[Pages S3695-S3713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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

[[Page S3696]]

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 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

[[Page S3697]]

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.
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

[[Page S3698]]

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.
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

[[Page S3699]]

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,

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.

[[Page S3700]]

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:
``(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 our shores seeking opportunity and a better life,
and America has greatly

[[Page S3701]]

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 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,

[[Page S3702]]

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:

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

[[Page S3703]]

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.
____

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).

[[Page S3704]]

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 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,

[[Page S3705]]

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

Introduction of 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;

[[Page S3706]]

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
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

[[Page S3707]]

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 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.

[[Page S3708]]

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 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.

[[Page S3709]]

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 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

[[Page S3710]]

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
``(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

[[Page S3711]]

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 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.''.

[[Page S3712]]

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--
(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.

[[Page S3713]]

``(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 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.

____________________