[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 106 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9224-S9234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 1430. A bill to set forth the policy of the United States with 
respect to Macau, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


               the united states-macau policy act of 1999

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise to introduce S. 1430, the United 
States-Macau policy Act of 1999. I ask unanimous consent that the text 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1430

       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 ``United States--Macau Policy 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2 FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS.

       The Congress makes the following findings and declarations`
       (1) The Congress recognizes that under the Joint 
     Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China and the Government of the Republic of Portugal on the 
     Question of Macau, dated April 13, 1987--
       (A) the People's Republic of China and the Republic of 
     Portugal have agreed that the People's Republic of China will 
     resume the exercise of sovereignty over Macau on December 20, 
     1999, and until that time, Portugal will be responsible for 
     the continuing administration of Macau;
       (B) the People's Republic of China has guaranteed that, on 
     and after December 20, 1999, the Macau Special Administrative 
     Region of the People's Republic of China, will continue to 
     enjoy a high degree of autonomy on all matters other than 
     defense and foreign affairs;
       (C) the People's Republic of China will implement a ``one 
     country, two systems'' policy with respect to Macau, under 
     which Macau will retain its current legal, social, and 
     economic systems until at least the year 2049;
       (D) provision is made for the continuation in force of 
     bilateral and multilateral agreements implemented as of 
     December 20, 1999, and for the ability of the Macau Special 
     Administrative Region to conclude new agreements.
       (2) The Congress supports the full and complete 
     implementation of the provisions of the Joint Declaration.
       (3) The Congress supports the policies and objectives set 
     forth in the Joint Declaration.
       (4) It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (A) continued economic prosperity in Macau furthers United 
     States interests in Asia and in our relationship with the 
     People's Republic of China;
       (B)(i) support for principles of democracy is a fundamental 
     tenent of United States foreign policy, and as such, will 
     also play a central role in United States policy toward 
     Macau, now and after December 19, 1999; and
       (ii) safeguarding the human rights of the people of Macau 
     is of great importance to the United States and is directly 
     relevant to United States interests in Macau;
       (iii) a fully successful transition in the exercise of 
     sovereignty over Macau must safeguard those human rights; and
       (iv) human rights also serve as a basis for Macau's 
     continued economic prosperity.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) prior to December 20, 1999, the term ``Macau'' means 
     the Portuguese Dependent Territory of Macau, and on and after 
     December 20, 1999, the term ``Macau'' means the Macau 
     Special Administration Region of the People's Republic of 
     China;
       (2) the term ``Joint Declaration'' means the Joint 
     Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China and the Government of the Republic of Portugal on the 
     Question of Macau, dated April 13, 1987; and
       (3) the term ``laws of the United States'' means provisions 
     of law enacted by the Congress.

                            TITLE I--POLICY

     SEC. 101. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the United States should play an active role before, 
     on, and after December 20, 1999, in assisting Macau in 
     maintaining its confidence and prosperity, its unique 
     cultural heritage, and the mutually beneficial ties between 
     the people of the United States and the people of Macau; and
       (2) through its policies, the United States should assist 
     Macau in maintaining a high degree of autonomy in matters 
     other than defense and foreign affairs as guaranteed by the 
     People's Republic of China and the Republic of Portugal in 
     the Joint Declaration, particularly with respect to such 
     matters as trade, commerce, law enforcement, finance, 
     monetary policy, aviation, shipping, communications, tourism, 
     cultural affairs, sports, and participation in international 
     organizations, consistent with the national security and 
     other interests of the United States.

           TITLE II--THE STATUS OF MACAU IN UNITED STATES LAW

     SEC. 201. CONTINUED APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES LAW.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any change in the exercise 
     of sovereignty over Macau, and subject to subsections (b) and 
     (c), the laws of the United States shall continue to apply 
     with respect to Macau, on and after December 20, 1999, in the 
     same manner as the laws of the United States were applied 
     with respect to Macau before such date unless otherwise 
     expressly provided by law or by Executive order under section 
     202.
       (b) International Agreements.--For all purposes, including 
     actions in any court of the United States, the Congress 
     approves of the continuation in force on and after December 
     20, 1999, of all treaties and other international agreements, 
     including multilateral conventions, entered into before such 
     date between the United States and Macau, or entered into 
     force before such date between the United States and the 
     Republic of Portugal with respect to, or as applied to, 
     Macau, unless or until terminated in accordance with law. If, 
     in carrying out this title, the President determines that 
     Macau is not legally competent to carry out its obligations 
     under any such treaty or other international agreement, or 
     that the continuation of Macau's obligations or rights under 
     any such treaty or other international agreement is not 
     appropriate under the circumstances, the President shall 
     promptly notify the Committee on International Relations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate concerning such determination, and 
     shall take appropriate action to modify or terminate such 
     treaty or other international agreement.
       (c) Export Controls.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) or any 
     other provision of law, within 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act the President--in close consultation 
     with the relevant committees of the Congress--shall establish 
     with respect to Macau, such export control policies and 
     regulations as he determines to be necessary to protect fully 
     the national security interests of the United States.

     SEC. 202. PRESIDENTIAL ORDER.

       (a) Presidential Determination.--On or after December 20, 
     1999, whenever the President determines that Macau is not 
     sufficiently autonomous to justify treatment under a 
     particular law of the United States, or any provision 
     thereof, different from that accorded the People's Republic 
     of China, the President may issue an Executive order 
     suspending the application of section 201(a) to such law or 
     provision of law. The President shall promptly notify the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate concerning any such determination.
       (b) Factor for Consideration.--In making a determination 
     under subsection (a) with respect to the application of a law 
     of the United States, or any provision thereof, to Macau, the 
     President should consider the terms, obligations, and 
     expectations expressed in the Joint Declaration with respect 
     to Macau.
       (c) Publication in Federal Register.--Any Executive order 
     issued under subsection

[[Page S9225]]

     (a) shall be published in the Federal Register and shall 
     specify the law or provision of law affected by the order.
       (d) Termination of Suspension.--An Executive order issued 
     under subsection (a) may be terminated by the President with 
     respect to a particular law or provision of law whenever the 
     President determines that Macau has regained sufficient 
     autonomy to justify treatment under the law or provision of 
     law in question. Notice of any such termination shall be 
     published in the Federal Register.

     SEC. 203. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

       The President is authorized to prescribe such rules and 
     regulations as he considers appropriate to carry out this 
     Act.

     SEC. 204. CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS.

       In carrying out this title, the President shall consult 
     appropriately with the Congress, in particular with:
       (a) the Committee on International Relations, and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (b) the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

                    TITLE III--REPORTING PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and not later than March 31 of each of the years 
     2000, 2001, and 2002, the Secretary of State shall transmit 
     to the Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate a report on conditions in Macau of interest to the 
     United States. This report shall cover (in the case of the 
     initial report) the period since the date of the enactment of 
     this Act or (in the case of subsequent reports) the period 
     since the most recent report pursuant to this section, and 
     shall describe, inter alia--
       (1) significant developments in United States relations 
     with Macau;
       (2) significant developments related to any change in the 
     exercise of sovereignty over Macau affecting United States 
     interests in Macau or United States relations with Macau and 
     the People's Republic of China;
       (3) steps taken by the United States to implement section 
     201(c) (relating to export controls with respect to Macau), 
     including any significant problems or other developments 
     arising with respect to the application of United States 
     export controls to Macau;
       (4) the laws of the United States with respect to which the 
     application of section 201(a) (relating to the application of 
     United States laws to Macau) has been suspended pursuant to 
     section 202(a) or with respect to which such a suspension has 
     been terminated pursuant to section 202(d), and the reasons 
     for the suspension or termination, as the case may be;
       (5) the treaties and other international agreements with 
     respect to which the President has made a determination 
     described in the last sentence of section 201(b) (relating to 
     the application of treaties and other international 
     agreements to Macau), the reasons for each such 
     determination, and the steps taken as a result of such 
     determination;
       (6) the development of democratic institutions in Macau;
       (7) compliance by the Government of the People's Republic 
     of China and the Government of the Republic of Portugal with 
     their obligations under the Joint Declaration; and
       (8) the nature and extent of Macau's participation in 
     multilateral forums.

     SEC. 302. SEPARATE PART OF COUNTRY REPORTS.

       Whenever a report is transmitted to the Congress on a 
     country-by-country basis, there shall be included in such 
     report, where applicable, a separate subreport on Macau under 
     the heading of the state that exercises sovereignty over 
     Macau.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 1431. A bill to suspend temporarily the duties on mixtures of 
sennosides; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 1432. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on dark couverture 
chocolate; to the Committee on Finance.


                      duty suspension legislation

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bills be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1431

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

     SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF SENNOSIDES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:

       

``  9902.39.00.....  Mixtures of       Free...........  No Change.......  No Change.......  On or before 12/  ''
                      sennosides                                                             31/2002........
                      (provided for
                      in subheading
                      2938.90.00)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____
                                  

                                S. 1432

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

     SECTION 1. DARK COUVERTURE CHOCOLATE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new heading:
       

``  9902.18.06.....  Dark couverture   Free...........  No Change.......  No Change.......  On or before 12/  ''
                      chocolate                                                              31/2002........
                      (provided for
                      in subheading
                      1806.20.50)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 1434. A bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to 
reauthorize that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators 
Akaka and Cleland to introduce this legislation that would extend the 
authorization for appropriations for the National Historic Preservation 
Fund, as established by the Historic Preservation Act amendments of 
1976. On September 30, 1997, the authorization for deposits into the 
Historic Preservation Fund from revenues due and payable to the United 
States under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act expired. So we 
introduce this legislation with the purpose of reauthorizing the 
deposits at the same level of $150 million annually through the year 
2005.
  As you are aware, and others in this Chamber, this fund account 
supports roughly one-half of the cost of the Nation's historic 
preservation programs. State governments contribute the other half. 
This is a partnership that is working--preserving our communities, 
creating jobs, and providing opportunities for this partnership to 
flourish.
  States and certain local governments and Native American tribes carry 
out our historic preservation programs under the act for the Secretary 
of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This 
program involves the identification of historic places, working with 
property owners in nominating significant places to the National 
Register, consulting with Federal agencies on projects that may 
adversely impact historic places, advising investors on important tax 
credits for the rehabilitation of historic buildings, and offering 
information and educational opportunities to the private and public 
sectors on historic preservation.
  This program is made possible through the Historic Preservation Fund, 
and it contributes significantly, as I have said, to community 
revitalization and to economic development.
  We believe it is extremely worthwhile, it is a program that works, 
and we must reauthorize this fund so the State historic preservation 
offices and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation may continue 
this important work.
  I would just like to state for the Record some very brief examples of 
how this has worked around the Nation.
  One example is from my hometown in New Orleans. The Maginnis Cotton 
Mill, which was constructed in 1884, was the largest textile 
manufacturing plant in the South. It was once a ``model institution'' 
employing 450 workers. The Maginnis Mill remained the largest in the 
South until it closed in 1944. Over 50 years had passed before

[[Page S9226]]

any restorative work was done to the mill.
  In 1996, while maintaining the original ascetic integrity of this 
enormous complex in downtown New Orleans, the Historic Restoration 
Group, Inc., converted the old mill into 267 apartments. It has now 
been completed. It is a beautiful renovation project. It is now the 
home for 267 residents and their families, and it has increased the 
housing in that area by 26 percent. The building, which has been called 
a ``freeze frame'' of the development of the city, has greatly 
increased property values in that area, not to mention the surrounding 
area.
  Another example is Chinatown, Honolulu. Once nearly engulfed with 
high-rise redevelopment, Chinatown today is protected by a requirement 
that new construction be reviewed by a design commission. Tools used 
include a National Register of Historic Places nomination, Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation review, and the preservation tax 
incentives.
  Another example is the Indianapolis Union Railway Station. A $40 
million rehabilitation project over a decade drew on several Federal 
funding programs and extensive consultation with the State and has 
spurred other adjacent rehabilitations. The station now serves as a 
festival marketplace with hotel and transportation facilities.
  Another example is Formosan Termite Control. A threat to the Vieux 
Carre and other historic districts in the South, the Formosan termite 
is immune to common treatment. A Historic Preservation Fund grant is 
enabling Louisiana State University to study ways of improving 
detection and eradication of the pest.
  Another example is Ledbetter Heights low-income housing, Shreveport. 
Section 8 housing designation and the preservation tax incentives were 
used to purchase and rehabilitate shotgun houses in the St. Paul's 
Bottoms Historic District. Shreveport Landmarks, Inc., cooperated with 
a tenants' council in the process.
  There are literally hundreds of other examples of successful 
renovation projects that would not be possible without the Historic 
Preservation Fund. From Hawaii to Maine, from Louisiana to North 
Dakota, and all in between, there are places in urban and rural areas 
that have greatly benefited by the presence of this fund.
  So I introduce this legislation tonight. I look forward to finding 
the funding for not just a one-time appropriation. As you know, S. 25 
is a bill that seeks to find a permanent source of funding for many 
important environmental and wildlife conservation projects. Perhaps our 
National Historic Fund could become part of that so this permanent 
source of funding could go on to our cities and our communities so they 
would have a steady stream of revenue to continue to improve these 
areas in our communities, both in urban and rural parts of our Nation.
  Mr. AKAKA. I join my colleague, Senator Landrieu, in introducing 
legislation to reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund and the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As my colleagues may know, 
the authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund expired on 
September 30, 1997, and the authorization for the Advisory Council 
expires on September 30, 2000. This bill would reauthorize the fund and 
the Council through fiscal year 2005.
  There is a growing backlog of preservation needs throughout our 
country that is not being met. To ensure that this situation is not 
exacerbated, and to address these shortfalls on a long-term basis, the 
Historic Preservation Fund should be reauthorized at the earliest 
opportunity.
  The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was amended in 1976 to 
establish the Historic Preservation Fund. Administered by the National 
Park Service, the Fund provides grants-in-aid to States, certified 
local governments, and outlying areas. The National Historic 
Preservation Act provides that $150 million from Outer Continental 
shelf oil and gas receipts is deposited in the Fund each year. The 
revenue remains available in the Fund until appropriated by Congress. 
Since September 30, 1997, no additional deposits from OCS revenues into 
the Fund have been authorized.
  Reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund is critical because 
it provides for the continuation of grants used by States, Tribes, 
Native Hawaiians, Alaska Natives, and local governments to pay the 
costs of surveys, comprehensive historic preservation plans, National 
Register nominations, brochures and educational materials, as well as 
architectural plans, historic structure reports, and engineering 
studies necessary to repair listed properties.
  Since 1968, over $800 million in grant funds has been awarded to 59 
States, territories, local governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, 
Indian tribes, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In 
Fiscal Year 1998, the States received a total of $29.4 million in 
historic preservation grants-in-aid, an average allocation of $524,000, 
which typically is matched by $350,000 in non-federal matching share 
contributions.
  During 1998, States surveyed 14.9 million acres of historic resources 
and added 185,100 properties to their inventories. Also in 1998, States 
submitted 1,602 nominations to the National Register of Historic Places 
and reviewed 89,000 Federal projects for compliance with Section 106 of 
the National Historic Preservation Act. In Hawaii, over 38,000 
properties are maintained on the state's inventory of known historic 
properties.
  Besides providing grants-in-aid, the Historic Preservation Fund also 
administers a grant program for Native Hawaiians, Indian Tribes, and 
Alaska Natives for cultural heritage programs. The Tribal Preservation 
Program has directly assisted over 170 tribes through the award of 259 
grants.
  For example, the Hopi Tribe in Arizona received a grant to document 
the rock art sites at Antelope Mesa, resulting in 100 sites being 
included in their Cultural Resources Management Plan. In Alaska, the 
Native Village of Venetie drafted a historic preservation plan for 
Venetie and Arctic Village utilizing a grant from the 
Historic Preservation Fund. The Seneca Nation of Indians in New York 
used a grant to develop educational materials for their school children 
using oral interviews with tribal elders.

  In all, more than $9 million in grant funds has been used to assist 
tribes in assuming State Historic Preservation Office responsibilities, 
in drafting preservation ordinances, implementing cultural resource 
management plans, identifying and protecting historic sites, and 
conducting preservation needs assessments.
  In addition, the Fund provides matching grants to Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities to preserve threatened historic buildings 
located on their campuses. Funding for preservation projects has been 
used at Fisk University and Knoxville College in Tennessee; Miles 
College, Talladega College, Selma University, Stillman College, 
Concordia College in Alabama; Allen University, Claflin College, 
Voorhees College in South Carolina; and Rust College and Tougaloo 
University in Mississippi.
  In addition to the Historic Preservation Fund, Congress created the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under the National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966. As an independent federal agency, in 
cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, the Council is the 
major policy advisor to the Federal government on historic 
preservation. The Council administers programs including, but not 
limited to, the Historic Preservation Fund, the National Register, and 
programs of the National Trust. The Council also reviews the policies 
of Federal agencies in implementing the National Historic Preservation 
Act, conducts training and educational programs, and encourages public 
participation in historic preservation. The Council's authorization 
expires in Fiscal Year 2000.
  The Council's role in working with Federal agencies to support the 
National Historic Preservation Act is essential for protecting this 
country's historical resources. The Council coordinates many different 
preservation programs. The Council works with the Housing and Urban 
Development's HOME program for affordable housing, promotes 
preservation of historic properties during natural disasters, and 
promotes preservation and reuse of historic properties during military 
base closures. The Council, working with State and local governments 
through State Historic Preservation Officers, has significantly 
enhanced our ability to preserve our national heritage.

[[Page S9227]]

  Both the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council 
contribute to ongoing Federal, Native Hawaiian, Tribal, State, local 
and private partnerships in historic preservation. Matching funds are 
contributed by the States and local and private partners to enhance the 
investment in our historic heritage. Federal and State funding for 
historic preservation creates jobs, promotes economic development, and 
helps leverage commitments from private and public sources.
  Historic sites in our country are tangible reminders of our diverse 
and rich heritage and provide us with a sense of continuity with our 
past. The Historic Preservation Fund has provided numerous 
opportunities for preserving our country's irreplaceable historic and 
archeological resources. For example, in Hawaii, preservation projects 
in the Oahu Market in Chinatown and at the Mission Houses were funded 
through Historic Preservation Fund grants. Similarly, New Hampshire 
used preservation funding to assist with the transformation of the 1925 
Goffstown High School into an apartment complex for the town's older 
inhabitants. The Alaska Gold Rush Centennial was developed as a 
heritage tourism initiative of the Alaska State Historic Preservation 
Office using historic preservation funds to establish State-community 
partnerships. Also, the Save America's Treasures program funded by the 
Historic Preservation Fund has provided grants for preservation 
projects of national scope and significance, including restoration of 
the Star-Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence.

  A similar bill introduced by the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu) passed the Senate last year by unanimous consent but was not 
acted on by the House. I hope that the legislation we are offering 
today--a simple reauthorization of the Fund and Council through 2005--
can be adopted expeditiously.
  This legislation is supported by the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation 
Officers, the National Alliance of Statewide Preservation 
Organizations, the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of 
History, Preservation Action, the Society for American Archaeology, and 
the American Historical Association. I urge my colleagues to support 
this measure as well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1435. A bill to amend section 9 of the Small Business Act to 
provide for the establishment of volunteer mentoring programs; to the 
Committee on Small Business.


legislation to establish a volunteer mentoring program for the sbir and 
                             sttr programs

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, small businesses are the biggest job 
producers in our economy and technology is an increasingly important 
component to those growth figures. Contributing to that continued high 
technology job growth is a high technology procurement program that 
allows small and innovative high technology companies to bid on some of 
the federal government's research and development proposals. The Small 
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program gives these small 
technology companies a tool to compete in the big leagues by giving 
them fairer access to federal research and a way to finance that 
research in order to commercialize it. It also gives the federal 
government access to highly innovative companies that can custom design 
and develop specialized technology for an agency's specific needs--
something bigger companies may not be able to do as well.
  The SBIR program does this by mandating that each federal agency with 
a research and development budget that is contracted to outside vendors 
in excess of $100 million designate 2.5 percent of this budget for 
awards to small businesses. Currently there are 10 federal agencies 
participating in the SBIR program. A smaller component of this program 
is the Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR), which allows 
5 agencies to allocate three twentieths of one percent of these funds 
to small businesses that partner with non-profit institutions to do the 
research and development.
  The SBIR program creates jobs, increases our capacity for 
technological innovation and boosts our international competitiveness. 
According to an April 1998 GAO study, about 50 percent of SBIR research 
is commercialized or receives additional research funding. That's a 
pretty good success rate. It's also a great example of federal agencies 
working together with small businesses to develop technologies to solve 
specific problems and fill government procurement needs in a cost 
effective way.
  The SBIR and STTR programs are successful programs and we can make 
them even more successful by establishing a volunteer mentoring 
program. Such a program would partner CEOs of small high technology 
companies that have successfully completed a SBIR or STTR program with 
small businesses in low participation areas to guide them through the 
process, increasing their chances for success and, ultimately, the 
commercialization of their research.
  Many states believe they can do better regarding the number of SBIR 
awards their small businesses win. Since the SBIR and STTR programs are 
highly competitive and merit-based programs and should remain so, I 
believe the best way to increase participation is through outreach and 
mentoring. My bill would target its mentoring program to low 
participation areas which receive a disproportionately low number of 
SBIR awards as compared with other areas in the state or in the 
country.
  Michigan is just one example of a state which has many low 
participation areas within it that could improve their participation in 
the program. In 1997 Michigan small businesses nevertheless won 102 
SBIR awards worth a total of $24.6 million, ranking it 14th nationally. 
But Michigan should be doing better. Based on its population, Michigan 
ranks 8th nationally, not 14th as it does in number of SBIR awards. I 
believe the volunteer mentoring program I am proposing will help small 
high technology businesses from those areas within Michigan and around 
the country that lack access to research universities, venture capital 
or other resources to increase their chances of participating 
successfully in this program.
  Last summer, the Senate Small Business Committee held an SBIR 
oversight hearing to begin to develop a hearing record in preparation 
for SBIR's reauthorization. At that hearing, GAO presented a study 
favorably reviewing the program. It pointed out, however, that because 
agencies are adhering to the program requirements that they not use 
SBIR funds to pay for the administrative costs of the program, this 
funding restriction has limited their ability to provide some needed 
administrative support. For example, some agencies reported they do not 
have the necessary funds to provide personnel to act as mentors to 
their SBIR companies or engage in activities that could possibly 
increase the program's success in phase III. GAO also said the lack of 
administrative support means agencies are unable to provide SBIR 
participants with much-needed training in business skills. A volunteer 
mentoring program could fill this void.

  Also at that hearing, a number of Senators expressed a desire to see 
more geographical distribution of SBIR awards and hearing witnesses 
suggested this could be addressed through outreach to make more high 
technology small businesses aware of the program. A natural complement 
to reaching out to new companies to tell them about the SBIR and STTR 
programs is the establishment of a mentoring program to increase their 
odds for success in those programs.
  Many SBIR-company CEOs have benefitted from the program, are 
committed to its success and have told me they want to give something 
back. They propose doing this in the way of mentoring small businesses 
that are new to the SBIR process. The bill I am introducing today would 
establish a program to coordinate that process and reimburse volunteer 
mentors for their out-of-pocket-expenses. It would also address the 
desire to expand participation in the program by targeting the 
mentoring to low participation areas.
  I am pleased to have the Senate Small Business Committee Ranking 
Member, John Kerry, join me as an original cosponsor of this bill. My 
legislation also has the support of key members of the SBIR community.

[[Page S9228]]

  My bill would establish a Mentoring program where past SBIR and STTR 
recipients partner with new applicant companies in low participation 
areas to help guide them through the process and increase their chances 
of success. A small business's failure to obtain a phase I or Phase II 
award may have nothing to do with the capability of its technology but 
rather is often a result of a lack of understanding the government 
procurement process and procedures. This mentoring program would help 
bring new companies into the SBIR program from areas that have not 
traditionally participated at high rates. It would also increase Phase 
III awards and commercialization of the technology being developed.
  Specifically, my bill would establish a competitively bid volunteer 
mentoring grant program for the SBIR and STTR programs. The Small 
Business Administration would be responsible for administering the 
program. Organizations representing SBIR and STTR awardees could apply 
for grants ranging from $50,000 -$200,000 to participate in the 
program. Qualifying organizations would match small businesses in low 
participation areas new to the SBIR/STTR process with CEOs and others 
of small, high technology companies that have successfully completed 
one or more SBIR/STTR contracts, grants or cooperative agreements. The 
``volunteer mentors'' would be reimbursed only for their out-of-pocket 
expenses. Their time, energy and know-how would be donated free-of-
charge. The program would be authorized at $1 million per year to cover 
administration of the program and reimbursement of volunteer mentors 
for their out-of-pocket expenses.
  There are a number of effective organizations and entities 
representing SBIR and STTR companies that would be eligible to apply 
for the program. This legislation is intended to attract organizations 
such as the Small Business Technology Coalition, various regional 
groups or entities working with SBIR companies as well as some 
technology oriented specialized Small Business Development Centers, and 
others. Some of these eligible entities and organizations may even 
chose to partner together in a collaborative effort to apply to the 
program.
  The SBIR program, originally established in 1982 and reauthorized and 
expanded in 1992, expires in fiscal year 2000. This highly competitive 
program has a well deserved reputation for success and has enjoyed 
bipartisan support over the years. I hope my bill can be included in 
that reauthorizing legislation to improve what is already a successful 
program giving small high technology companies access to federal 
research and development and the federal government access to some of 
the world's best innovation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of 
endorsement for the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    Small Business


                                         Technology Coalition,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1999.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: The Small Business Technology Coalition 
     (SBTC) wishes to express its support for your ``mentoring'' 
     bill to amend the reauthorization of the Small Business 
     Innovation Research (SBIR) Program. The amendment would 
     provide much needed support to small business in ``low 
     participating areas'' applying for grants under the SBIR 
     program.
       As you know, the amendment would establish a competitively 
     bid volunteer mentoring grant program for the SBIR. The Small 
     Business Administration would be responsible for 
     administering the program. Organizations representing SBIR 
     awardees could apply for grants ranging from $50,000 to 
     $200,000 to participate in the program. Qualifying 
     organizations would match small businesses new to the SBIR 
     process with CEOs and other of small, high-technology 
     companies that have been successful SBIR award winners. These 
     ``volunteer mentors'' would be reimbursed only for their out-
     of-pocket expenses incurred while mentoring, not for their 
     time. The program would be authorized at $1 million per year 
     to cover administration of the program and reimbursement of 
     volunteer mentors for their out-of-pocket expenses.
       As the nation-wide trade association of small high tech 
     business CEOs, SBTC can attest to the value of a mentoring 
     program to help small businesses new to the SBIR process. 
     SBTC members have hands-on experience and know the importance 
     of expert technical assistance in locating venture capital, 
     seeking Phase III partners and commercialization. SBTC speaks 
     for the small high tech business community and knows through 
     experience that mentoring is a key to success in the SBIR 
     process.
       The anticipated result of your amendment would be an 
     increase in SBIR awards to businesses in areas which 
     traditionally have had low numbers of awards. With the 
     passage of this amendment, businesses in certain areas that 
     do not have access to research or venture capital for 
     example, could connect with companies with demonstrated 
     expertise in those fields. Successful mentoring in these low 
     participating areas would broaden the geographic and 
     demographic distribution of SBIR awards.
       As the leading industry association representing the 
     interest and needs of small, emerging, research-intensive, 
     technology-based companies, we support your amendment to help 
     small businesses in rural areas succeed in the SBIR program.
           Sincerely,
     Jeff Noah.
                                  ____



                           Small Business Legislative Council,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 1999.
     Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Snowe: On behalf of the Small Business 
     Legislative Council (SBLC), I urge you to support an 
     amendment to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 
     reauthorization to be offered by Senator Levin. The purpose 
     of the amendment is to create a ``mentoring'' program to 
     encourage small businesses in states not currently 
     benefitting from the SBIR program to participate.
       As you know, the SBIR program is a ``win-win'' program. The 
     federal government obtains necessary research and small 
     businesses obtain the opportunity to develop commercially 
     feasible products and processes.
       SBLC is a permanent, independent coalition of eighty trade 
     and professional associations that share a common commitment 
     to the future of small business. Our members represent the 
     interest of small businesses in such diverse economic sectors 
     as manufacturing, retailing, distribution, professional and 
     technical services, construction, transportation, tourism and 
     agriculture. Our policies are developed through a consensus 
     among our membership. Individual associations may express 
     their own views. For your information, a list of our members 
     is enclosed.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John S. Satagaj,
                                    President and General Counsel.


           Members of the Small Business Legislative Council

       ACIL.
       Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
       Alliance for Affordable Services.
       Alliance for American Innovation.
       Alliance of Independent Store Owners and Professionals.
       American Animal Hospital Association.
       American Association of Equine Practitioners.
       American Bus Association.
       American Consulting Engineers Council.
       American Machine Tool Distributors Association.
       American Nursery and Landscape Association.
       American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
       American Society of Interior Designers.
       American Society of Travel Agents, Inc.
       American Subcontractors Association.
       American Textile Machinery Association.
       Architectural Precast Association.
       Associated Equipment Distributors.
       Associated Landscape Contractors of America.
       Association of Small Business Development Centers.
       Association of Sales and Marketing Companies.
       Automative Recyclers Association.
       Automotive Service Association.
       Bowling Proprietors Association of America.
       Building Service Contractors Association International.
       Business Advertising Council.
       CBA.
       Council of Fleet Specialists.
       Council of Growing Companies.
       Direct Selling Association.
       Electronics Representative Association.
       Florists Transworld Delivery Association.
       Health Industry Representatives Association.
       Helicopter Association International.
       Independent Bankers Association of America.
       Independent Medical Distributors Association.
       International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses.
       International Formalwear Association.
       International Franchise Association.
       Machinery Dealers National Association.
       Mail Advertising Service Association.
       Manufacturers Agents for the Food Service Industry.
       Manufacturers Agents National Association.
       Manufacturers Representatives of America, Inc.
       National Association for the Self-Employed.
       National Association of Home Builders.
       National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling 
     Contractors.

[[Page S9229]]

       National Association of Realtors.
       National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds.
       National Association of Small Business Investment 
     Companies.
       National Association of the Remodeling Industry.
       National Chimney Sweep Guild.
       National Community Pharmacists Association.
       National Electrical Contractors Association.
       National Electrical Manufacturers Representatives 
     Association.
       National Funeral Directors Association, Inc.
       National Lumber & Building Materials Dealers, Association.
       National Moving and Storage Association.
       National Ornamental & Miscellaneous Metals Association.
       National Paperbox Association.
       National Society of Accountants.
       National Tooling and Machining Association.
       National Tour Association.
       National Wood Flooring Association.
       Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small 
     Telephone Companies.
       Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
       Printing Industries of America, Inc.
       Professional Lawn Care Association of America.
       Promotional Products Association International.
       The Retailer's Bakery Association.
       Saturation Mailers: Coalition.
       Small Business Council of America, Inc.
       Small Business Exporters Association.
       Small Business Technology Coalition.
       SMC Business Councils.
       Society of American Florists.
       Turfgrass Producers International.
       Tire Association of North America.
       United Motorcoach Association.

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from 
Michigan, Senator Levin, in introducing the Small Business Innovation 
Research (SBIR) and Small Technology Transfer (STTR) Volunteer 
Mentoring Program. This bill seeks to increase, through company-to-
company mentoring, the number of SBIR awards given to small businesses 
located in areas, known as ``low participation areas,'' where 
historically few awards have been made in proportion to other areas of 
the country.
  The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is a great 
example of how government and business can work together to advance the 
cause of science and a healthy economy. The results have been dramatic 
for small, high-technology companies participating in the program. 
Since 1983 when the program was started, some 16,000 small, high-
technology firms have received more than 46,000 SBIR research awards 
through 1997, totaling $7.5 billion.
  Complementing the SBIR program, we have the Small Business Technology 
Transfer (STTR) program, another important R&D opportunity for small 
businesses. It was established to provide a strong incentive for small 
businesses and technical experts at research institutions to team up 
and move ideas from the laboratory to the marketplace.
  Technological advancement is a key element of economic growth. 
According to a recent Congressional Research Service Report, Small, 
High Tech Companies and Their Role in the Economy: Issues in the 
Reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation (SBIR) Program, 
``technical progress is responsible for up to one-half the growth of 
the U.S. economy and is one of the principle driving forces for 
increases in our standard of living.''
  As Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee, and a 
Senator representing a state with one of the most active hi-tech 
industries in the country, I am always interested in new initiatives, 
or improving existing ones, to develop and nurture technology-based 
companies throughout the region and the nation.
  The SBIR program has been good to my home state of Massachusetts. So 
good that we are the second largest recipient of SBIR awards in the 
country. In 1997, Massachusetts' small, hi-tech firms won 702 awards, 
totaling $164 million. But it's not by coincidence--it's because we 
have the right mix of small high-tech companies, an active venture 
capital community, and a cluster of universities that understand the 
benefits of technology transfer, attract academic research funds and 
graduate a highly qualified workforce.
  Similarly, a variation of that combination is also what cultivates 
and supports innovative hi-tech companies in states such as California, 
Virginia and Ohio that have historically been among the largest 
recipients of SBIR awards.
  We on the Senate Small Business Committee have the tough job of 
crafting a solution that helps small businesses in states that don't 
have this infrastructure. However, we should not change the program's 
reliance on competition. Merit is the only way to maintain the 
integrity of the research. Only one in seven or eight Phase I proposals 
is awarded. The highly competitive nature of SBIR awards is one of the 
main reasons the program has been so popular and successful.
  One of the experiments working around the country is mentoring--
experienced SBIR award winners helping SBIR applicants navigate the 
process. For example, Innovative Training Systems (ITS) in Newton, 
Mass., mentored Pro-Change Behavior Systems out of West Kingston, RI, 
when it applied for its first SBIR award. ITS specializes in health 
care multi-media programs such as smoking prevention and cessation for 
high school students and has gotten several SBIR awards from the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH). Pro-Change also specializes in 
health care multi-media for health behavior change and needed help 
getting an SBIR award for cancer prevention from NIH. Pro-Change says, 
among many things, the mentoring helped by explaining the rating system 
(it learned to target resources to those aspects of the proposal that 
counted most) and by saving the company time and reducing confusion on 
the financial and business requirements behind a proposal. As a 
representative for Pro-Change said, ``SBIR mentoring leads to long-
lasting business partnerships, spawning exciting new ventures.''
  Mentoring may not be exclusively responsible for Pro-Change's success 
in getting its first SBIR award, but it played an important role. Just 
look at the numbers. The process is highly competitive, with only one 
in seven or eight Phase I proposals getting funded. Furthermore, this 
company got another award in Rhode Island, a state where only six 
awards were given in 1997. Since that first award in 1998, Pro-Change 
has gone on to apply for three more Fast-Track Phase II proposals and 
one Phase I proposal to NIH. We can and should replicate and facilitate 
this process.
  This bill would elevate and reinforce that informal mentoring by 
authorizing competitive grants, ranging from $50,000 to $200,000, to 
any entity that represents small businesses that participate in SBIR or 
STTR programs. The entity would be obligated to match experienced, 
successful SBIR or STTR award winners with small businesses located in 
low SBIR-participation areas--advising and guiding them from 
application to award to project completion.
  Though it will be up to the SBA Administrator to define what areas 
receive a disproportionate amount of awards, this bill is intended to 
help states such as such as Maine and Montana, which received only five 
awards in 1997, and rural pockets of states such as Michigan and 
Massachusetts which do well overall in the program but get the 
concentration of awards in university towns or the largest city.
  Because founders of hi-tech companies are often more scientific 
inventors than business experts, the mentor companies could help with 
management assistance, proposal writing, commercialization or venture 
capital networking. The mentor companies would be volunteers, but would 
be eligible for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, authorized 
travel and reasonable bills for telephone calls and faxes. And like the 
volunteers in SBA's successful volunteer business counselor program, 
the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), SBIR mentor volunteers 
would get automatic liability coverage.
  I know the Committee on Small Business will have a roundtable on 
August 4th to discuss with program managers, SBIR companies and SBIR 
advocates how to increase the low number of awards given in certain 
states, and I look forward to hearing comments on this bill and on any 
alternative programs.
  Mr. President, in closing, I want to thank Senator Levin for his work 
on this bill and ask that a letter of support from the Small Business 
Technology Coalition be included for the Record.

[[Page S9230]]

  The letter follows:

                                                    Small Business


                                         Technology Coalition,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1999.
     Senator John Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: The Small Business Technology Coalition 
     (SBTC) urges you to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment to 
     the reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research 
     (SBIR) Program. The amendment would provide much needed 
     support to small businesses applying for grants under the 
     SBIR program.
       Senator Levin's amendment would establish a competitively 
     bid volunteer mentoring grant program for the SBIR. The Small 
     Business Administration would be responsible for 
     administering the program. Organizations representing SBIR 
     awardees could apply for grants ranging from $50,000 to 
     $500,000 to participate in the program. Qualifying 
     organizations would match small businesses new to the SBIR 
     process with CEOs and other of small, high-technology 
     companies that have been successful SBIR award winners. These 
     ``volunteer mentors'' would be reimbursed only for their out-
     of-pocket expenses incurred while mentoring, not for their 
     time. The program would be authorized at $1 million per year 
     to cover administration of the program and reimbursement of 
     volunteer mentors for their out-of-pocket expenses.
       As the nation-wide trade association of small high tech 
     business CEOs, SBTC can attest to the value of a mentoring 
     program to help small businesses new to the SBIR process. 
     SBTC members have hands-on experience and know the importance 
     of expert technical assistance in locating venture capital, 
     seeking Phase III partners and commercialization. SBTC speaks 
     for the small high tech business community and knows through 
     experience that mentoring is a key to success in the SBIR 
     process.
       The anticipated result of Senator Levin's amendment would 
     be an increase in SBIR awards to businesses in states which 
     traditionally have had low numbers of awards. With the 
     passage of this amendment, businesses in certain states that 
     do not have access to research or venture capital for 
     example, could connect with companies with demonstrated 
     expertise in those areas. Successful mentoring in these 
     states would broaden the geographic and demographic 
     distribution of SBIR awards.
       As the leading industry association representing the 
     interest and needs of small, emerging, research-intensive, 
     technology-based companies, we urge you to cosponsor Senator 
     Levin's amendment and help businesses in rural areas compete 
     in the SBIR program.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Jeff Noah,
                                       Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD:
  S. 1436. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Transition Act to 
provide support for United State agricultural producers that is equal 
to the support provided agricultural producers by the European Union, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


           amending the agricultural marketing transition act

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce new, permanent farm 
legislation. I think virtually everyone from farm country understands 
that our farmers have been hit by a triple whammy--the triple whammy of 
bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy. The results are catastrophic.
  In my home State of North Dakota, one of the most agricultural States 
in the Nation, our farmers are being pressured as never before. They 
are in a cost price squeeze that is almost unprecedented. The results 
will be the loss of thousands of farm families unless there is a 
Federal response.
  I think most of us know we need to have a disaster response because 
prices have collapsed, and adverse weather conditions continue across 
the country. So it is critically important that we take short-term 
steps to address what is happening in farm country.
  A disaster bill is not enough. We need more than that. We also need 
to respond with a long-term change in farm policy.
  If I could direct the attention of my colleagues and others who might 
be watching to this chart, when I talk about the triple whammy of bad 
prices, bad weather, and bad policy, this shows what has happened to 
prices over the last 53 years. The blue line shows what has happened to 
wheat prices; the red line to barley. As a viewer can see, we are now 
at the lowest level for these commodities in constant dollars in 53 
years.
  We are witnessing a price collapse that is almost unprecedented. That 
is putting enormous pressure on our producers.
  In addition to that, in my State we have been hit by almost a 5-year 
pattern now of bad weather--weather that is overly wet in my State; 
other parts of the country it is overly dry. In North Dakota, we have 3 
million acres that have not even been planted this year. On top of bad 
prices and bad weather, we are also hit by bad policy because the last 
farm bill put us at a very severe disadvantage with our major 
competitors, the Europeans.
  The EU trumps the U.S. in farm support. This chart shows just with 
respect to wheat and corn for 1999--the red bar is what the Europeans 
provide their producers on wheat; the blue bar what we are doing in the 
United States. You can see, they are trumping us by 38 percent. In 
other words, their support is 38 percent higher in wheat, 46 percent 
higher in corn.
  It does not end there because the Europeans are also badly 
outspending us with respect to export subsidy. This shows for 1998--the 
last year for which we have full figures--this is the European Union in 
red: $5 billion a year of support for subsidies. This is the United 
States: $104 million.
  For that 1 year alone, the Europeans are outspending us, are 
outgunning us, 50 to 1. It is no wonder that our farmers are at a 
disadvantage. We, in effect, are saying to our farmers: You go out 
there and compete against the French farmer, the German farmer; and 
while you're at it, you take on the French Government and the German 
Government, as well.
  That is not a fair fight.
  If we look worldwide at agricultural export subsidies, what we see is 
that the European Union accounts for 84 percent of agriculture 
subsidies worldwide. The United States has 1.4 percent. We are 
outgunned 60 to 1 by that measure.
  Whether it is 50 to 1 or 60 to 1, the hard reality is, the U.S. 
producers are not in a fair fight. Something must be done to respond.
  If we look back at the policy change that was made in the farm bill--
our last farm bill--what we see is there was a dramatic cut in the 
level of support for our producers.
  Under the previous farm bill, the 1990 farm bill, we were getting on 
average $10 billion a year of support for our farmers. That was cut in 
half to $5 billion--that at the very time our major competitors are 
spending $50 billion a year to support their producers. So $50 billion 
for Europe; $5 billion for the United States.
  It is not a fair fight. The result is, our farmers are losing the 
battle. I call this ``unilateral disarmament.'' We would never do that 
in a military confrontation. Why have we done it in a trade 
confrontation? The results are the same: They win; we lose. The chief 
negotiator for the Europeans told me several years ago: Senator, we 
believe we are in a trade war in agriculture with the United States. He 
said: Senator, we believe at some point there will be a cease-fire. We 
believe there will be a cease-fire in place, and we want to occupy the 
high ground. And the high ground is market share.

  How well that strategy and plan are working, because the Europeans, 
in just the last few years, have moved from being major importers to 
being major exporters. They have gone from being the biggest importing 
region in the world to being the biggest exporting region in the world, 
and they have done it the old-fashioned way--they have gone out and 
bought these markets.
  In the last 10 years alone, they have spent $500 billion, and now 
they are starting to get a return on that investment, because in the 
last trade negotiation, what happened? Europeans have a higher level of 
support than we do. They are at a higher level. We are at a lower 
level. Was there a closing of the gap? Not at all. Instead, the 
conclusion was equal percentage reductions on both sides--36 percent in 
export subsidies, 24 percent in domestic support. The result is that 
our farmers were again left in a second position.
  If it happens again in the trade talks that are to begin this fall, 
our farmers will be put in a position of perhaps falling off the cliff, 
being put in a position that they cannot possibly survive.
  Some say let's let the market work. I am all for letting the market 
work. But that is not what is happening in world agriculture. What is 
happening in world agriculture is, the Europeans are spending enormous 
sums of money

[[Page S9231]]

to win a dominant position. They believe that is a position they can 
preserve because they think the United States is unwilling to fight 
back.
  We have to prove them wrong. We have to demonstrate that the United 
States is not going to roll over, is not going to surrender, is not 
going to give up, that we intend to fight for these markets to achieve 
a level playing field so our farmers have a chance to compete. Our 
farmers can compete against anyone anywhere, but they can't compete 
against the governments of the European Union. That is not a fair 
fight.
  We can see the pattern because while we have cut support for our 
producers and the Europeans have had a 50- to 60-to-1 edge on us with 
respect to export subsidy, the value of our farm exports has dropped 
like a rock. We have gone from $60 billion a year as recently as 1996 
to, this last year, $49 billion. At the same time, if we look at the 
European pattern, we see they have gone from being a major importer to 
a major exporter. They have a strategy; they have a plan. It is 
working. If we don't fight back, we are going to wake up after this 
next round of negotiations and we are going to find that the United 
States is falling off the cliff. We are going to find literally 
thousands of our farm families consigned to failure. That is the 
message I have received in farm meeting after farm meeting all across 
my State.
  I asked our Trade Representative: What is our leverage in the next 
round of trade talks? The truth is, we have no leverage because the 
Europeans are occupying the high ground. They are waiting for the 
cease-fire, the cease-fire in place. They are waiting to win this 
victory. They are confident the United States will not fight back. We 
have to prove them wrong. We have to demonstrate that the United States 
is not willing to cede these markets.

  This chart shows what has happened to just one commodity, wheat. This 
blue line is European exports; the red line is American exports. You 
can see the trend line for the United States is down, down, down--lots 
of zigzags along the way, but the trend line is straight down; the 
European trend line, straight up. They have had a little setback 
recently, but you can see they have gone from being in a totally 
inferior position, a more than two-to-one gap between us to our 
advantage, to their now being in the dominant position, and they have 
accomplished this in less than 20 years.
  That is what my FITE legislation is all about. It says: Let's fight 
back. Let's send a message the United States is not going to wave the 
white flag of surrender. The United States intends to fight for these 
markets. The United States intends to give our farmers a fair chance to 
compete. That is what this legislation does.
  These charts show it. FITE levels the playing field for wheat. Under 
our proposal, as I described before, Europe is at $5.20 in wheat, we 
are at $3.22. We would level the playing field. If they are going to 
provide $5.20, we will provide $5.20. We do the same thing on corn. We 
even the score on corn. They are at $4.85 today. We are at $2.25 a 
bushel on corn. If they want to stay at $4.85, we will match them; we 
will meet them in the competition. We will take them on head to head, 
dollar for dollar, so we don't surrender these markets and find 
ourselves in an inferior position.
  Not only do we even the score with respect to support to producers, 
we even the score with respect to export subsidy, because in the FITE 
bill we provide $4 billion a year of support for export subsidy, 
because we believe that will send a message to the Europeans that the 
United States intends to fight. This would put us in a strong position 
for the talks this fall because right now we have no leverage.
  The question is, How do we respond?
  I have a series of letters from groups endorsing the FITE 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record 
at this point.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       North Dakota Association of


                                  Rural Electric Cooperatives,

                                        Mandan, ND, July 26, 1999.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Senator Conrad: As president of the North Dakota 
     Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, I want to commend 
     you for bringing forth your ``FITE'' proposal in response to 
     the current farm crisis.
       In our program, we know this ag crisis is real. We deal, 
     every month, with the stranded assets of people leaving the 
     land--giving up the dream of making their living and raising 
     their families on the land.
       Your Farm Income and Trade Equity Act is a thoughtful, fair 
     and solid response to the crisis. You've correctly identified 
     in this proposal that unfair trade subsidies and rock-bottom 
     commodity prices are at the root of this crisis. Your FITE 
     proposal provides a solution to this problem.
       You can count on North Dakota's RECs to help get this 
     legislation through the Congress and on the President's desk 
     for his signature. We need action, and this FITE proposal 
     makes a great deal of sense to us. We'll help however we can.
           Sincerely,
                                                Adolph Feyereisen,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                      North Dakota


                                National Farmers Organization,

                                        Marion, ND, July 21, 1999.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The North Dakota National Farmers 
     Organization is happy to endorse your introduction of FITE 
     (Farm Income and Trade Equity Act of 1999).
       I must also add that on behalf of NDNFO members, we 
     appreciate your efforts to help correct the severe income 
     problems we are experiencing in rural America and 
     particularly in North Dakota.
           Good luck and thanks,
                                                    Ralph Danuser,
     President.
                                  ____



                                     U.S. Durum Growers Assn.,

                                                    July 23, 1999.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Senator Conrad: The US Durum Growers Association would like 
     to congratulate and thank you for introducing the Farm Income 
     and Trade Equity Fairness Investment Transition Act farm 
     package. Your work in developing a comprehensive farm program 
     that would finally put US producers on equal footing with 
     European farmers is to be complimented.
       As you know, commodity prices are extremely low. That is 
     particularly true of durum, which is substantially lower than 
     the average prices of recent years. The low farm prices have 
     pushed the northern plains economy, which is very dependent 
     on durum production, into a near depression-like state. The 
     support levels that you are proposing in the FITE legislation 
     would enhance durum farmers' profitability and in turn, 
     contribute to the revitalization of the rural economy.
       The USDGA has a long standing policy in support of 
     increasing marketing loans and we are pleased that your farm 
     program proposal offers that as a base of support. The 
     additional payment over the loan rate to equalize the 
     subsidies received by US and European producers helps ensure 
     a competitive environment in the world trade of durum.
       The FITE is the only proposal to date that puts US 
     producers at a competitive position with the farmers in the 
     European Union. The support offered by this bill will provide 
     the US with negotiating power needed in this fall's WTO 
     talks.
       Thank you for your work in formulating and introducing the 
     bill, the US Durum Growers Association pledges to work with 
     you to gain acceptance for this bill in Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark Birdsall,
     President.
                                  ____

                                        Milk Producers Association


                                        of North Dakota, Inc.,

                                       Manning, ND, July 22, 1999.
     Senator Kent Conrad.
       Dear Senator Conrad: We the Milk Producers Association of 
     N.D. support your effort to make positive changes in Congress 
     to help our Nations family farmers. Although this bill does 
     not intend to help the Dairy Industry directly, we believe 
     that indirectly it will benefit us by strengthening our 
     family farm economy.
       Needless to say, time is running out for many of our family 
     farmers and we urge you to work hard in the next few months 
     to get this bill passed through Congress.
           Sincerely,
     Doug Dukart.
                                  ____

                                                American Renewable


                                              Oil Association,

                                      Bismarck, ND, July 23, 1999.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The American Renewable Oil Association 
     (AROA), represents North Dakota's 350 plus crambe growers. 
     The AROA appreciates the efforts you have made to try and 
     address the inequities in the US farm program. We support 
     farmer assistance equal to that of other countries.
       In order for the American producer to survive in the global 
     market, producers must be on an equal playing field with all 
     trading partners. The `FITE' bill addresses these inequities. 
     The AROA has not been able to schedule a board meeting to 
     take an official stance on the bill. I do see a potential 
     problem with base acres and land diversion.

[[Page S9232]]

       Please forward me a full draft when possible so I may 
     review it with the full AROA board. I look forward to working 
     with you on this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ray Fegley,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                      North Dakota


                                          Bankers Association,

                                      Bismarck, ND, July 23, 1999.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: On Thursday I surveyed the NDBA Board 
     of Directors and Ag Committee to determine their level of 
     support for the Farm Income and Trade Equity Act (FITE) to be 
     introduced on Monday.
       I received 16 responses and all indicated that NDBA should 
     endorse the concept embodied in the legislation and support 
     your efforts on this issue. Kirby Josephson, chairman of the 
     NDBA Ag Committee from Litchville, ND, stated that ``ag 
     lenders in North Dakota will support your efforts to improve 
     farm income. It is time we do something to address the ag 
     crisis our North Dakota farmers are facing. Senator Conrad is 
     taking a bold approach to restoring farm income.''
       Respondents indicated that they believe the Export 
     Enhancement Program has been under utilized. However, some 
     concerns were expressed with the 10 percent conservation set 
     aside and the fact that this legislation may encourage 
     overproduction and discourage crop diversification.
       Please keep NDBA advised of your efforts and the status of 
     this legislation and please feel free to call if you need any 
     further clarification on the position taken by the North 
     Dakota Bankers Association.
           Cordially,
                                               James D. Schlosser,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____


Central Power Electric Cooperative Board of Directors Resolution #1999-
                                   06


                farm income and trade equity act of 1999

       Whereas, American farmers are the world's most efficient 
     and productive, but heavy farm subsidies in competing 
     countries have put U.S. producers at an unfair advantage, and
       Whereas, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has introduced the Farm 
     Income and Trade Equity Act of 1999 (``FITE'') to level the 
     playing field beetween U.S. farmers and their primary 
     competitors in Europe by matching European Union subsidies 
     dollar-for-dollar, and
       Whereas, Central Power Electric Cooperative is sensitive to 
     the economic crisis currently facing farmers.
       Now therefore be it Resolved, That the Board of Directors 
     of Central Power Electric Cooperative hereby supports the 
     FITE legislation and its goals to address the current 
     agricultural crisis and protect American agriculture in 
     future trade negotiations.
       Dated: July 21, 1999.
                                  ____


         Square Butte Electric Cooperative, Resolution No. 242

       Whereas, American farmers are the World's most efficient 
     and productive, but heavy farm subsidies in competing 
     countries have put U.S. producers at an unfair advantage; and
       Whereas, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has introduced the Farm 
     Income and Trade Equity Act of 1999 (``FITE'') to level the 
     playing field between U.S. farmers and their primary 
     competitors in Europe by matching European Union subsidies 
     dollar-for-dollar; and
       Whereas, Square Butte Electric Cooperative is sensitive to 
     the economic crisis currently facing farmers;
       Now therefore be it Resolved, That the Board of Directors 
     of Square Butte Electric Cooperative hereby supports the FITE 
     legislation and its goals to address the current agricultural 
     crisis and protect American agriculture in future trade 
     negotiations.
                                  ____

                                                North Dakota Rural


                                          Development Council,

                                       Bismarck ND, July 22, 1999.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The North Dakota Rural Development 
     Council is a relatively new organization with the focal 
     contention that the future depends most heavily upon the 
     vitality of our communities. Hence, one of the primary 
     objectives is to strive for the elimination of barriers which 
     are known to hinder effective rural development efforts.
       As eloquently expressed in the Overview section of the Farm 
     Income and Trade Equity Act of 1999, the heavy farm subsidies 
     available to commodity producers in competing foreign 
     countries, places our farmers at a tremendous and untenable 
     disadvantage.
       Please consider this correspondence as a tangible 
     indication of support for FITE, and, a written endorsement 
     for the introduction of such timely and all-important farm 
     and rural community survival and preservation legislation. 
     Thank you for your untiring and meaningful efforts and 
     demonstrated commitment, as further evidenced by the Farm 
     Income and Trade Equity Act of 1999.
           Sincerely,
                                               Cornelius P. Grant,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               North Dakota School


                                     Boards Association, Inc.,

                                      Bismarck, ND, July 23, 1999.
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The North Dakota School Boards 
     Association is favorable to The Farm Income and Trade Equity 
     Act of 1999. As you know our rural agriculture communities 
     are struggling to keep their family farms going. This, of 
     course, impacts the resources available to support their 
     public schools.
       NDSBA supports your efforts to assist the family farmers 
     and the rural economy of North Dakota.
       We would also like to thank you for your continued support 
     of locally controlled public schools.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mike Zimmerman,
     President.
                                  ____


  54th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the 
             Council of State Governments, July 18-21, 1999


     Resolution on Fair Markets for American Agricultural Products

       Whereas, the U.S. stock market continues to reach record 
     highs almost daily and the American economy experiences 
     unprecedented expansion and growth; and
       Whereas, farm commodity prices continue to plummet while 
     agricultural production costs steadily rise, forcing American 
     farmers and agribusiness into bankruptcy while the rest of 
     the economy prospers; and
       Whereas, American farmers and ranchers, who are recognized 
     as the most efficient and productive in the world, are at a 
     considerable disadvantage in competing in the world markets 
     because of the heavy subsidies their primary competitors, the 
     members of the European Union, receive; and
       Whereas, this extreme imbalance in our economy and the 
     unfair competition with the European Union cannot be 
     corrected without our government's intervention; now 
     therefore be it
       Resolved, that Midwestern Legislative Conference favors 
     legislation that would include support to American producers 
     which would put prices received for crops on even per with 
     those of our European Union competitors; and be it further
       Resolved, that Midwestern Legislative Conference favors 
     sensible legislation that would allow our agriculture 
     producers to compete in the global economy while providing an 
     abundance of reasonably priced food for our domestic market; 
     and be it further
       Resolved, that the Midwestern Legislative Conference urges 
     the Administration and Congress to secure measures to protect 
     American producers now and in the future from unfair 
     competition so that the citizens of the United States can 
     continue to enjoy the benefits of high quality food at 
     reasonable prices.

  Mr. CONRAD. We have support from the North Dakota Farmers Union, the 
North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Co-ops, the North Dakota 
NFO, the U.S. Duram Growers Association, the Milk Producers Association 
of North Dakota, the American Renewable Oil Association, the North 
Dakota Bankers Association, the Central Power Electric Cooperative 
Board of Directors, the Square Butte Electric Cooperative, the North 
Dakota Rural Development Council, and even a resolution of support from 
the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State 
Governments that, while not endorsing the specifics of this 
legislation, specifically endorsed the concept in which they say:

       The Midwestern Legislative Conference favors legislation 
     that would include support to American producers which would 
     put prices received for crops on an even par with those of 
     our European Union competitors.

  Mr. President, the Midwest Council of State Governments has it right. 
We simply cannot permit our farmers to be left at a competitive 
disadvantage. We must fight back. That is what the FITE legislation 
will do.
  We have had an unprecedented outpouring of support in North Dakota. 
In addition to those who have sent written comments, the North Dakota 
Wheat Commission has gone on record supporting this legislation. We 
have many more who are considering resolutions of support. I am hopeful 
that this will start a ground swell that will spread across the country 
and send a message that the United States does not intend to give up 
our agricultural dominance. That would be a mistake. It would be one we 
would live to regret. We are very close now to these negotiations this 
fall. If we don't alter dramatically the negotiating environment, we 
are going to lose. Make no mistake about it. We are going to lose.
  It doesn't have to be that way. It should not be that way. But it is 
in our hands. We have a choice to make. Do we fight back, or do we give 
up?
  At a time of unprecedented economic prosperity in this country, it 
would be a travesty for us to have lost the world

[[Page S9233]]

agricultural trade battle because we were unwilling at this critical 
moment to respond. I hope we don't let this opportunity pass us by.
  Some people watching me say: Well, why should we help farmers?
  I believe farm families are the backbone of strength for this 
country. They are absolutely fundamental to America's success. They 
have long been the dominant source of our trade surpluses. Overall, we 
run massive trade deficits. But in agriculture, we have run trade 
surpluses. It has been one of two sectors of this economy that has run 
trade surpluses, and we are right at the brink of losing that. That 
would be a tragedy for this country--not just because of the dollars or 
just because of the economics, but because of what it would mean to the 
fundamental strength of this country.
  In Europe, they made a decision. They decided they wanted to have 
people out across the land. They didn't want everybody forced into the 
cities, so they made it possible for people to prosper in the rural 
parts of Europe. Perhaps their being hungry twice before informed those 
decisions. But whatever the reason, you can travel through the French 
countryside and the German countryside and it is prosperous; they are 
doing well. But go through the countryside of my State and what you see 
is an area that is in economic decline. It is not just in North Dakota; 
it is all across the heartland of America.
  The question is, Are we going to let it go? You know, it would be one 
thing if it were a fair competition. It would be one thing if it were 
simply the fact that our farmers weren't as competitive or as efficient 
as our competitors. But that is not the case. It is not the case. The 
fact is, our farmers are as competitive and as efficient as any in the 
world. What is hurting them is that other nations are willing to fight 
for their producers, and we have been in retreat.
  We have to decide what kind of country we want to have. Do we want 
everybody to move to town? Or do we want people out across the land? 
Europe has made a decision that they want people out across the 
countryside, and they have made it possible economically to be there. 
Now the choice comes to us. The hour is late because these negotiations 
will start this fall, and if we don't do something to change the rules 
of the game, our side is going to lose. It doesn't have to be that way. 
It should not be that way. But we have choices to make in this Chamber, 
and across in the other Chamber, about what is going to be the policy 
of America, what is going to be our position.
  I hope very much that we will decide we are going to give our farmers 
a fighting chance. I hope very much that we are going to make a 
decision that the best policy is to have people out across the land, 
not to have everybody come to the cities. I hope very much we are going 
to conclude that it is in our national interest, just as the Europeans 
have concluded that it is in their interest, to give farmers a fighting 
chance. There is no way they are going to win this battle when the odds 
are stacked against them: 10-to-1, 50-to-1, that is the unevenness of 
the fight our farmers are in now. It is in our hands; it is our 
decision.
  I hope very much that we can start across this country a move to say: 
Let's fight back. Let's put our farmers on a level playing field. Let's 
rearm our negotiators. Let's prepare for this battle. Let's not lose. 
Let's win a victory that would make a difference for hundreds of 
thousands of farm families across America and the cities and towns that 
are dependent upon them and, at the end of the day, for a country that 
needs them.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 1437. A bill to protect researchers from compelled disclosure of 
research in Federal courts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


          thomas jefferson researcher's privilege act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise 
today to introduce the Thomas Jefferson Researcher's Privilege Act. 
This bill protects the rights of researchers in their work. This is an 
issue that Professor Robert O'Neil of the University of Virginia Law 
School has done much to advance, and I am extremely grateful for all 
his assistance.
  Two points, followed by a coda, if I may. The first point is that the 
Thomas Jefferson Act gets to the heart of the first amendment and the 
principles that our nation was founded on. This Act would protect 
researchers from the compelled disclosure of their research, studies, 
data, surveys, etc. Too often researchers are forced to turn over this 
information in open courts. This interrupts their research and makes it 
nearly impossible for them to finish and publish their research. If 
researchers are unable to publish their findings, then the flow and 
dissemination of information are choked off. This runs counter to the 
essence of the first amendment.
  We need a uniform standard that protects the work of researchers. 
Some courts have ruled in favor of researchers while others have ruled 
against them. We need consistency in this field, where researchers feel 
comfortable to produce their research and do not have to fear that it 
will be taken from them. This bill will provide that consistency and 
comfort.
  To the second point. We have reached a time in our society where we 
have to decide between what should be shared and what should be 
protected. In this case, it is very important to society as a whole to 
protect a researcher's notes and data before they are ready to be 
released. It is from these data and research that ideas and thoughts 
are formed, ideas that will eventually help man and society progress. 
If a researcher's data are released prematurely, then their ideas may 
never bear fruit. In the long run, protecting a researcher's data will 
only lead to more information and ideas in the future. This is what the 
first amendment is all about.
  No one describes the utility of free speech and the dissemination of 
original ideas better than John Stuart Mill. In On Liberty, he argues 
that neither government nor a public acting informally may legitimately 
use coercion to stifle free expression, and the reason he gives is a 
utilitarian, or at least a consequentialist one. If the opinion is 
right, the human race is deprived of it; if wrong, they are deprived of 
the opportunity to reinforce--through surviving a challenge--their 
understanding of what is right. The quashing of opinion is therefore, a 
much more far-reaching evil than the mere loss of something valuable to 
the individual, for it deprived society at large of something of 
benefit. This is exactly what happens when researchers are forced to 
turn over their work prematurely and prevented from developing and 
sharing their thoughts. The Thomas Jefferson Bill would help rectify 
just this situation.
  I conclude by saying that I could think of no better namesake for 
this bill than Thomas Jefferson, our third president and author of the 
Declaration of Independence. A philosophical statesman rather than a 
political philosopher, he contributed to democracy and liberalism a 
faith rather than a body of doctrine. By his works alone he must be 
adjudged one the greatest of all Americans, while the influence of this 
energizing faith cannot be measured.
  One of Jefferson's greatest contributions to our nation was his 
protection and advocacy of free speech. From the Declaration of 
Independence to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to the 
founding of the University of Virginia, he was a passionate proponent 
of education, human liberty, and free thought. He wrote: ``If nature 
has made any one thing exclusive property, it is the idea, which an 
individual may exclusively possess . . .; but the moment it is 
divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone . . .'' 
Jefferson, always a step or several steps ahead of his age, understood 
the importance of the freedom of speech in the development of an 
individual and a nation.
  It is only appropriate that the Thomas Jefferson Researcher's 
Privilege Act be introduced in the month of July, when our nation 
declared its independence, and be named after Thomas Jefferson, one of 
our greatest political thinkers and one of our greatest advocates of 
the free mind.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Thomas Jefferson Researcher's 
Privilege Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S9234]]

                                S. 1437

       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 ``Thomas Jefferson 
     Researcher's Privilege Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS.

       Section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) data, records, or information, including actual 
     research documents, collected or produced in the conduct of 
     or as a result of study or research on academic, commercial, 
     scientific, or technical issues, including--
       ``(i) unpublished lecture notes, unpublished research 
     notes, data, processes, results or other confidential 
     information from research which is in progress, unpublished 
     or not yet verified; or
       ``(ii) any other information related to research, the 
     disclosure of which could affect--

       ``(I) the conduct or outcome of the research;
       ``(II) the likelihood of similar research in the future;
       ``(III) the ability to obtain patents or copyrights from 
     the research; or
       ``(IV) any other proprietary rights any entity may have in 
     the research or results of the research;''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

       Rule 45(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (iv) by striking the period and inserting a 
     comma and ``or''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) requires disclosure of data, records, or information, 
     including actual research documents, collected or produced in 
     the conduct of or as a result of study or research on 
     academic, commercial, scientific, or technical issues, 
     including--
       ``(I) unpublished lecture notes, unpublished research 
     notes, data, processes, results or other confidential 
     information from research which is in any progress, 
     unpublished or not yet verified, or
       ``(II) any other information related to research, the 
     disclosure of which could affect the conduct or outcome of 
     the research, the likelihood of similar research in the 
     future, the ability to obtain patents or copyrights from the 
     research, or any other proprietary rights any entity may have 
     in the research or results of the research.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (iii) by inserting ``or'' after the comma; 
     and
       (B) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
       ``(iv) requires disclosure of data, records, or 
     information, including actual research documents, collected 
     or produced in the conduct of or as a result of study or 
     research on academic, commercial, scientific, or technical 
     issues, including--
       ``(I) unpublished lecture notes, unpublished research 
     notes, data, processes, results or other confidential 
     information from research which is in any progress, 
     unpublished or not yet verified, or
       ``(II) any other information related to research, the 
     disclosure of which could affect the conduct or outcome of 
     the research, the likelihood of similar research in the 
     future, the ability to obtain patents or copyrights from the 
     research, or any other proprietary rights any entity may have 
     in the research or the results of the research.''.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.

       Article V of the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended by 
     adding after rule 501 the following:

     ``Rule 502. Privilege for research information

       ``A person engaged in the study or research of academic, 
     commercial, scientific, or technical issues may claim the 
     privilege to refuse to disclose data, records, or 
     information, including actual research documents, concerning 
     that study or research. Such person may refuse to disclose 
     unpublished lecture notes, unpublished research notes, data, 
     processes, results, or other confidential information from 
     research which is in any progress, unpublished or not yet 
     verified, and any other information related to research, the 
     disclosure of which could affect the conduct or outcome of 
     the research, the likelihood of similar research in the 
     future, the ability to obtain patents or copyrights from the 
     research, or any other proprietary rights any entity may have 
     in the research or the results of the research.''.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT REGARDING DATA PRODUCED UNDER 
                   FEDERAL GRANTS AND AGREEMENTS AWARDED TO 
                   INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HOSPITALS, 
                   AND OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

       The fifth and sixth provisos under the subheading 
     ``salaries and expenses'' under the heading ``OFFICE OF 
     MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET'' under title III of the Treasury and 
     General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-
     277; 112 Stat. 2681-495) are repealed.

                          ____________________