[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6428-6447]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Levin, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Abraham, 
        Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
        Burns, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 791. A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the 
women's business center program; to the Committee on Small Business.


          women's business centers sustainability act of 1999

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the 
Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999, and I do so on 
behalf of myself and Senators Bond, Harkin, Bingaman, Levin, Enzi, 
Domenici, Abraham, Sarbanes, Akaka, Kennedy, Edwards, Feinstein, 
Landrieu, Boxer, Cleland, Kohl, Wellstone, Burns, and Leahy.
  As the title suggests, this bill addresses the funding constraints 
that are making it increasingly difficult for our women's business 
centers to sustain the level of services that they currently provide 
and, in some instances, to literally keep the doors open.
  Some colleagues may ask the question, What is the Women's Business 
Center Program? The Small Business Administration started the Women's 
Business Center Program which provides 5-year grants matched by non-
Federal dollars to private sector organizations so that they can 
establish business training centers for women. Depending on the needs 
of the community being served, the centers teach women the basic 
principles of finance, management, and marketing, as well as 
specialized topics such as how to get a government contract or how to 
start a home-based business.
  These business centers are located in rural, urban, and suburban 
areas, and they direct much of their training and counseling assistance 
towards socially and economically disadvantaged women.
  I might add, Mr. President, of all the changes in the social 
structure of the United States or in the marketplace in the last years, 
none has been more profound than the significant numbers of women 
entering the marketplace. As more and more women enter the marketplace 
and they assume roles as principal breadwinners or sole breadwinners 
within some families, it is more and more important that they have the 
capacity to participate fully in the economy and not be relegated 
simply to entry-level jobs.
  Congress started this program in 1988 in response to hearings that 
revealed the Federal Government was not meeting the needs of women 
entrepreneurs and that there were very little other mechanisms for 
entry-level women entrepreneurs. Women faced particular discrimination 
in access to credit and capital, and they were shut out of many 
government contracts and had very little access to the kind of business 
assistance that they needed to compete in the marketplace. We have 
really come a long way since that first beginning. There are now 59 
centers in 36 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
  In addition to increasing self-sufficiency among women, the women's 
business centers have strengthened women business ownership overall and 
encouraged local job creation.
  The numbers really tell a remarkable story, Mr. President. In 1998, 
women-owned businesses made up more than

[[Page 6429]]

one-third of the 23 million small businesses in the United States. They 
have accounted for some $3 trillion in annual revenues to the economy, 
and they employed one out of every four workers in the United States.
  Still, according to the data from the 1998 Women's Economic Summit, 
women-owned businesses account for only 18 percent of all small 
business gross receipts, and they are dramatically underrepresented in 
the Nation's two most lucrative markets--corporate buying and 
government contracting.
  This really underscores significantly the problem that I talked about 
a moment ago of entry-level jobs and of the nature of the small, 
entrepreneurial, home-grown, cottage-industry-type businesses that 
women begin with, which often could be grown significantly into larger 
businesses but for the lack of credit, the lack of available marketing 
skills, and the lack of management skills. Clearly, the need for 
women's business centers continues, and this is no time for us to 
diminish or to dismantle the infrastructure that the federal government 
has invested in for the past decade.
  Addressing the special needs of women-owned businesses serves not 
just the entrepreneurs, but it serves the overall strength of 
communities, as well as the economy of the whole of our country. 
Women's business centers help increase the growth, not just of women's 
businesses, but also of the large network of support businesses that 
are linked and affiliated with them, as well as, obviously, the general 
economy and the local community associated with those businesses.
  There are many extraordinarily run centers around the country. Let me 
highlight two of them--one in New Mexico and one in Massachusetts. I 
know my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Domenici, are particularly 
proud of the one in their home State. I am very proud of one in 
Massachusetts which has been a model women's business center. It is the 
Center of Women & Enterprise in Boston. Since 1995, that center has 
served more than 2,000 women from more than 100 cities and towns in 
eastern Massachusetts. Of the women it serves every year, 60 percent 
are low-income, 70 percent are single, and 32 percent are women of 
color.
  Andrea Silbert is the tireless executive director of that center. She 
has effectively raised money, forged partnerships, and designed 
thorough training and mentoring programs to help women entrepreneurs.
  When the Boston women's business center trains an entrepreneur, that 
entrepreneur then knows how to approach a lender for a loan, knows how 
to manage her business, and understands the ins and outs and hows and 
whys of marketing.
  But notwithstanding the success of these several women's business 
centers, the fact is that a number of them around the country are 
facing increased difficulty in raising the required matching funds.
  There are some people who think the centers should charge higher 
fees. And they might think so, until you examine the makeup of the 
people who are being reached by the centers. We were privileged to have 
a person by the name of Agnes Noonan, who has spent the last 8 years as 
the executive director of WESST Corporation, the women's business 
center in Albuquerque, NM, testify before us in the Small Business 
Committee. As she testified in March, during her first couple of years 
running the center, her view was that there was a very simple way to 
deal with the problem of raising money, and that was to do a better job 
of marketing the center's services to women who could afford to pay 
higher fees. That would increase the center's income, and it would 
reduce its reliance on public dollars.
  But the problem is that the minute you do that, you start redirecting 
the energy and focus of the center away from the people who most 
benefit from it. And that is precisely what she told us as a 
practitioner. She said:

       Though [such a] strategy may have made economic sense, it 
     conflicted directly with our mission of serving low-income 
     women. . . . If we were to target our services to women who 
     could afford to pay market consulting and training rates, 
     then we would clearly not be addressing the needs of low-
     income women in New Mexico.

  She also gave us important information about the realities of 
fundraising:

       Nationally, only six percent of foundation money is 
     earmarked for women, and only a tiny portion of that goes to 
     women's economic development.

  So as she said to us, the executive directors of women's business 
centers are very experienced fundraisers. Lori Smith of the WBC in 
Oklahoma City said before the House Small Business Committee that she 
thought she could sell sand in the desert. She viewed herself as good a 
fundraiser and as good a salesperson as there is, but she also said 
that competition for foundation- and private-sector dollars has become 
so intense and those dollars so much scarcer with each year that 
Government funding has diminished. And they do not have anywhere to 
turn.
  In addition to that, bank mergers are occurring, as we know, at an 
increased rate around the country. And those mergers are further 
exacerbating the situation because the banks have been a primary source 
of funds for many of these centers.
  Take the example of the recently announced bank merger in Boston of 
Fleet Bank and BankBoston. Those banks separately have been very 
generous to the women's business center in Boston. Their combined 
contribution came to $150,000. But we have serious concerns that their 
full support continue, and not reduce as we have seen in other States, 
where the merged institutions rarely give the same amount of money as 
the two or three, or whatever number, that the prior institutions 
contributed. So we have seen a drying up of some of the funding 
sources, I might add, not just for the women's business centers but for 
a host of charitable institutions that rely on those contributions.
  So for many of the centers, they now have the added specter of losing 
their annual base of money. We need to guarantee that we do not add to 
that ominous cloud by having the base that came from the SBA also 
disappear at the same time when they come to the end of the original 5-
year grant cycle. That money is their basic bread and butter, it is 
their ability to stay alive, as well as the indispensable ingredient of 
leveraging for additional fundraising dollars.
  I believe, and the colleagues who have joined me in introducing this 
legislation believe, that it is essential for us to find a fair way to 
let the women's business centers recompete for their base funding. That 
is competition; it is not entitlement.
  So here is how the legislation we introduce gets us there.
  First, it allows the women's business centers which have completed a 
funding term to compete for another 5 years of Federal funding, which, 
under current policy, would be up to $150,000 per year. The 
recompetition standards would be higher than those needed for centers 
applying for funds for their initial 5-year funding term. This 
recognizes that more experienced centers ought to be able to perform 
well from the beginning of their second term funding; they have been 
through the learning curve. And I believe this additional Federal 
funding is necessary to counteract the adverse impact of bank and 
corporate mergers I mentioned previously.
  Second, my bill will raise the authorization of appropriations for 
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 for women's business center 
funding from $11 million to $12 million per year. It will also reserve 
40 percent of those appropriations for recompetition grants.
  I believe that increasing the authorization to $12 million is 
entirely consistent with the legislation which our committee passed 
last year, and it would ensure that there would be adequate funding to 
preserve effective, established centers and to help fund new centers in 
States that do not have one.
  Mr. President, I thank those colleagues who have joined me in this 
effort. I hope additional colleagues will join in support of this 
legislation and we can rapidly pass it. It should not be contentious. 
We are not talking about vast sums of money, but we are talking about 
an extraordinary amount of leverage for a very small investment.

[[Page 6430]]

  I think that in most States in this country my colleagues will agree 
with me that opening the doors of opportunity to full business 
ownership and participation, particularly to those who have been 
disadvantaged for various reasons, is of enormous importance to the 
longer term economic well-being of our country. And when I say ``well-
being,'' I am not just talking about the bottom line in terms of the 
return on investment to those businesses, I am talking, obviously, 
about the enormous importance of strengthening families, strengthening 
communities, and eliminating the vestiges of discrimination that remain 
against women in terms of their full economic participation in the 
Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Women's Business 
Centers Sustainability Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 791

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Business Centers 
     Sustainability Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTER PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 656) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Eligibility For Additional Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a private 
     organization that has received financial assistance under 
     this section pursuant to a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement, and that is in the final year of a 5-year project 
     or that has completed a project financed under this section 
     (or any predecessor to this section), may apply for financial 
     assistance for an additional 5-year project under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Conditions for participation.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this section, as a condition of receiving 
     financial assistance authorized by this subsection, an 
     organization described in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall meet such requirements as the Administration 
     shall establish to promote the viability and success of the 
     program under this section, in addition to the requirements 
     set forth in this section; and
       ``(B) shall agree to obtain, after its application has been 
     approved and notice of award has been issued, cash 
     contributions from non-Federal sources for each year of 
     additional program participation in an amount equal to 1 non-
     Federal dollar for each Federal dollar.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 29(k) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(k)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 to carry 
     out the projects authorized under this section, of which, in 
     each fiscal year, not more than 40 percent may be used to 
     carry out projects funded under subsection (l).''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. This 
legislation will strengthen SBA's women's business centers in Michigan 
and across the Nation which help entrepreneurs start and maintain 
successful businesses by providing such things as start-up help and 
financial expertise to women-owned businesses. This legislation will 
allow those women's business centers that are already successfully 
participating in the program to recompete for Federal funding after 
their initial funding term expires.
  Under this legislation, the recompetition standards would be set 
higher than those used for centers applying for their initial five-year 
funding term. The ability of established and successful women's 
business development centers to continue to compete for Federal funding 
means that critical resources will continue to be made available for 
women-owned businesses for such purposes as training and obtaining 
business financing.
  Women-owned businesses are the fastest growing sector of small 
businesses in America and provide innumerable jobs and resources to the 
state of Michigan. Michigan has two women's business centers, the 
Center for Empowerment and Economic Development (CEED) in Ann Arbor and 
the Grand Rapids Opportunities for Women (GROW) in Grand Rapids. We 
also have Project Invest in Traverse City which is a women's business 
center affiliate. In addition, a Center is currently being set up in 
Detroit.
  These Michigan programs offer women a comprehensive package of 
business education and training, start-up financing, technical 
assistance, peer group support and access to community and government 
supportive resources such as child care. Michigan's women's business 
centers are supportive of this legislation and believe it is necessary 
in order for them to continue to be able to offer the current levels of 
services and support to Michigan's women-owned businesses.
  I am pleased that Congress has recognized the importance of funding 
the women's business center program. In 1997, Congress enacted 
legislation to make the 1991 pilot project a permanent part of the 
Small Business Administration programs available to help entrepreneurs 
start and maintain successful business. It also doubled the annual 
funding of the women's business centers and extended the funding period 
from 3 to 5 years. And just this year, Congress enacted legislation to 
change the non-Federal and Federal funding ratio requirements and it 
again increased the annual authorization level from $8 million to $11 
million.
  The legislation being introduced today by my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, in addition to allowing existing women's 
business centers to compete for additional Federal funding, will also 
increase the authorized appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal 
year 2001 from $11 million to $12 million for this program.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I strongly support the Women's Business Centers 
Sustainability Act of 1999. Its goal is to provide disadvantaged women 
with the opportunity to obtain the training and counseling necessary to 
become successful small business owners.
  Today, the Nation's entrepreneurial spirit is thriving. Small 
business has become the engine that drives the economy. America's 23 
million small businesses employ more than 50 percent of the private 
workforce, generate more than half of the nation's gross domestic 
product, and are the principal source of new jobs in the U.S. economy. 
The increase in the number of small businesses owned by women has 
significantly contributed to the overall success of small business.
  Between 1987 and 1996, the number of women-owned firms has grown by78 
percent. Employment in women-owned firms more than doubled from 1987 to 
1992, compared to an increase of 38 percent in employment by all firms. 
For women-owned companies with 100 or more workers, employment has 
increased by 158 percent--more than twice the rate for all U.S. firms 
of similar size. Women entrepreneurs are taking their firms into the 
global marketplace at the same rate as all U.S. business owners.
  Today, women are starting new firms at twice the rate of all other 
business and own nearly 40 percent of all firms in the United States. 
These 8 million firms employ 18.5 million people--one in every five 
U.S. workers--and contribute $2.3 trillion to the economy. The Small 
Business Administration has created programs, such as the women's 
business centers, which have been very effective in promoting woman 
business ownership. We must ensure that these programs continue to 
receive strong support in Congress.
  The Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999 will provide 
the funds necessary to continue this successful program. It will allow 
women's business centers that have completed five year funding to apply 
for additional funding, and it will also increase the authorization for 
FY 2000 and FY 2001 from $11 million to $12 million a year. Our goal is 
to help sustain existing centers, while continuing to create new 
centers.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, 
and I look forward to its early enactment.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise for the second year in a row as an 
original co-sponsor of legislation increasing the authorization for the 
Small Business Administration women's business center program. These 
centers provide important management, marketing, and financial advice 
to women-owned small businesses.

[[Page 6431]]

  Mr. President, this program finances a number of very important 
initiatives at the state and local levels; measures that have proven 
crucial to women struggling to enter the job world and to start their 
own businesses. These initiatives have changed the lives of a 
significant number of women in Michigan and throughout the United 
States.
  For example, two women's business centers in Michigan are leading the 
way toward preparing and advancing women in the business field. Ann 
Arbor's Women's Initiative for Self-Employment, or WISE, program 
provides low-income women with the tools and resources they need to 
begin and expand businesses. The WISE program also provides a 
comprehensive package of business training, personal development 
workshops, credit counseling, start-up and expansion financing, 
business counseling and mentoring. In addition, Grand Rapids' 
Opportunities for Women, or GROW, provides career counseling and 
training for women in western Michigan. GROW provides essential job 
preparedness with basic business training and assistance in obtaining 
more specialized instruction.
  Mr. President, I salute the good people at WISE and GROW for their 
hard work in helping the women of Michigan. These programs create and 
expand business opportunities, fight against poverty, increase incomes, 
stabilize families, develop skills, and spark community renewal. If we 
are to maintain and increase revitalization of troubled areas and the 
empowerment of women we must continue to provide targeted funding for 
these types of assistance programs.
  For these reasons, I support the Women's Business Centers 
Sustainability Act of 1999. Because the Small Business Administration's 
women's business centers program makes it possible for women to build 
productive lives for themselves and their families, I believe it 
deserves the increased funding it needs to expand its services. I urge 
my colleagues to support this important bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Moynihan (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Leahy)):
  S. 792. A bill to amend title IV of the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide States with the 
option to allow legal immigrant pregnant women, children, and blind or 
disabled medically needy individuals to be eligible for medical 
assistance under the medicaid program, and for other purposes.


             The Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Fairness for 
Legal Immigrants Act of 1999, a bill to restore to legal immigrants 
eligibility for a number of safety net benefits denied to them by the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
1996. I am glad to be joined by my colleagues Senators Graham, Kennedy, 
Durbin, Feinstein, Wellstone, and Leahy.
  The provisions of the 1996 law concerning legal immigrants were based 
on the false premise that such immigrants are a burden to us all. On 
the contrary. A recent comprehensive study by the National Academy of 
Sciences concluded that immigration actually benefits the U.S. economy. 
In fact, the study found that the average legal immigrant contributes 
$1,800 more in taxes than he or she receives in government benefits.
  Many Americans may not realize this, but legal immigrants pay income 
and payroll taxes. And without continued legal immigration, the long-
term financial condition of Social Security and Medicare would be 
worsened. It is in our interest to see that these immigrant families 
have healthy children, enough to eat, and support if they become 
disabled. And it is not merely wise, it is just. These immigrants have 
come here under the rules we have established and they have abided by 
those rules. If harm should befall them, it is right to extend a hand.
  The Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act contains several provisions. 
First, it would permit states to provide Medicaid coverage to poor 
legal immigrant pregnant women and children, as well as coverage under 
the new Child Health insurance program (CHIP) for legal immigrant 
children, whenever they arrive in the United States. Under current law, 
states are not allowed to extend such health care coverage--which is so 
important for the development of healthy children--to families who have 
come to the U.S. after August 22, 1996, until the families have been 
here for five years. Five years is a very long time in the life of a 
child. It is common knowledge, emphasized by recent research, that 
access to health care is essential for early childhood development. We 
should, at a minimum, permit states to extend coverage to all poor 
legal immigrant children, no matter when they have arrived here. This 
builds upon our recent achievements in promoting health care for 
children--legal immigrant children should not be neglected in these 
efforts.
  The bill also permits states to restore Medicaid coverage to certain 
legal immigrants in nursing homes. These individuals would be eligible 
for states' ``medically needy'' Medicaid coverage if they were 
citizens, having ``spent down'' their income and assets in nursing 
homes to the point of destitution. Several states continue to pay 
nursing homes for these frail seniors without federal support. We 
should do our share to care for them.
  Next, the bill restores Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
eligibility for legal immigrants who have come to the U.S. after August 
22, 1996, and have since then, unfortunately, become disabled. While it 
would be preferable to restore full SSI eligibility for these legal 
immigrants, at this time we propose only that the disabled be again 
eligible for SSI, because they are the population most in need. A 
modicum of a safety net. We have made great strides in assisting the 
disabled in this country in recent years. We should not then, 
deliberately, refuse aid to individuals who have come to our nation 
lawfully and then suffered a disability. The bill also completes the 
process, begun in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, of restoring SSI 
eligibility to elderly pre-1996 legal immigrants.
  Fourth, since the 1996 welfare law was enacted we have been 
successful in restoring a limited amount of food stamp eligibility for 
the most vulnerable legal immigrants--children, the disabled, the 
elderly. A Physicians for Human Rights survey in 1998 found that almost 
80 percent of immigrant households suffered from limited or uncertain 
availability of nutritious foods, and that immigrant households 
reported ``severe hunger'' at a rate more than 10 times that of the 
general population. While this survey was conducted before the limited 
restoration of food stamp eligibility in 1998, it suggests the 
magnitude of the hunger problem among legal immigrants. We need to do 
more, and this bill restores food stamp eligibility to all legal 
immigrants who were in the U.S. prior to the 1996 enactment of the 
welfare law.
  Finally, there is another vulnerable immigrant population for which 
we need to do more: victims of domestic violence. The 1996 welfare law 
put severe limits on the assistance which can be provided to non-
citizens suffering from domestic abuse, particularly if they came to 
the U.S. after August 22, 1996. This legislation will expand the 
circumstances under which immigrant victims of domestic violence are 
eligible for Medicaid and TANF assistance, and restores eligibility for 
food stamps and SSI. These programs provide essential resources to 
break the economic dependence on a violent relationship. It also 
ensures that elderly legal immigrants who are abused by their children 
can obtain access to these benefits as well.
  Mr. President, simple decency requires us to continue to provide a 
measure of a safety net to legal immigrant families. I urge the 
enactment of this legislation to ensure that we do so.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation and a 
summary of it be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 792

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

[[Page 6432]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for Legal 
     Immigrants Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. OPTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN ALIEN PREGNANT WOMEN 
                   AND CHILDREN FOR MEDICAID.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of title IV of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611-1614) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 405. OPTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN ALIENS FOR 
                   MEDICAID.

       ``(a) Optional Medicaid Eligibility for Certain Aliens.--A 
     State may elect to waive (through an amendment to its State 
     plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act) the 
     application of sections 401(a), 402(b), 403, and 421 with 
     respect to eligibility for medical assistance under the 
     program defined in section 402(b)(3)(C) (relating to the 
     medicaid program) of aliens who are lawfully residing in the 
     United States (including battered aliens described in section 
     431(c)), within any or all (or any combination) of the 
     following categories of individuals:
       ``(1) Pregnant women.--Women during pregnancy (and during 
     the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the 
     pregnancy).
       ``(2) Children.--Children (as defined under such plan), 
     including optional targeted low-income children described in 
     section 1905(u)(2)(B).''.
       (b) Applicability of Affidavits of Support.--Section 
     213A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1183a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Inapplicability to benefits provided under a state 
     waiver.--For purposes of this section, the term `means-tested 
     public benefits' does not include benefits provided pursuant 
     to a State election and waiver described in section 405 of 
     the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 401(a) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and section 405'' after ``subsection 
     (b)''.
       (2) Section 402(b)(1) of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1612(b)(1)) is amended by inserting ``, section 405,'' after 
     ``403''.
       (3) Section 403(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1613(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``section 405 and'' after ``provided 
     in''.
       (4) Section 421(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1631(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``except as provided in section 405,'' 
     after ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,''.
       (5) Section 1903(v)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396b(v)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and except as 
     permitted under a waiver described in section 405(a) of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996,'' after ``paragraph (2),''.
       (d) Retroactivity of Effective Date.--The amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611 et 
     seq.), except that the amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
     apply as if included in the enactment of section 551(a) of 
     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208).

     SEC. 3. OPTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF IMMIGRANT CHILDREN FOR SCHIP.

       (a) In General.--Section 405 of the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as added by 
     section 2(a), is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``AND SCHIP'' before the 
     period; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Optional SCHIP Eligibility for Certain Aliens.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State may 
     also elect to waive the application of sections 401(a), 
     402(b), 403, and 421 with respect to eligibility of children 
     for child health assistance under the State child health plan 
     of the State under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.), but only with respect to children who 
     are lawfully residing in the United States (including 
     children who are battered aliens described in section 
     431(c)).
       ``(2) Requirement for election.--A waiver under this 
     subsection may only be in effect for a period in which the 
     State has in effect an election under subsection (a) with 
     respect to the category of individuals described in 
     subsection (a)(2) (relating to children).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to child health assistance for coverage provided for 
     periods beginning on or after October 1, 1997.

     SEC. 4. OPTIONAL ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN MEDICALLY NEEDY 
                   ALIENS FOR MEDICAID.

       (a) Optional Eligibility of Certain Aliens who are Blind or 
     Disabled Medically Needy Admitted After August 22, 1996.--
       (1) In general.--Section 405(a) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996, as added by section 2(a), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Certain blind or disabled medically needy.--
     Individuals who are considered blind or disabled under 
     section 1614(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1382c(a))) and who, but for sections 401(a), 402(b) and 403 
     (except as waived under this subsection), would be eligible 
     for medical assistance under clause (ii)(IV) of section 
     1902(a)(10)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(10)(A)), or would be eligible for such assistance 
     under any other clause of that section of that Act because 
     the individual, if enrolled in the program under title XVI of 
     the Social Security Act, would receive supplemental security 
     income benefits or a State supplementary payment under that 
     title.''.
       (2) Retroactivity of effective date.--The amendment made by 
     paragraph (1) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611 et 
     seq.).
       (b) Optional Eligibility of Medically Needy Aliens 
     Requiring a Certain Level of Care.--
       (1) In general.--Section 405 of the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as added by 
     section 2(a) and as amended by section 3(a) and subsection 
     (a), is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(c) Optional Eligibility for Medically Needy Aliens 
     Requiring a Certain Level of Care.--A State may also elect to 
     waive the application of sections 401(a), 402(b), and 421 
     with respect to eligibility for medical assistance under the 
     program defined in section 402(b)(3)(C) (relating to the 
     medicaid program) of aliens who--
       ``(1) were lawfully residing in the United States on August 
     22, 1996; and
       ``(2) are residents of a nursing facility (as defined in 
     section 1919(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396r(a)), or require the level of care provided in a such a 
     facility or in an intermediate care facility, the cost of 
     which could be reimbursed under the State plan under title 
     XIX of that Act.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of title IV 
     of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611 et seq.).

     SEC. 5. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN ALIENS FOR SSI.

       (a) Aged Aliens Lawfully Residing in the United States on 
     August 22, 1996.--Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(L) SSI exception for aged aliens lawfully residing in 
     the united states on august 22, 1996.--With respect to 
     eligibility for the program defined in paragraph (3)(A), 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any individual who was 
     lawfully residing in the United States on August 22, 1996, 
     and has attained age 65.''.
       (b) Blind or Disabled Qualified Aliens Who Entered the 
     United States After August 22, 1996.--
       (1) In general.--Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)), as amended by subsection (a), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(M) SSI exception for blind or disabled qualified aliens 
     who entered the united states after august 22, 1996.--With 
     respect to eligibility for the program defined in paragraph 
     (3)(A), paragraph (1) and section 421 shall not apply to any 
     individual who entered the United States on or after August 
     22, 1996 with a status within the meaning of the term 
     `qualified alien', and became blind or disabled (within the 
     meaning of section 1614(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1382c(a))) after the date of such entry.''.
       (2) Exception from 5-year ban.--Section 403(b) of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(b)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Certain blind or disabled aliens.--An alien described 
     in section 402(a)(2)(M), but only with respect to the 
     programs specified in subsections (a)(3)(A) and (b)(3)(C) of 
     section 402 (and, with respect to such programs, section 421 
     shall not apply to such an alien).''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 421(a) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1631(a)), as amended by section 2(c)(4), is 
     amended by inserting ``, section 402(a)(2)(M), and section 
     403(b)(3)'' after section ``405''.
       (4) Enforcement of affidavits of support.--For provisions 
     relating to the enforcement of affidavits of support in cases 
     of individuals made eligible for benefits under the amendment 
     made by paragraph (1), see section 213A of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) are effective with respect to benefits payable for 
     months after the month in which this Act is enacted, but only 
     on the basis of applications filed on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. ELIGIBILITY OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS FOR FOOD STAMPS.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)), as amended by section 5(b)(1), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 6433]]

       ``(N) Food stamp exception for aliens lawfully residing in 
     the united states on august 22, 1996.--With respect to 
     eligibility for benefits for the specified Federal program 
     described in paragraph (3)(B), paragraph (1) shall not apply 
     to an individual who was lawfully residing in the United 
     States on August 22, 1996.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to benefits under the food stamp program, as defined 
     in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2012(h)) for months beginning at least 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. ELIGIBILITY OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS SUFFERING FROM 
                   DOMESTIC ABUSE.

       (a) Exemption From SSI and Food Stamps Ban.--Section 
     402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)), as amended 
     by section 6(a), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(O) Battered immigrants.--With respect to eligibility for 
     benefits for a specified Federal program (as defined in 
     paragraph (3)), paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     individual described in section 431(c).''.
       (b) Exemption From 5-Year Ban.--Section 403(b) of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(b)), as amended by section 
     5(b)(2), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Battered immigrants.--An alien described in section 
     431(c).''.
       (c) Expansion of Definition of Battered Immigrants.--
       (1) In general.--Section 431(c) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraphs (1)(A), (2)(A), and (3)(A) by inserting 
     `` or the benefits to be provided would alleviate the harm 
     from such battery or cruelty or would enable the alien to 
     avoid such battery or cruelty in the future'' before the 
     semicolon; and
       (B) in the matter following paragraph (3), by inserting `` 
     and for determining whether the benefits to be provided under 
     a specific Federal, State, or local program would alleviate 
     the harm from such battery or extreme cruelty or would enable 
     the alien to avoid such battery or extreme cruelty in the 
     future'' before the period.
       (2) Conforming amendment regarding sponsor deeming.--
     Section 421(f)(1) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1631(f)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or would alleviate 
     the harm from such battery or cruelty, or would enable the 
     alien to avoid such battery or cruelty in the future'' before 
     the semicolon; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or would alleviate 
     the harm from such battery or cruelty, or would enable the 
     alien to avoid such battery or cruelty in the future'' before 
     the period.
       (d) Conforming Definition of ``Family'' Used in Laws 
     Granting Federal Public Benefit Access for Battered 
     Immigrants to State Family Law.--Section 431(c) of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1641(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``by a spouse or a 
     parent, or by a member of the spouse or parent's family 
     residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or 
     parent consented to, or acquiesced in, such battery or 
     cruelty,'' and inserting ``by a spouse, parent, son, or 
     daughter, or by any individual having a relationship with the 
     alien covered by the civil or criminal domestic violence 
     statutes of the State or Indian country where the alien 
     resides, or the State or Indian country in which the alien, 
     the alien's child, or the alien child's parents received a 
     protection order, or by any individual against whom the alien 
     could obtain a protection order,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``by a spouse or 
     parent of the alien (without the active participation of the 
     alien in the battery or cruelty), or by a member of the 
     spouse or parent's family residing in the same household as 
     the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced to 
     such battery or cruelty,'' and inserting ``by a spouse, 
     parent, son, or daughter of the alien (without the active 
     participation of alien in the battery or cruelty) or by any 
     individual having a relationship with the alien covered by 
     the civil or criminal domestic violence statutes of the State 
     or Indian county where the alien resides, or the State or 
     Indian country in which the alien, the alien's child, or the 
     alien child's parent received a protection order, or by any 
     individual against whom the alien could obtain a protection 
     order,''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to Federal means-tested public benefits provided on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


               Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 1999


                           I. Health Coverage

     Medicaid
       Permits states to cover all eligible legal immigrant 
     pregnant women and children, including those who have arrived 
     in the U.S. after August 22, 1996. (Currently, states must 
     wait five years before extending such coverage to legal 
     immigrants coming to the U.S. since August 22, 1996.)
       Permits states to extend coverage to certain ``medically 
     needy'' disabled legal immigrants not receiving SSI.
     Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
       Permits states to cover legal immigrant children under 
     CHIP. States can cover CHIP children under either the 
     expanded Medicaid option or separate CHIP program. However, 
     to choose this CHIP option states must have first taken up 
     the option to cover poor legal immigrant children under the 
     regular (non-CHIP) Medicaid program. Under current law, legal 
     immigrant children are ineligible for CHIP.


                                II. SSI

       For pre-August 1996 legal immigrants, restores SSI 
     eligibility for those who are elderly and poor but not 
     disabled by SSI standards. This returns pre-August 1996 
     elderly legal immigrants to the same SSI eligibility status 
     as citizens.
       For post-August 1996 legal immigrants, restores SSI 
     eligibility for those who become disabled after entering the 
     country. Currently, such recent immigrants are ineligible for 
     SSI.


                            III. Food Stamps

       Restores eligibility for all pre-August 1996 legal 
     immigrants.


                          IV. Other Provisions

       For post-August 1996 legal immigrants suffering from 
     domestic abuse, expands the exemption from the five-year ban 
     on receiving Medicaid and TANF. It also restores their 
     eligibility for SSI and food stamps. Victims of elder abuse 
     are also covered.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators 
Moynihan, Kennedy, Durbin, Feinstein, Wellstone, and Leahy to introduce 
the Fairness to Legal Immigrants Act of 1999. I commend my colleagues 
in the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are also 
introducing this legislation today, for their efforts to restore 
benefits to legal immigrants.
  This legislation includes several provisions which restore important 
health, disability and nutrition benefits to additional categories of 
legal immigrants. These benefits would improve the lives of many of our 
most vulnerable, such as pregnant women and children, the elderly and 
the disabled.
  One of the provisions in this proposal would grant states the option 
to provide health care coverage to legal immigrant children through 
Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)--in 
essence eliminating the arbitrary designation of August 22, 1996, as 
the cutoff date for benefits eligibility to children. The welfare 
reform legislation passed in 1996 prohibits states from covering these 
immigrant children during their first five years in the United States. 
This has serious consequences.
  Children without health insurance do not get important care for 
preventable diseases. Many uninsured children are hospitalized for 
acute asthma attacks that could have been prevented, or suffer from 
permanent hearing loss from untreated ear infections. Without adequate 
health care, common illnesses can turn into life-long crippling 
diseases, whereas appropriate treatment and care can help children with 
diseases like diabetes live relatively normal lives. A lack of adequate 
medical care will also hinder the social and educational development of 
children, as children who are sick and left untreated are less ready to 
learn.
  In addition to allowing extended coverage of legal immigrant 
children, this initiative aims to provide Medicaid to pregnant women 
and disabled immigrants regardless of whether they participate in 
Social Security's Supplemental Security Income program. States would 
also become eligible for reimbursement of costs associated with 
providing institutional care for some elderly and disabled immigrants.
  Another important issue addressed by this legislation is the 
exemption allowing legal immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse 
to receive assistance. At present, victims of domestic violence are 
restricted from receiving benefits during their first five years in the 
United States. These individuals are most vulnerable and should not be 
subjected to staying in a bad situation due to lack of resources.
  In this legislation we attempt to diminish the arbitrary cutoff date 
used in the 1996 welfare law to determine the eligibility of legal 
immigrants to benefits they desperately need. Our nation was built by 
people who came to

[[Page 6434]]

our shores seeking opportunity and a better life, and America has 
greatly benefitted from the talent, resourcefulness, determination, and 
work ethic of many generations of legal immigrants. Time and time 
again, they have restored our faith in the American Dream. We should 
not discriminate between these important members of our community based 
on nothing more than an arbitrary date.
  I hope that with the help of my colleagues in Congress we will be 
able to rectify the discrimination suffered by individuals who have 
legally entered our country, who pay taxes, who serve in the military, 
and who add to the fabric of this nation. As our nation enters what 
promises to be a dynamic century, the United States needs a prudent, 
fair immigration policy to ensure that avenues of refuge and 
opportunity remain open for those seeking freedom, justice, and a 
better life.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Moynihan as an 
original cosponsor of the Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 1999. 
This bill takes the next, important step toward restoring benefits to 
legal immigrants.
  Legal immigrants are people in our communities who are in this 
country legally. They pay taxes and they contribute to our economy and 
society. Many of our parents, or grandparents, were legal immigrants 
themselves. The 1996 welfare reform law forced this group to lose their 
eligibility for various programs, including food stamps, Medicaid and 
SSI. More than 900,000 legal immigrants--including hundreds of 
thousands of children and elderly individuals--were cut from the Food 
Stamp Program alone, with nothing to abate their hunger.
  In the years since the passage of the welfare reform act, Congress 
has correctly realized that many of the cuts went too far, and slowly 
benefits are being restored. For instance, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act 
restored SSI and Medicaid benefits to a narrow class of immigrants, 
refugees and asylees.
  Last Congress, I worked hard to include $818 million in the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reauthorization Act to 
restore food stamp benefits for thousands of legal immigrants. This 
legislation restored food stamps to legal immigrants who are disabled 
or elderly, or who later become disabled, and who resided in the United 
States prior to August 22, 1996. That law also increased food stamp 
eligibility time limits--from 5 years to 7 years--for refugees and 
asylees who came to this country to avoid persecution. Hmong refugees 
who aided U.S. military efforts in Southeast Asia were also covered, as 
were children residing in the United States prior to August 22, 1996.
  Though the Agriculture Research Act restored food stamp eligibility 
to children of legal immigrants, many of these children are not 
receiving food stamps and are experiencing alarming instances of 
hunger. In its recent report entitled ``Who is Leaving the Food Stamp 
Program? An Analysis of Caseload Changes from 1994 to 1997,'' the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture reported that participation among children 
living with parents who are legal immigrants fell significantly faster 
than children living with native-born parents. It appears that 
restrictions on adult legal immigrants deterred the participation of 
their children. That is a disturbing development that must be 
rectified, and the legislation we are introducing today would go a long 
way toward making the situation right by restoring food stamp 
eligibility to all legal immigrants.
  The Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 1999 would also address the 
medical needs of legal immigrants. This bill will permit states to 
offer Medicaid coverage to all eligible legal immigrant pregnant women 
and children, as well as certain ``medically needy'' disabled legal 
immigrants. This legislation would also restore SSI eligibility to 
elderly and poor legal immigrants who were in this country prior to 
passage of the welfare reform law.
  Under current law, legal immigrants who suffer from domestic or elder 
abuse must wait 5 years to receive Medicaid, TANF, SSI and food stamp 
benefits if they entered the United States after August 1996. The 
Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 1999 would amend this law so that 
these victims would not have to wait to receive assistance.
  I am proud to cosponsor the Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 
1999. It is a needed bill that will help fill some of the continuing 
gaps left by the welfare reform law. I look forward to working with 
Senator Moynihan and all members of the Senate to restore Medicaid, 
SSI, and food stamp benefits to legal immigrants in need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Frist, Mr. Burns, 
        and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 795. A bill to amend the Fastener Quality Act to strengthen the 
protection against the sale of mismarked, misrepresented, and 
counterfeit fasteners and eliminate unnecessary requirements, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


            the fastener quality act amendments act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fastener Quality 
Act Amendments Act of 1999. This bill represents major revisions to the 
original Fastener Quality Act as passed in 1990.
  Every year billions of special high-strength bolts, screws, and other 
fasteners are sold in the United States which carry grade 
identification markings. The markings indicate that the fasteners 
conform to specifications set by consensus standards organizations. 
These grade-marked fasteners are used in critical applications like 
aircraft, automobiles, and highway bridges where failure of a fastener 
could jeopardize public safety.
  In 1998, the Congress passed legislation (P.L. 105-234) delaying 
implementation of the Fastener Quality Act to allow the Secretary of 
Commerce to conduct a review of changes in fastener manufacturing 
processes and the existence of other regulatory programs covering 
fasteners. The review was submitted to the Congress on February 24, 
1999, in coordination with several other Federal agencies which have 
public safety responsibilities including the Defense Industrial Supply 
Center, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal 
Aviation Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
  This bill reflects the findings and recommendations of that report. 
The bill's content further represents discussions between both the 
Senate Commerce Committee and the House Science Committee, the 
Department of Commerce, and private industry representatives. Mr. 
President, let me note that if these revisions to the Fastener Quality 
Act are not implemented into law by June 24 of this year, the Secretary 
of Commerce will have no other choice but to implement the Act as 
originally passed in 1990. Therefore, several of the nation's key 
industries may be brought to a halt due to lack of certified fasteners. 
The impact of such a slow down would be disastrous both economically 
and in terms of continuous flow of products and services to maintain 
our current way of life.
  The bill defines fasteners as ``a metallic screw, nut, bolt, or stud 
having internal or external threads, with a nominal diameter of one-
fourth inch or greater, or a load-indicating washer, that is through-
hardened or represented as meeting through-hardening, and that is grade 
identification marked or represented as meeting a consensus standard 
that requires grade identification marking.'' This definition 
substantially reduces the scope of covered fasteners under the Act.
  The bill also establishes a hotline in which the public may notify 
the Department of Commerce of alleged violations of the Fastener 
Quality Act. It requires record keeping for a period of five years, 
instead of the previous ten years, via both traditional and electronic 
means.
  To address current inventory concerns, the Act will be applicable 
only to fasteners fabricated 180 days after the enactment of this bill.
  Furthermore, in cases of fasteners manufactured to a consensus 
standard or standards that require end-of-line testing, the testing is 
to be performed by an accredited laboratory. This accredited laboratory 
requirement shall

[[Page 6435]]

not take effect until two years after enactment of this Act.
  Therefore, I, along with my co-sponsors, urge the members of this 
body to support this bill and to provide the needed legislation which 
will allow several key industries in this country continuous operation 
in a safe and responsible manner.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Specter, Mr. Reid, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 796. A bill to provide for full parity with respect to health 
insurance coverage for certain severe biologically-based mental 
illnesses and to prohibit limits on the number of mental illness-
related hospital days and outpatient visits that are covered for all 
mental illnesses; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


             Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise with great pleasure to 
introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. I also 
thank Senator Wellstone, my cosponsor, and the other Senators who have 
already joined me in an effort to make this case. This will say to the 
insurance companies and the businesses of America, unless they have 25 
or fewer employees, their insurance coverage of their employees and 
their employees' families, if there is going to be mental illness or 
mental disease coverage, they will have to, as to severe illnesses, 
have coverage with full parity. As to other mental illnesses, they will 
have to stop trying to get around the parity law by cutting some of the 
copays and the like. This will prohibit that.
  Essentially, we are going to take a piece of America that is 
currently discriminated against in health care because those Americans 
do not have a disease that is a disease of the heart but have a disease 
of the brain. We now can define it sufficiently that there is no reason 
to cover one and not the other, and in the process we will stop 
discriminating against about 10 million American families.
  Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure and excitement to 
introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. I would 
also like to thank Senator Wellstone for once again joining me to 
cosponsor this important piece of legislation.
  The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other 
organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as illnesses to 
our other organs require treatment, so too do illnesses of the brain.
  Medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnose mental 
illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I would 
ask then, why with this evidence would we not cover these individuals 
and treat their illnesses like any other disease?
  We should not. So, I would submit there should not be a difference in 
the coverage provided by insurance companies for mental health benefits 
and medical benefits.
  The introduction of this bill marks a historic opportunity for us to 
take the next step toward mental health parity. As my colleagues know, 
this is an issue I have a long involvement with and I would like to 
begin with a few observations.
  I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the 
coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact 
a heavy toll on many, many lives.
  Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still 
bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, 
their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not 
only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from 
the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage.
  I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first 
start, but the act is also not working. While there may be adherence to 
the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of 
the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing 
limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits.
  That is why I believe it is time for a change.
  Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of 
this treatment will cost too much. But, I would first direct them to 
the results of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. That law contains 
a provision allowing companies to no longer comply if their costs 
increase by more than 1 percent.
  And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs 
have increased by more than 1 percent? Only four companies out of all 
the companies throughout the country.
  Mr. President, with that in mind I would like to share a couple of 
facts about mental illness with my colleagues:
  Within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 
leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of 5 are 
mental disorders.
  In the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, 
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder.
  Disability always has a cost and the direct cost to the United States 
per year for respiratory disease is $99 billion, cardiovascular disease 
is $160 billion, and finally $148 billion for mental illness.
  One in every five people--more than 40 million adults--in this Nation 
will be afflicted by some type of mental illness.
  Nearly 7.5 million children and adolescents, or 12 percent, suffer 
from one or more mental disorders.
  Schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 
times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 
3 million Americans.
  Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals 
suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with 
the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long 
time, many who are in this field--especially on the insurance side--
have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty then you 
do for treatments for bipolar illness.
  Treatment for bipolar disorders--this is, those disorders 
characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs--have an 80-percent 
success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. 
Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent 
success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major 
depression has a 65-percent success rate.
  Let's compare those success rates to several important surgical 
procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing: Angioplasty has 
a 41-percent success rate; atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate.
  I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Mental Health 
Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. The bill seeks a very simple goal: (1) 
provide full parity for severe biologically based mental illnesses; (2) 
prohibit limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient 
visits; and (3) eliminate the Mental Health Parity Act's sunset 
provision.
  The bill would provide full parity for the following mental 
illnesses: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive 
compulsive and severe panic disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, 
autism, and other severe and disability mental disorders.
  Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the bill does not require 
a health plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse 
benefits. Moreover, the bill does not mandate the coverage of mental 
health benefits, rather the bill only applies if the plan already 
provides coverage for mental health benefits.
  In conclusion, the bill expands full parity to those suffering from a 
severe biologically based mental illness and it closes a loophole in 
the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 by prohibiting limits on the 
number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits and I would urge 
my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 6436]]



                                 S. 796

       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 ``Mental Health Equitable 
     Treatment Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY 
                   ACT OF 1974.

       (a) In General.--Section 712 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Hospital day and outpatient visit limits.--In the 
     case of a group health plan (or health insurance coverage 
     offered in connection with such a plan) that provides both 
     medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits--
       ``(A) No inpatient limits.--If the plan or coverage does 
     not include a limit on the number of days of coverage 
     provided for inpatient hospital stays in connection with 
     covered medical and surgical benefits, the plan or coverage 
     may not impose any limit on inpatient hospital stays for 
     mental health benefits.
       ``(B) Certain inpatient limits.--If the plan or coverage 
     includes a limit on the number of days of coverage provided 
     for inpatient hospital stays in connection with certain 
     covered medical and surgical benefits, the plan or coverage 
     may impose comparable limits on inpatient hospital stays for 
     mental health benefits.
       ``(C) No outpatient limits.--If the plan or coverage does 
     not include a limit on the number of outpatient visits in 
     connection with covered medical and surgical benefits, the 
     plan or coverage may not impose any limit on the number of 
     outpatient visits for mental health benefits.
       ``(D) Certain outpatient limits.--If the plan or coverage 
     includes a limit on the number of outpatient visits in 
     connection with certain covered medical and surgical 
     benefits, the plan or coverage may impose comparable limits 
     on the number of outpatient visits for mental health 
     benefits.
       ``(4) Severe mental illness.--In the case of a group health 
     plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with 
     such a plan) that provides medical and surgical benefits and 
     mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall not 
     impose any limitations on the coverage of benefits for severe 
     biologically-based mental illnesses unless comparable 
     limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       ``(A) as requiring a group health plan (or health insurance 
     coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to provide 
     any mental health benefits; or
       ``(B) in the case of a group health plan (or health 
     insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) 
     that provides mental health benefits, as affecting the terms 
     and conditions (including cost sharing and requirements 
     relating to medical necessity) relating to the amount, 
     duration, or scope of mental health benefits under the plan 
     or coverage, except as specifically provided in subsection 
     (a) (in regard to parity in the imposition of aggregate 
     lifetime limits and annual limits and limits on inpatient 
     stays or outpatient visits for mental health benefits).
       ``(2) Care, treatment, and delivery of services.--Nothing 
     in this subpart shall be construed to prohibit the provision 
     of care or treatment, or delivery of services, relating to 
     mental health services, by qualified health professionals 
     within their scope of practice as licensed or certified by 
     the appropriate State or jurisdiction.'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--This section shall not apply to any 
     group health plan (and group health insurance coverage 
     offered in connection with a group health plan) for any plan 
     year of any employer who employed an average of at least 2 
     but not more than 25 employees on business days during the 
     preceding calendar year.'';
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively, and realigning the 
     margins accordingly; and
       (iii) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), by 
     redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C), respectively;
       (4) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Severe biologically-based mental illness.--The term 
     `severe biologically-based mental illness' means an illness 
     that medical science in conjunction with the Diagnostic and 
     Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) affirms as 
     biologically based and severe, including schizophrenia, 
     bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive compulsive and 
     panic disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, and 
     other severe and disabling mental disorders such as anorexia 
     nervosa and attention-deficit/hyper activity disorder.''; and
       (5) by striking subsection (f).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after 
     January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT RELATING 
                   TO THE GROUP MARKET.

       (a) In General.--Section 2705 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-5) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Hospital day and outpatient visit limits.--In the 
     case of a group health plan (or health insurance coverage 
     offered in connection with such a plan) that provides both 
     medical and surgical benefits and mental health benefits--
       ``(A) No inpatient limits.--If the plan or coverage does 
     not include a limit on the number of days of coverage 
     provided for inpatient hospital stays in connection with 
     covered medical and surgical benefits, the plan or coverage 
     may not impose any limit on inpatient hospital stays for 
     mental health benefits.
       ``(B) Certain inpatient limits.--If the plan or coverage 
     includes a limit on the number of days of coverage provided 
     for inpatient hospital stays in connection with certain 
     covered medical and surgical benefits, the plan or coverage 
     may impose comparable limits on inpatient hospital stays for 
     mental health benefits.
       ``(C) No outpatient limits.--If the plan or coverage does 
     not include a limit on the number of outpatient visits in 
     connection with covered medical and surgical benefits, the 
     plan or coverage may not impose any limit on the number of 
     outpatient visits for mental health benefits.
       ``(D) Certain outpatient limits.--If the plan or coverage 
     includes a limit on the number of outpatient visits in 
     connection with certain covered medical and surgical 
     benefits, the plan or coverage may impose comparable limits 
     on the number of outpatient visits for mental health 
     benefits.
       ``(4) Severe mental illness.--In the case of a group health 
     plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with 
     such a plan) that provides medical and surgical benefits and 
     mental health benefits, such plan or coverage shall not 
     impose any limitations on the coverage of benefits for severe 
     biologically-based mental illnesses unless comparable 
     limitations are imposed on medical and surgical benefits.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       ``(A) as requiring a group health plan (or health insurance 
     coverage offered in connection with such a plan) to provide 
     any mental health benefits; or
       ``(B) in the case of a group health plan (or health 
     insurance coverage offered in connection with such a plan) 
     that provides mental health benefits, as affecting the terms 
     and conditions (including cost sharing and requirements 
     relating to medical necessity) relating to the amount, 
     duration, or scope of mental health benefits under the plan 
     or coverage, except as specifically provided in subsection 
     (a) (in regard to parity in the imposition of aggregate 
     lifetime limits and annual limits and limits on inpatient 
     stays or outpatient visits for mental health benefits).
       ``(2) Care, treatment, and delivery of services.--Nothing 
     in this part shall be construed to prohibit the provision of 
     care or treatment, or delivery of services, relating to 
     mental health services, by qualified health professionals 
     within their scope of practice as licensed or certified by 
     the appropriate State or jurisdiction.'';
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Exemption.--This section shall not apply to any group 
     health plan (and group health insurance coverage offered in 
     connection with a group health plan) for any plan year of any 
     employer who employed an average of at least 2 but not more 
     than 25 employees on business days during the preceding 
     calendar year.'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Severe biologically-based mental illness.--The term 
     `severe biologically-based mental illness' means an illness 
     that medical science in conjunction with the Diagnostic and 
     Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) affirms as 
     biologically based and severe, including schizophrenia, 
     bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive compulsive and 
     panic disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, and 
     other severe and disabling mental disorders such as anorexia 
     nervosa and attention-deficit/hyper activity disorder.''; and
       (5) by striking subsection (f).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after 
     January 1, 2000.

     SEC. 4. PREEMPTION.

       Nothing in the amendments made by this Act shall be 
     construed to preempt any provision of State law that provides 
     protections to enrollees that are greater than the 
     protections provided under such amendments.

[[Page 6437]]

     
                                  ____
         Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999--Summary

       The Bill seeks to ensure greater parity in the coverage of 
     mental health benefits by prohibiting limits on the number of 
     covered hospital days and outpatient visits for all mental 
     illnesses and providing full parity for specified severe 
     adult and child mental illnesses.
       The Bill only applies to group health plans already 
     providing mental health benefits.


      prohibition on day and visit limits for all mental illnesses

       Expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA) to 
     include parity for the number of covered hospital days and 
     outpatient visits for all mental illnesses.


       full parity for severe biologically-based mental illnesses

       Provides full parity for the following severe biologically-
     based mental illnesses: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, 
     major depression, obsessive compulsive and severe panic 
     disorders, post traumatic stress disorder, autism, and other 
     severe and disabling mental disorders such as, anorexia 
     nervosa and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
       The term ``severe biologically-based mental illness'' means 
     the above illnesses as defined by current medical science in 
     conjunction with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
     Mental Disorders (DSM IV).


                      requirements and exemptions

       Elimination of the September 30, 2001 sunset provision in 
     the MHPA.
       Like the MHPA the bill does not require plans to provide 
     coverage for benefits relating to alcohol and drug abuse.
       There is a small business exemption for companies with 25 
     or fewer employees.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Mental 
Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999, a bit that will ensure that 
private health insurance companies provide the same level of coverage 
for mental illness as they do for other diseases. This bill will be a 
major step toward ending the discrimination against people who suffer 
from mental illness.
  For too long, mental illness has been stigmatized, or viewed as a 
character flaw, rather than as the serious disease that it is. A cloak 
of secrecy has surrounded this disease, and people with mental illness 
are often ashamed and afraid to seek treatment, for fear that they will 
be seen as admitting a weakness in character. We have all seen 
portrayals of mentally ill people as somehow different, as dangerous, 
or as frightening. Such stereotypes only reinforce the biases against 
people with mental illness. Can you imagine this type of portrayal of 
someone who has a cardiac problem, or who happens to carry a gene that 
predisposes them to diabetes?
  Although mental health research has well-established the biological, 
genetic, and behavioral components of many of the forms of serious 
mental illness, the illness is still stigmatized as somehow less 
important or serious than other illnesses. Too often, we try to push 
the problem away, deny coverage, or blame those with the illness for 
having the illness. We forget that someone with mental illness can look 
just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting 
next to us on a plane. It can be our mother, or brother, or son, or 
daughter. It can be one of us. We have all known someone with a serious 
mental illness, within our families or our circle of friends, or in 
public life. Many people have courageously come forward to speak about 
their personal experiences with their illness, to help us all 
understand better the effects of this illness on a person's life, and I 
commend them for their courage.
  The statistics concerning mental illness, and the state of health 
care coverage for adults and children with this disease are startling, 
and disturbing.
  One severe mental illness affecting millions of Americans is major 
depression. The National Institute of Mental Health, a NIH research 
institute, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
describes serious depression as a critical public health problem. More 
than 18 million people in the United States will suffer from a 
depressive illness this year, and many will be unnecessarily 
incapacitated for weeks or months, because their illness goes 
untreated. The cost to the Nation in 1990 was estimated to be between 
$30-$44 billion. The suffering of depressed people and their families 
is immeasurable.
  Depressive disorders are not the normal ups and downs everyone 
experiences. They are illnesses that affect mood, body, behavior, and 
mind. Depressive disorders interfere with individual and family 
functioning. Without treatment, the person with a depressive disorder 
is often unable to fulfill the responsibilities of spouse or parent, 
worker or employer, friend or neighbor.
  Available medications and psychological treatments, alone or in 
combination, can help 80 percent of those with depression. But without 
adequate treatment, future episodes of depression may continue or 
worsen in severity. Yet, the steady decline in the quality and breadth 
of health care coverage is truly disturbing.
  The results of a major survey of employer-provided health plans was 
published in 1998 by the Hay Group, an independent benefits consulting 
firm. The Hay Report showed a major decline in benefits in the last 
decade:
  Employer-provided mental health benefits decreased 54%--while 
benefits for general health decreased only 7%;
  Even before this erosion occurred, mental health benefits made up 
only 6% of total medical benefits paid by employers. Today--that has 
been cut in half--it is down to 3%;
  The number of plans restricting hospitalization for mental disorders 
increased by 20%;
  Descriptions of benefit limits themselves are misleading. Although 
plans may say that they allow 30 days for hospitalization, this is 
rarely approved. In 1996, the average length of stay was 8\1/2\ days, 
down from 17 in 1991.
  In 1988, most insurance plans allowed 50 therapy sessions per years. 
In 1997, the average number was 20.
  A 1998 study published by Health Affairs found that between 1991 and 
1995, HMO enrollees were twice as likely to encounter limits on 
psychiatric visits, and about three times as likely to have separate, 
and higher, copayments than for general medical health care.
  No one, of course, expects coverage of any illness to cost nothing. 
But what we do know is that fears of spiraling costs for mental health 
treatment are unfounded. Studies from HHS that have examined the 
effects of mental health and substance abuse treatment parity have 
shown that full parity for these benefits would be just slightly higher 
than current premiums. Most reports, like the one requested by Congress 
from the National Advisory Mental Health Counsel, showed that when 
mental health coverage is managed, either moderately or tightly, that 
premium increases can be as low as 1%.
  These costs are so low. And the cost of NOT treating is so high--
especially when one looks at the toll that untreated mental illness 
takes on individuals, families, employers, corporations, social service 
systems, and criminal justice systems. I have seen first hand in the 
juvenile corrections system what happens when mental illness is 
criminalized, when youth with mental illness are incarcerated for 
exhibiting symptoms of their illness. To treat ill people as criminals 
is outrageous is outrageous and immoral. We must make treatment for 
this illness as available and as routine as treatment for any other 
disease. The discrimination must stop.
  Our bill includes parity for hospital day and outpatient visits for 
all mental illnesses. Additionally, for many of the most severe adult 
and child mental illnesses, the bill establishes full parity, i.e., 
parity for copayments, deductibles, hospital day, and outpatient visit 
benefits. The bill also provides protection for non-physician 
providers, and for states with stronger parity bills; it also includes 
a small business exemption, and eliminates the sunset provision and the 
1% exemption from the 1996 Mental Health Parity Act. Covered services 
include inpatient treatment; non-hospital residential treatment; 
outpatient treatment, including screening and assessment, medication 
management, individual, group and family counseling; and prevention 
services, including health education and individual and group 
counseling to encourage the reduction of risk factors for mental 
illness.
  The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999 provides for major 
improvements in coverage for mental illness by private health insurers. 
It does not require that mental health benefits

[[Page 6438]]

be part of a health benefits package, but establishes a requirement for 
parity in coverage for those plans that offer mental health benefits. 
This bill goes a long way toward our bipartisan goal: that mental 
illness be treated like any other disease in health care coverage.
  Mr. President, the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999 is 
designed to take a large step toward ending the suffering of those with 
mental illness who have been unfairly discriminated against in their 
health coverage. We must end this discrimination.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, 
Senators Domenici and Wellstone, in introducing the Mental Health 
Equitable Treatment Act of 1999, and I applaud them for their 
leadership on this issue. This legislation is an important step towards 
ensuring that people with mental illness have access to the care they 
need.
  For too long, insurance plans have treated patients with mental 
illnesses differently than those with physical illnesses. However, 
research has proven the biological origins of mental illness. It is now 
time to bring coverage of mental illness into the 20th century. There 
is no rational basis for excluding or limiting coverage for such 
conditions; doing so is patently discriminatory. Enactment of the 
Mental Health Parity Act in 1996, which I cosponsored, was the first 
step in correcting this disparity. This legislation builds upon the 
1996 law by adding some important new protections.
  In my home state of Rhode Island, over 28,000 people are suffering 
from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder 
and major depression. These disorders can be as threatening to the 
health of the patient as physical illnesses, such as cancer or AIDS. 
Discriminatory coverage restrictions or cost-sharing requirements--such 
as limits on the number of therapy visits or disparate co-payments--
place an undue hardship on these patients at a time when they require 
medical care.
  If left untreated, mental illnesses can result in more serious 
disability or even death. This legislation takes another step in 
helping to prevent such tragedies. I hope we one day will be able to 
end discrimination in the coverage of all mental illnesses. I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 797. A bill to apply the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 to 
the International Olympic Committee; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.


         International Olympic Committee Integrity Act of 1999

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for decades Americans have watched with 
awe and amazement at the invigorating achievements of the world's 
Olympic athletes. When Gail Devers and Wendy Williams won Olympic 
medals, they inspired their hometown of Bridgeton, Missouri. When Nikki 
Ziegelmeyer won a speed skating Olympic medal, her hometown of Imperial 
Missouri cheered. And when Ray Armstead helped win the 4 by 400 meter 
relay, St. Louis was proud of its native son.
  Gail, Wendy, Nikki and Ray won through sheer talent, toil and sweat. 
They pursued Olympic fame with honor and integrity, competed fairly, 
and won with dignity. Their athletic grace on the world stage helped 
spark dreams of future Olympic glory in young people today.
  But now the Olympic torch has been dimmed, and the five Olympic rings 
have been tarnished by bribes and graft given to secure victory at any 
price. The victory pursued with moneyed vengeance was not in athletic 
competition. In this scandal, the Olympic athletes are the innocents, 
yet the scandal tarnishes their achievement. The villains at ground 
zero are those who decided where the games were to be played and those 
who hosted or will host the games. Such irony: Scandal torches the 
competition to host the world's most competitive and honorable games.
  The facts are bleak--in their attempts to land the 2002 Olympics, 
leaders of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee spent $4 million on 
gifts, scholarships, cash payments and other inducements for 
International Olympic Committee members; allegations by senior Olympic 
officials have raised questions about payments that may have been made 
to influence the selection of other Olympic cities; the Justice 
Department has launched a criminal investigation into payments by Salt 
Lake City Olympic Officials; an independent investigation conducted by 
former Senator George Mitchell and former White House Chief of Staff 
Ken Duberstein concluded that receipt of ``valuables'' by International 
Olympic Committee members has become ``widespread, notorious, 
continuous, unchecked and ingrained in the way Olympic business is 
done.''; and the International Olympic Committee has expelled six of 
its members for corruption.
  Now that these problems have been exposed to the world, the question 
is what should be done to stop this bribery from destroying the Olympic 
movement.
  Today, Senator McCain took a step in the right direction by convening 
a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee. I regret the decision by 
the President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio 
Samaranch, to not attend that hearing. And I take exception with the 
comments of one of the IOC witnesses who told the Associated Press, and 
I quote, ``What I'm afraid is that they're doing it for political 
advantage and not for the benefit of anybody except for themselves. 
They just get on a soap box and preach their righteousness.''
  Well, it is crystal clear to me that Congress should, for our Olympic 
athletes and the hometowns they represent, use soap and scrubbing and 
scrutiny to clean up this mess.
  Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is a vital 
step in restoring integrity to the IOC host city bidding process. The 
International Olympic Committee Integrity Act will expand the coverage 
of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to include the IOC. The FCPA 
prohibits U.S. businesses from offering bribes or kickbacks to foreign 
officials. The U.S. Olympic Committee has asked President Clinton to 
issue an executive order to cover the IOC under the FCPA. To date, the 
President has not done so. My bill accomplishes what the U.S. Olympic 
Committee has requested and that is to outlaw the gifts and payments 
such as those that have been made in the past to International Olympic 
Committee officials.
  In addition, I am keeping open the option of removing the federal tax 
deduction that federal tax law provides for contributions made to the 
International Olympic Committee. I will review the testimony of IOC 
witnesses from today's Commerce Committee hearing before making a final 
decision.
  In closing, Mr. President, we should give credit where it is due. 
When faced with a serious mistake that has been made, a test of 
character is whether you do the next right thing. Once the Salt Lake 
City problem was discovered, officials at the U.S. Olympic Committee 
responded quickly. The USOC asked for the Mitchell-Duberstein 
investigation I mentioned earlier. The USOC has implemented a series of 
internal and external reforms of procedures used to apply for hosting 
the Olympic Games. The USOC has strengthened ethics rules, and created 
a compliance officer to monitor U.S. bid cities. And, in the future, 
all honoraria received by committee members must be forfeited to the 
group's chief financial officer.
  We have much more to do in order to restore confidence and dignity to 
the Olympics. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 
International Olympic Committee Integrity Act. We owe it to Gail 
Devers, Wendy Williams, Nikki Ziegelmeyer, Ray Armstead and all future 
Olympic athletes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Abraham, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 798. A bill to promote electronic commerce by encouraging and 
facilitating the use of encryption in interstate commerce consistent 
with the

[[Page 6439]]

protection of national security, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                          The ``PROTECT'' Act

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as the Members of the Senate know, for 
several years I have advocated the enactment of legislation that would 
facilitate the use of strong encryption. Beginning in the 104th 
Congress, I have introduced legislation that would ensure that the 
private sector continues to take the lead in developing innovative 
products to protect the security and confidentiality of our electronic 
information including the ability to export such American products.
  I am pleased to rise today to introduce with my Chairman, Senator 
McCain, the PROTECT ACT of 1999 (Promote Reliable On Line Transactions 
To Encourage Commerce and Trade). The bill reflects a number of 
discussions we have had this year about the importance of encryption in 
the digital age to promote electronic commerce, secure our confidential 
business and sensitive personal information, prevent crime and protect 
our national security by protecting the commercial information systems 
and electronic networks upon which America's critical infrastructures 
increasingly rely. I am extremely pleased to join with him in 
introducing this important legislation.
  While this bill differs in important respects from the PRO-CODE 
legislation I introduced in the previous Congress, I do think it 
accomplishes a number of very important objectives. Specifically, the 
bill:
  Prohibits domestic controls;
  Guarantees that American industry will continue to be able to come up 
with innovative products;
  Immediately decontrols encryption products using key lengths of 64 
bits or less;
  Permits the immediate exportability of 128 bit encryption in 
recoverable encryption products and in all encryption products to a 
broad group of legitimate and responsible commercial users and to users 
in allied countries;
  Recognizes the futility of unilateral export controls on mass market 
products and where there are foreign alternatives and so permits the 
immediate exportability of strong encryption products whenever a 
public-private advisory board and the Secretary of Commerce determines 
that they are generally available, publicly available, or available 
from foreign suppliers;
  Directs NIST to complete establishment of the Advanced Encryption 
Standard with 128 bit key lengths (the DES successor) by January 1, 
2002 (and ensures that it is led by the private sector and open to 
public comment); and
  Decontrols thereafter products incorporating the AES or its 
equivalent.
  Today, we are in a world that is characterized by the fact that 
nearly everyone has a computer and that those computers are, for the 
most part, connected to one another. In light of that fact, it is 
becoming more and more important to ensure that our communications over 
these computer networks are conducted in a secure way. It is no longer 
possible to say that when we move into the information age, we'll 
secure these networks, because we are already there. We use computers 
in our homes and businesses in a way that couldn't have been imagined 
10 years ago, and these computers are connected through networks, 
making it easier to communicate than ever before. This phenomenon holds 
the promise of transforming life in States like Montana, where health 
care and state-of-the-art education can be delivered over networks to 
people located far away from population centers. These new technologies 
can improve the lives of real people, but only if the security of 
information that moves over these networks is safe and reliable.
  The problem today is that our computer networks are not as secure as 
they could be; it is fairly easy for amateur hackers to break into our 
networks. They can intercept information; they can steal trade secrets 
and intellectual property; they can alter medical records; the list is 
endless. One solution to this, of course, is to let individuals and 
businesses alike to take steps to secure that information. Encryption 
is one technology that accomplishes that.
  I am proud that today I have been able to join with Senator McCain to 
introduce this legislation which will enable Americans to use the 
Internet with confidence and security.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is the third Congress in which I have 
introduced and sponsored legislation to update our country's encryption 
policies. My objective has been to bolster the competitive edge of our 
Nation's high-tech companies, allow Americans to protect their online 
and electronically stored confidential information, trade secrets and 
intellectual property, and promote global electronic commerce. I am 
pleased to join Senators McCain, Wyden and Burns, in this continuing 
effort with the ``Promote Reliable On-Line Transactions to Encourage 
Commerce and Trade (PROTECT) Act of 1999.''
  In May 1996, I chaired a hearing on the Administration's ill-fated 
Clipper Chip key escrow encryption program that drove home the need for 
relaxed export controls on strong encryption. U.S. export controls on 
encryption technology were having a clear negative effect on the 
competitiveness of American hi-tech companies. Moreover, these controls 
were discouraging the use of strong encryption domestically since 
manufacturers generally made and marketed one product for both for 
export and for domestic use here. At that hearing I heard testimony 
about 340 foreign encryption products that were available worldwide--
including for import into the United States--155 of which employed 
encryption in a strength that American companies were prohibited from 
exporting. That number has grown exponentially. As of December, 1997, 
there were 656 foreign encryption products available from 474 vendors 
in 29 different foreign countries.
  American companies certainly do not enjoy a monopoly on encryption 
know-how. The U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute for 
Standard and Technology (NIST) is developing an Advanced Encryption 
Standard (AES) to update the U.S. Data Encryption Standard (DES), the 
current global encryption standard. Only 5 of the 15 AES candidate 
algorithms submitted to NIST for evaluation were proposed from American 
companies or individuals. The remaining proposals came from Australia, 
Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, United Kingdom, Israel, Norway, 
and Belgium.
  In the 104th Congress, I introduced encryption legislation on March 
5, 1996, with Senators Burns, Dole, Murray and others, to help 
Americans better protect their online privacy and allow American 
companies to compete more effectively in the global hi-tech 
marketplace. Specifically, the ``Encrypted Communications Privacy Act 
of 1996,'' S. 1587, would have relaxed export controls on strong 
encryption and promoted the widespread use of encryption to protect the 
security, confidentiality and privacy of online communications and 
stored electronic data. This bill would have legislatively confirmed 
the freedom of Americans to use and sell in the United States any 
encryption technology that most appropriately met their privacy and 
security needs. In addition, this bill would have relaxed export 
controls to allow the export of encryption products when comparable 
strength encryption was available from foreign suppliers, and 
encryption products that were generally available or in the public 
domain.
  In the years since that bill was introduced, the Administration has 
made some positive changes in its export policies. In October 1996, the 
Administration allowed the export of 56-bit DES encryption by companies 
that agreed to develop key recovery systems. This policy was supposed 
to sunset in two years. I strongly criticized this policy at the time, 
warning that this ``sunset'' provision ``does not promote our high-tech 
industries overseas.'' In fact, when the time came last year to return 
to the old export regime that allowed the export of only 40-bit

[[Page 6440]]

encryption, the Administration relented and continues to permit the 
export of 56-bit encryption, with the condition of developing 
encryption programs with recoverable keys.
  The proposals I made in 1996 made sense then, and versions of these 
provisions are incorporated into the PROTECT Act today.
  Specifically, the PROTECT Act would provide immediate relief by 
allowing the export of encryption using key lengths of up to 64 bits. 
In addition, stronger encryption (more than 64-bit key lengths) would 
be exportable under a license exception, upon determination by a new 
Encryption Export Advisory Board that the product or service is 
generally available, publicly available or a comparable product is 
available from a foreign supplier. This determination is subject to 
approval by the Secretary of Commerce and to override by the President 
on national security grounds.
  This relief is important since the time and effort to crack 56-bit 
DES encryption is getting increasingly short. Indeed, earlier this 
year, a group of civilian computer experts broke a 56-bit encrypted 
message in less than 24 hours, beating a July 1998 effort that took 56 
hours.
  The breaking of 56-bit encryption comes as no surprise to those doing 
business, engaging in research, or conducting their personal affairs 
online. While 56-bit encryption may still serve as the global standard, 
this will not be the situation for much longer. 128-bit encryption is 
now the preferred encryption strength.
  For example, in order to access online account information from the 
Thrift Savings Plan for Federal Employees, Members and congressional 
staff must use 128-bit encryption. If you use weaker encryption, a 
screen pops up to say ``you cannot have access to your account 
information because your Web browser does not have Secure Socket Layer 
(SSL) and 128-bit encryption (the strong U.S./Canada-only version).''
  Likewise, the Department of Education has set up a Web site that 
allows prospective students to apply for student financial aid online. 
Significantly, the Education's Department states that ``[t]o achieve 
maximum protection we recommend you use 128-bit encryption.''
  These are just a couple examples of government agencies or associated 
organizations directing or urging Americans to use 128-bit encryption. 
We should assume that people in other countries are getting the same 
directions and recommendations. Unfortunately, while American companies 
can fill the demand for this strong encryption here, they are not 
permitted to sell it abroad for use by people in other countries.
  Significantly, the PROTECT Act would permit the export of 128-bit 
(and higher) AES products by January 1, 2002. While not providing 
relief as quickly as I have urged in other encryption legislation, 
including the E-PRIVACY Act, S. 2067, in the last Congress, this bill 
moves in the right direction, and provides a sunset for unworkable 
encryption export controls. In my view, this bill would give most 
Internet users access to the strongest tools they need to protect their 
privacy starting in 2002--a long time by Net standards, but time our 
law enforcement and intelligence agencies say they need to address the 
global proliferation of strong encryption.
  Encryption is a critical tool for Americans to protect their privacy 
and safeguard their confidential electronic information, such as credit 
card numbers, personal health information, or private messages, from 
online thieves and snoops. This is important to encourage the continued 
robust growth of electronic commerce. A March 1999 report of the 
Vermont Internet Commerce Research Project that I commissioned analyzed 
barriers to Internet commerce in my home State, and found that ``the 
strongest obstacle among consumers'' was the perceived lack of 
security.
  Focusing on the export regime for encryption technology is only one 
aspect, albeit an important one, in the larger debate over how best to 
protect privacy in a digital and online environment. Legislation to 
provide encryption export relief is a start, but we also have important 
work to do in addressing broader privacy issues, such as establishing 
standards for law enforcement access to decryption assistance. I look 
forward to working with Senators McCain, Wyden and Burns on passage of 
the PROTECT Act as well as other privacy legislation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join my esteemed colleagues, 
Senators McCain, Burns, Wyden, Leahy and Abraham in introducing 
legislation that will encourage sales of US information technology 
products while at the same time protecting our national security 
interests. The Promote Reliable On-Line Transactions to Encourage 
Commerce and Trade (PROTECT) Act of 1999 is an important first step 
that recognizes that as the Internet becomes more of a presence in 
global commerce, there must be guarantees and assurances that business 
and personal information remains confidential. It also recognizes that 
the US companies are leaders in creating the technology that serves 
this vital purpose, and that these companies are integral to our 
growing economy.
  United States information technology companies have been frustrated 
by what they perceive as too-stringent controls on the export of their 
encryption products. These controls have served a vital purpose in 
protecting national security interests. The realities of the 
marketplace and the technology sector, however, suggest that it time to 
loosen our grip somewhat on the export controls we impose. Although the 
US is the leader in producing high quality, strong encryption products, 
other countries also have the ability to produce comparable products. 
We must recognize this reality and understand that while export 
controls can slow the spread of encrypted products, they cannot stop 
it. Importantly, controls that do not recognize this reality put our 
software industry at a disadvantage as it tries to compete in the 
global market.
  Nothing, of course, is more important than our national security. 
This legislation maintains strong guidelines to ensure that encryption 
technology is not sold to countries that pose a threat to our national 
security. It puts in place a number of reasonable checks to make 
certain that US encryption technology does not get into the wrong 
hands. At the same time, it takes into consideration that where 
encryption products are generally or publicly available, we should not 
unduly limit their sale to responsible entities in NATO, OECD or ASEAN 
countries. To do so would not only cause potential harm to US industry, 
but it could also have an unintended negative impact on our own 
security.
  I applaud Senator McCain for taking this first step towards resolving 
a complicated problem. As we work through this and other legislation 
that attempts to address the issue of encryption exports, I hope we can 
incorporate the best features into the strongest possible bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 799. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the tax brackets, eliminate the marriage penalty, allow individuals a 
deduction for amounts paid for insurance for medical care, increase 
contribution limits for individual retirement plans and pensions, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                               tax relief

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I offer an important piece of 
legislation. The bill I offer today, called the American Family Tax 
Relief Act of 1999, is a modest, but important tax relief package. This 
bill is important for both substantive and symbolic reasons. 
Substantively, this bill provides all Americans with needed tax relief. 
If the need for tax relief isn't yet apparent to everyone, tomorrow 
will remind all Americans of the need when they submit tax returns 
which reflect an ever larger percentage of their income going to the 
federal government.
  This bill is also important as a symbol to the American public that 
Congress remains committed to the principle of a smaller federal 
government and lower taxes. We should not use the

[[Page 6441]]

unusually good economic times we enjoy as an excuse to delay providing 
tax relief to hard-working American families. No, we should instead 
take this wonderful opportunity to recommit ourselves to fiscal 
discipline and responsibility.
  We are already taking important steps in this regard by locking up 
the social security trust fund to ensure its solvency. We are also 
devoting a significant portion of the surplus to retiring publicly held 
debt, which will reduce the drain on federal spending for interest on 
this debt. The next step is to provide tax relief. This is a platform 
many of us have stood upon, and is therefore a pledge we must honor. If 
we can't provide tax cuts in good times, think how difficult it would 
be in bad times.
  This bill I offer today has five different components: the largest 
component of this legislation would lower all individual income tax 
rates by 5%. Although this is substantially less than the 10% tax cut I 
have also supported, this modest reduction will more easily fit in the 
budget offsets after social security solvency and debt retirement have 
been addressed. By letting all Americans keep more of their income, 
they will be free to spend or save more of it. By now, we all know that 
the end result of this is a healthier, more robust economy.
  The second component would expand the lowest income tax bracket, a 
targeted tax break for middle income tax payers. In addition to the 5% 
across the board reduction, many middle income earners would now fall 
into the lowest tax bracket, thereby paying even lower taxes than they 
would under the existing tax code.
  Third, I would repeal the marriage penalty. Last year during my 
reelection campaign, I heard from hundreds of Coloradans asking me to 
repeal this offensive part of the tax code. I agree with all of them 
that we need a tax code that underscores the value we place on 
encouraging families, not one that discourages or penalizes marriage. 
This bill would do that.
  Fourth, this bill would bring needed relief to many taxpayers by 
allowing the full deductibility of health insurance. Even folks who 
don't meet the minimum criteria needed to itemize their deductions, 
often single folks or lower income folks, could still deduct their 
health insurance. This is a critical step towards providing all 
Americans with health insurance coverage and reducing the cost of this 
critical component of modern life.
  The last piece of this bill would encourage greater individual 
responsibility for retirement planning. By allowing a taxpayer to 
contribute more into an IRA without being taxed, more individuals will 
contribute more to their own retirement. The end result would be less 
reliance and less strain on Social Security and other entitlement 
programs. The more Congress can lead the way in weaning ourselves off 
of federal entitlements by encouraging individual retirement planning, 
the more government will shrink while increasing its efficiency.
  I conclude by inviting my colleagues to take a good look at this bill 
and work with me on reasonable changes and to support its passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. 
        Wyden):
  S. 800. A bill to promote and enhance public safety through the use 
of 9-1-1 as the universal emergency assistance number, further 
deployment of wireless 9-1-1 service, support of States in upgrading 9-
1-1 capabilities and related functions, encouragement of construction 
and operation of seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable networks for 
personal wireless services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                           E-911 Act of 1999

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about some good 
news for a change. I want to introduce the ``E-911 Act of 1999.'' The 
purpose of this legislation is to improve 911. By linking some of the 
amazing innovations in wireless technology to 911 and medical and 
emergency response professionals we bring our 911 systems into the 21st 
century.
  All kinds of technologies exist today that can greatly reduce 
response time to emergencies and help victims get the right kind of 
medical attention quickly. But right now these technologies are not 
connected in ways that can be used for emergencies. That's why this 
effort to upgrade our 911 systems across the nation is so important and 
necessary.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has conducted 
studies showing that crash-to-care time for fatal accidents is about a 
half hour in urban areas. In rural areas, which covers most of my home 
state of Montana, that crash-to-care time almost doubles. On average, 
it takes just shy of an hour to get emergency attention to crash 
victims in rural areas. Almost half of the serious crash victims who do 
not receive care in that first hour die at the scene of the accident. 
That's a scary statistic.
  In 1997 there were 37,280 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United 
States--41,967 people died as a result. Of that number, 2,098 were 
children. Now obviously there is no piece of legislation that can 
instantly prevent these kinds of tragedies. But there are definitely 
things we can do to help reduce them. Upgrading our 911 response 
systems, which this legislation promotes, is a solid step toward 
preventing many horrible tragedies.
  Drew Dawson, who is the director of the Montana Emergency Medical 
Services Bureau and the president of the National Association of State 
Emergency Medical Services Directors, strongly supports the Wireless 
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. He tells me that the bill 
will help bring better wireless 911 coverage to Montana and will 
enhance our statewide Trauma Care System. Mr. Dawson believes this 
legislation will help him and his emergency folks do their jobs better, 
which means it will help them save more lives than they already do.
  I have to say a word about all of the good work that folks like Drew 
Dawson in Montana and other emergency professionals do all over the 
country. The United States has the most skilled and dedicated group of 
medical and emergency professionals in the world. We need to give them 
better tools. There is technology out there that can help these 
professionals and that can help all of us citizens, if, God forbid, we 
ever find ourselves in an emergency situation needing this kind of 
help. The E-911 Act of 1999 will help all of us and will make our 
emergency services even better than they are today.
  Mr. President, Let me take a moment to summarize the important 
sections of this bill.
  It makes Congressional findings and specifies the purpose of the Act. 
The purpose of the Act is ``to encourage and facilitate the prompt 
deployment throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and 
reliable end-to-end infrastructure for communications, including 
wireless communications, to meet the Nation's public safety and other 
communications needs.''
  It assigns to the Federal Communications Commission, and any agency 
or entity to which it has delegated authority under Section 251 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, the duty to designate the number 911 as the 
universal emergency telephone number within the United States for 
reporting an emergency to appropriate authorities and requesting 
assistance. The universal number would apply both to wireless and 
wireline telephone service. The Commission, and any agency or entity, 
must establish appropriate periods for geographic areas in which 911 is 
not in use as an emergency telephone number to transition to the use of 
911.
  It establishes a principle of parity between the wireless and 
wireline telecommunications industries in protection from liability 
for: (1) the provision of telephone services, including 911 and 
emergency warning service, and (2) the use of 911 and emergency warning 
service. The bill provides for wireless providers of telephone service 
to receive at least as much protection under Federal, State or local 
law from liability as local exchange companies receive in providing 
telephone services. States cannot impose procedural barriers, such as 
requiring wireless providers to file tariffs, as a condition for 
wireless

[[Page 6442]]

providers to receive the substantive protection from liability for 
which the legislation provides. The bill also provides for users of 
wireless 911 service to receive at least as much protection from 
liability under Federal, State or local law as users of wireline 911 
service receive.
  It amends Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
222) to provide appropriate privacy protection for call location 
information concerning the user of a commercial mobile service, 
including such information provided by an automatic crash notification 
system. The provision authorizes disclosure of such information to 
emergency dispatch providers and emergency service personnel in order 
to respond to the user's call for emergency services. The provision 
also is intended to allow disclosure of such information to the next-
of-kin or legal guardian of a person as necessary in connection with 
the furnishing of medical care to such person as a result of an 
emergency. Finally, the customer of a commercial mobile radio service 
may grant broader authority (for example, in the customer's written 
subscription agreement with the service provider) for the use of, 
disclosure of, or access to call location information concerning users 
of the customer's commercial mobile service communications instrument 
(e.g., the customer's wireless telephone), but the customer must grant 
such authority expressly and in advance of such use, disclosure or 
access.
  It provides definitions for terms used in the legislation.
  That is the long version of what this bill is about. The short 
version is: it's about saving lives. Mr. President, I hope all of my 
colleagues will join me and help pass this important legislation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor and 
support the E-911 Act of 1999, which has been introduced by Senator 
Burns. I commend Senator Burns for his outstanding work on this 
legislation which will help build a national wireless communications 
system and save lives.
  Mr. President, I want to make sure that Americans everywhere can dial 
9-1-1 to summon prompt assistance in an emergency. When a person is 
seriously injured, every second counts. In fact, medical trauma and 
public safety professionals speak of a ``golden hour''--the first hour 
after serious injury when the greatest percentage of lives can be 
saved. The sooner that the seriously injured get medical help, the 
greater the chance of survival. And prompt notification to the 
authorities is the first critical step in getting medical assistance to 
the injured.
  I believe that injured Americans should be able to get emergency 
medical assistance as quickly as possible. Over 60 million Americans 
carry wireless telephones. Some of these people own them specifically 
for safety reasons, in order to summon help in an emergency. Others 
would be willing to use their phones to report emergencies to the 
authorities.
  But in many parts of the country when a person who is seriously 
injured--or a frantic bystander--calls 9-1-1 on their wireless 
telephone, nothing happens. Although many Americans think that 9-1-1 is 
already a national emergency number everywhere, it isn't. There are 
many places in America where 9-1-1 isn't the right number to call for 
help. The rule in America ought to be uniform and simple--if you have 
an emergency wherever you are, dial 9-1-1. This bill reduces the danger 
of not knowing what number to call, by making 9-1-1 the universal 
emergency telephone number.
  Mr. President, I also believe that we also need to tie our citizens 
through their wireless telephones to emergency medical centers, police 
and firefighters so that they can get lifesaving assistance even when 
they are too injured to make a 9-1-1 call, or can make the call but 
cannot give their location. This bill supports the upgrading of 9-1-1 
systems so that they can deliver more information, like location and 
automatic crash information data which will better enable emergency 
services to reach those incapacitated by injury. This legislation also 
promotes the expansion of the areas covered by wireless telephone 
service, so that more people can use wireless phones in an emergency. 
Because if a wireless telephone isn't within range of a wireless tower, 
a wireless call can't go through.
  Mr. President, I would like to see an America where more people in 
more places can call 9-1-1 and quickly get the right help in 
emergencies. This legislation will help reduce medical response time 
for millions of Americans, by helping to make sure that people can use 
their wireless phones to call 9-1-1 immediately and get the ambulances 
rolling
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce 
Committee on this important life-saving legislation, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 801. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level; to the Committee on Finance.


                         Repealing The Beer Tax

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
pertaining to the federal excise tax on beer.
  Many people are not aware that they pay enormous hidden taxes when 
they purchase any number of consumer products. The beer tax is one 
significant example of such a hidden tax. Bearing a disproportionate 
tax burden, forty-three percent of the cost of beer is comprised of 
both state and federal taxes.
  The federal government doubled its tax on beer eight years ago. 
Today, though it is one of the more regressive taxes, the 100 percent 
beer tax increase remains as the only ``luxury tax'' enacted as part of 
the 1991 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. While taxes on furs, 
jewelry, and yachts have been repealed through subsequent legislation, 
the federal beer tax remains in place with continued far reaching 
effects, including the loss of as many as 50,000 industry jobs. My 
legislation seeks to correct this inequity and will restore the level 
of federal excise tax to the pre-1991 tax rate.
  Mr. President, I offer this bill as companion legislation to H.R. 
1366 introduced by Representative Phil English.
  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. 801

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 1990 TAX INCREASE ON BEER.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 5051(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition and 
     rate of tax on beer) is amended by striking ``$18'' and 
     inserting ``$9''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Specter, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 802. A bill to provide for a gradual reduction in the loan rate 
for peanuts, to repeal peanut quotas for the 2002 and subsequent crops, 
and to require the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase peanuts and 
peanut products for nutrition programs only at the world market price; 
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                  Reform of The Federal Peanut Program

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
would bring common sense reform to the federal peanut commodity 
program. This legislation would phase out the peanut quota program over 
three years, with the quota being eliminated in crop year 2002. I am 
joined today by several colleagues in this reform effort.
  Under this legislation, the price support for peanuts that are grown 
for edible consumption is gradually reduced each year from the current 
support price of $610 per ton to $500 per ton by 2001. In the year 2002 
and ensuing crop years, there would be no quotas on peanuts, and the 
Secretary of Agriculture

[[Page 6443]]

would be required to make the non-recourse loan available to all peanut 
farmers at 85 percent of their estimated market value. This measure is 
consistent with the non-recourse loan programs available for other 
agriculture commodities.
  Another component of this peanut reform bill would allow additional 
peanuts, those produced in excess of the farmer's quota poundage, to be 
used for sale to the school lunch program.
  Mr. President, the federal peanut program, born in the 1930's during 
an era of massive change and dislocation in agriculture, is sorely out 
of place in today's agricultural sector. Other farm commodities are 
seeking new export opportunities abroad, building new markets and 
helping to improve our national balance of trade, however, the peanut 
industry is building new barriers to protect itself. The quota system 
stifles freedom for farmers, and it fosters a set of economic 
expectations that cannot be sustained without continued government 
intervention. Moreover, failure to reform this program costs consumers 
between $300-500 million annually, adding to the cost of feeding 
programs for low-income Americans.
  In short, this program must be changed. As we have learned from 
changes made to other commodity programs, reform does not happen 
overnight. This proposal provides for a fair transition that will 
enable farmers and lenders to adjust their expectations to the 
marketplace. Following completion of the phase-out period, the peanut 
program will operate like most other agricultural commodities.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to have many of my Senate colleagues join 
me today as cosponsors of this measure, including Senators Chafee, 
DeWine, Feingold, Gregg, Brownback, Specter, and Collins.
  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. 802

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

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN LOAN RATES FOR PEANUTS.

       Section 155(a) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7271(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Loan rate.--The national average quota loan rate for 
     quota peanuts shall be as follows:
       ``(A) $610 per ton for the 1999 crop.
       ``(B) $550 per ton for the 2000 crop.
       ``(C) $500 per ton for the 2001 crop.''.

     SEC. 2. NONRECOURSE LOANS FOR 2002 AND SUBSEQUENT CROPS OF 
                   PEANUTS.

       Effective beginning with the 2002 crop of peanuts, section 
     155 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7271) 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 155. PEANUT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Loans.--The Secretary shall make nonrecourse loans 
     available to producers of peanuts for each of the 2002 and 
     subsequent crops of peanuts.
       ``(2) Rate.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall offer to all peanut producers nonrecourse loans at a 
     level not less than 85 percent of the simple average price 
     received by producers for peanuts, as determined by the 
     Secretary, during the marketing year for each of the 
     immediately preceding 5 crops of peanuts, excluding the year 
     in which the average price was the highest and the year in 
     which the average price was the lowest during the period, but 
     not more than $350 per ton. The loans shall be administered 
     at no net cost to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
       ``(3) Inspection, handling, or storage.--The levels of 
     support determined under paragraph (2) shall not be reduced 
     by any deduction for inspection, handling, or storage.
       ``(4) Marketing of peanuts owned or controlled by the 
     commodity credit corporation.--Any peanuts owned or 
     controlled by the Commodity Credit Corporation may be made 
     available for domestic edible use, in accordance with 
     regulations issued by the Secretary, so long as doing so 
     results in no net cost to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
       ``(5) Location and other factors.--The Secretary may make 
     adjustments for the location of peanuts and such other 
     factors as are authorized by section 403.
       ``(6) Announcement.--The Secretary shall announce the level 
     of support for each crop of peanuts not later than the 
     February 15 preceding the marketing year for which the level 
     of support is being determined.
       ``(b) Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out the program authorized by this section through the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation.
       ``(c) Crops.--This section shall be effective for each of 
     the 2002 and subsequent crops of peanuts.''.

     SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF PEANUT QUOTAS FOR 2002 AND SUBSEQUENT 
                   CROPS OF PEANUTS.

       (a) In General.--Part VI of subtitle B of title III of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1357 et seq.) 
     is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 301(b) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1301(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``corn, rice, and 
     peanuts'' and inserting ``corn and rice'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking subparagraph (C);
       (C) in paragraph (10)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``wheat, and peanuts'' and inserting ``and 
     wheat''; and
       (ii) by striking ``; 20 per centum in the case of wheat; 
     and 15 per centum in the case of peanuts'' and inserting ``; 
     and 20 percent in the case of wheat'';
       (D) in paragraph (13)--
       (i) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and
       (ii) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``or peanuts'' both 
     places it appears; and
       (E) in paragraph (16)(A), by striking ``rice, and peanuts'' 
     and inserting ``and rice''.
       (2) Administrative provisions.--Section 361 of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1361) is 
     amended by striking ``peanuts,''.
       (3) Adjustment of quotas.--Section 371 of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1371) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``peanuts,''; and
       (B) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``peanuts''.
       (4) Reports and records.--Section 373 of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1373) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following new sentence: ``This subsection shall 
     apply to warehousemen, processors, and common carriers of 
     corn, wheat, cotton, rice, or tobacco, and all ginners of 
     cotton, all persons engaged in the business of purchasing 
     corn, wheat, cotton, rice, or tobacco from producers, and all 
     persons engaged in the business of redrying, prizing, or 
     stemming tobacco for producers.''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``peanuts,''.
       (5) Regulations.--Section 375(a) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1375(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``peanuts,''.
       (6) Eminent domain.--The first sentence of section 378(c) 
     of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1378(c)) 
     is amended by striking ``cotton, tobacco, and peanuts,'' and 
     inserting ``cotton and tobacco,''.
       (c) Liability.--A provision of this section or an amendment 
     made by this section shall not affect the liability of any 
     person under any provision of law as in effect before the 
     application of the provision of this section or the amendment 
     in accordance with this section.
       (d) Application.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall apply beginning with the 2002 crop of 
     peanuts.

     SEC. 4. PURCHASE OF PEANUTS FOR NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

       Section 14 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1762a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Purchase of Peanuts for Nutrition Programs.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) Additional peanuts.--The term `additional peanuts' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 358-1(e) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1358-1(e)).
       ``(B) Covered program.--The term `covered program' means--
       ``(i) a program established under this Act;
       ``(ii) a program established under the Child Nutrition Act 
     of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.);
       ``(iii) the emergency food assistance program established 
     under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 
     7501 et seq.);
       ``(iv) the food distribution program on Indian reservations 
     established under section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2013(b));
       ``(v) the commodity distribution program established under 
     section 4 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 
     1973 (Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C. 612c note);
       ``(vi) the commodity supplemental food program established 
     under section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection 
     Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C. 612c note); and
       ``(vii) a nutrition program carried out under part C of 
     title III of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3030e 
     et seq.).
       ``(2) Purchases.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, in purchasing peanuts or peanut products to carry out a 
     covered program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) purchase the peanuts or peanut products at a price 
     that is not more than the prevailing world market price for 
     peanuts or peanut products produced in the United States, as 
     determined by the Secretary; and

[[Page 6444]]

       ``(B) in the case of peanut purchases, purchase only 
     additional peanuts.
       ``(3) Domestic edible use.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, additional peanuts purchased by the 
     Secretary to carry out a covered program shall not be 
     considered to be peanuts for domestic edible use under the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) 
     or Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et 
     seq.).
       ``(4) Supply.--The Secretary shall take such actions as are 
     necessary to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that 
     an adequate supply of additional peanuts is available to 
     carry out covered programs.
       ``(5) Penalties.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a person that produces additional peanuts that are sold 
     to the Secretary, or sells additional peanuts to the 
     Secretary, for a covered program shall not be subject to a 
     penalty or other sanction for the production or sale of the 
     additional peanuts.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 803. A bill to make the International Olympic Committee subject to 
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                           the ioc reform act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would make the International Olympic Committee subject to the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act. This legislation is in response to what I 
believe is a failure on the part of the International Olympic Committee 
(IOC) to adequately respond to corruption in the selection of cities to 
host the Olympic games.
  This morning, I chaired a hearing of the Commerce Committee on the 
recent public controversies involving the Olympic bid process. As most 
of you know, allegations of bribes and corruption in the Salt Lake City 
bid process have prompted investigations by the Utah Attorney General 
and the Department of Justice. The purpose of the hearing was not to 
focus on a single investigation. Instead, the Committee examined the 
bid process as a whole and the reform efforts undertaken by the United 
States Olympic Committee (USOC) and IOC respectively.
  The Committee heard testimony from the USOC, IOC and the Special Bid 
Oversight Commission. The Commission was appointed by the USOC to 
review the circumstances surrounding the selection of Salt Lake City to 
host the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Commission, composed of a group of 
highly respected individuals including our former colleague Senator 
Mitchell and Ken Duberstein, made a series of recommendations to reform 
both the USOC and the IOC. The recommendations focused on bringing 
transparency and accountability to both organizations.
  The USOC appears to be moving forward with reform. It adopted in full 
the recommendations of the Commission and took responsibility for its 
own failure to oversee the Salt Lake City bid process. While not 
complete, I believe the process of reform at the USOC has begun. 
Unfortunately, the hearing did very little to ease my concerns about 
the IOC. IOC representatives expressed opposition to several of the 
commissions' recommendations and continues to be resistant to change. 
While I understand the IOC may have legitimate concerns about some of 
the suggested reforms, I question their commitment to reform.
  This morning Senator Mitchell and the other members of the Commission 
agreed that Congress could and should take action to ensure that the 
IOC is subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In the United 
States, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is available to law 
enforcement to combat official corruption in international business 
transactions. Currently, IOC members are not governed by the Act 
because they do not generally act in the role of a foreign official. 
Rather, they act on behalf of the IOC, a private enterprise. My 
amendment includes the IOC in the definition of a Public International 
Organization subjecting them to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
  This bill should be a considered vehicle for discussion. This 
morning, Senator Mitchell and the Commission offered to provide the 
committee with further comments on possible legislative solutions to 
this problem. I look forward to hearing their ideas and working with 
them. However, based upon the recommendation of the panel this morning 
and the need to send a strong signal to IOC that we are serious about 
reform, I wanted to introduce this first step today. I know that many 
of my colleagues either will introduce measures as well and I look 
forward to working with them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Frist):
  S. 804. A bill to improve the ability of Federal agencies to license 
Federally-owned inventions; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


           TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMMERCIALIZATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am with my colleague Senate 
Frist introducing the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 
1999. This bill would make technical changes and clarifications to the 
legislation which governs the transfer of intellectual property from 
the federal government to the private sector.
  The original Technology Transfer Improvements Act (TTIA), which I was 
author of in 1995, allowed for easier and quicker access to 
intellectual property which the government owns and private industry 
wants. It created a win-win situation. The government gets royalties 
from these licenses, private industry gets the intellectual property 
that it needs, and Americans get jobs from the production of inventions 
based on this intellectual property.
  This bill builds on the strong positive response from TTIA. It 
reduces the requirements for obtaining a non-exclusive license in order 
to allow as many companies and individuals as possible access to the 
information. It also addresses private industry's concerns about 
maintaining confidential information within applications.
  However, this does not come at the expense of the government being 
able to keep control of its property. This bill also clarifies the 
ability of the licensing agencies to terminate a license if certain 
criteria are not met. Furthermore, it allows the government to 
consolidate intellectual property which is developed in cooperation 
with a private entity so that the package can be relicensed to a third 
party.
  Technology transfer is a vital part of our national economy. It is 
what allows our industries to remain at the leading edge in their 
field. This bill clarifies and adjusts current legislation to allow for 
an even better working relationship between the federal government and 
private industry. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 804

       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 ``Technology Transfer 
     Commercialization Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.

       Section 12(b)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(b)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or, subject to section 209 of title 35, United 
     States Code, may grant a license to an invention which is 
     federally owned, for which a patent application was filed 
     before the granting of the license, and directly within the 
     scope of the work under the agreement,'' after ``under the 
     agreement,''.

     SEC. 3. LICENSING FEDERALLY OWNED INVENTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 209 of title 35, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 209. Licensing federally owned inventions

       ``(a) Authority.--A Federal agency may grant an exclusive 
     or partially exclusive license on a federally owned invention 
     under section 207(a)(2) only if--
       ``(1) granting the license is a reasonable and necessary 
     incentive to--
       ``(A) call forth the investment capital and expenditures 
     needed to bring the invention to practical application; or
       ``(B) otherwise promote the invention's utilization by the 
     public;
       ``(2) the Federal agency finds that the public will be 
     served by the granting of the license, as indicated by the 
     applicant's intentions, plans, and ability to bring the 
     invention to practical application or otherwise

[[Page 6445]]

     promote the invention's utilization by the public, and that 
     the proposed scope of exclusivity is not greater than 
     reasonably necessary to provide the incentive for bringing 
     the invention to practical utilization, as proposed by the 
     applicant, or otherwise to promote the invention's 
     utilization by the public;
       ``(3) the applicant makes a commitment to achieve practical 
     utilization of the invention within a reasonable time, which 
     may be extended by the agency upon the applicant's request 
     and the applicant's demonstration that the refusal of such an 
     extension would be unreasonable as specified in the license;
       ``(4) granting the license will not tend to substantially 
     lessen competition or create or maintain a violation of the 
     Federal antitrust laws; and
       ``(5) in the case of an invention covered by a foreign 
     patent application or patent, the interests of the Federal 
     Government or United States industry in foreign commerce will 
     be enhanced.
       ``(b) Manufacture in United States.--A Federal agency shall 
     normally grant a license under section 207(a)(2) to use or 
     sell any federally owned invention in the United States only 
     to a licensee who agrees that any products embodying the 
     invention or produced through the use of the invention will 
     be manufactured substantially in the United States.
       ``(c) Small Business.--First preference for the granting of 
     any exclusive or partially exclusive licenses under section 
     207(a)(2) shall be given to small business firms having equal 
     or greater likelihood as other applicants to bring the 
     invention to practical application within a reasonable time.
       ``(d) Terms and Conditions.--Any licenses granted under 
     section 207(a)(2) shall contain such terms and conditions as 
     the granting agency considers appropriate. Such terms and 
     conditions shall include provisions--
       ``(1) retaining a nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up 
     license for any Federal agency to practice the invention or 
     have the invention practiced throughout the world by or on 
     behalf of the Government of the United States;
       ``(2) requiring periodic reporting on utilization of the 
     invention, and utilization efforts, by the licensee, but only 
     to the extent necessary to enable the Federal agency to 
     determine whether the terms of the license are being complied 
     with; and
       ``(3) empowering the Federal agency to terminate the 
     license in whole or in part if the agency determines that--
       ``(A) the licensee is not executing its commitment to 
     achieve practical utilization of the invention, including 
     commitments contained in any plan submitted in support of its 
     request for a license, and the licensee cannot otherwise 
     demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Federal agency that it 
     has taken, or can be expected to take within a reasonable 
     time, effective steps to achieve practical utilization of the 
     invention;
       ``(B) the licensee is in breach of an agreement described 
     in subsection (b);
       ``(C) termination is necessary to meet requirements for 
     public use specified by Federal regulations issued after the 
     date of the license, and such requirements are not reasonably 
     satisfied by the licensee; or
       ``(D) the licensee has been found by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction to have violated the federal antitrust laws in 
     connection with its performance under the license agreement.
       ``(e) Public Notice.--No exclusive or partially exclusive 
     license may be granted under section 207(a)(2) unless public 
     notice of the intention to grant an exclusive or partially 
     exclusive license on a federally owned invention has been 
     provided in an appropriate manner at least 15 days before the 
     license is granted, and the Federal agency has considered all 
     comments received before the end of the comment period in 
     response to that public notice. This subsection shall not 
     apply to the licensing of inventions made under a cooperative 
     research and development agreement entered into under section 
     12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 
     (15 U.S.C. 3710a).
       ``(f) Plan.--No Federal agency shall grant any license 
     under a patent or patent application on a federally owned 
     invention unless the person requesting the license has 
     supplied the agency with a plan for development and/or 
     marketing of the invention, except that any such plan may be 
     treated by the Federal agency as commercial and financial 
     information obtained from a person and privileged and 
     confidential and not subject to disclosure under section 552 
     of title 5 of the United States Code.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 209 
     in the table of sections for chapter 18 of title 35, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``209. Licensing federally owned inventions.''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO BAYH-DOLE ACT.

       Chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code (popularly known 
     as the ``Bayh-Dole Act''), is amended--
       (1) by amending section 202(e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) In any case when a Federal employee is a coinventor 
     of any invention made with a nonprofit organization or small 
     business firm, the Federal agency employing such coinventor 
     may, for the purpose of consolidating rights in the invention 
     and if it finds it would expedite the development of the 
     invention--
       ``(1) license or assign whatever rights it may acquire in 
     the subject invention to the nonprofit organization or small 
     business firm; or
       ``(2) acquire any rights in the subject invention from the 
     nonprofit organization or small business firm, but only to 
     the extent the party from whom the rights are acquired 
     voluntarily enters into the transaction and no other 
     transaction under this chapter is conditioned on such 
     acquisition.''; and
       (2) in section 207(a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``patent applications, 
     patents, or other forms of protection obtained'' and 
     inserting ``inventions''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, including acquiring 
     rights for the Federal Government in any invention, but only 
     to the extent the party from whom the rights are acquired 
     voluntarily enters into the transaction, to facilitate the 
     licensing of a federally owned invention'' after ``or through 
     contract''.

     SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE STEVENSON-WYDLER 
                   TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 1980.

       The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 4(4) (15 U.S.C. 3703(4)), by striking 
     ``section 6 or section 8'' and inserting ``section 7 or 9'';
       (2) in section 4(6) (15 U.S.C. 3703(6)), by striking 
     ``section 6 or section 8'' and inserting ``section 7 or 9'';
       (3) in section 5(c)(11) (15 U.S.C. 3704(c)(11)), by 
     striking ``State of local governments'' and inserting ``State 
     or local governments'';
       (4) in section 9 (15 U.S.C. 3707), by--
       (A) striking ``section 6(a)'' and inserting ``section 
     7(a)'';
       (B) striking ``section 6(b)'' and inserting ``section 
     7(b)''; and
       (C) striking ``section 6(c)(3)'' and inserting ``section 
     7(c)(3)'';
       (5) in section 11(e)(1) (15 U.S.C. 3710(e)(1)), by striking 
     ``in cooperation with Federal Laboratories'' and inserting 
     ``in cooperation with Federal laboratories'';
        (6) in section 11(i) (15 U.S.C. 3710(i)), by striking ``a 
     gift under the section'' and inserting ``a gift under this 
     section'';
       (7) in section 14 (15 U.S.C. 3710c)--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), by inserting ``, if the 
     inventor's or coinventor's rights are assigned to the United 
     States'' after ``inventor or coinventors'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(1)(B), by striking ``succeeding 
     fiscal year'' and inserting ``2 succeeding fiscal years''; 
     and
       (C) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``invention'' and 
     inserting ``invention''; and
       (8) in section 22 (15 U.S.C. 3714), by striking ``sections 
     11, 12, and 13'' and inserting ``sections 12, 13, and 14''.

     SEC. 6. REVIEW OF COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   AGREEMENT PROCEDURES.

       (a) Review.--Within 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, each Federal agency with a federally funded 
     laboratory that has in effect on that date of enactment 1 or 
     more cooperative research and development agreements under 
     section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
     of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a) shall report to the Committee on 
     National Security of the National Science and Technology 
     Council and the Congress on the general policies and 
     procedures used by that agency to gather and consider the 
     views of other agencies on--
       (1) joint work statements under section 12(c)(5) (C) or (D) 
     of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 
     U.S.C. 3710a(c)(5) (C) or (D)); or
       (2) in the case of laboratories described in section 
     12(d)(2)(A) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
     of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(2)(A)), cooperative research and 
     development agreements under such section 12,

     with respect to major proposed cooperative research and 
     development agreements that involve critical national 
     security technology or may have a significant impact on 
     domestic or international competitiveness.
       (b) Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Within 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Committee on National Security of 
     the National Science and Technology Council, in conjunction 
     with relevant Federal agencies and national laboratories, 
     shall--
       (A) determine the adequacy of existing procedures and 
     methods for interagency coordination and awareness with 
     respect to cooperative research and development agreements 
     described in subsection (a); and
       (B) establish and distribute to appropriate Federal 
     agencies--
       (i) specific criteria to indicate the necessity for 
     gathering and considering the views of other agencies on 
     joint work statements or cooperative research and development 
     agreements as described in subsection (a); and
       (ii) additional procedures, if any, for carrying out such 
     gathering and considering of agency views with respect to 
     cooperative research and development agreements described in 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Procedure design.--Procedures established under this 
     subsection shall be designed to the extent possible to--

[[Page 6446]]

       (A) use or modify existing procedures;
       (B) minimize burdens on Federal agencies;
       (C) encourage industrial partnerships with national 
     laboratories; and
       (D) minimize delay in the approval or disapproval of joint 
     work statements and cooperative research and development 
     agreements.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act, nor any procedures 
     established under this section shall provide to the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy, the National Science and 
     Technology Council, or any Federal agency the authority to 
     disapprove a cooperative research and development agreement 
     or joint work statement, under section 12 of the Stevenson-
     Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a), 
     of another Federal agency.

     SEC. 7. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR FEDERAL LABORATORY 
                   PARTNERSHIP INTERMEDIARIES.

       Section 23 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
     Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3715) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``, institutions of 
     higher education as defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)), or educational 
     institutions within the meaning of section 2194 of title 10, 
     United States Code'' after ``small business firms''; and
       (2) in subsection (c) by inserting'`, institutions of 
     higher education as defined in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)), or educational 
     institutions within the meaning of section 2194 of title 10, 
     United Stats Code,'' after ``small business firms''.

     SEC. 8. REPORTS ON UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Agency Activities.--Section 11 of the Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the last sentence of subsection (b);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Agency Reports on Utilization.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each Federal agency which operates or 
     directs one or more Federal laboratories or which conducts 
     activities under sections 207, 208, and 209 of title 35, 
     United States Code, shall report annually to the Office of 
     Management and Budget, as part of the agency's annual budget 
     submission, on the activities performed by that agency and 
     its Federal laboratories under the provisions of this section 
     and of sections 207, 208, and 209 of title 35, United States 
     Code.
       ``(2) Contents.--The report shall include--
       ``(A) an explanation of the agency's technology transfer 
     program for the preceding year and the agency's plans for 
     conducting its technology transfer function for the upcoming 
     year, including its plans for managing its intellectual 
     property so as to advance the agency's mission and benefit 
     the competitiveness of United States industry; and
       ``(B) information on technology transfer activities for the 
     preceding year, including--
       ``(i) the number of patent applications filed;
       ``(ii) the number of patents received;
       ``(iii) the number of executed royalty-bearing licenses, 
     both exclusive and non-exclusive, and the time elapsed from 
     the date the license was requested to the date the license 
     was issued;
       ``(iv) the total earned royalty income including such 
     statistical information as the total earned royalty income of 
     the top 1 percent, 5 percent, and 20 percent of the licenses, 
     the range of royalty income, and the median;
       ``(v) the number of licenses terminated; and
       ``(vi) any other parameters or discussion that the agency 
     deems relevant or unique to its practice of technology 
     transfer.
       ``(3) Copy to secretary; congress.--The agency shall 
     transmit a copy of the report to the Secretary of Commerce 
     for inclusion in the annual report to Congress and the 
     President as set forth in subsection (g)(2) below.
       ``(4) Public availability.--The agency is also strongly 
     encouraged to make the required information available to the 
     public through web sites or other electronic means.'';
       (3) by striking subsection (g)(2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Reports.--
       ``(A) Annual report required.--The Secretary shall submit 
     each fiscal year, beginning one year after enactment of the 
     Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999, a summary 
     report to the President and the Congress on the use by the 
     agencies and the Secretary of the authorities specified in 
     this Act and in sections 207, 208, and 209 of title 35, 
     United States Code.
       ``(B) Content.--The report shall--
       ``(i) draw upon the reports prepared by the agencies under 
     subsection (f);
       ``(ii) discuss technology transfer best practices, lessons 
     learned, and successful approaches in the licensing and 
     transfer of technology in the context of the agencies' 
     missions; and
       ``(iii) discuss the progress made toward development of 
     useful measures of the outcomes of these programs.
       ``(C) Public availability.--The Secretary shall make the 
     report available to the public through Internet websites or 
     other electronic means.''; and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h) Duplication of Reporting.--The reporting obligations 
     imposed by this section--
       ``(1) are not intended to impose requirements that 
     duplicate requirements imposed by the Government Performance 
     and Results Act of 1993 (31 US.C. 1101 nt); and
       ``(2) are to be implemented in coordination with the 
     implementation of that Act.''.
       (b) Royalties.--Section 14(c) of the Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710c(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Reports.--At least once every 5 years, beginning one 
     year after enactment of the Technology Transfer 
     Commercialization Act of 1999, the Comptroller General shall 
     transmit a report to the appropriate committee of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives on the effectiveness of the 
     various programs in this Act, including findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations for improvements in such 
     programs.''.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Technology 
Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999.
  Technology transfer is a crucial link in the process that transforms 
research results into commercially viable products. The federal 
government's involvement in technology transfer arises naturally from 
its desire to encourage usage and commercialization of innovations 
resulting from federally-funded research. However, it is through 
further development, refinement, and marketing by the private sector 
that research results become diffused throughout the economy and 
generate growth. The private sector's active and timely participation 
in this process must be strongly encouraged if our competitiveness is 
to be enhanced.
  Patents and licensing rights play key roles in the technology 
transfer process in that they provide strong economic incentives to 
industry. Studies have shown that research funding accounts for only 25 
percent of the costs associated with bringing a new product to market. 
Increasingly, patent ownership is used as a means to recoup the 
investment through the incoming royalty stream. In addition, actual 
experience and studies concluded that if companies do not control the 
results of their investments, they are less likely to engage in related 
research and development.
  Existing legislation encourages the transfer of technologies and 
closer collaborations between the Federal labs and industry by allowing 
the industry partners to obtain title to inventions that result from 
these collaborations. The Stevenson-Wydler Act and subsequent 
amendments created a framework to facilitate cooperative and 
development agreement (CRADAs) between industry and the Federal labs. 
The Bayh-Dole Act and subsequent amendments established policies for 
the licensing of federally-funded inventions.
  The Technology Commercialization Act of 1999 improves upon both 
Stevenson-Wydler and Bayh-Dole by taking into consideration the 
increased competition in the marketplace. Provisions include 
streamlining the licensing procedure, and encouraging use of the 
electronic media to shorten the time requirements for public notice. 
This is in accordance with the fast pace required for doing business 
today. Other provisions include clarifications of criteria for granting 
any license, as well as exclusive and partially exclusive licenses.
  Although technology transfer is important, such transfer should not 
compromise national security or substantially reduce competition in the 
marketplace. In response to these concerns, the Act requires the Office 
of Science and Technology Policy to study existing practices of CRADA 
creation in the agencies, and issue a report outlining review 
procedures for the creation of certain types of CRADAs.
  The Act also lays the groundwork for a better understanding of the 
technology transfer process. Although there is consensus on the role of 
technology transfer in economic growth, there are no existing measures 
for understanding how much technology is transferred or how well the 
process works. Relevant questions include is the technology that is 
being transferred useful or successful, and are the

[[Page 6447]]

inventions being produced in the federal labs relevant to the 
marketplace. As we transition into a knowledge-based economy, the 
management of knowledge movement will play a key role in sustaining our 
competitiveness.
  In summary, technology transfer is crucial to our national economic 
growth. Therefore, both Senator Rockefeller and I ask for your support 
in enhancing our competitiveness and encouraging industry to work 
together with our federal agencies to create the best technologies 
possible.

                          ____________________