Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 22 (Friday, March 6, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 22 (Friday, March 6, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1508-S1533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 1721. A bill to provide for the Attorney General of the United
States to develop guidelines for Federal prosecutors to protect
familial privacy and communications between parents and their children
in matters that do not involve allegations of violent or drug
trafficking conduct and the Judicial Conference of the United States to
make recommendations regarding the advisability of amending the Federal
Rules of Evidence for such purpose; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

parent-child privilege study legislation

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I recently spoke on the floor about the
disgust that I share with most Americans about the tactics of Special
Prosecutor Kenneth Starr and the disturbing spectacle of hauling a
mother before a grand jury to reveal her intimate conversations with
her daughter in a matter, which--even if all the allegations about the
daughter's conduct were true--do not pose grave threats to the public
safety. This matter does not, for example, involve any allegations of
violence or drug trafficking conduct.
In this instance, as in others, Mr. Starr has scurried to apply all
of the legal weapons at his command, but none of the discretion that he
is obligated to exercise as one invested with almost unchecked legal
authority. I also expressed my intent to introduce legislation to study
whether, and under what circumstances, the confidential communications
between a parent and his or her child should be protected. A number of
professional relationships of trust are already protected by legal
privileges, but not familial relationships. This is the legislation I
introduce today.
Currently, under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
privileges are ``governed by the principles of the common law as they
may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of
reason and experience.'' Thus, in the absence of any Supreme Court
rules or federal statutes, courts look to the United States
Constitution and the principles of federal common law to determine the
applicability and the scope of privileges.
Legal academicians have expressed support for a parent-child
testimonial privilege. The public policy reasons favoring such a
privilege are numerous and relate to the respect we accord to
fundamental family values. Recognition of such a privilege could foster
and

[[Page S1509]]

protect strong and trusting family relationships, preserve the family,
safeguard the privacy of familial communications and intimate family
matters against undue government intrusion, and promote a healthy
environment for the psychological development of children.
Despite these myriad reasons, there are indeed cases and
circumstances when parents should be compelled in court to share what
they know from their children. Indeed, courts have generally not been
receptive to the parent-child privilege. Only four States--Idaho,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York--have adopted either by statute,
or by judicial recognition, some form of a parent-child privilege. No
Federal Court of Appeals have recognized this privilege nor has any
State Supreme Court that has considered the issue. In my own State of
Vermont, such a privilege is not recognized.
To my mind, and as a former prosecutor, prosecutors should show
restraint before putting parents in the untenable position of making a
legal determination as to whether their children should come to them
for advice, or whether the parents instead should feel legally
pressured to refer their own children to professional therapists, or
lawyers, or doctors in order to protect the confidentiality of the
child's communications. To be sure, there are some categories of cases,
particularly cases involving grave threats to the public safety, such
as violent or drug trafficking crimes, where the government can and
should appropriately seek testimony from a parent about what a child
has said. But we should all be clear about when prosecutors should also
show restraint.

Courts have recognized privilege claims in a variety of professional
relationships, ranging from attorneys to priests to psychotherapists.
Yet the relationship between parent and child--the most fundamental
relationship in our society--is generally not so protected in any
circumstances. As one New York court explained:

It would be difficult to think of a situation which more
strikingly embodies the intimate and confidential
relationship which exists among family members than that in
which a troubled young person, perhaps beset with remorse and
guilt, turns for counsel and guidance to his mother and
father. There is nothing more natural, more consistent with
our concept of the parental role, than that a child may rely
on his parents for help and advice. Shall it be said to those
parents, ``Listen to your son at the risk of being compelled
to testify about his confidences?''--In re Application of
A&M, 61 A.D.2d 426, 403 N.Y.S.2d 375, 378 (1978).

We should consider the sorts of circumstances and the types of cases
in which prosecutors should be asked to show some restraint before
turning to parents to provide evidence against their children. That is
why my bill calls for a study and report by the Justice Department on
what these circumstances should be, and to develop prosecutorial
guidelines accordingly. Specifically, these guidelines should identify
when the communications between parents and their children should carry
the same protections as preferred professional relationships, and the
circumstances and types of cases when those communications should be
subject to government scrutiny.
We cannot rely on the courts to formulate an appropriate parent-child
privilege. The Third Circuit recently declined to recognize the parent-
child privilege, noting that:

The legislature, not the judiciary, is institutionally
better equipped to perform the balancing of the competing
policy issues required in deciding whether the recognition of
a parent-child privilege is in the best interests of society.
Congress, through its legislative mechanisms, is also better
suited for the task of defining the scope of any prospective
privilege. . . . In short, if a new privilege is deemed
worthy of recognition, the wiser course in our opinion is to
leave the adoption of such a privilege to Congress.--In re
Grand Jury Proceedings (Impounded), 103 F.3d 1140, 1148, 1153
(3d Cir. 1996).

Likewise, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear that
``courts have been reluctant to create new privileges, preferring to
leave such matters to the legislature despite any policy reasons
supporting recognition of a particular privilege.'' United States v.
Riley, 653 F.2d 1153, 1160 (7th Cir. 1981).
Congress should accept this challenge. My bill is a start to the
process of seeking expert input on the significant question of when the
government may not compel parents to betray the confidences of their
children, and when because of compelling need or the nature of the case
or circumstances, parents should be required to reveal the substance of
what their children have told them.
Thus, the bill I introduce today directs the Attorney General to
develop Federal prosecutorial guidelines to protect familial privacy
and parent-child communications in matters that do not involve
allegations of violent or drug trafficking conduct. In addition, the
legislation would direct the Judicial Conference to undertake a study
and then give us a report on whether the Federal Rules of Evidence
should be amended to explicitly recognize a parent-child privilege in
cases not involving violent or drug trafficking conduct, and, if so, in
what circumstances that privilege should apply.
While we should endeavor to provide the maximum protection for
parent-child communications, we should also be careful not to unduly
obstruct law enforcement. Nor should the rule be susceptible to
litigious mischief.
Accordingly, the Attorney General and the Judicial Conference will
need to address, as part of the study and report called for in my bill,
a series of important questions, including:
(1) What communications should be considered confidential for
purposes of the privilege and, specifically, should the privilege apply
in both criminal and civil proceedings?
(2) Should such a privilege apply only to unemancipated minors, or
also to adult children?
(3) Should only the child's communications be protected, or should a
parent's communications to a child also receive protection?
(4) Should such a privilege extend beyond a child's natural parents
to include step-parents or grandparents?
(5) Should such a privilege be subject to rebuttal if the government
establishes a compelling need for the information?
This legislation is the first step in evaluating the merits and
difficulties inherent in protecting familial privacy and the parent-
child relationship against unwarranted intrusions by the government and
by overzealous prosecutors. The public and these families themselves
should not have to endure repeated scenes of mothers being marched into
grand jury inquisitions to reveal intimate talks they may have had with
their children about their private relationships. This is a far cry
from allegations concerning violent or drug trafficking conduct. Let us
find out what the Justice Department and Judicial Conference recommend
about how we can best protect child-parent confidences in ways that
comport with American notions of family, fidelity, and privacy, without
compromising our public safety and the integrity of our judicial
system.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1721

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

SECTION 1. CONFIDENTIALITY OF PARENT CHILD COMMUNICATIONS IN
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

(a) Study and Development of Prosecutorial Guidelines.--The
Attorney General of the United States shall--
(1) study and evaluate the manner in which the States have
taken measures to protect the confidentiality of
communications between children and parents and, in
particular, whether such measures have been taken in matters
that do not involve allegations of violent or drug
trafficking conduct;
(2) develop guidelines for Federal prosecutors that will
provide the maximum protection possible for the
confidentiality of communications between children and
parents in matters that do not involve allegations of violent
or drug trafficking conduct, within any applicable
constitutional limits, and without compromising public safety
or the integrity of the judicial system, taking into
account--
(A) the danger that the free communication between a child
and his or her parent will be inhibited and familial privacy
and relationships will be damaged if there is no assurance
that such communications will be kept confidential;
(B) whether an absolute or qualified testimonial privilege
for communications between a child and his or her parents in
matters that do not involve allegations of violent or drug
trafficking conduct is appropriate to provide the maximum
guarantee of

[[Page S1510]]

familial privacy and confidentiality without compromising
public safety or the integrity of the judicial system; and
(C) the appropriate limitations on a testimonial privilege
for such communications between a child and his or her
parents, including--
(i) whether the privilege should apply in criminal and
civil proceedings;
(ii) whether the privilege should extend to all children,
regardless of age, unemancipated or emancipated, or be more
limited;
(iii) the parameters of the familial relationship subject
to the privilege, including whether the privilege should
extend to stepparents or grandparents, adopted children, or
siblings; and
(iv) whether disclosure should be allowed absent a
particularized showing of a compelling need for such
disclosure, and adequate procedural safeguards are in place
to prevent unnecessary or damaging disclosures; and
(3) prepare and disseminate to Federal prosecutors the
findings made and guidelines developed as a result of the
study and evaluation.
(b) Report and Recommendations.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
of the United States shall submit a report to Congress on--
(1) the findings of the study and the guidelines required
under subsection (a); and
(2) recommendations based on the findings on the need for
and appropriateness of further action by the Federal
Government.
(c) Review of Federal Rules of Evidence.--Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Judicial Conference of the United States shall complete a
review and submit a report to Congress on--
(1) whether the Federal Rules of Evidence should be amended
to guarantee that the confidentiality of communications by a
child to his or her parent in matters that do not involve
allegations of violent or drug trafficking conduct will be
adequately protected in Federal court proceedings; and
(2) if the rules should be so amended, a proposal for
amendments to the rules that provides the maximum protection
possible for the confidentiality of such communications,
within any applicable constitutional limits and without
compromising public safety or the integrity of the judicial
system.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Gregg, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms.
Mikulski, Ms. Collins, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Nickles, Mr.
Mack, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Roth, Mr. Specter, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Domenici, and Mr.
Santorum):
S. 1722. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and
extend certain programs with respect to women's health research and
prevention activities at the National Institutes of Health and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.

the women's health research and prevention amendments of 1998

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce today, with
the majority leader, the Women's Health Research and Prevention
Amendments of 1998. The purpose of this bill is to increase awareness
of some of the most pressing diseases and health issues that women in
our country face. This bill focuses on women's health research and
prevention activities at the National Institutes of Health and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Our goal, in introducing this bill today, is to create greater
awareness of women's health issues and to highlight the critical role
our public health agencies--the NIH, the National Institutes of Health,
and the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--play in
providing a broad spectrum of activities to improve women's health,
including research, screening, health data management, prevention and
treatment of diseases, and broad health education.
This bill reauthorizes programs at the National Institutes of Health
for vital research activities into the causes, prevention, and
treatment for some of the major diseases affecting women, including
osteoporosis, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, as well as research into
the aging processes of women.
Let me cite just a few statistics to illustrate the need for further
research into these health issues.
Osteoporosis is a health threat for 28 million Americans, 80 percent
of whom are women. One in every two women over the age of 50 years will
have an osteoporosis-related fracture.
One out of every eight women will develop breast cancer over the
course of their lifetimes, and 1 in 25 will die of breast cancer.
Ovarian cancer is the fourth leading cause of death from cancer among
women. One of the most troubling aspects of ovarian cancer is the
challenge we have in diagnosing this disease earlier and earlier. We
know that a late diagnosis results in a worse outcome. The
reauthorization of these research programs will help assure scientific
progress in our fight against these diseases and will lessen their
burden on women and their families.
For far too long, women in this country have been neglected in many
of our research clinical studies. I am very pleased that, since 1993,
we have developed guidelines to include women and minorities in NIH-
sponsored trials. However, we must continue to do more. We must
continue to review our women's health research agenda to set future
research priorities and to incorporate new scientific knowledge
regarding women's health. We must continue to focus and coordinate all
our efforts in research areas, including clinical trial research
design, genetic factors, the aging process, and other gender-based
differences.
I am also pleased in this bill that we authorize a new research
program at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the NIH to
target heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in
women. This program, originally introduced by my colleague, Senator
Boxer, will advance research into cardiovascular diseases--the leading
cause of death in the United States in women. More than 500,000
American women will die annually from cardiovascular diseases.
Cardiovascular diseases--that is, diseases of the heart and the blood
vessels--kill almost twice as many American women as all other cancers.
One of the biggest myths in medicine is that heart disease is only a
male problem. When we think of a heart attack, many people associate it
with men. Even in my own studies during my internship and residency in
medicine--not that long ago--all the models, the pictures that were
used in textbooks, the warning signs on TV--always pictured a man.
However, since 1984, the number of cardiovascular disease deaths in
women has exceeded those of men. And in 1995, 50,000 more women died of
heart disease than men. The program we are including in the bill today
will expand the research programs at NIH to concentrate more on
cardiovascular diseases in women.
Our bill reauthorizes several programs at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention for prevention and education activities on
women's health issues. We are reauthorizing the National Center for
Health Statistics, the National Program of Cancer Registries, the
National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, the
Centers for Research and Demonstration of Health Promotion and Disease
Prevention, and the Community Programs on Domestic Violence.
CDC's programs provide critical health services in each of our States
and in our communities to detect, prevent, and diagnose diseases such
as breast and cervical cancer. For the past 7 years, the National
Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has provided
critical cancer screening services to underserved women, especially
low-income women, elderly women, and members of racial and ethnic
minority groups. CDC supports early detection programs in all 50
States, in 5 territories, in the District of Columbia, and in 14
American Indian/Alaskan Native organizations. Through March 1997, more
than 1.3 million screening tests have been provided by this one
program.
CDC programs provide critical data and statistics about women's
health that assist us in making informed policy decisions about health
care. The National Center for Health Statistics often provides the only
national data on the health status of U.S. women and their use of
health care. A recent report by the National Center for Health
Statistics entitled ``Women: Work and Health'' summarized the data on
health conditions affecting working women. This report is the first
comprehensive survey on work-related

[[Page S1511]]

health issues encountered by the more than 60 million women in the
American labor force.
I thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue and for
his efforts in the introduction of this bill. I am pleased to state
that this bill is bipartisan. We have included provisions that are the
product of the efforts of many of my colleagues--Senators Snowe,
Harkin, Boxer, and many others. We have the support of nearly the full
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, and over 27 Members of the
Senate are original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. The level of
support for this bill is a real testament to the need to combat the
diseases affecting women and to maintain those crucial health services
that help prevent these diseases.
This bill, again, is introduced to generate discussion of these
important programs. We intend to consider these programs within the
context of the upcoming NIH reauthorization bill to be introduced over
the next several months. I encourage all Members and constituencies to
review the current programs and to provide input as we set the future
agenda of women's health research and prevention in this Nation.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1722

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 ``Women's Health Research and
Prevention Amendments of 1998''.
TITLE I--PROVISIONS RELATING TO WOMEN'S HEALTH RESEARCH AT THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH AND AUTHORIZATION
OF NATIONAL PROGRAM OF EDUCATION REGARDING THE
DRUG DES.

(a) In General.--Section 403A(e) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 283a(e)) is amended by striking
``1996'' and inserting ``2001''.
(b) National Program for Education of Health Professionals
and Public.--From amounts appropriated for carrying out
section 403A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
283a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting
through the heads of the appropriate agencies of the Public
Health Service, shall carry out a national program for the
education of health professionals and the public with respect
to the drug diethylstilbestrol (commonly know as DES). To the
extent appropriate, such national program shall use
methodologies developed through the education demonstration
program carried out under such section 403A. In developing
and carrying out the national program, the Secretary shall
consult closely with representatives of nonprofit private
entities that represent individuals who have been exposed to
DES and that have expertise in community-based information
campaigns for the public and for health care providers. The
implementation of the national program shall begin during
fiscal year 1999.

SEC. 102. RESEARCH ON OSTEOPOROSIS, PAGET'S DISEASE, AND
RELATED BONE DISORDERS.

Section 409A(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
284e(d)) is amended by striking ``and 1996'' and inserting
``through 2001''.

SEC. 103. RESEARCH ON CANCER.

(a) In General.--Section 417B(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 286a-8(a)) is amended by striking
``and 1996'' and inserting ``through 2001''.
(b) Research on Breast Cancer.--Section 417B(b)(1) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 286a-8(b)(1)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and 1996'' and
inserting ``through 2001''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and 1996'' and
inserting ``through 2001''.
(c) Research on Ovarian and Related Cancer Research.--
Section 417B(b)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 286a-8(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``and 1996'' and
inserting ``through 2001''.

SEC. 104. RESEARCH ON HEART ATTACK, STROKE, AND OTHER
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES IN WOMEN.

Subpart 2 of part C of title IV of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285b et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 424 the following:

``heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women

``Sec. 424A. (a) In General.--The Director of the Institute
shall expand, intensify, and coordinate research and related
activities of the Institute with respect to heart attack,
stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women.
``(b) Coordination With Other Institutes.--The Director of
the Institute shall coordinate activities under subsection
(a) with similar activities conducted by the other national
research institutes and agencies of the National Institutes
of Health to the extent that such Institutes and agencies
have responsibilities that are related to heart attack,
stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women.
``(c) Certain Programs.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Director of the Institute shall conduct or support
research to expand the understanding of the causes of, and to
develop methods for preventing, cardiovascular diseases in
women. Activities under such subsection shall include
conducting and supporting the following:
``(1) Research to determine the reasons underlying the
prevalence of heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular
diseases in women, including African-American women and other
women who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups.
``(2) Basic research concerning the etiology and causes of
cardiovascular diseases in women.
``(3) Epidemiological studies to address the frequency and
natural history of such diseases and the differences among
men and women, and among racial and ethnic groups, with
respect to such diseases.
``(4) The development of safe, efficient, and cost-
effective diagnostic approaches to evaluating women with
suspected ischemic heart disease.
``(5) Clinical research for the development and evaluation
of new treatments for women, including rehabilitation.
``(6) Studies to gain a better understanding of methods of
preventing cardiovascular diseases in women, including
applications of effective methods for the control of blood
pressure, lipids, and obesity.
``(7) Information and education programs for patients and
health care providers on risk factors associated with heart
attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women,
and on the importance of the prevention or control of such
risk factors and timely referral with appropriate diagnosis
and treatment. Such programs shall include information and
education on health-related behaviors that can improve such
important risk factors as smoking, obesity, high blood
cholesterol, and lack of exercise.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 1999 through 2001. The authorization of
appropriations established in the preceding sentence is in
addition to any other authorization of appropriation that is
available for such purpose.''.

SEC. 105. AGING PROCESSES REGARDING WOMEN.

Section 445I of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
285e-11) is amended by striking ``and 1996'' and inserting
``through 2001''.

SEC. 106. OFFICE OF RESEARCH ON WOMEN'S HEALTH.

Section 486(d)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 287d(d)(2)) is amended by striking ``Director of the
Office'' and inserting ``Director of the National Institutes
of Health''.
TITLE II--PROVISIONS RELATING TO WOMEN'S HEALTH AT THE CENTERS FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

SEC. 201. NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS.

Section 306(n) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
242k(n)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``through 1998'' and
inserting ``through 2002''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``through 1998'' and
inserting ``through 2002''.

SEC. 202. NATIONAL PROGRAM OF CANCER REGISTRIES.

Section 399L(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
280e-4(a)) is amended by striking ``through 1998'' and
inserting ``through 2002''.

SEC. 203. NATIONAL BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER EARLY DETECTION
PROGRAM.

(a) Grants.--Section 1501(b) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 300k(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``nonprofit''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``that are not nonprofit
entities''.
(b) Preventive Health.--Section 1509(d) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300n-4a(d)(1)) is amended by
striking ``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2002''.
(c) General Program.--Section 1510(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300n-5(a)) is amended by striking
``through 1998'' and inserting ``through 2002''.

SEC. 204. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION OF HEALTH
PROMOTION.

Section 1706(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u-5(e)) is amended by striking ``through 1998'' and
inserting ``through 2002''.

SEC. 205. COMMUNITY PROGRAMS ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Section 318(h)(2) of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10418(h)(2)) is amended by striking
``fiscal year 1997'' and inserting ``for each of the fiscal
years 1997 through 2002''.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this morning I am very pleased to join
Senator Frist of Tennessee, who is an outstanding Senator, and also a
doctor, who has been very helpful to me, and a lot of Senators, since
he joined this body, in introducing legislation entitled ``The Women's
Health Research and Prevention Act.''

[[Page S1512]]

The bill authorizes and reauthorizes a collection of first-class
research and prevention programs in the National Institutes of Health
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women between the ages
of 40 and 55. About one out of every eight women in the United States
will, unfortunately, develop breast cancer during their lifetime. And
so the Frist-Lott bill reauthorizes breast and ovarian cancer research
and education programs at NIH.
Osteoporosis is a disease in which bones become fragile and more
likely to break. My wife is beginning to confront this particular
problem. As women age, they lose bone mass and are at risk of
debilitating accidents such as fractures. This bill extends
osteoporosis research and education programs at NIH.
Women's health, though, means more than just health issues specific
to women. Heart disease, for instance, the No. 1 killer in the U.S. of
women, of course, also affects men in great numbers. Hypertension, a
leading cause of heart disease, is two to three times more common in
women than in men.
In addition to these three key research areas, our bill continues
programs in the Centers for Disease Control, including the National
Program of Cancer Registries and the National Early Detection Program
for breast and cervical cancer.
Senator Frist, the Senate's only doctor, and an outstanding heart
surgeon himself, provided the details of the bill. Senator Frist is
chairman of the Senate Public Health Subcommittee of the Senate Labor
Committee, and is one of the Senate's key leaders on all of our health
issues.
I am pleased that he is also serving on our Medicare commission that
had its first meeting yesterday, including a meeting with the
President.
I have often turned to him for advice and guidance on health matters,
and will continue to do so in the future. I believe that just this
morning Senator Frist attended a meeting regarding Medicare, and that
will be helpful in this effort. I know it will be a bipartisan effort.
I encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this
important legislation.
This morning I was made aware that Senator Mack is a cosponsor, and
Senator D'Amato. We are inviting all Members to join us in this very
serious and very important issue that we need to act on in order to
reauthorize some of these programs and authorize new ones.
I thank Senator Frist for his leadership in this area, and I yield
the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Senator Frist for
taking an important step that brings together a number of Government
programs of research, treatment and disease prevention for women. Over
the past several years, Congress and the Nation have become
increasingly concerned about women's health. I appreciate the
leadership and the expertise that Dr. Frist brings to Congress about
these issues. We have much to learn about recognizing and treating the
medical needs of women.
In the first session of the 105th Congress, at least 21 bills
relating to women's health were introduced and referred to the Senate
Labor and Human Resources Committee. At our committee hearing on
women's health last July, we heard about important advances being made
in research. We also heard about significant gaps of knowledge which
need to be filled. More importantly, we recognize how important it is
to get information about scientific advances to the public and their
health care providers.
Thus, I am pleased the provisions of this bill provide for research
and for public and professional education. We know that once the
information is out to the public and health care professionals, we need
screening programs, closely followed by access to treatment. The bill
provides for important patient services.
Finally, once common conditions are well recognized, detected and
treated, we need data to track our progress in disease prevention and
to alert us to new help in illness trends. This bill provides for these
functions through the support for cancer registries, information
systems, and program evaluation. It is my hope that having women's
issues collected together in one bill will focus the attention of
Congress and the Nation on vigorous support of the woman's health
initiative.
I am pleased to join Senator Frist in sponsoring this legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Frist for his
leadership on the bill we are introducing today, ``The Women's Health
Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998.'' This bill is a bipartisan
effort to extend and strengthen several important women's health
programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
In recent years, women's health has begun to receive the high
priority it deserves. Five years ago government guidelines were finally
eliminated that specifically excluded women from many clinical trials.
Increasingly, Congress has given higher priority to funds to address
breast cancer and other women's health issues. We also established the
Office of Women's Health within the Department of Health and Human
Services, in order to develop and implement a national agenda for
women's health. These successes, however, have revealed that there is
much more to be done.
The bill we are introducing today is an attempt to fill some of the
gaps in research and prevention that we have identified in women's
health. It is time for Congress to acknowledge that women's health
involves a wider range of issues, and that the magnitude of these
issues varies greatly with age. Car crashes and unintended injuries are
the leading killer of women in their teens and twenties. Cancer is the
leading killer of women between the ages of 25 and 64. Heart disease is
the leading killer among women over 65.
The nation's agenda on women's health must also address other key
issues that are more common among women but affect men too, such as
osteoporosis, depression, and auto-immune diseases, and illnesses that
manifest themselves differently in men and women, such as heart
disease, substance abuse, AIDS, and violence.
Our legislation extends important research and prevention activities
now being carried out by the National Institutes of Health and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in areas traditionally
considered women's health issues, such as breast and ovarian cancer,
osteoporosis, and domestic violence. It also calls for greater research
efforts on heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular diseases,
in recognition of the serious effects of these diseases on women.
Our bill also provides continued support for academic health centers
to conduct research and demonstration projects related to health
promotion and disease prevention to improve quality of life, and to
curb premature mortality and illness that contribute to excessive
health costs. These academic health centers are effective in informing
women and their physicians of steps they can take to prevent serious
illness and injury, especially in cases involving chronic and
debilitating physical illness, such as arthritis and osteoporosis,
which put women at high risk for bone fractures.
In order to enable researchers to monitor health trends among women
and to help policymakers make informed decisions on the allocation of
resources, it is essential for accurate and timely statistical and
epidemiological data to be available. Our bill will provide continued
support of the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which
provides valuable data related to overall health status, lifestyle,
onset and diagnosis of illness and disability, and use of health care
and rehabilitation services.
It is also important to understand differences between racial and
ethnic groups. For example, black women have far higher death rates
from heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes than white women.
Minority women suffer the most from AIDS. More than half of new female
cases of AIDS over the past decade were found among blacks. For other
chronic diseases, black women have the highest rates of hypertension,
while Native American women have higher rates of asthma and chronic
bronchitis. This bill will enable the National Center for Health
Statistics to continue its important work on the health of ethnic and
racial populations, and improve methods to collect data on these
subgroups in

[[Page S1513]]

order to understand and address their various health needs more
effectively.
Too many health needs of women continue to be neglected by the
nation's health care system. The cost of this national neglect, both in
dollars and in lives, is staggering. This bill is an excellent starting
point for strengthening current programs and pursuing new initiatives
to address urgent national priorities in women's health. I look forward
to working with my colleagues and with the women's health community to
enact the strongest legislation we can to deal with these vital issues.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join many of my
colleagues in support of the ``Women's Health Research and Prevention
Amendments of 1998.'' This legislation, introduced by my distinguished
colleague, Senator Bill Frist, and cosponsored by nearly all the
members of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, is an important
step forward in the study and prevention of diseases and conditions
unique to women.
In the late 1980's, I learned that there was an embarrassing lack of
research on diseases and conditions prevalent in women. In addition,
the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that women were routinely
excluded from medical research studies at NIH. Because of this
information, in 1990, I fought for legislation creating the Office of
Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Since its creation, the Office successfully worked to ensure that
research focuses on women's health and that women be included in
clinical trials.
Senator Frist's legislation builds upon the base of research and
prevention knowledge we have developed over the past few years. The
bill reauthorizes essential programs relating to women's health
research at NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC).
I am particularly proud of the reauthorization of the programs
promoting research and education on the drug ``diethylstilbestrol,''
otherwise known as DES. This drug was prescribed to pregnant American
women from 1938 to 1971 in the mistaken belief that it would prevent
miscarriage. But DES is now known to cause a five-fold increased risk
of ectopic pregnancy, as well as a three-fold increased risk of
miscarriage. I was proud to introduce legislation in 1992 that
established a pilot program through NIH to test ways to educate the
public and health professionals about how to deal with DES exposure.
Last year I introduced legislation that would give people across the
nation access to information developed through this pilot program. I am
pleased that this bill has been incorporated in the ``Women's Health
Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998.''
In addition, I am pleased that the bill extends research programs for
basic and clinical research and education efforts with respect to
cancer, particularly breast cancer and ovarian cancer. I have fought
for a long time for increased funding for breast cancer research.
During my tenure as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that
handles NIH we provided dramatic increases in funding for breast cancer
research.
This legislation also extends important research at NIH on
osteoporosis, Paget's disease and related bone disorders, and research
on cardiovascular diseases in women. It reauthorizes programs at the
National Institute on Aging, including research into the aging
processes of women, with particular emphasis on the effects of
menopause and the complications related to aging and the loss of
ovarian hormones in women.
CDC also plays an important role in the prevention diseases and
conditions in women. This legislation would extend CDC's collection of
statistical and epidemiological information, which is often the only
national data available on the health status of American women and
their use of the health care system. The bill extends CDC's National
Cancer Registries Program, which provides funds to states to enhance
their cancer surveillance data needed to monitor trends and serve as
the foundation of a national comprehensive cancer control strategy.
I am particularly proud that this legislation extends the National
Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. In 1990 I worked to
start and fund this program which provides mammography and cervical
cancer screening to low income women without insurance. This program
has provided vital access to services for thousands of women across the
country.
In addition, the bill would extend authorization for grants to
academic health institutions for research on health promotion and
disease prevention. A number of these institutions are working together
to develop strategies for prevention of cardiovascular disease in
women. Finally, the bill reauthorizes grants administered by CDC to
non-profit private organizations to establish projects in local
communities to coordinate intervention and prevention of domestic
violence.
Mr. President, the research into and prevention of diseases prevalent
in women is an investment in our daughters, wives, mothers, and
sisters. It is an investment in our future.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Frist and
my other colleagues in introducing the Women's Health Research and
Prevention Amendments of 1998.
This legislation allows us to reauthorize key women's health research
and prevention programs at the National Institutes of Health and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These programs represent a
cross section of the current research projects at the federal level
that have a direct impact on women's lives here in the United States.
While in the last decade, interest and commitment to women's health
has been heightened in the Congress, much work remains. We have taken
steps to ensure that women will be included in health care research in
the U.S. Prior to 1993, research in women's health was inadequate. Most
of the health care studies were conducted only on Anglo men. Quite
simply, research studies on men cannot be generalized to women. We know
that there are gender and ethnic differences when it comes to health
and illness. The time has come to further address the major causes of
morbidity and mortality among women: heart disease, osteoporosis,
breast cancer, and colorectal cancer.
This bill will provide the basis for looking at the research needs in
the spectrum of women's health and as we go to hearings on the bill I
am hopeful that additional women's health issues can be addressed.
There is another facet to women's health research that must be
considered. It is imperative that we ensure that studies are
representative of all women in the United States, including African
American, Hispanic, Native American and Asian women. We need research
that is culturally sensitive. We must support efforts of community
based outreach that allows for recruitment and retention of minority
women into research and this should be a factor when projects are
planned and conducted.
Mr. President, this legislation has provisions relating to women's
health research at the NIH in the disease specific issues of
diethylstilbestrol (DES), osteoporosis, breast and ovarian cancer. It
expands and allows for increased coordination of research activities
with respect to heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases
in women at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. This program
is critical since cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death
for women in the United States.
Finally, Mr. President, I wanted to take the opportunity to
specifically highlight one particular CDC program in the bill. This
legislation addresses the Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Research Centers Program at the CDC and will extend authorization for
grants to our academic health institutions for research in the areas of
health promotion and disease prevention.
The CDC's Prevention Research Center Program is an innovative,
extramural link of federal, academic, state, and community based
agencies.
For my home state of New Mexico, this CDC project has been
particularly useful. In New Mexico a prevention center has been able to
focus on health risks and promoting health through applied research at
the community level. The project and grant have provided the
opportunity to address areas often overlooked such as rural population

[[Page S1514]]

needs and Native American and Hispanic health needs.
In New Mexico about one of every three American Indian adults has
diabetes. The demonstration project has allowed for the promotion of
health lifestyles to combat the epidemic of adult onset diabetes. The
project has facilitated the formation of a true partnership between the
Navajo nation, nineteen pueblos in New Mexico, the New Mexico
Department of Health, the University of New Mexico, and the New Mexico
State Department of Education. There has been training of community
health workers on disease prevention strategies most applicable to
American Indian communities. This program is a model for increasing
collaboration among established agencies and nontraditional community
partners. It is a culturally sensitive approach that is having a
direct, positive impact on the health of New Mexicans. The creative
approach at CDC of a community based demonstration and application
project coupled with evaluation of strategies through research is
unique, successful, and should be reauthorized.
Mr. President, in closing, I look upon this bill as the important
first step to reauthorize programs at both the CDC and NIH. I look
forward to working with Senator Frist on these and other issues of
import to women's health.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
Tennessee and others in introducing the ``Women's Health Research and
Prevention Amendments of 1998,'' as an original cosponsor. This bill
reauthorizes funding to extend and enhance many fine programs at the
National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. I am pleased to join in this important effort.
Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Frist for his work in
developing this legislation to strengthen and expand Federal efforts to
promote women's health. While there is still some work to be done to
improve the bill as it moves through the normal legislative process, I
believe this bill offers a good start and provides a solid foundation
on which to build historic improvements in NIH research programs on
breast cancer, heart attack, menopause, and other areas. Let me outline
briefly a few critical issues that are not addressed by the bill, but
which I hope to see addressed as we move forward.
One notable gap is in the area of substance abuse. I believe this
bill could be an important complement to the Substances Abuse Treatment
Parity Act (S. 1147), which I introduced last September to improve
access to equitable medical care to treat the disease of alcohol and
other drug dependencies. Substance abuse is a widespread health concern
for many women, who also experience associated health, psychological,
and family problems. For example, expectant mothers and mothers with
small children can be helped with treatment and support services. This
is an investment for them, but as importantly for their children, who
would have the opportunity to grow up in a healthy, chemical-free home
environment. We have to take the problem of substance abuse as
seriously as we do other aspects of women's health.
Important information about this national problem will be highlighted
in an upcoming five-part PBS series by Bill Moyers, where treatment
programs such as the Hazelden program in my state of Minnesota are
highlighted. In working with these and other treatment programs in
Minnesota, I have learned a great deal about the problems of substances
abuse, but also about the hope and success that occurs when effective
treatments are available. The Women's Health Research and Prevention
Amendments Act could be substantially improved by an additional focus
on substance abuse programs.
Another notable gap is in the area of mental health and behavioral
science. On page one of the New York Times today was an article on the
criminalization of mental illness. The problem is that we as a nation
have needed to focus on the humane, dignified treatment of mental
illness, and having failed in that, more and more people who are
suffering from mental illness are winding up in prisons where they are
out of sight, but where they are not getting the care they need. We
need to treat mental health as seriously as we treat cancer and heart
disease, because mental illness can be just as serious, chronic, and
life-destroying as other diseases.
I intend to work closely with Senator Frist and others on the
committee to improve the bill by including a recognition of the role
that behavioral science and psychological factors have in the
development of and recovery from disease. Many of the diseases
mentioned in the bill are scientifically linked to behavioral or
psychological factors that can be critical to prevention and recovery.
Women also suffer unduly from specific mental health problems and
experiences, such as depression and domestic violence. Depression, for
example, is a pervasive and impairing illness which affects women at
roughly twice the rate of men. Domestic violence places a significant
resource and economic strain on our justice, health, and human services
systems. Research conducted at urban hospitals has show that about 25%
of emergency room visits by women resulted from domestic assaults.
Women who have been raped or battered have significantly great physical
health problems, as well as increased vulnerability to psychological
and emotional suffering. My wife Sheila and I have worked for years to
improve the federal response to the epidemic levels of domestic
violence across the country; I want to make sure this bill adequately
addresses these issues.
Mr. President, it is my commitment to work closely with the committee
to enhance these and other areas that are critical to women's health. A
strong focus on research and prevention of mental illness and substance
abuse for women is an important investment in the health of the nation
and of the health and well being of countless families.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to speak today on the Women's
Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998 introduced by my
colleagues Senator Frist and Majority Leader Lott. This bill would
amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend certain
programs with respect to women's health research and prevention
activities at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Education and Research are the key to providing the best health care
for women and for that matter, all Americans. The Women's Health
Research and Prevention Amendments promote precisely that. Just two
examples are the extension of NIH research programs for basic and
clinical research and education efforts with respect to cancer, breast
cancer, and ovarian and related cancer; and the extension of the CDC
National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. These are
the kinds of programs that will improve women's health.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Women's Health bill because I
believe that research is the best way for Congress to respond to the
concern over women's health issues and health issues generally. I make
this point, Mr. President, because I have been disappointed that
Congress has recently put on lab coats and begun practicing medicine.
We have gotten into the dangerous habit of legislating clinical
procedures which are not based in science or research but rather driven
by social opinion and special interests.
You only have to look back to the end of the 104th Congress to
illustrate my point. A majority of Congress supported an effort last
year to mandate that all insurance plans cover 48-hour maternity stays
in hospitals. However, serval months following the passage of that
legislation an article appeared in the Journal of the American Medical
Association stating that the ``content does not solve the most
important problems regarding the need for early postpartum/postnatal
services. The legislation may give the public a false sense of
security. It may call into question the reasonableness of relying on
legislative mechanisms to micro manage clinical practice.''
In other words, Congress made a nice, laudable attempt. We said we
are going to mandate 48 hours, but it has had no appreciable
improvement on the quality of health care. It appears that our so-
called victory in passing 48 hours may have in fact done more harm than
good in helping women and newborns. This experience, and others like
it, should have taught us what not to do.

[[Page S1515]]

It should have taught us that before we endeavor to decide what is
the best therapy, procedure, or treatment for any one disease, let us
look for a minute at what we are doing. What are the unintended
consequences of federal mandates on health insurance companies
regarding treatments and coverage of services?
Let's take breast cancer as another example. Various bills have been
introduced in the last few months that mandate a length of stay for
mastectomies or require coverage of an inpatient stay for women
undergoing breast cancer surgery for an unspecified length of time, to
be determined by the physician.
Were Congress to legislate in favor of one form of treatment over
another, we are sending the message that one treatment is preferable to
the other. Treatments are constantly changing. Health care needs to be
flexible and should not lock doctors in to a specific approach.
Shouldn't we allow medical research to decide the best course of
action? If the federal government mandates a specific treatment, length
of stay or procedure, that then becomes the standard.
In addition, employing mandates in the place of valid research runs
the risk of discouraging innovative treatments. For example, recent
improvements in anesthesiology are a result of patient appeals to cut
down on nausea and vomiting after breast surgery as well as a desire to
recover at home.
Longer mandated stays could discourage doctors and patients from
developing the best possible plan for recovery. Patients may choose to
stay in the hospital for an extended period of time out of fear or lack
of knowledge and risk infection. Patients may have the false idea that
longer hospital stays equal the best possible treatment when, in fact,
recent research indicates that is not necessarily the case.
According to a November 6, 1996, article in The Wall Street Journal,
The Johns Hopkins Breast Center in Baltimore, which has gradually
eliminated inpatient stays for some women undergoing certain types of
mastectomies, has found that outpatient mastectomies are associated
with lower infection rates and high levels of satisfaction among women.
We have the responsibility to arm patients with the kind of sound
research and education this legislation provides, not prescriptive
mandates from Dr. Congress.
Lillie Shockeney, R.N. the Education and Outreach Director at the
Johns Hopkins Hospital Breast Center and a breast cancer survivor,
summed up best in a Finance Committee hearing on November 5, 1997. ``.
. . I am concerned that it [S. 249, The Women's Health and Cancer
Rights Act of 1997] doesn't solve the real medical dilemma that women
battling breast cancer are faced with today. We need to be striving to
improve patient care for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery
rather than unknowingly promote keeping it at status quo. We need to be
promoting the development of a comprehensive patient education program
and have teams of health care professionals dedicated to striving to
improve the care and treatment provided to women with breast cancer.''
Mr. President, I want to congratulate Senator Frist and Senator Lott
for bringing this issue before us in such a responsible and proactive
bill. These programs go a long way to serve women. I thank the chair
and encourage my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in
introducing the Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of
1998. This is a bipartisan initiative, which is important, because
promoting the health of American women is a bipartisan concern. I
commend the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership on this bill. He
has done a tremendous job in building crucial and broad support for it.
I am particularly pleased that the bill includes a title on
cardiovascular disease in women, which incorporates legislation I
introduced last June, the Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and
Prevention Act (S. 349). It is appropriate to include it in this
comprehensive legislation because cardiovascular disease is the number
one killer of women in the United States, a fact many Americans simply
don't realize.
The statistics are alarming. More than 500,000 women and girls die
from cardiovascular disease each year. Heart attacks and strokes are
the leading causes of disability in women. More than 1 in 5 females
have some form of cardiovascular disease. Of women and girls under age
65, approximately 20,000 die of heart attacks each year. Cardiovascular
disease claim about as many lives each year as the next eight leading
causes of death combined. More than 2,600 Americans die each day from
cardiovascular diseases; that's an average of one death every 33
seconds. Cardiovascular diseases kill more women each year than does
cancer. Heart attacks kill more than 5 times as many females as does
breast cancer. Stroke kills twice as many women as does breast cancer.
Each year since 1984, cardiovascular diseases have claimed the lives of
more females than males. In 1993, of the number of individuals who died
of such diseases, 52 percent were female, and 48 percent were male.
Yet for years, women have been under-represented in studies about
heart disease and stroke. Models and tests for detection have largely
been conducted on men, and some doctors do not recognize cardiovascular
symptoms that are unique to women.
The bill we are introducing today authorizes necessary funding to the
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute to expand and intensify
research, prevention, and educational outreach programs for heart
attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases in women. This
legislation will aid our Nation's doctors and scientists in developing
a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for fighting this terrible
disease.
This bill will help ensure that women are well represented in future
cardiovascular studies and that their doctors are well informed about
symptoms that are unique to women. It will also promote women's
awareness of risk factors, such as smoking, obesity and physical
inactivity, which greatly increase their chances of developing
cardiovascular disease.
This legislation is a critical component in our efforts to draw
attention and resources to cardiovascular disease, which strikes so
many of our grandmothers, mothers, aunts and daughters. Through it, and
in collaboration with many dedicated groups such as the American Heart
Association, we can and will beat this devastating disease.
The Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998
reauthorize several programs that are of great importance to American
women, including research on osteoporosis, cancer, aging, and the drug
DES. The bill extends authorization for programs that promote health,
prevent disease, and reduce domestic violence. I encourage the leaders
to bring this legislation to the floor as quickly as possible, so that
we can move forward in our efforts to promote the health of women
across the nation.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle in support of the Women's Health Research and
Prevention Amendments of 1998, a bill that responds to a fundamental
weakness in our health care system: the relative paucity of research
devoted to women's health issues. As we learn about the unique health
care needs of women, we have an historic opportunity to redress the
unjustified disparity in the level of effort and resources invested in
women's health.
This measure extends several targeted initiatives of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), including research on osteoporosis; breast,
cervical and ovarian cancer; and heart disease as it affects women.
This research is clearly needed. While heart disease is the leading
cause of death among women, there is inadequate understanding of how
heart disease manifests in our female population. Indeed, a recent
study showed that 2 out of 3 doctors were not aware that the risk
factors for heart disease are different for women than they are for
men, and 9 out of 10 did not know the symptoms vary according to
gender.
Like cardiovascular research, efforts to understand and treat
osteoporosis are critically important. More than 28 million Americans,
80 percent of whom are women, suffer from or are at-risk for
osteoporosis. Half of all women age

[[Page S1516]]

50 or over will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis. Research
into the causes, treatment and prevention of osteoporosis is a smart
public health investment.
An equally strong case can be made for the other NIH research
initiatives extended by this bill. Whether the focus is breast cancer,
a disease which takes the lives of 44,000 women each year, or ovarian
cancer, which currently has a tragically low survival rate, the
research priorities identified for inclusion in this bill represent
some of the most important initiatives of any kind that we, as a
nation, can undertake.
The bill also extends key women's health initiatives at the Centers
for Disease Control: One that I believe is particularly important is
the CDC National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program.
Over 1.5 million screening tests have been provided by the program,
which began its seventh year in 1998. As a result, more than 23,000
women were able to fight back against an otherwise silent killer. The
CDC early detection program is now operational in all 50 states. More
than 100 women are screened in my own state each month.
Another very important program reauthorized by this bill is CDC's
Community Programs on Domestic Violence initiative.
Domestic violence is a threat to women, to children and to the family
unit. It is shockingly prevalent and tragically under-reported. Studies
indicate that one-quarter of all women in the United States experience
domestic violence at some point in their life, and that 92 percent of
them do not discuss these incidents with their physician. We need to
recognize the problem for what it is--a crime, a killer, and a public
health threat--and fight it with every tool we have at our disposal.
Through the CDC program, non-profit organizations apply for resources
to combat domestic violence in communities throughout the country.
Local efforts to increase public awareness, dispel the myth that
domestic violence is a private family matter, and help women and
children who fall victim can, case-by-case, make a tremendous
difference in the lives of millions of present and potential victims.
This bill continues the effort to bridge the gender gap in the
quality of research, data, and care. It asserts the fact that women
have unique health care needs and addresses areas of particular
importance to women's health. It also affirms the value of health
research generally and recognizes the important role research plays in
both improving health outcomes and decreasing health costs for many
diseases. I am proud to be part of this effort.
______

By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. McCain, Mr. DeWine,
and Mr. Specter):
S. 1723. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
assist the United States to remain competitive by increasing the access
of the United States firms and institutions of higher education to
skilled personnel and by expanding educational and training
opportunities for American students and workers; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.

THE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS ACT

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American
Competitiveness Act. First, let me thank Senators Hatch, McCain, and
DeWine for cosponsoring this bill. I believe this legislation is
important to the country's future because it constitutes an essential
ingredient in any long-term strategy to keep the United States a leader
in global markets in the 21st century. A coalition of America's leading
businesses has endorsed the bill, stating that ``The American
Competitiveness Act will do more to directly create jobs for
Americans--and to keep jobs in this country--than any other bill that
will be considered by Congress this year.''
Over the past twenty years, no part of the economy has done more to
raise the standard of living of the American people than that of
information technology. This industry, which barely existed as a
handful of companies just a few decades ago, now employs more than 4
million people directly, and many others indirectly. This industry has
improved everything from the way we work, shop, travel, and perform
financial transactions, to the way our children study. And, as
economist Larry Kudlow reports, this industry is central to our
economic well-being. The hardware and software industries combined
account for about one third of our real economic growth. Overall,
electronic commerce is expected to grow to $80 billion by the year
2000.
Yet all is not well with this crucial sector of our economy. American
companies today are engaged in fierce competition in global markets. To
stay ahead in that competition they must win the battle for human
capital. But companies across America are faced with severe high-skill
labor shortages that threaten their competitiveness in this new
Information Age economy.
A study conducted by Virginia Tech for the Information Technology
Association of America (ITAA) estimates that right now we have more
than 340,000 unfilled positions for highly skilled information
technology (IT) workers in American companies. And that number does not
include the nonprofit sector, local or federal government agencies,
mass transit systems, or companies with fewer than 100 employees.
The Virginia Tech study is hardly alone in identifying this problem.
The Department of Labor's figures project that our economy will produce
more than 130,000 information technology jobs in each of the next 10
years, for a total of more than 1.3 million. The data also suggest our
universities will produce less than a quarter of the necessary number
of information technology graduates over the next 10 years. Between
1986 and 1995, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in computer
science declined by 42 percent. This means that even if undergraduate
enrollments in this field were to increase as predicted by one survey,
we still would not achieve the 1986 level of computer science graduates
before 2002. And even then, we would be producing thousands fewer
skilled workers than the market demands.
The National Software Alliance, a consortium of concerned government,
industry, and academic leaders that includes the U.S. Army, Navy, and
Air Force, recently concluded that ``The supply of computer science
graduates is far short of the number needed by industry.'' The Alliance
points out that the current severe understaffing could lead to
inflation and lower productivity and threaten America's
competitiveness.
This is serious, both in individual states and for the nation. In
Michigan, for example, 24 of every 1,000 private sector workers are
employed by high-tech firms, and this figure is growing rapidly in and
around Ann Arbor, Lansing, and elsewhere in the state.
Mr. President, if American companies cannot find home grown talent,
and if they cannot bring talent to this country, a large number are
likely to move key operations overseas, sending those and related jobs
currently held by Americans with them. While companies may need to have
some operations abroad, we should not keep in place unnecessary
restrictions that artificially drive employers to send more operations
out of the country.
Further, our shortage of high skilled workers endangers continued
economic growth. The Hudson Institute estimates that the unaddressed
shortage of skilled workers throughout our economy will result in a 5
percent drop in the growth rate of GDP. That translates into about $200
billion in lost output, nearly $1,000 for every American. One industry
official captured the peril of this situation well when he said ``it is
as if America ran out of iron ore during the industrial revolution.''
This problem calls for both a short term and a long term solution.
Let me first address the short term. By this summer American businesses
will reach the limit on the small number of highly skilled temporary
workers they can bring in from abroad. Last year our employers reached
this 65,000 cap on H-1B visas for the first time in history, and we did
it by the end of August. If no action is taken, the cap may be reached
by May this year, and perhaps January or February of 1999. Backlogs
will worsen the problem until, practically speaking, companies can no
longer count on being able to hire the people they need from any
source. Particularly given today's short product cycles, this would be
disastrous.
That is why the legislation I am introducing today will increase the
number of skilled temporary workers we

[[Page S1517]]

allow into the United States. This will keep American companies in this
country, saving American jobs and contributing to the growth of the
economy.
This policy also will give us time to formulate a long-term solution.
In my view, we can produce, right here in America, the talent we need
to keep our high tech industries competitive. Through wise investments
in human capital we can give American kids of all backgrounds,
including kids whose opportunities seem severely limited, the chance to
be part of the new high-tech economy.
U.S. companies cannot be expected to solve all the educational
problems in this country by themselves. They now spend over $210
billion a year on the formal and informal training of their workforce,
as well as donating more than $2.5 billion a year to colleges, high
schools, and elementary schools. But training is not an acceptable
alternative to early acquisition of the technical skills necessary to
succeed, and we must do more to help kids acquire needed skills as
early as possible.
Some say that the entire solution is training and education. Of
course, those both are essential, but to suggest that these represent
the entire answer ignores a number of factors, including the global
nature of today's economy. Recently the Senate held a long and
educational hearing in the Judiciary Committee on the issues centrally
related to the subject matter of this legislation. We heard from
several of America's leading companies and others on the importance of
swiftly addressing the high tech worker shortage by raising the H-1B
cap before it is hit in May or June of this year.
We heard at the hearing that Microsoft alone spends over $568 million
annually on training and education, while Sun Microsystems spends over
$50 million a year, not including the 20,000 volunteer hours Sun
employees are contributing to link U.S. schools to the Internet in
economically disadvantaged areas. Despite these expenditures, Microsoft
and Sun today have 2,522 and 2,000 unfilled technical positions
respectively. In addition, we heard testimony that many of their
products for export need to involve individuals on H-1Bs with specific
language and other skills that are pertinent to the target country.

We learned at the hearing that Texas Instruments spends over $100
million a year on training employees and has over 500 openings for
skilled positions, despite, like many companies, engaging in massive
and ongoing efforts to recruit on college campuses across the nation.
Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are themselves making $200 million in
charitable contributions to fund fellowships in science and engineering
at Stanford University. Clearly more emphasis on training is extremely
important, but is not the only solution.
Our young people have what it takes to be valuable employees in our
high-tech age. But our educational system is not giving them the skills
they need. The National Research Council estimates that three quarters
of American high school graduates would fail a college freshman math or
engineering course. Unfortunately, most don't even try. Only 12 percent
of 1994 college graduates earned degrees in technical fields.
This is not acceptable. In a highly advanced economy like ours we
cannot continue to function without highly skilled workers. And our
workers cannot continue to prosper unless our educational system gives
them the skills they need to succeed.
The Administration has proposed a number of small initiatives to deal
with this shortage of skilled labor. I support these initiatives. But
in my view it is clear that we must go farther.
Mr. President, allowing more skilled workers to come to the U.S. is
in no way incompatible with improved training and education in this
country. The question is not: Do we allow more skilled professionals to
enter the country or do we help native-born students pursue these
fields? Clearly we must do both. And I will work with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to see to it that this is accomplished.
To that end, Mr. President, this legislation includes a scholarship
program aimed at helping 20,000 low-income students a year study
mathematics, engineering, and computer science at the undergraduate and
graduate levels.
Of course, this is not all that we should do. We also must begin
training unemployed Americans in the skills needed in the information
technology industry. This legislation includes three times the funding
level proposed by the Administration to train the unemployed in IT
skills.
Through careful investment in education we can increase the skill
levels of our workers, to everyone's benefit.
The legislation I am introducing will address these issues in the
following ways:
First, the bill will increase access to skilled personnel for U.S.
companies and universities. The bill will make approximately 25,000
more H-1B temporary visas available in 1998. A key goal of the
legislation is to make sure there are enough visas this year to avoid
backlogs and major disruptions. For that reason, the 1998 cap will be
twice the level of the first 6 months of this fiscal year (through
March 31, 1998), which, based on current INS data, would give a 12-
month total of about 90,000 visas for the year. As a safety valve, if
that total is insufficient in a future year, as of FY 1999, other
temporary visas that Congress has already authorized (H-2B visas), if
they are left unused from the previous year, would be available. No
more than 25,000 of these H-2B visas could be made available as a
safety valve in a given year.
The bill also responds to those who have expressed concern about
certain occupations being included within the H-1B visa category. The
bill removes physical/occupational therapists and other specialized
health care workers from the H-1B program and places them into a new
temporary visa category called H-1C, with a limit of 10,000 placed on
such visas. Accordingly, the bill subtracts 10,000 from the H-1B cap in
the first year of availability of H-1C visas. In each subsequent year,
any unused H-1C visas from the previous year will be added back to the
H-1B cap. The bill leaves unchanged the employment-based immigration
cap of 140,000 on the number of foreign-born professionals who may
remain permanently in the country.
Second, the bill authorizes $50 million for the State Student
Incentive Grant (SSIG) program to create approximately 20,000
scholarships a year for low-income students pursuing an associate,
undergraduate, or graduate level degree in mathematics, engineering or
computer science. The program provides dollar-for-dollar federal
matching funds that will grow to $100 million with state matching. The
scholarships will be for up to $5,000 each.
Third, the bill authorizes $10 million a year to train unemployed
American workers in new skills for the information technology industry.
It also authorizes $8 million for improved online talent banks to
facilitate job searches and the matching of skills to available
positions in high technology.
Fourth, the bill toughens enforcement penalties and improves the
operation of the H-1B program. It increases fines by five-fold for
companies willfully violating the rules of the H-1B program, from
$1,000 to $5,000. The bill adds new enforcement power by creating
probationary periods of up to five years for willful violators of the
H-1B program. During the probationary period, violating firms are
subject to expanded Department of Labor ``spot inspections'' at the
agency's discretion. The bill also includes reforms to achieve greater
accuracy in determining prevailing wages for companies and
universities.
Fifth, the bill modifies the per-country limits on employment-based
visas to eliminate the discriminatory effects of these per-country
limits on nationals from certain Asian Pacific nations. Today, we have
a situation where in a given year there are employment-based immigrant
visas available within the annual limit of 140,000, yet U.S. law
prevents individuals born in particular countries from being able to
join employers who want to sponsor them as permanent employees. Do we
want to keep in place a provision of law that says you can hire someone
who meets all the proper legal criteria set forth by the U.S.
government, but just not too many Chinese or Indians in a given year?
This area of law calls out for reform.
Finally, in addition to providing American universities and other
non-profits with increased access to skilled

[[Page S1518]]

personnel, the bill overturns the Hathaway decision by requiring the
Department of Labor to differentiate between prevailing wage
calculations for universities, charities, and other nonprofit
organizations and those of for-profit entities.
Is the current 65,000 cap on H-1Bs the magic number? Let me briefly
review the history. Prior to the 1990 Act, there was no cap on H-1B
visas, which previously were called H-1 visas. This bill does not
eliminate the cap, but I point out the history to give some context to
the discussion on this issue. The 65,000 number was chosen, essentially
out of thin air, in the 1990 Act. This number proved sufficient for a
number of years, but now has shown to be a significant impediment to
growth, particularly in certain industries. Simply put, there is no
magic to this 65,000 number. In addition, at that time, to respond to
concerns about wages, a Labor Condition Application was added to the
program that required companies to attest they were paying individuals
on H-1Bs the higher of the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to
similarly employed Americans. That remains in the law. Also, at the
time, a ``complaint-driven'' system was developed to enforce compliance
and prosecute violators. And it was decided that the Department of
Labor would respond to complaints and operate the enforcement of the
program. This was done under the chairmanship of Democratic Congressman
Bruce Morrison.

Inaction on this issue is not very different from outright
restriction, because it will result in such massive backlogs, that with
today's fast-moving product cycles, access to these key professionals
will be for all practical purposes barely possible.
Who will benefit from restricting the entry of these skilled workers?
``On a daily basis, our competitors in Tokyo scheme to stop the
momentum of the American semiconductor and computer industries,''
testified Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers. ``Even if they tried,
they could not come up with a better plan to cut off our supply of
critical engineering talent than by halting immigration. Unfortunately,
it appears they may have the United States government as their ally.''
At a hearing on a different topic held just this week in the
Judiciary Committee we heard views from major executives about some
issues facing the software industry. Despite differing opinions on
these other important issues, the business leaders testifying were
unanimous when the topic was brought up of alleviating the pending
crisis involving H-1B visas.
Scott McNealy, President and CEO of Sun Microsystems, noted that two
of the four founders of his company, which now employs over 20,000
Americans, were foreign-born individuals who entered the country via
the employment-based immigration system. ``I cannot imagine having
those two unbelievable national treasures not being allowed in,'' he
said. ``And by the way, if you go down through the payroll of our
organization, for every legal immigrant that we have hired and put on
the payroll, they have created vast amounts of wealth and jobs and a
byproduct--wonderful byproducts for our economy and for the planet as a
whole.''
Bill Gates, Chairman and CEO of Microsoft Corporation stated,
``Microsoft is in strong agreement that raising these caps to allow
very skilled legal immigrants to come in would be a good thing for the
technology industry and for the country. We particularly have a lot of
people who come to the U.S. to be educated, and it seems a shame when
they've been educated here, not to allow them to stay in the country
and to take what they've learned and contribute to companies like ours
and many others.'
Jim Barksdale, President and CEO, Netscape Communications testified,
``We employ an awful lot of legal immigrants, who are very bright
people and make a great contribution and more than earn their keep and
we would like to see the limit raised.''
Perhaps the clearest statement about what may be at stake came from
Michael Dell, Chairman and CEO of Dell Computer. He told the Committee,
``These companies are global companies and if this work does not occur
on U.S. soil it occurs on some other soils. We are disarming the
economy of the United States of America if we don't allow these folks
to come and stay in this country.'
The American Competitiveness Act is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American
Electronics Association, the Electronics Industry Association, the
Business Software Alliance, the Information Technology Association of
America, American Business for Legal Immigration, the American
Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Council of International
Personnel, the National Technical Services Association, the Computing
Technology Industries Association, and the United States Pan Asian
American Chamber of Commerce.
This issue is also extremely important to America's academic
community. At the February 25 hearing before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Stephen Director, Dean of the College of Engineering at the
University of Michigan, testified as a representative of the nation's
higher education community. His testimony, calling for an increase in
H-1B visas and a permanent solution for universities on prevailing wage
issues, was endorsed by the American Council on Education, the
Association of American Universities, the College and University
Personnel Association, the Council of Graduate Schools, NAFSA:
Association of International Educators and the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. As noted in the testimony,
the combined memberships of these associations represent over 2,000
U.S. colleges and universities.
As we move forward, Mr. President, people will no doubt ask whether
there are additional measures to protect against abuse of the H-1B
program that can be enacted without nullifying efforts to increase high
tech companies' access to skilled workers.
On that issue let me say that we must crack down on anyone who would
abuse the system. As I've noted, this bill contains substantially
larger fines for those engaged in willful violations and establishes
long probationary periods for such egregious violators. The law already
contains provisions for dealing with abuses. And there have been such
cases. But let's keep in mind that in America, justice is served not by
restricting the law-abiding, but by targeting those who violate our
laws.
In 1997, the Department of Labor found three employers who were found
to have engaged in willful violations of the H-1B program. Three. These
violators accounted for three visas out of 65,000 granted in that year.
So while it is important that we make it clear that we will not
tolerate abuse, we must keep the number of incidents in perspective and
engage in targeted actions that do not punish the innocent with the
guilty.
Today, according to ITAA , 70 percent of America's high tech firms
identify an inability to find enough skilled people as the leading
barrier to their companies' growth and competitiveness in global
markets. Other countries are catching on. Canada has loosened its entry
requirements for high tech workers. Singapore has announced plans to
move aggressively to attract skilled international workers. And India
continues its plans to keep its best talent home to build its domestic
industries. I repeat, if restrictions prevent American companies from
meeting their labor needs for U.S.-based product, service, and research
development, these companies will increasingly locate their facilities
offshore. That will mean a loss of jobs, and less innovation and wealth
creation in America.
We have a diverse economy, and the relatively small number of people
who America can welcome annually to fill key positions at companies and
universities benefits us in many ways. We must also pursue the type of
long-term strategy, some of which is outlined in this bill, that will
increase educational opportunities for U.S. students.
If we are to continue to prosper as a people, we must remain
competitive as a nation. To do that, we must do everything within our
power to produce more native-born workers who can fill the high skilled
positions on which our high-tech and other industries depend. I believe
we can accomplish this goal through increased emphasis on training and
education. It requires only that we set our minds to the task at hand,
and that we not bury our heads in the

[[Page S1519]]

sand and say that blocking increased access to skilled temporary
professionals will somehow help us maintain our way of life. Our
universities, our cutting-edge employers, and in particular our workers
deserve better.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of support
and the text of the bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1723

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES IN ACT.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``American
Competitiveness Act''.
(b) References in Act.--Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this Act, whenever in this Act an amendment or
repeal is expressed as an amendment to or a repeal of a
provision, the reference shall be deemed to be made to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) American companies today are engaged in fierce
competition in global markets.
(2) Companies across America are faced with severe high
skill labor shortages that threaten their competitiveness.
(3) The National Software Alliance, a consortium of
concerned government, industry, and academic leaders that
includes the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force, has
concluded that ``The supply of computer science graduates is
far short of the number needed by industry.''. The Alliance
concludes that the current severe understaffing could lead to
inflation and lower productivity.
(4) The Department of Labor projects that the United States
economy will produce more than 130,000 information technology
jobs in each of the next 10 years, for a total of more than
1,300,000.
(5) Between 1986 and 1995, the number of bachelor's degrees
awarded in computer science declined by 42 percent.
Therefore, any short-term increases in enrollment may only
return the United States to the 1986 level of graduates and
take several years to produce these additional graduates.
(6) A study conducted by Virginia Tech for the Information
Technology Association of America estimates that there are
more than 340,000 unfilled positions for highly skilled
information technology workers in American companies.
(7) The Hudson Institute estimates that the unaddressed
shortage of skilled workers throughout the United States
economy will result in a 5-percent drop in the growth rate of
GDP. That translates into approximately $200,000,000,000 in
lost output, nearly $1,000 for every American.
(8) It is necessary to deal with the current situation with
both short-term and long-term measures.
(9) In fiscal year 1997, United States companies and
universities reached the cap of 65,000 on H-1B temporary
visas a month before the end of the fiscal year. In fiscal
year 1998 the cap is expected to be reached as early as May
if Congress takes no action. And it will be hit earlier each
year until backlogs develop of such a magnitude as to prevent
United States companies and researchers from having any
timely access to skilled foreign-born professionals.
(10) It is vital that more American young people be
encouraged and equipped to enter technical fields, such as
mathematics, engineering, and computer science.
(11) If American companies cannot find home-grown talent,
and if they cannot bring talent to this country, a large
number are likely to move key operations overseas, sending
those and related American jobs with them.
(12) Inaction in these areas will carry significant
consequences for the future of American competitiveness
around the world and will seriously undermine efforts to
create and keep jobs in the United States.

SEC. 3. INCREASED ACCESS TO SKILLED PERSONNEL FOR UNITED
STATES COMPANIES AND UNIVERSITIES.

(a) Establishment of H1-C Nonimmigrant Category.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and other than services described in
clause (c)'' after ``subparagraph (O) or (P)''; and
(B) by inserting after ``section 212(n)(1)'' the following:
``, or (c) who is coming temporarily to the United States to
perform labor as a health care worker, other than a
physician, if the alien qualifies for the exemption from the
grounds of inadmissibility described in section
212(a)(5)(C)''.
(2) Transition rule.--Any petition filed prior to the date
of enactment of this Act, for issuance of a visa under
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act on behalf of an alien described in the
amendment made by paragraph (1)(B) shall, on and after that
date, be treated as a petition filed under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c) of that Act, as added by paragraph (1).
(b) Annual Ceilings for H1-B and H1-C Workers.--
(1) Amendment of the INA.--Section 214(g)(1) (8 U.S.C.
1184(g)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g)(1) The total number of aliens who may be issued visas
or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status during any fiscal
year--
``(A) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)--
``(i) for each of fiscal years 1992 through 1997, may not
exceed 65,000,
``(ii) for fiscal year 1998, may not exceed 2 times the
number of aliens issued visas or otherwise provided
nonimmigrant status between October 1, 1997, and March 31,
1998,
``(iii) for fiscal year 1999, may not exceed the number
determined for fiscal year 1998 under such section, minus
10,000, plus the number of unused visas under subparagraph
(B) for the fiscal year preceding the applicable fiscal year,
and
``(iv) for fiscal year 2000 and each applicable fiscal year
thereafter, may not exceed the number determined for fiscal
year 1998 under such section, minus 10,000, plus the number
of unused visas under subparagraph (B) for the fiscal year
preceding the applicable fiscal year, plus the number of
unused visas under subparagraph (C) for the fiscal year
preceding the applicable fiscal year;
``(B) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), beginning with
fiscal year 1992, may not exceed 66,000; or
``(C) under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c), beginning with
fiscal year 1999, may not exceed 10,000.
For purposes of determining the ceiling under subparagraph
(A) (iii) and (iv), not more than 25,000 of the unused visas
under subparagraph (B) may be taken into account for any
fiscal year.''.
(2) Transition procedures.--Any visa issued or nonimmigrant
status otherwise accorded to any alien under clause (i)(b) or
(ii)(b) of section 101(a)(15)(H) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act pursuant to a petition filed during fiscal
year 1998 but approved on or after October 1, 1998, shall be
counted against the applicable ceiling in section 214(g)(1)
of that Act for fiscal year 1998 (as amended by paragraph (1)
of this subsection), except that, in the case where counting
the visa or the other granting of status would cause the
applicable ceiling for fiscal year 1998 to be exceeded, the
visa or grant of status shall be counted against the
applicable ceiling for fiscal year 1999.

SEC. 4. EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

(a) Degrees in mathematics, computer science, and
engineering.--Subpart 4 of part A of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 415A(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1070c(b)(1))--
(A) by striking ``$105,000,000 for fiscal year 1993'' and
inserting ``$155,000,000 for fiscal year 1999''; and
(B) by inserting ``, of which the amount in excess of
$25,000,000 for each fiscal year that does not exceed
$50,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 415F for
the fiscal year'' before the period; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 415F. DEGREES IN MATHEMATICS, COMPUTER SCIENCE, AND
ENGINEERING.

``(a) Allotments and Grants.--From amounts made available
to carry out this section under section 415A(b)(1) for a
fiscal year, the Secretary shall make allotments to States to
enable the States to pay not more than 50 percent of the
amount of grants awarded to low-income students in the
States.
``(b) Use of Grants.--Grants awarded under this section
shall be used by the students for attendance on a full-time
basis at an institution of higher education in a program of
study leading to an associate, baccalaureate or graduate
degree in mathematics, computer science, or engineering.
``(c) Comparability.--The Secretary shall make allotments
and grants shall be awarded under this section in the same
manner, and under the same terms and conditions, as--
``(1) the Secretary makes allotments and grants are awarded
under this subpart (other than this section); and
``(2) are not inconsistent with this section.''.
(b) Data Bank; Training.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall--
(A) establish or improve a data bank on the Internet that
facilitates--
(i) job searches by individuals seeking employment in the
field of technology; and
(ii) the matching of individuals possessing technology
credentials with employment in the field of technology; and
(B) provide training in information technology to
unemployed individuals who are seeking employment.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years--
(A) $8,000,000 to carry out paragraph (1)(A); and
(B) $10,000,000 to carry out paragraph (1)(B).

SEC. 5. INCREASED ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES AND IMPROVED
OPERATIONS.

(a) Increased Penalties for Violations of H1-B or H1-C
Program.--Section 212(n)(2)(C) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``a failure to meet'' and all that follows
through ``an application--'' and inserting ``a willful
failure to meet a condition in paragraph (1) or a willful
misrepresentation of a material fact in an application--'';
and
(2) in clause (i), by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting
``$5,000''.
(b) Spot Inspections During Probationary Period.--Section
212(n)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)) is amended--

[[Page S1520]]

(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) The Secretary of Labor may, on a case-by-case basis,
subject an employer to random inspections for a period of up
to five years beginning on the date that such employer is
found by the Secretary of Labor to have engaged in a willful
failure to meet a condition of subparagraph (A), or a
misrepresentation of material fact in an application.''.
(c) Expedited Reviews and Decisions.--Section 214(c)(2)(C)
(8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(C)) is amended by inserting ``or section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)'' after ``section 101(a)(15)(L)''.
(d) Determinations on Labor Condition Applications To Be
Made by Attorney General.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)) is amended by striking ``with respect
to whom'' and all that follows through ``with the Secretary''
and inserting ``with respect to whom the Attorney General
determines that the intending employer has filed with the
Attorney General''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 212(n) (8 U.S.C.
1182(n)(1)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``Secretary of
Labor'' and inserting ``Attorney General'';
(ii) in the sixth and eighth sentences, by inserting ``of
Labor'' after ``Secretary'' each place it appears;
(iii) in the ninth sentence, by striking ``Secretary of
Labor'' and inserting ``Attorney General'';
(iv) by amending the tenth sentence to read as follows:
``Unless the Attorney General finds that the application is
incomplete or obviously inaccurate, the Attorney General
shall provide the certification described in section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and adjudicate the nonimmigrant visa
petition.''; and
(v) by inserting in full measure margin after subparagraph
(D) the following new sentence: ``Such application shall be
filed with the employer's petition for a nonimmigrant visa
for the alien, and the Attorney General shall transmit a copy
of such application to the Secretary of Labor.''; and
(B) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)(A), by striking
``Secretary'' and inserting ``Secretary of Labor''.
(e) Prevailing Wage Considerations.--Section 101(a) (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(50) The term `prevailing wage' means the following:
``(A) If the job opportunity is subject to a wage
determination in the area under the Act of March 3, 1931
(commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a et
seq.)), or the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 et
seq.), the prevailing wage shall be the rate required under
such Acts.
``(B) If the job opportunity is not covered by a prevailing
wage determined under the Acts referred to in subparagraph
(A), the prevailing wage shall be--
``(i) the rate of wages to be determined, to the extent
feasible, by adding the wage paid to workers similarly
employed in the area of intended employment and dividing the
total by the number of such workers, except that the wage set
forth in the application shall be considered as meeting the
prevailing wage standard if it is within 5 percent of the
average rate of wages; or
``(ii) if the job opportunity is covered by a collective
bargaining agreement, the wage rate set forth in the
agreement shall be considered as not adversely affecting the
wages of United States workers similarly employed and shall
be considered the `prevailing wage'.
``(C) A prevailing wage determination made pursuant to this
section shall not permit an employer to pay a wage lower than
that required under any other Federal, State, or local law.
``(D) For purposes of this section:
``(i) The term `similarly employed' means having
substantially comparable jobs in the occupational category in
the area of intended employment, except that, if no such
workers are employed by employers other than the employer
applicant in the area of intended employment, the term
`similarly employed' means--
``(I) having jobs requiring a substantially similar level
of skills within the area of intended employment; or
``(II) if there are no substantially comparable jobs in the
area of intended employment, having substantially comparable
jobs with employers outside of the area of intended
employment.
``(ii) The term `substantially comparable jobs' means jobs
with substantially comparable employers, taking into account
size, profit or nonprofit classification, start-up or mature
business operations, the specific industry, public or private
sector, status as an academic institution, or other defining
characteristics which the employer can demonstrate result in
a distinct wage scale from the industry at large.
``(iii) The term `similarly employed' shall be construed to
require separate average rates of wage taking into account
such factors as years of experience, academic degree,
educational institution attended, grade point average,
publications or other distinctions, personal traits deemed
essential to job performance, specialized training or skills,
competitive market factors, or any other factors typically
considered by employers within the industry.
(iv) Employers may use either government or nongovernment
published surveys, including industry, region, or Statewide
wage surveys, to determine the prevailing wage, which shall
be considered correct and valid where the employer has
maintained a copy of the survey information.
(f) Posting Requirement.--Section 212(n)(1)(C)(ii) (8
U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) if there is no such bargaining representative, has
provided notice of filing to the employer's employees in the
occupational classification through such methods as physical
posting in a conspicuous location at the employer's place of
business, or electronic posting through an internal job bank,
or electronic notification available to employees in the
occupational classification.''.

SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORTS ON H1-B VISAS.

Section 212(n) (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Using data from petitions for visas issued under
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), the Attorney General shall
annually submit the following reports to Congress:
``(A) Quarterly reports on the numbers of aliens who were
provided nonimmigrant status under section
101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) during the previous quarter and who were
subject to the numerical ceiling for the fiscal year
established under section 214(g)(1).
``(B) Annual reports on the occupations and compensation of
aliens provided nonimmigrant status under such section during
the previous fiscal year.''.

SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON PER COUNTRY CEILING WITH RESPECT TO
EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.

(a) Special Rules.--Section 202(a) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Rules for employment-based immigrants.--
``(A) Employment-based immigrants not subject to per
country limitation if additional visas available.--If the
total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2),
(3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter
exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise
be issued such visas, the visas made available under that
paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical
limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the
remainder of the calendar quarter.
``(B) Limiting fall across for certain countries subject to
subsection (e).--In the case of a foreign state or dependent
area to which subsection (e) applies, if the total number of
visas issued under section 203(b) exceeds the maximum number
of visas that may be made available to immigrants of the
state or area under section 203(b) consistent with subsection
(e) (determined without regard to this paragraph), in
applying subsection (e) all visas shall be deemed to have
been required for the classes of aliens specified in section
203(b).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 202(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (3), (4), and (5)''.
(2) Section 202(e)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)(3)) is amended by
striking ``the proportion of the visa numbers'' and inserting
``except as provided in subsection (a)(5), the proportion of
the visa numbers''.
(c) One-Time Protection Under Per Country Ceiling.--
Notwithstanding section 214(g)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, any alien who--
(1) as of the date of enactment of this Act is a
nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) of that
Act;
(2) is the beneficiary of a petition filed under section
204(a) for a preference status under paragraph (1), (2), or
(3) of section 203(b); and
(3) would be subject to the per country limitations
applicable to immigrants under those paragraphs but for this
subsection,
may apply for and the Attorney General may grant an extension
of such nonimmigrant status until the alien's application for
adjustment of status has been processed and a decision made
thereon.

SEC. 8. ACADEMIC HONORARIA.

Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(p) Any alien admitted under section 101(a)(15)(B) may
accept an honorarium payment and associated incidental
expenses for a usual academic activity or activities, as
defined by the Attorney General in consultation with the
Secretary of Education, if such payment is offered by an
institution of higher education (as defined in section
1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965) or other
nonprofit entity and is made for services conducted for the
benefit of that institution or entity.''.

American Business for

Legal Immigration,

March 2, 1998.
Hon. Spencer Abraham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: We write to applaud you, on behalf of
American businesses, for introducing legislation that
addresses the critical shortage of skilled employees in the
workforce. The American Competitiveness Act, which you have
introduced, will improve the important H-1B visa program and
help to ensure that U.S. companies can continue to create
jobs and meet the demands of the future.
Today, as you well know, hundreds of thousands of positions
in the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy go
unfilled. In order

[[Page S1521]]

for American companies to remain competitive in a global
market we need to attract the best talent, regardless of
place of birth. Professionals who come here on temporary H-1B
visas are a key component of America's high technology
workforce. With the cap on H-1B visas expected to be hit by
early summer of this year, your legislation could hardly come
to a more crucial time for American business. In addition,
your legislation recognizes the need to provide additional
training to American-born workers, so that they can continue
to be the world's best workforce in the 21st century. For
this recognition we also give you credit and offer our
thanks.
We appreciate your steadfast dedication to the vital issues
facing the American workforce, and hope that your colleagues
will also recognize this problem of crisis proportions. Under
your leadership, Congress can solve a major dilemma for
American business and simultaneously reaffirm the value of
hard work, innovation, and competition. We also firmly
believe that the American Competitiveness Act will do more to
directly create jobs for Americans--and to keep jobs in this
country--than any other bill that will be considered by
Congress this year.
Thank you once again for your continued leadership on this
critical issue. We look forward to working with you to
advance this much needed legislation in the weeks and months
ahead.
Sincerely,
Scott Hoffman,
Director.
American Council on International Personnel; American
Electronics Association; American Immigration Lawyers
Association; Business Software Alliance; Computing Technology
Industries Association; Electronic Industries Association;
Information Technology Association of America; National
Association of Manufacturers; National Technical Services
Association; United States Chamber of Commerce.
____

United States Pan Asian

American Chamber of Commerce,

Washington, DC, March 3, 1998.
Re the American Competitiveness Act.

Senator Spencer Abraham,
Chairman, Immigration Subcommittee, Senate Judiciary
Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: We write to endorse the American
Competitiveness Act.
This is a new age. Americans and U.S. businesses are
operating in an increasingly competitive global environment.
Although we are the first and best in the world, we must
strive to stay on top. To this end, a well-educated
citizenry, a hospitable workplace that offers equal
opportunity to all without regard to race or gender, and a
skilled work force are essential to sustained growth in the
U.S. economy.
In my own business, I represent American companies who have
an unfulfilled need for information technology professionals.
Because our colleges and universities do not produce enough
of them, and whomever they have trained are immediately
absorbed into the workforce; our companies must recruit from
outside the country to get jobs done. That is why your
proposal to increase H-1B temporary visas by 25,000 is so
timely and important. This increase will reduce the backlog
of issuing H-1B visas to qualified workers whom our companies
need to render their services, save jobs and create more
jobs.
We would oppose granting the Department of Labor the vastly
expanded authority it is now seeking. The Administration's
proposals to shorten the maximum length of stay for an
individual on an H-1B, require up-front recruiting, which
could delay hiring for many months or even years, and broad
no-layoff attestations are clearly designed to kill, rather
than improve the program. These ``reforms'' will severely
diminish companies' access to necessary personnel and will
therefore work against any increase in the H-1B visa quota.
The Labor Department claims it is protecting U.S. workers,
but against whom are they being protected? Many of those
entering the United States on H-1B visas are from Asian
Pacific countries. Our organization finds it offensive that
the Administration would try to demonize such individuals in
the minds of the American public. This type of immigrant-
bashing coming from the Administration must stop.
As a non-profit organization, we whole-heartedly support
your proposal to permit different prevailing wage
calculations for universities, charities and other non-profit
organizations. This proposal brings reality to the
administration of our immigration laws. It also reflects the
true condition of the market place where non-profit
organizations do not pay at the rate of for profit
businesses. The proposal makes good sense.
The Act's provisions for scholarships for low-income
students to pursue higher education in mathematics,
engineering and computer science, and increased training and
job search support in the information technology industry
will indeed prepare America's work force for the coming
century.
We applaud your efforts in the bill to eliminate the
discriminatory effect of per country employment immigration
limits on nationals from certain Asian Pacific nations.
The American Competitiveness Act is a significant step into
the direction that will keep us competitive into the next
millenium. We are pleased to support it.
Sincerely
Susan Au Allen,
President.
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Bond, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Faircloth, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Hutchison,
and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
S. 1724. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the information reporting requirement relating to the Hope Scholarship
and Lifetime Learning Credits imposed on educational institutions and
certain other trades and businesses; to the Committee on Finance.

the higher education reporting relief act

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the
Higher Education Reporting Relief Act, to reduce the burdensome
reporting requirements imposed on educational institutions by the Hope
Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits. I am very pleased to be
joined by my principal cosponsor, the distinguished Senator from Ohio,
Senator DeWine, who has been a real leader in education issues. I am
also pleased to have the Presiding Officer, Senator Gordon Smith, as
one of my cosponsors as well as Senators Bond, Enzi, Faircloth, Hatch,
Helms, Hutchison, and Roberts.
Mr. President, when Congress created the Hope Scholarship and the
Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, it, unfortunately, at the same time also
created a very burdensome and costly reporting requirement for our
universities, our colleges, and our proprietary schools. Beginning with
the tax year 1998, the regulations will require schools to report to
the IRS information on their students--including name, address, Social
Security number, information about attendance status, program level, a
campus contact, and the amount of qualified tuition and student aid.
Mr. President, this is a perfect example of the law of unintended
consequences. We have inadvertently imposed a costly burden on our
institutions of higher education. In the words of the president of the
University of Maine at Farmington:
At a time when we are working to increase access and to contain
college costs, new government reporting requirements are working
against us. We will need to add personnel, not in support of our
educational functions, but to comply with the new IRS regulations. This
is not sensible and it is definitely not in the interests of the people
we are here to serve.

Mr. President, she said it very well. This is not sensible and it is
not in the interests of the people that we are here to serve.
Yet another example from my State comes from the University of Maine
at Presque Isle, a small campus with fewer than 1,000 students. The
President there has told me that he may well need to hire an additional
person to oversee the data collection and reporting requirements of
this new law. Indeed, Mr. President, analysis of these reporting
requirements indicate that they will cost America's postsecondary
educational institutions as much as $125 million, and that is just to
set up the system. In addition, tens of millions of dollars will have
to be spent each year on an ongoing basis to comply with these onerous
new regulations.
Mr. President, this simply does not make sense. The Collins-DeWine
bill will repeal the provision of the Internal Revenue Code that
requires a school to report this information for its students. Instead,
Mr. President, we will treat these educational tax credits just the way
we would treat any kind of tax credit. Taxpayers will be required to
report the necessary information on their tax returns and to maintain
records of their expenses that will support any tax credits that they
claim.
Mr. President, the rationale for the Hope and Lifetime Learning
education credits is to make postsecondary education both more
affordable and thus more accessible to lower income individuals. But in
this case, Mr. President, what Congress is giving with one hand it is
taking away at least in part with its regulatory hand. The cost of
conforming to these regulatory requirements will inevitably result in
increases in tuition, chipping away at the very benefit of these tax
credits.
Mr. President, the American Council on Education strongly supports
this bill. It will help avoid a wasteful expenditure of the resources,
the scarce resources, of America's colleges and universities.

[[Page S1522]]

I ask unanimous consent a letter from the president of the American
Council on Education endorsing our bill on behalf of seven national
education associations be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

American Council on Education,

Office of the President,

Washington, DC, March 5, 1998.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: The creation last year of the Hope
Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits through the
Taxpayer Relief Act was met with great enthusiasm by the
higher education community. These education tax incentives
will clearly benefit students and their families.
Unfortunately, the creation of these tax credits has an
extraordinarily negative by-product: an unprecedented barrage
of new regulatory and record-keeping requirements for
colleges and universities.
The cost of complying with the education tax provisions in
the Taxpayer Relief Act will be enormous. More than 15
million degree-seeking students currently are enrolled in
America's colleges and universities; we believe, based on
preliminary estimates, that the cost of reporting will be
approximately $6 to $8 per student. Note that this estimate
does not include the cost of collecting and reporting the
data on the roughly 15 million students who take continuing
(i.e. non-degree) courses every year. When examined on an
institution by institution basis, the cost is alarming. The
University of California at Los Angeles estimates it will
cost $427,000 to comply with the requirements of the new law;
Colorado State University estimates the cost will be
approximately $250,000. Unavoidably, the cost of complying
with these externally imposed requirements will be passed on
to students.
Given the costs and burdens that will be associated with
implementing these important provisions, we are grateful for
your efforts to minimize the burden to be placed on schools
by introducing the ``Higher Education Reporting Relief Act.''
The higher education community is involved in efforts to
minimize or eliminate the reporting burden while preserving
important accountability for the use of federal funds. We
have established a task force comprised of nine associations
to analyze and document the full extent of the burden that
these regulations pose. Led by the National Association of
College and University Business Officers, this task force
will estimate the costs associated with compliance; make
recommendations to alleviate the regulatory burden; and
assess the possible use of third-party service providers to
manage reporting for individual colleges and universities.
This group is expected to complete its work in mid-May; we
hope that it will be an excellent source of technical
assistance to you and others.
We greatly appreciate your leadership on this issue and
expect that many of our campuses will contact you directly to
express their thanks. We look forward to working with you to
relieve higher education institutions from the reporting
requirements associated with the new education tax
incentives. Thank you for your attention to his issue and for
your consistent commitment to students and families, and to
American higher education.
Sincerely
Stanley O. Ikenberry,
Presdient.
On behalf of: American Association of Community Colleges;
American Council on Education; Association of American
Universities; Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges; National Association of College and University
Business Officers; National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges; National Association of Student
Financial Aid Administrators; The College Fund/UNCF.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am delighted to join Senator Collins
today in the introduction of the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act.
This bill, as my colleague has explained, would repeal section 605 of
the Internal Revenue Code, thereby eliminating responsibility of
schools to file returns to the IRS on behalf of their students.
Now, the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education has
recommended that the most direct way to minimize the regulatory burden
on colleges and universities would be to repeal the sections of law
that impose reporting requirements.
What is the problem? Here is the problem: Current law relating to the
Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning tax credit requires all
colleges and universities to comply with very burdensome and costly
regulations. Beginning with tax year 1998, schools will be expected to
provide the IRS with information regarding its students, including the
following: name, address, Social Security number of the students,
whether the student was in attendance at least half-time during the
academic period, whether the student was enrolled exclusively in a
program leading to a graduate-level educational credential, the person
to contact at the institution in case there are questions, the amount
of qualified tuition and gift aid a student receives--on and on.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that we are amending today contained
a provision requiring colleges, universities, and trade schools to
begin issuing annual reports to students and to the Internal Revenue
Service detailing the students' tuition payments in case they apply for
the new education tax credit. Preliminary analysis shows the reporting
requirements will cost 6,000 colleges in America more than $125 million
to implement and tens of millions of dollars annually to maintain.
The bill that Senator Collins and I are introducing will free
colleges, universities, and trade schools from complying with these
very burdensome and costly requirements. Under our bill, taxpayers will
now simply claim the new education tax credits on their income tax
returns as they do with other tax credits and deductions.
Now, Mr. President, in my home State of Ohio, I have heard from many
colleges. They have told me that the reporting requirement will place a
significant financial and human resource burden on colleges and
universities that will ultimately lead to an increase in the cost of
higher education.
Ohio institutions such as Cleveland State, Bowling Green State
University, Shawnee State University, and North Central Technical
College have all written me and told me these requirements place
schools in a very difficult position, putting them between students and
parents and the IRS, because the schools are required under the current
law to collect information that, frankly, they would not otherwise have
to collect. While these schools are very supportive of the Hope
Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit, the burden placed on
universities will increase the cost of higher education, which, of
course, reduces the benefit of the tax credit to the students.
The bill that my colleague from Maine and I are introducing is
commonsense legislation that will eliminate an unfunded mandate placed
upon colleges and universities. In realistic terms, if the new
reporting requirement is not lifted off the backs of colleges and
universities, those schools will be forced to raise tuition costs to
cover this unfunded mandate. In effect, students and families will not
benefit from passage of the Hope Scholarship because the money received
from the tax credit will be used to pay this higher tuition.
I support the Hope Scholarship, and I am excited that students will
be given a financial boost in their plans to attain a higher education.
However, the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credit will not
be as beneficial if it means that colleges and universities will raise
their tuition to cover the costs of this unfunded mandate. Trying to
pay for an unfunded mandate shifts a school's focus away from its
primary goal, which, of course, is giving the students the best
possible education.
Now, similar legislation to our bill has already been introduced in
the House of Representatives. The House bill is supported by a
bipartisan coalition of Members of the House. In addition, Mr.
President, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities,
representing 425 of the largest colleges and universities in the
country, and also the American Association of Community Colleges,
representing 1,200 community colleges, have both endorsed this
initiative.
Mr. President, I conclude today by asking my colleagues to take a
closer look at how this legislation will benefit students and families
in this country. I invite any of my colleagues to join us today to
cosponsor this bill. Passage of the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime
Learning tax credit was a good beginning, but we must now assure that
universities and colleges will not raise tuition costs simply to cover
the costs of this unfunded mandate.
Our bill, then, is simple. It is simple, fair legislation that will
greatly benefit any person who wants to obtain a higher education in
this country.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the
Higher Education Reporting Relief Act. Last year, this body was
instrumental in

[[Page S1523]]

providing key incentives for students who want to go to school to
improve their lives and build job skills. The Hope Scholarship and
Lifetime Learning tax credits, as adopted in the Taxpayer Relief Act,
give financial assistance to young and old who want to attend a
community college, university or trade school.
Unfortunately, the legislation also contained a provision requiring
these institutions to comply with burdensome reporting procedures such
as issuing annual reports to students and the Internal Revenue Service.
Preliminary analysis shows the reporting requirements will cost the
6,000 institutions of higher learning in America more than $125 million
combined to implement and tens of millions of dollars annually to
maintain.
The Higher Education Reporting Relief Act would repeal the Taxpayer
Relief Act requirements that higher education institutions collect and
report information on all eligible students to the Internal Revenue
Service. In lieu of these extensive reporting requirements, taxpayers
would be allowed to claim the tax credits on their income tax forms,
similar to the way other tax deductions are now reported.
Let's not let this tremendous accomplishment for education be
overshadowed by burdensome paperwork. Please join Senators Collins,
DeWine, and me in supporting the Higher Education Reporting Relief Act.
______

By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 1725. A bill to terminate the Office of the Surgeon General of the
Public Health Service; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

the office of surgeon general sunset act

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Office of Surgeon
General Sunset Act, along with Senators Helms, Thomas, and Kyl. This
legislation has the same purpose as my bill from the 104th Congress,
but has a different enactment provision. This bill will sunset the
Office of Surgeon General only after Dr. Satcher vacates the office;
this bill would not remove him from that position.
Every recent Surgeon General nomination, including that of Dr. Koop,
has resulted in a political battle which has detracted from important
health issues. The position has been used by both parties as a
political advocate as much as a public health advocate. In the wake of
the recent nomination process, I am more persuaded than ever that the
office is a lightning rod for controversy which provides no public
benefit.
The Surgeon General and his staff of six serve no compelling purpose.
It is often said that the Surgeon General occupies a bully pulpit from
which to address the nation on important health issues. But we've been
without a surgeon general since the end of 1994, and there was no
shortage of voices on major health issues. The president, the first
lady, the secretary of health and human services, the commissioner of
the Food and Drug Administration, and the former surgeon general all
spoke on public health issues.
What's more, the Surgeon General and his office are duplicative. The
office performs no crucial function that is not handled by a different
bureaucracy. In fact, the budget for the office has already been folded
into the Office of Public Health and Science, headed by Dr. Satcher in
his role as Assistant Secretary for Health. This office has a staff of
300 and a current budget of over $80 million. My bill will merely
complete the transition to the Assistant Secretary for Health,
eliminating a redundant federal office.
This legislation is not about Dr. Satcher, or about any previous
Surgeon General. Dr. Satcher will continue to be Surgeon General and
the office would sunset immediately after he vacates it. This
legislation will sunset an office that has become a political football
and has long since outlived its usefulness.
______

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and
Mr. Wyden):
S. 1726. A bill to authorize the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California to regulate the Dungeness crab fishery in the exclusive
economic zone; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

the dungeness crab conservation and management act

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator
Gorton, Senator Smith of Oregon, and Senator Wyden to introduce the
Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act. Having outlined the
history and intent of this important piece of legislation on February
12, 1998, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1726

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 ``Dungeness Crab Conservation
and Management Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the ocean Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) fishery
adjacent to the States of Washington, Oregon, and California
has been successfully conserved and managed by those States
since the 19th century;
(2) in recognition of the need for coastwide conservation
of Dungeness crab, the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California have--
(A) enacted certain laws that promote conservation of the
resource;
(B) signed a memorandum of understanding declaring the
intent of those States to take mutually supportive actions to
further the management of Dungeness crab; and
(C) through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission,
formed the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee to provide a
public forum for coordinating conservation and management
actions;
(3) tribal treaty rights to crab under the subproceeding
numbered 89-3 in United States v. Washington, D.C. No. CV-70-
09213, are being implemented by the State of Washington
through annual preseason negotiations with the affected
Indian tribes;
(4) the expiration of interim authority referred to in
paragraph (7) will jeopardize the ability of the State to
effectively provide for State-tribal harvest agreements that
include restrictions on nontreaty fishers in the exclusive
economic zone;
(5) the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) requires that Federal
fishery management plans be established for fisheries that
require conservation and management;
(6) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, several fisheries in the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans, including king crab in the Gulf of Alaska, have
remained under the jurisdiction of individual States or
interstate organizations because conservation and management
can be better achieved without the implementation of a
Federal fishery management plan;
(7) section 112(d) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public
Law 104-297; 110 Stat. 3596 though 3597) provided interim
authority for the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California to exercise limited jurisdiction over the ocean
Dungeness crab fishery in the exclusive economic zone and
required the Pacific Fishery Management Council to report to
Congress on progress in developing a fishery management plan
for ocean Dungeness crab and any impediments to that
progress;
(8) the Pacific Fishery Management Council diligently
carried out the responsibilities referred to in paragraph (7)
by holding public hearings, requesting recommendations from a
committee of that Council and the Tri-State Dungeness Crab
Committee;
(9) representatives from the Indian tribes involved, the
west coast Dungeness crab industry, and the fishery
management agencies of the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California were consulted by the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, and the Council voted in public session on its final
report; and
(10) by a unanimous vote, the Pacific Fishery Management
Council found that amending section 112 of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act and providing for permanent authority to the
States of Washington, Oregon, and California to manage, with
certain limitations, the ocean Dungeness crab fishery in that
portion of the exclusive economic zone adjacent to each of
the States, respectively, and continued participation by
fishermen and the Indian tribes subject to the tribal treaty
rights referred to in paragraph (3) would--
(A) best accomplish the conservation and management of the
ocean Dungeness crab fishery; and
(B) best serve the public interest.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to provide for the continued conservation and
management of ocean Dungeness crab in a manner that
recognizes the contributions of the States of Washington,
Oregon, and California and the needs of the Indian tribes
that are subject to the tribal treaty rights to crab
described in subsection (a)(3); and
(2) to carry out the recommendations that the Pacific
Fishery Management Council made in accordance with
requirements established by Congress.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

[[Page S1524]]

(1) Exclusive economic zone.--The term ``exclusive economic
zone'' has the meaning given that term in section 3(11) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1802(11)).
(2) Fishery.--The term ``fishery'' has the meaning given
that term in section 3(13) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(13)).
(3) Fishing.--The term ``fishing'' has the meaning given
that term in section 3(15) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(15)).

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY FOR MANAGEMENT OF DUNGENESS CRAB.

(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this section,
and notwithstanding section 306(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1856(a)),
each of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California may
adopt and enforce State laws (including regulations)
governing fishing and processing in the exclusive economic
zone adjacent to that State in any Dungeness crab (Cancer
magister) fishery for which there is no fishery management
plan in effect under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
(b) Requirements for State Laws.--Any law adopted by a
State under this section for a Dungeness crab fishery--
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), shall, without
regard to the State that issued the permit under which a
vessel is operating, apply equally to--
(A) vessels engaged in the fishery in the exclusive
economic zone; and
(B) vessels engaged in the fishery in the waters of the
State;
(2) shall not apply to any fishing by a vessel in the
exercise of tribal treaty rights; and
(3) shall include any provisions necessary to implement
tribal treaty rights in a manner consistent with the decision
of the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington in United States v. Washington, D.C. No. CV-70-
09213.
(c) Exclusive Economic Zone.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any law of the
State of Washington, Oregon, or California that establishes
or implements a limited entry system for a Dungeness crab
fishery may not be enforced against a vessel that--
(A) is otherwise legally fishing in the exclusive economic
zone adjacent to that State; and
(B) is not registered under the laws of that State.
(2) Exclusion.--A State referred to in paragraph (1) may
regulate the landing of Dungeness crab.
(d) Requirements for Harvest.--No vessel may harvest or
process Dungeness crab in the exclusive economic zone
adjacent to the State of Washington, Oregon, or California,
except--
(1) as authorized by a permit issued by any of the States
referred to in subsection (c)(1); or
(2) under any tribal treaty rights to Dungeness crab in a
manner consistent with the decision of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington in
United States v. Washington, D.C. No. CV-70-09213.
(e) Statutory Construction.--Except as expressly provided
in this section, nothing in this section is intended to
reduce the authority of any State under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.) to regulate fishing, fish processing, or landing of
fish.

SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF INTERIM AUTHORITY.

Section 112 of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law
104-297; 110 Stat. 3596) is amended by striking subsection
(d).
____

[From the Congressional Record, Feb. 12, 1998]

Mrs. Murray. Mr. President, soon after the upcoming recess,
I will join my colleague, Senator Slade Gorton, to introduce
the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act. The ocean
Dungeness crab fishery in WA, OR, and CA has been
successfully managed by the three states for many years. The
states cooperate on season openings, male-only harvest
requirements, and minimum sizes; and all three states have
enacted limited entry programs. Although the resource
demonstrates natural cycles in abundance, over time the
fishery has been sustained at a profitable level for
fishermen and harvesters with no biological programs.
The fishery is conducted both within state waters and in
the federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Although state
landing laws restrict fishermen to delivering crab only to
those states in which they are licensed, the actual harvest
takes place along most of the West Coast, roughly from San
Francisco to the Canadian border. Thus, it is not unusual for
an Oregon-licensed fisherman from Newport to fish in the EEA
northwest of Westport, WA, and deliver his catch to a
processor in Astoria, OR.
In recent yeas, federal court decisions under the umbrella
of U.S. v. Washington have held that Northwest Indian tribes
have treaty rights to harvest a share of the crab resource
off Washington. To accommodate these rights, the State of
Washington has restricted fishing by Washington-licensed
fishermen. This led Washington fishermen to request an
extension of state fisheries jurisdiction into the EEZ. The
Congress partially granted this request during the last
Congress by giving the West Coast states interim authority
over Dungeness crab, which expires in 1999 (16 U.S.C. 1856
note). The Congress also expressed its interest in seeing a
fishery management plan established for Dungeness crab and
asked the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) to report
to Congress on this issue by December, 1997.
The PFMC established an industry committee to examine the
issues, which developed several options. At its June meeting,
the PFMC selected two options for further development and
referred them for analysis to the Tri-State Dungeness Crab
Committee which operates under the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission. After lengthy debate, the Tri-State
Committee recommended to the Council that the Congress be
requested to make the interim authority permanent with
certain changes, including a clarification of what license is
required for the fishery, broader authority for the states to
ensure equitable access to the resource, and clarification of
tribal rights. The Tri-State Committee agrees that each
state's limited entry laws should apply only to vessels
registered in that state. I ask unanimous consent to include
the report of the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee and the
membership list of the Committee in the Record.
On September 12, 1997, the PFMC unanimously agreed to
accept and support the Tri-State Committee recommendation.
The Council agreed that the existing management structure
effectively conserves the resource, that allocation issues
are resolved by the restriction on application of state
limited entry laws, that tribal rights are protected, and
that the public interest in conservation and fiscal
responsibility after better served by the legislative
proposal than by developing and implementing a fishery
management plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. This legislation will fully
implement the Tri-State Committee recommendation and ensure
the conservation and sound management of this important West
Coast fishery.
I look forward to the Senate's timely consideration of this
bill.
____

Report of the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee to the Pacific Fishery
Management Council on Options for Dungeness Crab Fishery Management,
August 7, 1997

The Tri State Dungeness Crab Committee met on August 6-7,
1997 to review the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC)
Analysis of Options for Dungeness Crab Management. A list of
the attending Committee members, advisors, and observers is
attached. After completing that review, the Committee
discussed the merits of each option and offered the following
comments for PFMC consideration.
There was general agreement within the Committee that
Option 1, No Action, would not satisfy the current needs of
the industry. There was unanimous opposition, however, among
Oregon and California representatives to Option 3,
Development of a Limited Federal Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). Washington representatives were not strongly in favor
of a FMP, but viewed it as the only realistic means to
address their concerns for the fishery. After an extended
discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee that a
modified version of Option 2, Extension of Interim Authority,
was preferred.
There were three common themes that appeared during the
discussion. No Committee members believed that there should
be fishing or processing of Dungeness crab in waters of the
EEZ under PFMC jurisdiction by any vessel not permitted or
licensed in either Washington, Oregon, or California. The
Committee generally accepted that additional tools beyond
area closures and pot limits could be needed to address
tribal allocation issues. Finally, the Committee also agreed
that as a matter of fairness, vessels fishing alongside each
other in an area should be subject to the same regulations.
On that basis, the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee
recommends that:
1. The PFMC immediately request that Congress make the
current Interim Authority a permanent part of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, applying
only to Pacific coast Dungeness crab, with the following
adjustments.
(a) delete the limitations listed in the current Section 2
of the Interim Authority so that state regulations will apply
equally to all vessels in the EEZ and adjacent State waters;
and
(b) clarify the language in the current Section 3B of the
Interim Authority to prohibit participation in the fishery by
vessels that are not registered in either Washington, Oregon,
or California.
2. The PFMC defer action on a Dungeness crab FMP until
March 1998 to determine whether Congress will be receptive to
this extension of the Interim Authority.
Proposed draft bill language for an extension of the
Interim Authority is attached.
This recommendation is not made without reservations on
both sides. Washington representatives were reluctant to
totally withdraw consideration of a federal FMP option, in
the event that efforts to extend the Interim Authority fail.
They expressed little confidence that a request for
Congressional action would be successful. Representatives
from Oregon were concerned that discriminatory regulations
could be enacted in the future by other states that could
effectively exclude them from participation on traditional
fishing grounds. They preferred this risk over the
involvement of federal agencies under a federal fishery
management plan.

[[Page S1525]]

Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee Meeting Attendance--August 6-7,
1997, Portland, OR

committee members

Dick Sheldon: Columbia River Dungeness Crab Fishermen's
Association, Ocean Park, WA
Ernie Summers: Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's
Association, Westport, WA
Larry Thevik: Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's
Association, Westport, WA
Terry Krager: Chinook Packing, Chinook, WA
Paul Davis: Oregon Fisher, Brookings, OR
Bob Eder: Oregon Fisher, Newport, OR
Tom Nowlin: Oregon Fisher, Coos Bay, OR
Stan Schones: Oregon Fisher, Newport, OR
Russell Smotherman: Oregon Fisher, Warrenton, OR
Joe Speir: Oregon Fisher, Brookings, OR
Rod Moore: West Coast Seafood Processors Association,
Portland, OR
Harold Ames: CA Fisher, Bodega Bay, CA
Mike Cunningham: CA Fisher, Eureka, CA
Tom Fulkerson: CA Fisher, Trinidad, CA
Tom Timmer: CA Fisher, Crescent City, CA
Jerry Thomas: Eureka Fisheries, Inc., Eureka, CA

advisors

Steve Barry: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Montesano, WA
Paul LaRiviere: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Montesano, WA
Neil Richmond: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Charleston, OR

observers

Tom Kelly: WA Fisher, Westport, WA
Mike Mail: Quinault Tribe, Taholah, WA
Nick Furman: Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission, Coos Bay, OR
______

By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 1727. A bill to authorize the comprehensive independent study of
the effects on trademark and intellectual property rights holders of
adding new generic top-level domains and related dispute resolution
procedures; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

study authorization legislation

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, from its origins as a U.S.-based research
vehicle, the Internet has matured into a democratic, international
medium for communication, commerce and education. As the Internet
evolves, the traditional means of organizing its technical functions
need to evolve as well.

In the days before the Internet, the U.S. Defense Department's
research network--called the ARPAnet--used a naming system that would
map a computer's numerical address to a more user-friendly host name.
With only a few computers linked to the ARPAnet, the U.S. Defense
Department's research network maintained a master list of each
computer's numerical address and host name. Sending an electronic
message or file was a simple matter of looking up the computer's host
name on a master list to find its numerical address. As the number of
host computers grew, however, it became clear that a new addressing
system was needed. Thus, in 1987, the current Domain Name System (DNS)
was created.
On today's Internet, the DNS works through a hierarchy of names. At
the top of this hierarchy are a set of Top Level Domains that can be
classified into two categories: generic Top Level Domains (gTLD) such
as ``.gov,'' ``.net,'' ``.com,'' ``.edu,'' ''.org,'' ``.int,'' and
``.mil,'' and the country code Top Level Domain names, such as ``.us''
and ``.uk.'' Before each TLD suffix, is a Second Level Domain name.
Since the Internet is an outgrowth of U.S. government investments
carried out under agreements with U.S. agencies, major components of
the DNS are still performed by or subject to agreements with U.S.
agencies. Examples include assignments of numerical addresses to
Internet users, management of the system of registering names for
Internet users, operation of the root server system, and protocol
assignment.
For the past five years, a company based in Herndon, Virginia, named
Network Solutions, Inc., has served under a cooperative agreement with
the National Science Foundation as the exclusive registry of all second
level domain names in several of the gTLDs (e.g., .com, .net, .org, and
.edu). This contract will end next month, with an optional ramp-down
period that expires on September 30, 1998.
The National Science Foundation's exclusive arrangement with Network
Solutions regarding the assignment of domain names has drawn criticism
from Internet users. This arrangement has also been the subject of
antitrust scrutiny by the Justice Department and of two lawsuits in
Federal Court. I wrote to Attorney General Reno in July 1997, asking to
be kept apprised, as appropriate, of any developments in the Justice
Department's antitrust investigation concerning the assignment of the
most popular domain names for Internet addresses. I was assured that
the Department's objective was consistent with my concerns to ensure
that the DNS functions, to the maximum extent possible, in an open,
competitive environment that maximizes innovation and consumer choice.

Despite the controversies associated with certain aspects of Network
Solutions' management of the gTLDs, many of us have been concerned
about what would happen at the end of that company's exclusive
contract. Simply put, how will we avoid chaos on the Internet and the
potential risk of multiple registrations of the same domain name for
different computers?
That is why I welcomed the Administration's intent to address this
issue comprehensively. In the Administration's ``Framework for Global
Electronic Commerce,'' the President last year directed the Secretary
of Commerce to privatize, increase competition and promote
international participation in the DNS. At the beginning of this year,
I wrote to Secretary Daley requesting that the Administration present
its policy recommendations regarding the management of the DNS without
further delay, lest the stability and integrity of the Internet domain
name system be threatened.
On January 30, 1998, the Commerce Department released a ``Green
Paper,'' or discussion draft, entitled ``A Proposal to Improve
Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses,'' proposing
privatization of the management of the DNS through the creation of a
new, not-for-profit corporation. This organization would set policy for
the allocation of number blocks to regional number registries; oversee
operation of the root server system; determine when new top-level-
domains should be added to the root system; and coordinate development
of protocol parameters for the Internet.
While the corporation would be able to decide when to add new gTLDs,
the Administration has indicated that it does not want to wait until
the corporation is formed to bring competition to the domain name
registration process. Thus, the Green Paper proposes to allow firms
other than Network Solutions assign addresses that end in the gTLDs:
``.com,'' ``.org'' and ``.net.'' The Green Paper also proposes the
creation of five new gTLDs, each of which would be based on registries
operated by separate firms. The Administration continues to solicit
comments on the Green Paper from the DNS stakeholder community, and
hopes to finalize and begin implementation of the Green Paper's
proposals in April 1998.
Developing this proposal to privatize and increase competition in the
DNS was an important and difficult task. I am delighted that the
Administration undertook this herculean effort and has finally released
its draft proposal to improve the DNS. I especially applaud the hard
work of Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the President for Policy
Development, Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information and Administrator of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Becky
Burr, Associate Administrator, NTIA, Office of International Affairs.
I fully agree with the four basic principles guiding the
Administration's proposal to structure this evolution; namely that
private sector control is preferable to government control; competition
should be encouraged; management of the Internet should reflect the
diversity of its users and their needs; and stability of the Internet
should be maintained during the transition period. These shared
principles form the basis of a solid framework from which to determine
the evolution of the DNS. That being said, I think it prudent that the
Green Paper--already shaped by months of discussions with a variety of
Internet stakeholders--is in the form of a discussion draft and that
additional public comments are being solicited. The Internet is a
democratic form of communication, and changes in its management
structure warrant consideration through an open and democratic process.
Among the more challenging questions presented by the Green Paper are

[[Page S1526]]

how to protect consumers' interests in locating the brand or vendor of
their choice on the Internet without being deceived or confused, and
how to protect companies from having their brand equity diluted in an
electronic environment. Adding new gTLDs, as the Green Paper proposes,
would allow more competition and more individuals and businesses to
obtain addresses that more closely reflect their names and functions.
On the other hand, businesses are also rightly concerned that the
increase in gTLDs may make the job of protecting their trademarks from
infringement or dilution more difficult. Recent news reports have
highlighted the prevalence of ``stealth'' domain name addresses, which
are slight spelling variations on the addresses of popular Web sites
used to increase visits by potential subscribers. For instance, as
reported in the March 2, 1998 edition of Newsweek,
``www.whitehouse.com'' is an explicit adult Web site. One needs to use
the domain name ``www.whitehouse.gov'' to reach the White House's web
site.
Congress recently addressed certain trademark issues with passage of
the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. That legislation proscribes the
dilution of famous trademarks in circumstances that might not otherwise
amount to trademark infringement. When that legislation passed the
Senate, I noted that ``no one else has yet considered this
application,'' but expressed ``my hope that this antidilution statute
can help stem the use of deceptive Internet addresses taken by those
who are choosing marks that are associated with the products and
reputations of others.'' Congressional Record, S 19312 (December 29,
1995).
Over the past several years, I understand that disputes between
trademark owners and domain name owners have been on the rise. To
address the legitimate concerns of trademark holders and the diverse
needs of Internet users, the Green Paper proposes that a study be
undertaken on the effects of adding new gTLDs and related dispute
resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual property rights
holders. Specifically, the Green Paper states:

We also propose that . . . a study be undertaken on the
effects of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution
procedures on trademark and intellectual property rights
holders. This study should be conduced under the auspices of
a body that is internationally recognized in the area of
dispute resolution procedures, with input from trademark and
domain name holders and registries.

Although some of the recommendations in the Green Paper have proved
to be controversial, I understand that DNS stakeholders of diverse
background and interests, including those businesses who are concerned
that the increase in gTLDs may make the job of protecting their
trademarks from infringement or dilution more difficult, such as ATT
and Bell Atlantic, support this Green Paper recommendation. The
legislation I introduce today directs the Secretary of Commerce, acting
through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patent
and Trademarks, to request the National Research Council (NRC) of the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the
effects on trademark and intellectual property rights holders of adding
new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures. The study shall
assess and, as appropriate, make recommendations for policy, practice,
or legislative changes regarding: (1) the short-term and long-term
effects on the protection of trademark and intellectual property rights
and consumer interests of increasing or decreasing the number of gTLDs;
(2) trademark and intellectual property rights clearance processes for
domain names, including whether domain name databases should be readily
searchable through a common interface to facilitate the ``clearing'' of
trademarks and intellectual property rights and proposed domain names
across a range of gTLDs; identifying what information from domain name
databases should be accessible for the ``clearing'' of trademarks and
intellectual property rights; and whether gTLDs registrants should be
required to provide certain information; (3) domain name trademark and
intellectual property rights dispute resolution mechanisms, including
how to reduce trademark and intellectual property rights conflicts
associated with the addition of any new gTLDs and how to reduce
trademark and intellectual property rights conflicts through new
technical approaches to Internet addressing; (4) choice of law or
jurisdiction for resolution of trademark and intellectual property
rights disputes relating to domain names, including which jurisdictions
should be available for trademark and intellectual property rights
owners to file suit to protect their trademarks and intellectual
property rights; (5) trademark and intellectual property rights
infringement liability for registrars, registries, or technical
management bodies; and (6) short-term and long-term technical and
policy options for Internet addressing schemes and their impact on
current trademark and intellectual property issues.
The bill also calls upon the Secretary of Commerce to seek the
cooperation of the Patent and Trademark Office, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, other Commerce
Department entities and all other appropriate Federal departments,
Government contractors, and similar entities with the study.
I use the Internet frequently, and I therefore have a personal stake
in ensuring that the evolution of the DNS is one that makes sense from
an end-user perspective. In addition, I am proud to say that Vermont
companies have been leaders in cyber selling. Both users and companies
seeking to do business on the Internet have a direct stake in ensuring
that the DNS develops in a manner that protects the rights and promotes
their shared interests.
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. 1727

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

SECTION 1. STUDY OF EFFECTS ON TRADEMARKS AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ADDING GENERIC TOP-LEVEL
DOMAINS.

(a) Study by National Research Council.--Not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, shall
request the National Research Council of the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study, taking into
account the diverse needs of Internet users, of the short-
term and long-term effects on trademark and intellectual
property rights holders of adding new generic top-level
domains and related dispute resolution procedures.
(b) Matters To Be Assessed In Study.--The study shall
assess and, as appropriate, make recommendations for policy,
practice, or legislative changes relating to--
(1) the short-term and long-term effects on the protection
of trademark and intellectual property rights and consumer
interests of increasing or decreasing the number of generic
top-level domains;
(2) trademark and intellectual property rights clearance
processes for domain names, including--
(A) whether domain name databases should be readily
searchable through a common interface to facilitate the
clearing of trademarks and intellectual property rights and
proposed domain names across a range of generic top-level
domains;
(B) the identification of what information from domain name
databases should be accessible for the clearing of trademarks
and intellectual property rights; and
(C) whether generic top-level domain registrants should be
required to provide certain information;
(3) domain name trademark and intellectual property rights
dispute resolution mechanisms, including how to--
(A) reduce trademark and intellectual property rights
conflicts associated with the addition of any new generic
top-level domains; and
(B) reduce trademark and intellectual property rights
conflicts through new technical approaches to Internet
addressing;
(4) choice of law or jurisdiction for resolution of
trademark and intellectual property rights disputes relating
to domain names, including which jurisdictions should be
available for trademark and intellectual property rights
owners to file suit to protect such trademarks and
intellectual property rights;
(5) trademark and intellectual property rights infringement
liability for registrars, registries, or technical management
bodies; and
(6) short-term and long-term technical and policy options
for Internet addressing schemes and the impact of such
options on current trademark and intellectual property rights
issues.
(c) Cooperation With Study.--
(1) Interagency cooperation.--The Secretary of Commerce
shall--
(A) direct the Patent and Trademark Office, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, and other
Department of Commerce entities to cooperate fully with the
National Research Council in

[[Page S1527]]

its activities in carrying out the study under this section;
and
(B) request all other appropriate Federal departments,
Federal agencies, Government contractors, and similar
entities to provide similar cooperation to the National
Research Council.
(2) Private corporation cooperation.--The Secretary of
Commerce shall request that any private, not-for-profit
corporation established to manage the Internet root server
system and the top-level domain names provide similar
cooperation to the National Research Council.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the National Research Council shall
complete the study under this section and submit a report on
the study to the Secretary of Commerce. The report shall set
forth the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Council concerning the effects of adding new generic top-
level domains and related dispute resolution procedures on
trademark and intellectual property rights holders.
(2) Submission to congressional committees.--Not later than
30 days after the date on which the report is submitted to
the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary shall submit the
report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and
House of Representatives.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $800,000 for the study conducted under
this Act.
______

By Mr. LOTT:
S. 1728. A bill to provide for the conduct of a risk assessment for
certain Federal agency rules, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs.

the risk assessment improvement act

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, federal bureaucrats issued thousands of new
rules and regulations last year, adding billions to the regulatory
costs already imposed on American businesses and the economy. Whether
you realize it or not, almost every aspect of our daily existence is
regulated in some way by the government.
That is not to say that the government should not regulate when it's
necessary to protect human health and the environment. However, we
would all agree that there are reasonable limits to how much protection
we really need. For instance, cars are dangerous vehicles. If not
properly operated, they can cause serious injury or death. It is
certainly acceptable for the government to issue regulations ensuring
that a vehicle is able to withstand anticipated impacts. But should we
outlaw cars simply because improper operation can lead to death? Of
course not. We all can see that the benefits of being able to drive a
car far outweigh any risk of death.
Mr. President, how do we separate true risks from inflated risks? How
do we parcel out real problems from those created by fear or
misinformation? How do we rank risks so that we attend to the most
pressing ones first?
I believe that the solution is to strengthen the risk assessment
portion of the current federal law. It is about time that federal
agencies focused on finding solutions to problems that present real
risks, risks that are based on sound science. For too long, agencies
have been allowed to use scant science and political windsocks to
determine what should be considered a risk to human health or the
environment. From an overblown analysis of risk comes irrational and
ineffective solutions--some even more harmful than the basic problem.
That is why I am introducing the Risk Assessment Improvement Act.
Before an agency can issue a rule or carry out a cost/benefit
analysis, it must determine that there is indeed a risk. Since risk
assessment is the first threshold for issuing regulations, I believe
that a targeted bill like this one would address the most important
part of regulatory reform.
Simply put, Mr. President, this bill ensures that there is no
ambiguity about whether or not there is a risk. By requiring rulemaking
agencies to follow a prescribed and stringent set of evaluations, the
bill strengthens the current method of evaluating risk. In addition,
the Risk Assessment Improvement Act states that risks must be reviewed
in light of other risks. In other words, it would require agencies to
rank risks from least to most severe, guaranteeing that the most
serious ones are addressed first. This is not only smart regulatory and
health policy, it is smart fiscal policy. We will be better able to
allocate federal resources if we know ahead of time which risks are
most pressing.
I know that Senator Thompson has done his best to assemble a
comprehensive regulatory reform package, and I certainly commend his
efforts. But a comprehensive approach offers many complexities, both
substantively and procedurally. That is why I am introducing a bill to
deal with just one element of the regulatory process--risk.
If you take a look at the language of my bill, you will find that it
is identical to that in the risk assessment title of the original
Levin-Thompson bill. The reason for this is simple: their language is
both strong and well written. And it gets the job done. I hope that I
can count on Senators Thompson and Levin's support in moving the bill
through the Government Affairs Committee.
In closing, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in taking
an incremental and doable step towards real regulatory reform by
supporting the Risk Assessment Improvement Act.
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. 1728

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 ``Federal Regulatory Risk
Assessment Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. RISK ASSESSMENTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SUBCHAPTER II--RISK ASSESSMENTS

``Sec. 621. Definitions

``For purposes of this subchapter the definitions under
section 551 shall apply and--
``(1) the term `cost' means the reasonably identifiable
significant adverse effects, including social, health,
safety, environmental, economic, and distributional effects
that are expected to result directly or indirectly from
implementation of, or compliance with, a rule;
``(2) the term `Director' means the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, acting through the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs;
``(3) the term `flexible regulatory options' means
regulatory options that permit flexibility to regulated
persons in achieving the objective of the statute as
addressed by the rule making, including regulatory options
that use market-based mechanisms, outcome oriented
performance-based standards, or other options that promote
flexibility;
``(4) the term `major rule' means a rule or a group of
closely related rules that--
``(A) the agency proposing the rule or the Director
reasonably determines is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100,000,000 or more in reasonably
quantifiable costs; or
``(B) is otherwise designated a major rule by the Director
on the ground that the rule is likely to adversely affect, in
a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
including small business, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments, or communities;
``(5) the term `reasonable alternative' means a reasonable
regulatory option that would achieve the objective of the
statute as addressed by the rule making and that the agency
has authority to adopt under the statute granting rule making
authority, including flexible regulatory options;
``(6) the term `risk assessment' means the systematic
process of organizing hazard and exposure assessments to
estimate the potential for specific harm to exposed
individuals, populations, or natural resources;
``(7) the term `rule' has the same meaning as in section
551(4), and shall not include--
``(A) a rule exempt from notice and public comment
procedure under section 553;
``(B) a rule that involves the internal revenue laws of the
United States, or the assessment and collection of taxes,
duties, or other revenue or receipts;
``(C) a rule of particular applicability that approves or
prescribes for the future rates, wages, prices, services,
corporate or financial structures, reorganizations, mergers,
acquisitions, accounting practices, or disclosures bearing on
any of the foregoing;
``(D) a rule relating to monetary policy proposed or
promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System or by the Federal Open Market Committee;
``(E) a rule relating to the safety or soundness of
federally insured depository institutions or any affiliate of
such an institution (as defined in section 2(k) of the Bank
Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(k)); credit
unions; the Federal Home Loan Banks; government-sponsored
housing enterprises; a Farm Credit System Institution;
foreign banks, and their branches, agencies, commercial
lending companies or representative offices that operate in
the United States and any affiliate of such foreign banks (as
those terms are defined in the International Banking Act of
1978 (12 U.S.C.

[[Page S1528]]

3101)); or a rule relating to the payments system or the
protection of deposit insurance funds or Farm Credit
Insurance Fund;
``(F) a rule or order relating to the financial
responsibility, recordkeeping, or reporting of brokers and
dealers (including Government securities brokers and dealers)
or futures commission merchants, the safeguarding of investor
securities and funds or commodity future or options customer
securities and funds, the clearance and settlement of
securities, futures, or options transactions, or the
suspension of trading under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) or emergency action taken under
the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), or a rule
relating to the protection of the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation, that is promulgated under the
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 78aaa
et seq.), or a rule relating to the custody of Government
securities by depository institutions under section 3121 or
9110 of title 31;
``(G) a rule issued by the Federal Election Commission or a
rule issued by the Federal Communications Commission under
sections 312(a)(7) and 315 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 312(a)(7) and 315);
``(H) a rule required to be promulgated at least annually
pursuant to statute; or
``(I) a rule or agency action relating to the public debt;
and
``(8) the term `substitution risk' means an increased risk
to health, safety, or the environment reasonably likely to
result from a regulatory option.

``Sec. 622. Applicability

``Except as provided in section 623(d), this subchapter
shall apply to all proposed and final major rules the primary
purpose of which is to address health, safety, or
environmental risk.

``Sec. 623. Risk assessments

``(a)(1) Before publishing a notice of a proposed rule
making for any rule, each agency shall determine whether the
rule is or is not a major rule covered by this subchapter.
``(2) The Director may designate any rule to be a major
rule under section 621(4)(B), if the Director--
``(A) makes such designation no later than 30 days after
the close of the comment period for the rule; and
``(B) publishes such determination in the Federal Register
together with a succinct statement of the basis for the
determination within 30 days after such determination.
``(b)(1) When an agency publishes a notice of proposed rule
making for a major rule to which section 624(a) applies, the
agency shall prepare and place in the rule making file an
initial risk assessment, and shall include a summary of such
assessment in the notice of proposed rule making.
``(2)(A) When the Director has published a determination
that a rule is a major rule to which section 624(a) applies,
after the publication of the notice of proposed rule making
for the rule, the agency shall promptly prepare and place in
the rule making file an initial risk assessment for the rule
and shall publish in the Federal Register a summary of such
assessment.
``(B) Following the issuance of an initial risk assessment
under subparagraph (A), the agency shall give interested
persons an opportunity to comment under section 553 in the
same manner as if the initial risk assessment had been issued
with the notice of proposed rule making.
``(c)(1) When the agency publishes a final major rule to
which section 624(a) applies, the agency shall also prepare
and place in the rule making file a final risk assessment,
and shall prepare a summary of the assessment.
``(2) Each final risk assessment shall address each of the
requirements for the initial risk assessment under subsection
(b), revised to reflect--
``(A) any material changes made to the proposed rule by the
agency after publication of the notice of proposed rule
making;
``(B) any material changes made to the risk assessment; and
``(C) agency consideration of significant comments received
regarding the proposed rule and the risk assessment.
``(d)(1) A major rule may be adopted without prior
compliance with this subchapter if--
``(A) the agency for good cause finds that conducting the
risk assessment under this subchapter is contrary to the
public interest due to an emergency, or an imminent threat to
health or safety that is likely to result in significant harm
to the public or the environment; and
``(B) the agency publishes in the Federal Register,
together with such finding, a succinct statement of the basis
for the finding.
``(2) If a major rule is adopted under paragraph (1), the
agency shall comply with this subchapter as promptly as
possible unless compliance would be unreasonable because the
rule is, or soon will be, no longer in effect.

``Sec. 624. Principles for risk assessments

``(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each agency shall design
and conduct risk assessments in accordance with this
subchapter for each proposed and final major rule , or that
results in a significant substitution risk, in a manner that
promotes rational and informed risk management decisions and
informed public input into and understanding of the process
of making agency decisions.
``(2) If a risk assessment under this subchapter is
otherwise required by this section, but the agency determines
that--
``(A) a final rule subject to this subchapter is
substantially similar to the proposed rule with respect to
the risk being addressed;
``(B) a risk assessment for the proposed rule has been
carried out in a manner consistent with this subchapter; and
``(C) a new risk assessment for the final rule is not
required in order to respond to comments received during the
period for comment on the proposed rule,
the agency may publish such determination along with the
final rule in lieu of preparing a new risk assessment for the
final rule.
``(b) Each agency shall consider in each risk assessment
reliable and reasonably available scientific information and
shall describe the basis for selecting such scientific
information.
``(c)(1) Each agency may use reasonable assumptions to the
extent that relevant and reliable scientific information,
including site-specific or substance-specific information, is
not reasonably available.
``(2) When a risk assessment involves a choice of
assumptions, the agency shall--
``(A) identify the assumption and its scientific or policy
basis, including the extent to which the assumption has been
validated by, or conflicts with, empirical data;
``(B) explain the basis for any choices among assumptions
and, where applicable, the basis for combining multiple
assumptions; and
``(C) describe reasonable alternative assumptions that were
considered but not selected by the agency for use in the risk
assessment, how such alternative assumptions would have
changed the conclusions of the risk assessment, and the
rationale for not using such alternatives.
``(d) Each agency shall provide appropriate opportunity for
public comment and participation during the development of a
risk assessment.
``(e) Each risk assessment supporting a major rule under
this subchapter shall include, as appropriate, each of the
following:
``(1) A description of the hazard of concern.
``(2) A description of the populations or natural resources
that are the subject of the risk assessment.
``(3) An explanation of the exposure scenarios used in the
risk assessment, including an estimate of the corresponding
population at risk and the likelihood of such exposure
scenarios.
``(4) A description of the nature and severity of the harm
that could reasonably occur as a result of exposure to the
hazard.
``(5) A description of the major uncertainties in each
component of the risk assessment and their influence on the
results of the assessment.
``(f) To the extent scientifically appropriate, each agency
shall--
``(1) express the overall estimate of risk as a reasonable
range or probability distribution that reflects
variabilities, uncertainties, and lack of data in the
analysis;
``(2) provide the range and distribution of risks and the
corresponding exposure scenarios, identifying the range and
distribution and likelihood of risk to the general population
and, as appropriate, to more highly exposed or sensitive
subpopulations, including the most plausible estimates of the
risks; and
``(3) where quantitative estimates are not available,
describe the qualitative factors influencing the range,
distribution, and likelihood of possible risks.
``(g) When scientific information that permits relevant
comparisons of risk is reasonably available, each agency
shall use the information to place the nature and magnitude
of a risk to health, safety, or the environment being
analyzed in relationship to other reasonably comparable risks
familiar to and routinely encountered by the general public.
Such comparisons should consider relevant distinctions among
risks, such as the voluntary or involuntary nature of risks.
``(h) When scientifically appropriate information on
significant substitution risks to health, safety, or the
environment is reasonably available to the agency, the agency
shall describe such risks in the risk assessment.

``Sec. 625. Deadlines for rule making

``(a) All deadlines in statutes or imposed by a court of
the United States, that require an agency to propose or
promulgate any major rule to which section 624(a) applies,
during the 2-year period beginning on the effective date of
this section shall be suspended until the earlier of--
``(1) the date on which the requirements of this subchapter
are satisfied; or
``(2) the date occurring 6 months after the date of the
applicable deadline.
``(b) In any case in which the failure to promulgate a
major rule to which section 624(a) applies by a deadline
occurring during the 2-year period beginning on the effective
date of this section would create an obligation to regulate
through individual adjudications, the deadline shall be
suspended until the earlier of--
``(1) the date on which the requirements of this subchapter
are satisfied; or
``(2) the date occurring 6 months after the date of the
applicable deadline.

``Sec. 626. Judicial review

``(a) Compliance or noncompliance by an agency with the
provisions of this subchapter shall only be subject to
judicial review in accordance with this section.
``(b) Any determination of an agency whether a rule is or
is not a major rule under section 621(4)(A) shall be set
aside by a reviewing court only upon a clear and convincing
showing that the determination is erroneous in light of the
information available to the agency at the time the agency
made the determination.

[[Page S1529]]

``(c) Any determination by the Director that a rule is a
major rule under section 621(4), or any failure to make such
determination, shall not be subject to judicial review in any
manner.
``(d) Any risk assessment required under this subchapter
shall not be subject to judicial review separate from review
of the final rule to which the assessment applies. Any risk
assessment shall be part of the whole rule making record for
purposes of judicial review of the rule and shall be
considered by a court in determining whether the final rule
is arbitrary or capricious unless the agency can demonstrate
that the assessment would not be material to the outcome of
the rule.
``(e) If an agency fails to perform the risk assessment, a
court shall remand or invalidate the rule.''.
(b) Presidential Authority.--Nothing in this Act shall
limit the exercise by the President of the authority and
responsibility that the President otherwise possesses under
the Constitution and other laws of the United States with
respect to regulatory policies, procedures, and programs of
departments, agencies, and offices.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Part I of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
striking the chapter heading and table of sections for
chapter 6 and inserting the following:

``CHAPTER 6--THE ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FUNCTIONS

``SUBCHAPTER I--ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

``Sec.
``601. Definitions.
``602. Regulatory agenda.
``603. Initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
``604. Final regulatory flexibility analysis.
``605. Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses.
``606. Effect on other law.
``607. Preparation of analysis.
``608. Procedure for waiver or delay of completion.
``609. Procedures for gathering comments.
``610. Periodic review of rules.
``611. Judicial review.
``612. Reports and intervention rights.

``SUBCHAPTER II--RISK ASSESSMENTS

``621. Definitions.
``622. Applicability.
``623. Risk assessments.
``624. Principles for risk assessments.
``625. Deadlines for rule making.
``626. Judicial review.''.
(2) Chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
inserting immediately before section 601, the following
subchapter heading:

``SUBCHAPTER I--ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act shall
take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
but shall not apply to any agency rule for which a notice of
proposed rulemaking is published on or before August 1, 1997.
______

By Mr. BREAUX:
S. 1729. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to create two
divisions in the Eastern Judicial District of Louisiana; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

eastern judicial district of louisiana legislation

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
amend Title 28 of the U.S. Code to create two divisions in the Eastern
Judicial District of Louisiana: a New Orleans Division, which would be
comprised of Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, Saint Bernard, Saint
Charles, Saint John the Baptist, Saint Tammany, Tangipahoa, and
Washington Parishes; and a Houma Division, which would be comprised of
Terrebonnne, Lafourche, Saint James, and Assumption Parishes.
It has long been recognized that there is a distinct need for a
permanent United States District Court Judge in Houma, Louisiana. The
Houma-Thibodaux metropolitan area is the fourth largest in Louisiana,
and the area is growing by leaps and bounds, due in no small part to a
revitalized oil and gas industry. With this increase in population and
commercial activity, the number of court cases filed in the area will
likewise grow.
This inevitable increase in litigation will mean that an increasing
number of people from the Houma-Thibodaux area will be forced to travel
to New Orleans to appear in federal district court. This is a
difficult, congested, and time-consuming trip. Also, many of the rural
areas in the Eastern Judicial District have easier access to Houma than
they do to New Orleans. Because of these factors, it makes sense to
provide residents of the Houma-Thibodaux area and the surrounding,
rural areas access to a federal district court closer to home.
A brand new federal courthouse already exists for this very purpose.
The George M. Arceneaux Federal Courthouse in Houma, Louisiana, was
dedicated for use by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana. Unfortunately, this new courthouse is not being
used as originally intended. Judges have difficulty making the trip
from New Orleans to Houma. As a result, Houma area residents must
travel to New Orleans and the new courthouse remains severely under-
used.
It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that I offer this legislation
today. I also want to note that the Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche,
Saint James, and 29th Judicial District Court Bar Associations have all
passed resolutions expressing their support for this legislation.
Furthermore, the bill contains language to ensure that neither pending
cases nor summoned, impaneled, or actually serving juries will be
affected by the change. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
the passage of this bill.
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. 1729

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

SECTION 1. CREATION OF TWO DIVISIONS.

Section 98(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) The Eastern District comprises two divisions.
``(1) The New Orleans Division comprises the parishes of
Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, Saint Bernard, Saint
Charles, Saint John the Baptist, Saint Tammany, Tangipahoa,
and Washington.
``Court for the New Orleans Division shall be held at New
Orleans.
``(2) The Houma Division comprises the parishes of
Assumption, Lafourche, Saint James, and Terrebonne.
``Court for the Houma Division shall be held at Houma.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Pending Cases Not Affected.--This Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall not affect any action
commenced before the effective date of this Act and pending
on such date in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana or in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
(c) Juries Not Affected.--This Act and the amendments made
by this Act shall not affect the composition, or preclude the
service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, impaneled, or
actually serving on the effective date of this Act.
______

By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 1730. A bill to require Congressional review of Federal programs
at least every 5 years, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

the federal program sunset review act of 1998

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, someone once said that the only thing which
truly lives forever is a Government program in Washington, DC. I am
introducing legislation today to rein in the growth of those big
Government programs and to require the Congress to stop rubberstamping
programs in this body. The sunset legislation that I put forward today
will require the key programs of Government to face regular scrutiny
and stand or fall on their merits.
This legislation would give Congress a new and powerful tool to rein
in the bureaucracy and create a Federal Government that would be
smaller, less costly, and more accountable to the American people.
The legislation that I introduce today would establish a special
bipartisan, bicameral congressional committee which would be charged
with reviewing the key programs of Government every 5 years. Any U.S.
citizen of voting age could petition this committee for the termination
of these programs. If the committee recommended termination and
Congress failed to reauthorize that program within 1 year of that
recommendation, it would then become impossible to provide any
appropriation for that program without a three-fifths vote in both
Houses. In other words, a sunset law would provide a mechanism for
shutting the door on unneeded, mismanaged, or failed efforts in
Government.
This legislation would end the inertia which sometimes carries
Federal programs forward in perpetuity. It would

[[Page S1530]]

be a meaningful, effective check on the continual growth of Government.
Mr. President, I think that each of us sees, as we look at the
Federal budget and carry out our duties, some programs that we believe
have served their purpose and can be terminated, some programs that
were mistakes in the first place, some that were well-intentioned and
just have not worked out.
I look, for example, at programs like the 1872 mining statute which
costs the Government about $1 billion per year; the tobacco subsidy
programs where we continue to pay out vast sums year after year and
then have to encourage, through public education campaigns, individuals
not to smoke. I see fighter jet programs that cost billions; the $4.7
billion National Ignition Facility. The list goes on and on.
So it is time, Mr. President, to look at new tools to put the brakes
on some of this spending. The legislation that I am introducing today
will do that by putting an end to programs and providing an end date
for those programs that would otherwise sit on the shelf forever.
Twenty-four States, including my own, already have statutes like the
Federal sunset law that I propose to the Senate today.
What has been the experience of those sunset laws? One analysis found
that during a 5-year period, as many as 23 percent of the agencies
reviewed under States' sunset laws were eliminated, including some
legislative dinosaurs that would oversee lightning rod salesmen, septic
tank cleaners, tourist guides, massage therapists, rainmakers, horse
hunters, textbook salesmen, and even tattoo artists.
Sunset laws have given the State governments the chance to streamline
and rationalize the myriad of agencies that spring up as governmental
bodies respond to the concerns of the moment. I am of the view that the
Federal Government needs a similar process to help clean up what former
President Reagan used to call ``the puzzle palaces on the Potomac.''
At its heart, the legislation that I introduce today calls for using
a sunset concept on Federal programs as a tool for good and careful
government. There is a tendency in Washington, DC, to focus exhaustive
attention on programs before they are created and then virtually ignore
them from that point out. I sat on the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee as a Member of the other body,
and I saw firsthand that the Congress can spend an extraordinary amount
of time and effort trying to pass laws and very little to actually see
if what is on the books works.
Requiring that each and every program is periodically reauthorized
would focus the Congress' attention and the attention of the media on
the operations and effectiveness of individual Government programs in a
way that is simply not done today. It will, in my view, increase the
pressure on agency managers to perform and do so in a cost-effective
fashion. I suspect that some Federal agencies will function a bit
differently when they know that there is a certainty of accountability
and potential termination of their program that hangs over them.
Mr. President, when any Member of this body has a town meeting at
home, they will hear from citizens who are tired of Government programs
that don't work and still grow larger each year. Now is the time for
the Senate to establish a system to assure that only those parts of
Government are kept that work and that there is a renewed effort to
terminate programs which simply take up space and waste the taxpayers'
money. Our constituents deserve better.
The States have found that sunset laws can provide them the
opportunity to reduce waste while still keeping programs that work, and
I believe that it is high time for the U.S. Senate to pass favorably on
the sunset concept that is working at the State level across this
country.
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. 1730

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 ``Federal Program Sunset
Review Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to require Congressional
reexamination and review of selected Federal programs once
every 5 years.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS, BUDGET CATEGORIES, REVIEW DATE.

(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means an executive agency
as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code,
except that such term includes the United States Postal
Service and the Postal Rate Commission but does not include
the General Accounting Office.
(2) Budget authority.--The term ``budget authority'' has
the same meaning given that term in section 3(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(3) Comptroller general.--The term ``Comptroller General''
means the Comptroller General of the United States.
(4) Permanent budget authority.--The term ``permanent
budget authority'' means budget authority provided for an
indefinite period of time or an unspecified number of fiscal
years which does not require recurring action by the
Congress, but does not include budget authority provided for
a specified fiscal year which is available for obligation or
expenditure in one or more succeeding fiscal years.
(b) Budget Categories.--For purposes of this Act, each
program (including any program exempted by a provision of law
from inclusion in the Budget of the United States) shall be
assigned to the functional and subfunctional categories to
which it is assigned in the Budget of the United States
Government, fiscal year 1998. Each committee of the Senate or
the House of Representatives which reports any bill or
resolution which authorizes the enactment of new budget
authority for a program not included in the fiscal year 1998
budget shall include, in the committee report accompanying
such bill or resolution (and, where appropriate, the
conferees shall include in their joint statement on such bill
or resolution), a statement as to the functional and
subfunctional category to which such program is to be
assigned.
(c) Review Date.--For purposes of titles I, II, and III of
this Act, the review date applicable to a program is the date
specified for such program under section 201(b).

TITLE I--FEDERAL PROGRAM REVIEW BY CONGRESS

SEC. 101. JOINT COMMITTEE ON SUNSET REVIEW OF FEDERAL
PROGRAMS.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) Committee membership.--There is established not later
than 60 days after the date of enactment a Joint Committee on
Sunset Review of Federal Programs (in this title referred to
as the ``Joint Committee'') to be composed of 8 Members of
the Senate to be appointed by the President and Minority
Leader of the Senate, and 8 Members of the House of
Representatives to be appointed by the Speaker and Minority
Leader. In each instance, not more than 4 Members shall be
members of the same political party. No Member shall serve on
the Joint Committee for more than 6 years (excluding any
period of service of less than 1 year) but a Member may be
reappointed after the expiration of 2 years.
(2) Chairman.--The Chairman shall be elected by the members
of the Joint Committee and the chairmanship shall rotate
between the Senate and the House of Representatives with the
first Chairman being selected from Members of the Senate.
(3) Vacancies.--Vacancies in the membership of the Joint
Committee shall not affect the power of the remaining Members
to execute the functions of the Joint Committee and shall be
filled in the same manner as in the case of the original
appointment.
(4) Hearings, etc.--The Joint Committee is authorized to
hold such hearings as it deems advisable. Such hearings must
be held in public. The Joint Committee may appoint and fix
the compensation of not more than 3 professional staff. The
Joint Committee may use the services, information, and
facilities of the departments and agencies of the Federal
Government that have jurisdiction of the programs being
reviewed by the Joint Committee.
(b) Function.--
(1) In general.--In each year, the Joint Committee shall
review the programs that have review dates, set under section
201(b), which will occur on September 30 of the following
year to determine if such programs should be reauthorized or
terminated.
(2) Criteria.--The Joint Committee shall consider the
following criteria in determining if a program should be
reauthorized or terminated:
(A) The efficiency with which the program operates.
(B) An identification of the objectives intended for the
program and the problem or need that the program was intended
to address, the extent to which the objectives have been
achieved, and any activities of the program in addition to
those granted by statute and the authority for these
activities.
(C) The extent to which the program is needed and is used.
(D) The extent to which the jurisdiction of the program and
the other programs administered with the program overlap or
duplicate others and the extent to which the program can be
consolidated with the other programs.

[[Page S1531]]

(E) Whether the agency administering the program has
recommended to Congress statutory changes calculated to be of
benefit to the public at large rather than only those served
directly by the program.
(F) The promptness and effectiveness with which the program
disposes of complaints concerning persons affected by the
program.
(G) The extent to which the program has encouraged
participation by the public in making its rules and decisions
and the extent to which the public participation has resulted
in rules compatible with the objectives of the program.
(H) The extent to which the program has complied with
applicable requirements regarding equality of employment
opportunity.
(I) The extent to which changes are necessary in the
enabling statutes of the program so that the program can
adequately comply with the criteria listed in this paragraph.
(J) The effect on State and local governments if the
program is terminated.
(3) Recommendation.--Upon completion of its review of a
program, the Joint Committee shall submit to the appropriate
legislative committees of the House of Representatives and
the Senate not later than December 31 of the year preceding
the year of a program's review date a recommendation for the
extension, including extension with change, or termination of
the program. Each such recommendation shall be voted on in
public by the Joint Committee and shall be published.
(c) Legislative Committees.--
(1) In general.--Each year, each legislative committee
shall review the programs within the jurisdiction of the
committee subject to review under section 201(b) for that
year.
(2) Recommendations of the joint committee.--The
legislative committee shall--
(A) consider the recommendations of the Joint Committee
with respect to programs reviewed; and
(B) with respect to any program recommended for termination
by the Joint Committee, report legislation terminating the
program or reauthorizing the program.
(d) Special Requests.--
(1) Members of congress.--A Member of the Senate or House
of Representatives may submit to the Joint Committee a
written recommendation that a program be terminated. Any such
recommendation shall address each of the criteria set forth
in subsection (b)(2) and shall contain the views of each
department or agency of the executive branch which is
responsible for the administration of a program subject to
reexamination pursuant to this section. The Joint Committee
may consider in advance of the review schedule set forth in
subsection (b)(1) each such recommendation.
(2) Citizens.--The Joint Committee may consider in advance
of the review schedule set forth in subsection (b)(1) a
written petition for termination of a program submitted by a
United States citizen who is of voting age. Any such petition
shall address each of the criteria set forth in subsection
(b)(2).

SEC. 102. POINT OF ORDER.

(a) Failure to terminate or reauthorize.--It shall not be
in order in either the Senate or the House of Representatives
to consider any bill or resolution, or amendment thereto,
which provides new budget authority for a program for any
fiscal year beginning after any review date applicable to
such program under section 201(b) if the program was
recommended for termination by the Joint Committee and was
not reauthorized, unless the provision of such new budget
authority is specifically authorized by a law which
constitutes a required authorization for such program.
(b) Supermajority requirement.--This section may be waived
or suspended only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required in the Senate and the House of Representatives to
sustain an appeal of a ruling of the Chair on a point of
order sustained under this section.

SEC. 103. EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Each department or agency of the executive branch which is
responsible for the administration of a program subject to
reexamination pursuant to section 201 shall, by the first
Monday of June the year before the review year for that
program, submit to the Joint Committee a report of its
findings, recommendations, and justifications with respect to
each of the matters set forth in section 101(b)(3).

TITLE II--SCHEDULE OF SUNSET REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. REVIEW.

(a) In General.--Each Federal program (except those listed
in section 202) shall be reviewed at least once during each
sunset review cycle during Congress in which the review date
applicable to such program (pursuant to subsection (b))
occurs.
(b) Review Date.--The first review date applicable to a
Federal program is the date specified in the following table,
and each subsequent review date applicable to a program is 5
years.

First sunset review
Programs included within subfunctional category date

272 Energy Conservation. September 30, 2000.
301 Water Resources.
352 Agricultural Research and Services.
371 Mortgage Credit.
373 Deposit Insurance.
376 Other Advancement of Commerce.
501 Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational
Education.
601 General Retirement and Disability Insurance
(excluding social security).
602 Federal Employee Retirement and Disability.
703 Hospital and Medical Care for Veterans.
808 Other General Government.
050 National Defense. September 30, 2001.
051 Department of Defense--Military
053 Atomic Energy Defense Activities.
154 Foreign Information and Exchange Activities.
251 General Science and Basic Research.
306 Other Natural Resources.
351 Farm Income Stabilization.
401 Ground Transportation.
502 Higher Education.
701 Income Security for Veterans.
752 Federal Litigative and Judicial Activities.
802 Executive Direction and Management.
803 Central Fiscal Operations.
054 Defense Related Activities September 30, 2002.
152 International Security Assistance.
155 International Financial Programs.
252 Space Flight, Research, and Supporting
Activities.
274 Emergency Energy Preparedness.
302 Conservation and Land Management.
304 Pollution Control and Abatement.
407 Other Transportation.
504 Training and Employment.
506 Social Services.
554 Consumer and Occupational Health and Safety.
704 Veterans Housing.
751 Federal Law Enforcement Activities.
801 Legislative Functions.
806 General Purpose Fiscal Assistance.
153 Conduct of Foreign Affairs September 30, 2003.
271 Energy Supply.
303 Recreational Resources.
402 Air Transportation.
505 Other Labor Services.
551 Health Care Services.
604 Housing Assistance.
702 Veterans Education, Training, and
Rehabilitation.
753 Federal Correctional Activities.
805 Central Personnel Management.
908 Other Interest.
151 International Development and Humanitarian September 30, 2004.
Assistance.
276 Energy Information, Policy and Regulation.
372 Postal Service.
403 Water Transportation.
451 Community Development.
452 Area and Regional Development.
453 Disaster Relief and Insurance.
503 Research and General Education Aids.
552 Health Research and Training.
603 Unemployment Compensation.
705 Other Veterans Benefits and Services.
754 Criminal Justice Assistance.
804 General Property and Record Management.
901 Interest on the Public Debt.

SEC. 202. PROGRAMS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW.

Section 201 shall not apply to the following:
(1) Programs included within functional category 900
(Interest).
(2) Any Federal program or activity to enforce civil rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or to
enforce antidiscrimination laws of the United States,
including the investigation of violations of civil rights,
civil or criminal litigation the implementation or
enforcement of judgments resulting from such litigation, and
administrative activities in support of the foregoing.
(3) Programs that are related to the administration of the
Federal judiciary and which are classified in the fiscal year
1997 budget under subfunctional category 752 (Federal
litigative and judicial activities).
(4) Payments of refunds of internal revenue collections as
provided in title I of the Supplemental Treasury and Post
Office Departments Appropriation Act of 1949 (62 Stat. 561).
(5) Programs included in the fiscal year 1997 budget in
subfunctional categories 701 (Income security for veterans),
704 (Veterans housing), and programs for providing health
care which are included in such budget in subfunctional
category 703 (Hospital and medical care for veterans).
(6) Social Security and Federal retirement programs
including the following:
(A) Programs funded through trust funds which are included
with subfunctional categories 551 (Health care services), 601
(General retirement and disability insurance (excluding
social security)), 602 (Federal employee retirement and
disability), or 602 (Department of Defense military
retirement and survivor annuities).
(B) Retirement pay and medical benefits for retired
commissioned officers of the Coast Guard, the Public Health
Service Commissioned Corps, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Commissioned Corps and their survivors and
dependents, classified in the fiscal year 1997 budget in
subfunctional

[[Page S1532]]

category 551 (Health care services) or in subfunctional
category 306 (Other natural resources).
(C) Retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard
and Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse
Service, and for annuities payable to beneficiaries of
retired military personnel under chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code, classified in the fiscal year 1997 budget
in subfunctional category 403 (Water transportation).
(D) Payments to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability Fund, classified in fiscal year 1997 budget in
subfunctional category 054 (Defense-related activities).
(E) Payments to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund for financing unfunded liabilities, classified in fiscal
year 1997 budget in subfunctional category 805 (Central
personnel management).
(F) Payments to the Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, classified in fiscal year 1997 budget in
subfunctional category 153 (Conduct of foreign affairs) or in
subfunctional category 602 (Federal employee retirement and
disability).
(G) Payments to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, classified
in fiscal year 1997 budget in various subfunctional
categories.
(H) Administration of the retirement and disability
programs set forth in this section.
(7) Programs included within subfunctional category 373
(Deposit insurance).

TITLE III--PROGRAM INVENTORY

SEC. 301. PROGRAM INVENTORY.

(a) Preparation.--The Comptroller General and the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office, in cooperation with the
Director of the Congressional Research Service, shall prepare
an inventory of Federal programs (hereafter in this title
referred to as the ``program inventory'').
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program inventory is to
advise and assist Congress in carrying out the requirements
of titles I and II. Such inventory shall not in any way bind
the committees of the Senate or the House of Representatives
with respect to their responsibilities under such titles and
shall not infringe on the legislative and oversight
responsibilities of such committees. The Comptroller General
shall compile and maintain the inventory and the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office shall provide budgetary
information for inclusion in the inventory.
(c) Submission.--Not later than 120 days of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General, after
consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office, the Director of the Congressional Research Service,
and each committee of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, shall submit the program inventory to the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
(d) Grouping of Programs.--In the report submitted under
subsection (c), the Comptroller General, after consultation
and in cooperation with and consideration of the views and
recommendations of each committee of the Senate and the House
of Representatives and of the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office, shall group programs into program areas
appropriate for the exercise of the review and reexamination
requirements of this Act. Such groupings shall identify
program areas in a manner that classifies each program in
only 1 functional and only 1 subfunctional category and that
is consistent with the structure of national needs, agency
missions, and basic programs developed pursuant to section
1105 of title 31, United States Code.
(e) Inventory Content.--The program inventory shall set
forth for each program each of the following matters:
(1) The specific provision or provisions of law authorizing
the program.
(2) The committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives which have legislative or oversight
jurisdiction over the program.
(3) A brief statement of the purpose or purposes to be
achieved by the program.
(4) The committees that have jurisdiction over legislation
providing new budget authority for the program, including the
appropriate subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(5) The agency and, if applicable, the subdivision thereof
responsible for administering the program.
(6) The grants-in-aid, if any, provided by such program to
State and local governments.
(7) The next review date for the program.
(8) A unique identification number which links the program
and functional category structure.
(9) The year in which the program was originally
established and, where applicable, the year in which the
program expires.
(10) Where applicable, the year in which new budget
authority for the program was last authorized and the year in
which current authorizations of new budget authority expire.
(f) Listing of Exempt Programs.--The inventory shall
contain a separate tabular listing of programs that are not
required to be reviewed pursuant to section 102.
(g) Budget Authority.--The report also shall set forth for
each program whether the new budget authority provided for
such programs is--
(1) authorized for a definite period of time;
(2) authorized in a specific dollar amount but without
limit of time;
(3) authorized without limit of time or dollar amounts;
(4) not specifically authorized; or
(5) permanently provided,
as determined by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office.
(h) CBO Information.--For each program or group of
programs, the program inventory also shall include
information prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office indicating each of the following matters:
(1) The amounts of new budget authority authorized and
provided for the program for each of the preceding 4 fiscal
years and, where applicable, the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
(2) The functional and subfunctional category in which the
program is presently classified and was classified under the
fiscal year 1997 budget.
(3) The identification code and title of the appropriation
account in which budget authority is provided for the
program.

SEC. 302. MUTUAL EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION.

The General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research
Service, and the Congressional Budget Office shall permit the
mutual exchange of available information in their possession
that would aid in the compilation of the program inventory.

SEC. 303. ASSISTANCE BY EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

The Office of Management and Budget, and the Executive
agencies and the subdivisions thereof shall, to the extent
necessary and possible, provide the General Accounting Office
with assistance requested by the Comptroller General in the
compilation of the program inventory.

SEC. 304. REVISION OF PROGRAM INVENTORY.

(a) Review and Revision.--The Comptroller General, after
the close of each session of Congress, shall review and
revise the program inventory and report the revisions to the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
(b) Report.--After the close of each session of Congress,
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare
a report, for inclusion in the revised inventory, with
respect to each program included in the program inventory and
each program established by law during such session, that
includes the amount of the new budget authority authorized
and the amount of new budget authority provided for the
current fiscal year and each of the 5 succeeding fiscal
years. If new budget authority is not authorized or provided
or is authorized or provided for an indefinite amount for any
of such 5 succeeding fiscal years with respect to any
program, the Director shall make projections of the amounts
of such new budget authority necessary to be authorized or
provided for any such fiscal year to maintain a current level
of services.
(c) New Budget Authority Not Authorized.--Not later than 1
year after the first or any subsequent review date, the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, in consultation
with the Comptroller General and the Director of the
Congressional Research Service, shall compile a list of the
provisions of law related to all programs subject to such
review date for which new budget authority was not
authorized. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office
shall include such a list in the report required by
subsection (a). The committees with legislative jurisdiction
over the affected programs shall study the affected
provisions and make any recommendations they deem to be
appropriate with regard to such provisions to the Senate and
the House of Representatives.

TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 401. APPROPRIATION REQUESTS.

Section 1108(e) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by inserting before the period ``or at the request of a
committee of either House of Congress or of the Joint
Committee on Sunset Review of Federal Programs presented
after the day on which the President transmits the budget to
Congress under section 1105 of this title for the fiscal
year''.

SEC. 402. DISCLOSURE.

Nothing in this Act shall require the public disclosure of
matters that are specifically authorized under criteria
established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in
fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order, or
which are otherwise specifically protected by law.

SEC. 403. RULEMAKING.

The provisions of this section, section 304, and titles I
and II are enacted by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,
respectively, or of that House to which they specifically
apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the
extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.

SEC. 404. EXECUTIVE BRANCH ASSISTANCE.

To assist in the review or reexamination of a program, the
head of an agency that administers such program and the head
of any other agency, when requested, shall provide to each
committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives that
has legislative jurisdiction over such program, or to the

[[Page S1533]]

Joint Committee on Sunset Review of Federal Programs, such
studies, information, analyses, reports, and assistance as
the committee may request.

SEC. 405. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

The Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and
the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives shall
review the operation of the procedures established by this
Act, and shall submit a report not later than December 31,
2002, and each 5 years thereafter, setting forth their
findings and recommendations. Such reviews and reports may be
conducted jointly.

____________________