past 4 years of the program's 6 years of
existence. This year Secretary Daley undertook a 60-day review to
assess the ATP's performance and evaluate these criticisms. The
Department of Commerce solicited comments from more than 3,500
interested parties and took into account comments provided by both
critics and supporters of the program. fact, Senators Lieberman,
Domenici, Frist and I joined together and provided one of the 80-plus
comments the Department received. I would like to take a moment and
commend Secretary Daley for the job he did in undertaking this review.
As we all know, there is not a department or program that can't be
improved. And as a long time and avid supporter of ATP I believe, that
after 6 years of operation, experience would suggest that there should
be some areas that can be improved. This review has done just that. The
recommendations that Secretary Daley has put forth further strengthens
a strong and productive program. I agree with his suggestion to place
more emphasis on small and medium-size single applicants, joint-
ventures, and consortia. This bill adopts that recommendation by
amending the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to
define a large business as one with gross annual revenues in excess of
$2.5 billion and prohibits such businesses from participating in ATP
programs as single applicants.
In addition, I was pleased to see the added emphasis by the Secretary
on the need for an EPSCoT program, based on the EPSCoR model, which
would enhance technology development in the 18 States that have
traditionally been under-represented in Federal R&D funding. EPSCoT
would provide the opportunity for States which have been able to build
infrastructure capable of supporting high-tech research to use this
infrastructure to its maximum advantage. Studies have shown that
strengthening the competitive performance of research laboratories,
usually universities, in an underdeveloped area, which is the purpose
of EPSCoR, is often not sufficient to establish new, high-tech
companies. EPSCoT seeks to assist in technology
[[Page S11294]]
transfer to the local economy by encouraging links between
universities, local businesses, and local and State governments. Unlike
ATP, which focuses on the national economic interest in research and
development, EPSCoT focuses on allowing under-represented States the
opportunity to participate in the technological revolution that is
sweeping the global economy. In order to help the success of the
program, Governors, business leaders and researchers were consulted
about the importance of technology transfer for economic development.
This bill provides statutory language to implement the Secretary's
proposal of creating the EPSCoT program.
Secretary Daley's review could not have been done at a better time.
After 6 years of existence, a thorough and complete review of the
process has shown that is it competently managed, produces positive
results and has been working to achieve it's stated objectives. The
proposals set forth in this review strengthen a very strong program
that is one of the cornerstones to the Nation's long-term economic
prosperity. The bill we are introducing today provides the necessary
changes to existing law to implement many of the recommendations. I
encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 1326. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide for Medicaid coverage of all certified nurse practitioners and
clinical nurse specialists services; to the Committee on Finance.
THE MEDICAID NURSING INCENTIVE ACT
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Medicaid
Nursing Incentive Act, a bill to provide direct Medicaid reimbursement
for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists.
This legislation eliminates a groundless and counterproductive
anomaly in Medicaid payment policy. Under current law, State Medicaid
programs can exclude certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse
specialists from Medicaid reimbursement, even though these
practitioners are fully trained to provide many of the same services as
those provided by primary care physicians. This loophole is both
discriminatory and shortsighted; it severs a critical access link for
Medicaid beneficiaries.
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
go 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 many of the beneficiaries live. Fortunately,
there is an exception to this trend: nurse practitioners and clinical
nurse specialists frequently accept patients whom others will not treat
and serve in areas where others refuse to work.
Studies have shown that nurse practitioners and clinical nurse
specialists 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 and clinical nurse specialists. For more than a decade,
CHAMPUS has provided direct payment to nurse practitioners. In 1990,
Congress mandated direct payment for nurse practitioner services under
the Federal employee health benefits plan. The Medicare Program, which
already covers nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialist
services in rural areas, was modified under this year's Balance Budget
Act to provide coverage for these services in all geographic areas. The
bill I am introducing today establishes the same payment policy under
Medicaid.
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 to make cost-effective, high-quality health
care services available and accessible to all Americans.
One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of
primary and preventative 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 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 nonphysician 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 and preventive care and health
promotion.
But, first, we must reevaluate 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. The commission
recommended eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying nurse
practitioners directly for the services they provide. This step will
help nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists expand access
to the primary care that so many communities currently lack.
Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the measure I am
introducing today, recognizing the critical role that nurse
practitioners and other nonphysician health professionals play in our
health care delivery system, and the increasingly significant
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. 1326
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 (v)) 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:
``(v) 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, 1998.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Kerry, and
Mr. Akaka):
S. 1327. A bill to grant normal trade relations status to the
People's Republic of China on a permanent basis upon the accession of
the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization; to the
Committee on Finance.
the china trade relations act of 1997
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senators Hagel,
Thomas, John Kerry, and Akaka to introduce legislation that will grant
normal trade relations to the People's Republic of China on a permanent
basis when China accedes to the World Trade Organization.
Today, President Jiang arrives in Washington for the first bilateral
summit in 8 years. Exchange at the highest levels is critical to the
maintenance of
[[Page S11295]]
any of our important bilateral relationships. It is even more crucial
in our relationship with the world's largest country, fastest growing
economy, and most important rising power.
Mr. President, this body has spent a great deal of energy debating
United States policy toward China, cresting each year with the struggle
over renewal of normal trade relations. I have always supported such
renewal, and viewed the annual debate as a singularly unproductive
means of moving the United States toward a coherent China policy. I say
that because, besides regular high-level exchange, normal trade
relations with China are essential to any coherent China policy, one
that keeps our economy strong and engages Beijing in constructive
reform.
Currently, the United States is negotiating with China over the
package of measures Beijing must implement to comply with the strict
market-based rules of the World Trade Organization. Until the United
States is satisfied with commitments from China on such issues as lower
tariff levels and enhanced market access, and assured that Beijing can
and will carry out those commitments, China will not gain entry to the
WTO.
The concessions China must make to gain United States approval are
significant and will dramatically affect large segments of China's
economy. The single most important economic benefit Beijing will derive
from membership in the World Trade Organization is permanent normal
trade relations--also known as most-favored-nation trading status--with
every other WTO member. As a practical matter, however, every member
economy of the World Trade Organization, except the United States, has
already conferred on China permanent normal trade relations. Moreover,
the United States has provided normal trade relations to China 1 year
at a time for more than 15 years. However, until China is specifically
removed from the limitations of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974,
Beijing cannot receive permanent normal trade relations from the United
States, whatever China's status in the WTO.
The resulting ambiguity over China's trade status with the United
States hinders Beijing's willingness to make the significant
concessions necessary to complete a commercially viable WTO accession
package. A clear signal from the United States that China will, in
fact, gain permanent normal trade relations upon its accession to the
World Trade Organization will provide Beijing an incentive to make
those concessions.
Mr. President, it is crucial that we understand that China's
membership in the WTO under commercially viable terms is wholly in the
interest of the United States. That is because China will be forced to
open its markets significantly to American trade and investment. And
more fully open markets represent the best approach to reducing our
current trade deficit with China. China's membership in the World Trade
Organization will also make Beijing fully subject to the market-
oriented disciplines of the WTO. Finally, our bilateral trade disputes
with China will be subject to multilateral resolution mechanisms, in
addition to the means we already have available under United States
trade law.
China is the world's 10th largest trading country. It is the largest
economy not in the World Trade Organization. Regardless of its WTO
status, China will have a major influence on the future development of
the world trading system. I believe the time has come for Congress to
recognize the importance of integrating China into the global economy.
Our bilateral economic relationship is the most important means we
have of integrating China fully into the world economy and the
international political order. The United States is one of the top five
sources of foreign investment in China. That investment is not limited
to the special economic zones, but now takes place throughout China and
across every major industry. Our businesses are linked in investment
and in trading relationships that provide a vehicle for common effort
and common understanding at the most practical and personal levels.
China also represents a growing economic and political influence in a
region of critical importance to the United States. The Asia-Pacific
region now represents over 40 percent of world trade and 53 percent of
world gross national product. Trans-Pacific trade is more than twice as
large as trans-Atlantic trade. The Asia-Pacific region economies,
including the United States and China, are becoming increasingly
interdependent. The region now represents the largest market for United
States exports--over $130 billion by some estimates. The predicate to
our ability to encourage China to play a constructive role in the
region is our willingness to redefine our bilateral economic
relationship through the WTO accession process and the normalization of
our trade relations under United States law.
A China more fully immersed in global capitalism is more likely to
behave in ways compatible with American interests and international
norms. We have seen this reality throughout Asia as countries have made
major reforms in opening their economies and joined us at the table of
democratic freedom. Moreover, without permanent normal trade relations,
not only will we have less influence over the role China chooses to
play on the global stage, we will also be left on the sidelines of
China's economic growth.
We cannot passively accept abuses of human rights, religious
persecution, or the many other problems we have with China that must be
addressed and corrected. But neither must we neglect the many issues
and problems where our interests converge, including the stability in
the Asia Pacific that undergirds the region's economic growth, peaceful
resolution of the urgent troubles on the Korean Peninsula, and
addressing the transnational concerns posed by environmental
degradation, narcotics trafficking, and crime.
A relationship premised on cooperation in areas of shared interest
also provides us a better opportunity to discourage Beijing from
transferring missiles and other arms to Iran, Iraq, Burma, and other
rogue regimes, persuade China to reduce tensions in the Taiwan Straits,
and encourage Beijing to maintain freedoms in Hong Kong and foster
greater human rights in China.
Mr. President, Congress and the American people must understand what
is at stake in the bilateral relationship and how best to move China in
a direction that is in our best interest and the best interest of the
American and Chinese people. The summit taking place this week and this
legislation, I believe, can provide the United States and China the
impetus to move toward a far more mutually productive relationship.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with the
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, as an
original cosponsor to his legislation to strengthen the President's
hand in opening up China's market to American exports. I commend
Chairman Roth for his leadership on trade issues. This bill would
extend permanent most-favored-nation trading status to China upon that
country's accession to membership of the World Trade Organization under
commercially viable terms.
Mr. President, I believe that the annual debate over so-called most-
favored-nation trading status for China has become counterproductive.
It is time for the United States and China to transcend this flawed
process. It is time for trade relations between our two countries to be
based on the normal commercial standards that one would expect between
two of the world's great trading powers.
This legislation would greatly strengthen the President's hand in
achieving trade negotiations with China. It would do this by giving the
President the authority to grant China permanent MFN status upon that
country's accession to the WTO under normal commercial arrangements. As
long as the Congress merely promises to consider granting permanent MFN
status after China has agreed to accept WTO obligations, the
President's leverage in trade negotiations with China will be weakened.
I would like to emphasize that I do not support China's entry into
the World Trade Organization under any special arrangement that would
allow China to avoid full compliance with WTO standards. However,
China's accession to the WTO under normal commercial arrangements would
be good
[[Page S11296]]
for the United States and good for the world trading system. It would
require China to adhere to international trading standards. And should
China fail to live up to its WTO obligations, we would then have access
to the WTO's multilateral dispute resolution mechanisms. As long as
China remains outside of the WTO, our only recourse for resolving our
trade disputes with China is through the threat of often less effective
bilateral actions, such as threats of section 301 trade sanctions.
But once China becomes a member of the WTO under a viable commercial
protocol, the rules of the WTO require other WTO nations to grant
permanent MFN to China. If we do not, we lose much of the benefit of
getting China to accept WTO rules. This is because the United States
would be denied access to the WTO's dispute resolution process for
forcing China to live up to its agreements. That is why this bill is so
important.
There are a great number of common misunderstanding over the annual
debate on so-called most-favored-nation trading status for China. First
of all, the archaic term ``most favored nation'' is itself misleading.
MFN status is not, as many believe, some special trade benefit. It is
not even the most favored trading status that we maintain with other
countries. The United States grants much more favorable trade status to
many other countries, including Canada, Israel, Mexico, the countries
of the Caribbean, and a host of other nations--more than 130 in all--
that benefit from special trade programs. All MFN status means is that
we are willing to maintain some semblance of regular trade relations
with that country. This is demonstrated by the fact that only six
countries in the world do not have MFN status.
What is more, under current trade laws, there is no middle ground
between full MFN trading status with average tariffs of 4 percent, and
the disastrous 1930's-era Smoot-Hawley tariffs that average over 50
percent. Let there be no doubt about the consequences of repealing MFN
trading status for China: it would mean a virtual end to United States-
China trade relations.
United States trade with China is important. Throughout the ages,
commerce has been a driving force of modernity and the spread of
western ideas. Withdrawing from China will not bring the kind of change
we are all seeking in that still autocratic system. Isolating China
economically would have a disastrous and counterproductive result.
Nevertheless, there are serious trade issues between the United
States and China that need to be resolved. This bill will make their
resolution more likely. Nebraska is a major exporting state, with total
exports last year of $2.45 billion of which $1.5 billion was food or
agricultural products. Nebraska's meat exports to the world, primarily
beef, grew 89 percent in the first half of this decade. United States
beef exports to China, however, are severely constrained by China's 80
percent tariffs. These levels must come down in the context of the WTO
negotiations. China also maintains a wide range of trade restrictions
that are illegal under WTO rules. These illegal trade barriers include
unscientific health laws that entirely prohibit certain types of U.S.
wheat exports.
Mr. President, aggressive United States efforts to negotiate China's
entry into the WTO under normal commercial arrangements is clearly in
our national interest. The United States continues to run a large,
persistent trade deficit with China. Last year, our deficit reached $39
billion, and it is expected to be higher this year. But the way to
reduce that deficit is not by closing off our borders and cutting off
export markets, but to work aggressively to open those markets,
particularly the China market.
Export jobs pay 13-16 percent more than average American jobs.
Exports are the future of our Nation, and we need to have China's
market opened to American goods, services, and agricultural
commodities.
______
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 1328. A bill to amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to
promote competition and privatization in satellite communications, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
THE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE COMPETITION AND PRIVATIZATION ACT OF 1997
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Communications
Satellite Competition and Privatization Act of 1997. This bill amends
the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 in order to promote full
competition in the global satellite communication services market by
fully privatizing satellite communications. It is my intention that the
introduction of this bill in the Senate will spur debate on this
important issue. It is my goal to work with all of my colleagues and
all other interested parties to address the issues presented in this
bill.
In 1962, the United States and other countries around the world
recognized the increasingly important role the new and emerging
satellite technology could play in facilitating worldwide
communications. In enacting the Communications Satellite Act of 1962,
Congress sought to improve the global communications network by
implementing a global, commercial communications satellite system,
expeditiously. INTELSAT, Inmarsat, and Comsat emerged as the network
that would connect Americans to countries throughout the world.
INTELSATE, Inmarsat, and Comsat have undoubtedly fulfilled their
missions and have provided us with valuable services. Through their
communications network, they have connected us whether we are on land
or on water, by voice, video, and data transmissions, and across
continents. They have also played a pivotal role in pioneering the
delivery of satellite communications.
However, in the 35 years since the act has been adopted, the
marketplace has changed and the time is now ripe for us to revisit the
act and put in place a policy that will take the industry and the
American consumers into the future. Today, many U.S. and foreign
satellite systems participate in the global satellite marketplace.
There are also an increasing number of satellite systems seeking
authority to participate in the marketplace. As additional satellite
systems enter the marketplace, competition must continue to flourish
and consumers must obtain needed services at reasonable prices. The
treaty-based status and intergovernmental structure of INTELSAT,
Inmarsat, and Comsat must not hinder the ability of these carriers to
effectively compete in the future and must not distort competition in
the marketplace.
Today, many individuals in the government and in industry, nationally
and worldwide are working on the privatization of INTELSAT and
Inmarsat. There is a recognition that the status quo will not benefit
the marketplace nor will it benefit INTELSAT and Inmarsat, or Comsat.
My introduction of this bill is intended to establish a framework in
which the Senate can begin a larger discussion of the issues and
ultimately craft legislation that promotes the delivery of state-of-
the-art satellite communications and brings innovations and cost
reductions to the public. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in
supporting a policy that will continue to allow our satellite industry
to grow and flourish and for consumers to receive the benefits of such
advancements.
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. 1328
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 ``Communications Satellite
Competition and Privatization Act of 1997''.
TITLE I--USE OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS TO SECURE COMPETITION AND PRIVATIZATION
SEC. 101. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to promote a fully
competitive global market for satellite communication
services for the benefit of consumers and providers of
satellite services and equipment by fully privatizing the
intergovernmental satellite organizations, INTELSAT and
INMARSAT.
SEC. 102. REVISION OF COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ACT OF 1962.
(a) Addition of New Title.--The Communications Satellite
Act of 1962 (47 U.S.C. 101) is amended by adding at the end
the following new title:
[[Page S11297]]
``TITLE VI--COMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND PRIVATIZATION
``SUBTITLE A--ACTIONS TO ENSURE PROCOMPETITIVE PRIVATIZATION
SEC. 601. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LICENSING.
``(a) Licensing for Separated Entitles.--
``(1) Competition test.--The Commission may not issue a
license or construction permit to any separated entity, or
renew or permit the assignment or use of any such license or
permit, or authorize the use by any entity subject to United
States jurisdiction of any space segment owned or operated by
any separated entity, unless the Commission determines that
such issuance, renewal, assignment, or use will not harm
competition in the telecommunications market of the United
States. If the Commission does not make such a determination,
it shall deny or revoke authority to use space segment owned
or operated by the separated entity to provide services to,
from, or within the United States.
``(2) Criteria for competition test.--In making the
determination required by paragraph (1), the Commission shall
use the licensing criteria in sections 621 and 623, and shall
not make such a determination unless the Commission
determines that the privatization of any separated entity is
consistent with such criteria.
``(b) Licensing for INTELSAT, INMARSAT, and successor
entities.--
``(1) Competition test.--The Commission shall substantially
limit, deny, or revoke the authority for any entity subject
to United States jurisdiction to use space segment owned or
operated by INTELSAT or INMARSAT or any successor entities to
provide non-core services to, from, or within the United
States, unless the Commission determines--
``(A) after January 1, 2002, in the case of INTELSAT and
its successor entities, that INTELSAT and any successor
entities have been privatized in a manner that will not harm
competition in the telecommunications markets of the United
States; or
``(B) after January 1, 2001, in the case of INMARSAT and
its successor entities, that INMARSAT and any successor
entities have been privatized in a manner that will not harm
competition in the telecommunications markets of the United
States.
``(2) Criteria for competition test.--In making the
determination required by paragraph (1), the Commission use
the licensing criteria in sections 621, 622, and 624, and
shall not make such a determination unless the Commission
determines that such privatization is consistent with such
criteria.
``(c) Prevention of Expansion.--Pending privatization in
accordance with the licensing criteria in subtitle B, the
Commission shall not--
``(1) issue an authorization, license, or permit to, or
renew the license or permit of, any provider of services
using INTELSAT or INMARSAT space segment, or authorize the
use of such space segment, for additional services (including
additional applications of existing services) or additional
areas of business; or
``(2) otherwise assist the expansion of INTELSAT or
INMARSAT services, including through authorizing COMSAT's
investment in new INTELSAT or INMARSAT satellites or
registering for orbital slots intended for INTELSAT or
INMARSAT provision of additional services (including
additional applications of existing services) or additional
areas of business.
``SEC. 602. INTELSAT OR INMARSAT ORBITAL SLOTS.
``Unless, in a proceeding under section 601(b), the
Commission determines that INTELSAT or INMARSAT have been
privatized in a manner that will not harm competition, then--
``(1) the President shall oppose, and the Commission shall
not assist, any registration for new orbital slots for
INTELSAT or INMARSAT orbital slots--
``(A) with respect to INTELSAT, after January 1, 2002, and
``(B) with respect to INMARSAT, after January 1, 2001, and
``(2) the President and Commission shall, consistent with
the deadlines in paragraph (1), take all other necessary
measures to preclude procurement, registration, development,
or use of new satellites which would provide non-core
services.
``SUBTITLE B--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LICENSING CRITERIA:
PRIVATIZATION CRITERIA
``SEC. 621. GENERAL CRITERIA TO ENSURE A PRO-COMPETITIVE
PRIVATIZATION OF INTELSAT AND INMARSAT.
``The President and the Commission shall secure a pro-
competitive privatization of INTELSAT and INMARSAT that meets
the criteria set forth in this section and sections 622
through 624. In securing such privatizations, the following
criteria shall be applied as licensing criteria for purposes
of subtitle A:
``(1) dates for privatization.--Privatization shall be
obtained in accordance with the criteria of this title of--
``(A) INTELSAT as soon as practicable, but no later than
January 1, 2002, and
``(B) INMARSAT as soon as practicable, but no later than
January 1, 2001.
``(2) Independence.--The successor entities and separated
entities of INTELSAT and INMARSAT resulting from the
privatization obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) be entities that are national corporations; and
``(B) have ownership and management that is independent
of--
``(i) any signatories or former signatories that control
access to national telecommunications markets; and
``(ii) any intergovernmental organization remaining after
the privatization.
``(3) Termination of privileges and immunities.--The
preferential treatment of INTELSAT and INMARSAT shall not be
extended to any successor entity or separated entity of
INTELSAT or INMARSAT. Such preferential treatment includes--
``(A) privileged or immune treatment by national
governments;
``(B) privileges or immunities or other competitive
advantages of the type accorded INTELSAT and INMARSAT and
their signatories though the terms and operation of the
INTELSAT Agreement and the associated Headquarters Agreement
and the INMARSAT Convention; and
``(C) preferential access to orbital slots.
``(4) Prevention of expansion during transition.--During
the transition period prior to full privatization, INTELSAT
and INMARSAT shall be precluded from expanding into
additional services (including additional applications of
existing services) or additional areas of business.
``(5) Conversion to stock corporations.--Any successor
entity or separated entity created out of INTELSAT or
INMARSAT shall be a national corporation established through
the execution of an initial public offering as follows:
``(A) Any successor entities and separated entities shall
be incorporated as private corporations subject to the laws
of the nation in which incorporated.
``(B) An initial public offering of securities of any
successor entity or separated entity shall be conducted no
later than--
``(i) January 1, 2001, for the successor entities of
INTELSAT; and
``(ii) January 1, 2000, for the successor entities of
INMARSAT.
``(C) The shares of any successor entities and separated
entities shall be listed for trading on one or more major
stock exchanges with transparent and effective securities
regulation.
``(D) A majority of the board of directors of any successor
entity or separated entity shall not be subject to selection
or appointment by, or otherwise serve as representatives of--
``(i) any signatory or former signatory that controls
access to national telecommunications markets; or
``(ii) any intergovernmental organization remaining after
the privatization.
``(E) Any transactions or other relationships between or
among any successor entity, separated entity, INTELSAT, or
INMARSAT shall be conducted on an arm's length basis.
``(6) Regulatory treatment.--Any successor entity or
separated entity shall apply through the appropriate national
licensing authorities for international frequency assignments
and associated orbital registrations for all satellites.
``(7) Competition policies in domiciliary country.--Any
successor entity or separated entity shall be incorporated
and headquartered in a nation or nations that--
``(A) have effective laws and regulations that secure
competition in telecommunications services;
``(B) are signatories of the World Trade Organization Basic
Telecommunications Services Agreement; and
``(C) have a schedule of commitments in such Agreement that
includes non-discriminatory market access to their satellite
markets.
``(8) Return of unused orbital slots.--INTELSAT, INMARSAT,
and any successor entities and separated entities shall not
be permitted to warehouse orbital slots that do not have
satellites that are providing commercial services, and any
orbital slots of INTELSAT or INMARSAT which are not in use or
brought into use providing commercial services as of May 12,
1997, or thereafter, shall be returned to the
International Telecommunication Union for reallocation.
``(9) Appraisal of assets.--Before any transfer of assets
by INTELSAT or INMARSAT to any successor entity or separated
entity, such assets shall be independently audited for
purposes of appraisal, at both book and fair market value.
``SEC. 622. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR INTELSAT.
``In securing the privatizations required by section 621,
the following additional criteria with respect to INTELSAT
privatization shall be applied as licensing criteria for
purposes of subtitle A:
``(1) Number of competitors.--The number of competitors in
the market served by INTELSAT, including the number of
competitors created out of INTELSAT, shall be sufficient to
create a fully competitive market.
``(2) Prevention of expansion during transition.--Pending
privatization in accordance with the criteria in this title,
INTELSAT shall not expand by receiving additional orbital
slots, placing new satellites in existing slots, or procuring
new or additional satellites, except for specified
replacement satellites for which construction contracts have
been executed as of May 12, 1997, and the United States shall
oppose such expansion--
``(A) in INTELSAT, including at the Assembly of Parties,
``(B) in the International Telecommunication Union,
[[Page S11298]]
``(C) through United States instructions to COMSAT,
``(D) in the Commission, through declining to facilitate
the registration of additional orbital slots or the provision
of additional services (including additional applications of
existing services) or additional areas of business; and
``(E) in other appropriate fora.
``(3) Technical coordination among signatories.--Technical
coordination shall not be used to impair competition or
competitors, and coordination under Article XIV(d) of the
INTELSAT Agreement shall be eliminated.
``SEC. 623. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR INTELSAT SEPARATED
ENTITIES.
``In securing the privatizations required by section 621,
the following additional criteria with respect to any
INTELSAT separated entity shall be applied as licensing
criteria for purposes of subtitle A:
``(1) Date for public offering.--Within one year after any
decision to create any separated entity, a public offering of
the securities of such entity shall be conducted.
``(2) Privileges and immunities.--The privileges and
immunities of INTELSAT and its signatories shall be waived
with respect to any transactions with any separated entity,
and any limitations on private cause of action that would
otherwise generally be permitted against any separated entity
shall be eliminated.
``(3) Interlockig directorates or employees.--None of the
officers, directors, or employees of any separated entity
shall be individuals who are officers, directors, or
employees of INTELSAT.
``(4) Spectrum assignments.--After the initial transfer
which may accompany the creation of a separated entity, the
portions of the electromagnetic spectrum assigned on the date
of enactment of this Act to INTELSAT shall not be transferred
between INTELSAT and any separated entity.
``(5) Reaffiliation prohibited.--Any merger or ownership or
management ties or exclusive arrangements between a
privatized INTELSAT or any successor entity and any separated
entity shall be prohibited until 15 years after the
completion of INTELSAT privatization under this title.
``SEC. 624. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR INMARSAT.
``In securing the privatizations required by section 621,
the following additional criteria with respect to INMARSAT
privatization shall be applied as licensing criteria for
purposes of subtitle A:
``(1) Multiple signatories and direct access.--Multiple
signatories and direct access to INMARSAT shall be permitted.
``(2) Prevention of expansion during transition.--Pending
privatization in accordance with the criteria in this title,
INMARSAT should not expanded by receiving additional orbital
slots, placing new satellites in existing slots, or procuring
new or additional satellites, except for specified
replacement satellites for which construction contracts have
been executed as of May 12, 1997, and the United States shall
oppose such expansion--
``(A) in INMARSAT, including at the Council and Assembly of
Parties,
``(B) in the International Telecommunication Union,
``(C) through United States instructions to COMSAT,
``(D) in the Commission, through declining to facilitate
the registration of additional orbital slots or providing new
services or uses for existing slots, and
``(E) in other appropriate fora.
``(3) Number of competitors.--The number of competitors in
the markets served by INMARSAT, including the number of
competitors created out of INMARSAT, shall be sufficient to
create a fully competitive market.
``(4) Reaffiliation prohibited.--Any merger or ownership or
management ties or exclusive arrangements between INMARSAT or
any successor entity or separated entity and ICO shall be
prohibited until 15 years after the completion of INMARSAT
privatization under this title.
``(5) Interlocking directorates or employees.--None of the
officers, directors, or employees of INMARSAT or any
successor entity or separated entity shall be individuals who
are officers, directors, or employees of ICO.
``(6) Spectrum assignments.--The portions of the
electromagnetic spectrum assigned on the date of enactment of
this Act to INMARSAT--
``(A) shall, after January 1, 2006, or the date on which
the life of the current generation of INMARSAT satellites
ends, whichever is later, be made available for assignment to
all systems (including the privatized INMARSAT) on a non-
discriminatory basis; and
``(B) shall not be transferred between INMARSAT and ICO.
``SUBTITLE C--DEREGULATION AND OTHER STATUTORY CHANGES
``SEC. 641. DIRECT ACCESS; TREATMENT OF COMSAT AS NONDOMINANT
CARRIER.
``The Commission shall take such actions as may be
necessary--
``(1) to permit providers or users of telecommunications
services to obtain direct access to INTELSAT
telecommunications services as soon as practicable, but no
later than January 1, 2001;
``(2) to permit providers or users of telecommunications
services to obtain direct access to INMARSAT
telecommunications services as soon as practicable, but no
later than January 1, 2000; and
``(3) to treat COMSAT as a nondominant carrier for the
purposes of the Commission's regulations on the effective
date of the actions taken pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2),
respectively.
``SEC. 642. SIGNATORY ROLE.
``(a) Multiple Signatories Permitted.--
``(1) INTELSAT.--As soon as practicable, but no later than
January 1, 2001, multiple signatories shall be permitted to
represent the United States in INTELSAT.
``(2) INMARSAT.--As soon as practicable, but not later than
January 1, 2000, multiple signatories shall be permitted to
represent the United States in INMARSAT.
``(b) Elimination of COMSAT Privileges and Immunities.--
Notwithstanding any other law or executive agreement, COMSAT
shall not be entitled to any privileges or immunities under
the laws of the United States or any State on the basis of
its status as a signatory of INTELSAT or INMARSAT.
``(c) Parity of Treatment.--Notwithstanding any other law
or executive agreement, the Commission shall have the
authority to impose similar regulatory fees on the United
States signatory which it imposes on other entities providing
similar services.
``SEC. 643. ELIMINATION OF PROCUREMENT PREFERENCES.
``Nothing in this Act or the Communications Act of 1934
shall be construed to authorize or require any preference, in
Federal Government procurement of telecommunications
services, for the satellite space segment provided by
INTELSAT, INMARSAT, or any successor entity or separated
entity.
``SEC. 644. USE OF ITU TECHNICAL COORDINATION.
``The Commission and United States satellite companies
shall utilize the International Telecommunication Union
procedures for technical coordination with INTELSAT and its
successor entities and separated entities, rather than
INTELSAT procedures.
``SEC. 645. TERMINATION OF COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ACT OF
1962 PROVISIONS.
``Effective on the dates specified, the following
provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective:
``(1) Date of enactment of this title: Sections 101 and
102; paragraphs (1), (5) and (6) of section 201(a); section
301; section 303; section 304; section 502; and paragraphs
(2) and (4) of section 504(a).
``(2) On the effective date of the Commission's order that
establishes direct access to INTELSAT space segment:
Paragraphs (1), (3) through (5), and (8) through (10) of
section 201(c).
``(3) On the effective date of the Commission's order that
establishes direct access to INMARSAT space segment:
Subsections (a) through (d) of section 503.
``(4) On the effective date of the Commission order
determining under section 601(b)(2) that INMARSAT
privatization is consistent with criteria in sections 621 and
624: Section 504(b).
``(5) On the effective date of a Commission order
determining under section 601(b)(2) that INTELSAT
privatization is consistent with criteria in sections 621 and
622: Paragraphs (2) and (4) of section 201(a); section
201(c)(2); subsection (a) of section 403; and section 404.
``SEC. 646. REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS.
``(a) Annual Reports.--The President and the Commission
shall report to the Congress within 90 calendar days of the
enactment of this Act, and not less than annually thereafter,
on the progress made to achieve the objectives and carry out
the purposes and provisions of this Act. Such reports shall
be made available immediately to the public.
``(b) Contents of Reports.--The reports submitted pursuant
to subsection (a) shall include the following:
``(1) Progress with respect to each objective since the
most recent preceding report.
``(2) Views of the Parties with respect to privatization.
``(3) Views of industry and consumers on privatization.
``SEC. 647. CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS.
``The President's designees and the Commission shall
consult with the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate prior to each meeting of the
INTELSAT or INMARSAT Assembly of Parties, the INTELSAT Board
of Governors, the INMARSAT Council, or appropriate working
group meetings.
``SEC. 648. SATELLITE AUCTIONS.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Commission shall not have the authority to assign by
competitive bidding orbital slots or spectrum used for the
provision of international or global satellite communications
services. The President shall oppose in the International
Telecommunication Union and in other bilateral and
multilateral fora any assignment by competitive bidding of
orbital slots or spectrum used for the provision of such
services.
``SUBTITLE D--NEGOTIATIONS TO PURSUE PRIVATIZATION
``SEC. 661. METHODS TO PURSUE PRIVATIZATIONS.
``The President shall secure the pro-competitive
privatizations required by this title in a manner that meets
the criteria in subtitle B.
``SUBTITLE E--DEFINITIONS
``SEC. 681. DEFINITIONS.
``(a) In General.--As used in this title:
[[Page S11299]]
``(1) INTELSAT.--The term `INTELSAT' means the
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization
established pursuant to the Agreement Relating to the
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization
(INTELSAT).
``(2) INMARSAT.--The term `INMARSAT' means the
International Mobile Satellite Organization established
pursuant to the Convention on the International Maritime
Organization.
``(3) Signatories.--The term `signatories'--
``(A) in the case of INTELSAT, or INTELSAT successors or
separated entities, means a Party, or the telecommunications
entity designated by a Party, that has signed the Operating
Agreement and for which such Agreement has entered into force
or to which such Agreement has been provisionally applied;
``(B) in the case of INMARSAT, or INMARSAT successors or
separated entities, means either a Party to, or an entity
that has been designated by a Party to sign, the Operating
Agreement.
``(4) Party.--The term `Party'--
``(A) in the case of INTELSAT, means a nation for which the
INTELSAT agreement has entered into force or been
provisionally applied; and
``(B) in the case of INMARSAT, means a nation for which the
INMARSAT convention has entered into force.
``(5) Commission.--The term `Commission' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
``(6) International Telecommunication Union.--The term
`International Telecommunication Union' means the
intergovernmental organization that is a specialized agency
of the United Nations in which member countries cooperate for
the development of telecommunications, including adoption of
international regulations governing terrestrial and space
uses of the frequency spectrum as well as use of the
geostationary satellite orbit.
``(7) Direct Access.--The term `direct access' means
arrangements for purchase of space segment capacity from, or
investment in (or both), INTELSAT or INMARSAT by means other
than through a signatory.
``(8) Successor entity.--The term `successor entity'--
``(A) means any privatized entity created from the
privatization of INTELSAT or INMARSAT or from the assets of
INTELSAT or INMARSAT, but
``(B) does not include any entity that is a separated
entity.
``(9) Separated entity.--The term `separated entity' means
a privatived entity to whom a portion of the assets owned by
INTELSAT or INMARSAT are transferred prior to full
privatization of INTELSAT or INMARSAT, including in
particular the entity whose structure was under discussion by
INTELSAT as of May 12, 1997, but excluding ICO.
(10) Orbital slot.--The term `orbital slot' means the
location for placement of a satellite on the geostationary
orbital are as defined in the International Telecommunication
Union Radio Regulations.
``(11) Space segment.--The term `space segment' means the
satellites, and the tracking, telemetry, command, control,
monitoring and related facilities and equipment used to
support the operation of satellites owned or leased by
INTELSAT, INMARSAT, or a separated entity or successor
entity.
``(12) Non-core.--The term `non-core services' means, with
respect to INTELSAT provision, services other than public-
switched network voice telephony and occasional-use
television, and with respect to INMARSAT provision, services
other than global maritime distress and safety services or
other existing maritime or aeronautical services for which
there are not alternative providers.
``(13) Additional services.--The term `additional services'
means Internet services, high-speed data, non-maritime or
non-aeronautical mobile services, Direct to Home (DTH) or
Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) video services, or Ka-band
services.
``(14) INTELSAT.--The term `INTELSAT' means the
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization.
``(15) INTELSAT agreement.--The term `INTELSAT Agreement'
means the Agreement Relating to the International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT),
including all its annexes (TIAS 7532, 23 UST 3813).
``(16) Headquarters agreement.--The term `Headquarters
Agreement' means the International Telecommunication
Satellite Organization Headquarters Agreement (November 24,
1976) (TIAS8542, 28 UST 2248).
``(17) Operating agreement.--The term `Operating Agreement'
means--
``(A) in the case of INTELSAT, the agreement, including its
annex but excluding all titles of articles, opened for
signature at Washington on August 20, 1971, by Governments or
telecommunications entities designated by Governments in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, and
``(B) in the case of INMARSAT, the Operating Agreement on
the International Maritime Satellite Organization, including
its annexes.
``(18) INMARSAT Convention.--The term `INMARSAT Convention'
means the Convention on the International Maritime Satellite
Organization (INMARSAT) (TIAS 9605, 31 UST 1).
``(19) National corporation.--The term `national
corporation' means a corporation the ownership of which is
held through publicly traded securities, and that is
incorporated under, and subject to, the laws of a national,
state, or territorial government.
``(20) COMSAT.--The term `COMSAT' means the corporation
established pursuant to title III of the Communications
Satellite Act of 1962 (47 U.S.C. 731 et seq.)
``(21) ICO.--The term `ICO' means the company known, as of
the date of enactment of this Act, as ICO Global
Communications, Inc.
``(b) Common terminology.--Except as otherwise provided in
subsection (a), terms used in this Act that are defined in
section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 have the meanings
provided in such section.'.
____________________