[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23137-23144]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 23138]]

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;
       (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.

[[Page 23139]]

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 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

[[Page 23140]]

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, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Kennecy):
  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.
  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

[[Page 23141]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 23142]]

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;
       ``(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

[[Page 23143]]

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.
       ``(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

[[Page 23144]]

     ``(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.

                          ____________________