[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.
____________________