[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 131 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10716-S10722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Leahy,
and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 3212. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide
assistance in implementing cultural heritage, conservation, and
recreational activities in the Connecticut River watershed of the
States of New Hampshire and Vermont; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
upper Connecticut river partnership act of 2000
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce
the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act of 2000. This legislation
is a truly locally-led initiative. I believe it will result in great
environmental benefits for the Connecticut River.
The Connecticut River forms the border to New Hampshire and Vermont
and provides for a great deal of recreational and tourism opportunities
for residents of both States. This legislation takes a major step
forward in making sure this River continues to thrive as a treasured
resource.
To understand just how significant this legislation is, I would like
to share with my colleagues some history about the Connecticut River
program. In 1987-88, New Hampshire and Vermont each created a
commission to address environmental issues facing the Connecticut river
valley. The commissions were established to coordinate water quality
and various other environmental efforts along the Connecticut river
valley. The two commissions came together in 1990 to form
the Connecticut River Joint Commission. The Joint Commission has no
regulatory authority, but carries out cooperative education and
advisory activities.
To further the local influence of the Commission, the Connecticut
River Joint Commission established five advisory bi-state local river
subcommittees comprised of representatives nominated by the governing
body of their municipalities. These advisory groups developed a
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. A major portion of the plan
focuses on channeling federal funds to local communities to implement
water quality programs, nonpoint source pollution controls and other
environmental projects. Over the last ten years, the Connecticut River
Joint Commission has fostered widespread participation and laid a
strong foundation of community and citizen involvement.
As a Senator from New Hampshire and chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, as well as someone who enjoys the beauty of the
Connecticut river, I am proud to be the principal author and cosponsor
of this locally led, voluntary effort that accomplishes real
environmental progress. Too often we depend on bureaucratic federal
regulatory programs to accomplish environmental success. This bill
takes a different approach and one that I bet will achieve greater
results on the ground. I hope that other communities and neighboring
states will look at this model as an example of how to develop and
implement true voluntary, on the ground, locally-led environmental
programs.
I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and
the two distinguished Senators of Vermont, Senators Leahy and Jeffords,
for joining me as original cosponsors to this legislation. I look
forward to working with them as we move this important legislation
through the Senate.
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. 3212
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 ``Upper Connecticut River
Partnership Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the upper Connecticut River watershed in the States of
New Hampshire and Vermont is a scenic region of historic
villages located in a working landscape of farms, forests,
and the mountainous headwaters and broad fertile floodplains
of New England's longest river, the Connecticut River;
(2) the River provides outstanding fish and wildlife
habitat, recreation, and hydropower generation for the New
England region;
(3) the upper Connecticut River watershed has been
recognized by Congress as part of the Silvio 0. Conte
National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, established by the Silvio
O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act (16 U.S.C.
668dd note; Public Law 102-212);
(4) the demonstrated interest in stewardship of the River
by the citizens living in the watershed led to the
Presidential designation of the River as 1 of 14 American
Heritage Rivers on July 30, 1998;
(5) the River is home to the bistate Connecticut River
Scenic Byway, which will foster heritage tourism in the
region;
[[Page S10717]]
(6) each of the legislatures of the States of Vermont and
New Hampshire has established a commission for the
Connecticut River watershed, and the 2 commissions, known
collectively as the ``Connecticut River Joint Commissions''--
(A) have worked together since 1989; and
(B) serve as the focal point for cooperation between
Federal agencies, States, communities, and citizens;
(7) in 1997, as directed by the legislatures, the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, with the substantial
involvement of 5 bistate local river subcommittees appointed
to represent riverfront towns, produced the 6-volume
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan, to be used as a
blueprint in educating agencies, communities, and the public
in how to be good neighbors to a great river;
(8) this year, by Joint Legislative Resolution, the
legislatures have requested that Congress provide for
continuation of cooperative partnerships and support for the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions from the New England
Federal Partners for Natural Resources, a consortium of
Federal agencies, in carrying out recommendations of the
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan;
(9) this Act effectuates certain recommendations of the
Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan that are most
appropriately directed by the States through the Connecticut
River Joint Commissions, with assistance from the National
Park Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
(10) where implementation of those recommendations involves
partnership with local communities and organizations, support
for the partnership should be provided by the Secretary.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize the
Secretary to provide to the States of New Hampshire and
Vermont (including communities in those States), through the
Connecticut River Joint Commissions, technical and financial
assistance for management of the River.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) River.--The term ``River'' means the Connecticut River.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) the State of New Hampshire; or
(B) the State of Vermont.
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES.
The Secretary of the Interior may provide to the States,
through the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, technical
and financial assistance in managing the River, including
assistance in--
(1) developing a joint policy for water quality, flow
management, and recreational boating for the portion of the
River that is common to the States;
(2) developing protection plans for water quality in the
tributaries that flow into the River;
(3) developing a coordinated, collaborative approach on the
part of the States for monitoring the quality of the River
for human use and ecological health;
(4) restoring and protecting priority riverbanks to improve
water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat;
(5) encouraging and assisting communities, farmers, and
other riverfront landowners in--
(A) establishing and protecting riparian buffers; and
(B) preventing nonpoint source pollution;
(6) encouraging and assisting communities in--
(A) protecting shoreland, wetland, and flood plains; and
(B) managing and treating stormwater runoff;
(7) in cooperation with dam owners--
(A) evaluating the decommissioning of uneconomic dams in
the watershed; and
(B) restoring natural riverine habitat;
(8) protecting and restoring the habitat of native trout,
anadromous fisheries, and other outstanding fish and wildlife
resources;
(9) encouraging new and improved markets for local
agricultural products;
(10) encouraging the protection of farm land and
economically sustainable agriculture;
(11) developing and promoting locally planned, approved,
and managed networks of heritage trails and water trails in
the River valley;
(12) coordinating and fostering opportunities for heritage
tourism and agritourism through the Connecticut River Scenic
Byway;
(13) demonstrating economic development based on heritage
tourism;
(14) supporting local stewardship;
(15) strengthening nonregulatory protection of heritage
resources;
(16) encouraging the vitality of historically compact
village and town centers;
(17) establishing indicators of sustainability; and
(18) monitoring the impact of increased tourism and
recreational use on natural and historic resources.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
S. 3213. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
an individual to designate $3 or more on their income tax return to be
used to reduce the public debt; to the Committee on Finance.
TAXPAYERS CHOICE DEBT REDUCTION ACT
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have introduced S. 3213. I want to take
a few moments to talk about this important piece of legislation for
paying down the national debt.
As the 106th Congress comes to an end, I rise to make a few comments
on the evolution of an issue of great concern to myself and to many
Americans. The issue is the $5,661,548,045,674 national debt we had as
of October 2, 2000.
In August of 1993, while serving in the House of Representatives, I
introduced House Joint Resolution 251 with the support of a number of
my colleagues. The intention of this resolution was to amend the
Constitution of the United States to provide for budgetary reform by
requiring the reduction of the deficit, a balanced Federal budget, and
the repayment of the national debt. During my years in the House, I had
the good fortune to work with many Republican colleagues who were
committed to these fiscally sound and enormously important issues.
Today, a scant 7 years later, we are enjoying unsurpassed Federal
budget surpluses and the many difficulties that accompany such
prosperity. I am concerned that the running dialog in Washington is far
too focused on today's spending, today's enormous Federal programs,
today's immediate wants and needs. I am concerned that we are talking
too much about spend today and not enough about the consequences of
tomorrow. As we conclude the appropriations process, it is apparent
that many Members of this body are eager to transform the Federal
budget surplus into new Federal spending, creating more Federal
programs that will begat future obligations.
I am primarily concerned that efforts to recklessly spend every
nickel of the taxpayers' money will threaten the long-term fiscal
health of our Nation, the Nation our children and grandchildren will
inherit. The majority of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are
focusing on returning the surplus to its rightful owners--the American
people.
In recent months, the current administration has taken a hardline
against tax cuts, making it clear that the President believes the
Federal budget surplus belongs to Washington and not the hard-working
men and women who send far more money to the Internal Revenue Service
than they often save for retirement, college, or for buying a home.
I find it frustrating and the height of arrogance to assume that the
Federal Government can do more with this money than the taxpayers. So
many of my Republican colleagues have such a profound conviction
regarding returning the money to the working man and woman that, in
fact, they have been hesitant to engage in development of a
comprehensive long-term debt repayment plan.
I have come to the floor before, and I will come to the floor again,
to make clear what is required to manage the national debt in a
comprehensive repayment strategy. The sheer enormity of the national
debt demands such diligence. I admit that I have no desire to increase
the growth of the Federal Government instead of paying down the debt. I
am, as many of my colleagues, however, personally committed to cutting
taxes.
I have come to the floor today for no other reason than to make one
thing crystal clear: We can pay down the debt and cut taxes. It is not
an either/or proposition. It takes planning, and it takes commitment.
It takes a plan to repay the debt and a commitment to cut taxes and the
discipline to refrain from pouring ever more money into newer or larger
programs.
At the end of fiscal year 1999, the gross Federal budget was
$5,656,270,901,615 and at the end of fiscal year 2000, the gross
Federal budget was $5,674,178,209,886.
Our past fiscal irresponsibilities have created this overwhelming
mess, and an unpleasant task lies before us. For the health and well-
being of our national economy and the future security of our young
people, we must commit to the elimination of this debt.
The journey of 5\1/2\ trillion miles begins with a single step. Early
in the 106th Congress, I introduced the American Debt Repayment Act. A
year
[[Page S10718]]
later, I followed that legislation with the American Social Security
Protection and Debt Repayment Act. I believe each of these bills
provided a sensible first step toward debt repayment and the 5 trillion
steps to follow.
Both pieces of legislation suggested we treat the Federal debt just
as every American treats the largest purchase they will ever make. That
is their home. In February of this year, I came to the floor with my
friends, George Voinovich, Rod Grams and Mike Enzi, with an
amortization schedule for debt repayment to be offered to the budget
resolution. Just as any American home buyer would amortize the purchase
of their home with a mortgage, we offered a dutiful and moderate
restriction on Federal spending combined with a specific debt repayment
schedule. Our amendment was defeated. I believe the chief reason for
the defeat of the amendment was the fear of being locked into a long-
term repayment plan that would prohibit future tax cuts. The July 2000
budget economic and outlook update by the Congressional Budget Office
disputes this understandable fear.
According to the CBO, assuming spending is frozen at fiscal year 2000
levels, the next 10 years will yield an on-budget surplus of $3.4
trillion. If this Congress had exercised some discipline this year and
appropriated within a freeze, the on-budget surplus in fiscal year
2001, which we have just begun, is projected to be $116 billion.
One criticism of the long-term debt amortization plan that I brought
to the floor was that it would prevent tax cuts and tie the hands of
appropriators by absorbing all of the surplus. My most recent plan
simply dedicates $15 billion of on-budget surplus to debt repayment and
adds $15 billion each year thereafter. The sum total after 10 years of
structured debt repayment is $825 billion from on-budget surplus.
This repayment schedule would have left $2.6 trillion remaining for
tax cuts and new spending over the next 10 years.
It is important to note that these numbers do not take into account
the off-budget surplus created by Social Security. I have said on the
floor many times before that paying down the national debt is one of
the best ways to provide long-term fiscal stability to Social Security.
In the past, I proposed restricted use of the Social Security surplus
to help pay down the debt. This not only provides for the future
stability of Social Security by paying down the debt but protects
Social Security money from Federal discretionary spending.
Social Security surplus money should be used for debt repayment only
until such time as Congress can initiate sensible reform to preserve
the long-term integrity of Social Security. Social Security reform has
been a priority of this Congress, and we can act to reduce the debt and
reform this important program in one commitment.
When the new Congress convenes in 2001, I intend to continue to work
with my colleagues on developing a sensible and concrete debt repayment
plan. I am also interested in working with my colleagues on other
innovative ways to reduce the national debt. Legislation was recently
introduced in the House, and I am pleased to come to the floor today on
behalf of myself and the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, to introduce
the Taxpayers Choice Debt Reduction Act.
Every year, millions of taxpaying Americans have the opportunity to
designate on their tax form a $3 contribution to the Presidential
Election Campaign Fund. This checkoff on all 1040 forms would allow for
the taxpayers themselves to designate that $3, or $6 for joint filers,
would be dedicated to a special Department of the Treasury account to
pay down the national debt.
Checking the box on the tax document would not increase the amount of
taxes to be paid, nor would it decrease any refund. Checking ``yes'' in
this box would simply provide a directive from the taxpayer that 3 of
the dollars they were paying in taxes be used solely to pay down the
Nation's debt. Importantly, these funds would be beyond any money set
aside by Congress for debt reduction.
In my annual town meetings around the State of Colorado, I often
speak with my constituents over the enormous debt owed by this country.
I can say with great confidence that this is an issue where the public
desires action. It is my hope that with this legislation Congress will
empower these concerned taxpayers to act on their impulse to eliminate
the debt.
Before I yield the floor, I extend my thanks to all of my Senate
colleagues who have expressed an interest in debt repayment during this
Congress, particularly Senators Voinovich, Enzi, Grams of Minnesota,
Crapo, Reid of Nevada, and Feingold. I have enjoyed working with each
of these Members over the course of the year as we have brought debt
repayment amendments to the floor. I look forward to continuing to work
on this important issue with my colleagues.
______
Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
S. 3214. A bill to amend the Assets for Independence Act (Title IV of
the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and
Educational Services Act of 1998) to enhance program flexibility, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
assets for independence act amendments of 2000
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in his 1991 book ``Assets and the Poor: a
New American Welfare Policy,'' Washington University Professor Michael
Sherraden argues that people move forward economically through savings
and investment, not through spending and consumption. Owning assets
gives people a stake in the future--a reason to save, to dream, and to
invest time, effort and resources in creating a future for themselves
and their children. As Sherraden puts it, ``income may feed people's
stomachs, but assets change their heads.''
I am pleased today to be joined by Senator Harkin in introducing
legislation designed to further promote innovative asset-building
strategies for the poor.
Over the past two years, asset-building strategies have gained
widespread, bi-partisan support at both the federal and state levels.
Legislation has been introduced and laws have been enacted to develop
and promote Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) among low income
Americans. IDAs reward the monthly savings of working poor families who
are trying to buy their first home, pay for post secondary education,
or start a business.
In some respects, IDAs are like Individual Retirement Accounts for
the working poor. IDAs are dedicated savings accounts that can be used
for purchasing a first home, paying for post-secondary education, or
capitalizing business. These investments are associated with extremely
high rates of return that have the potential to bring a new level of
economic and personal security to families and communities.
Participants also are able to make emergency withdrawals in limited
circumstances and must pay back such withdrawals within 12 months.
The individual or family deposits whatever dollar amount they can
save (typically $5 to $20 a month) into the account. The sponsoring
organization matches that deposit with funds provided by local churches
and service organizations, corporations, foundations, and state or
local governments. The sponsoring organization determines the ratio at
which they will match an individual's contribution (not less than $0.50
and not more than $4 for every $1).
In 1998, Congress enacted legislation entitled the ``Assets for
Independence Act''. This Act established a five year demonstration
program to determine the social, civic, psychological and economic
effects that individual development account, IDA, savings accounts can
have on low income individuals and their families. The assets for
independence demonstration program is presently the largest source of
federal funding for individual development accounts.
The intent of this demonstration program is to encourage participants
to develop and reinforce strong habits for saving money. To assist
this, sponsor organizations provide participating individuals and
families intensive financial counseling and counseling to develop
investment plans for education, home ownership, and entrepreneurship.
In addition, participating welfare and low-income families build assets
whose high return on investment has the capacity for propelling them
into independence and stability.
[[Page S10719]]
The community also benefits from the significant return on investment
in IDAs: we expect welfare rolls to be reduced, tax receipts to
increase, employment to increase, and local enterprises and builders
can expect local businesses to benefit from increased activity.
Neighborhoods will be rejuvenated as new micro-enterprises and
increased home renovation and building drive increased employment and
community development.
In fact, it is estimated that an investment of $125 million in assert
building through these individual accounts will generate 7,050 new
businesses, 68,799 new jobs, $730 million in additional earnings,
12,000 new or rehabilitated homes, $287 million in savings and matching
contributions and earnings on those accounts, $188 million in increased
assets for low-income families, 6,600 families removed from welfare
rolls, 12,000 youth graduates from vocational education and college
programs, 20,000 adults obtaining high school, vocational, and college
degrees.
IDA programs currently exist in about 250-300 communities, with
another 100 in development. Overall, at least 10,000 people are
currently saving in an IDA and another 30,000-40,000 are expected to be
reached by the year 2003. All but three states have IDA programs in
their states or mechanisms in place to permit the start up of an IDA
program.
The field of economic development has rapidly changed over the course
of the last few years, and as a result, those administering IDAs on a
national basis have sought to work within the structure defined by
Congress. Unfortunately, because of changes in the field and certain
unforeseen difficulties with the implementation of the demonstration in
its current form, we have been asked to consider making a handful of
technical changes that will help with program administration and make
the program run more consistently and effectively.
Those changes include: (1) changing the legal accounting structure of
IDAs; (2) expanding the potential field of grantees to include low-
income credit unions and community development financial institutions;
(3) providing additional flexibility for withdrawals from IDA accounts
for the purchase of a home; (4) expanding the availability of funds for
economic literacy training; and (5) adding a Federal poverty measure to
the current eligibility criteria; and (6) making the AFIA and TANF
Individual Development Account programs consistent with respect to the
treatment of funds for purposes of determining eligibility for Federal
programs based on need.
These are modest but needed changes in the law that will help Federal
IDA programs function more as originally intended. I urge their
adoption.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Assets for Independence Act Amendments of 2000--Section-by-Section
Summary
NOTE: Except where otherwise specified, references in this
summary to provisions of law are references to provisions of
the Assets for Independence Act (the Act), title IV of the
Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and
Educational Services Act of 1998.
SEC. 2. MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS UNAVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY
WITHDRAWALS.
This section amends section 404(5)(A) (which defines the
term ``Individual Development Account'' (IDA) and specifies
required IDA elements), in clause (v), to eliminate language
which permits use of matching contributions by the qualified
entity serving as IDA trustee for emergency withdrawals. As
amended, clause (v) would permit use of matching
contributions only for qualified expenses (as defined in
section 404(8)). The amendment would eliminate the
inconsistency between section 404(5)(A)(v) as currently
drafted and section 404(3), which defines the term
``emergency withdrawal'' to mean a withdrawal by the eligible
individual of some or all of the funds deposited by that
individual for specified emergency situations.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL QUALIFIED ENTITIES.
This section amends section 404(7) (the definition of
``qualified entity'') to expand the category of entities
eligible to operate IDA programs under the Act to include
low-income credit unions (as designated by the National
Credit Union Administration) and organizations designated as
community development financial institutions by the Secretary
of the Treasury (or the Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund) that can demonstrate a collaborative
relationship with a community-based organization.
SEC. 4. HOME PURCHASE COSTS.
Section 4(a) amends section 407(8)(B) (which includes the
purchase of a first home in the definition of ``qualified
expenses'' for which IDA funds can be withdrawn by the
participant) to increase the purchase price limit to 120
percent of the average area purchase price for such a
residence.
SEC. 5. INCREASED SET-ASIDE FOR ECONOMIC LITERACY TRAINING
AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
Section 5 amends section 407(c)(3) by increasing from 9.5
percent of 15 percent the amount of funds that grantee
organizations may use to provide economic literacy training
and other administrative functions. Of this amount, not more
than 7.5 percent may be used for administrative functions.
SEC. 6. ALTERNATIVE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.
This section amends section 408(a) (which sets forth IDA
participation criteria) by adding an additional criteria for
eligibility as an IDA program participant. Under this
amendment, an individual with an income less than 200% of the
poverty line (as defined by OMB), would be eligible to
participate.
SEC. 7. REVISED ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT DEADLINE.
Section 7 amends Section 412 which currently
requires the first Annual Progress Report to be delivered not
later than 60 days after the end of the calendar year. This
amendment would require the first report to be delivered not
later than 60 days after the end of the project year.
SEC. 8. REVISED INTERIM EVALUATION REPORT DEADLINE.
This section amends section 414(d) which currently requires
the first interim evaluation to be delivered not later than
90 days after the end of the calendar year in which the
Secretary first authorizes a demonstration project. This
amendment would require the first interim evaluation to be
delivered not later than 90 days after the end of the project
year.
SEC. 9. INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS FOR EVALUATION EXPENSES.
The section amends section 414(e) (which sets forth the
amount the Secretary may set aside to evaluate the IDA
program) by changing from 2% to not more than $500,000 the
amount of IDA appropriations set aside for such evaluation.
SEC. 10. NO REDUCTION IN BENEFITS.
This section strikes section 415 which pertains to the
treatment of funds deposited in IDA accounts for purposes of
determining eligibility for Federal or federally assisted
program based on need and replaces it with similar language
found in P.L. 104-193, the TANF block grant. Currently, only
funds contributed into an IDA by a sponsoring organization
are disregarded for purposes of determining eligibility for
federal needs tested programs. With this change, both an
individual's own contributions and the contributions made on
behalf of an individual by a sponsoring organization will be
disregarded for this purpose.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 3215. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize
women's health research award programs conducted through the National
Institutes of Health; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
women's health research career enhancement act
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the
Women's Health Research Career Enhancement Act of 2000. This
legislation addresses a critical shortage of qualified clinician
researchers available to investigate the diseases and conditions that
primarily affect women.
As the brother of two sisters lost to breast cancer and the father of
two daughters, I know first-hand the importance of making women's
health initiatives a top priority. More can and must be done to
guarantee that women have the quality care they deserve. This includes
making sure that qualified researchers are out there leading the search
for cures and treatments.
In 1985, the United States Public Health Task Force on Women's Health
Issues concluded that women's health care was getting short shrift by
the lack of research focus on women's health concerns. Since then we
have made good progress to expand women's health research, but more
needs to be done.
In 1990, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) had been slow and ineffective in
implementing a policy to include women in research study populations.
At the urging of myself and others, and in response to passage of the
NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, the NIH began to take more
comprehensive measures to increase research on health problems
affecting women.
[[Page S10720]]
And more recently, at my request, along with Senators Olympia Snowe
and Barbara Mikulski, and Representative Harry Waxman (D-CA), the GAO
published a report last May assessing the NIH's progress on conducting
research on women's health in the past decade. The GAO's report found
that while NIH has made significant progress in implementing a
strengthened policy on including women in clinical research, they have
failed to fully analyze clinical data on women's health.
It is clear we can and must do more to advance a comprehensive
women's health agenda.
A growing body of evidence is emerging that demonstrates significant
differences between men and women and how they get sick and how they
react to potential treatments. Women and men metabolize food, alcohol,
medication and environmental toxins differently.
And certain diseases and conditions disproportionately affect women.
For example, women comprise 80% of those suffering from osteoporosis.
Seventy-five percent of those afflicted with autoimmune diseases are
women. And although we have made significant progress, we are still
fighting the terrible epidemic of breast cancer in this country, a
disease that strikes 1 out of every 8 American women.
Women everywhere will benefit through more and better scientific
research on the diseases and conditions that affect them. And our
scientific enterprise will reap maximum returns when it involves teams
of investigators with expertise in various disciplines. A
comprehensive, targeted approach is necessary to develop a multi-
disciplinary cadre of researchers with the interest and expertise to
broaden the field of women's health research.
In addition, mentoring between junior and senior scientists is
important to promoting an inclusive and diverse research environment.
Mentoring relationships can lead to the retention and advancement of
talented scientists from all segments of the population and enhance our
investment in medical research.
Mr. President, my legislation authorizes two important initiatives to
expand the number of qualified investigators in women's health research
by providing improved career development opportunities through the
National Institutes of Health (NIH):
First, the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's
Health Program--will support the career development of junior women's
health scientists by providing new opportunities to improve their
research skills in interdisciplinary settings. The NIH, through the
Office of Research on Women's Health, will provide grants to research
institutions to pair junior investigators with seasoned senior
investigators, who will mentor them for 2-5 years.
Second, the Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development
Centers--will help build the next generation of investigators in
obstetrics and gynecology by giving clinicians the experience they need
to become women's health scientists. The NIH, through the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Office of
Research on Women's Health, will provide grants to research
institutions and hospitals for the training of new women's health
researchers.
The Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development Centers
program and the Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's
Health grant program have already stimulated women's health research
across a variety of disciplines. Authorizing and expanding these
programs will speed breakthroughs in women's health research by
building and improving the network of scientific investigators expert
in the diseases and conditions that affect women.
Mr. President, I have a long tradition of supporting research and
specifically women's health research both as Chairman and now Ranking
Member of the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee. This year we will provide an
unprecedented, $2.7 billion increase for the National Institutes of
Health, keeping us well on track towards our goal of doubling the NIH
budget over 5 years.
But all the funding in the world will do us no good if we don't have
talented investigators ready and able to take on the challenge of
finding the cures and treatments for the diseases that afflict us. We
must do more to make sure we grow and strengthen a diverse network of
our best and brightest clinicians and scientists to keep pace with our
increased investment in medical research. The bill I am introducing
today will help to do just that. It has the support of the National
Institutes of Health, the Society for Women's Health Research, the
Women's Health Research Coalition and the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation. 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. 3215
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Health Research
Career Enhancement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Public Health Service's Task Force on Women's
Health Issues concluded in 1985 that women's health care was
compromised by the lack of research focus on women's health
concerns. Since then, progress has been made to expand
women's health research, but more can be done to strengthen
our nation's capacity to aggressively investigate the
diseases and conditions primarily affecting women.
(2) A growing body of evidence demonstrates dramatic
differences between women's and men's biology, including
symptoms of disease, mechanism of disease and responses to
treatment.
(3) Women and men differ in disease presentation and
treatment outcomes of coronary heart disease. Women comprise
80 percent of the population suffering from osteoporosis.
Women comprise 75 percent of those afflicted with autoimmune
diseases. Women and men metablolize food, alcohol,
medication, and atmospheric toxins differently.
(4) Scientific research will reap maximum returns when it
involves teams of investigators with expertise in various
disciplines. A comprehensive, targeted effort is necessary to
develop a multi-disciplinary cadre of researchers with the
interest and expertise to develop the field of gender based
health research so that it has the greatest impact on all
women and men.
(5) Mentoring between junior and senior scientists is
vitally important to promoting an inclusive and diverse
research environment, leading to the retention and
advancement of talented scientists from all segments of the
population and enhancing the nation's investment in
treatments and cures for the diseases and conditions that
affect Americans.
(6) The Women's Reproductive Health Research Career
Development Centers and the Building Interdisciplinary
Research Careers in Women's Health grant programs have
stimulated women's health research across a variety of
disciplines.
(7) Expanding the initiatives described in paragraph (6)
will speed breakthroughs in women's health research by
building and improving the network of scientific
investigators who are experts in the diseases and conditions
that affect women.
SEC. 3. BUILDING INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH CAREERS IN
WOMEN'S HEALTH.
Part A of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 241 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 310A. BUILDING INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH CAREERS IN
WOMEN'S HEALTH.
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of the section to provide
funding to enable the Director of the Office of Research on
Women's Health, in coordination with the Director of the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and
other Institutes and centers of the National Institutes of
Health, to carry out the Building Interdisciplinary Research
Careers in Women's Health program (as authorized under
section 301) to support the career development of scientists
who are commencing basic, translational, clinical, behavioral
or health services research relevant to women's health in an
interdisciplinary scientific setting.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2006 to enable the
Director of the Office of Research on Women's Health to carry
out program described in subsection (a).
``(c) Requirements for Grants.--
``(1) Eligibility.--In making awards under the program
described in subsection (a), the Director of the Office of
Research on Women's Health, acting through the Director of
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
and other Institutes and centers of the National Institutes
of Health, shall, with respect to an institution, consider--
``(A) domestic profit and nonprofit, non-Federal, public or
private organizations;
[[Page S10721]]
``(B) the extent to which the institution has the clinical
specialities and subspecialities, and the clinical and
research facilities, sufficient to meet the objective of the
program of bridging clinical or post-doctoral training with a
career in interdisciplinary research relevant to women's
health; and
``(C) other factors determined appropriate by the
Directors.
``(2) Rule of construction.--With respect to the program
described in subsection (a), nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to prohibit the application by the Director of
the Office of Research on Women's Health of eligibility or
other requirements, including requirements applied to
applicants under such program in the fiscal year prior to the
date of enactment of this section.''.
SEC. 3. WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH CAREER
DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.
Part A of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 241 et seq.), as amended by section 3, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 310B. WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH CAREER
DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
provide for the funding of Women's Reproductive Health
Research Career Development Centers to enable the Director of
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
in collaboration with the Director of the National Institutes
of Health, to--
``(1) assist in improving the health of women and infants
by training new researchers in reproductive health science;
``(2) address concerns raised in a recent study by the
National Research Council about the declining number of
physician-investigators; and
``(3) provide newly trained obstetric-gynecologic
clinicians with training and support, through the Women's
Reproductive Health Research Career Development Centers, to
assist in such clinicians in their pursuit of research
careers to address problems in women's obstetric and
gynecologic health.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2006 to enable the
Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development to fund Women's Reproductive Health Research
Career Development Centers for the purposes described in
subsection (a).
``(c) Rule of Construction.--With respect to the program
described in subsection (a), nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit the application by the Director of the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of
eligibility or other requirements, including requirements
applied to applicants under such program, in the fiscal year
prior to the date of enactment of this section.''.
______
Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 3216. A bill to provide for review in the Court of International
Trade of certain determinations of binational panels under the North
American Free Trade Agreement; to the Committee on Finance.
INTEGRITY OF THE U.S. COURTS ACT
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important legislation
designed to correct a fundamental flaw within the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) dispute resolution mechanism, known as Chapter
19. As many of my colleagues are aware, Chapter 19 has revealed itself
to be unacceptable in its current form. The Integrity of the U.S.
Courts Act, that I introduce today with my colleague Mr. Baucus, is
necessary to make certain bilateral dispute resolution decisions from
the NAFTA are made pursuant to U.S. trade laws.
At present, antidumping and countervailing duty determinations made
by NAFTA members are appealed to ad hoc panels of private individuals,
instead of impartial courts created under national constitutions. These
panels are supposed to apply the same standard of review as a U.S.
court in order to determine whether a decision is supported by
substantial evidence on the agency record, and is otherwise in
accordance with the law. This standard requires that the agency's
factual findings and legal interpretations be given significant
deference. Unfortunately, in spite of the panels's mandate, they all
too often depart from their directive and fail to ensure that the
correct standard of review is applied.
The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act would permit any party to a
NAFTA dispute involving a U.S. agency decision to remove appellate
jurisdiction from the Extraordinary Challenge Committees (ECC) to the
U.S. Court of International Trade. Doing so would resolve some of the
constitutional issues raised by the Chapter 19 system, expedite
resolution of cases, and ensure conformity with U.S. law.
The infirmities of Chapter 19 are real, and have been problematic
from the beginning. The Justice Department, the Senate Finance
Committee, and other authorities are on record of having expressed
serious concern about giving private panelists--sometimes a majority of
whom are foreign nationals--the authority to issue decisions about U.S.
domestic law that have the binding force of law. These appointed
panelists, coming from different legal and cultural disciplines and
serving on an ad hoc basis, do not necessarily have the interest that
unbiased U.S. courts have in maintaining the efficacy of the laws, as
Congress wrote them.
One of the most egregious examples of the flaws of Chapter 19 is
reflected in a case from early in this process, reviewing a
countervailing duty finding that Canadian lumber imports benefits from
enormous subsidies. Three Canadian panelists outvoted two leading U.S.
legal experts to eliminate the countervailing duty based on patently
erroneous interpretations of U.S. law--interpretations that Congress
had expressly rejected only months before. Two of the Canadian
panelists served despite undisclosed conflicts of interest. The matter
was then argued before a Chapter 19 appeals committee, and the two
committee members outvoted the one U.S. member to once again insulate
the Canadian subsidies from U.S. law.
The U.S. committee member was Malcolm Wilkey, the former Chief Judge
of the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, and one of the
United States' most distinguished jurists. In his opinion, Judge Wilkey
wrote that the lumber panel decision ``may violate more principles of
appellate review of agency action than any opinion by a reviewing body
which I have ever read.'' Judge Wilkey and former Judge Charles Renfrew
(Also a chapter 19 appeals committee member) have since expressed
serious constitutional reservations about the system. While some have
claimed that Chapter 19 decides many cases well, its inability to
resolve appropriately large disputes, and its constitutional infirmity,
demand a remedy.
It is clear that the time is long past due to remedy Chapter 19. From
the outset, the NAFTA agreement contemplated that given the sensitive
and unusual subject matter, signatories might have to alter their
obligations under Chapter 19. The Integrity of the U.S. Courts Act is a
reasonable solution to a serious problem.
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and me in our effort to
fix this problem that is unfairly harming American industry, and more
important, the U.S. Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that the full
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. 3216
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 ``Integrity of the United
States Courts Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF BINATIONAL PANEL DECISIONS.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title IV of the North
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C.
3431 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 404 the
following new section:
``SEC. 404A. REVIEW OF BINATIONAL PANEL DETERMINATIONS.
``(a) Basis for Review in Court of International Trade.--
``(1) In general.--If, within 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register of notice that a binational panel has
issued a determination following a review under article 1904
of a decision of a competent investigating authority in the
United States, a party or person within the meaning of
paragraph 5 of article 1904 alleges that--
``(A)(i) the determination of the panel was based on a
misinterpretation of United States law;
``(ii) a member of a panel was guilty of a gross
misconduct, bias, or a serious conflict of interest, or
otherwise materially violated the rules of conduct,
``(iii) the panel seriously departed from a fundamental
rule of procedure, or
``(iv) the panel manifestly exceeded its powers, authority,
or jurisdiction set out in article 1904, as in failing to
apply the appropriate standard of review, and
``(B) any of the actions described in subparagraph (A) has
materially affected the panel's decision and threatens the
integrity of the binational panel review process,
then such party or person may file an appeal with the United
States Court of International Trade, seeking review of the
binational panel determination, pursuant to section 516A of
the Tariff Act of 1930.
[[Page S10722]]
``(2) Review in court of international trade where
binational panel does not act.--If a request for a panel
review has been made under article 1904 and a panel is not
convened within 315 days of the request, the Party requesting
the panel review or person within the meaning of paragraph 5
of article 1904 may file an appeal of the antidumping or
countervailing duty determination with respect to which the
request was filed with the United States Court of
International Trade.
``(b) Decisions of the Court.--
``(1) In general.--In any appeal filed under subsection
(a)(1) for review of a binational panel determination, the
Court of International Trade shall, after examining the legal
and factual analysis underlying the findings and conclusions
of the panel's decision, determine whether any of the actions
described in subsection (a)(1)(A) has been established. If
the court finds that any of those actions has been
established, the court shall vacate the original panel
decision and enter judgment accordingly. If the actions are
not established, the court shall affirm the original
binational panel decision. Decisions of the Court of
International Trade under this section shall be binding on
the parties with respect to the matters between the parties
that were before the panel.
``(2) Decisions where panel not convened.--In the case of
an appeal filed under subsection (a)(2) for review of a
determination of a competent investigating authority, the
Court of International Trade shall, after examining the legal
and factual analysis underlying the findings and conclusions
of the investigating authority's determination, determine
whether the determination was made in accordance with article
1904. If the court finds that the determination was not in
accordance with article 1904 or is not supported by the legal
and factual analysis, the court shall vacate the
investigating authority's determination and enter judgment
accordingly. If the court finds that the determination was in
accordance with article 1904 and is supported by the legal
and factual analysis, the court shall affirm the
investigating authority's determination. Decisions of the
Court of International Trade under this section shall be
binding on the parties with respect to the matters between
the parties that would have been before a panel had the panel
been convened.
``(c) Exclusive Jurisdiction.--If a party or person within
the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1904 timely files a
notice of appeal to the Court of International Trade pursuant
to this section, then jurisdiction exclusively resides with
the United States Court of International Trade, and such
determinations are not subject to review by an extraordinary
challenge committee under paragraph 13 of article 1904.
``(d) Applicability.--Subsections (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)
apply to all goods from NAFTA countries which were subject to
an antidumping duty or countervailing duty determination of a
competent investigating authority in the United States.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
North American Free Trade Implementation Act is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 404 the
following:
``Sec. 404A. Review of binational panel determinations.''.
SEC. 3. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
Section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1516a) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i)(I), by striking ``or (viii)''
and inserting ``(viii), (ix), or (x)''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the
following:
``(ix) A final determination of a binational panel convened
pursuant to article 1904 of the NAFTA.
``(x) A final determination of an investigating authority
described in section 404A(a)(2) of the North American Free
Trade Agreement Implementation Act.'';
(2) in subsection (a)(5), in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A), by inserting ``(other than a determination
described in subsection (g)(3)(A)(vii))'' after ``apply'';
and
(3) in subsection (g)(3)(A)--
(A) in clause (v), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in clause (vi), by striking the period and inserting
``, or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(vii) a determination of which either a party or person
within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1904 of the
NAFTA has requested review pursuant to section 404A of the
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.''.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION TO CANADA AND MEXICO.
Pursuant to article 1902 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement and section 408 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act, the amendments made by this Act
shall apply with respect to goods from Canada and Mexico.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any final
determination of a binational panel convened pursuant to
article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement or to
a final determination of a competent investigating authority
with respect to which section 404A(a)(2) of the North
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act applies,
notice of which is published in the Federal Register on or
after the date of enactment of this Act.
____________________