[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21863-21870]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1593. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
provide bipartisan campaign reform; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


                 bipartisan campaign reform act of 1999

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

                                S. 1593

       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 ``Bipartisan Campaign Reform 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional campaign committee 
     of a political 
     
[[Page 21864]]     
     
     party) and any officers or agents of such 
     party committees, shall not solicit, receive, or direct to 
     another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of 
     funds, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to an 
     entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by a national committee of a 
     political party (including a national congressional campaign 
     committee of a political party), or an entity acting on 
     behalf of a national committee, and an officer or agent 
     acting on behalf of any such committee or entity.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amount that is expended or disbursed 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity) for Federal election activity shall be made from 
     funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot); and
       ``(iii) a communication that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a 
     candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or 
     identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is 
     express advocacy).
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) campaign activity conducted solely on behalf of a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, 
     provided the campaign activity is not a Federal election 
     activity described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated or used 
     to pay for a



     Federal election activity described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office;
       ``(v) the non-Federal share of a State, district, or local 
     party committee's administrative and overhead expenses (but 
     not including the compensation in any month of an individual 
     who spends more than 20 percent of the individual's time on 
     Federal election activity) as determined by a regulation 
     promulgated by the Commission to determine the non-Federal 
     share of a State, district, or local party committee's 
     administrative and overhead expenses; and
       ``(vi) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, district or local 
     committee.
       ``(C) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means an activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.
       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a national, 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party, by 
     an entity that is established, financed, maintained, or 
     controlled by a national, State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party, or by an agent or officer of any such 
     committee or entity, to raise funds that are used, in whole 
     or in part, to pay the costs of a Federal election activity 
     shall be made from funds subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party), an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national, 
     State, district, or local committee or its agent, and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee 
     or entity, shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct 
     any donations to, an organization that is described in 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (or 
     has submitted an application for determination of tax exempt 
     status under such section).
       ``(e) Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal 
     office, or an entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 
     one or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, 
     shall not--
       ``(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with an election for Federal office, including 
     funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act; or
       ``(B) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with any election other than an election for 
     Federal office or disburse funds in connection with such an 
     election unless the funds--
       ``(i) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with 
     respect to contributions to candidates and political 
     committees under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 315(a); 
     and
       ``(ii) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from 
     making contributions with respect to an election for Federal 
     office.
       ``(2) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds by an individual 
     who is a candidate for a State or local office in 
     connection with such election for State or local office if 
     the solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds is 
     permitted under State law for any activity other than a 
     Federal election activity.
       ``(3) Fundraising events.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a 
     candidate may attend, speak, or be a featured guest at a 
     fundraising event for a State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party.''.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES OF 
                   POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION 
                   LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political 
     Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.
       (b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000''.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Political Committees.--
       ``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The 
     national committee of a political party, any national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party, and 
     any subordinate committee of either, shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 323 
     applies.--In addition to any other reporting requirements 
     applicable under this Act, a political committee (not 
     described in paragraph (1)) to which section 323(b)(1) 
     applies shall report all receipts and disbursements made for 
     activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(v) of 
     section 323(b)(2).
       ``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts 
     or disbursements to which this subsection applies from any 
     person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year, 
     the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed 
     under this subsection shall be filed for the same time 
     periods required for political committees under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (b) Building Fund Exception to the Definition of 
     Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (viii); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xiv) as clauses 
     (viii) through (xiii), respectively.

     SEC. 5. CODIFICATION OF BECK DECISION.

       Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Nonunion Member Payments to Labor Organization.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be an unfair labor practice for 
     any labor organization which receives a payment from an 
     employee pursuant to an agreement that requires employees who 
     are not members of the organization to make payments to such 
     organization in lieu of organization dues or fees not to 
     establish and implement the objection procedure described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Objection procedure.--The objection procedure 
     required under paragraph (1) shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) The labor organization shall annually provide to 
     employees who are covered by such agreement but are not 
     members of the organization--
     
     
[[Page 21865]]     
     
       ``(i) reasonable personal notice of the objection 
     procedure, the employees eligible to invoke the procedure, 
     and the time, place, and manner for filing an objection; and
       ``(ii) reasonable opportunity to file an objection to 
     paying for organization expenditures supporting political 
     activities unrelated to collective bargaining, including but 
     not limited to the opportunity to file such objection by 
     mail.
       ``(B) If an employee who is not a member of the labor 
     organization files an objection under the procedure in 
     subparagraph (A), such organization shall--
       ``(i) reduce the payments in lieu of organization dues or 
     fees by such employee by an amount which reasonably reflects 
     the ratio that the organization's expenditures supporting 
     political activities unrelated to collective bargaining bears 
     to such organization's total expenditures; and
       ``(ii) provide such employee with a reasonable explanation 
     of the organization's calculation of such reduction, 
     including calculating the amount of organization expenditures 
     supporting political activities unrelated to collective 
     bargaining.
       ``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `expenditures supporting political activities unrelated to 
     collective bargaining' means expenditures in connection with 
     a Federal, State, or local election or in connection with 
     efforts to influence legislation unrelated to collective 
     bargaining.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Levin and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 1594. A bill to amend the Small Business Act and Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958; to the Committee on Small Business.


         community development and venture capital act of 1999

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the bill that I am sending to the desk is 
the Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999. I am pleased 
to share the introduction of this with Senators Wellstone, Bingaman, 
Sarbanes, Levin, and Cleland as cosponsors of it. This small business 
legislation is designed to promote economic development, business 
investment, productive wealth, and stable jobs in new markets.
  It establishes a New Markets Venture Capital program that is part of 
President Clinton's New Markets Initiative that he mentioned in the 
``State of the Union Address'' and promoted on a 4-day tour this 
summer.
  New Markets are our country's low- and moderate-income communities 
where there is little to no sustained economic activity but many 
overlooked business opportunities. According to Michael Porter, a 
respected business analyst who has written extensively on 
competitiveness, ``. . . inner



cities are the largest underserved market in America, with many tens of 
billions of dollars of unmet consumer and business demand.'' Many rural 
areas also contain low- and moderate-income communities.
  Think of the inner-city areas of Boston's Roxbury or New York's East 
Harlem, or the rural desolation of Kentucky's Appalachia or 
Mississippi's Delta region. These are our neediest communities--urban 
and rural pockets that are so depleted that no internal resource exists 
to jump start the economy. These are places where there have been 
multi-generations of unemployment and abandoned commercial centers and 
main streets.
  To get at this complex and deep-rooted economic problem, this 
legislation has three parts: a venture capital program to funnel 
investment money into our poorest communities, a program to expand the 
number of venture capital firms that are devoted to investing in such 
communities, and a mentoring program to link established, successful 
businesses with businesses and entrepreneurs in stagnant or 
deteriorating communities in order to facilitate the learning curve.
  The center piece is the New Markets Venture Capital Program. Its 
purpose is to stimulate economic development through public-private 
partnerships that invest venture capital in smaller businesses that are 
located in impoverished rural and urban areas or that employ low-income 
people.
  Both innovative and fiscally sound, this legislation creates a new 
venture capital program within the Small Business Administration that 
is built on two of the agency's most popular programs. It is 
financially structured similar to the Agency's successful Small 
Business Investment Company program, and incorporates a technical 
assistance component similar to that successfully used in SBA's 
microloan program.
  However, unlike the SBIC program which focuses solely on small 
businesses with high-growth potential and claims successes such as 
Staples and Calloway Golf, the New Markets Venture Capital program will 
focus on smaller businesses that show promise of financial and social 
returns--what we call a ``double bottomline.'' These businesses tend to 
be higher risk, need longer periods to pay back money, need intensive, 
ongoing financial, management and marketing assistance, and have more 
modest prospects for return on investment than SBIC investments. For 
example, the returns on investments typically range from five to ten 
percent for community development venture capital funds versus SBIC's 
expected 20 to 30 percent rates of returns.
  To balance out the equation, they also provide quality, stable jobs, 
create productive wealth in and among our neediest communities and need 
a smaller equity investment. Equity investments for community 
development investment funds will range from $50,000 to $300,000 versus 
the $300,000 to $5 million of typical deal sizes in the Agency's SBIC 
program.
  Among other conditions, in order for an organization to be eligible 
to participate and approved as a New Markets Venture Capital company, 
it must have a management team with experience in community development 
financing or venture capital financing, be able to raise at least $5 
million of non-SBA money for debentures, and raise matching funds for 
SBA's technical assistance grants.
  Community development venture capitalists, we should be reminded, use 
all the discipline of traditional venture capitalists.
  At the Small Business Committee roundtable we held in May on the 
Agency's SBIC program and other venture capital proposals, community 
development venture capital groups from Massachusetts to Minnesota to 
Kentucky talked about profit. Like traditional venture capital funds, 
community development funds have to make prudent investments to earn 
profits in order to attract and keep investors. But they balance that 
with social objectives. One of the most important social goals for 
Boston Community Venture Fund is job creation and job quality.
  Elyse Cherry, who is President of the Boston Community Venture Fund, 
invited me, former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and former 
Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II and others to tour a company her Fund 
invested in called City Fresh Foods. Located in Roxbury, one of 
Boston's neediest neighborhoods, Glynn and Sheldon Lloyd started a 
company that manufactures prepares African-American and Hispanic meals 
for the community and corporate clients. And through the Meals-on-
Wheels program, this company serves the elderly in Roxbury and 
Dorchester districts. In addition to providing a needed service, City 
Fresh Foods has created 20 jobs, hires from the community, pays its 
employees from $8 to $16 per hour, and offers training and opportunity 
for them to move from entry-level jobs to supervisory positions.
  There are more success stories like this around the country. The 
Community Development Venture Capital funds across the country have a 
proven track record in making smart, responsible investments in small 
businesses in their communities, but the capital needs of firms in 
economically distressed areas far outweigh the existing capacity of 
these organizations. Compared to the more than 1,143 traditional and 
SBIC venture capital firms in the U.S., only some 40 funds nationwide 
concentrate on investing in companies that show promise of financial 
and social returns. We simply need more community development venture 
capital funds to reach more of these underserved communities.
  The second component of this bill, the ``Community Development 
Venture Capital Assistance Program,'' recognizes that need and is 
designed to increase the number and expertise of 

[[Page 21866]]

community development venture capital funds, such as New Markets 
Venture Capital companies, around the country. A Community Development 
Venture Capital organization has a primary mission of promoting community 
development in low-income communities through investment in private businesses.
  Senator Wellstone has carried the water on community development 
venture capital concept and deserves special credit for educating the 
Small Business Committee about this important economic development 
tool. He introduced this initiative in March. It is virtually identical 
to the bill he introduced in the last Congress and passed the full 
Senate as part of a comprehensive small business bill, H.R. 3412.
  First, the Community Development Venture Capital Assistance program 
would authorize $15 million for SBA grants to private, nonprofit 
organizations with expertise in making venture capital investments in 
poor communities. These organizations would use these grants to provide 
hands-on technical assistance to spawn and develop new and emerging 
CDVC or NMVC companies. The intermediary organizations would match the 
grants dollar-for-dollar with non-Federal sources.
  Second, this program would provide $5 million in SBA grants to 
colleges, universities, and other firms or organizations--public or 
private--to create and operate training and intern programs, organize a 
national conference, and fund academic research and studies dealing 
with community development venture capital.
  Finally, to complement the venture capital investments and the 
program to foster the emergence and growth of more community 
development venture capital companies, this legislation would build on 
the BusinessLINC grant program. Already a successful public-private 
partnership that the SBA and Department of Treasury launched last June, 
it encourages larger businesses to mentor smaller businesses, enhancing 
the economic vitality and competitive capacity of small businesses 
located in the targeted areas. This Act will authorize $3 million a 
year to further promote and expand this program.
  It's easy to stare past the broken inner cities and boarded up rural 
towns to the intrigues and fantasies of a booming Wall Street, 
flourishing suburbs and record-low national unemployment. But as we 
trumpet the successes of our economy, we must be smart and leverage 
that prosperity to jumpstart and strengthen our communities that are 
struggling. This legislation aims to do just that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of 
support be printed in the Record.



  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Boston Community Capital,

                                        Boston, MA, July 16, 1999.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Small Business, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing to you as president of 
     Boston Community Venture Fund, an affiliate of Boston 
     Community Capital, and as a Board Member of the Community 
     Development Venture Capital Alliance (CDVCA), in strong 
     support of your leadership regarding the Administration's New 
     Markets Venture Capital legislative proposal. I appreciate 
     your positive public remarks concerning New Markets, 
     including at your Committee's recent ``roundtable.'' It is my 
     understanding that you plan to introduce the administration's 
     proposal soon, and I will be extremely pleased and proud to 
     have you as our leading advocate in the Senate. CDVCA has 
     worked closely with the Small Business Administration as they 
     have drafted their proposal, and I have enjoyed working with 
     Patty Forbes of your Small Business Committee staff, as well.
       As you know, a New Markets Venture Capital program would 
     help to direct private, equity financing to small, high-
     potential growth firms in economically distressed urban and 
     rural areas. As the nation's leading practitioners of 
     community development venture capitalism, the Alliance and 
     its member organizations have begun to establish a strong 
     record of effectively promoting such investment through what 
     we call social entrepreneurship--equity investing with a 
     ``double bottom-line'' mission of creating jobs and wealth 
     among economically disadvantaged populations.
       CDVCA strongly supported the Senate's action last year in 
     passing community development venture capital ``capacity-
     building'' legislation. Unfortunately, that effort, initiated 
     by Senator Wellstone, did not pass in the House before the 
     end of the last Congress. We continue to believe that 
     capacity-building assistance for the community development 
     venture capital field would be crucial to the success of a 
     New Markets program at SBA. We urge you to consider adding a 
     provision to incorporate this capacity-building, or 
     ``Wellstone,'' concept into any bill you might introduce.
       CDVCA also believes that a New Markets Venture Capital 
     program could be more workably and effectively targeted if 
     the Administration's discussion draft were modified. CDVCA's 
     member-organizations all have a primary mission of serving 
     low-income people. Indeed, we would prefer that such a 
     mission be a requirement for eligibility for applicants to 
     become New Markets Venture Capital companies in the bill. 
     However, even as our organizations pursue that mission, none 
     of our member-funds restricts itself to investing within 
     geographical bounds as narrow as those suggested by the 
     Administration. Serious pockets of poverty exist outside the 
     census tracts which are the primary basis for that 
     Administration proposal's geographical targeting. We have 
     provided your staff with suggestions for amending that 
     provision, and we would appreciate it if you could consider 
     such changes before introducing a bill.
       We strongly support the Administration's proposal, and we 
     are especially hopeful regarding its prospects for enactment 
     following the President's important recent tour of low-income 
     urban and rural communities. I look forward to continuing to 
     work with you and your office, and I hope you will feel free 
     to contact me or Bob Rapoza, who represents our Alliance in 
     Washington, should you have any questions. Bob's number is 
     292-393-5225.
       Thank you for your attention to this issue. I hope to be 
     discussing it further with you in the very near future.
           Sincerely,

                                              Elyse D. Cherry,

                                                        President,
     Boston Community Venture Fund.
                                  ____

                                               September 15, 1999.
       Dear Members of Congress: We urge you to support the 
     President's proposal for a ``New Markets Venture Capital 
     Companies'' program to be administered by the Small Business 
     Administration. The program would help establish 10-20 new 
     venture capital investment funds with a mission of creating 
     good jobs and new businesses in economically distressed 
     communities across America.
       The remarkable prosperity now enjoyed by much of the 
     country unfortunately is leaving large numbers of Americans 
     behind. One reason is lack in many urban and rural 
     communities of the needed equity capital and technical 
     assistance which are key to starting and expanding new 
     businesses.
       An emerging industry of community development venture 
     capitalists is addressing this need. Committed to a ``double 
     bottom-line'' of rigorously promoting profit-making growth 
     companies while also creating large numbers of good jobs in 
     low-income communities, these funds have demonstrated 
     impressive results. The same model of business development 
     that has driven economic expansion in the Silicon Valley and 
     Route 128 in Massachusetts, coupled with a focus on poor 
     communities and job creation, is beginning to make a powerful 
     difference in areas such as rural Appalachia, Minnesota's 
     Iron Range, inner-city Baltimore, Boston and elsewhere.
       We need to build on the success of this grassroots model to 
     help ensure that all of America's communities have a chance 
     to participate in current growth. A modest public investment, 
     leveraging significant private capital, would yield 
     tremendous national benefits.
       The Administration's proposal is contained in the 
     President's FY 2000 budget request. Bills to be introduced by 
     Senator John Kerry and Representative Nydia Velazquez, the 
     Ranking Members of their respective Small Business 
     Committees, faithfully embody the same concept. We are very 
     hopeful that this idea, grounded in local self-help 
     principles and targeted to where it is most needed, can be 
     enacted as a bipartisan legislative accomplishment.
       A New Markets Venture Capital program would allow 
     participating funds to issue SBA-guaranteed debentures for 
     urgently needed equity capital and to receive matching 
     technical assistance grants to allow the intensive, hands-on 
     management and direction which is key to the success of 
     community development venture capital. A $45-million Federal 
     investment would match other sources on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis and be directed over 10 years to generate hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in economic activity.
       All this would take place in communities that currently 
     have the most trouble attracting private investment, despite 
     numerous potential business opportunities with good returns 
     and outstanding social benefits. Participation would be on a 
     competitive basis and geared toward funds with a combination 
     of a strong financial track record 
     
[[Page 21867]]     
     
     and a mission of community 
     development. The program would be community-based to meet the 
     specific needs of each area in which it operates.
       Community development venture capital funds are proving 
     that the tools of venture capital can fuel business creation 
     and expansion, create good jobs and improve the lives of 
     people in low-income communities. We hope you can give a 
     boost to this extremely promising new tool for genuine 
     economic development by supporting and passing New Markets 
     Venture Capital legislation this year.
           Sincerely,
     African-American Venture Capital Fund, LLC, Louisville, KY
     Alternatives Federal Credit Union, Ithaca, NY
     Appalachian Center for Economic Networks, Athens, OH
     Arkansas Enterprise Group, Arkadelphia, AR
     Association for Enterprise Opportunity, Chicago, IL
     Banc of America SBIC Corporation, Charlotte, NC
     Bank One, Chicago, IL
     Boston Community Capital, Boston, MA
     Carras Community Investment, Inc, Fort Lauderdale, FL
     Cascadia Revolving Fund, Seattle, WA
     CDFI Coalition, Philadelphia, PA
     CEI Ventures, Inc, Portland, ME
     Center for Community Self-Help, Durham, NC
     Commons Capital, Nantucket, MA
     Community Loan Fund of Southwestern Pennsylvania, Inc, 
         Pittsburgh, PA
     Development Corporation of Austin, Austin, MN
     DVCRF Ventures, Philadelphia, PA
     Enterprise Corporation of the Delta, Jackson, MS
     Enterprise Foundation, Columbia, MD
     First Nations Development Institute, Fredericksburg, VA
     Gulf South Capital, Inc, Jackson, MS
     Illinois Facilities Fund, Chicago, IL
     Impact Seven, Inc, Almena, WI
     Intrust USA, Wilmington, DE
     J.P. Morgan Community Development Corporation, New York, NY
     Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation, London, KY
     Karen H. Lightman, Senior Policy Associate, Carnegie Mellon 
         University Center for Economic Development, Pittsburgh, 
         PA
     Local Economic Assistance Program, Inc, Oakland, CA
     LEAP, Inc, Brooklyn, NY
     Millennium Fund, LLC, Seattle, WA
     Minnesota Investment Network Corporation, Minneapolis MN
     Mountain Ventures, Inc, London, KY
     MSBDFA Management Group, Inc, Baltimore, MD
     National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders, 
         Washington, DC
     National Community Capital Association, Philadelphia, PA
     National Congress for Community Economic Development, 
         Washington, DC
     National Cooperative Bank Development Corporation, 
         Washington, DC
     National Council of LaRaza, Washington, DC
     New York City Investment Fund, New York, NY
     New York Community Investment Company L.L.C. New York, NY
     Northern Community Investment Corporation, St. Johnsbury, VT
     Northern Initiatives, Marquette, MI
     Northeast Ventures Corporation, Duluth, MN
     Pioneer Human Services, Seattle, WA
     Resources for Human Development, Philadelphia, PA
     The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund, San Francisco, CA
     Rural Development & Finance Corp, San Antonio, TX



     Silicon Valley Community Ventures, San Francisco, CA
     Southern Development Bank, Arkadelphia, AR
     Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development Board, 
         Salamanca, NY
     Sustainable Jobs Fund, Durham, NC
     Woodstock Institute, Chicago, IL
     Vermont Community Loan Fund, Inc, Montpelier, VT
     Virgin Islands Capital Resources, Inc, St. Thomas, USVI
                                  ____



                                           Northeast Ventures,

                                   Duluth, MN, September 16, 1999.
     Senator John F. Kerry,
     Small Business Committee/Democratic Staff, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing in support of the New 
     Markets Venture Capital bill, which I understand you are 
     introducing today. I serve as chair and chief executive 
     officer of Northeast Ventures, a $12 million community 
     development venture capital firm investing in northeastern 
     Minnesota, a restructured iron mining area of the country. 
     Over the last ten years, we have invested almost $10 million 
     in 21 growth companies which would not exist but for the 
     presence of our equity capital. We apply market disciplines 
     along side a frankly stated social purpose of intervening in 
     this distressed area.
       I also serve as chair of the Community Development Venture 
     Capital Alliance, a national alliance of community 
     development venture capital funds. We have 40 funds 
     throughout the United States and eastern Europe. All these 
     funds have a mission of poverty alleviation through the 
     disciplined use of venture capital in distressed areas and 
     among distressed populations.
       The New Markets Venture Capital legislation has the 
     potential of providing significant additional funding and 
     catalyzing the creation of a significant number of new funds 
     for this important purpose.
       We thank you very much for your support. Nothing could be 
     more important than job and wealth creation in the most 
     distressed urban and rural areas of our country.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                       Nick Smith,
                                                         Chairman.

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, we have spent a lot of time in 
the Senate praising the booming American economy and low unemployment 
rates. I, like the rest of the colleagues, am proud to see our country 
benefitting from such prosperity, but all Americans are not 
participating in these benefits.
  In reality, Americans that live in low income areas, either in cities 
or rural areas, are not experiencing today's prosperity. This is 
largely because they do not have the economic infrastructure in their 
communities to take advantage of it. Poor communities frequently lack 
local businesses to employ residents and provide services, creating no 
point of entrance for participation in the larger American economy.
  It is for these reasons that I am co-sponsoring the Community 
Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999 introduced by Senator 
Kerry. This legislation is part of President Clinton's New market 
Initiatives Proposal. As my colleagues know, I have already introduced 
America's Private Investment Companies Act of 1999, or APIC, which is 
another part of the New Market initiative.
  The Community Development and Venture Capital Act makes a three 
pronged effort to infuse capital into distressed communities, and 
establish small businesses in our nations most needy neighborhoods. 
First, the bill will use federal money to leverage private funding for 
venture capital companies with a commitment to community development, 
referred to as New market Venture Capital Companies (NMVC). This will 
help to nurture new businesses in poor areas. The companies funding by 
this bill will function much like the successful SBIC program that the 
Small Business Administration sponsors, but will focus on businesses in 
targeted neighborhoods that need more patient, long term capital 
funding, and added technical assistance to ensure success.
  Furthermore, the bill will increase the number of community 
development venture capital funds so that more communities can be 
served by the program and expand the successful business mentoring 
program, BusinessLINC, already in place.
  I have long argued that the best social policy is a job. This 
legislation, combined with the APIC bill and the New markets Tax Credit 
introduced by Senator Rockefeller, will be a catalyst to the creation 
of new businesses and the jobs and economic opportunities they bring in 
those areas most in need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY:
  S. 1597. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
enhanced tax incentives for charitable giving, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


         enhanced incentives for charitable giving act of 1999

 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today 
to provide enhanced incentives for charitable giving.
  I very much believe that we ought to do what we can to encourage 
those who are doing so well in this economy to give generously to 
organizations who serve those who have been left behind in these 
prosperous times. I worked to have a number of charitable giving 
provisions included in the Senate version of the tax bill we passed 
earlier this year and was delighted that those provisions were included 
in that bill. Regrettably these provisions were deleted from the final 
version of the tax bill, something which contributed to my decision to 
vote against the conference 


[[Page 21868]]

report on that bill. The bill I am introducing today is a stand-alone 
version of the charitable giving provisions that I was proud to have 
worked to include in the Senate version of the tax bill.
  The purpose of this bill is simple: to provide powerful incentives 
for those who have more to give to those who have less.
  The first provision in this bill would allow taxpayers some extra 
time to decide to make donations to low-income schools in a given tax 
year. Under current law individuals can already take charitable 
deductions for contributions to public and private schools. Clearly, 
wealthier schools, where parents have the resources to make these 
contributions, benefit most from this tax treatment.
  What this provision attempts to do is highlight the fact that a 
charitable deduction can be taken for these types of donations 
generally while providing an incentive for giving to low-income private 
and public schools in particular. Since the parents in these schools 
are low-income, this provision is not aimed at getting them to give--it 
is aimed at getting taxpayers outside of these low-income schools to 
help the children in those schools. Wealthier public and private 
schools already get these contributions, this provision attempts to get 
some contributions going to schools where more than half of the 
children are economically disadvantaged.
  This provision tracks the way we allow contributions to Individual 
Retirement Accounts, IRAs, to be made. Under current law, taxpayers can 
make contributions to an IRA up until the date their taxes are due--
April 15--and still have those contributions qualify for the previous 
taxable year. This provision would simply allow contributions to low 
income elementary and secondary schools to be made up until April 15--
thereby highlighting and encouraging taxpayers to make these 
contributions.
  The second provision in this bill allows taxpayers who do not itemize 
their deductions, to take a small deduction for charitable 
contributions. Across the country, seventy-three percent of all 
taxpayers do not itemize and therefore are not able to take a 
charitable deduction. In Nebraska, that number is even higher, a full 
seventy-eight percent of Nebraska's taxpayers do not itemize. This bill 
would allow a single taxpayer who does not itemize a $50 deduction and 
taxpayers filing jointly a $100 charitable deduction. While this 
provision may not cover all of the charitable giving that these 
individuals and families make, it recognizes and encourages 
charitable giving by people who may not give a million dollars, but 
give donations that are meaningful nonetheless to good causes like 
their church or synagogue, or their children's PTA, or the Girl Scouts 
or the Salvation Army. We ought to encourage that giving and provide a 
small incentive to do so. That is the purpose behind this provision.

  The legislation I am introducing today also raises the percentage 
amount of income that an individual may deduct in a given year from 50 
percent of their adjusted gross income to 75 percent. It also raises 
the limits on gifts of capital gain property to charities from 30 
percent to 50 percent. In



addition, this bill increases the corporate charitable deduction limit 
from 10 to 20 percent of taxable income.
  These provisions are designed to encourage those who give a lot, to 
give even more. While I recognize that those who receive these tax 
benefits are apt to be higher-income taxpayers, I also recognize that 
the charities that will receive these increased donations are apt to 
use these donations to help low-income individuals. In short, I'm not 
overly troubled by distributional tables on a policy which will induce 
those with more to give to those who need help the most.
  And finally, this bill contains an important reform of what is known 
as the excess business holdings rule. That rule limits the ability of a 
private foundation to hold more than twenty percent of a corporation's 
voting stock for more than five years. At present, I believe this rule 
discourages potential donors with major stockholdings in publicly-trade 
corporate stock from making significant contributions of these holdings 
to charitable foundations. This is just the opposite of what we should 
be doing, particularly at a time when we are expecting more, not less, 
from organizations with charitable purposes. The proposal I have 
included in this bill would allow private foundations to increase their 
holding in publicly traded stock of a corporation received by bequest 
from 20 percent to 49 percent.
  Taken together I believe these proposals do much to encourage people 
to give more. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and hope 
that it will be included in any broad tax legislation that we consider.
  I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1597

       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 ``Enhanced Incentives for 
     Charitable Giving Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN LOW INCOME 
                   SCHOOLS MAY BE MADE IN NEXT TAXABLE YEAR.

       (a) In General.--Section 170(f) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to disallowance of deduction in 
     certain cases and special rules) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Time when certain contributions deemed made.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the election of the taxpayer, a 
     qualified low-income school contribution shall be deemed to 
     be made on the last day of the preceding taxable year if the 
     contribution is made on account of such taxable year and is 
     made not later than the time prescribed by law for filing the 
     return for such taxable year (not including extensions 
     thereof). The election may be made at the time of the filing 
     of the return for such table year, and shall be made and 
     substantiated in such manner as the Secretary shall by 
     regulations prescribe.
       ``(B) Qualified low-income school contribution.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `qualified low-income 
     school contribution' means a charitable contribution to an 
     educational organization described in subsection 
     (b)(1)(A)(ii)--
       ``(i) which is a public, private, or sectarian school which 
     provides elementary or secondary education (through grade 
     12), as determined under State law, and
       ``(ii) with respect to which at least 50 percent of the 
     students attending such school are eligible for free or 
     reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program 
     established under the National School Lunch Act.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.

     SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR PORTION OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
                   BE ALLOWED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ITEMIZE 
                   DEDUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to charitable, etc., contributions and 
     gifts) is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as 
     subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(m) Deduction for Individuals Not Itemizing Deductions.--
     In the case of an individual who does not itemize his 
     deductions for the taxable year, there shall be taken into 
     account as a direct charitable deduction under section 63 an 
     amount equal to the lesser of--
       ``(1) the amount allowable as a deduction under subsection 
     (a) for the taxable year, or
       ``(2) $50 ($100 in the case of a joint return).''.
       (b) Direct Charitable Deduction.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 63 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''.
       (2) Definition.--Section 63 of such Code is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by 
     inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Direct Charitable Deduction.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `direct charitable deduction' means that 
     portion of the amount allowable under section 170(a) which is 
     taken as a direct charitable deduction for the taxable year 
     under section 170(m).''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 63 of 
     such Code is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.

     SEC. 4. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AS 
                   PERCENTAGE OF AGI.

       (a) In General.--
       
[[Page 21869]]       
       
       (1) Individual limit.--Section 170(b)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to percentage limitations) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``50 percent'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``the 75 percent'', and
       (B) by striking ``30 percent'' each place it appears in 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting ``50 percent''.
       (2) Corporate limit.--Section 170(b)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``10 percent'' and inserting ``20 
     percent''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 170(d)(1)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``50 
     percent'' each place it appears and inserting ``75 percent''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.

     SEC. 5. LIMITED EXCEPTION TO EXCESS BUSINESS HOLDINGS RULE.

       (a) In General.--Section 4943(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to permitted holdings in a 
     corporation) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Rule where voting stock is publicly traded.--
       ``(i) In general.--If--

       ``(I) the private foundation and all disqualified persons 
     together do not own more than the 49 percent of the voting 
     stock and not more than the 49 percent in value of all 
     outstanding shares of all classes of stock of an incorporated 
     business enterprise,
       ``(II) the voting stock owned by the private foundation and 
     all disqualified persons together is stock for which market 
     quotations are readily available on an established securities 
     market, and
       ``(III) the requirements of clause (ii) are met,

     then subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting `49 
     percent' for `20 percent'.
       ``(ii) Requirements to be met.--The requirements of this 
     clause are met during any taxable year--

       ``(I) in which disqualified persons with respect to the 
     private foundation do not receive compensation (as an 
     employee or otherwise) from the corporation or engage in any 
     act with such corporation which would constitute self-dealing 
     within the meaning of section 4941(d) if such corporation 
     were a private foundation and if each such disqualified 
     person were a disqualified person with respect to such 
     corporation,
       ``(II) in which disqualified persons with respect to such 
     private foundation do not own in the aggregate more than 2 
     percent of the voting stock and not more than 2 percent in 
     value of all outstanding shares of all classes of stock in 
     such corporation, and
       ``(III) for which there is submitted with the annual return 
     of the private foundation for such year (filed within the 
     time prescribed by law, including extensions, for filing such 
     return) a certification which is signed by all the members of 
     an audit committee of the Board of Directors of such 
     corporation consisting of a majority of persons who are not 
     disqualified persons with respect to such private foundation 
     and which certifies that such members, after due inquiry, are 
     not aware that any disqualified person has received 
     compensation from such corporation or has engaged in any act 
     with such corporation that would constitute self-dealing 
     within the meaning of section 4941(d) if such corporation 
     were a private foundation and if each such disqualified 
     person were a disqualified person with respect to such 
     corporation.

     For purposes of this clause, the fact that a disqualified 
     person has received compensation from such corporation or has 
     engaged in any act with such corporation which would 
     constitute self-dealing within the meaning of section 4941(d) 
     shall be disregarded if such receipt or act is corrected not 
     later than the due date (not including extensions thereof) 
     for the filing of the private foundation's annual return for 
     the year in which the receipt or act occurs and on the terms 
     that would be necessary to correct such receipt or act and 
     thereby avoid imposition of tax under section 4941(b).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to foundations established by bequest of 
     decedents dying after December 31, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):



  S. 1599. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or 
exchange all or part of certain administrative sites and other land in 
the Black Hills National Forest and to use funds derived from the sale 
or exchange to acquire replacement sites and to acquire or construct 
administrative improvements in connection with Black Hills National 
Forest; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                Black Hills National Forest Legislation

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
authorize the Black Hills National Forest to sell or exchange property 
it owns in order to acquire new property for the purpose of 
constructing two new district offices for the forest. The legislation 
is cosponsored by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson.
  On February 27, 1998, the Forest Service approved the consolidation 
of the Black Hills National Forest's seven Ranger Districts into four 
districts. As a result, the Pactola/Harney and Spearfish/Nemo Ranger 
Districts are each currently managed by one District Ranger, but 
utilize two offices each. Combining these four separate offices into 
two district offices would save money in the long-term, be more 
efficient, and ensure good customer service for users of the forest.
  One of the new district offices would be located on federally-owned 
property in Spearfish Canyon and house the Spearfish/Nemo Ranger 
District employees. The other new district office would be located on 
property to be procured near Rapid City, and would house the Pactola/
Harney Ranger District and the Rapid City Research Station employees.
  It is important to note that this legislation is particularly 
necessary given the extraordinarily poor working conditions experienced 
by the employees of the Rapid City Research Station. Their building is 
literally falling apart and fails to meet basic safety standards. In 
fact, due to a lack of proper ventilation and a failure to meet fire 
codes, the fire marshal has prohibited the research station from 
carrying out any of the chemical analysis critical to its mission. As a 
result, that work must be contracted out, using funds that could more 
appropriately be spent elsewhere.
  Much of the resources necessary for the implementation of this 
legislation can be gained by selling property that will be made 
unnecessary by the construction of the new offices. However, the 
legislation does authorize any additional funds that may be necessary 
to complete this important project.
  I have worked carefully with the Forest Service to develop this 
legislation. I believe it is a sensible and efficient way to ensure 
that the agency can meet the needs of the public. I urge my colleagues 
to give it their support.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 1601. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
exclude small rural providers from the prospective payment system for 
hospital outpatient department services; to the Committee on Finance.


                    small rural provider act of 1999

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Rural 
Provider Act of 1999.
  Small, rural hospitals have always played a vital role in ensuring 
access to quality health care. Today, rural hospitals are as important 
as ever. Half of all American hospitals are in rural areas, and these 
institutions account for fully one-quarter of the hospital beds in our 
country. And rural hospitals across America are expanding and improving 
their services, from disease prevention to rehabilitation to outpatient 
surgery.
  But if the outpatient prospective payment system (PPS) goes into 
effect as currently proposed, rural hospitals in Montana and across the 
nation will lose millions of dollars in Medicare payments each year. 
Some of our smallest hospitals--the ones we should be supporting the 
most--will lose more than half of their current payments. That's just 
not right, and we should pass legislation to fix it.
  Why does the outpatient PPS pose such a threat to small, rural 
hospitals? As you know, Mr. President, instead of reimbursing hospitals 
for the actual costs that they incur, a PPS would pay hospitals on a 
fixed, limited rate. That might make sense for a large hospital in 
Chicago or New York City that sees thousands of patients every day. But 
it doesn't make sense for a small hospital that doesn't enjoy the same 
economies of scale. It certainly doesn't make sense for Madison Valley 
Hospital, in Ennis, Montana, which would face an estimated 62.6 percent 
cut in outpatient payments under PPS.
  Mr. President, how can small, rural hospitals, already struggling to 
improve their services with limited funds, survive and operate with 
half as much money? How can hospitals that rely on Medicare patients 
for most of their revenue endure a 50 percent pay-cut? The simple 
answer is: they cannot.

[[Page 21870]]

  And let's remember, Mr. President, many of these hospitals are home 
to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health agencies (HHAs). 
These are the same SNFs and HHAs that have already been harmed by new 
prospective payment systems of their own.
  This is a very simple bill. It would allow small, rural hospitals to 
opt out of the outpatient PPS. Without this bill, hospitals all across 
rural America will face devastating shortfalls in the coming year--and 
the quality of our country's health care will suffer. With this bill, 
the small hospitals that serve rural Americans throughout the nation 
can continue to improve the quality of their services.
  Passing this bill is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1601

       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 ``Small Rural Provider Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF SMALL RURAL PROVIDERS FROM PPS FOR 
                   HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``For purposes of 
     this'' and inserting ``Subject to subparagraph (C), for 
     purposes of this''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Exclusion for services furnished by small rural 
     providers.--The term `covered OPD services' does not include 
     services furnished by a--
       ``(i) medicare-dependent, small rural hospital, as defined 
     in section 1886(d)(5)(G)(iv);
       ``(ii) a critical access hospital, as defined in section 
     1861(mm)(1);
       ``(iii) sole community hospital, as defined in section 
     1886(d)(5)(D)(iii); or
       ``(iv) a hospital (determined as of the date of enactment 
     of the Small Rural Provider Act of 1999) that--
       ``(I) has less than 50 beds; and
       ``(II) performed less than 5,000 outpatient procedures 
     during the 12-month period ending on such date;
     if such hospital, within the 180-day period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of the Small Rural Provider Act of 1999, 
     requests the Secretary to exclude services furnished by such 
     hospital from the prospective payment system established 
     under this subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

                          ____________________