[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7863-S7869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DASCHLE:

  S. 1045. A bill to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis 
of genetic information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.


                        THE GENETIC JUSTICE ACT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the advent of testing for genes that may 
indicate a predisposition to disease has presented us with a new series 
of opportunities and challenges. While prior awareness of 
susceptibility to disease offers millions the chance to take preventive 
measures that will help them live healthier and longer lives, there 
also exists the possibility that genetic information will be misused. 
It is for that reason that I am introducing S. 1045, The Genetic 
Justice Act. This legislation will ensure that employees will not 
suffer adverse employment consequences as a result of improper use of 
genetic information and that employee privacy is protected.
  Scientific advances now make it possible to identify genes that may 
indicate a predisposition to disease. For example, tests for genes 
associated with hereditary breast cancer will soon be commercially 
available. Genetic information may prove highly beneficial in areas 
related to prevention, treatment, diet, or lifestyle. While this is 
profoundly good news for patients, it also raises fears regarding how 
genetic information will be used in the workplace. Advances in genetic 
testing and screening, accelerated by the National Institutes of Health 
Human Genome Initiative, increase physicians' ability to detect and 
monitor chromosomal differences. These technologies and their resulting 
genomic data will enhance medical science, but may also lead to 
discrimination.
  Regrettably, many employers may not hire individuals whom they 
believe will require time off or medical treatment at some point in the 
future due to a genetically transmitted disease. This discrimination 
could result despite the fact that genetic testing only indicates that 
an individual may be predisposed to a disease--not whether that disease 
will develop.
  Anecdotal evidence suggests that fear of discrimination already has 
inhibited people who may be susceptible to disease from getting genetic 
testing. In some cases, this means that gene carriers will miss out on 
early diagnosis, treatment or even prevention. If consumers avoid 
taking advantage of available diagnostic tests out of fear of 
discrimination, they may suffer much more serious--and more expensive--
health problems in the long run.
  We will pay the price in more than increased health care costs if we 
allow genetic information to be used in a discriminatory manner. 
Discrimination based on genetic factors can be as unjust as that based 
on race, national origin, religion, sex, or disability. In each case, 
people are treated inequitably, not because of their inherent 
abilities, but solely because of irrelevant characteristics. Genetic 
discrimination that excludes qualified individuals from employment robs 
the marketplace of skills, energy, and imagination. Finally, genetic 
discrimination undercuts the Human Genome Initiative's fundamental 
purpose of promoting public health. Investing resources in the Genome 
Initiative is justified by the benefits of identifying, preventing, and 
developing effective treatments for disease. But if fear of 
discrimination deters people from genetic diagnosis or from confiding 
in physicians and genetic counselors, and makes them more concerned 
with job loss than with care and treatment, our understanding of the 
humane genome will be for naught.
  Because genetic information could be used unfairly, Congress must 
expand the scope of employment discrimination law to include a ban on 
genetic discrimination. Our bill forbids employers from discriminating 
in hiring or in the terms and conditions of employment, and limits 
their ability to acquire genetic information. In order to acquire such 
information, an employer must show that the information is job-related 
and that the employee has consented to the disclosure.
  Now, before the use of genetic information becomes widespread, we 
must make sure that dramatic scientific advances do not have negative 
consequences for the public. We have an historic opportunity to preempt 
this problem.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed 
in the Record and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
important legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1045

       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 ``The Genetic Justice Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Employee; employer; employment agency; labor 
     organization; member.--The terms ``employee'', ``employer'', 
     ``employment agency'', and ``labor organization'' have the 
     meanings given the terms in section 701 of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e). The terms ``employee'' and 
     ``member'' include an applicant for employment and an 
     applicant for membership in a labor organization, 
     respectively.
       (2) Genetic information.--The term ``genetic information'', 
     used with respect to an individual, means information 
     (including information regarding carrier status and 
     information derived from a laboratory test that identifies 
     mutations in specific genes or chromosomes, a physical 
     medical examination, a family history, and a direct analysis 
     of genes or chromosomes) about a gene, gene product, or 
     inherited characteristic that derives from the individual or 
     a family member of the individual.
       (3) Genetic services.--The term ``genetic services'' means 
     genetic evaluation, genetic testing, genetic counseling, and 
     related services.

     SEC. 3. EMPLOYER PRACTICES.

       It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an 
     employer--
       (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any 
     individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any 
     individual with respect to the compensation, terms, 
     conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, 
     because of genetic information with respect to the 
     individual, including an inquiry by the individual regarding 
     genetic services;
       (2) to limit, segregate, or classify the employees of the 
     employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any 
     individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely 
     affect the status of the individual as an employee, because 
     of genetic information with respect to the individual, 
     including an inquiry by the individual regarding genetic 
     services; or
       (3) to request or require the collection for the employer 
     or disclosure to the employer of genetic information with 
     respect to an individual unless the employer shows that--
       (A) the employer made the request or requirement after 
     making an offer of employment to the individual;
       (B) the information is job-related for the position in 
     question and consistent with business necessity; and
       (C) the knowing and voluntary written consent of the 
     individual has been obtained for the request or requirement, 
     and the collection or disclosure.

     SEC. 4. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY PRACTICES.

       It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an 
     employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, 
     or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because 
     of genetic information with respect to the individual, 
     including an inquiry by the individual regarding genetic 
     services.

     SEC. 5. LABOR ORGANIZATION PRACTICES.

       It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor 
     organization--
       (1) to exclude or to expel from the membership of the 
     organization, or otherwise to discriminate against, any 
     individual because of genetic information with respect to the 
     individual, including an inquiry by the individual regarding 
     genetic services;
       (2) to limit, segregate, or classify the members of the 
     organization, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for 
     employment any individual, in any way that would deprive or 
     tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, 
     or would limit the employment opportunities or otherwise 
     adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, 
     because of genetic information with respect to the 
     individual, including an inquiry by the individual regarding 
     genetic services; or
       (3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to 
     discriminate against an individual in violation of this 
     section.

     SEC. 6. TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any 
     employer, labor organization, or

[[Page S7864]]

     joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship 
     or other training or retraining, including on-the-job 
     training programs, to discriminate against any individual 
     because of genetic information with respect to the 
     individual, including an inquiry by the individual regarding 
     genetic services, in admission to, or employment in, any 
     program established to provide apprenticeship or other 
     training or retraining.

     SEC. 7. CONFIDENTIALITY.

       If an employer, labor organization, or employment agency 
     possesses genetic information about an employee, the 
     employer, labor organization, or employment agency--
       (1) shall maintain the information on separate forms and in 
     separate medical files, and treat the information as a 
     confidential medical record, except that, if the employee 
     provides knowing and voluntary written consent--
       (A) the employer may inform a supervisor or manager of the 
     employee regarding a necessary restriction on the work or 
     duties of, or a necessary accommodation for, the employee;
       (B) the employer may inform first aid and safety personnel 
     (when appropriate, within the meaning of section 
     102(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(3)(B)(ii))); and
       (C) the employer shall provide relevant information to a 
     government official investigating compliance with this Act, 
     on request;
       (2) shall disclose the information to the employee at the 
     request of the employee; and
       (3) shall not otherwise disclose the information.

     SEC. 8. CIVIL ACTION.

       (a) In General.--An employee or member of a labor 
     organization may bring an action in a Federal or State court 
     of competent jurisdiction against an employer, employment 
     agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management 
     committee who violates this Act.
       (b) Class Actions.--The employee or member may bring the 
     action for and in behalf of--
       (1) the employee or member; or
       (2) the employee or member, and other employees or members 
     of the labor organization who are similarly situated.
       (c) Remedy.--The court in which the action is brought may 
     award any appropriate legal or equitable relief.

     SEC. 9. CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the rights 
     or protections of an employee or member of a labor 
     organization under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Frist, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 1046. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 
1999 for the National Science Foundation, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


       The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1997

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, with my colleagues 
Senators Kennedy, Frist, and Collins, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 1997. Our legislation authorizes the National 
Science Foundation [NSF] for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and is similar 
to the legislation that was approved by the House of Representatives by 
voice vote on April 24, 1997.
  The strong bipartisan support which NSF enjoys is a product of its 
historic contribution to American security and competitiveness. The 
prominent role of science in the American war effort during World War 
II left Americans with a new appreciation of the importance of research 
in establishing and preserving economic and military security. 
Federally funded research provided the American war effort with radar, 
sonar, the proximity fuse, blood plasma, sulfanilamide, penicillin, and 
the atomic bomb. In 1944, President Roosevelt charged Vannevar Bush, 
his chief science adviser, with evaluating the most effective way to 
harness this technological infrastructure in peace-time. The Bush 
report--Science--The Endless Frontier--established a strategy and 
rationale for Federal support of basic research. The report argued that 
``a nation which depends upon others for its new basic scientific 
knowledge will be slow in its industrial progress and weak in its 
competitive position in world trade regardless of its mechanical 
skill.'' This report provided the blueprint for creation of the 
National Science Foundation.
  NSF was established in 1950 to ``develop and encourage the pursuit of 
a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in 
the sciences.'' Eight years later, following the 1957 Soviet launch of 
the Sputnik satellite, this mission was expanded to provide greater 
support for science education and literacy. Over the next three 
decades, NSF became the primary Federal sponsor of basic scientific 
research in mathematics, physical sciences, computer science, 
engineering, and environmental science at colleges and universities. 
Equally important to the future of our Nation, NSF has become a primary 
catalyst for math and science education reform.


             NSF's Role in Federal Research and Development

  The legislation which I am introducing with my colleagues authorizes 
$3.5 billion for the National Science Foundation in fiscal year 1998 
and $3.6 billion in fiscal year 1999. Although the National Science 
Foundation's budget accounts for only 4 percent of Federal research and 
development funding, NSF provides 25 percent of Federal support to 
academic institutions for research. NSF's contribution is even greater 
in some disciplines--NSF provides nearly 50 percent of all Federal 
support for basic research in certain fields of science, including 
math, computer science, and environmental science. This funding 
supports approximately 19,000 research and education projects at more 
than 2,000 colleges, universities, primary, elementary, and secondary 
schools, businesses, and other research institutions. Competition for 
these grants is fierce. NSF funds only about one-third of the 30,000 
proposals it reviews annually.
  The importance of this investment cannot be exaggerated. Over the 
past decade, private sector investment in research and development has 
eclipsed Federal investment in public science. However, the Federal 
investment in basic science plays a preeminent role in industrial 
innovation in the United States. A recent review of American industrial 
patent applications revealed that the Government or nonprofit 
foundations supported 75 percent of the main papers cited as the 
foundation for the new industrial innovation. The remaining 25 percent 
were funded by industry.


        NSF's Role in Science Education and Technology Literacy

  This bill authorizes $645 million for the education and human 
resources directorate [EHRD] in fiscal year 1998. EHRD has primary 
responsibility for NSF's education and training activities. In contrast 
with the programs of the Department of Education, NSF science and math 
education programs are experiments which link learning and discovery. 
Proposals are selected by outside peer review panels on the basis of 
their potential to provide long-lasting and broad impact. NSF has made 
notable contributions in the areas of curriculum and instructional 
material development, professional development, and improved the 
participation in science research and science education of women, 
minorities, and individuals with disabilities. This legislation 
strengthens and enhances these efforts.
  And finally, I would be remiss if I did not speak about the 
partnership which has been forged between the State of Vermont and the 
National Science Foundation. Last year, NSF grants were provided to the 
Barre Town Elementary School, Mountshire Museum of Science, Cabot 
School, Charlestown Elementary School, St. Michael's College, Johnson 
State College, and the University of Vermont. In 1992, the Vermont 
Institute for Science, Math, and Technology received a 5-year award of 
$7.9 million to establish a collaborative statewide education reform 
effort linking business, higher education, government, and community 
sectors.
  Our bill builds upon partnerships like that forged with the State of 
Vermont and offers a credible bipartisan response to the research and 
science education challenges facing our Nation. I urge the support of 
all my colleagues in the Senate for this worthwhile legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator 
Jeffords and Senator Frist as a sponsor of the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 1997. This bipartisan legislation looks 
to the future by strengthening our national commitment to research and 
development. It also ensures the continued success of NSF's teacher 
training and professional development programs. In addition, it will 
improve science and math education from kindergarten to graduate 
school, and maintain America's competitive edge into the 21st century.

[[Page S7865]]

  Few Federal agencies deliver as much bang for the buck as the 
National Science Foundation. The NSF funds 19,000 peer-reviewed science 
and education projects at more than 2,000 colleges, universities, 
schools, businesses, and research facilities in the United States.
  NSF accounts for only 4 percent of total Federal research and 
development funding, yet it provides 25 percent of basic research 
support at academic institutions, and as much as half of all Federal 
funding for research in fields such as mathematics, computer science, 
environmental science, and the social sciences.
  The NSF also plays an important role in training teachers and 
developing math and science curricula to prepare students for 
tomorrow's challenges. It has promoted innovative education programs in 
partnership with colleges, universities, elementary and secondary 
schools, science museums, and state and local governments. These 
programs encourage the discovery of new knowledge and its application 
to real-world problems.
  NSF support for basic research and science education has played an 
important role in encouraging economic growth over the last 50 years. 
According to a recent study, each dollar that the Federal Government 
has spent on basic research has contributed 50 cents or more to the 
national output. These economic benefits are spread throughout the 
economy, enhancing the productivity of the Nation's work force and 
improving the quality of life of all Americans.
  At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, NSF funds 
have encouraged scientists to explore the commercial applications of 
their research. Technology developed at MIT had a role in the launching 
of 13 companies in 1995. They manufacture products ranging from 
computer chips to communication networks. These enterprises have 
bolstered the State and local economies, and provided jobs and 
opportunities for many citizens.
  In Massachusetts, the National Science Foundation is funding a wide 
range of projects on the cutting edge of research. NSF grants have been 
instrumental in building the State's biotechnology industry, mapping 
the oceans at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, developing new 
superconductors at Harvard University's Material Research Science and 
Education Center, and fostering cooperative partnerships with schools, 
parents, businesses, and community organizations to strengthen math and 
science education programs.
  Nationwide, NSF grants also cover a broad range of projects from 
health care to crime-fighting to protecting the environment. Specific 
grants are improving the treatment of arrythmia, facilitating the 
accurate identification of crime suspects, developing new biotechnology 
techniques to clean hazardous waste sites, and analyzing an Antarctic 
meteorite to determine whether or not life existed on Mars.
  NSF funds benefit the humanities as well. The Next Generation 
Internet project will give researchers access to information from the 
world's libraries and museums at rates that are 100 to 1,000 times 
faster than today's Internet.
  Recent budget projections by the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science paint a bleak picture for future funding of 
research and development. Discretionary spending, which funds all R&D 
programs including NSF grant support, is expected to shrink from one-
sixth to one-seventh of the Federal budget by the year 2000. As a 
result, funds for NSF research and development will likely face 
reductions of 18 percent. At the same time, Germany, Japan, and France 
are projected to begin to overtake the United States in R&D 
expenditures. These developments will jeopardize America's leadership 
in science and technology as the 21st century approaches.
  The impact of these cuts will be felt heavily in Massachusetts, which 
ranks third among States in NSF funding. Nearly 1,400 projects at over 
140 sites in Massachusetts are funded at more than $224 million 
annually, and an 18-percent decrease in grant support would adversely 
affect students, scientists, researchers, and citizens in all 50 
States.
  The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1997 that we are 
sponsoring will place research and development on a more secure footing 
over the next 2 years. It will increase NSF funding by 7.2 percent in 
fiscal year 1998 and 3.7 percent in fiscal year 1999. The legislation 
also strengthens efforts to improve science, mathematics, engineering, 
and technology training for teachers and students, and will enable NSF 
to continue to play an important role in developing a faster and more 
powerful Internet. In addition, it authorizes the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy to prepare a report analyzing indirect costs, which 
play a vital but poorly understood part of Federal R&D spending.
  The National Science Foundation is doing an outstanding job of 
fulfilling their missions, and I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 1047. A bill to settle certain Miccosukee Indian land takings 
claims within the State of Florida; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                   Miccosukee Settlement Act of 1997

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida, 
Senator Graham, to introduce legislation approving an agreement between 
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, and the State of Florida. 
This agreement arose from disputes surrounding the construction of 
Interstate 75 through the Miccosukee Reservation in Florida.
  By way of background, Mr. President, when the interstate was built 
from Naples across to Fort Lauderdale, the Florida Department of 
Transportation dredged fill dirt off the northern Miccosukee Indian 
Reservation and used it to construct the roadbed. The Miccosukees 
subsequently sued in Federal District Court on the basis of an unlawful 
taking of property.
  The State and the Miccosukees subsequently worked out a settlement 
whereby Florida would keep the fill-dirt and the Indians would get 
several parcels of State land. One parcel is adjacent to the tribe's 
permit lands on Tamiami Trail and another is near the Krome Detention 
Center in Miami. This agreement has been signed by the Miccosukees and 
the Department of Interior and was endorsed unanimously by the Governor 
and Cabinet of Florida.
  The bill we are introducing today will direct the Secretary of the 
Interior--as the Federal trustee of the Miccosukees--to:
  First, aid and assist in the fulfillment of the settlement agreement 
in a reasonable manner; second, upon finding that the agreement is 
legally sufficient, the Secretary should sign the agreement on behalf 
of the United States; third, facilitate the transfer of Miccosukee 
land--the fill-dirt--to the Florida Department of Transportation under 
the terms of the agreement, and; fourth, receive in Federal trust--on 
behalf of the Miccosukees--the land put up by the State for the swap--
adjacent to Permit Area and Krome.
  Mr. President, this legislation has also been introduced by 
Representative Diaz-Balart in the House of Representatives. The 
enactment of this legislation is very important to the Miccosukee Tribe 
and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 1049. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to make a 
minor adjustment in the exterior boundary of the Hells Canyon 
Wilderness in the States of Oregon and Idaho to exclude an established 
Forest Service road inadvertently included in the wilderness; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


           HELLS CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA LEGISLATION

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that 
corrects a Forest Service mapping error on the border of the Hells 
Canyon National Recreation Area [HCNRA], in northeast Oregon, that has 
led to the closure of an important access road. The bill will restore 
public access to Hells Canyon, while preserving additional wilderness 
acreage for the enjoyment of generations to come.
  In 1975, Congress created the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 
which includes the Wilderness Area and overlooks the Snake River and 
the Oregon-Idaho border. Along the western

[[Page S7866]]

rim of Hells Canyon lies Forest Service Road 3965. The 1975 act 
directed the development of a comprehensive management plan for the 
HCNRA and specifically addressed the need to analyze road access on the 
western rim of the canyon. The 1982 Comprehensive Management Plan, 
developed with extensive public participation, provided for continued 
motor vehicle use of Road 3965 for recreation and fire prevention 
purposes. The road existed prior to the HCNRA designation, but upon the 
discovery that the road crossed into the designated wilderness area, 
the road was closed.
  The Forest Service inadvertently erred in its location of the 
wilderness boundary in question. This legislation will, therefore, 
adjust the wilderness boundary to bring it in line with what Congress 
intended when the wilderness was established. This correction will 
actually increase wilderness acreage.
  For decades, Oregon residents have traveled this service road to 
experience the natural beauty of Hells Canyon. The recreation area is 
an important part of our heritage, and public access to it is vital. I 
look forward to the Forest Service managing the road with continued 
sensitivity to all cultural, environmental, and economic impacts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1049

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

     SECTION 1. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, HELLS CANYON WILDERNESS, 
                   HELLS CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall revise the map and 
     detailed boundary description of the Hells Canyon Wilderness 
     designated by section 2 of Public Law 94-199 (16 U.S.C. 
     460gg-1) to exclude Forest Service Road 3965 from the 
     wilderness area so that the road may continue to be used by 
     motorized vehicles to its historical terminus at Squirrel 
     Prairie, as was the original intent of the Congress. The road 
     shall continue to be included in the Hells Canyon National 
     Recreation Area also established by such Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1050. A bill to assist in implementing the plan of action adopted 
by the World Summit for Children; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


    the james p. grant world summit for children implementation act

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself, 
Senator Murray, and Senator Snowe, to introduce the James P. Grant 
World Summit for Children Implementation Act of 1997.
  At the 1990 World Summit for Children, the United States and 158 
other nations made a promise to the world's children. In signing the 
summit declaration and plan of action, they pledged, by the year 2000, 
to reduce child mortality rates by at least one-third, to reduce 
maternal deaths and child malnutrition by one-half, to provide all 
children access to basic education, and to provide all families access 
to clean water, safe sanitation and family planning information, and 
services. In the declaration they stated, ``We are prepared to make 
available the resources to meet these commitments.''
  We have, in fact, made some progress over the last several years in 
meeting these admittedly ambitious objectives. Child mortality rates 
have fallen. Over 80 percent of the world's children are now immunized, 
saving 3 million lives annually. Nonetheless, millions of children are 
still dying every year for want of a vaccine costing just a few dollars 
or a Vitamin A capsule costing a few cents. It is estimated that 12 
million children still die each year from preventable diseases and 
malnutrition.
  The objective of the legislation Senators Murray and Snowe and I are 
introducing today is to keep the United States focused on the 
commitments it made at the World Summit on Children. The bill would 
shift funds within the existing foreign assistance budget to meet the 
needs of children--without increasing overall foreign assistance. 
Specifically, it calls for increased allocations of funds for child 
survival, basic education, Vitamin A and other micronutrients, UNICEF, 
AIDS prevention and care, refugee assistance, family planning, and 
tuberculosis prevention and treatment.
  This is not just a foreign assistance bill. We can and must do more 
in our own country to improve the health and welfare of children at 
risk. Therefore, this legislation also calls for increased funding of 
domestic programs which touch the lives of children, namely Head Start 
and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children, also known as WIC. Both of these programs have proven track 
records of improving the lives and prospects of children from low-
income families.
  Mr. President, I appreciate that Congress is in the midst of serious 
fiscal belt tightening in order to meet our balanced budget objectives. 
This means that we must focus on our highest priorities. I would 
maintain, though, that we have no higher priority than our children and 
providing for their future. The programs cited in this bill, if 
properly funded, will improve the quality of life of children, here and 
abroad, and help them grow into healthy, productive adults. Moreover, 
it will do so without increasing our overall foreign assistance and 
with only a modest increase in the two domestic programs cited.
  Mr. President, this bill is good for children, good for their 
families, and good for our future. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am delighted to once again join my 
colleague from Vermont, Senator James Jeffords, in introducing the 
James P. Grant World Summit for Children Implementation Act. I 
particularly want to pay tribute to Senator Jeffords for his continuing 
leadership in the effort to aid all children.
  The World Summit for Children Implementation Act is our effort to 
ensure that the United States implements the plan of action adopted at 
the 1990 United Nations World Summit for Children. Our legislation 
proposes a series of life-saving, cost-effective programs to protect 
the health and well-being of children worldwide. Importantly, while 
this legislation proposes several increases in individual foreign 
assistance programs, it does not call for an increase in overall 
foreign aid levels.
  Specifically, the Jeffords-Murray bill increases funding allocations 
for child survival, basic education, vitamin A and other 
micronutrients, UNICEF, AIDS prevention and care, refugee assistance, 
and family planning. Our bill also calls for an increase in funding for 
two important domestic programs: WIC and Head Start.
  The world's children have a right to adequate nutrition, full 
immunization, a decent education, and health care. The United States 
has traditionally led the way in promoting the well-being of children. 
Because the nations of the world are more interdependent than ever 
before, the well-being of children around the globe affects us here in 
the United States. Children are not just the foundation of our society 
and our future; they are truly the foundation of the future of the 
world.
  According to UNICEF, more than 33,000 children die each and every 
day; most from easily preventable diseases. The under 5 mortality rate 
for children in the least developed countries is 20 times greater than 
that of the United States and other industrialized nations.
  More than 2 million children under age 5 die each year from vaccine 
preventable diseases like diphtheria, measles, pertussis, polio, 
tuberculosis, and tetanus. Diarrhoeal diseases, often caused by a total 
lack of clean sanitation facilities and clean water, kill an additional 
3 million children per year. And for every child that dies, several 
more live on with stunted growth, ill health, and diminished potential.
  The world's political leadership can ill-afford to ignore these 
statistics. These are just the mortality statistics for young children. 
Equally disturbing figures are available regarding access to education, 
the treatment of young girls, nutrition, and child labor. Clearly, our 
work on behalf of children is far from completed. While we have much to 
celebrate, we have much more to do. And I am delighted to be joining 
Senator Jeffords to unequivocally state our belief that the United 
States must continue to champion the future health, education, and 
economic well-being of children everywhere.
  Importantly, to reach children, we must reach out to the world's 
women including young mothers, family providers, and elders. Women are 
often overlooked in tradition development programs. Fortunately, the 
World

[[Page S7867]]

Summit for Children recognized to improve the lot of children, the 
status of women also had to improve.
  For example, recognizing the important link between child survival 
and family planning, the World Summit for Children called for universal 
access to family planning education and services by the end of this 
decade.
  Family planning saves the lives of both women and children. We know 
that babies born in quick succession to a mother whose body has not yet 
recovered from a previous birth are the least likely to survive. 
Increasing funds in this area has been a top priority for me in my work 
in the Senate, and is addressed positively in the legislation we are 
introducing today.
  Basic education is another important component of this legislation. 
Of the 143 million children in the developing world not attending 
school, 56 percent are girls. Of the world's 900 million illiterate 
adults, nearly two thirds are women. World Bank studies have estimated 
that each additional year of education for a young girl results in a 
10-percent decrease in birth rates and child death rates, and a 10 to 
20 percent increase in wages earned.
  Foreign aid is never a popular item. I applaud Secretary of State 
Madeleine Albright for her advocacy work in support of foreign aid and 
U.S. assistance abroad. And I am pleased that the both bodies of the 
Congress have voted to provide additional moneys for foreign assistance 
in fiscal year 1998. In my view, our foreign aid dollars are best spent 
when we are investing in programs that strengthen families around the 
globe, and give a special hand to women and children.
  That is exactly what Senator Jeffords and I propose to do with the 
James P. Grant World's Summit for Children Implementation Act. I urge 
my colleagues to review and support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1051. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to enhance 
protections against unauthorized changes of telephone service 
subscribers from one telecommunications carrier to another, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


             the interstate slamming prevention act of 1997

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will address a significant consumer issue--the unauthorized change of 
telecommunications subscribers from one carrier to another, otherwise 
known as slamming.
  Consumers have the right to choose their primary long distance 
company and to change companies whenever they wish. Sometimes a 
consumer's telecommunications company is changed without the consumer's 
knowledge or consent, a practice known as slamming. As competition 
among telecommunications carriers has increased, so has the number of 
complaints arising from unauthorized or unknowingly authorized changes 
of consumers' telecommunications carriers.
  To give an idea of the scope of the problem, the Federal 
Communications Commission [FCC] reports that it received over 1,700 
complaints during fiscal year 1993. By 1995, that number had escalated 
to over 38,000 consumer telephone complaints and over 25,000 written 
complaints. In fact, the FCC says slamming complaints are their fastest 
growing category of consumer complaint, and my home State of Colorado 
ranks among the top five States in 1996 slamming complaints per million 
customers.
  The FCC reports that a slammed consumer may lose important service 
features, get lower quality service, or be charged higher rates for his 
or her telephone calls. Slamming also distorts the telecommunications 
competitive market by rewarding companies that engage in deceptive and 
misleading marketing prices. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 
includes provisions designed to reduce slamming, and it charges the FCC 
to adopt rules to implement these provisions.
  The bill I am introducing today will give teeth to the Commission's 
efforts to curb slamming. I firmly believe that enforcement, 
streamlined processing of slamming complaints, and consumer education 
will help stem the tide of unauthorized carrier changes.
  My bill, the Interstate Slamming Prevention Act of 1997, imposes a 
deadline of April 30, 1998 for the completion of the FCC's rulemaking 
on slamming.
  Currently, the Telecommunications Act does not define a deadline for 
action, and one is needed to ensure that consumers are protected as 
soon as possible from companies that engage in deceptive marketing 
practices. Nine months is sufficient time for the FCC to build a full 
record, solicit input from all interested parties, and put forth new 
antislamming rules.

  My legislation directs the FCC, in its rulemaking, to develop rules 
and regulations regarding penalties and liabilities--including 
substantial fines or forfeitures under section 503 of the 
Communications Act--for the unauthorized switching of a customer's 
preferred telecommunications carrier.
  It also directs the FCC to consider whether telecommunications 
carriers should be required to set up toll-free numbers dedicated to 
reporting unauthorized long distance carrier switches, with the 
obligation for a customer service representative to answer incoming 
calls within 2 minutes.
  I support such a toll-free number with call answering standards. 
Requiring consumers to pay for a call to report a slamming incident or 
having them endure a long wait before speaking to a customer service 
representative, would pose real barriers to accurate reporting.
  My legislation further directs the Commission to consider a process 
that would secure facts and statistical data from telecommunications 
carriers related to the number of consumer complaints they receive 
regarding slamming.
  By October 31, 1998, the bill directs the FCC to report to Congress 
the identities of those telecommunications carriers that represent the 
10 top slammers for 1997--based on the ratio of annual customer 
complaints regarding unauthorized carrier changes to the total number 
of customers served by such carriers.
  It is my hope that such a list will serve as an effective deterrent 
to companies contemplating deceptive marketing campaigns. Negative 
publicity could be the best defense in the fight against slamming.
  This report also should identify whether telecommunications carriers 
have been assessed fines or forfeitures by the Commission--including 
the amount of the fine or forfeiture, and whether the assessment was 
the result of a full prosecution or pursuant to a consent decree.
  After the first report in October 1998, the bill requires an annual 
report be submitted by the FCC to Congress each April 30.
  Before Congress takes more dramatic action in this regard, my bill 
would look to the FCC for its recommendations on the following issues: 
Whether consumers should be provided a private cause of action, with 
minimum statutory penalties, relating to unauthorized slamming; whether 
the FCC's current fine and forfeiture authority is sufficient to 
meaningfully address and curb actions of telecommunications carriers 
that engage in slamming; and what penalties should be applied to 
telecommunications carriers which switch a customer's preferred 
telecommunications carrier without a customer's authorization either 
willfully and knowingly or by means of a forged document?

  It is simply unfair for unsuspecting consumers, especially senior 
citizens, who in good faith select a long distance carrier only to have 
their long distance phone service changed without their knowledge. 
Slamming is unfair and against the law. My bill will help protect 
consumers from this unfair practice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1051

       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 ``Interstate Slamming 
     Prevention Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. ENHANCEMENT OF PROTECTIONS.

       (a) Liability for Additional charges.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 258) 
     is amended--

[[Page S7868]]

       (1) by striking ``(b) Liability for Charges.--Any 
     telecommunications carrier'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Liability for Charges.--
       ``(1) Charges collected after violation.--Any 
     telecommunications carrier''; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Fees for changing back.--Any telecommunications 
     carrier described in paragraph (1) shall also be liable to 
     the carrier previously selected by the subscriber concerned 
     for any fees associated with changing the subscriber back to 
     the carrier previously selected, in accordance with such 
     procedures as the Commission may prescribe.
       ``(3) Relation to other authority.--The remedies provided 
     by this subsection are in addition to any other remedies 
     available by law.''.
       (b) Additional Penalties.--Such section 258 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Additional Penalties.--Any telecommunications carrier 
     that violates the verification procedures described in 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to such additional fines and 
     penalties, including a forfeiture penalty under section 
     503(b)(1)(B) of this Act, as the Commission shall 
     prescribe.''.
       (c) Additional Protections.--Such section 258 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Additional Protections.--In order to provide 
     subscribers with additional protections against changes in 
     providers of telephone exchange service or telephone toll 
     service in violation of the verification procedures described 
     in subsection (a), the Commission may prescribe the 
     following:
       ``(1) A requirement that telecommunications carriers 
     establish toll-free telephone numbers in order to permit 
     subscribers to register complaints regarding the execution of 
     such changes in service, including the requirement that calls 
     to such numbers be answered in not more than two minutes.
       ``(2) A requirement that telecommunications carriers 
     provide the Commission such information relating to the 
     complaints made to such carriers regarding such changes in 
     service as the Commission considers appropriate.''.
       (d) Deadline for Rulemaking.--The Federal Communications 
     Commission shall prescribe the regulations required by 
     section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by 
     this section, not later than April 30, 1998.
       (e) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than October 31, 1998, the 
     Commission shall submit to Congress a report on unauthorized 
     changes of subscribers' selections of providers of telephone 
     exchange service or telephone toll service. The report shall 
     include the following:
       (A) A list of the ten telecommunications carriers that, 
     during the one-year period ending on the date of the report, 
     were subject to the highest number of complaints of having 
     executed unauthorized changes of subscribers from their 
     selected providers of telephone exchange service or telephone 
     toll service when compared with the total number of 
     subscribers served by such carriers.
       (B) The telecommunications carriers, if any, assessed fines 
     or penalties under section 258(c) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934, as added by subsection (c) of this section, during 
     that period, including the amount of each fine or penalty, 
     and whether the fine or penalty was assessed as a result of a 
     court judgment or an order of the Commission or was secured 
     pursuant to a consent decree.
       (C) Whether or not subscribers should be authorized to 
     bring a private cause of action against telecommunications 
     carriers that change subscriber selections of providers of 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service in 
     violation of the procedures prescribed under section 258(a) 
     of the Communications Act of 1934 and, if so, the 
     advisability of establishing minimum statutory penalties for 
     violations addressed by such causes of action.
       (D) Whether or not the fines and penalties imposed by the 
     Commission under section 258(c) of the Communications Act of 
     1934, as so added, are sufficient to deter telecommunications 
     carriers from changing subscriber selections of providers of 
     telephone exchange service or telephone toll service in 
     violation of such procedures.
       (2) Update.--Not later than one year after the date on 
     which the Commission submits the report required by paragraph 
     (1), and each year thereafter, the Commission shall submit to 
     Congress an update of the previous report under this 
     subsection which sets forth the information specified in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that paragraph for one-year 
     period preceding the date of the report concerned.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1052. A bill to amend the Andean Trade Preference Act to prohibit 
the provision of duty-free treatment for live plants and fresh cut 
flowers described in chapter 6 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States; to the Committee on Finance


 The Andean Trade Preference Act Flower Exemption Amendment Act of 1997

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in 1991 Congress enacted the Andean Trade 
Preference Act which provided for duty-free treatment, or reduced 
duties, on many products, including fresh-cut flowers, imported from 
the four South American Andean countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, 
and Peru. This legislation was proposed as a means of promoting 
alternatives to coca cultivation and production by offering broader 
access to U.S. markets for legal products.
  However, the impact of the ATPA on our domestic flower industry, 
particularly in my home State of California, has been devastating. 
Colombian fresh-cut flowers have been the greatest beneficiary of the 
ATPA. In 1992, Colombia exported $87.7 million worth of fresh cut 
flowers to the United States. By 1995, Colombian exports increased to 
over $374.4 million. This represents a 427-percent increase over that 
3-year period.
  Domestic growers of roses and carnations have been particularly hard-
hit. In 1996, Colombia exported approximately 1.7 billion roses and 
carnations to the United States. Colombia now controls more than 50 
percent of the United States market for roses and 80 percent of the 
carnation market. Overall, Colombian flowers account for about 65 
percent of the United States fresh-cut flower market.
  The preferential treatment accorded Colombian fresh-cut flowers under 
the ATPA has had a direct and dire impact on the United States flower 
industry--approximately 58 percent of which is located in California. 
This preferential treatment, however, does not appear to be serving its 
intended purpose.
  In 1996, an International Trade Commission report found that the 
``ATPA had little effect on drug crop eradication in the Andean region 
* * *.'' In fact, quite the opposite has happened. The number of 
hectares devoted to coca cultivation in Colombia increased from 37,500 
in 1991 to more than 50,000 in 1995. The ITC report also found that 
``[the] ATPA had a small and indirect * * * effect on crop substitution 
during 1995 * * *.'' Thus, the intended goal of reducing drug crop 
cultivation by providing market access for alternative crops has not 
been achieved.
  Mr. President, I applaud and support the goals of the Andean Trade 
Preference Act. We must do all we can to encourage Colombia to seek 
alternatives to drug production. The impact of the ATPA on our domestic 
flower industry, however, has been far too great to justify the 
continued inclusion of fresh-cut flowers. It is imperative, therefore, 
that we exempt fresh-cut flowers from the ATPA.
  In enacting the ATPA, Congress specifically exempted certain 
products, that is textiles and apparel, watches and watch parts, and 
petroleum products, which were considered particularly sensitive to 
import competition. Fresh-cut flowers should be considered a similarly 
sensitive domestic product, and thus also exempted from the ATPA. Thank 
you, Mr. President.
  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. 1052

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF DUTY-FREE TREATMENT 
                   FOR LIVE PLANTS AND FRESH CUT FLOWERS UNDER THE 
                   ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCES ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 3203) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) live plants and fresh cut flowers described in 
     chapter 6 of the HTS.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(5)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) through (D) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the date that is 15 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 1053. A bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


     reauthorization of the office of national drug control policy

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since I released my first annual drug 
strategy in

[[Page S7869]]

1990, I have argued that it was imperative that we needed to act, 
instead of just talk, in order to confront the problem of drug abuse 
and drug related crime. This means focusing quickly on the risks 
confronting our youth, identifying practical steps our communities can 
take to reduce these risks, and committing ourselves to the hard work 
and resources needed to steer young people to productive lives instead 
of wasted lives.
  The administration's 1998 national drug strategy provides significant 
steps toward these goals. Under the leadership of General McCaffrey, 
the administration's 1998 drug strategy calls for a 10-year antidrug 
plan and a 1998 budget request that includes full funding for drug 
control efforts that have proven to work.
  The administration's budget request includes: $8.4 billion for 
domestic drug enforcement; $3.3 billion for drug treatment; $2.2 
billion for drug education and prevention--including $680 million for 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools; and $2.1 billion for interdiction and 
international antidrug efforts--including broad, across-the-board 
increases for law enforcement agencies like the FBI, DEA, INS, and U.S. 
Attorneys.
  In addition to funding these existing programs, the budget request 
establishes a national media campaign of prime-time antidrug television 
advertisements to stop kids from trying drugs in the first place--
funded by $175 million from Federal Government and $175 million from 
private industry.
  These are all positive steps which I urge my colleagues to pass into 
law.
  What is more, these positive steps illustrate just how vital the 
office of the Drug Director truly is. Because, if we did not have an 
office--a single, responsible office charged with overseeing the 
Federal antidrug policy we could not even debate whether 
General McCaffrey's drug strategy makes sense. I believe it does. But, 
there may be others who do not. My key point is that without a Drug 
Director, we would have lost even the chance to have an informed debate 
over a specific proposal.

  I remind my colleagues what we faced on the drug policy front when I 
first began calling for a drug office in 1980: it was pretty simple, 
there was no drug office, there were more than 50 Federal departments, 
agencies, and offices putting together a hodge-podge of antidrug 
efforts with no coherant plan.
  Contrast this to what we have today, General McCaffrey has submitted 
a strategy and a budget--and we can now all debate what a majority of 
us favor and what a majority of us oppose.
  This is the fundamental reason why I am today introducing legislation 
to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I know that 
the administration, led by General McCaffrey, has worked hard to craft 
this legislation, and I believe that it deserves speedy consideration--
and the votes--of my colleagues.
  One of the important refinements offered in this legislation is to 
build in some long-term planning while at the same time adding some 
greater accountability for the drug strategy and all its component 
parts.
  This legislation does so by calling on the Drug Director to develop a 
10-year plan, a 5-year budget coupled with a detailed annual status 
report assessing the progress on the strategy, as well as a detailed, 
program-by-program, annual budget.
  In other words, this legislation would keep the Drug Director's key 
power to develop, define, and submit to Congress a detailed annual drug 
budget. A process which holds unique powers to focus congressional 
debate on the topic of drug policy, and which is the strongest 
institutional power of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
within the executive branch.
  In addition, this legislation will enhance a function which too often 
is ignored--that function: accountability. Here, the Drug Director has 
called for long- and short-term measureable objectives. In fact, as 
part of General McCaffrey's on-going efforts at the Drug Office, the 
General has already identified more than 54 performance targets and 
another nearly 80 measures of program effectiveness.
  The legislation I am introducing today will help formalize this 
process. Let me also add, that calling on the Drug Director to provide 
a 10-year plan will not prevent any future administration--nor even 
this administration--from changing or refining that plan. It is simply 
to recognize that we are at a stage in our effort against drugs where 
we must focus on implementation and results. And, this is exactly what 
the legislation I offer today is all about.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I offer today.

                          ____________________