[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.

                          ____________________