Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - February 29, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S930-S951] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. WYDEN: S. 2114. A bill to exempt certain entries of titanium disks from antidumping duties retroactively applied by the United States Customs Service; to the Committee on Finance. legislation relating to a tariff classification Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to correct a technical error made by the U.S. Customs Service, and exempt Waldron Pacific from antidumping duties which were retroactively applied by Customs to three import shipments of titanium. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced by Representative David Wu in the House of Representatives. Waldron Pacific, a small business located in Lake Oswego, Oregon, is a distributor of non-ferrous alloys, such as aluminum, zinc and brass, used in the die casting and foundry industries. With just two employees, Waldron Pacific has been a very successful business operation. When a customer of Waldron Pacific needed a certain type of titanium not available in this country, the entrepreneurial Waldron Pacific found a supplier outside the U.S., in Russia. Having no import experience, but hearing of potential antidumping duties on certain titanium products, Waldron Pacific sought a binding Classification Ruling from Customs before importing the product. Customs' Classification Ruling indicated that the proper import duty was 15%, and Waldron Pacific began importing the product to fulfill the needs of its customer. After three shipments had been imported, Customs revoked its previous Classification Ruling and applied retroactively an additional 85% antidumping duty on these shipments. The three shipments had already been imported, delivered and paid for by Waldron Pacific's customer, leaving Waldron Pacific liable to pay $42,000 in unexpected duties. Whether or not the product should be subject to the antidumping order is not at issue nor is that the matter addressed by this legislation. The key point is that Waldron Pacific exercised due diligence in obtaining a Classification Ruling prior to importing the product, and relied upon that Classification Ruling as a basis for importing and selling the product. Even the domestic producers who are protected by the antidumping order agree that Waldron Pacific should not have to pay antidumping duties on these three shipments. Ironically, the antidumping order has since been repealed entirely. Providing Waldron Pacific relief from Customs' mistake and subsequent attempt to retroactively apply a higher tariff is a question of basic fairness. The legislation I am introducing today would correct this technical error and exempt these import shipments from the unfair, retroactive application of antidumping duties. 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. 2114 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF TITANIUM DISKS. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 15144) or any other provision of law, the United States Customs Service shall-- (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the entries listed in subsection (b) as exempt from antidumping duties under antidumping case number A-462-103; and (2) not later than 90 days after such liquidation or reliquidation under paragraph (1), refund any antidumping duties paid with respect to such entries, including interest from the date of entry, if the importer of the entries files a request therefor with the Customs Service within such 90- day period. (b) Entries.--The entries referred to in subsection (a) are as follows: Entry Number Date of Entry EE1-0001115-8..........................................January 26, 1995 EE1-0001313-9.............................................June 23, 1995 EE1-0001449-1........................................September 25, 1995 ______ By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Dorgan): S. 2115. A bill to ensure adequate monitoring of the commitments made by the People's Republic of China in its accession to the World Trade Organization and to create new procedures to ensure compliance with those commitments; to the Committee on Finance. china-world trade organization compliance act Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the China WTO Compliance Act, along with Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, Akaka, Wyden, and Dorgan. This bill is designed to ensure continuous and rigorous monitoring of China's WTO commitments. It also provides new mechanisms in the Congress and in the Executive Branch to make sure that China complies with those commitments. Twenty years of negotiations with our Asian partners have demonstrated that trade agreements are often not self-executing. This is just as true with China today as it has been with Japan over these last two decades. The Congress and the Administration must both be resolutely committed to monitoring and enforcement. Only then do our trade agreements succeed and bring the desired results. Inattention by the United States leads to inaction [[Page S931]] by our trading partners. It leads to failure to achieve market opening objectives. This bill will make sure that future Congresses and future Administrations, whether they are Democratic or Republican, will keep trade agreement compliance permanently at the top of the agenda with China. We must ensure that inattention never sets in. We must also ensure that other elements in the bilateral relationship not be allowed to prevent the United States from gaining the maximum trade and economic benefit from China's WTO promises. Let me be clear that this bill is not designed to set conditions for the Congressional vote on granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR. Rather, this bill addresses one of the major concerns that many in the Congress have. That is, China historical record in complying with bilateral trade agreements has been spotty. So, how can we be confident that compliance with this agreement will be any better? I hope that enactment of this bill will provide some reassurance to Senators and House members in this regard. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in approving this legislation. Let me outline the main provisions of the China WTO Compliance Act. First, monitoring. The President must submit a detailed plan to Congress for monitoring Chinese compliance three months after China accedes to the WTO. The plan must be updated yearly and include detailed tasking responsibilities for each agency. The General Accounting Office will be required annually to survey the top 50 American firms in each of five different categories. Companies that export non-agricultural goods to China. That export agricultural goods to China. That provide services in China. That invest in China. And that import goods from China. The purpose of the survey is to determine if China is abiding by its WTO commitments. The survey will also provide information about any problems confronted by those firms. The International Trade Commission will report annually on United States-China bilateral export and import statistics. They will also, as best they can, seek to reconcile the different United States-source and China-source statistics. The second element in the bill deals with compliance. USTR must submit an annual report to Congress on China's compliance with its WTO commitments. After analyzing this report, a majority vote of either the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means Committee would require USTR to initiate a Section 301 investigation of Chinese practices that do not abide by China's WTO commitments. If USTR then determines that China is violating any of those commitments, USTR shall initiate dispute settlement action at the WTO, unless there exists another more effective action. USTR shall consult with the Congress and provide an explanation of its action. Going further, a majority vote of both the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee will require USTR to initiate immediately a case under the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. The bill also amends Section 301. It authorizes USTR to draw a negative inference if a country being investigated does not cooperate in providing information. This has become a serious problem with some of our trading partners. A 301 investigation can bog down when a country with a non-transparent trading regime refuses to provide detailed information. This provision provides an incentive for cooperation. Third, the bill calls for a special WTO review of China. It is the Sense of the Congress that there should be a special multilateral process at the WTO for a thorough and comprehensive annual review of Chinese compliance. The bill directs USTR to propose that the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, the TPRM, at the WTO execute such a review of China's trade policies every year. It also directs USTR to take measures to improve the TPRM process. Finally, institution-building in China. Coming out of half a century of communism, China does not have the institutions necessary to carry out fully its WTO obligations. This bill requires the President to submit a plan to provide assistance to China to build those institutions necessary to fulfill the obligations China has made as part of its accession to the WTO. The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should provide such assistance through bilateral mechanisms, in particular, through appropriate non- governmental organizations. It also provides for the possibility of some multilateral assistance under the auspices of the WTO. Finally, because a primary beneficiary of the results of successful institution-building in China would be American business, efforts shall be made to develop cost-sharing with the private sector. There has been a lot of talk about the need to ensure full Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. This bill is an attempt to establish a system that will do just that. We need this legislation. And we need to pass PNTR as soon as possible. Let me conclude with a few remarks about Chinese compliance with the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect in December. Three weeks ago, I initiated a letter signed by 53 Senators to Chinese President Jiang Zemin. In the letter, we insisted that China proceed with full and immediate implementation of that agreement. I was pleased to announce on Monday the first purchase by China under this agreement. 50,000 metric tons of Pacific Northwest wheat. This is an important step that should be followed by other agricultural purchases. Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced today by the distinguished Senators from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) entitled the ``China-World Trade Organization Compliance Act.'' Last November, the United States and China announced that a bilateral agreement had been reached on China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement covers all agricultural products, industrial goods, and service areas. It promises to open up the Chinese market to American exports and American investment. Nevertheless, many Americans are hesitant at embracing this accord. Part of their concern is over the requirement that in order for the United States to benefit fully from this agreement. Congress will have to pass legislation granting permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China. Previously known as Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) trading status, NTR has been subject to an annual renewal vote each year in the Congress. This yearly vote has allowed for a full airing of American concerns over relations with China--relations which remain contentious to this day because of the Chinese government's human rights behavior, proliferation activities, trade policy, and relations with its neighbors, most especially Taiwan. I cannot predict the result of the vote later this year on granting China permanent NTR. I do know that a Congressional vote against China will not necessarily prevent China from joining the WTO if it concludes successfully its accession agreements with other WTO members. China still has to resolve issues with the European Union and then have its accession approved by the WTO General Council/Ministerial Conference. But I think it is reasonable to assume that later this year China will join the WTO whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR. In light of this possibility, the legislation proposed today by my colleagues, and which I am pleased to cosponsor, is a reasonable and prudent step to take in order to ensure that the agreements which China commits to in joining the WTO are ones which China will fulfill. The history of Chinese compliance with international agreements has not been as good as it should be. In particular, China has not successfully implemented the commitments it made in March 1995 to protect American intellectual property rights. Intellectual piracy remains a major threat to the American music, cinema, and computer software industries. The Chinese government has demonstrated an impressive ability to arrest and intimidate massive numbers of Falun Gong followers but seems unable to locate factories mass producing thousands of counterfeit CDs, videos, and computer software. Clearly, where there is a will, there is a way for the Chinese government. [[Page S932]] In addition, the Chinese government has proven itself very adept at protecting its domestic market from foreign goods and investment, devising formal and informal barriers to trade. The concept of transparency in Chinese trade law leaves much to be desired. An October 1992 market access agreement between the United States and China has yet to be fully implemented with China eliminating some barriers while imposing new ones. The pattern of past Chinese behavior to international trading agreements suggest that we must be vigilant in ensuring compliance with the WTO accession agreement. The legislation we offer today is a significant step towards ensuring that China's promises are fulfilled. The bill establishes a process within the United States government for monitoring Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. The monitoring would occur regardless of whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR to China, although surely it would have more effect if we do grant this to China. We have lacked a process, and an agency, within the United States government with the mandate, the expertise, institutional memory, and the resources to ensure that the promise of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are fulfilled. This legislation is a major step in starting the debate on how to ensure that promises made are promises kept. As ranking member of the International Security, Proliferation And Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am keenly interested in the implications of the legislation for the organization of our government's trade agencies. There are several areas where I would like to work with the legislation's authors to refine their proposal. I believe that it might be appropriate to designate the United States Trade Representative's Office as the lead agency working with other agencies to monitor compliance. I intend to study further the best means for ensuring the effectiveness of this legislation. I believe it also important that public participation in commenting on China's compliance should not be limited to business groups but include environmental, labor, and human rights organizations. The climate affecting the world economy is not solely determined by the financial bottom line. This legislation is an important step towards a trade environment which benefits the many, not the few, and I am pleased to cosponsor it. ______ By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Schumer): S. 2116. A bill to amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to support teacher corps programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. teacher corps Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is one thing we all can agree on in education, it is that teacher quality is absolutely critical to how well children learn. Yet, the nation confronts one of the worst teacher shortages in history. With expanding enrollment, decreasing class size and one third of the nation's teachers nearing retirement age, public schools will need to hire as many as 2.2 million teachers over the next decade. The need is greatest in specific subject areas such as mathematics, science, special education and bilingual education, all important subjects if the nation is to have an educated work force to keep it competitive in the world marketplace. Need is also greatest in specific geographical areas such as the inner city and rural areas. Ironically, it is the most educationally and socio-economically disadvantaged students that are under served. If there is one action we can take guaranteed to help struggling schools and children, it is to provide states and school districts the means to ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. My legislation, Teacher Corps, which I am proud to introduce today with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Schumer, who for so long have fought to bring the best possible educational opportunities to all of America's children, is designed to do just that. Its components are based on a definite need and sound research concerning effective mechanisms for meeting that need. Teacher Corps would fund collaboratives between state education agencies, local education agencies and institutions of higher education. The collaboratives would recruit top ranked college students and qualified mid career individuals, who have not yet been trained as teachers, to teach in the nation's poorest schools in the areas of greatest need--both geographically and academically. Districts and universities would work together to only recruit candidates who have an academic major or extensive and substantive professional experience in the subject in which they will teach. The collaboratives would provide recruits a tuition free alternative route to certification which includes intensive study and a teaching internship. The internship would include mentoring, co-teaching and advanced course work in pedagogy, state standards, technology and other areas. After the internship period, the collaboratives would offer individualized follow up training and mentoring in the first two years of full time teaching. Corps members that become certified will be given priority in hiring within that district in exchange for a commitment to teach in low income schools for 3 years. A good teacher can mean the world to any child whether it is through caring or through providing children with the skills they need to open their own doors to the future. Every time I enter schools in Minnesota, I am in awe of teachers' work. That is why it is so tragic to think that there are so many children that do not have access to qualified teachers, at the same time that many people interested in teaching are either not entering the profession or are not staying there once they have qualified. Teacher Corps will help meet the growing need for teachers in low income urban and rural schools, and in high need subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. It will do so because Teacher Corps is rooted in three fundamental parts. Recruitment, retention and innovative, flexible, high quality training programs for college graduates and mid-career professionals who want to teach in high need areas. The first principle is recruitment. As I mentioned before, we may need to hire as many as 2.2 million new teachers in the next decade to ensure that there are enough teachers in our schools. But, overall quantity is not the only issue. Quality and shortages in specific geographic and curriculum areas are equally critical. While there are teacher surpluses in some areas, certain states and cities are facing acute teacher shortages. In California, 1 out of every 10 teachers lacks proper credentials. 58 percent of new hires in Los Angeles are not certified. There are also crucial shortages in some subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. In my home state of Minnesota, 90 percent of principals report a serious shortage of strong candidates in at least one curriculum area. 54 percent of the mathematics teachers in the state of Idaho and 48 percent of the science teachers in Florida and Tennessee did not major in the subject of their primary assignment. Teacher Corps would meet this need because it would recruit and train thousands of high quality teachers into the field to meet the specific teaching needs of local school districts. It would recruit and train top college students and mid-career professionals from around the country, who increasingly want to enter the teaching profession. More college students want to enter teaching today than have wanted to join the profession in the past 30 years. According to a recent UCLA survey, over 10 percent of all freshman say they want to teach in elementary and secondary schools. Second, the design of the program ensures that the needs of local school districts will be considered so that only those candidates who meet the specific needs of that district will be recruited and trained. If, for example, there is a shortage of special education, bilingual, math and science teachers in a particular district, Teacher Corps [[Page S933]] would only train people with those skills. In setting up collaboratives in this way, teacher corps helps avoid the overproduction of candidates in areas where they are not needed. Finally, Teacher Corps gives priority to high need rural, inner suburban and urban districts to ensure that new teachers will enter where they are needed most. However, it does not help to recruit teachers into high need schools and train them if we cannot retain them in the profession. Teaching is one of the hardest, most important jobs there is. We ask teachers to prepare our children for adulthood. We ask them to educate our children so that they may be productive members of society. We entrust them with our children's minds and with their future. It is a disgrace how little support we give them in return. It is no surprise that one of the major causes of our teacher shortage is that teachers decide to change professions before retirement. 73 percent of Minnesota teachers who leave the profession, leave for reasons other than retirement. In urban schools, 50 percent of teachers leave the field within five years of when they start teaching. To retain high quality teachers in the profession, we must give teachers the support they deserve. Teachers, like doctors need monitoring and support during the first years of their professional life. Teacher Corps offers new teachers the training, monitoring and support they need to meet the profession's many challenges. It includes methods of support that have proven effective in ensuring that teachers stay in schools. The key elements for effective teacher retention were laid out by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future in 1996. Effective programs organize professional development around standards for teachers and students; provide a year long, pre-service internship; include mentoring and strong evaluation of teacher skills; offer stable, high quality professional development. Each of these criteria are included in the Teacher Corps program. Further, Teacher Corps supports people who choose teaching by paying for their training. Through this financial and professional support, Teacher Corps will go a long way toward keeping recruits in teaching. But, it is still not enough to recruit and retain teachers. Quality must be of primary importance. Research shows that the most important predictor of student success is not income, but the quality of the teacher. Despite this need, studies show that as the level of students of color and students from low-income families increases in schools, the test scores of teachers declines. This is wrong. We are denying children from low-income areas, from racial minorities, with limited English proficiency, access to what we know works. Several studies have shown that if poor and minority students are taught by high quality teachers at the same rate as other students, a large part of the gap between poor and minority students and their more affluent white counterparts would disappear. For example, one Alabama study shows that an increase of one standard deviation in teacher test scores leads to a two-thirds reduction in the gap between black/white tests scores. We can not turn our back on this knowledge. We must act on it. We must give low income, minority and limited English proficiency children the same opportunities that all children have and we must do it now. The very essence of Teacher Corps is to funnel high quality teachers where they are needed most. Teacher Corps would help ensure quality by using a selective, competitive recruitment process. It would provide high quality training, professional development, monitoring and evaluations of corps member performance, all of which have been proven to increase the quality of the teaching force and the achievement of the students they teach. Further, by creating strong connections between universities and districts and by implementing effective professional development projects within districts, we are setting up powerful structures to benefit all teachers and students. Mr. President, we have an opportunity to do what we know works to help children who need our help most. Good teachers have an extraordinary impact on children's lives and learning. We need to be sure that all children have access to such teachers and all children have the opportunity to learn so that all children may take advantage of the many opportunities this country provides. ______ By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Leahy): S. 2117. A bill to amend title 9, United States Code, with respect to consumer credit transaction; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act of 2000, a bill that will protect and preserve American consumers' right to take their disputes with creditors to court. This bill is identical to an amendment that I offered recently to the bankruptcy reform bill. In recent years, credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly requiring their customers to use binding arbitration when a dispute arises. Consumers are barred by contract from taking a dispute to court, even small claims court. While arbitration can be an efficient tool to settle claims, it is credible and effective only when consumers enter into it knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Unfortunately, that's not happening in the credit card and consumer credit lending arenas. One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in criminal cases is contained in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The right to a jury trial in civil cases is contained in the Seventh Amendment, which provides ``In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . .'' Some argue that Americans are over-using the courts. Court dockets across the country are congested with civil cases. In part as a response to these concerns, various ways to resolve disputes have been developed, short of going to court. Alternatives to court litigation are collectively known as alternative dispute resolution, or ADR. ADR includes mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration are often efficient ways to resolve disputes because the parties can have their case heard well before they would have received a trial date in court. Mediation is conducted by a neutral third party--the mediator--who meets with the opposing parties to help them find a mutually satisfactory solution. Unlike a judge in a courtroom, the mediator has no power to impose a solution. No formal rules of evidence or procedure control mediation; the mediator and the parties mutually agree on the best way to proceed. Arbitration also involves a third party--an arbitrator or arbitration panel. Unlike mediation but similar to a court proceeding, the arbitrator issues a decision after reviewing the arguments by all parties. Arbitration uses rules of evidence and procedure, although it may use rules that are simpler or more flexible than the evidentiary and procedural rules that the parties would follow in a court proceeding. Arbitration can be either binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration means that the decision issued by the arbitrator or arbitration panel takes effect only if the parties agree to it after they know what the decision is. In binding arbitration, parties agree in advance to accept and abide by the decision, whatever it is. Some contracts contain clauses that require arbitration to be used to resolve disputes that arise after the contract is signed. This is called ``mandatory arbitration.'' This means that if there is a dispute, the complaining party cannot file suit in court and instead is required to pursue arbitration. ``Mandatory, binding arbitration'' therefore means that under the contract, the parties must use arbitration to resolve a future disagreement and the decision of the arbitrator or arbitration panel is final. The parties have no ability to seek relief in court or through mediation. In fact, if they are not satisfied with the arbitration outcome, they are probably stuck with the decision. [[Page S934]] Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud. In contrast, if a dispute is resolved by a court, the parties can potentially pursue an appeal of the lower court's decision. Mr. President, because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it can be a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it. But that's not what's happening in a variety of contexts--from motor vehicle franchise agreements, to employment agreements, to credit card agreements. I'm proud to have sponsored legislation addressing employment agreements and motor vehicle franchise agreements. In fact, I am the original cosponsor with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, of S. 1020, which would prohibit the unilateral imposition of mandatory, binding arbitration in motor vehicle dealership agreements with manufacturers. Many of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors. Similar to the problem in the motor vehicle dealership franchise context, there is a growing, menacing trend of credit card companies and consumer credit lenders inserting mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in agreements with consumers. Companies like First USA Bank, American Express and Green Tree Discount Company unilaterally insert mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in their agreements with consumers, often without the consumer's knowledge or consent. The most common way credit card companies have done this is through the use of a ``bill stuffer.'' Bill stuffers are the advertisements and other materials that credit card companies insert into envelopes with their customers' monthly statements. Some credit card issuers like American Express have placed fine print mandatory arbitration clauses in bill stuffers. The arbitration provision is usually buried in fine print in a mailing that includes a bill and various advertising materials. It is often described in a lengthy legal document that most consumers probably don't even skim, much less read carefully. American Express issued its mandatory arbitration provision last year. It took effect on June 1st. So, if you're an American Express cardholder and you have a dispute with American Express, as of June 1999, you can't take your claim to court, even small claims court. You are bound to use arbitration, and you are bound to the final arbitration decision. In this case, you are also bound to use an arbitration organization selected by American Express, the National Arbitration Forum. American Express isn't the only credit card company imposing mandatory arbitration on its customers. First USA Bank, the largest issuer of Visa cards, with 58 million customers, has been doing the same thing since 1997. First USA also alerted its cardholders with a bill stuffer, containing a condensed set of terms and conditions in fine print. The cardholder, by virtue of continuing to use the First USA card, gave up the right to go to court, even small claims court, to resolve a dispute. Mr. President, this growing practice extends beyond credit cards into the consumer loan industry. Consumer credit lenders like Green Tree Consumer Discount Company are inserting mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in their loan agreements. The problem is that these loan agreements are usually adhesion contracts, which means that consumers must either sign the agreement as is, or forego a loan. In other words, consumers lack the bargaining power to have the clause removed. More importantly, when signing on the dotted line of the loan agreement, consumers may not even understand what mandatory arbitration means. In all likelihood, they do not understand that they have just signed away a right to go to court to resolve a dispute with the lender. It might be argued that if consumers are not pleased with being subjected to a mandatory arbitration clause, they can cancel their credit card, or not execute on their loan agreement, and take their business elsewhere. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. As I mentioned, First USA Bank, the nation's largest Visa card issuer, is part of this questionable practice. In fact, the practice is becoming so pervasive that consumers may soon no longer have an alternative, unless they forego use of a credit card or a consumer loan entirely. Consumers should not be forced to make that choice. Companies like First USA, American Express and Green Tree argue that they rely on mandatory arbitration to resolve disputes faster and cheaper than court litigation. The claim may be resolved faster but is it really cheaper? Is it as fair as a court of law? I don't think so. Arbitration organizations often charge exorbitant fees to the consumer who brings a dispute--often an initial filing fee plus hourly fees to the arbitrator or arbitrators involved in the case. These costs can be much higher than bringing the matter to small claims court and paying a court filing fee. For example, the National Arbitration Forum, the arbitration entity of choice for American Express and First USA charges fees that are likely greater than if the consumer brought a dispute in small claims court. For a claim of less than $1,000, the National Arbitration Forum charges the consumer a $49 filing fee. In contrast, a consumer can bring the same claim to small claims court here in the District of Columbia for a filing fee of no more than $10. In other words, the consumer pays a fee to the National Arbitration Forum that is nearly five times more than the fee for filing a case in small claims court. That's bad enough, but some other arbitration firms are even more expensive. The American Arbitration Association charges a $500 filing fee for claims of less than $10,000, or more if the claim exceeds $10,000, and a minimum filing fee of $2,000 if the case involves three or more arbitrators. In addition to the filing fee, it also charges a hearing fee for holding hearings other than the initial hearing--$150 to be paid by each party for each day of hearings before a single arbitrator, or $250 if the hearing is held before an arbitration panel. The International Chamber of Commerce requires a $2,500 administrative fee plus an arbitrator's fee of at least $2,500, if the claim is less than $50,000. These fees are greater if the claim exceeds $50,000. The fees could very well be greater than the consumer's claim. So, as you can see, a consumer's claim is not necessarily resolved more efficiently with arbitration. It is resolved either at greater cost to the consumer or not at all, if the consumer cannot afford the costs, or the costs outweigh the amount in dispute. Another significant problem with mandatory, binding arbitration is that the lender gets to decide in advance who the arbitrator will be. In the case of American Express and First USA, they have chosen the National Arbitration Forum. All credit card disputes with consumers involving American Express or First USA are handled by that entity. There would seem to be a significant danger that this would result in an advantage for the lenders who are ``repeat players.'' After all, if the National Arbitration Forum develops a pattern of reaching decisions that favor cardholders, American Express or First USA may very well decide to take their arbitration business elsewhere. A system where the arbitrator has a financial interest in reaching an outcome that favors the credit card company is not a fair alternative dispute resolution system. There has been one important court decision on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration provisions in credit card agreements. The case arose out of a mandatory arbitration provision announced in mailings to Bank of America credit card and deposit account holders. In 1998, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the mandatory arbitration clauses unilaterally imposed on the Bank's customers were invalid and unenforceable. The California Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the lower court. As a result, credit card companies in California cannot invoke mandatory arbitration in their disputes with customers. In fact, the American Express bill stuffer notes that the mandatory, binding arbitration provision will not apply to California residents until further notice from the company. The California appellate court decision was wise and [[Page S935]] well-reasoned, but consumers in other states cannot be sure that all courts will reach the same conclusion. My bill extends the wisdom of the California appellate decision to every credit cardholder and consumer loan borrower. It amends the Federal Arbitration Act to invalidate mandatory, binding arbitration provisions in consumer credit agreements. Now, let me be clear. I believe that arbitration can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I agree we ought to encourage alternative dispute resolution. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Pre-dispute agreements to take disputes to arbitration cannot be voluntary and knowing in the consumer lending context because the bargaining power of the parties is so unequal. My bill does not prohibit arbitration of consumer credit transactions. It merely prohibits mandatory, binding arbitration provisions in consumer credit agreements. Credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly slamming the courthouse doors shut on consumers, often unbeknownst to them. This is grossly unjust. We need to restore fairness to the resolution of consumer credit disputes. I urge my colleagues to support the Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows: S. 2117 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 ``Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. CONSUMER CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. (a) Definition.--Section 1 of title 9, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the section heading, by striking ``and `commerce' defined'' and inserting ``, `commerce', `consumer credit transaction', and `consumer credit contract' defined''; and (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``; `consumer credit transaction', as herein defined, means the right granted to a natural person to incur debt and defer its payment, where the credit is intended primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and `consumer credit contract', as herein defined, means any contract between the parties to a consumer credit transaction.''. (b) Agreements To Arbitrate.--Section 2 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a written provision in any consumer credit contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of the contract, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, shall not be valid or enforceable. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the enforcement of any written agreement to settle by arbitration a controversy arising out of a consumer credit contract, if such written agreement has been entered into by the parties to the consumer credit contract after the controversy has arisen.''. ______ By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. McCONNELL): S. 2118. A bill to amend Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 to modify the computation of certain weighted student units; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. ______ By Mr. CRAPO: S. 2119. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve training for teachers in the use of technology; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2120. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish teacher recruitment and professional development programs for rural areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2121. A bill to provide for rural education assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2122. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve provisions relating to initial teaching experiences and alternative routes to certification; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. impact aid legislation Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and am pleased to be introducing five bills that will benefit teachers and students all across this Nation. Collectively, these measures create a package of fundamental reform to the ESEA bill. These pieces of legislation complement existing programs that have proven to work successfully in schools and they provide assistance and support in areas where educators have expressed the greatest need. And these measures represent my commitment to improving the quality of education so that all of our children can achieve their greatest potential. First, I am introducing a measure to strengthen the Federal Impact Aid program. Specifically, my bill, which is supported by the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, recommends increasing the weighted Federal student units for off-base military children and for civilian dependent children. Knowing that Impact Aid funds help 1.6 million federally-connected children, as well as 1,600 school districts serving over 17 million students, I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate support increases in funding for the Impact Aid program. But some of them may not be familiar with the formulas by which these funds are distributed to schools. Changing the computation of repayment will assure that funds will be distributed in a more equitable manner, reflecting the composition of local education agencies. The simple changes, which I am proposing, will benefit children in schools where the loss of local property taxes due to a large Federal presence has placed an extra burden on local taxpayers. We must make up the difference for all the children in the Impact Aid program, not just a select few. The second bill that I am proposing would build on the strong educational technology infrastructure already in place in school districts in nearly every state. As you know, education technology can significantly improve student achievement. Congress has recognized this fact by continually voting to dramatically increase funding for education technology. In fact, in just the programs under ESEA, federal support has grown from $52.6 million in Fiscal Year 1995, to $698 million just four years later. But we need to do more than simply place computers in classrooms. We need to provide our educators with the skills they need to incorporate evolving educational technology in the classroom. My bill does exactly that. It will encourage states to develop and implement professional development programs that train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. Effective teaching strategies must incorporate educational technology if we are to ensure that all children have the skills they need to compete in a high-tech workplace. An investment in professional development for our teachers is an investment in our children and our future. Third, continuing on the lines of professional development, I am introducing a bill that outlines the essential components of mentoring programs that would improve the experience of new teachers and reduce the high turn-over currently seen among beginning teachers. My legislation will ensure program quality and accountability by providing that teachers mentor their peers who teach the same subject. The mentoring programs that are created in this legislation must comply with state standards. Additionally, the bill will provide incentives, and grant states the flexibility to create alternative teacher certification and licensure programs, to recruit well-educated and talented people into the teacher profession. The recruitment and retention of good teachers is paramount to improving our national education system. Mentor programs provide teachers with the support of a senior colleague. And under the supervision and guidance of a colleague, teachers are able to develop skills and achieve a higher level of proficiency. The confidence and experience gained during this time will improve the quality of instruction, which in turn will improve overall student achievement. Fourth, attracting and retaining quality teachers is a difficult task, especially in rural impoverished areas. As a result, teacher shortages and high turnover are commonplace in rural [[Page S936]] communities in almost every state in the nation. The fourth education bill I am introducing today would allow the Secretary of Education to direct a portion of the general funds in ESEA to rural impoverished areas. Under this proposal, a needy rural school district could prevent the exodus of qualified teachers by first creating incentive programs to retain teachers; second, improve the quality of the teacher through enhanced professional development; and, third, hire new teachers. This bill recognizes the unique challenges facing rural school districts and allows them the option of addressing these challenges. The final bill, is the only one being introduced today with an authorization for appropriation. It makes Federal grant programs more flexible in order to help school districts in rural communities. Under this provision, districts would be able to combine the funds from specified programs and use the money to support local or statewide education reform efforts intended to improve the achievement of elementary school and secondary school students and the quality of instruction provided. This measure asks for an authorization of $125 million for small rural and poor rural schools--a small price that could produce large results. The goal of these bills, which I have briefly outlined, are threehold: 1) to provide teachers with the tools to grow as professionals; 2) to assist rural school districts so that they may compete competitively with other school districts that oftentimes have more money and resources; and, (3) to provide every child with unsurpassed education opportunities. Together, these are the keys to our children's success. In reauthorizing ESEA, Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to change the course of education. We must embrace this opportunity by supporting creative and innovative reform proposals, like the ones that I have introduced here today. I am committed to working in the best interest of our children to develop an education system that is the best in the world. These bills move us in the right direction and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these measures. I urge the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to incorporate these provisions into the upcoming ESEA bill. ______ By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 2123. A bill to provide Outer Continental Shelf Impact assistance to State and local governments, to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. conservation and reinvestment act of 1999 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on Thursday February 17th, the House Resources Committee filed their report on a historic piece of legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701 which would reinvest a portion of offshore oil and gas revenues in coastal conservation and impact assistance programs,the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife conservation, historic treasures and outdoor recreation. This remarkable compromise was developed by Congressmen Don Young, George Miller, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Chris John, Bruce Vento, and Tom Udall and was passed by the House Resources Committee by a vote of 37-12 on November 10, 1999. To date, the bill has accumulated over 300 co-sponsors. Hopefully, this legislation will be considered by the full House sometime this Spring. The H.R. 701 compromise is a companion to the Senate version of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, S. 25. Today I would like to acknowledge the remarkable work done by Mr. Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. John, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Udall as I, along with Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux and Feinstein introduce the H.R. 701 compromise in the Senate. While I would like to take a moment to note that there are some provisions of S. 25 that I along with several other co-sponsors strongly believe need to be incorporated into H.R. 701, today I am introducing the exact version that the House Resources Committee reported out on February 17th. This compelling and balanced bi-partisan proposal: will provide a fair share of funding to all coastal states, including producing states; is free of harmful environmental impacts to coastal and ocean resources; does not unduly hinder land acquisition yet acknowledges Congress' role in making these decisions; reflects a true partnership among federal, state and local governments and reinvests in the renewable resource of wildlife conservation through the currently authorized Pittman-Robertson program by nearly doubling the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation and education programs. This legislation provides $2.8 billion for seven district reinvestment programs. Title I authorizes $1 billion for Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation by creating a revenue sharing and coastal conservation fund for coastal states and eligible local governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities while providing funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems. In addition, the funds of Title I will support sustainable development of nonrenewable resources without providing incentives for new oil and gas development. All coastal states and territories will benefit from coastal impact assistance under this legislation, not just those states that host federal OCS oil and gas development. Title II guarantees stable and annual funding for the state and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the rights of private property rights owners. The bill will restore Congressional intent with respect to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. Title III establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund at $350 million through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson by reinvesting the development of nonrenewable resources into a renewable resource of wildlife conservation and education. This new source of funding will nearly double the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation. This program enjoys a great deal of support and would be enhanced without imposing new taxes. Title IV provides $125 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities. The Urban Parks and Recreation program would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. Title V provides $100 million for a Historic Preservation Fund through the programs of the Historic Preservation Act, including grants to the States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and administering numerous historic preservation programs. Title VI provides $200 million for Federal and Indian Lands Restoration through a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation and protect public health and safety. Title VII provides $150 million for Conservation Easements and Species Recovery through annual and dedicated funding for conservation easements and funding for landowner incentives to aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Finally, there is up to $200 million available for the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program through the annual interest generated from the CARA fund. The time has come to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. To continue to do otherwise, as we have over the last fifty years, is fiscally irresponsible. I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, the majority leader, Senator Lott, my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux as well as the other co- sponsors of S. 25 for all their continued [[Page S937]] support and efforts in attempting to enact what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century. I look forward to continue working with the other members of the Energy Committee on this legislation this year so that we may reach a compromise and give the country a true legacy for generations to come. 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. 2123 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 ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. Table of contents. Sec. 3. Definitions. Sec. 4. Annual reports. Sec. 5. Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 6. Limitation on use of available amounts for administration. Sec. 7. Budgetary treatment of receipts and disbursements. Sec. 8. Recordkeeping requirements. Sec. 9. Maintenance of effort and matching funding. Sec. 10. Sunset. Sec. 11. Protection of private property rights. Sec. 12. Signs. TITLE I--IMPACT ASSISTANCE AND COASTAL CONSERVATION Sec. 101. Impact assistance formula and payments. Sec. 102. Coastal State conservation and impact assistance plans. TITLE II--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND REVITALIZATION Sec. 201. Amendment of Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Sec. 202. Extension of fund; treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 203. Availability of amounts. Sec. 204. Allocation of Fund. Sec. 205. Use of Federal portion. Sec. 206. Allocation of amounts available for State purposes. Sec. 207. State planning. Sec. 208. Assistance to States for other projects. Sec. 209. Conversion of property to other use. Sec. 210. Water rights. TITLE III--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION Sec. 301. Purposes. Sec. 302. Definitions. Sec. 303. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 304. Apportionment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 305. Education. Sec. 306. Prohibition against diversion. TITLE IV--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS Sec. 401. Amendment of Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978. Sec. 402. Purpose. Sec. 403. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 404. Authority to develop new areas and facilities. Sec. 405. Definitions. Sec. 406. Eligibility. Sec. 407. Grants. Sec. 408. Recovery action programs. Sec. 409. State action incentives. Sec. 410. Conversion of recreation property. Sec. 411. Repeal. TITLE V--HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND Sec. 501. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 502. State use of historic preservation assistance for national heritage areas and corridors. TITLE VI--FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS RESTORATION Sec. 601. Purpose. Sec. 602. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund; allocation. Sec. 603. Authorized uses of transferred amounts. Sec. 604. Indian tribe defined. TITLE VII--CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY Subtitle A--Conservation Easements Sec. 701. Purpose. Sec. 702. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 703. Authorized uses of transferred amounts. Sec. 704. Conservation Easement Program. Subtitle B--Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Sec. 711. Purposes. Sec. 712. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 713. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance. Sec. 714. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Agreements. Sec. 715. Definitions. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) The term ``coastal population'' means the population of all political subdivisions, as determined by the most recent

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - February 29, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S930-S951] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. WYDEN: S. 2114. A bill to exempt certain entries of titanium disks from antidumping duties retroactively applied by the United States Customs Service; to the Committee on Finance. legislation relating to a tariff classification Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to correct a technical error made by the U.S. Customs Service, and exempt Waldron Pacific from antidumping duties which were retroactively applied by Customs to three import shipments of titanium. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced by Representative David Wu in the House of Representatives. Waldron Pacific, a small business located in Lake Oswego, Oregon, is a distributor of non-ferrous alloys, such as aluminum, zinc and brass, used in the die casting and foundry industries. With just two employees, Waldron Pacific has been a very successful business operation. When a customer of Waldron Pacific needed a certain type of titanium not available in this country, the entrepreneurial Waldron Pacific found a supplier outside the U.S., in Russia. Having no import experience, but hearing of potential antidumping duties on certain titanium products, Waldron Pacific sought a binding Classification Ruling from Customs before importing the product. Customs' Classification Ruling indicated that the proper import duty was 15%, and Waldron Pacific began importing the product to fulfill the needs of its customer. After three shipments had been imported, Customs revoked its previous Classification Ruling and applied retroactively an additional 85% antidumping duty on these shipments. The three shipments had already been imported, delivered and paid for by Waldron Pacific's customer, leaving Waldron Pacific liable to pay $42,000 in unexpected duties. Whether or not the product should be subject to the antidumping order is not at issue nor is that the matter addressed by this legislation. The key point is that Waldron Pacific exercised due diligence in obtaining a Classification Ruling prior to importing the product, and relied upon that Classification Ruling as a basis for importing and selling the product. Even the domestic producers who are protected by the antidumping order agree that Waldron Pacific should not have to pay antidumping duties on these three shipments. Ironically, the antidumping order has since been repealed entirely. Providing Waldron Pacific relief from Customs' mistake and subsequent attempt to retroactively apply a higher tariff is a question of basic fairness. The legislation I am introducing today would correct this technical error and exempt these import shipments from the unfair, retroactive application of antidumping duties. 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. 2114 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF TITANIUM DISKS. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 15144) or any other provision of law, the United States Customs Service shall-- (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the entries listed in subsection (b) as exempt from antidumping duties under antidumping case number A-462-103; and (2) not later than 90 days after such liquidation or reliquidation under paragraph (1), refund any antidumping duties paid with respect to such entries, including interest from the date of entry, if the importer of the entries files a request therefor with the Customs Service within such 90- day period. (b) Entries.--The entries referred to in subsection (a) are as follows: Entry Number Date of Entry EE1-0001115-8..........................................January 26, 1995 EE1-0001313-9.............................................June 23, 1995 EE1-0001449-1........................................September 25, 1995 ______ By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Dorgan): S. 2115. A bill to ensure adequate monitoring of the commitments made by the People's Republic of China in its accession to the World Trade Organization and to create new procedures to ensure compliance with those commitments; to the Committee on Finance. china-world trade organization compliance act Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the China WTO Compliance Act, along with Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, Akaka, Wyden, and Dorgan. This bill is designed to ensure continuous and rigorous monitoring of China's WTO commitments. It also provides new mechanisms in the Congress and in the Executive Branch to make sure that China complies with those commitments. Twenty years of negotiations with our Asian partners have demonstrated that trade agreements are often not self-executing. This is just as true with China today as it has been with Japan over these last two decades. The Congress and the Administration must both be resolutely committed to monitoring and enforcement. Only then do our trade agreements succeed and bring the desired results. Inattention by the United States leads to inaction [[Page S931]] by our trading partners. It leads to failure to achieve market opening objectives. This bill will make sure that future Congresses and future Administrations, whether they are Democratic or Republican, will keep trade agreement compliance permanently at the top of the agenda with China. We must ensure that inattention never sets in. We must also ensure that other elements in the bilateral relationship not be allowed to prevent the United States from gaining the maximum trade and economic benefit from China's WTO promises. Let me be clear that this bill is not designed to set conditions for the Congressional vote on granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR. Rather, this bill addresses one of the major concerns that many in the Congress have. That is, China historical record in complying with bilateral trade agreements has been spotty. So, how can we be confident that compliance with this agreement will be any better? I hope that enactment of this bill will provide some reassurance to Senators and House members in this regard. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in approving this legislation. Let me outline the main provisions of the China WTO Compliance Act. First, monitoring. The President must submit a detailed plan to Congress for monitoring Chinese compliance three months after China accedes to the WTO. The plan must be updated yearly and include detailed tasking responsibilities for each agency. The General Accounting Office will be required annually to survey the top 50 American firms in each of five different categories. Companies that export non-agricultural goods to China. That export agricultural goods to China. That provide services in China. That invest in China. And that import goods from China. The purpose of the survey is to determine if China is abiding by its WTO commitments. The survey will also provide information about any problems confronted by those firms. The International Trade Commission will report annually on United States-China bilateral export and import statistics. They will also, as best they can, seek to reconcile the different United States-source and China-source statistics. The second element in the bill deals with compliance. USTR must submit an annual report to Congress on China's compliance with its WTO commitments. After analyzing this report, a majority vote of either the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means Committee would require USTR to initiate a Section 301 investigation of Chinese practices that do not abide by China's WTO commitments. If USTR then determines that China is violating any of those commitments, USTR shall initiate dispute settlement action at the WTO, unless there exists another more effective action. USTR shall consult with the Congress and provide an explanation of its action. Going further, a majority vote of both the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee will require USTR to initiate immediately a case under the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. The bill also amends Section 301. It authorizes USTR to draw a negative inference if a country being investigated does not cooperate in providing information. This has become a serious problem with some of our trading partners. A 301 investigation can bog down when a country with a non-transparent trading regime refuses to provide detailed information. This provision provides an incentive for cooperation. Third, the bill calls for a special WTO review of China. It is the Sense of the Congress that there should be a special multilateral process at the WTO for a thorough and comprehensive annual review of Chinese compliance. The bill directs USTR to propose that the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, the TPRM, at the WTO execute such a review of China's trade policies every year. It also directs USTR to take measures to improve the TPRM process. Finally, institution-building in China. Coming out of half a century of communism, China does not have the institutions necessary to carry out fully its WTO obligations. This bill requires the President to submit a plan to provide assistance to China to build those institutions necessary to fulfill the obligations China has made as part of its accession to the WTO. The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should provide such assistance through bilateral mechanisms, in particular, through appropriate non- governmental organizations. It also provides for the possibility of some multilateral assistance under the auspices of the WTO. Finally, because a primary beneficiary of the results of successful institution-building in China would be American business, efforts shall be made to develop cost-sharing with the private sector. There has been a lot of talk about the need to ensure full Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. This bill is an attempt to establish a system that will do just that. We need this legislation. And we need to pass PNTR as soon as possible. Let me conclude with a few remarks about Chinese compliance with the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect in December. Three weeks ago, I initiated a letter signed by 53 Senators to Chinese President Jiang Zemin. In the letter, we insisted that China proceed with full and immediate implementation of that agreement. I was pleased to announce on Monday the first purchase by China under this agreement. 50,000 metric tons of Pacific Northwest wheat. This is an important step that should be followed by other agricultural purchases. Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced today by the distinguished Senators from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) entitled the ``China-World Trade Organization Compliance Act.'' Last November, the United States and China announced that a bilateral agreement had been reached on China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement covers all agricultural products, industrial goods, and service areas. It promises to open up the Chinese market to American exports and American investment. Nevertheless, many Americans are hesitant at embracing this accord. Part of their concern is over the requirement that in order for the United States to benefit fully from this agreement. Congress will have to pass legislation granting permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China. Previously known as Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) trading status, NTR has been subject to an annual renewal vote each year in the Congress. This yearly vote has allowed for a full airing of American concerns over relations with China--relations which remain contentious to this day because of the Chinese government's human rights behavior, proliferation activities, trade policy, and relations with its neighbors, most especially Taiwan. I cannot predict the result of the vote later this year on granting China permanent NTR. I do know that a Congressional vote against China will not necessarily prevent China from joining the WTO if it concludes successfully its accession agreements with other WTO members. China still has to resolve issues with the European Union and then have its accession approved by the WTO General Council/Ministerial Conference. But I think it is reasonable to assume that later this year China will join the WTO whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR. In light of this possibility, the legislation proposed today by my colleagues, and which I am pleased to cosponsor, is a reasonable and prudent step to take in order to ensure that the agreements which China commits to in joining the WTO are ones which China will fulfill. The history of Chinese compliance with international agreements has not been as good as it should be. In particular, China has not successfully implemented the commitments it made in March 1995 to protect American intellectual property rights. Intellectual piracy remains a major threat to the American music, cinema, and computer software industries. The Chinese government has demonstrated an impressive ability to arrest and intimidate massive numbers of Falun Gong followers but seems unable to locate factories mass producing thousands of counterfeit CDs, videos, and computer software. Clearly, where there is a will, there is a way for the Chinese government. [[Page S932]] In addition, the Chinese government has proven itself very adept at protecting its domestic market from foreign goods and investment, devising formal and informal barriers to trade. The concept of transparency in Chinese trade law leaves much to be desired. An October 1992 market access agreement between the United States and China has yet to be fully implemented with China eliminating some barriers while imposing new ones. The pattern of past Chinese behavior to international trading agreements suggest that we must be vigilant in ensuring compliance with the WTO accession agreement. The legislation we offer today is a significant step towards ensuring that China's promises are fulfilled. The bill establishes a process within the United States government for monitoring Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. The monitoring would occur regardless of whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR to China, although surely it would have more effect if we do grant this to China. We have lacked a process, and an agency, within the United States government with the mandate, the expertise, institutional memory, and the resources to ensure that the promise of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are fulfilled. This legislation is a major step in starting the debate on how to ensure that promises made are promises kept. As ranking member of the International Security, Proliferation And Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am keenly interested in the implications of the legislation for the organization of our government's trade agencies. There are several areas where I would like to work with the legislation's authors to refine their proposal. I believe that it might be appropriate to designate the United States Trade Representative's Office as the lead agency working with other agencies to monitor compliance. I intend to study further the best means for ensuring the effectiveness of this legislation. I believe it also important that public participation in commenting on China's compliance should not be limited to business groups but include environmental, labor, and human rights organizations. The climate affecting the world economy is not solely determined by the financial bottom line. This legislation is an important step towards a trade environment which benefits the many, not the few, and I am pleased to cosponsor it. ______ By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Schumer): S. 2116. A bill to amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to support teacher corps programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. teacher corps Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is one thing we all can agree on in education, it is that teacher quality is absolutely critical to how well children learn. Yet, the nation confronts one of the worst teacher shortages in history. With expanding enrollment, decreasing class size and one third of the nation's teachers nearing retirement age, public schools will need to hire as many as 2.2 million teachers over the next decade. The need is greatest in specific subject areas such as mathematics, science, special education and bilingual education, all important subjects if the nation is to have an educated work force to keep it competitive in the world marketplace. Need is also greatest in specific geographical areas such as the inner city and rural areas. Ironically, it is the most educationally and socio-economically disadvantaged students that are under served. If there is one action we can take guaranteed to help struggling schools and children, it is to provide states and school districts the means to ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. My legislation, Teacher Corps, which I am proud to introduce today with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Schumer, who for so long have fought to bring the best possible educational opportunities to all of America's children, is designed to do just that. Its components are based on a definite need and sound research concerning effective mechanisms for meeting that need. Teacher Corps would fund collaboratives between state education agencies, local education agencies and institutions of higher education. The collaboratives would recruit top ranked college students and qualified mid career individuals, who have not yet been trained as teachers, to teach in the nation's poorest schools in the areas of greatest need--both geographically and academically. Districts and universities would work together to only recruit candidates who have an academic major or extensive and substantive professional experience in the subject in which they will teach. The collaboratives would provide recruits a tuition free alternative route to certification which includes intensive study and a teaching internship. The internship would include mentoring, co-teaching and advanced course work in pedagogy, state standards, technology and other areas. After the internship period, the collaboratives would offer individualized follow up training and mentoring in the first two years of full time teaching. Corps members that become certified will be given priority in hiring within that district in exchange for a commitment to teach in low income schools for 3 years. A good teacher can mean the world to any child whether it is through caring or through providing children with the skills they need to open their own doors to the future. Every time I enter schools in Minnesota, I am in awe of teachers' work. That is why it is so tragic to think that there are so many children that do not have access to qualified teachers, at the same time that many people interested in teaching are either not entering the profession or are not staying there once they have qualified. Teacher Corps will help meet the growing need for teachers in low income urban and rural schools, and in high need subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. It will do so because Teacher Corps is rooted in three fundamental parts. Recruitment, retention and innovative, flexible, high quality training programs for college graduates and mid-career professionals who want to teach in high need areas. The first principle is recruitment. As I mentioned before, we may need to hire as many as 2.2 million new teachers in the next decade to ensure that there are enough teachers in our schools. But, overall quantity is not the only issue. Quality and shortages in specific geographic and curriculum areas are equally critical. While there are teacher surpluses in some areas, certain states and cities are facing acute teacher shortages. In California, 1 out of every 10 teachers lacks proper credentials. 58 percent of new hires in Los Angeles are not certified. There are also crucial shortages in some subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. In my home state of Minnesota, 90 percent of principals report a serious shortage of strong candidates in at least one curriculum area. 54 percent of the mathematics teachers in the state of Idaho and 48 percent of the science teachers in Florida and Tennessee did not major in the subject of their primary assignment. Teacher Corps would meet this need because it would recruit and train thousands of high quality teachers into the field to meet the specific teaching needs of local school districts. It would recruit and train top college students and mid-career professionals from around the country, who increasingly want to enter the teaching profession. More college students want to enter teaching today than have wanted to join the profession in the past 30 years. According to a recent UCLA survey, over 10 percent of all freshman say they want to teach in elementary and secondary schools. Second, the design of the program ensures that the needs of local school districts will be considered so that only those candidates who meet the specific needs of that district will be recruited and trained. If, for example, there is a shortage of special education, bilingual, math and science teachers in a particular district, Teacher Corps [[Page S933]] would only train people with those skills. In setting up collaboratives in this way, teacher corps helps avoid the overproduction of candidates in areas where they are not needed. Finally, Teacher Corps gives priority to high need rural, inner suburban and urban districts to ensure that new teachers will enter where they are needed most. However, it does not help to recruit teachers into high need schools and train them if we cannot retain them in the profession. Teaching is one of the hardest, most important jobs there is. We ask teachers to prepare our children for adulthood. We ask them to educate our children so that they may be productive members of society. We entrust them with our children's minds and with their future. It is a disgrace how little support we give them in return. It is no surprise that one of the major causes of our teacher shortage is that teachers decide to change professions before retirement. 73 percent of Minnesota teachers who leave the profession, leave for reasons other than retirement. In urban schools, 50 percent of teachers leave the field within five years of when they start teaching. To retain high quality teachers in the profession, we must give teachers the support they deserve. Teachers, like doctors need monitoring and support during the first years of their professional life. Teacher Corps offers new teachers the training, monitoring and support they need to meet the profession's many challenges. It includes methods of support that have proven effective in ensuring that teachers stay in schools. The key elements for effective teacher retention were laid out by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future in 1996. Effective programs organize professional development around standards for teachers and students; provide a year long, pre-service internship; include mentoring and strong evaluation of teacher skills; offer stable, high quality professional development. Each of these criteria are included in the Teacher Corps program. Further, Teacher Corps supports people who choose teaching by paying for their training. Through this financial and professional support, Teacher Corps will go a long way toward keeping recruits in teaching. But, it is still not enough to recruit and retain teachers. Quality must be of primary importance. Research shows that the most important predictor of student success is not income, but the quality of the teacher. Despite this need, studies show that as the level of students of color and students from low-income families increases in schools, the test scores of teachers declines. This is wrong. We are denying children from low-income areas, from racial minorities, with limited English proficiency, access to what we know works. Several studies have shown that if poor and minority students are taught by high quality teachers at the same rate as other students, a large part of the gap between poor and minority students and their more affluent white counterparts would disappear. For example, one Alabama study shows that an increase of one standard deviation in teacher test scores leads to a two-thirds reduction in the gap between black/white tests scores. We can not turn our back on this knowledge. We must act on it. We must give low income, minority and limited English proficiency children the same opportunities that all children have and we must do it now. The very essence of Teacher Corps is to funnel high quality teachers where they are needed most. Teacher Corps would help ensure quality by using a selective, competitive recruitment process. It would provide high quality training, professional development, monitoring and evaluations of corps member performance, all of which have been proven to increase the quality of the teaching force and the achievement of the students they teach. Further, by creating strong connections between universities and districts and by implementing effective professional development projects within districts, we are setting up powerful structures to benefit all teachers and students. Mr. President, we have an opportunity to do what we know works to help children who need our help most. Good teachers have an extraordinary impact on children's lives and learning. We need to be sure that all children have access to such teachers and all children have the opportunity to learn so that all children may take advantage of the many opportunities this country provides. ______ By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Leahy): S. 2117. A bill to amend title 9, United States Code, with respect to consumer credit transaction; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act of 2000, a bill that will protect and preserve American consumers' right to take their disputes with creditors to court. This bill is identical to an amendment that I offered recently to the bankruptcy reform bill. In recent years, credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly requiring their customers to use binding arbitration when a dispute arises. Consumers are barred by contract from taking a dispute to court, even small claims court. While arbitration can be an efficient tool to settle claims, it is credible and effective only when consumers enter into it knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Unfortunately, that's not happening in the credit card and consumer credit lending arenas. One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in criminal cases is contained in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The right to a jury trial in civil cases is contained in the Seventh Amendment, which provides ``In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . .'' Some argue that Americans are over-using the courts. Court dockets across the country are congested with civil cases. In part as a response to these concerns, various ways to resolve disputes have been developed, short of going to court. Alternatives to court litigation are collectively known as alternative dispute resolution, or ADR. ADR includes mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration are often efficient ways to resolve disputes because the parties can have their case heard well before they would have received a trial date in court. Mediation is conducted by a neutral third party--the mediator--who meets with the opposing parties to help them find a mutually satisfactory solution. Unlike a judge in a courtroom, the mediator has no power to impose a solution. No formal rules of evidence or procedure control mediation; the mediator and the parties mutually agree on the best way to proceed. Arbitration also involves a third party--an arbitrator or arbitration panel. Unlike mediation but similar to a court proceeding, the arbitrator issues a decision after reviewing the arguments by all parties. Arbitration uses rules of evidence and procedure, although it may use rules that are simpler or more flexible than the evidentiary and procedural rules that the parties would follow in a court proceeding. Arbitration can be either binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration means that the decision issued by the arbitrator or arbitration panel takes effect only if the parties agree to it after they know what the decision is. In binding arbitration, parties agree in advance to accept and abide by the decision, whatever it is. Some contracts contain clauses that require arbitration to be used to resolve disputes that arise after the contract is signed. This is called ``mandatory arbitration.'' This means that if there is a dispute, the complaining party cannot file suit in court and instead is required to pursue arbitration. ``Mandatory, binding arbitration'' therefore means that under the contract, the parties must use arbitration to resolve a future disagreement and the decision of the arbitrator or arbitration panel is final. The parties have no ability to seek relief in court or through mediation. In fact, if they are not satisfied with the arbitration outcome, they are probably stuck with the decision. [[Page S934]] Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud. In contrast, if a dispute is resolved by a court, the parties can potentially pursue an appeal of the lower court's decision. Mr. President, because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it can be a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it. But that's not what's happening in a variety of contexts--from motor vehicle franchise agreements, to employment agreements, to credit card agreements. I'm proud to have sponsored legislation addressing employment agreements and motor vehicle franchise agreements. In fact, I am the original cosponsor with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, of S. 1020, which would prohibit the unilateral imposition of mandatory, binding arbitration in motor vehicle dealership agreements with manufacturers. Many of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors. Similar to the problem in the motor vehicle dealership franchise context, there is a growing, menacing trend of credit card companies and consumer credit lenders inserting mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in agreements with consumers. Companies like First USA Bank, American Express and Green Tree Discount Company unilaterally insert mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in their agreements with consumers, often without the consumer's knowledge or consent. The most common way credit card companies have done this is through the use of a ``bill stuffer.'' Bill stuffers are the advertisements and other materials that credit card companies insert into envelopes with their customers' monthly statements. Some credit card issuers like American Express have placed fine print mandatory arbitration clauses in bill stuffers. The arbitration provision is usually buried in fine print in a mailing that includes a bill and various advertising materials. It is often described in a lengthy legal document that most consumers probably don't even skim, much less read carefully. American Express issued its mandatory arbitration provision last year. It took effect on June 1st. So, if you're an American Express cardholder and you have a dispute with American Express, as of June 1999, you can't take your claim to court, even small claims court. You are bound to use arbitration, and you are bound to the final arbitration decision. In this case, you are also bound to use an arbitration organization selected by American Express, the National Arbitration Forum. American Express isn't the only credit card company imposing mandatory arbitration on its customers. First USA Bank, the largest issuer of Visa cards, with 58 million customers, has been doing the same thing since 1997. First USA also alerted its cardholders with a bill stuffer, containing a condensed set of terms and conditions in fine print. The cardholder, by virtue of continuing to use the First USA card, gave up the right to go to court, even small claims court, to resolve a dispute. Mr. President, this growing practice extends beyond credit cards into the consumer loan industry. Consumer credit lenders like Green Tree Consumer Discount Company are inserting mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in their loan agreements. The problem is that these loan agreements are usually adhesion contracts, which means that consumers must either sign the agreement as is, or forego a loan. In other words, consumers lack the bargaining power to have the clause removed. More importantly, when signing on the dotted line of the loan agreement, consumers may not even understand what mandatory arbitration means. In all likelihood, they do not understand that they have just signed away a right to go to court to resolve a dispute with the lender. It might be argued that if consumers are not pleased with being subjected to a mandatory arbitration clause, they can cancel their credit card, or not execute on their loan agreement, and take their business elsewhere. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. As I mentioned, First USA Bank, the nation's largest Visa card issuer, is part of this questionable practice. In fact, the practice is becoming so pervasive that consumers may soon no longer have an alternative, unless they forego use of a credit card or a consumer loan entirely. Consumers should not be forced to make that choice. Companies like First USA, American Express and Green Tree argue that they rely on mandatory arbitration to resolve disputes faster and cheaper than court litigation. The claim may be resolved faster but is it really cheaper? Is it as fair as a court of law? I don't think so. Arbitration organizations often charge exorbitant fees to the consumer who brings a dispute--often an initial filing fee plus hourly fees to the arbitrator or arbitrators involved in the case. These costs can be much higher than bringing the matter to small claims court and paying a court filing fee. For example, the National Arbitration Forum, the arbitration entity of choice for American Express and First USA charges fees that are likely greater than if the consumer brought a dispute in small claims court. For a claim of less than $1,000, the National Arbitration Forum charges the consumer a $49 filing fee. In contrast, a consumer can bring the same claim to small claims court here in the District of Columbia for a filing fee of no more than $10. In other words, the consumer pays a fee to the National Arbitration Forum that is nearly five times more than the fee for filing a case in small claims court. That's bad enough, but some other arbitration firms are even more expensive. The American Arbitration Association charges a $500 filing fee for claims of less than $10,000, or more if the claim exceeds $10,000, and a minimum filing fee of $2,000 if the case involves three or more arbitrators. In addition to the filing fee, it also charges a hearing fee for holding hearings other than the initial hearing--$150 to be paid by each party for each day of hearings before a single arbitrator, or $250 if the hearing is held before an arbitration panel. The International Chamber of Commerce requires a $2,500 administrative fee plus an arbitrator's fee of at least $2,500, if the claim is less than $50,000. These fees are greater if the claim exceeds $50,000. The fees could very well be greater than the consumer's claim. So, as you can see, a consumer's claim is not necessarily resolved more efficiently with arbitration. It is resolved either at greater cost to the consumer or not at all, if the consumer cannot afford the costs, or the costs outweigh the amount in dispute. Another significant problem with mandatory, binding arbitration is that the lender gets to decide in advance who the arbitrator will be. In the case of American Express and First USA, they have chosen the National Arbitration Forum. All credit card disputes with consumers involving American Express or First USA are handled by that entity. There would seem to be a significant danger that this would result in an advantage for the lenders who are ``repeat players.'' After all, if the National Arbitration Forum develops a pattern of reaching decisions that favor cardholders, American Express or First USA may very well decide to take their arbitration business elsewhere. A system where the arbitrator has a financial interest in reaching an outcome that favors the credit card company is not a fair alternative dispute resolution system. There has been one important court decision on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration provisions in credit card agreements. The case arose out of a mandatory arbitration provision announced in mailings to Bank of America credit card and deposit account holders. In 1998, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the mandatory arbitration clauses unilaterally imposed on the Bank's customers were invalid and unenforceable. The California Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the lower court. As a result, credit card companies in California cannot invoke mandatory arbitration in their disputes with customers. In fact, the American Express bill stuffer notes that the mandatory, binding arbitration provision will not apply to California residents until further notice from the company. The California appellate court decision was wise and [[Page S935]] well-reasoned, but consumers in other states cannot be sure that all courts will reach the same conclusion. My bill extends the wisdom of the California appellate decision to every credit cardholder and consumer loan borrower. It amends the Federal Arbitration Act to invalidate mandatory, binding arbitration provisions in consumer credit agreements. Now, let me be clear. I believe that arbitration can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I agree we ought to encourage alternative dispute resolution. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Pre-dispute agreements to take disputes to arbitration cannot be voluntary and knowing in the consumer lending context because the bargaining power of the parties is so unequal. My bill does not prohibit arbitration of consumer credit transactions. It merely prohibits mandatory, binding arbitration provisions in consumer credit agreements. Credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly slamming the courthouse doors shut on consumers, often unbeknownst to them. This is grossly unjust. We need to restore fairness to the resolution of consumer credit disputes. I urge my colleagues to support the Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows: S. 2117 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 ``Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. CONSUMER CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. (a) Definition.--Section 1 of title 9, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the section heading, by striking ``and `commerce' defined'' and inserting ``, `commerce', `consumer credit transaction', and `consumer credit contract' defined''; and (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``; `consumer credit transaction', as herein defined, means the right granted to a natural person to incur debt and defer its payment, where the credit is intended primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and `consumer credit contract', as herein defined, means any contract between the parties to a consumer credit transaction.''. (b) Agreements To Arbitrate.--Section 2 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a written provision in any consumer credit contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of the contract, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, shall not be valid or enforceable. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the enforcement of any written agreement to settle by arbitration a controversy arising out of a consumer credit contract, if such written agreement has been entered into by the parties to the consumer credit contract after the controversy has arisen.''. ______ By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. McCONNELL): S. 2118. A bill to amend Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 to modify the computation of certain weighted student units; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. ______ By Mr. CRAPO: S. 2119. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve training for teachers in the use of technology; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2120. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish teacher recruitment and professional development programs for rural areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2121. A bill to provide for rural education assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2122. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve provisions relating to initial teaching experiences and alternative routes to certification; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. impact aid legislation Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and am pleased to be introducing five bills that will benefit teachers and students all across this Nation. Collectively, these measures create a package of fundamental reform to the ESEA bill. These pieces of legislation complement existing programs that have proven to work successfully in schools and they provide assistance and support in areas where educators have expressed the greatest need. And these measures represent my commitment to improving the quality of education so that all of our children can achieve their greatest potential. First, I am introducing a measure to strengthen the Federal Impact Aid program. Specifically, my bill, which is supported by the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, recommends increasing the weighted Federal student units for off-base military children and for civilian dependent children. Knowing that Impact Aid funds help 1.6 million federally-connected children, as well as 1,600 school districts serving over 17 million students, I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate support increases in funding for the Impact Aid program. But some of them may not be familiar with the formulas by which these funds are distributed to schools. Changing the computation of repayment will assure that funds will be distributed in a more equitable manner, reflecting the composition of local education agencies. The simple changes, which I am proposing, will benefit children in schools where the loss of local property taxes due to a large Federal presence has placed an extra burden on local taxpayers. We must make up the difference for all the children in the Impact Aid program, not just a select few. The second bill that I am proposing would build on the strong educational technology infrastructure already in place in school districts in nearly every state. As you know, education technology can significantly improve student achievement. Congress has recognized this fact by continually voting to dramatically increase funding for education technology. In fact, in just the programs under ESEA, federal support has grown from $52.6 million in Fiscal Year 1995, to $698 million just four years later. But we need to do more than simply place computers in classrooms. We need to provide our educators with the skills they need to incorporate evolving educational technology in the classroom. My bill does exactly that. It will encourage states to develop and implement professional development programs that train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. Effective teaching strategies must incorporate educational technology if we are to ensure that all children have the skills they need to compete in a high-tech workplace. An investment in professional development for our teachers is an investment in our children and our future. Third, continuing on the lines of professional development, I am introducing a bill that outlines the essential components of mentoring programs that would improve the experience of new teachers and reduce the high turn-over currently seen among beginning teachers. My legislation will ensure program quality and accountability by providing that teachers mentor their peers who teach the same subject. The mentoring programs that are created in this legislation must comply with state standards. Additionally, the bill will provide incentives, and grant states the flexibility to create alternative teacher certification and licensure programs, to recruit well-educated and talented people into the teacher profession. The recruitment and retention of good teachers is paramount to improving our national education system. Mentor programs provide teachers with the support of a senior colleague. And under the supervision and guidance of a colleague, teachers are able to develop skills and achieve a higher level of proficiency. The confidence and experience gained during this time will improve the quality of instruction, which in turn will improve overall student achievement. Fourth, attracting and retaining quality teachers is a difficult task, especially in rural impoverished areas. As a result, teacher shortages and high turnover are commonplace in rural [[Page S936]] communities in almost every state in the nation. The fourth education bill I am introducing today would allow the Secretary of Education to direct a portion of the general funds in ESEA to rural impoverished areas. Under this proposal, a needy rural school district could prevent the exodus of qualified teachers by first creating incentive programs to retain teachers; second, improve the quality of the teacher through enhanced professional development; and, third, hire new teachers. This bill recognizes the unique challenges facing rural school districts and allows them the option of addressing these challenges. The final bill, is the only one being introduced today with an authorization for appropriation. It makes Federal grant programs more flexible in order to help school districts in rural communities. Under this provision, districts would be able to combine the funds from specified programs and use the money to support local or statewide education reform efforts intended to improve the achievement of elementary school and secondary school students and the quality of instruction provided. This measure asks for an authorization of $125 million for small rural and poor rural schools--a small price that could produce large results. The goal of these bills, which I have briefly outlined, are threehold: 1) to provide teachers with the tools to grow as professionals; 2) to assist rural school districts so that they may compete competitively with other school districts that oftentimes have more money and resources; and, (3) to provide every child with unsurpassed education opportunities. Together, these are the keys to our children's success. In reauthorizing ESEA, Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to change the course of education. We must embrace this opportunity by supporting creative and innovative reform proposals, like the ones that I have introduced here today. I am committed to working in the best interest of our children to develop an education system that is the best in the world. These bills move us in the right direction and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these measures. I urge the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to incorporate these provisions into the upcoming ESEA bill. ______ By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 2123. A bill to provide Outer Continental Shelf Impact assistance to State and local governments, to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. conservation and reinvestment act of 1999 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on Thursday February 17th, the House Resources Committee filed their report on a historic piece of legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701 which would reinvest a portion of offshore oil and gas revenues in coastal conservation and impact assistance programs,the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife conservation, historic treasures and outdoor recreation. This remarkable compromise was developed by Congressmen Don Young, George Miller, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Chris John, Bruce Vento, and Tom Udall and was passed by the House Resources Committee by a vote of 37-12 on November 10, 1999. To date, the bill has accumulated over 300 co-sponsors. Hopefully, this legislation will be considered by the full House sometime this Spring. The H.R. 701 compromise is a companion to the Senate version of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, S. 25. Today I would like to acknowledge the remarkable work done by Mr. Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. John, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Udall as I, along with Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux and Feinstein introduce the H.R. 701 compromise in the Senate. While I would like to take a moment to note that there are some provisions of S. 25 that I along with several other co-sponsors strongly believe need to be incorporated into H.R. 701, today I am introducing the exact version that the House Resources Committee reported out on February 17th. This compelling and balanced bi-partisan proposal: will provide a fair share of funding to all coastal states, including producing states; is free of harmful environmental impacts to coastal and ocean resources; does not unduly hinder land acquisition yet acknowledges Congress' role in making these decisions; reflects a true partnership among federal, state and local governments and reinvests in the renewable resource of wildlife conservation through the currently authorized Pittman-Robertson program by nearly doubling the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation and education programs. This legislation provides $2.8 billion for seven district reinvestment programs. Title I authorizes $1 billion for Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation by creating a revenue sharing and coastal conservation fund for coastal states and eligible local governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities while providing funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems. In addition, the funds of Title I will support sustainable development of nonrenewable resources without providing incentives for new oil and gas development. All coastal states and territories will benefit from coastal impact assistance under this legislation, not just those states that host federal OCS oil and gas development. Title II guarantees stable and annual funding for the state and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the rights of private property rights owners. The bill will restore Congressional intent with respect to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. Title III establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund at $350 million through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson by reinvesting the development of nonrenewable resources into a renewable resource of wildlife conservation and education. This new source of funding will nearly double the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation. This program enjoys a great deal of support and would be enhanced without imposing new taxes. Title IV provides $125 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities. The Urban Parks and Recreation program would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. Title V provides $100 million for a Historic Preservation Fund through the programs of the Historic Preservation Act, including grants to the States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and administering numerous historic preservation programs. Title VI provides $200 million for Federal and Indian Lands Restoration through a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation and protect public health and safety. Title VII provides $150 million for Conservation Easements and Species Recovery through annual and dedicated funding for conservation easements and funding for landowner incentives to aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Finally, there is up to $200 million available for the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program through the annual interest generated from the CARA fund. The time has come to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. To continue to do otherwise, as we have over the last fifty years, is fiscally irresponsible. I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, the majority leader, Senator Lott, my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux as well as the other co- sponsors of S. 25 for all their continued [[Page S937]] support and efforts in attempting to enact what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century. I look forward to continue working with the other members of the Energy Committee on this legislation this year so that we may reach a compromise and give the country a true legacy for generations to come. 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. 2123 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 ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. Table of contents. Sec. 3. Definitions. Sec. 4. Annual reports. Sec. 5. Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 6. Limitation on use of available amounts for administration. Sec. 7. Budgetary treatment of receipts and disbursements. Sec. 8. Recordkeeping requirements. Sec. 9. Maintenance of effort and matching funding. Sec. 10. Sunset. Sec. 11. Protection of private property rights. Sec. 12. Signs. TITLE I--IMPACT ASSISTANCE AND COASTAL CONSERVATION Sec. 101. Impact assistance formula and payments. Sec. 102. Coastal State conservation and impact assistance plans. TITLE II--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND REVITALIZATION Sec. 201. Amendment of Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Sec. 202. Extension of fund; treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 203. Availability of amounts. Sec. 204. Allocation of Fund. Sec. 205. Use of Federal portion. Sec. 206. Allocation of amounts available for State purposes. Sec. 207. State planning. Sec. 208. Assistance to States for other projects. Sec. 209. Conversion of property to other use. Sec. 210. Water rights. TITLE III--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION Sec. 301. Purposes. Sec. 302. Definitions. Sec. 303. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 304. Apportionment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 305. Education. Sec. 306. Prohibition against diversion. TITLE IV--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS Sec. 401. Amendment of Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978. Sec. 402. Purpose. Sec. 403. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 404. Authority to develop new areas and facilities. Sec. 405. Definitions. Sec. 406. Eligibility. Sec. 407. Grants. Sec. 408. Recovery action programs. Sec. 409. State action incentives. Sec. 410. Conversion of recreation property. Sec. 411. Repeal. TITLE V--HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND Sec. 501. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 502. State use of historic preservation assistance for national heritage areas and corridors. TITLE VI--FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS RESTORATION Sec. 601. Purpose. Sec. 602. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund; allocation. Sec. 603. Authorized uses of transferred amounts. Sec. 604. Indian tribe defined. TITLE VII--CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY Subtitle A--Conservation Easements Sec. 701. Purpose. Sec. 702. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 703. Authorized uses of transferred amounts. Sec. 704. Conservation Easement Program. Subtitle B--Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Sec. 711. Purposes. Sec. 712. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 713. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance. Sec. 714. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Agreements. Sec. 715. Definitions. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) The term ``coastal population'' means the population of all political subdivisions, as determined by the m

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - February 29, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S930-S951] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. WYDEN: S. 2114. A bill to exempt certain entries of titanium disks from antidumping duties retroactively applied by the United States Customs Service; to the Committee on Finance. legislation relating to a tariff classification Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to correct a technical error made by the U.S. Customs Service, and exempt Waldron Pacific from antidumping duties which were retroactively applied by Customs to three import shipments of titanium. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced by Representative David Wu in the House of Representatives. Waldron Pacific, a small business located in Lake Oswego, Oregon, is a distributor of non-ferrous alloys, such as aluminum, zinc and brass, used in the die casting and foundry industries. With just two employees, Waldron Pacific has been a very successful business operation. When a customer of Waldron Pacific needed a certain type of titanium not available in this country, the entrepreneurial Waldron Pacific found a supplier outside the U.S., in Russia. Having no import experience, but hearing of potential antidumping duties on certain titanium products, Waldron Pacific sought a binding Classification Ruling from Customs before importing the product. Customs' Classification Ruling indicated that the proper import duty was 15%, and Waldron Pacific began importing the product to fulfill the needs of its customer. After three shipments had been imported, Customs revoked its previous Classification Ruling and applied retroactively an additional 85% antidumping duty on these shipments. The three shipments had already been imported, delivered and paid for by Waldron Pacific's customer, leaving Waldron Pacific liable to pay $42,000 in unexpected duties. Whether or not the product should be subject to the antidumping order is not at issue nor is that the matter addressed by this legislation. The key point is that Waldron Pacific exercised due diligence in obtaining a Classification Ruling prior to importing the product, and relied upon that Classification Ruling as a basis for importing and selling the product. Even the domestic producers who are protected by the antidumping order agree that Waldron Pacific should not have to pay antidumping duties on these three shipments. Ironically, the antidumping order has since been repealed entirely. Providing Waldron Pacific relief from Customs' mistake and subsequent attempt to retroactively apply a higher tariff is a question of basic fairness. The legislation I am introducing today would correct this technical error and exempt these import shipments from the unfair, retroactive application of antidumping duties. 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. 2114 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF TITANIUM DISKS. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 15144) or any other provision of law, the United States Customs Service shall-- (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the entries listed in subsection (b) as exempt from antidumping duties under antidumping case number A-462-103; and (2) not later than 90 days after such liquidation or reliquidation under paragraph (1), refund any antidumping duties paid with respect to such entries, including interest from the date of entry, if the importer of the entries files a request therefor with the Customs Service within such 90- day period. (b) Entries.--The entries referred to in subsection (a) are as follows: Entry Number Date of Entry EE1-0001115-8..........................................January 26, 1995 EE1-0001313-9.............................................June 23, 1995 EE1-0001449-1........................................September 25, 1995 ______ By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Dorgan): S. 2115. A bill to ensure adequate monitoring of the commitments made by the People's Republic of China in its accession to the World Trade Organization and to create new procedures to ensure compliance with those commitments; to the Committee on Finance. china-world trade organization compliance act Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the China WTO Compliance Act, along with Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, Akaka, Wyden, and Dorgan. This bill is designed to ensure continuous and rigorous monitoring of China's WTO commitments. It also provides new mechanisms in the Congress and in the Executive Branch to make sure that China complies with those commitments. Twenty years of negotiations with our Asian partners have demonstrated that trade agreements are often not self-executing. This is just as true with China today as it has been with Japan over these last two decades. The Congress and the Administration must both be resolutely committed to monitoring and enforcement. Only then do our trade agreements succeed and bring the desired results. Inattention by the United States leads to inaction [[Page S931]] by our trading partners. It leads to failure to achieve market opening objectives. This bill will make sure that future Congresses and future Administrations, whether they are Democratic or Republican, will keep trade agreement compliance permanently at the top of the agenda with China. We must ensure that inattention never sets in. We must also ensure that other elements in the bilateral relationship not be allowed to prevent the United States from gaining the maximum trade and economic benefit from China's WTO promises. Let me be clear that this bill is not designed to set conditions for the Congressional vote on granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR. Rather, this bill addresses one of the major concerns that many in the Congress have. That is, China historical record in complying with bilateral trade agreements has been spotty. So, how can we be confident that compliance with this agreement will be any better? I hope that enactment of this bill will provide some reassurance to Senators and House members in this regard. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in approving this legislation. Let me outline the main provisions of the China WTO Compliance Act. First, monitoring. The President must submit a detailed plan to Congress for monitoring Chinese compliance three months after China accedes to the WTO. The plan must be updated yearly and include detailed tasking responsibilities for each agency. The General Accounting Office will be required annually to survey the top 50 American firms in each of five different categories. Companies that export non-agricultural goods to China. That export agricultural goods to China. That provide services in China. That invest in China. And that import goods from China. The purpose of the survey is to determine if China is abiding by its WTO commitments. The survey will also provide information about any problems confronted by those firms. The International Trade Commission will report annually on United States-China bilateral export and import statistics. They will also, as best they can, seek to reconcile the different United States-source and China-source statistics. The second element in the bill deals with compliance. USTR must submit an annual report to Congress on China's compliance with its WTO commitments. After analyzing this report, a majority vote of either the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means Committee would require USTR to initiate a Section 301 investigation of Chinese practices that do not abide by China's WTO commitments. If USTR then determines that China is violating any of those commitments, USTR shall initiate dispute settlement action at the WTO, unless there exists another more effective action. USTR shall consult with the Congress and provide an explanation of its action. Going further, a majority vote of both the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee will require USTR to initiate immediately a case under the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. The bill also amends Section 301. It authorizes USTR to draw a negative inference if a country being investigated does not cooperate in providing information. This has become a serious problem with some of our trading partners. A 301 investigation can bog down when a country with a non-transparent trading regime refuses to provide detailed information. This provision provides an incentive for cooperation. Third, the bill calls for a special WTO review of China. It is the Sense of the Congress that there should be a special multilateral process at the WTO for a thorough and comprehensive annual review of Chinese compliance. The bill directs USTR to propose that the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, the TPRM, at the WTO execute such a review of China's trade policies every year. It also directs USTR to take measures to improve the TPRM process. Finally, institution-building in China. Coming out of half a century of communism, China does not have the institutions necessary to carry out fully its WTO obligations. This bill requires the President to submit a plan to provide assistance to China to build those institutions necessary to fulfill the obligations China has made as part of its accession to the WTO. The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should provide such assistance through bilateral mechanisms, in particular, through appropriate non- governmental organizations. It also provides for the possibility of some multilateral assistance under the auspices of the WTO. Finally, because a primary beneficiary of the results of successful institution-building in China would be American business, efforts shall be made to develop cost-sharing with the private sector. There has been a lot of talk about the need to ensure full Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. This bill is an attempt to establish a system that will do just that. We need this legislation. And we need to pass PNTR as soon as possible. Let me conclude with a few remarks about Chinese compliance with the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect in December. Three weeks ago, I initiated a letter signed by 53 Senators to Chinese President Jiang Zemin. In the letter, we insisted that China proceed with full and immediate implementation of that agreement. I was pleased to announce on Monday the first purchase by China under this agreement. 50,000 metric tons of Pacific Northwest wheat. This is an important step that should be followed by other agricultural purchases. Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced today by the distinguished Senators from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) entitled the ``China-World Trade Organization Compliance Act.'' Last November, the United States and China announced that a bilateral agreement had been reached on China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement covers all agricultural products, industrial goods, and service areas. It promises to open up the Chinese market to American exports and American investment. Nevertheless, many Americans are hesitant at embracing this accord. Part of their concern is over the requirement that in order for the United States to benefit fully from this agreement. Congress will have to pass legislation granting permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China. Previously known as Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) trading status, NTR has been subject to an annual renewal vote each year in the Congress. This yearly vote has allowed for a full airing of American concerns over relations with China--relations which remain contentious to this day because of the Chinese government's human rights behavior, proliferation activities, trade policy, and relations with its neighbors, most especially Taiwan. I cannot predict the result of the vote later this year on granting China permanent NTR. I do know that a Congressional vote against China will not necessarily prevent China from joining the WTO if it concludes successfully its accession agreements with other WTO members. China still has to resolve issues with the European Union and then have its accession approved by the WTO General Council/Ministerial Conference. But I think it is reasonable to assume that later this year China will join the WTO whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR. In light of this possibility, the legislation proposed today by my colleagues, and which I am pleased to cosponsor, is a reasonable and prudent step to take in order to ensure that the agreements which China commits to in joining the WTO are ones which China will fulfill. The history of Chinese compliance with international agreements has not been as good as it should be. In particular, China has not successfully implemented the commitments it made in March 1995 to protect American intellectual property rights. Intellectual piracy remains a major threat to the American music, cinema, and computer software industries. The Chinese government has demonstrated an impressive ability to arrest and intimidate massive numbers of Falun Gong followers but seems unable to locate factories mass producing thousands of counterfeit CDs, videos, and computer software. Clearly, where there is a will, there is a way for the Chinese government. [[Page S932]] In addition, the Chinese government has proven itself very adept at protecting its domestic market from foreign goods and investment, devising formal and informal barriers to trade. The concept of transparency in Chinese trade law leaves much to be desired. An October 1992 market access agreement between the United States and China has yet to be fully implemented with China eliminating some barriers while imposing new ones. The pattern of past Chinese behavior to international trading agreements suggest that we must be vigilant in ensuring compliance with the WTO accession agreement. The legislation we offer today is a significant step towards ensuring that China's promises are fulfilled. The bill establishes a process within the United States government for monitoring Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. The monitoring would occur regardless of whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR to China, although surely it would have more effect if we do grant this to China. We have lacked a process, and an agency, within the United States government with the mandate, the expertise, institutional memory, and the resources to ensure that the promise of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are fulfilled. This legislation is a major step in starting the debate on how to ensure that promises made are promises kept. As ranking member of the International Security, Proliferation And Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am keenly interested in the implications of the legislation for the organization of our government's trade agencies. There are several areas where I would like to work with the legislation's authors to refine their proposal. I believe that it might be appropriate to designate the United States Trade Representative's Office as the lead agency working with other agencies to monitor compliance. I intend to study further the best means for ensuring the effectiveness of this legislation. I believe it also important that public participation in commenting on China's compliance should not be limited to business groups but include environmental, labor, and human rights organizations. The climate affecting the world economy is not solely determined by the financial bottom line. This legislation is an important step towards a trade environment which benefits the many, not the few, and I am pleased to cosponsor it. ______ By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Schumer): S. 2116. A bill to amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to support teacher corps programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. teacher corps Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is one thing we all can agree on in education, it is that teacher quality is absolutely critical to how well children learn. Yet, the nation confronts one of the worst teacher shortages in history. With expanding enrollment, decreasing class size and one third of the nation's teachers nearing retirement age, public schools will need to hire as many as 2.2 million teachers over the next decade. The need is greatest in specific subject areas such as mathematics, science, special education and bilingual education, all important subjects if the nation is to have an educated work force to keep it competitive in the world marketplace. Need is also greatest in specific geographical areas such as the inner city and rural areas. Ironically, it is the most educationally and socio-economically disadvantaged students that are under served. If there is one action we can take guaranteed to help struggling schools and children, it is to provide states and school districts the means to ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. My legislation, Teacher Corps, which I am proud to introduce today with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Schumer, who for so long have fought to bring the best possible educational opportunities to all of America's children, is designed to do just that. Its components are based on a definite need and sound research concerning effective mechanisms for meeting that need. Teacher Corps would fund collaboratives between state education agencies, local education agencies and institutions of higher education. The collaboratives would recruit top ranked college students and qualified mid career individuals, who have not yet been trained as teachers, to teach in the nation's poorest schools in the areas of greatest need--both geographically and academically. Districts and universities would work together to only recruit candidates who have an academic major or extensive and substantive professional experience in the subject in which they will teach. The collaboratives would provide recruits a tuition free alternative route to certification which includes intensive study and a teaching internship. The internship would include mentoring, co-teaching and advanced course work in pedagogy, state standards, technology and other areas. After the internship period, the collaboratives would offer individualized follow up training and mentoring in the first two years of full time teaching. Corps members that become certified will be given priority in hiring within that district in exchange for a commitment to teach in low income schools for 3 years. A good teacher can mean the world to any child whether it is through caring or through providing children with the skills they need to open their own doors to the future. Every time I enter schools in Minnesota, I am in awe of teachers' work. That is why it is so tragic to think that there are so many children that do not have access to qualified teachers, at the same time that many people interested in teaching are either not entering the profession or are not staying there once they have qualified. Teacher Corps will help meet the growing need for teachers in low income urban and rural schools, and in high need subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. It will do so because Teacher Corps is rooted in three fundamental parts. Recruitment, retention and innovative, flexible, high quality training programs for college graduates and mid-career professionals who want to teach in high need areas. The first principle is recruitment. As I mentioned before, we may need to hire as many as 2.2 million new teachers in the next decade to ensure that there are enough teachers in our schools. But, overall quantity is not the only issue. Quality and shortages in specific geographic and curriculum areas are equally critical. While there are teacher surpluses in some areas, certain states and cities are facing acute teacher shortages. In California, 1 out of every 10 teachers lacks proper credentials. 58 percent of new hires in Los Angeles are not certified. There are also crucial shortages in some subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. In my home state of Minnesota, 90 percent of principals report a serious shortage of strong candidates in at least one curriculum area. 54 percent of the mathematics teachers in the state of Idaho and 48 percent of the science teachers in Florida and Tennessee did not major in the subject of their primary assignment. Teacher Corps would meet this need because it would recruit and train thousands of high quality teachers into the field to meet the specific teaching needs of local school districts. It would recruit and train top college students and mid-career professionals from around the country, who increasingly want to enter the teaching profession. More college students want to enter teaching today than have wanted to join the profession in the past 30 years. According to a recent UCLA survey, over 10 percent of all freshman say they want to teach in elementary and secondary schools. Second, the design of the program ensures that the needs of local school districts will be considered so that only those candidates who meet the specific needs of that district will be recruited and trained. If, for example, there is a shortage of special education, bilingual, math and science teachers in a particular district, Teacher Corps [[Page S933]] would only train people with those skills. In setting up collaboratives in this way, teacher corps helps avoid the overproduction of candidates in areas where they are not needed. Finally, Teacher Corps gives priority to high need rural, inner suburban and urban districts to ensure that new teachers will enter where they are needed most. However, it does not help to recruit teachers into high need schools and train them if we cannot retain them in the profession. Teaching is one of the hardest, most important jobs there is. We ask teachers to prepare our children for adulthood. We ask them to educate our children so that they may be productive members of society. We entrust them with our children's minds and with their future. It is a disgrace how little support we give them in return. It is no surprise that one of the major causes of our teacher shortage is that teachers decide to change professions before retirement. 73 percent of Minnesota teachers who leave the profession, leave for reasons other than retirement. In urban schools, 50 percent of teachers leave the field within five years of when they start teaching. To retain high quality teachers in the profession, we must give teachers the support they deserve. Teachers, like doctors need monitoring and support during the first years of their professional life. Teacher Corps offers new teachers the training, monitoring and support they need to meet the profession's many challenges. It includes methods of support that have proven effective in ensuring that teachers stay in schools. The key elements for effective teacher retention were laid out by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future in 1996. Effective programs organize professional development around standards for teachers and students; provide a year long, pre-service internship; include mentoring and strong evaluation of teacher skills; offer stable, high quality professional development. Each of these criteria are included in the Teacher Corps program. Further, Teacher Corps supports people who choose teaching by paying for their training. Through this financial and professional support, Teacher Corps will go a long way toward keeping recruits in teaching. But, it is still not enough to recruit and retain teachers. Quality must be of primary importance. Research shows that the most important predictor of student success is not income, but the quality of the teacher. Despite this need, studies show that as the level of students of color and students from low-income families increases in schools, the test scores of teachers declines. This is wrong. We are denying children from low-income areas, from racial minorities, with limited English proficiency, access to what we know works. Several studies have shown that if poor and minority students are taught by high quality teachers at the same rate as other students, a large part of the gap between poor and minority students and their more affluent white counterparts would disappear. For example, one Alabama study shows that an increase of one standard deviation in teacher test scores leads to a two-thirds reduction in the gap between black/white tests scores. We can not turn our back on this knowledge. We must act on it. We must give low income, minority and limited English proficiency children the same opportunities that all children have and we must do it now. The very essence of Teacher Corps is to funnel high quality teachers where they are needed most. Teacher Corps would help ensure quality by using a selective, competitive recruitment process. It would provide high quality training, professional development, monitoring and evaluations of corps member performance, all of which have been proven to increase the quality of the teaching force and the achievement of the students they teach. Further, by creating strong connections between universities and districts and by implementing effective professional development projects within districts, we are setting up powerful structures to benefit all teachers and students. Mr. President, we have an opportunity to do what we know works to help children who need our help most. Good teachers have an extraordinary impact on children's lives and learning. We need to be sure that all children have access to such teachers and all children have the opportunity to learn so that all children may take advantage of the many opportunities this country provides. ______ By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Leahy): S. 2117. A bill to amend title 9, United States Code, with respect to consumer credit transaction; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act of 2000, a bill that will protect and preserve American consumers' right to take their disputes with creditors to court. This bill is identical to an amendment that I offered recently to the bankruptcy reform bill. In recent years, credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly requiring their customers to use binding arbitration when a dispute arises. Consumers are barred by contract from taking a dispute to court, even small claims court. While arbitration can be an efficient tool to settle claims, it is credible and effective only when consumers enter into it knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Unfortunately, that's not happening in the credit card and consumer credit lending arenas. One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in criminal cases is contained in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The right to a jury trial in civil cases is contained in the Seventh Amendment, which provides ``In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . .'' Some argue that Americans are over-using the courts. Court dockets across the country are congested with civil cases. In part as a response to these concerns, various ways to resolve disputes have been developed, short of going to court. Alternatives to court litigation are collectively known as alternative dispute resolution, or ADR. ADR includes mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration are often efficient ways to resolve disputes because the parties can have their case heard well before they would have received a trial date in court. Mediation is conducted by a neutral third party--the mediator--who meets with the opposing parties to help them find a mutually satisfactory solution. Unlike a judge in a courtroom, the mediator has no power to impose a solution. No formal rules of evidence or procedure control mediation; the mediator and the parties mutually agree on the best way to proceed. Arbitration also involves a third party--an arbitrator or arbitration panel. Unlike mediation but similar to a court proceeding, the arbitrator issues a decision after reviewing the arguments by all parties. Arbitration uses rules of evidence and procedure, although it may use rules that are simpler or more flexible than the evidentiary and procedural rules that the parties would follow in a court proceeding. Arbitration can be either binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration means that the decision issued by the arbitrator or arbitration panel takes effect only if the parties agree to it after they know what the decision is. In binding arbitration, parties agree in advance to accept and abide by the decision, whatever it is. Some contracts contain clauses that require arbitration to be used to resolve disputes that arise after the contract is signed. This is called ``mandatory arbitration.'' This means that if there is a dispute, the complaining party cannot file suit in court and instead is required to pursue arbitration. ``Mandatory, binding arbitration'' therefore means that under the contract, the parties must use arbitration to resolve a future disagreement and the decision of the arbitrator or arbitration panel is final. The parties have no ability to seek relief in court or through mediation. In fact, if they are not satisfied with the arbitration outcome, they are probably stuck with the decision. [[Page S934]] Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud. In contrast, if a dispute is resolved by a court, the parties can potentially pursue an appeal of the lower court's decision. Mr. President, because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it can be a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it. But that's not what's happening in a variety of contexts--from motor vehicle franchise agreements, to employment agreements, to credit card agreements. I'm proud to have sponsored legislation addressing employment agreements and motor vehicle franchise agreements. In fact, I am the original cosponsor with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, of S. 1020, which would prohibit the unilateral imposition of mandatory, binding arbitration in motor vehicle dealership agreements with manufacturers. Many of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors. Similar to the problem in the motor vehicle dealership franchise context, there is a growing, menacing trend of credit card companies and consumer credit lenders inserting mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in agreements with consumers. Companies like First USA Bank, American Express and Green Tree Discount Company unilaterally insert mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in their agreements with consumers, often without the consumer's knowledge or consent. The most common way credit card companies have done this is through the use of a ``bill stuffer.'' Bill stuffers are the advertisements and other materials that credit card companies insert into envelopes with their customers' monthly statements. Some credit card issuers like American Express have placed fine print mandatory arbitration clauses in bill stuffers. The arbitration provision is usually buried in fine print in a mailing that includes a bill and various advertising materials. It is often described in a lengthy legal document that most consumers probably don't even skim, much less read carefully. American Express issued its mandatory arbitration provision last year. It took effect on June 1st. So, if you're an American Express cardholder and you have a dispute with American Express, as of June 1999, you can't take your claim to court, even small claims court. You are bound to use arbitration, and you are bound to the final arbitration decision. In this case, you are also bound to use an arbitration organization selected by American Express, the National Arbitration Forum. American Express isn't the only credit card company imposing mandatory arbitration on its customers. First USA Bank, the largest issuer of Visa cards, with 58 million customers, has been doing the same thing since 1997. First USA also alerted its cardholders with a bill stuffer, containing a condensed set of terms and conditions in fine print. The cardholder, by virtue of continuing to use the First USA card, gave up the right to go to court, even small claims court, to resolve a dispute. Mr. President, this growing practice extends beyond credit cards into the consumer loan industry. Consumer credit lenders like Green Tree Consumer Discount Company are inserting mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in their loan agreements. The problem is that these loan agreements are usually adhesion contracts, which means that consumers must either sign the agreement as is, or forego a loan. In other words, consumers lack the bargaining power to have the clause removed. More importantly, when signing on the dotted line of the loan agreement, consumers may not even understand what mandatory arbitration means. In all likelihood, they do not understand that they have just signed away a right to go to court to resolve a dispute with the lender. It might be argued that if consumers are not pleased with being subjected to a mandatory arbitration clause, they can cancel their credit card, or not execute on their loan agreement, and take their business elsewhere. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. As I mentioned, First USA Bank, the nation's largest Visa card issuer, is part of this questionable practice. In fact, the practice is becoming so pervasive that consumers may soon no longer have an alternative, unless they forego use of a credit card or a consumer loan entirely. Consumers should not be forced to make that choice. Companies like First USA, American Express and Green Tree argue that they rely on mandatory arbitration to resolve disputes faster and cheaper than court litigation. The claim may be resolved faster but is it really cheaper? Is it as fair as a court of law? I don't think so. Arbitration organizations often charge exorbitant fees to the consumer who brings a dispute--often an initial filing fee plus hourly fees to the arbitrator or arbitrators involved in the case. These costs can be much higher than bringing the matter to small claims court and paying a court filing fee. For example, the National Arbitration Forum, the arbitration entity of choice for American Express and First USA charges fees that are likely greater than if the consumer brought a dispute in small claims court. For a claim of less than $1,000, the National Arbitration Forum charges the consumer a $49 filing fee. In contrast, a consumer can bring the same claim to small claims court here in the District of Columbia for a filing fee of no more than $10. In other words, the consumer pays a fee to the National Arbitration Forum that is nearly five times more than the fee for filing a case in small claims court. That's bad enough, but some other arbitration firms are even more expensive. The American Arbitration Association charges a $500 filing fee for claims of less than $10,000, or more if the claim exceeds $10,000, and a minimum filing fee of $2,000 if the case involves three or more arbitrators. In addition to the filing fee, it also charges a hearing fee for holding hearings other than the initial hearing--$150 to be paid by each party for each day of hearings before a single arbitrator, or $250 if the hearing is held before an arbitration panel. The International Chamber of Commerce requires a $2,500 administrative fee plus an arbitrator's fee of at least $2,500, if the claim is less than $50,000. These fees are greater if the claim exceeds $50,000. The fees could very well be greater than the consumer's claim. So, as you can see, a consumer's claim is not necessarily resolved more efficiently with arbitration. It is resolved either at greater cost to the consumer or not at all, if the consumer cannot afford the costs, or the costs outweigh the amount in dispute. Another significant problem with mandatory, binding arbitration is that the lender gets to decide in advance who the arbitrator will be. In the case of American Express and First USA, they have chosen the National Arbitration Forum. All credit card disputes with consumers involving American Express or First USA are handled by that entity. There would seem to be a significant danger that this would result in an advantage for the lenders who are ``repeat players.'' After all, if the National Arbitration Forum develops a pattern of reaching decisions that favor cardholders, American Express or First USA may very well decide to take their arbitration business elsewhere. A system where the arbitrator has a financial interest in reaching an outcome that favors the credit card company is not a fair alternative dispute resolution system. There has been one important court decision on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration provisions in credit card agreements. The case arose out of a mandatory arbitration provision announced in mailings to Bank of America credit card and deposit account holders. In 1998, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the mandatory arbitration clauses unilaterally imposed on the Bank's customers were invalid and unenforceable. The California Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the lower court. As a result, credit card companies in California cannot invoke mandatory arbitration in their disputes with customers. In fact, the American Express bill stuffer notes that the mandatory, binding arbitration provision will not apply to California residents until further notice from the company. The California appellate court decision was wise and [[Page S935]] well-reasoned, but consumers in other states cannot be sure that all courts will reach the same conclusion. My bill extends the wisdom of the California appellate decision to every credit cardholder and consumer loan borrower. It amends the Federal Arbitration Act to invalidate mandatory, binding arbitration provisions in consumer credit agreements. Now, let me be clear. I believe that arbitration can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I agree we ought to encourage alternative dispute resolution. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Pre-dispute agreements to take disputes to arbitration cannot be voluntary and knowing in the consumer lending context because the bargaining power of the parties is so unequal. My bill does not prohibit arbitration of consumer credit transactions. It merely prohibits mandatory, binding arbitration provisions in consumer credit agreements. Credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly slamming the courthouse doors shut on consumers, often unbeknownst to them. This is grossly unjust. We need to restore fairness to the resolution of consumer credit disputes. I urge my colleagues to support the Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows: S. 2117 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 ``Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. CONSUMER CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. (a) Definition.--Section 1 of title 9, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the section heading, by striking ``and `commerce' defined'' and inserting ``, `commerce', `consumer credit transaction', and `consumer credit contract' defined''; and (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``; `consumer credit transaction', as herein defined, means the right granted to a natural person to incur debt and defer its payment, where the credit is intended primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and `consumer credit contract', as herein defined, means any contract between the parties to a consumer credit transaction.''. (b) Agreements To Arbitrate.--Section 2 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a written provision in any consumer credit contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of the contract, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, shall not be valid or enforceable. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the enforcement of any written agreement to settle by arbitration a controversy arising out of a consumer credit contract, if such written agreement has been entered into by the parties to the consumer credit contract after the controversy has arisen.''. ______ By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. McCONNELL): S. 2118. A bill to amend Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 to modify the computation of certain weighted student units; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. ______ By Mr. CRAPO: S. 2119. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve training for teachers in the use of technology; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2120. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish teacher recruitment and professional development programs for rural areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2121. A bill to provide for rural education assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2122. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve provisions relating to initial teaching experiences and alternative routes to certification; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. impact aid legislation Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and am pleased to be introducing five bills that will benefit teachers and students all across this Nation. Collectively, these measures create a package of fundamental reform to the ESEA bill. These pieces of legislation complement existing programs that have proven to work successfully in schools and they provide assistance and support in areas where educators have expressed the greatest need. And these measures represent my commitment to improving the quality of education so that all of our children can achieve their greatest potential. First, I am introducing a measure to strengthen the Federal Impact Aid program. Specifically, my bill, which is supported by the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, recommends increasing the weighted Federal student units for off-base military children and for civilian dependent children. Knowing that Impact Aid funds help 1.6 million federally-connected children, as well as 1,600 school districts serving over 17 million students, I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate support increases in funding for the Impact Aid program. But some of them may not be familiar with the formulas by which these funds are distributed to schools. Changing the computation of repayment will assure that funds will be distributed in a more equitable manner, reflecting the composition of local education agencies. The simple changes, which I am proposing, will benefit children in schools where the loss of local property taxes due to a large Federal presence has placed an extra burden on local taxpayers. We must make up the difference for all the children in the Impact Aid program, not just a select few. The second bill that I am proposing would build on the strong educational technology infrastructure already in place in school districts in nearly every state. As you know, education technology can significantly improve student achievement. Congress has recognized this fact by continually voting to dramatically increase funding for education technology. In fact, in just the programs under ESEA, federal support has grown from $52.6 million in Fiscal Year 1995, to $698 million just four years later. But we need to do more than simply place computers in classrooms. We need to provide our educators with the skills they need to incorporate evolving educational technology in the classroom. My bill does exactly that. It will encourage states to develop and implement professional development programs that train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. Effective teaching strategies must incorporate educational technology if we are to ensure that all children have the skills they need to compete in a high-tech workplace. An investment in professional development for our teachers is an investment in our children and our future. Third, continuing on the lines of professional development, I am introducing a bill that outlines the essential components of mentoring programs that would improve the experience of new teachers and reduce the high turn-over currently seen among beginning teachers. My legislation will ensure program quality and accountability by providing that teachers mentor their peers who teach the same subject. The mentoring programs that are created in this legislation must comply with state standards. Additionally, the bill will provide incentives, and grant states the flexibility to create alternative teacher certification and licensure programs, to recruit well-educated and talented people into the teacher profession. The recruitment and retention of good teachers is paramount to improving our national education system. Mentor programs provide teachers with the support of a senior colleague. And under the supervision and guidance of a colleague, teachers are able to develop skills and achieve a higher level of proficiency. The confidence and experience gained during this time will improve the quality of instruction, which in turn will improve overall student achievement. Fourth, attracting and retaining quality teachers is a difficult task, especially in rural impoverished areas. As a result, teacher shortages and high turnover are commonplace in rural [[Page S936]] communities in almost every state in the nation. The fourth education bill I am introducing today would allow the Secretary of Education to direct a portion of the general funds in ESEA to rural impoverished areas. Under this proposal, a needy rural school district could prevent the exodus of qualified teachers by first creating incentive programs to retain teachers; second, improve the quality of the teacher through enhanced professional development; and, third, hire new teachers. This bill recognizes the unique challenges facing rural school districts and allows them the option of addressing these challenges. The final bill, is the only one being introduced today with an authorization for appropriation. It makes Federal grant programs more flexible in order to help school districts in rural communities. Under this provision, districts would be able to combine the funds from specified programs and use the money to support local or statewide education reform efforts intended to improve the achievement of elementary school and secondary school students and the quality of instruction provided. This measure asks for an authorization of $125 million for small rural and poor rural schools--a small price that could produce large results. The goal of these bills, which I have briefly outlined, are threehold: 1) to provide teachers with the tools to grow as professionals; 2) to assist rural school districts so that they may compete competitively with other school districts that oftentimes have more money and resources; and, (3) to provide every child with unsurpassed education opportunities. Together, these are the keys to our children's success. In reauthorizing ESEA, Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to change the course of education. We must embrace this opportunity by supporting creative and innovative reform proposals, like the ones that I have introduced here today. I am committed to working in the best interest of our children to develop an education system that is the best in the world. These bills move us in the right direction and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these measures. I urge the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to incorporate these provisions into the upcoming ESEA bill. ______ By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 2123. A bill to provide Outer Continental Shelf Impact assistance to State and local governments, to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. conservation and reinvestment act of 1999 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on Thursday February 17th, the House Resources Committee filed their report on a historic piece of legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701 which would reinvest a portion of offshore oil and gas revenues in coastal conservation and impact assistance programs,the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife conservation, historic treasures and outdoor recreation. This remarkable compromise was developed by Congressmen Don Young, George Miller, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Chris John, Bruce Vento, and Tom Udall and was passed by the House Resources Committee by a vote of 37-12 on November 10, 1999. To date, the bill has accumulated over 300 co-sponsors. Hopefully, this legislation will be considered by the full House sometime this Spring. The H.R. 701 compromise is a companion to the Senate version of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, S. 25. Today I would like to acknowledge the remarkable work done by Mr. Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. John, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Udall as I, along with Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux and Feinstein introduce the H.R. 701 compromise in the Senate. While I would like to take a moment to note that there are some provisions of S. 25 that I along with several other co-sponsors strongly believe need to be incorporated into H.R. 701, today I am introducing the exact version that the House Resources Committee reported out on February 17th. This compelling and balanced bi-partisan proposal: will provide a fair share of funding to all coastal states, including producing states; is free of harmful environmental impacts to coastal and ocean resources; does not unduly hinder land acquisition yet acknowledges Congress' role in making these decisions; reflects a true partnership among federal, state and local governments and reinvests in the renewable resource of wildlife conservation through the currently authorized Pittman-Robertson program by nearly doubling the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation and education programs. This legislation provides $2.8 billion for seven district reinvestment programs. Title I authorizes $1 billion for Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation by creating a revenue sharing and coastal conservation fund for coastal states and eligible local governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities while providing funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems. In addition, the funds of Title I will support sustainable development of nonrenewable resources without providing incentives for new oil and gas development. All coastal states and territories will benefit from coastal impact assistance under this legislation, not just those states that host federal OCS oil and gas development. Title II guarantees stable and annual funding for the state and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the rights of private property rights owners. The bill will restore Congressional intent with respect to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. Title III establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund at $350 million through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson by reinvesting the development of nonrenewable resources into a renewable resource of wildlife conservation and education. This new source of funding will nearly double the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation. This program enjoys a great deal of support and would be enhanced without imposing new taxes. Title IV provides $125 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities. The Urban Parks and Recreation program would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. Title V provides $100 million for a Historic Preservation Fund through the programs of the Historic Preservation Act, including grants to the States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and administering numerous historic preservation programs. Title VI provides $200 million for Federal and Indian Lands Restoration through a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation and protect public health and safety. Title VII provides $150 million for Conservation Easements and Species Recovery through annual and dedicated funding for conservation easements and funding for landowner incentives to aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Finally, there is up to $200 million available for the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program through the annual interest generated from the CARA fund. The time has come to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. To continue to do otherwise, as we have over the last fifty years, is fiscally irresponsible. I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, the majority leader, Senator Lott, my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux as well as the other co- sponsors of S. 25 for all their continued [[Page S937]] support and efforts in attempting to enact what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century. I look forward to continue working with the other members of the Energy Committee on this legislation this year so that we may reach a compromise and give the country a true legacy for generations to come. 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. 2123 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 ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. Table of contents. Sec. 3. Definitions. Sec. 4. Annual reports. Sec. 5. Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 6. Limitation on use of available amounts for administration. Sec. 7. Budgetary treatment of receipts and disbursements. Sec. 8. Recordkeeping requirements. Sec. 9. Maintenance of effort and matching funding. Sec. 10. Sunset. Sec. 11. Protection of private property rights. Sec. 12. Signs. TITLE I--IMPACT ASSISTANCE AND COASTAL CONSERVATION Sec. 101. Impact assistance formula and payments. Sec. 102. Coastal State conservation and impact assistance plans. TITLE II--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND REVITALIZATION Sec. 201. Amendment of Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Sec. 202. Extension of fund; treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 203. Availability of amounts. Sec. 204. Allocation of Fund. Sec. 205. Use of Federal portion. Sec. 206. Allocation of amounts available for State purposes. Sec. 207. State planning. Sec. 208. Assistance to States for other projects. Sec. 209. Conversion of property to other use. Sec. 210. Water rights. TITLE III--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION Sec. 301. Purposes. Sec. 302. Definitions. Sec. 303. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 304. Apportionment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 305. Education. Sec. 306. Prohibition against diversion. TITLE IV--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS Sec. 401. Amendment of Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978. Sec. 402. Purpose. Sec. 403. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 404. Authority to develop new areas and facilities. Sec. 405. Definitions. Sec. 406. Eligibility. Sec. 407. Grants. Sec. 408. Recovery action programs. Sec. 409. State action incentives. Sec. 410. Conversion of recreation property. Sec. 411. Repeal. TITLE V--HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND Sec. 501. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 502. State use of historic preservation assistance for national heritage areas and corridors. TITLE VI--FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS RESTORATION Sec. 601. Purpose. Sec. 602. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund; allocation. Sec. 603. Authorized uses of transferred amounts. Sec. 604. Indian tribe defined. TITLE VII--CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY Subtitle A--Conservation Easements Sec. 701. Purpose. Sec. 702. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 703. Authorized uses of transferred amounts. Sec. 704. Conservation Easement Program. Subtitle B--Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Sec. 711. Purposes. Sec. 712. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 713. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance. Sec. 714. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Agreements. Sec. 715. Definitions. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) The term ``coastal population'' means the population of all political subdivisions, as determined by the most recent

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - February 29, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S930-S951] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. WYDEN: S. 2114. A bill to exempt certain entries of titanium disks from antidumping duties retroactively applied by the United States Customs Service; to the Committee on Finance. legislation relating to a tariff classification Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to correct a technical error made by the U.S. Customs Service, and exempt Waldron Pacific from antidumping duties which were retroactively applied by Customs to three import shipments of titanium. This bill is a companion to legislation introduced by Representative David Wu in the House of Representatives. Waldron Pacific, a small business located in Lake Oswego, Oregon, is a distributor of non-ferrous alloys, such as aluminum, zinc and brass, used in the die casting and foundry industries. With just two employees, Waldron Pacific has been a very successful business operation. When a customer of Waldron Pacific needed a certain type of titanium not available in this country, the entrepreneurial Waldron Pacific found a supplier outside the U.S., in Russia. Having no import experience, but hearing of potential antidumping duties on certain titanium products, Waldron Pacific sought a binding Classification Ruling from Customs before importing the product. Customs' Classification Ruling indicated that the proper import duty was 15%, and Waldron Pacific began importing the product to fulfill the needs of its customer. After three shipments had been imported, Customs revoked its previous Classification Ruling and applied retroactively an additional 85% antidumping duty on these shipments. The three shipments had already been imported, delivered and paid for by Waldron Pacific's customer, leaving Waldron Pacific liable to pay $42,000 in unexpected duties. Whether or not the product should be subject to the antidumping order is not at issue nor is that the matter addressed by this legislation. The key point is that Waldron Pacific exercised due diligence in obtaining a Classification Ruling prior to importing the product, and relied upon that Classification Ruling as a basis for importing and selling the product. Even the domestic producers who are protected by the antidumping order agree that Waldron Pacific should not have to pay antidumping duties on these three shipments. Ironically, the antidumping order has since been repealed entirely. Providing Waldron Pacific relief from Customs' mistake and subsequent attempt to retroactively apply a higher tariff is a question of basic fairness. The legislation I am introducing today would correct this technical error and exempt these import shipments from the unfair, retroactive application of antidumping duties. 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. 2114 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF TITANIUM DISKS. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 15144) or any other provision of law, the United States Customs Service shall-- (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the entries listed in subsection (b) as exempt from antidumping duties under antidumping case number A-462-103; and (2) not later than 90 days after such liquidation or reliquidation under paragraph (1), refund any antidumping duties paid with respect to such entries, including interest from the date of entry, if the importer of the entries files a request therefor with the Customs Service within such 90- day period. (b) Entries.--The entries referred to in subsection (a) are as follows: Entry Number Date of Entry EE1-0001115-8..........................................January 26, 1995 EE1-0001313-9.............................................June 23, 1995 EE1-0001449-1........................................September 25, 1995 ______ By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Dorgan): S. 2115. A bill to ensure adequate monitoring of the commitments made by the People's Republic of China in its accession to the World Trade Organization and to create new procedures to ensure compliance with those commitments; to the Committee on Finance. china-world trade organization compliance act Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the China WTO Compliance Act, along with Senators Murkowski, Bingaman, Akaka, Wyden, and Dorgan. This bill is designed to ensure continuous and rigorous monitoring of China's WTO commitments. It also provides new mechanisms in the Congress and in the Executive Branch to make sure that China complies with those commitments. Twenty years of negotiations with our Asian partners have demonstrated that trade agreements are often not self-executing. This is just as true with China today as it has been with Japan over these last two decades. The Congress and the Administration must both be resolutely committed to monitoring and enforcement. Only then do our trade agreements succeed and bring the desired results. Inattention by the United States leads to inaction [[Page S931]] by our trading partners. It leads to failure to achieve market opening objectives. This bill will make sure that future Congresses and future Administrations, whether they are Democratic or Republican, will keep trade agreement compliance permanently at the top of the agenda with China. We must ensure that inattention never sets in. We must also ensure that other elements in the bilateral relationship not be allowed to prevent the United States from gaining the maximum trade and economic benefit from China's WTO promises. Let me be clear that this bill is not designed to set conditions for the Congressional vote on granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations status, PNTR. Rather, this bill addresses one of the major concerns that many in the Congress have. That is, China historical record in complying with bilateral trade agreements has been spotty. So, how can we be confident that compliance with this agreement will be any better? I hope that enactment of this bill will provide some reassurance to Senators and House members in this regard. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in approving this legislation. Let me outline the main provisions of the China WTO Compliance Act. First, monitoring. The President must submit a detailed plan to Congress for monitoring Chinese compliance three months after China accedes to the WTO. The plan must be updated yearly and include detailed tasking responsibilities for each agency. The General Accounting Office will be required annually to survey the top 50 American firms in each of five different categories. Companies that export non-agricultural goods to China. That export agricultural goods to China. That provide services in China. That invest in China. And that import goods from China. The purpose of the survey is to determine if China is abiding by its WTO commitments. The survey will also provide information about any problems confronted by those firms. The International Trade Commission will report annually on United States-China bilateral export and import statistics. They will also, as best they can, seek to reconcile the different United States-source and China-source statistics. The second element in the bill deals with compliance. USTR must submit an annual report to Congress on China's compliance with its WTO commitments. After analyzing this report, a majority vote of either the Finance Committee or the Ways and Means Committee would require USTR to initiate a Section 301 investigation of Chinese practices that do not abide by China's WTO commitments. If USTR then determines that China is violating any of those commitments, USTR shall initiate dispute settlement action at the WTO, unless there exists another more effective action. USTR shall consult with the Congress and provide an explanation of its action. Going further, a majority vote of both the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee will require USTR to initiate immediately a case under the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. The bill also amends Section 301. It authorizes USTR to draw a negative inference if a country being investigated does not cooperate in providing information. This has become a serious problem with some of our trading partners. A 301 investigation can bog down when a country with a non-transparent trading regime refuses to provide detailed information. This provision provides an incentive for cooperation. Third, the bill calls for a special WTO review of China. It is the Sense of the Congress that there should be a special multilateral process at the WTO for a thorough and comprehensive annual review of Chinese compliance. The bill directs USTR to propose that the Trade Policy Review Mechanism, the TPRM, at the WTO execute such a review of China's trade policies every year. It also directs USTR to take measures to improve the TPRM process. Finally, institution-building in China. Coming out of half a century of communism, China does not have the institutions necessary to carry out fully its WTO obligations. This bill requires the President to submit a plan to provide assistance to China to build those institutions necessary to fulfill the obligations China has made as part of its accession to the WTO. The bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should provide such assistance through bilateral mechanisms, in particular, through appropriate non- governmental organizations. It also provides for the possibility of some multilateral assistance under the auspices of the WTO. Finally, because a primary beneficiary of the results of successful institution-building in China would be American business, efforts shall be made to develop cost-sharing with the private sector. There has been a lot of talk about the need to ensure full Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. This bill is an attempt to establish a system that will do just that. We need this legislation. And we need to pass PNTR as soon as possible. Let me conclude with a few remarks about Chinese compliance with the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement, which went into effect in December. Three weeks ago, I initiated a letter signed by 53 Senators to Chinese President Jiang Zemin. In the letter, we insisted that China proceed with full and immediate implementation of that agreement. I was pleased to announce on Monday the first purchase by China under this agreement. 50,000 metric tons of Pacific Northwest wheat. This is an important step that should be followed by other agricultural purchases. Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation introduced today by the distinguished Senators from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) entitled the ``China-World Trade Organization Compliance Act.'' Last November, the United States and China announced that a bilateral agreement had been reached on China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement covers all agricultural products, industrial goods, and service areas. It promises to open up the Chinese market to American exports and American investment. Nevertheless, many Americans are hesitant at embracing this accord. Part of their concern is over the requirement that in order for the United States to benefit fully from this agreement. Congress will have to pass legislation granting permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status to China. Previously known as Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) trading status, NTR has been subject to an annual renewal vote each year in the Congress. This yearly vote has allowed for a full airing of American concerns over relations with China--relations which remain contentious to this day because of the Chinese government's human rights behavior, proliferation activities, trade policy, and relations with its neighbors, most especially Taiwan. I cannot predict the result of the vote later this year on granting China permanent NTR. I do know that a Congressional vote against China will not necessarily prevent China from joining the WTO if it concludes successfully its accession agreements with other WTO members. China still has to resolve issues with the European Union and then have its accession approved by the WTO General Council/Ministerial Conference. But I think it is reasonable to assume that later this year China will join the WTO whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR. In light of this possibility, the legislation proposed today by my colleagues, and which I am pleased to cosponsor, is a reasonable and prudent step to take in order to ensure that the agreements which China commits to in joining the WTO are ones which China will fulfill. The history of Chinese compliance with international agreements has not been as good as it should be. In particular, China has not successfully implemented the commitments it made in March 1995 to protect American intellectual property rights. Intellectual piracy remains a major threat to the American music, cinema, and computer software industries. The Chinese government has demonstrated an impressive ability to arrest and intimidate massive numbers of Falun Gong followers but seems unable to locate factories mass producing thousands of counterfeit CDs, videos, and computer software. Clearly, where there is a will, there is a way for the Chinese government. [[Page S932]] In addition, the Chinese government has proven itself very adept at protecting its domestic market from foreign goods and investment, devising formal and informal barriers to trade. The concept of transparency in Chinese trade law leaves much to be desired. An October 1992 market access agreement between the United States and China has yet to be fully implemented with China eliminating some barriers while imposing new ones. The pattern of past Chinese behavior to international trading agreements suggest that we must be vigilant in ensuring compliance with the WTO accession agreement. The legislation we offer today is a significant step towards ensuring that China's promises are fulfilled. The bill establishes a process within the United States government for monitoring Chinese compliance with its WTO commitments. The monitoring would occur regardless of whether or not the United States grants permanent NTR to China, although surely it would have more effect if we do grant this to China. We have lacked a process, and an agency, within the United States government with the mandate, the expertise, institutional memory, and the resources to ensure that the promise of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements are fulfilled. This legislation is a major step in starting the debate on how to ensure that promises made are promises kept. As ranking member of the International Security, Proliferation And Federal Services Subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I am keenly interested in the implications of the legislation for the organization of our government's trade agencies. There are several areas where I would like to work with the legislation's authors to refine their proposal. I believe that it might be appropriate to designate the United States Trade Representative's Office as the lead agency working with other agencies to monitor compliance. I intend to study further the best means for ensuring the effectiveness of this legislation. I believe it also important that public participation in commenting on China's compliance should not be limited to business groups but include environmental, labor, and human rights organizations. The climate affecting the world economy is not solely determined by the financial bottom line. This legislation is an important step towards a trade environment which benefits the many, not the few, and I am pleased to cosponsor it. ______ By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Schumer): S. 2116. A bill to amend title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to support teacher corps programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. teacher corps Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is one thing we all can agree on in education, it is that teacher quality is absolutely critical to how well children learn. Yet, the nation confronts one of the worst teacher shortages in history. With expanding enrollment, decreasing class size and one third of the nation's teachers nearing retirement age, public schools will need to hire as many as 2.2 million teachers over the next decade. The need is greatest in specific subject areas such as mathematics, science, special education and bilingual education, all important subjects if the nation is to have an educated work force to keep it competitive in the world marketplace. Need is also greatest in specific geographical areas such as the inner city and rural areas. Ironically, it is the most educationally and socio-economically disadvantaged students that are under served. If there is one action we can take guaranteed to help struggling schools and children, it is to provide states and school districts the means to ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. My legislation, Teacher Corps, which I am proud to introduce today with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Schumer, who for so long have fought to bring the best possible educational opportunities to all of America's children, is designed to do just that. Its components are based on a definite need and sound research concerning effective mechanisms for meeting that need. Teacher Corps would fund collaboratives between state education agencies, local education agencies and institutions of higher education. The collaboratives would recruit top ranked college students and qualified mid career individuals, who have not yet been trained as teachers, to teach in the nation's poorest schools in the areas of greatest need--both geographically and academically. Districts and universities would work together to only recruit candidates who have an academic major or extensive and substantive professional experience in the subject in which they will teach. The collaboratives would provide recruits a tuition free alternative route to certification which includes intensive study and a teaching internship. The internship would include mentoring, co-teaching and advanced course work in pedagogy, state standards, technology and other areas. After the internship period, the collaboratives would offer individualized follow up training and mentoring in the first two years of full time teaching. Corps members that become certified will be given priority in hiring within that district in exchange for a commitment to teach in low income schools for 3 years. A good teacher can mean the world to any child whether it is through caring or through providing children with the skills they need to open their own doors to the future. Every time I enter schools in Minnesota, I am in awe of teachers' work. That is why it is so tragic to think that there are so many children that do not have access to qualified teachers, at the same time that many people interested in teaching are either not entering the profession or are not staying there once they have qualified. Teacher Corps will help meet the growing need for teachers in low income urban and rural schools, and in high need subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. It will do so because Teacher Corps is rooted in three fundamental parts. Recruitment, retention and innovative, flexible, high quality training programs for college graduates and mid-career professionals who want to teach in high need areas. The first principle is recruitment. As I mentioned before, we may need to hire as many as 2.2 million new teachers in the next decade to ensure that there are enough teachers in our schools. But, overall quantity is not the only issue. Quality and shortages in specific geographic and curriculum areas are equally critical. While there are teacher surpluses in some areas, certain states and cities are facing acute teacher shortages. In California, 1 out of every 10 teachers lacks proper credentials. 58 percent of new hires in Los Angeles are not certified. There are also crucial shortages in some subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. In my home state of Minnesota, 90 percent of principals report a serious shortage of strong candidates in at least one curriculum area. 54 percent of the mathematics teachers in the state of Idaho and 48 percent of the science teachers in Florida and Tennessee did not major in the subject of their primary assignment. Teacher Corps would meet this need because it would recruit and train thousands of high quality teachers into the field to meet the specific teaching needs of local school districts. It would recruit and train top college students and mid-career professionals from around the country, who increasingly want to enter the teaching profession. More college students want to enter teaching today than have wanted to join the profession in the past 30 years. According to a recent UCLA survey, over 10 percent of all freshman say they want to teach in elementary and secondary schools. Second, the design of the program ensures that the needs of local school districts will be considered so that only those candidates who meet the specific needs of that district will be recruited and trained. If, for example, there is a shortage of special education, bilingual, math and science teachers in a particular district, Teacher Corps [[Page S933]] would only train people with those skills. In setting up collaboratives in this way, teacher corps helps avoid the overproduction of candidates in areas where they are not needed. Finally, Teacher Corps gives priority to high need rural, inner suburban and urban districts to ensure that new teachers will enter where they are needed most. However, it does not help to recruit teachers into high need schools and train them if we cannot retain them in the profession. Teaching is one of the hardest, most important jobs there is. We ask teachers to prepare our children for adulthood. We ask them to educate our children so that they may be productive members of society. We entrust them with our children's minds and with their future. It is a disgrace how little support we give them in return. It is no surprise that one of the major causes of our teacher shortage is that teachers decide to change professions before retirement. 73 percent of Minnesota teachers who leave the profession, leave for reasons other than retirement. In urban schools, 50 percent of teachers leave the field within five years of when they start teaching. To retain high quality teachers in the profession, we must give teachers the support they deserve. Teachers, like doctors need monitoring and support during the first years of their professional life. Teacher Corps offers new teachers the training, monitoring and support they need to meet the profession's many challenges. It includes methods of support that have proven effective in ensuring that teachers stay in schools. The key elements for effective teacher retention were laid out by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future in 1996. Effective programs organize professional development around standards for teachers and students; provide a year long, pre-service internship; include mentoring and strong evaluation of teacher skills; offer stable, high quality professional development. Each of these criteria are included in the Teacher Corps program. Further, Teacher Corps supports people who choose teaching by paying for their training. Through this financial and professional support, Teacher Corps will go a long way toward keeping recruits in teaching. But, it is still not enough to recruit and retain teachers. Quality must be of primary importance. Research shows that the most important predictor of student success is not income, but the quality of the teacher. Despite this need, studies show that as the level of students of color and students from low-income families increases in schools, the test scores of teachers declines. This is wrong. We are denying children from low-income areas, from racial minorities, with limited English proficiency, access to what we know works. Several studies have shown that if poor and minority students are taught by high quality teachers at the same rate as other students, a large part of the gap between poor and minority students and their more affluent white counterparts would disappear. For example, one Alabama study shows that an increase of one standard deviation in teacher test scores leads to a two-thirds reduction in the gap between black/white tests scores. We can not turn our back on this knowledge. We must act on it. We must give low income, minority and limited English proficiency children the same opportunities that all children have and we must do it now. The very essence of Teacher Corps is to funnel high quality teachers where they are needed most. Teacher Corps would help ensure quality by using a selective, competitive recruitment process. It would provide high quality training, professional development, monitoring and evaluations of corps member performance, all of which have been proven to increase the quality of the teaching force and the achievement of the students they teach. Further, by creating strong connections between universities and districts and by implementing effective professional development projects within districts, we are setting up powerful structures to benefit all teachers and students. Mr. President, we have an opportunity to do what we know works to help children who need our help most. Good teachers have an extraordinary impact on children's lives and learning. We need to be sure that all children have access to such teachers and all children have the opportunity to learn so that all children may take advantage of the many opportunities this country provides. ______ By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Leahy): S. 2117. A bill to amend title 9, United States Code, with respect to consumer credit transaction; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act of 2000, a bill that will protect and preserve American consumers' right to take their disputes with creditors to court. This bill is identical to an amendment that I offered recently to the bankruptcy reform bill. In recent years, credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly requiring their customers to use binding arbitration when a dispute arises. Consumers are barred by contract from taking a dispute to court, even small claims court. While arbitration can be an efficient tool to settle claims, it is credible and effective only when consumers enter into it knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Unfortunately, that's not happening in the credit card and consumer credit lending arenas. One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in criminal cases is contained in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The right to a jury trial in civil cases is contained in the Seventh Amendment, which provides ``In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . .'' Some argue that Americans are over-using the courts. Court dockets across the country are congested with civil cases. In part as a response to these concerns, various ways to resolve disputes have been developed, short of going to court. Alternatives to court litigation are collectively known as alternative dispute resolution, or ADR. ADR includes mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration are often efficient ways to resolve disputes because the parties can have their case heard well before they would have received a trial date in court. Mediation is conducted by a neutral third party--the mediator--who meets with the opposing parties to help them find a mutually satisfactory solution. Unlike a judge in a courtroom, the mediator has no power to impose a solution. No formal rules of evidence or procedure control mediation; the mediator and the parties mutually agree on the best way to proceed. Arbitration also involves a third party--an arbitrator or arbitration panel. Unlike mediation but similar to a court proceeding, the arbitrator issues a decision after reviewing the arguments by all parties. Arbitration uses rules of evidence and procedure, although it may use rules that are simpler or more flexible than the evidentiary and procedural rules that the parties would follow in a court proceeding. Arbitration can be either binding or non-binding. Non-binding arbitration means that the decision issued by the arbitrator or arbitration panel takes effect only if the parties agree to it after they know what the decision is. In binding arbitration, parties agree in advance to accept and abide by the decision, whatever it is. Some contracts contain clauses that require arbitration to be used to resolve disputes that arise after the contract is signed. This is called ``mandatory arbitration.'' This means that if there is a dispute, the complaining party cannot file suit in court and instead is required to pursue arbitration. ``Mandatory, binding arbitration'' therefore means that under the contract, the parties must use arbitration to resolve a future disagreement and the decision of the arbitrator or arbitration panel is final. The parties have no ability to seek relief in court or through mediation. In fact, if they are not satisfied with the arbitration outcome, they are probably stuck with the decision. [[Page S934]] Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud. In contrast, if a dispute is resolved by a court, the parties can potentially pursue an appeal of the lower court's decision. Mr. President, because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it can be a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it. But that's not what's happening in a variety of contexts--from motor vehicle franchise agreements, to employment agreements, to credit card agreements. I'm proud to have sponsored legislation addressing employment agreements and motor vehicle franchise agreements. In fact, I am the original cosponsor with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, of S. 1020, which would prohibit the unilateral imposition of mandatory, binding arbitration in motor vehicle dealership agreements with manufacturers. Many of our colleagues have joined us as cosponsors. Similar to the problem in the motor vehicle dealership franchise context, there is a growing, menacing trend of credit card companies and consumer credit lenders inserting mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in agreements with consumers. Companies like First USA Bank, American Express and Green Tree Discount Company unilaterally insert mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in their agreements with consumers, often without the consumer's knowledge or consent. The most common way credit card companies have done this is through the use of a ``bill stuffer.'' Bill stuffers are the advertisements and other materials that credit card companies insert into envelopes with their customers' monthly statements. Some credit card issuers like American Express have placed fine print mandatory arbitration clauses in bill stuffers. The arbitration provision is usually buried in fine print in a mailing that includes a bill and various advertising materials. It is often described in a lengthy legal document that most consumers probably don't even skim, much less read carefully. American Express issued its mandatory arbitration provision last year. It took effect on June 1st. So, if you're an American Express cardholder and you have a dispute with American Express, as of June 1999, you can't take your claim to court, even small claims court. You are bound to use arbitration, and you are bound to the final arbitration decision. In this case, you are also bound to use an arbitration organization selected by American Express, the National Arbitration Forum. American Express isn't the only credit card company imposing mandatory arbitration on its customers. First USA Bank, the largest issuer of Visa cards, with 58 million customers, has been doing the same thing since 1997. First USA also alerted its cardholders with a bill stuffer, containing a condensed set of terms and conditions in fine print. The cardholder, by virtue of continuing to use the First USA card, gave up the right to go to court, even small claims court, to resolve a dispute. Mr. President, this growing practice extends beyond credit cards into the consumer loan industry. Consumer credit lenders like Green Tree Consumer Discount Company are inserting mandatory, binding arbitration clauses in their loan agreements. The problem is that these loan agreements are usually adhesion contracts, which means that consumers must either sign the agreement as is, or forego a loan. In other words, consumers lack the bargaining power to have the clause removed. More importantly, when signing on the dotted line of the loan agreement, consumers may not even understand what mandatory arbitration means. In all likelihood, they do not understand that they have just signed away a right to go to court to resolve a dispute with the lender. It might be argued that if consumers are not pleased with being subjected to a mandatory arbitration clause, they can cancel their credit card, or not execute on their loan agreement, and take their business elsewhere. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. As I mentioned, First USA Bank, the nation's largest Visa card issuer, is part of this questionable practice. In fact, the practice is becoming so pervasive that consumers may soon no longer have an alternative, unless they forego use of a credit card or a consumer loan entirely. Consumers should not be forced to make that choice. Companies like First USA, American Express and Green Tree argue that they rely on mandatory arbitration to resolve disputes faster and cheaper than court litigation. The claim may be resolved faster but is it really cheaper? Is it as fair as a court of law? I don't think so. Arbitration organizations often charge exorbitant fees to the consumer who brings a dispute--often an initial filing fee plus hourly fees to the arbitrator or arbitrators involved in the case. These costs can be much higher than bringing the matter to small claims court and paying a court filing fee. For example, the National Arbitration Forum, the arbitration entity of choice for American Express and First USA charges fees that are likely greater than if the consumer brought a dispute in small claims court. For a claim of less than $1,000, the National Arbitration Forum charges the consumer a $49 filing fee. In contrast, a consumer can bring the same claim to small claims court here in the District of Columbia for a filing fee of no more than $10. In other words, the consumer pays a fee to the National Arbitration Forum that is nearly five times more than the fee for filing a case in small claims court. That's bad enough, but some other arbitration firms are even more expensive. The American Arbitration Association charges a $500 filing fee for claims of less than $10,000, or more if the claim exceeds $10,000, and a minimum filing fee of $2,000 if the case involves three or more arbitrators. In addition to the filing fee, it also charges a hearing fee for holding hearings other than the initial hearing--$150 to be paid by each party for each day of hearings before a single arbitrator, or $250 if the hearing is held before an arbitration panel. The International Chamber of Commerce requires a $2,500 administrative fee plus an arbitrator's fee of at least $2,500, if the claim is less than $50,000. These fees are greater if the claim exceeds $50,000. The fees could very well be greater than the consumer's claim. So, as you can see, a consumer's claim is not necessarily resolved more efficiently with arbitration. It is resolved either at greater cost to the consumer or not at all, if the consumer cannot afford the costs, or the costs outweigh the amount in dispute. Another significant problem with mandatory, binding arbitration is that the lender gets to decide in advance who the arbitrator will be. In the case of American Express and First USA, they have chosen the National Arbitration Forum. All credit card disputes with consumers involving American Express or First USA are handled by that entity. There would seem to be a significant danger that this would result in an advantage for the lenders who are ``repeat players.'' After all, if the National Arbitration Forum develops a pattern of reaching decisions that favor cardholders, American Express or First USA may very well decide to take their arbitration business elsewhere. A system where the arbitrator has a financial interest in reaching an outcome that favors the credit card company is not a fair alternative dispute resolution system. There has been one important court decision on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration provisions in credit card agreements. The case arose out of a mandatory arbitration provision announced in mailings to Bank of America credit card and deposit account holders. In 1998, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the mandatory arbitration clauses unilaterally imposed on the Bank's customers were invalid and unenforceable. The California Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the lower court. As a result, credit card companies in California cannot invoke mandatory arbitration in their disputes with customers. In fact, the American Express bill stuffer notes that the mandatory, binding arbitration provision will not apply to California residents until further notice from the company. The California appellate court decision was wise and [[Page S935]] well-reasoned, but consumers in other states cannot be sure that all courts will reach the same conclusion. My bill extends the wisdom of the California appellate decision to every credit cardholder and consumer loan borrower. It amends the Federal Arbitration Act to invalidate mandatory, binding arbitration provisions in consumer credit agreements. Now, let me be clear. I believe that arbitration can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I agree we ought to encourage alternative dispute resolution. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Pre-dispute agreements to take disputes to arbitration cannot be voluntary and knowing in the consumer lending context because the bargaining power of the parties is so unequal. My bill does not prohibit arbitration of consumer credit transactions. It merely prohibits mandatory, binding arbitration provisions in consumer credit agreements. Credit card companies and consumer credit lenders are increasingly slamming the courthouse doors shut on consumers, often unbeknownst to them. This is grossly unjust. We need to restore fairness to the resolution of consumer credit disputes. I urge my colleagues to support the Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows: S. 2117 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 ``Consumer Credit Fair Dispute Resolution Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. CONSUMER CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. (a) Definition.--Section 1 of title 9, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the section heading, by striking ``and `commerce' defined'' and inserting ``, `commerce', `consumer credit transaction', and `consumer credit contract' defined''; and (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``; `consumer credit transaction', as herein defined, means the right granted to a natural person to incur debt and defer its payment, where the credit is intended primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and `consumer credit contract', as herein defined, means any contract between the parties to a consumer credit transaction.''. (b) Agreements To Arbitrate.--Section 2 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a written provision in any consumer credit contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of the contract, or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, shall not be valid or enforceable. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the enforcement of any written agreement to settle by arbitration a controversy arising out of a consumer credit contract, if such written agreement has been entered into by the parties to the consumer credit contract after the controversy has arisen.''. ______ By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. McCONNELL): S. 2118. A bill to amend Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 to modify the computation of certain weighted student units; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. ______ By Mr. CRAPO: S. 2119. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve training for teachers in the use of technology; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2120. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish teacher recruitment and professional development programs for rural areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2121. A bill to provide for rural education assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. S. 2122. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve provisions relating to initial teaching experiences and alternative routes to certification; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. impact aid legislation Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and am pleased to be introducing five bills that will benefit teachers and students all across this Nation. Collectively, these measures create a package of fundamental reform to the ESEA bill. These pieces of legislation complement existing programs that have proven to work successfully in schools and they provide assistance and support in areas where educators have expressed the greatest need. And these measures represent my commitment to improving the quality of education so that all of our children can achieve their greatest potential. First, I am introducing a measure to strengthen the Federal Impact Aid program. Specifically, my bill, which is supported by the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, recommends increasing the weighted Federal student units for off-base military children and for civilian dependent children. Knowing that Impact Aid funds help 1.6 million federally-connected children, as well as 1,600 school districts serving over 17 million students, I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate support increases in funding for the Impact Aid program. But some of them may not be familiar with the formulas by which these funds are distributed to schools. Changing the computation of repayment will assure that funds will be distributed in a more equitable manner, reflecting the composition of local education agencies. The simple changes, which I am proposing, will benefit children in schools where the loss of local property taxes due to a large Federal presence has placed an extra burden on local taxpayers. We must make up the difference for all the children in the Impact Aid program, not just a select few. The second bill that I am proposing would build on the strong educational technology infrastructure already in place in school districts in nearly every state. As you know, education technology can significantly improve student achievement. Congress has recognized this fact by continually voting to dramatically increase funding for education technology. In fact, in just the programs under ESEA, federal support has grown from $52.6 million in Fiscal Year 1995, to $698 million just four years later. But we need to do more than simply place computers in classrooms. We need to provide our educators with the skills they need to incorporate evolving educational technology in the classroom. My bill does exactly that. It will encourage states to develop and implement professional development programs that train teachers in the use of technology in the classroom. Effective teaching strategies must incorporate educational technology if we are to ensure that all children have the skills they need to compete in a high-tech workplace. An investment in professional development for our teachers is an investment in our children and our future. Third, continuing on the lines of professional development, I am introducing a bill that outlines the essential components of mentoring programs that would improve the experience of new teachers and reduce the high turn-over currently seen among beginning teachers. My legislation will ensure program quality and accountability by providing that teachers mentor their peers who teach the same subject. The mentoring programs that are created in this legislation must comply with state standards. Additionally, the bill will provide incentives, and grant states the flexibility to create alternative teacher certification and licensure programs, to recruit well-educated and talented people into the teacher profession. The recruitment and retention of good teachers is paramount to improving our national education system. Mentor programs provide teachers with the support of a senior colleague. And under the supervision and guidance of a colleague, teachers are able to develop skills and achieve a higher level of proficiency. The confidence and experience gained during this time will improve the quality of instruction, which in turn will improve overall student achievement. Fourth, attracting and retaining quality teachers is a difficult task, especially in rural impoverished areas. As a result, teacher shortages and high turnover are commonplace in rural [[Page S936]] communities in almost every state in the nation. The fourth education bill I am introducing today would allow the Secretary of Education to direct a portion of the general funds in ESEA to rural impoverished areas. Under this proposal, a needy rural school district could prevent the exodus of qualified teachers by first creating incentive programs to retain teachers; second, improve the quality of the teacher through enhanced professional development; and, third, hire new teachers. This bill recognizes the unique challenges facing rural school districts and allows them the option of addressing these challenges. The final bill, is the only one being introduced today with an authorization for appropriation. It makes Federal grant programs more flexible in order to help school districts in rural communities. Under this provision, districts would be able to combine the funds from specified programs and use the money to support local or statewide education reform efforts intended to improve the achievement of elementary school and secondary school students and the quality of instruction provided. This measure asks for an authorization of $125 million for small rural and poor rural schools--a small price that could produce large results. The goal of these bills, which I have briefly outlined, are threehold: 1) to provide teachers with the tools to grow as professionals; 2) to assist rural school districts so that they may compete competitively with other school districts that oftentimes have more money and resources; and, (3) to provide every child with unsurpassed education opportunities. Together, these are the keys to our children's success. In reauthorizing ESEA, Congress has an extraordinary opportunity to change the course of education. We must embrace this opportunity by supporting creative and innovative reform proposals, like the ones that I have introduced here today. I am committed to working in the best interest of our children to develop an education system that is the best in the world. These bills move us in the right direction and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these measures. I urge the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to incorporate these provisions into the upcoming ESEA bill. ______ By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 2123. A bill to provide Outer Continental Shelf Impact assistance to State and local governments, to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs of the American people, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. conservation and reinvestment act of 1999 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on Thursday February 17th, the House Resources Committee filed their report on a historic piece of legislation, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701 which would reinvest a portion of offshore oil and gas revenues in coastal conservation and impact assistance programs,the Land and Water Conservation Fund, wildlife conservation, historic treasures and outdoor recreation. This remarkable compromise was developed by Congressmen Don Young, George Miller, Billy Tauzin, John Dingell, Chris John, Bruce Vento, and Tom Udall and was passed by the House Resources Committee by a vote of 37-12 on November 10, 1999. To date, the bill has accumulated over 300 co-sponsors. Hopefully, this legislation will be considered by the full House sometime this Spring. The H.R. 701 compromise is a companion to the Senate version of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, S. 25. Today I would like to acknowledge the remarkable work done by Mr. Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. John, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Udall as I, along with Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux and Feinstein introduce the H.R. 701 compromise in the Senate. While I would like to take a moment to note that there are some provisions of S. 25 that I along with several other co-sponsors strongly believe need to be incorporated into H.R. 701, today I am introducing the exact version that the House Resources Committee reported out on February 17th. This compelling and balanced bi-partisan proposal: will provide a fair share of funding to all coastal states, including producing states; is free of harmful environmental impacts to coastal and ocean resources; does not unduly hinder land acquisition yet acknowledges Congress' role in making these decisions; reflects a true partnership among federal, state and local governments and reinvests in the renewable resource of wildlife conservation through the currently authorized Pittman-Robertson program by nearly doubling the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation and education programs. This legislation provides $2.8 billion for seven district reinvestment programs. Title I authorizes $1 billion for Impact Assistance and Coastal Conservation by creating a revenue sharing and coastal conservation fund for coastal states and eligible local governments to mitigate the various impacts of OCS activities while providing funds for the conservation of our coastal ecosystems. In addition, the funds of Title I will support sustainable development of nonrenewable resources without providing incentives for new oil and gas development. All coastal states and territories will benefit from coastal impact assistance under this legislation, not just those states that host federal OCS oil and gas development. Title II guarantees stable and annual funding for the state and federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized $900 million level while protecting the rights of private property rights owners. The bill will restore Congressional intent with respect to the LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and public use of the natural environment. Title III establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Fund at $350 million through the successful program of Pittman-Robertson by reinvesting the development of nonrenewable resources into a renewable resource of wildlife conservation and education. This new source of funding will nearly double the Federal funds available for wildlife conservation. This program enjoys a great deal of support and would be enhanced without imposing new taxes. Title IV provides $125 million for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery program through matching grants to local governments to rehabilitate and develop recreation programs, sites and facilities. The Urban Parks and Recreation program would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces, playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding will provide greater revenue certainty to state and local planning authorities. Title V provides $100 million for a Historic Preservation Fund through the programs of the Historic Preservation Act, including grants to the States, maintaining the National Register of Historic Places and administering numerous historic preservation programs. Title VI provides $200 million for Federal and Indian Lands Restoration through a coordinated program on Federal and Indian lands to restore degraded lands, protect resources that are threatened with degradation and protect public health and safety. Title VII provides $150 million for Conservation Easements and Species Recovery through annual and dedicated funding for conservation easements and funding for landowner incentives to aid in the recovery of endangered and threatened species. Finally, there is up to $200 million available for the Payment In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program through the annual interest generated from the CARA fund. The time has come to take the proceeds from a non-renewable resource for the purpose of reinvesting a portion of these revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. To continue to do otherwise, as we have over the last fifty years, is fiscally irresponsible. I want to thank the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, the majority leader, Senator Lott, my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux as well as the other co- sponsors of S. 25 for all their continued [[Page S937]] support and efforts in attempting to enact what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century. I look forward to continue working with the other members of the Energy Committee on this legislation this year so that we may reach a compromise and give the country a true legacy for generations to come. 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. 2123 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 ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. Table of contents. Sec. 3. Definitions. Sec. 4. Annual reports. Sec. 5. Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 6. Limitation on use of available amounts for administration. Sec. 7. Budgetary treatment of receipts and disbursements. Sec. 8. Recordkeeping requirements. Sec. 9. Maintenance of effort and matching funding. Sec. 10. Sunset. Sec. 11. Protection of private property rights. Sec. 12. Signs. TITLE I--IMPACT ASSISTANCE AND COASTAL CONSERVATION Sec. 101. Impact assistance formula and payments. Sec. 102. Coastal State conservation and impact assistance plans. TITLE II--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND REVITALIZATION Sec. 201. Amendment of Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Sec. 202. Extension of fund; treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 203. Availability of amounts. Sec. 204. Allocation of Fund. Sec. 205. Use of Federal portion. Sec. 206. Allocation of amounts available for State purposes. Sec. 207. State planning. Sec. 208. Assistance to States for other projects. Sec. 209. Conversion of property to other use. Sec. 210. Water rights. TITLE III--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION Sec. 301. Purposes. Sec. 302. Definitions. Sec. 303. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 304. Apportionment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 305. Education. Sec. 306. Prohibition against diversion. TITLE IV--URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM AMENDMENTS Sec. 401. Amendment of Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978. Sec. 402. Purpose. Sec. 403. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 404. Authority to develop new areas and facilities. Sec. 405. Definitions. Sec. 406. Eligibility. Sec. 407. Grants. Sec. 408. Recovery action programs. Sec. 409. State action incentives. Sec. 410. Conversion of recreation property. Sec. 411. Repeal. TITLE V--HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND Sec. 501. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 502. State use of historic preservation assistance for national heritage areas and corridors. TITLE VI--FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS RESTORATION Sec. 601. Purpose. Sec. 602. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund; allocation. Sec. 603. Authorized uses of transferred amounts. Sec. 604. Indian tribe defined. TITLE VII--CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY Subtitle A--Conservation Easements Sec. 701. Purpose. Sec. 702. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 703. Authorized uses of transferred amounts. Sec. 704. Conservation Easement Program. Subtitle B--Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Sec. 711. Purposes. Sec. 712. Treatment of amounts transferred from Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund. Sec. 713. Endangered and threatened species recovery assistance. Sec. 714. Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Agreements. Sec. 715. Definitions. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (1) The term ``coastal population'' means the population of all political subdivisions, as determined by the m