[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1459-1478]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 317. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland which is similar to the
exclusion from gain on the sale of a principal residence, to the
Committee on Finance.
CAPITAL GAINS TAX FAIRNESS FOR FAMILY FARMERS
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today Senator Hagel of Nebraska and
I rise to introduce a bill to correct a fundamental flaw and inequity
in the tax code that we need to fix immediately. This legislation is
identical to a bill that I authored in the last Congress.
Too often, family farmers are not able to take full advantage of the
$500,000 capital gains tax break that city folks get when they sell
their homes. Today, this inequity is particularly onerous for thousands
of family farmers who are being forced to sell their farms due to
depressed commodity prices, crop disease and failed federal farm
policies. Once family farmers have been beaten down and forced to sell
the farm they've farmed for generations, they get a rude awakening.
Many of them discover, as they leave the farm, that Uncle Sam is
waiting for them at the end of the lane with a big tax bill.
One of the most popular provisions included in the major tax bill in
1997 permits families to exclude from federal income tax up to $500,000
of gain from the sale of their principal residences. That's a good
deal, especially for most urban and suburban dwellers who have spent
many years paying for their houses, and who regard their houses as both
a home and a retirement account. For many middle income families, their
home is their major financial asset, an asset the family can draw on
for retirement. House prices in major growth markets such as
Washington, D.C., New York, or California may start at hundreds of
thousands of dollars. As a result, the urban dwellers who have owned
their homes through many years of appreciation can often benefit from a
large portion of this new $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion.
Unfortunately this provision, as currently applied, is virtually
useless to family farmers.
For farm families, their farm is their major financial asset.
Unfortunately, family farmers under current law receive little or no
benefit from the new $500,000 exclusion because the IRS separates the
value of their homes from the value of the land the homes sit on. As
people from my state of North Dakota know, houses out on the farmsteads
of rural America are more commonly sold for $5,000 to $40,000. Most
farmers plow any profits they make into the whole farm rather than into
a house that will hold little or no value when the farm is
[[Page 1460]]
sold. It's not surprising that the IRS often judges that homes far out
in the country have very little value and thus farmers receive much
less benefit from this $500,000 exclusion than do their urban and
suburban counterparts. As a result, the capital gains exclusion is
little or no help to farmers who are being forced out of business. They
may immediately face a hefty capital gains tax bill from the IRS.
This is simply wrong, Mr. President. It is unfair. Federal farm
policy helped create the hole that many of these farmers find
themselves in. Federal tax policy shouldn't dig the hole deeper as they
attempt to shovel their way out.
The Dorgan-Hagel bill recognizes the unique character and role of our
family farmers and their important contributions to our economy. It
expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of principal
residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or
surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively engaged in farming
prior to the sales. In this way, farmers may get some benefit from a
tax break that would otherwise be unavailable to them.
Our bill is not a substitute for larger policy reforms that are
needed to restore the economic health of our farm communities. This tax
relief measure is just one of a number of policy initiatives we can use
to ease the pain for family farmers as we pursue other initiatives to
help turn around the crippled farm economy.
Specifically, the Dorgan-Hagel bill would expand the $500,000 tax
exclusion for principle residences to cover the entire farm. This
provision will allow a family or individual who has actively engaged in
farming prior to the farm sale to exclude the gain from the sale up to
the $500,000 maximum.
What does this relief mean to the thousands of farmers who are being
forced to sell off the farm due to current economic conditions?
Take, for example, a farmer who is forced to leave today because of
crop disease and slumping grain prices and sells his farmstead that his
family has operated for decades. If he must report a gain of $10,000 on
the sale of farm house, that is all he can exclude under current law.
But if, for example, he sold 1000 acres surrounding the farm house for
$400,000, and the capital gain was $200,000, he would be subject to
$40,000 tax on that gain. Again, our provision excludes from tax the
gain on the farmhouse and land up to the $500,000 maximum that is
otherwise available to a family on the sale of its residence.
We must wage, on every federal and state policy front, the battle to
stem the loss of family farmers. Reforming tax provisions has grown
increasingly important as a tool in helping our farm families deal with
drought, floods, crop disease and price swings.
We believe that Congress should move quickly to pass this legislation
and other meaningful measures to get working capital into the hands of
our family farmers in the Great Plains and all across the nation. Let's
stop penalizing farmers who are forced out of agriculture. Let's allow
farmers to benefit from the same kind of tax exclusion that most
homeowners already receive. This is the right thing to do. And it's the
fair thing to do.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Dorgan to
introduce tax legislation that will help our family farmers cope with
the economic crisis now affecting them.
Our tax code is full of provisions that are unfair and punitive. We
need to overhaul our tax code to make it flatter, fairer and simpler.
However, until the present tax code is overhauled, it is important that
we fix specific provisions of the tax code to ensure that all taxpayers
are treated fairly and equally.
In the 105th Congress we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This
legislation included capital gains tax and federal estate tax relief.
It was a good first step, but we can't stop there. We have much more to
do. We need more capital gains tax relief, and I will keep pushing for
more cuts and the eventual elimination of the tax. The federal estate
tax also needs to be abolished. The estate tax is a leading cause for
the break-up of family-run businesses, including farming, and I will
continue to work for its elimination. Additionally, we need to provide
all American taxpayers with an across-the-board tax cut.
We gave most Americans serious capital gains tax relief in 1997, but
we neglected the family farmer. We now have the opportunity and
obligation to correct this omission. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
created a $500,000 exclusion for homeowners on the sale of a principal
residence, but this does not adequately address the needs of family
farmers. Most farmers put whatever profit they earn from their hard
work back into the land, not their home. As a result, the $500,000
exclusion for the sale of a principal residence does not provide the
same level of relief to the family farmer as it does for the vast
majority of others. So, when family farmers are forced to sell their
farms due to economic downturns, not only are they out of the farming
business, but the federal government is waiting to take a large portion
in taxes on the sale of their home and farmland.
The legislation that Senator Dorgan and I are introducing would help
ease the financial burden associated with selling the farm. It would
allow the family farmer to take advantage of capital gains tax relief.
It expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of
principal residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses
and/or surrounding farmlands.
This legislation is not a cure-all solution to the many problems now
affecting our family farmers and ranchers. However, it will help. There
are many other things that can be done including more tax relief in the
areas of the estate tax and capital gains tax. We need to continue to
open new markets for our commodities and knock down unilateral economic
sanctions that are unfairly punishing our farmers. The future of U.S.
agriculture lies in export expansion and trade reform. This tax
legislation starts the process, but we must continue to push forward to
help our family farmers and ranchers.
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 318. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
facilitate the immigration to the United States of certain aliens born
in the Philippines or Japan who were fathered by United States
citizens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE AMERASIAN IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT OF 1999
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce
legislation which amends Public Law 97-359, the Amerasian Immigration
Act, to include American children from the Philippines and Japan as
eligible applicants. This legislation also expands the eligibility
period for the Philippines to November 24, 1992, the date of the last
United States military base closure and the date of enactment of the
proposed legislation for Japan.
Under the Amerasian Immigration Act (Public Law 97-359) children born
in Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam after December 31,
1950, and before October 22, 1982, who were fathered by United States
citizens, are allowed to immigrate to the United States. The initial
legislation introduced in the 97th Congress included Amerasians born in
the Philippines and Japan with no time limits on their births. The
final version enacted by the Congress included only those areas where
the U.S. had engaged in active military combat from the Korean War
onward. Consequently, Amerasians from the Philippines and Japan were
excluded from eligibility.
Although the Philippines and Japan were not considered war zones from
1950 to 1982, the extent and nature of U.S. military involvement in
both countries are not dissimilar to U.S. military involvement in other
Asian countries during the Korean and Viet- nam conflicts. The role of
the Philippines and Japan as vital supply and stationing bases brought
tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel to these countries. As a
result, interracial relations in both countries were common, leading to
a significant number of Amerasian children being fathered by U.S.
citizens. There are now more than 50,000 Amerasian children in the
Philippines. According to the Embassy of
[[Page 1461]]
Japan, there are 6,000 Amerasian children in Japan born between 1987
and 1992.
Public Law 97-359 was enacted in the hope of redressing the situation
of Amerasian children in Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam
who, due to their illegitimate or mixed ethnic make-up, their lack of a
father or stable mother figure, or impoverished state, have little hope
of escaping their plight. It became the ethical and social obligation
of the United States to care for these children.
The stigmatization and ostracism felt by Amerasian children in those
countries covered by the Amerasian Immigration Act also is felt by
Amerasian children in the Philippines and Japan. These children of
American citizens deserve the same viable opportunities of employment,
education and family life that are afforded their counterparts from
Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 318
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
section 204(f)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1154(f)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``born''; and
(2) by inserting after ``subsection,'' the following ``(II)
in the Philippines after 1950 and before November 24, 1992,
or (III) in Japan after 1950 and before the date of enactment
of this subclause,''.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 319. A bill to provide for childproof handguns, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the childproof handgun act
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation
that will help prevent the tragedies that occur when children gain
access to firearms.
Each year, there are 10,000 injuries and deaths due to the accidental
discharge or unauthorized use of a firearm. Many of these incidents
involve children who have gained access to improperly stored guns.
Recently, a family in my home state of New Jersey suffered this type
of tragedy. Akeen Williams, a 4-year-old boy from Lawnside, was
visiting a relative with his 5-year-old sister, Gabrielle, and their 6-
year-old brother, Phillip. Eventually, the children were put in a
bedroom for an afternoon nap. But they found a gun stored in the room,
and Akeen and Gabrielle began playing with it. The gun accidentally
discharged, and Akeen was hit in the face by the ricocheting bullet.
Across the nation, similar stories have become all too common.
Families in Jonesboro, Paducah, Pearl, Edinboro, and Springfield are
still struggling to deal with the horrific shootings in their
communities. We must find new ways to stop gun violence.
In many other areas the federal government has taken steps to protect
consumer safety: cars are now sold with seat belts and airbags; drug
containers have childproof caps; and lawn mowers have guards and
automatic braking devices. It is hard to understand how anyone can
oppose similar safety measures for deadly weapons. The time has come to
hold firearm manufacturers to a higher standard of safety.
The bill I am introducing today will help prevent children from being
killed or injured in firearm tragedies. My bill would require that all
handguns be engineered so that they can only be fired by an authorized
user. To give manufacturers time to comply, this requirement would not
go into effect until 3 years after the bill is enacted. Additionally,
to spur additional innovation and help lower the cost of the new
handgun designs, my bill would also authorize the National Institute of
Justice to provide grants for improvements in firearms safety. In order
to prevent the unauthorized use of handguns and better protect children
in the 3-year period before this regulation goes into effect, my bill
would also require that, 90 days after enactment, all handguns be sold
with a locking device and a warning concerning responsible firearm
storage.
Despite what some members of the gun lobby may say, the technology to
make handguns childproof exists today. Since 1976, more than 30 patents
have been granted for various technologies that will prevent a handgun
from being fired by anyone except the authorized user. For example, the
SafTLok company in Florida manufactures a push-button combination lock
that is incorporated into the grip of a handgun. If the buttons are not
pushed in the proper sequence, the gun will not fire. These locks sell
for $80 each, and the Boston police department recently announced that
these locks will be standard equipment for its officers.
Similarly, the Fulton Arms Company in Texas has developed a revolver
that cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a magnetic ring. And
Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut has designed a prototype handgun that
emits a radio signal and cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a
small transponder that returns a coded radio signal.
In addition to making children safer, these technologies will also
help law enforcement. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
shows that about 16 percent of the officers killed in the line of duty,
as many as 19 in a single year, are killed by a suspect armed with
either the officer's firearm or that of another officer. Because of the
potential to stop these ``take away'' shootings, the National Institute
of Justice has funded studies of these technologies and supported
development of the Colt prototype. However, in order to ensure that the
police have the weapons they need to protect the public, law
enforcement entities are exempt from the requirements in the bill.
None of the provisions in this legislation will burden the vast
majority of firearm owners who are already storing their handguns
safely and securely. Of course, Congress cannot legislate
responsibility. But we can and should take steps to lessen the
likelihood that guns will fall into the wrong hands and be used
improperly.
I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this measure and help
make homes, school, and communities safer for our children.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 319
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 ``Childproof Handgun Act of
1999''.
SEC. 2. HANDGUN SAFETY.
(a) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(35)(A) The term `childproof' means, with respect to a
firearm that is a handgun, a handgun that incorporates within
its design and as part of its original manufacture technology
that--
``(i) automatically limits the operational use of the
handgun;
``(ii) is not capable of being readily deactivated; and
``(iii) ensures that the handgun may only be fired by an
authorized or recognized user.
``(B) The technology referred to in subparagraph (A)
includes--
``(i) radio tagging;
``(ii) touch memory;
``(iii) remote control;
``(iv) fingerprint;
``(v) magnetic encoding; and
``(vi) other automatic user identification systems that
utilize biometrics, mechanical, or electronic systems.
``(36) The term `locking device' means--
``(A) a device that, if installed on a firearm and secured
by means of a key or a mechanically, electronically, or
electromechanically operated combination lock, prevents the
firearm from being discharged without first deactivating or
removing the device by means of a key or mechanically,
electronically, or electromechanically operated combination
lock; or
``(B) a locking mechanism incorporated into the design of a
firearm that prevents discharge of the firearm by any person
who does not have access to the key or other device designed
to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the
firearm.''.
(b) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the
following:
``(z) Childproof Handguns.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
beginning 3 years after the
[[Page 1462]]
date of enactment of the Childproof Handgun Act of 1999, it
shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed
importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer
any handgun to any person other than a licensed manufacturer,
licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the handgun is
childproof.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
``(A) the--
``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the
United States or a State or a department or agency of the
United States, or a State or a department, agency, or
political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement
officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a
handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-
duty); or
``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police
officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or
commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State,
of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or
off-duty).''.
``(aa) Locking Devices and Warnings.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of the
Childproof Handgun Act of 1999, it shall be unlawful for any
licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer
to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun--
``(A) to any person other than a licensed manufacturer,
licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee
is provided with a locking device for that handgun; or
``(B) to any person, unless the handgun is accompanied by
the following warning, which shall appear in conspicuous and
legible type in capital letters, and which shall be printed
on a label affixed to the gun and on a separate sheet of
paper included within the packaging enclosing the handgun:
`` `THE USE OF A LOCKING DEVICE OR SAFETY LOCK IS ONLY ONE
ASPECT OF RESPONSIBLE FIREARM STORAGE. FIREARMS SHOULD BE
STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION THAT IS BOTH
SEPARATE FROM THEIR AMMUNITION AND INACCESSIBLE TO CHILDREN.
`FAILURE TO PROPERLY LOCK AND STORE YOUR FIREARM MAY RESULT
IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW. IN ADDITION,
FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR
IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.'
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
``(A) the--
``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the
United States or a State or a department or agency of the
United States, or a State or a department, agency, or
political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement
officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a
handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-
duty); or
``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police
officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or
commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State,
of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or
off-duty).''.
(c) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and
inserting ``(f) or (p)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Penalties Relating to Failure To Provide for
Childproof Handguns or Locking Devices and Warnings.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil
penalties.--With respect to each violation of subparagraph
(A) or (B) of section 922(z)(1) or subparagraph (A) or (B) of
section 922(aa)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary may, after
notice and opportunity for hearing--
``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee
under this chapter; or
``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount
equal to not more than $10,000.
``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this
paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or
revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty
under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative
remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
SEC. 3. GRANTS TO IMPROVE GUN SAFETY.
(a) In General.--
(1) Grants.--Subject to the availability of appropriations,
the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the
National Institute of Justice (referred to in this section as
the ``Director''), shall make grants under this section for
the purpose specified in paragraph (2) to applicants that
submit an application that meets requirements that the
Attorney General, acting through the Director, shall
establish.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of a grant under this section
shall be to reduce violence caused by firearms through the
improvement of firearm safety technology, weapon detection
technology, or other technology.
(3) Consultation.--In making grants under this section, the
Attorney General, acting through the Director, shall consult
with appropriate employees of the National Institute of
Justice with expertise in firearms and weapons technology.
(b) Period of Grant.--A grant under this section shall be
for a period of not to exceed 3 years.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Justice to carry out
this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2002.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 320. A bill to amend the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 to clarify
the acreage limitations and incorporate a means test for certain farm
operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
irrigation subsidy reduction act of 1999
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing a measure that I
sponsored in the 105th Congress to reduce the amount of federal
irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. I
believe that reforming federal water pricing policy by reducing
subsidies is an important area to examine as a means to achieve our
broader objectives of achieving a truly balanced budget. This
legislation is also needed to curb fundamental abuses of reclamation
law that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars every year.
In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which
came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage
development of family farms throughout the western United States. The
idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and
give small farms--those no larger than 160 acres--a chance, with a
helping hand from the federal government, to establish themselves.
According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage
of the Reclamation Act, the federal government has spent $21.8 billion
to construct 133 water projects in the west which provide water for
irrigation. Irrigators, and other project beneficiaries, are required
under the law to repay to the federal government their allocated share
of the costs of constructing these projects.
However, as a result of the subsidized financing provided by the
federal government, some of the beneficiaries of federal water projects
repay considerably less than their full share of these costs. According
to the 1996 GAO report, irrigators generally receive the largest amount
of federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of the irrigation
program in 1902, construction costs associated with irrigation have
been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in reviewing the
Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9 billion, or 78
percent, of the $21.8 billion of federal investment in water projects
is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable costs, the
largest share--$7.1 billion--is allocated to irrigators. As of
September 30, 1994 irrigators have repaid only $941 million of the $7.1
billion they owe. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will
likely shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by irrigators to other users
of the water projects for repayment.
There are several reasons why irrigators continue to receive such
significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982,
Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive
subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly
prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally-
subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the Reclamation law
to close loopholes through which federal subsidies were flowing to
large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that
Reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were
expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of
their 960 acre entitlement. Despite the express mandate of Congress,
regulations promulgated under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have
failed to keep big agricultural water users from receiving federal
subsidies. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of
the Department of the
[[Page 1463]]
Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law
are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming
trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage well exceed the 960 acre
limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the
reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single
management agreement often through a combination of leasing and
ownership.
In a 1989 GAO report, the activities of six agribusiness trusts were
fully explored. According to GAO, one 12,345 acre cotton farm (roughly
20 square miles), operating under a single partnership, was reorganized
to avoid the 960 acre limitation into 15 separate land holdings through
18 partnerships, 24 corporations, and 11 trusts which were all operated
as one large unit. A seventh trust very large trust was the sole topic
of a 1990 GAO report. The Westhaven trust is a 23,238 acre farming
operation in California's Central Valley. It was formed for the benefit
of 326 salaried employees of the J.G. Boswell Company. Boswell, GAO
found, had taken advantage of section 214 of the RRA, which exempts
from its 960 acre limit land held for beneficiaries by a trustee in a
fiduciary capacity, as long as no single beneficiary's interest exceeds
the law's ownership limits. The RRA, as I have mentioned, does not
preclude multiple land holdings from being operated collectively under
a trust as one farm while qualifying individually for federally
subsidized water. Accordingly, the J.G. Boswell Company re-organized
23,238 acres it held as the Boston Ranch by selling them to the
Westhaven Trust, with the land holdings attributed to each beneficiary
being eligible to receive federally subsidized water.
Before the land was sold to Westhaven Trust, the J.G. Boswell Company
operated the acreage as one large farm and paid full cost for the
federal irrigation water delivered for the 18-month period ending in
May 1989. When the trust bought the land, due to the loopholes in the
law, the entire acreage became eligible to receive federally subsidized
water because the land holdings attributed to the 326 trust
beneficiaries range from 21 acres to 547 acres--all well under the 960
acre limit.
In the six cases the GAO reviewed in 1989, owners or lessees paid a
total of about $1.3 million less in 1987 for federal water then they
would have paid if their collective land holdings were considered as
large farms subject to the Reclamation Act acreage limits. Had
Westhaven trust been required to pay full cost, GAO estimated in 1990,
it would have paid $2 million more for its water. The GAO also found,
in all seven of these cases, that reduced revenues are likely to
continue unless Congress amends the Reclamation Act to close the
loopholes allowing benefits for trusts.
The Department of the Interior has acknowledged that these problems
do exist. Interior published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register on November 18, 1998. The proposed rulemaking requires farm
operators who provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres
westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of
trusts and legal entities to submit RRA forms to the district(s) where
such land is located. If the rule is finalized, the districts will be
required to provide specific information about declaring farm operators
to Interior annually. This information will be an important step toward
enforcing the legislation that I am reintroducing today.
This legislation combines various elements of proposals introduced by
other members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation
and to impose a $500,000 means test. This new approach limits the
amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in
excess of the 960 acre limit which claimed $500,000 or more in gross
income, as reported on their most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000
threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would be used to determine how
much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost
rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre
operation earned $1 million dollars, a ratio of $500,000 (the means
test value) divided by their gross income would determine the full cost
rate, thus the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their
acreage and the below cost rate on the remaining half.
This means testing proposal is featured, for the fourth year in a
row, in this year's 1999 Green Scissors report which is being released
today. This report is compiled by Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers
for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental, consumer
and taxpayer groups. I am pleased to join with the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) in distributing a copy of this report to all
members of the Senate. The premise of the report is that there are a
number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce the
deficit and benefit the environment. This report underscores what I and
many others in the Senate have long known: we must eliminate practices
that can no longer be justified in light of our effort to achieve a
truly balanced budget and eliminate our national debt. The Green
Scissors recommendation on means testing water subsidies indicates that
if a test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest
grossing 10% of farms, then the federal government would recover
between $440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2
billion over five years.
When countless federal programs are subjected to various types of
means tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it
makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip
into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive.
Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard
earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate
interests in select regions of the country who benefit from these
loopholes, particularly in tight budgetary times. Other users of
federal water projects, such as the power recipients, should also be
concerned when they learn that they will be expected to pick up the tab
for a portion of the funds that irrigators were supposed to pay back.
The federal water program was simply never intended to benefit these
large interests, and I am hopeful that legislative efforts, such as the
measure I am introducing today, will prompt Congress to fully
reevaluate our federal water pricing policy.
In conclusion, Mr. President, it is clear that the conflicting
policies of the federal government in this area are in need of reform,
and that Congress should act. Large agribusinesses should not be able
to continue to soak the taxpayers, and should pay their fair share. We
should act to close these loopholes and increase the return to the
treasury from irrigators as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 320
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 ``Irrigation Subsidy Reduction
Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Federal reclamation program has been in existence
for over 90 years, with an estimated taxpayer investment of
over $70,000,000,000;
(2) the program has had and continues to have an enormous
effect on the water resources and aquatic environments of the
western States;
(3) irrigation water made available from Federal water
projects in the West is a very valuable resource for which
there are increasing and competing demands;
(4) the justification for providing water at less than full
cost was to benefit and promote the development of small
family farms and exclude large corporate farms, but this
purpose has been frustrated over the years due to inadequate
implementation of subsidy and acreage limits;
(5) below-cost water prices tend to encourage excessive use
of scarce water supplies in the arid regions of the West, and
reasonable price increases to the wealthiest western farmers
would provide an economic incentive for greater water
conservation;
(6) the Federal Government has increasingly applied
eligibility tests based on income for Federal entitlement and
subsidy
[[Page 1464]]
programs, measures that are consistent with the historic
approach of the reclamation program's acreage limitations
that seek to limit water subsidies to smaller farms; and
(7) including a means test based on gross income in the
reclamation program will increase the effectiveness of
carrying out the family farm goals of the Federal reclamation
laws.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS.
(a) Definitions.--Section 202 of the Reclamation Reform Act
of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390bb) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (8), (9), (10), and
(11) as paragraphs (9), (10), (11), (12), and (13),
respectively;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``owned or operated under
a lease which'' and inserting ``that is owned, leased, or
operated by an individual or legal entity and that'';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) Legal entity.--The term `legal entity' includes a
corporation, association, partnership, trust, joint tenancy,
or tenancy in common, or any other entity that owns, leases,
or operates a farm operation for the benefit of more than 1
individual under any form of agreement or arrangement.
``(8) Operator.--
``(A) In general.--The term `operator'--
``(i) means an individual or legal entity that operates a
single farm operation on a parcel (or parcel) of land that is
owned or leased by another person (or persons) under any form
of agreement or arrangement (or agreements or arrangements);
and
``(ii) if the individual or legal entity--
``(I) is an employee of an individual or legal entity,
includes the individual or legal entity; or
``(II) is a legal entity that controls, is controlled by,
or is under common control with another legal entity,
includes each such other legal entity.
``(B) Operation of a farm operation.--For the purposes of
subparagraph (A), an individual or legal entity shall be
considered to operate a farm operation if the individual or
legal entity is the person that performs the greatest
proportion of the decisionmaking for and supervision of the
agricultural enterprise on land served with irrigation
water.''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(14) Single farm operation.--
``(A) In general.--The term `single farm operation' means
the total acreage of land served with irrigation water for
which an individual or legal entity is the operator.
``(B) Rules for determining whether separate parcels are
operated as a single farm operation.--
``(i) Equipment- and labor-sharing activities.--The conduct
of equipment- and labor-sharing activities on separate
parcels of land by separate individuals or legal entities
shall not by itself serve as a basis for concluding that the
farming operations of the individuals or legal entities
constitute a single farm operation.
``(ii) Performance of certain services.--The performance by
an individual or legal entity of an agricultural chemical
application, pruning, or harvesting for a farm operation on a
parcel of land shall not by itself serve as a basis for
concluding that the farm operation on that parcel of land is
part of a single farm operation operated by the individual or
entity on other parcels of land.''.
(b) Identification of Owners, Lessees, and Operators and of
Single Farm Operations.--The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982
(43 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 201 the following:
``SEC. 201A. IDENTIFICATION OF OWNERS, LESSEES, AND OPERATORS
AND OF SINGLE FARM OPERATIONS.
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), for each
parcel of land to which irrigation water is delivered or
proposed to be delivered, the Secretary shall identify a
single individual or legal entity as the owner, lessee, or
operator.
``(b) Shared Decisionmaking and Supervision.--If the
Secretary determines that no single individual or legal
entity is the owner, lessee, or other individual that
performs the greatest proportion of decisionmaking for and
supervision of the agricultural enterprise on a parcel of
land--
``(1) all individuals and legal entities that own, lease,
or perform a proportion of decisionmaking and supervision
that is equal as among themselves but greater than the
proportion performed by any other individual or legal entity
shall be considered jointly to be the owner, lessee, or
operator; and
``(2) all parcels of land of which any such individual or
legal entity is the owner, lessee, or operator shall be
considered to be part of the single farm operation of the
owner, lessee, or operator identified under subsection (1).
(c) Pricing.--Section 205 of the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ee) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Single Farm Operations Generating More Than $500,000
in Gross Farm Income.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b),
and (c), in the case of--
``(A) a qualified recipient that reports gross farm income
from a single farm operation in excess of $500,000 for a
taxable year; or
``(B) a limited recipient that received irrigation water on
or before October 1, 1981, and that reports gross farm income
from a single farm operation in excess of $500,000 for a
taxable year;
irrigation water may be delivered to the single farm
operation of the qualified recipient or limited recipient at
less than full cost to a number of acres that does not exceed
the number of acres determined under paragraph (2).
``(2) Maximum number of acres to which irrigation water may
be delivered at less than full cost.--The number of acres
determined under this subparagraph is the number equal to the
number of acres of the single farm operation multiplied by a
fraction, the numerator of which is $500,000 and the
denominator of which is the amount of gross farm income
reported by the qualified recipient or limited recipient in
the most recent taxable year.
``(3) Inflation adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--The $500,000 amount under paragraphs (1)
and (2) for any taxable year beginning in a calendar year
after 1998 shall be equal to the product of--
``(i) $500,000, multiplied by
``(ii) the inflation adjustment factor for the taxable
year.
``(B) Inflation adjustment factor.--The term `inflation
adjustment factor' means, with respect to any calendar year,
a fraction the numerator of which is the GDP implicit price
deflator for the preceding calendar year and the denominator
of which is the GDP implicit price deflator for 1998. Not
later than April 1 of any calendar year, the Secretary shall
publish the inflation adjustment factor for the preceding
calendar year.
``(C) GDP implicit price deflator.--For purposes of
subparagraph (B), the term `GDP implicit price deflator'
means the first revision of the implicit price deflator for
the gross domestic product as computed and published by the
Secretary of Commerce.
``(D) Rounding.--If any increase determined under
subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $100, the increase
shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100.''.
(d) Certification of Compliance.--Section 206 of the
Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ff) is amended
to read as follows:
``SEC. 206. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
``(a) In General.--As a condition to the receipt of
irrigation water for land in a district that has a contract
described in section 203, each owner, lessee, or operator in
the district shall furnish the district, in a form prescribed
by the Secretary, a certificate that the owner, lessee, or
operator is in compliance with this title, including a
statement of the number of acres owned, leased, or operated,
the terms of any lease or agreement pertaining to the
operation of a farm operation, and, in the case of a lessee
or operator, a certification that the rent or other fees paid
reflect the reasonable value of the irrigation water to the
productivity of the land.
``(b) Documentation.--The Secretary may require a lessee or
operator to submit for the Secretary's examination--
``(1) a complete copy of any lease or other agreement
executed by each of the parties to the lease or other
agreement; and
``(2) a copy of the return of income tax imposed by chapter
1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year
in which the single farm operation of the lessee or operator
received irrigation water at less than full cost.''.
(e) Trusts.--Section 214 of the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982 (43 U.S.C. 390nn) is repealed.
(f) Administrative Provisions.--
(1) Penalties.--Section 224(c) of the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ww(c)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(c) The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Regulations; Data Collection; Penalties.--
``(1) Regulations; data collection.--The Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Penalties.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall establish appropriate and effective
penalties for failure to comply with any provision of this
Act or any regulation issued under this Act.''.
(2) Interest.--Section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform Act
of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)) is amended by striking the last
sentence and inserting the following: ``The interest rate
applicable to underpayments shall be equal to the rate
applicable to expenditures under section 202(3)(C).''.
(g) Reporting.--Section 228 of the Reclamation Reform Act
of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390zz) is amended by inserting ``operator
or'' before ``contracting entity'' each place it appears.
(h) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 229 and 230 as sections 230
and 231; and
(2) by inserting after section 228 the following:
``SEC. 229. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
``The Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into a memorandum of
understanding or other appropriate instrument to permit the
Secretary, notwithstanding section 6103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, to have access to and use of available
[[Page 1465]]
information collected or maintained by the Department of the
Treasury and the Department of Agriculture that would aid
enforcement of the ownership and pricing limitations of
Federal reclamation law.''.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 321. A bill to streamline, modernize, and enhance the authority of
the Secretary of Agriculture relating to plant protection and
quarantine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
THE PLANT PROTECTION ACT OF 1999
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
``Plant Protection Act of 1999''--a comprehensive bill which will focus
the effort of federal agencies in fighting noxious weeds and other
plant pests.
Noxious weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands
across the nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West where
much of our land is entrusted to the management of the federal
government. A ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of
production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the
commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their
livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others.
The bill I introduce today will focus the efforts of the federal
government to better fight this wildfire. It organizes and expands the
functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and
appoints it as the lead government agency in this fight.
The bill was drafted with the assistance and advice of APHIS as well
as several national agriculture organizations such as the American
Nursery and Landscape Association, National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture, National Christmas Tree Association,
National Potato Council, and American Farm Bureau Federation. The Idaho
Department of Agriculture and many concerned citizens from my state
have also helped me shape the bill I introduce today.
Similar legislation will be introduced in the House of
Representatives some time next month by Representative Canady of
Florida. The two bills have only one difference. The bill I introduce
today lacks the section on federal preemption included in Mr. Canady's
legislation. This is an issue that will have to be addressed during the
legislative process. I will admit that APHIS will not endorse the
legislation without the preemption section. However, I am confident
that, working together with all of those interested in fighting noxious
weeds at the federal and state levels, we can resolve this matter in a
way we might all agree to.
Working together is what this entire effort is about. Along that same
vein, I know of several Senators with an interest in this issue,
including Senator Akaka who introduced legislation on this matter
earlier this month, and I hope we can work together in finding a
solution we can all support. In addition, I might mention that it is my
understanding that the President and the Secretary of the Interior have
expressed interest in noxious weeds and may be planning their own
announcement. I invite them--indeed, I invite everyone interested in
this matter--to work with me to find an approach which confronts this
problem head on.
Mr. President, I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands
of these noxious weeds and plant pests. We must reclaim the rangeland
for natural species. We must return the acres of lost farmland to
production. Doing so will require the combined efforts of the federal
government, state governments, local weed control boards, and private
land owners.
I believe the ``Plant Protection Act of 1999'' is the first step in
this process.
Mr. President, I ask unaminous consent that a copy 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. 321
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Plant
Protection Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--PLANT PROTECTION
Sec. 101. Regulation of movement of plant pests.
Sec. 102. Regulation of movement of plants, plant products, biological
control organisms, noxious weeds, articles, and means of
conveyance.
Sec. 103. Notification and holding requirements on arrival.
Sec. 104. General remedial measures for new plant pests and noxious
weeds.
Sec. 105. Extraordinary emergencies.
Sec. 106. Recovery of compensation for unauthorized activities.
Sec. 107. Control of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets.
Sec. 108. Certification for exports.
TITLE II--INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 201. Inspections, seizures, and warrants.
Sec. 202. Collection of information.
Sec. 203. Subpoena authority.
Sec. 204. Penalties for violation.
Sec. 205. Enforcement actions of Attorney General.
Sec. 206. Court jurisdiction.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Cooperation.
Sec. 302. Buildings, land, people, claims, and agreements.
Sec. 303. Reimbursable agreements.
Sec. 304. Protection for mail carriers.
Sec. 305. Regulations and orders.
Sec. 306. Repeal of superseded laws.
TITLE IV--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 402. Transfer authority.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the detection, control, eradication, suppression,
prevention, and retardation of the spread of plant pests and
noxious weeds is necessary for the protection of the
agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States;
(2) biological control--
(A) is often a desirable, low-risk means of ridding crops
and other plants of plant pests and noxious weeds; and
(B) should be facilitated by the Secretary of Agriculture,
Federal agencies, and States, whenever feasible;
(3) the smooth movement of enterable plants, plant
products, certain biological control organisms, or other
articles into, out of, or within the United States is vital
to the economy of the United States and should be facilitated
to the extent practicable;
(4) markets could be severely impacted by the introduction
or spread of plant pests or noxious weeds into or within the
United States;
(5) the unregulated movement of plants, plant products,
biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, and
articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds
would present an unacceptable risk of introducing or
spreading plant pests or noxious weeds;
(6) the existence on any premises in the United States of a
plant pest or noxious weed new to or not known to be widely
prevalent in or distributed within and throughout the United
States could threaten crops, other plants, and plant products
of the United States and burden interstate commerce or
foreign commerce; and
(7) all plants, plant products, biological control
organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or articles capable of
harboring plant pests or noxious weeds regulated under this
Act are in or affect interstate commerce or foreign commerce.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Article.--The term ``article'' means a material or
tangible object that could harbor a pest, disease, or noxious
weed.
(2) Biological control organism.--The term ``biological
control organism'' means an enemy, antagonist, or competitor
organism used to control a plant pest or noxious weed.
(3) Enter.--The term ``enter'' means to move into the
commerce of the United States.
(4) Entry.--The term ``entry'' means the act of movement
into the commerce of the United States.
(5) Export.--The term ``export'' means to move from the
United States to any place outside the United States.
(6) Exportation.--The term ``exportation'' means the act of
movement from the United States to any place outside the
United States.
(7) Import.--The term ``import'' means to move into the
territorial limits of the United States.
(8) Importation.--The term ``importation'' means the act of
movement into the territorial limits of the United States.
(9) Interstate.--The term ``interstate'' means--
(A) from 1 State into or through any other State; or
(B) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any other territory or
possession of the United States.
[[Page 1466]]
(10) Interstate commerce.--The term ``interstate commerce''
means trade, traffic, movement, or other commerce--
(A) between a place in a State and a point in another
State;
(B) between points within the same State but through any
place outside the State; or
(C) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any other territory or
possession of the United States.
(11) Means of conveyance.--The term ``means of conveyance''
means any personal property or means that could harbor a
pest, disease, or noxious weed and that is used for or
intended for use for the movement of any other personal
property.
(12) Move.--The term ``move'' means to--
(A) carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport;
(B) aid, abet, cause, or induce the carrying, entering,
importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
(C) offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(D) receive to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(E) release into the environment; or
(F) allow any of the activities referred to this paragraph
to be conducted by a person under another person's control.
(13) Movement.--The term ``move'' means the act of--
(A) carrying, entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or
transporting;
(B) aiding, abetting, causing, or inducing the carrying,
entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
(C) offering to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(D) receiving to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport;
(E) releasing into the environment; or
(F) allowing any of the activities referred to this
paragraph to be conducted by a person under another person's
control.
(14) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' means a plant
or plant product that has the potential to directly or
indirectly injure or cause damage to a plant or plant product
through injury or damage to a crop (including nursery stock
or a plant product), livestock, poultry, or other interest of
agriculture (including irrigation), navigation, natural
resources of the United States, public health, or the
environment.
(15) Permit.--The term ``permit'' means a written
(including electronic) or oral authorization by the Secretary
to move a plant, plant product, biological control organism,
plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance
under conditions prescribed by the Secretary.
(16) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual,
partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, or
other legal entity.
(17) Plant.--The term ``plant'' means a plant (including a
plant part) for or capable of propagation (including a tree,
tissue culture, plantlet culture, pollen, shrub, vine,
cutting, graft, scion, bud, bulb, root, and seed).
(18) Plant pest.--The term ``plant pest'' means--
(A) a living stage of a protozoan, invertebrate animal,
parasitic plant, bacteria, fungus, virus, viroid, infection
agent, or pathogen that has the potential to directly or
indirectly injure or cause damage to, or cause disease in, a
plant or plant product; or
(B) an article that is similar to or allied with an article
referred to in subparagraph (A).
(19) Plant product.--The term ``plant product'' means--
(A) a flower, fruit, vegetable, root, bulb, seed, or other
plant part that is not considered by the Secretary to be a
plant; and
(B) a manufactured or processed plant or plant part.
(20) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(21) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
(22) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
in a geographical sense, means all of the States.
TITLE I--PLANT PROTECTION
SEC. 101. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS.
(a) Prohibition of Unauthorized Movement of Plant Pests.--
Except as provided in subsection (b), no person shall import,
enter, export, or move in interstate commerce a plant pest,
unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is
authorized under general or specific permit and is in
accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may
promulgate to prevent the introduction of plant pests into
the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within
the United States.
(b) Authorization of Movement of Plant Pests by
Regulation.--
(1) Exception to permit requirement.--The Secretary may
promulgate regulations to allow the importation, entry,
exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of specified
plant pests without further restriction if the Secretary
finds that a permit under subsection (a) is not necessary.
(2) Petition to add or remove plant pests from
regulation.--A person may petition the Secretary to add a
plant pest to, or remove a plant pest from, the regulations
promulgated under paragraph (1).
(3) Response to petition by the secretary.--In the case of
a petition submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall--
(A) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
(B) notify the petitioner of the final action the Secretary
takes on the petition.
(4) Basis for determination.--The determination of the
Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
(c) Prohibition of Unauthorized Mailing of Plant Pests.--
(1) In general.--Subject to section 304, a letter, parcel,
box, or other package containing a plant pest, whether sealed
as letter-rate postal matter, is nonmailable, and a mail
carrier shall not knowingly convey in the mail or deliver
from a post office such a package, unless the package is
mailed in compliance with such regulations as the Secretary
may promulgate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests
into the United States or interstate.
(2) Application of postal laws.--Nothing in this subsection
authorizes a person to open a mailed letter or other mailed
sealed matter except in accordance with the postal laws
(including regulations).
(d) Regulations.--Regulations promulgated by the Secretary
to implement subsections (a), (b), or (c) may include
provisions requiring that a plant pest imported, entered, to
be exported, moved in interstate commerce, mailed, or
delivered from a post office--
(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary
before the importation, entry, exportation, movement in
interstate commerce, mailing, or delivery of the plant pest;
(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued
(in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by
appropriate officials of the country or State from which the
plant pest is to be moved;
(3) be raised under post-entry quarantine conditions by or
under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes of
determining whether the plant pest may be infested with other
plant pests, may pose a significant risk of causing injury
to, damage to, or disease in a plant or plant product, or may
be a noxious weed; and
(4) be subject to such remedial measures as the Secretary
determines are necessary to prevent the dissemination of
plant pests.
SEC. 102. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANTS, PLANT PRODUCTS,
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS, NOXIOUS WEEDS,
ARTICLES, AND MEANS OF CONVEYANCE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may prohibit or restrict the
importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate
commerce of a plant, plant product, biological control
organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance, if
the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction
is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United
States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed
within the United States.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate regulations
to carry out this section, including regulations requiring
that a plant, plant product, biological control organism,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported,
entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce--
(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary
prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in
interstate commerce;
(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued in
a manner and form required by the Secretary or by appropriate
official of the country or State from which the plant, plant
product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article,
or means of conveyance is to be moved;
(3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary
determines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant
pests or noxious weeds; and
(4) in the case of a plant or biological control organism,
be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions by
or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purpose of
determining whether the plant or biological control organism
may be infested with a plant pest or noxious weed, or may be
a plant pest or noxious weed.
(c) List of Restricted Noxious Weeds.--
(1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation,
a list of noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted
from entering the United States or that are subject to
restrictions on interstate movement within the United States.
(2) Petitions to add plant species to or remove plant
species from list.--
(A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add
a plant species to, or remove a plant species from, the list
authorized under paragraph (1).
(B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
(i) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
(ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the
Secretary takes on the petition.
(C) Basis for determination.--The determination of the
Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
[[Page 1467]]
(d) List of Biological Control Organisms.--
(1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation,
a list of biological control organisms the movement of which
in interstate commerce is not prohibited or restricted.
(2) Distinctions.--In publishing the list, the Secretary
may take into account distinctions between biological control
organisms that are indigenous, nonindigenous, newly
introduced, or commercially raised.
(3) Petitions to add biological control organisms to or
remove biological control organisms from list.--
(A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add
a biological control organism to, or remove a biological
control organism from, the list authorized under paragraph
(1).
(B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
(i) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
(ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the
Secretary takes on the petition.
(C) Basis for determination.--The determination of the
Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
SEC. 103. NOTIFICATION AND HOLDING REQUIREMENTS ON ARRIVAL.
(a) Duty of Secretary of the Treasury.--
(1) Notification.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
promptly notify the Secretary of the arrival of a plant,
plant product, biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance at a port of
entry.
(2) Holding.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall hold a
plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance for which
notification is made under paragraph (1) at the port of entry
until the plant, plant product, biological control organism,
plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance
is--
(A) inspected and authorized by the Secretary of
Agriculture for entry into or movement through the United
States; or
(B) otherwise released by the Secretary.
(3) Exceptions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to
a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance that is
imported from a country or region of a country designated by
the Secretary, by regulation, as exempt from the requirements
of those paragraphs.
(b) Notification by Responsible Person.--The person
responsible for a plant, plant product, biological control
organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of
conveyance required to have a permit under section 101 or 102
shall promptly, on arrival at the port of entry and before
the plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is moved
from the port of entry, notify the Secretary or, at the
Secretary's direction, the proper official of the State to
which the plant, plant product, biological control organism,
plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is
destined, or both, as the Secretary may prescribe, of--
(1) the name and address of the consignee;
(2) the nature and quantity of the plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance proposed to be moved; and
(3) the country and locality where the plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance was grown, produced, or
located.
(c) Prohibition of Movement of Items Without Inspection and
Authorization.--No person shall move from a port of entry or
interstate an imported plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means
of conveyance unless the imported plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance has been--
(1) inspected and authorized by the Secretary for entry
into or movement through the United States; or
(2) otherwise released by the Secretary.
SEC. 104. GENERAL REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR NEW PLANT PESTS AND
NOXIOUS WEEDS.
(a) Authority To Hold, Treat, or Destroy Items.--If the
Secretary considers it necessary to prevent the dissemination
of a plant pest or noxious weed that is new to or not known
to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout
the United States, the Secretary may hold, seize, quarantine,
treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or
otherwise dispose of a plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means
of conveyance that--
(1)(A) is moving into or through the United States or
interstate, or has moved into or through the United States or
interstate; and
(B)(i) the Secretary has reason to believe is a plant pest
or noxious weed or is infested with a plant pest or noxious
weed at the time of the movement; or
(ii) is or has been otherwise in violation of this Act;
(2) has not been maintained in compliance with a post-entry
quarantine requirement; or
(3) is the progeny of a plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed that is moving
into or through the United States or interstate, or has moved
into the United States or interstate, in violation of this
Act.
(b) Authority To Order an Owner To Treat or Destroy.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may order the owner of a
plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject
to action under subsection (a), or the owner's agent, to
treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or
otherwise dispose of the plant, plant product, biological
control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means
of conveyance, without cost to the Federal Government and in
a manner the Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) Failure to comply.--If the owner or agent of the owner
fails to comply with an order of the Secretary under
paragraph (1), the Secretary may take an action authorized by
subsection (a) and recover from the owner or agent of the
owner the costs of any care, handling, application of
remedial measures, or disposal incurred by the Secretary in
connection with actions taken under subsection (a).
(c) Classification System.--
(1) In general.--To facilitate control of noxious weeds,
the Secretary may develop a classification system to describe
the status and action levels for noxious weeds.
(2) Categories.--The classification system may include the
geographic distribution, relative threat, and actions
initiated to prevent introduction or distribution.
(3) Management plans.--In conjunction with the
classification system, the Secretary may develop integrated
management plans for noxious weeds for the geographic region
or ecological range where the noxious weed is found in the
United States.
(d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be destroyed,
exported, or returned to the shipping point of origin, or
ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to the
shipping point of origin under this section unless, in the
opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action
that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the
dissemination of any plant pest or noxious weed new to or not
known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and
throughout the United States.
SEC. 105. EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCIES.
(a) Authority To Declare.--Subject to subsection (b), if
the Secretary determines that an extraordinary emergency
exists because of the presence of a plant pest or noxious
weed that is new to or not known to be widely prevalent in or
distributed within and throughout the United States and that
the presence of the plant pest or noxious weed threatens
plants or plant products of the United States, the Secretary
may--
(1) hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial
measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, a plant, plant
product, biological control organism, article, or means of
conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is
infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
(2) quarantine, treat, or apply other remedial measures to
any premises, including a plant, plant product, biological
control organism, article, or means of conveyance on the
premises, that the Secretary has reason to believe is
infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
(3) quarantine a State or portion of a State in which the
Secretary finds the plant pest or noxious weed or a plant,
plant product, biological control organism, article, or means
of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is
infested with the plant pest or noxious weed; or
(4) prohibit or restrict the movement within a State of a
plant, plant product, biological control organism, article,
or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the
prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the
dissemination of the plant pest or noxious weed or to
eradicate the plant pest or noxious weed.
(b) Required Finding of Emergency.--The Secretary may take
action under this section only on finding, after review and
consultation with the Governor or other appropriate official
of the State affected, that the measures being taken by the
State are inadequate to prevent the dissemination of the
plant pest or noxious weed or to eradicate the plant pest or
noxious weed.
(c) Notification Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
before any action is taken in a State under this section, the
Secretary shall--
(A) notify the Governor or another appropriate official of
the State;
(B) issue a public announcement; and
(C) except as provided in paragraph (2), publish in the
Federal Register a statement of--
(i) the findings of the Secretary;
(ii) the action the Secretary intends to take;
(iii) the reason for the intended action; and
(iv) if practicable, an estimate of the anticipated
duration of the extraordinary emergency.
[[Page 1468]]
(2) Time sensitive actions.--If it is not practicable to
publish a statement in the Federal Register under paragraph
(1) before taking an action under this section, the Secretary
shall publish the statement in the Federal Register within a
reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 business days,
after commencement of the action.
(d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be destroyed,
exported, or returned to the shipping point of origin, or
ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to the
shipping point of origin under this section unless, in the
opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action
that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the
dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed new to or not
known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and
throughout the United States.
(e) Payment of Compensation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may pay compensation to a
person for economic losses incurred by the person as a result
of action taken by the Secretary under this section.
(2) Amount.--The determination by the Secretary of the
amount of any compensation to be paid under this subsection
shall be final and shall not be subject to judicial review.
SEC. 106. RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR UNAUTHORIZED
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Recovery Action.--The owner of a plant, plant product,
biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance destroyed or otherwise
disposed of by the Secretary under section 104 or 105 may
bring an action against the United States to recover just
compensation for the destruction or disposal of the plant,
plant product, biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance (not including
compensation for loss due to delays incident to determining
eligibility for importation, entry, exportation, movement in
interstate commerce, or release into the environment) if the
owner establishes that the destruction or disposal was not
authorized under this Act.
(b) Time for Action; Location.--
(1) Time for action.--An action under this section shall be
brought not later than 1 year after the destruction or
disposal of the plant, plant product, biological control
mechanism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of
conveyance involved.
(2) Location.--The action may be brought in a United States
District Court where the owner is found, resides, transacts
business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated.
(c) Payment of Judgments.--A judgment in favor of the owner
shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury appropriated
for plant pest control activities of the Department of
Agriculture.
SEC. 107. CONTROL OF GRASSHOPPERS AND MORMON CRICKETS.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of funds under
this section, the Secretary shall carry out a program to
control grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets on all Federal land
to protect rangeland.
(b) Transfer Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), on the request
of the Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior shall
transfer to the Secretary, from any no-year appropriations,
funds for the prevention, suppression, and control of actual
or potential grasshopper and Mormon Cricket outbreaks on
Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2) Use.--The transferred funds shall be available only for
the payment of obligations incurred on the Federal land.
(3) Transfer requests.--The Secretary shall make a request
for the transfer of funds under this subsection as promptly
as practicable.
(4) Limitation.--The Secretary may not use funds
transferred under this subsection until funds specifically
appropriated to the Secretary for grasshopper and Mormon
Cricket control have been exhausted.
(5) Replenishment of transferred funds.--Funds transferred
under this section shall be replenished by supplemental or
regular appropriations, which the Secretary shall request as
promptly as practicable.
(c) Treatment for Grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of funds under
this section, on request of the head of the administering
agency or the agriculture department of an affected State,
the Secretary, to protect rangeland, shall immediately treat
Federal, State, or private land that is infested with
grasshoppers or Mormon Crickets at levels of economic
infestation, unless the Secretary determines that delaying
treatment will not cause greater economic damage to adjacent
owners of rangeland.
(2) Other programs.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall work in conjunction with other Federal,
State, and private prevention, control, or suppression
efforts to protect rangeland.
(d) Federal Cost Share of Treatment.--
(1) Control on federal land.--Out of funds made available
under this section, the Secretary shall pay 100 percent of
the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket control on Federal
land to protect rangeland.
(2) Control on state land.--Out of funds made available
under this section, the Secretary shall pay 50 percent of the
cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket control on State land.
(3) Control on private land.--Out of funds made available
under this section, the Secretary shall pay 33.3 percent of
the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket control on private
land.
(e) Training.--From funds made available or transferred by
the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary to carry out
this section, the Secretary shall provide adequate funding
for a program to train personnel to accomplish effectively
the purposes of this section.
SEC. 108. CERTIFICATION FOR EXPORTS.
The Secretary may certify a plant, plant product, or
biological control organism as free from plant pests and
noxious weeds, and exposure to plant pests and noxious weeds,
according to the phytosanitary or other requirements of the
countries to which the plant, plant product, or biological
control organism may be exported.
TITLE II--INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 201. INSPECTIONS, SEIZURES, AND WARRANTS.
(a) In General.--Consistent with guidelines approved by the
Attorney General, the Secretary may--
(1) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means
of conveyance moving into the United States to determine
whether the person or means of conveyance is carrying a
plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject
to this Act;
(2) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means
of conveyance moving in interstate commerce on probable cause
to believe that the person or means of conveyance is carrying
a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant
pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject
to this Act;
(3) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means
of conveyance moving in intrastate commerce or on premises
quarantined as part of an extraordinary emergency declared
under section 105 on probable cause to believe that the
person or means of conveyance is carrying a plant, plant
product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious
weed, article, or means of conveyance subject to this Act;
and
(4) enter, with a warrant, a premises in the United States
for the purpose of conducting investigations or making
inspections and seizures under this Act.
(b) Warrants.--
(1) In general.--A United States judge, a judge of a court
of record in the United States, or a United States magistrate
judge may, on proper oath or affirmation showing probable
cause to believe that there is on certain premises a plant,
plant product, biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance regulated under
this Act, issue a warrant for entry on the premises to
conduct an investigation or make an inspection or seizure
under this Act.
(2) Execution.--The warrant may be applied for and executed
by the Secretary or a United States marshal.
SEC. 202. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.
The Secretary may gather and compile information and
conduct such investigations as the Secretary considers
necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act.
SEC. 203. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority to Issue.--The Secretary may require by
subpoena--
(1) the attendance and testimony of a witness; and
(2) the production of all documentary evidence relating to
the administration or enforcement of this Act or a matter
under investigation in connection with this Act.
(b) Location of Production.--The attendance of a witness
and production of documentary evidence may be required from
any place in the United States at any designated place of
hearing.
(c) Enforcement of Subpoena.--If a person fails to comply
with a subpoena, the Secretary may request the Attorney
General to invoke the aid of a court of the United States
within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is
conducted, or where the person resides, is found, transacts
business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated, in
obtaining compliance.
(d) Fees and Mileage.--
(1) In general.--A witness summoned by the Secretary shall
be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid to a witness
in a court of the United States.
(2) Depositions.--A witness whose depositions is taken, and
the person taking the deposition, shall be entitled to the
same fees that are paid for similar services in a court of
the United States.
(e) Procedures.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall publish procedures for
the issuance of subpoenas under this section.
(2) Legal sufficiency.--The procedures shall include a
requirement that a subpoena be reviewed for legal sufficiency
and signed by the Secretary.
[[Page 1469]]
(3) Delegation.--If the authority to sign a subpoena is
delegated, the agency receiving the delegation shall seek
review for legal sufficiency outside that agency.
(f) Scope of Subpoena.--A subpoena for a witness to attend
a court in a judicial district or to testify or produce
evidence at an administrative hearing in a judicial district
in an action or proceeding arising under this Act may run to
any other judicial district.
SEC. 204. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.
(a) Criminal Penalties.--A person that knowingly violates
this Act, or that knowingly forges, counterfeits, or, without
authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or
destroys a certificate, permit, or other document provided
under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on
conviction, shall be fined in accordance with title 18,
United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Civil Penalties.--
(1) In general.--A person that violates this Act, or that
forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the
Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys a certificate,
permit, or other document provided under this Act may, after
notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record, be
assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary that does not
exceed the greater of--
(A) $50,000 in the case of an individual (except that the
civil penalty may not exceed $1,000 in the case of an initial
violation of this Act by an individual moving regulated
articles not for monetary gain), or $250,000 in the case of
any other person for each violation, except the amount of
penalties assessed under this subparagraph in a single
proceeding shall not exceed $500,000; or
(B) twice the gross gain or gross loss for a violation or
forgery, counterfeiting, or unauthorized use, defacing or
destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document
provided for in this Act that results in the person's
deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another
person.
(2) Factors in determining civil penalty.--In determining
the amount of a civil penalty, the Secretary--
(A) shall take into account the nature, circumstance,
extent, and gravity of the violation; and
(B) may take into account the ability to pay, the effect on
ability to continue to do business, any history of prior
violations, the degree of culpability of the violator, and
any other factors the Secretary considers appropriate.
(3) Settlement of civil penalties.--The Secretary may
compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, a
civil penalty that may be assessed under this subsection.
(4) Finality of orders.--
(A) In general.--An order of the Secretary assessing a
civil penalty shall be treated as a final order reviewable
under chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.
(B) Collection action.--The validity of an order of the
Secretary may not be reviewed in an action to collect the
civil penalty.
(C) Interest.--A civil penalty not paid in full when due
under an order assessing the civil penalty shall (after the
due date) accrue interest until paid at the rate of interest
applicable to a civil judgment of the courts of the United
States.
(c) Liability for Acts of an Agent.--For purposes of this
Act, the act, omission, or failure of an officer, agent, or
person acting for or employed by any other person within the
scope of employment or office of the officer, agent, or
person, shall be considered to be the act, omission, or
failure of the other person.
(d) Guidelines for Civil Penalties.--The Secretary shall
coordinate with the Attorney General to establish guidelines
to determine under what circumstances the Secretary may issue
a civil penalty or suitable notice of warning in lieu of
prosecution by the Attorney General of a violation of this
Act.
SEC. 205. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The Attorney General may--
(1) prosecute, in the name of the United States, a criminal
violation of this Act that is referred to the Attorney
General by the Secretary or is brought to the notice of the
Attorney General by any person;
(2) bring a civil action to enjoin the violation of or to
compel compliance with this Act, or to enjoin any
interference by a person with the Secretary in carrying out
this Act, if the Attorney General has reason to believe that
the person has violated or is about to violate this Act, or
has interfered, or is about to interfere, with the Secretary;
and
(3) bring a civil action for the recovery of an unpaid
civil penalty, funds under a reimbursable agreement, late
payment penalty, or interest assessed under this Act.
SEC. 206. COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 204(b), a
United States district court, the District Court of Guam, the
District Court of the Virgin Islands, the highest court of
American Samoa, and the United States courts of other
territories and possessions are vested with jurisdiction in
all cases arising under this Act.
(b) Location.--An action arising under this Act may be
brought, and process may be served, in the judicial district
where--
(1) a violation or interference occurred or is about to
occur; or
(2) the person charged with the violation, interference,
impending violation, impending interference, or failure to
pay resides, is found, transacts business, is licensed to do
business, or is incorporated.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. COOPERATION.
(a) In General.--To carry out this Act, the Secretary may
cooperate with--
(1) other Federal agencies or entities;
(2) States or political subdivisions of States;
(3) national governments;
(4) local governments of other nations;
(5) domestic or international organizations;
(6) domestic or international associations; and
(7) other persons.
(b) Responsibility.--The individual or entity cooperating
with the Secretary shall be responsible for conducting the
operations or taking measures on all land and property within
the foreign country or State, other than land and property
owned or controlled by the United States, and for other
facilities and means determined by the Secretary.
(c) Transfer of Biological Control Methods.--The Secretary
may transfer to a Federal or State agency or other person
biological control methods using biological control organisms
against plant pests or noxious weeds.
(d) Cooperation in Program Administration.--The Secretary
may cooperate with State authorities or other persons in the
administration of programs for the improvement of plants,
plant products, and biological control organisms.
SEC. 302. BUILDINGS, LAND, PEOPLE, CLAIMS, AND AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire and maintain
such real or personal property, and employ such persons, make
such grants, and enter into such contracts, cooperative
agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements,
as are necessary to carry out this Act.
(b) Tort Claims.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary may pay a tort claim (in the manner authorized in
the first paragraph of section 2672 of title 28, United
States Code) if the claim arises outside the United States in
connection with an activity authorized under this Act.
(2) Requirements of claim.--A claim may not be allowed
under paragraph (1) unless the claim is presented in writing
to the Secretary not later than 2 years after the claim
arises.
SEC. 303. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.
(a) Preclearance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a
reimbursable fee agreement with a person for preclearance (at
a location outside the United States) of plants, plant
products, biological control organisms, articles, and means
of conveyance for movement to the United States.
(2) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection
shall be credited to an account that may be established by
the Secretary and shall remain available until expended
without fiscal year limitation.
(b) Overtime.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, the
Secretary may pay an employee of the Department of
Agriculture performing services under this Act relating to
imports into and exports from the United States, for all
overtime, night, or holiday work performed by the employee,
at a rate of pay determined by the Secretary.
(2) Reimbursement of secretary.--The Secretary may require
a person for whom the services are performed to reimburse the
Secretary for funds paid by the Secretary for the services.
(3) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection
shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and
remain available until expended without fiscal year
limitation.
(c) Late Payment Penalty and Interest.--
(1) Collection.--On failure of a person to reimburse the
Secretary in accordance with this section, the Secretary may
assess a late payment penalty against the person.
(2) Interest.--Overdue funds due the Secretary under this
section shall accrue interest in accordance with section 3717
of title 31, United States Code.
(3) Account.--A late payment penalty and accrued interest
shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and
shall remain available until expended without fiscal year
limitation.
SEC. 304. PROTECTION FOR MAIL CARRIERS.
This Act shall not apply to an employee of the United
States in the performance of the duties of the employee in
handling the mail.
SEC. 305. REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.
The Secretary may promulgate such regulations, and issue
such orders, as the Secretary considers necessary to carry
out this Act.
SEC. 306. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED LAWS.
(a) Repeal.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Subsections (a) through (e) of section 102 of the
Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C.
147a).
[[Page 1470]]
(2) Section 1773 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
148f).
(3) The Golden Nematode Act (7 U.S.C. 150 et seq.).
(4) The Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.).
(5) The Joint Resolution of April 6, 1937 (56 Stat. 57,
chapter 69; 7 U.S.C. 148 et seq.).
(6) The Act of January 31, 1942 (56 Stat. 40, chapter 31; 7
U.S.C. 149).
(7) The Act of August 20, 1912 (commonly known as the
``Plant Quarantine Act'') (37 Stat. 315, chapter 308; 7
U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(8) The Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act (7 U.S.C. 1651 et
seq.).
(9) The Act of August 28, 1950 (64 Stat. 561, chapter 815;
7 U.S.C. 2260).
(10) The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et
seq.), other than the first section and section 15 of that
Act (7 U.S.C. 2801 note, 2814).
(b) Effect on Regulations.--Regulations promulgated under
the authority of a provision of law repealed by subsection
(a) shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary
promulgates a regulation under section 304 that supersedes
the earlier regulation.
TITLE IV--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
(b) Compensation.--Except as provided in section 106 and as
specifically authorized by law, no part of the amounts
appropriated under this section shall be used to provide
compensation for property injured or destroyed by or at the
direction of the Secretary.
SEC. 402. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority To Transfer Certain Funds.--In connection
with an emergency in which a plant pest or noxious weed
threatens a segment of the agricultural production of the
United States, the Secretary may transfer from other
appropriations or funds available to the agencies or
corporations of the Department of Agriculture such amounts as
the Secretary considers necessary to be available in the
emergency for the arrest, control, eradication, and
prevention of the dissemination of the plant pest or noxious
weed and for related expenses.
(b) Availability.--Any funds transferred under this section
shall remain available for such purposes without fiscal year
limitation.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 322. A bill to amend title 4, United States Code, to add the
Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the flag
should especially be displayed; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Recognition Act of 1999
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation that would amend the ``Flag Code'' to add the Martin Luther
King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the American flag should
be displayed nationwide.
It is a testament to the greatness of Martin Luther King, Jr., that
nearly every major city in the U.S. has a street or school named after
him. I have to admit, I was surprised to learn that the American flag
was not flown to commemorate the Dr. King holiday.
Dr. King, a minister, prolific writer and Nobel Prize winner
originated the nonviolence strategy within the activist civil rights
movement. He was one of the most important black leaders of his era and
in American history.
When Dr. King was tragically assassinated on April 4, 1968, he had
already transformed himself as a national hero and a pioneer in trying
to unite a divided nation. He strove to build communities of hope and
opportunity for all and recognized that all Americans must be free to
truly have a great country.
Dr. King was a person who wanted all people to get along regardless
of their race, color or creed. His holiday came about due to the work
of many determined people who wanted all of us to pause to remember his
legacy.
This legislation simply would make sure that we celebrate his
birthday as a federal holiday in the fashion afforded to other great
Americans whose birthdays are cause for national commemoration. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 322
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADDITION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HOLIDAY TO LIST
OF DAYS.
Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, third Monday
in January;'' after ``January 20;''.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 323. A bill to redesignate the Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Monument as a national park and establish the Gunnison Gorge
National Conservation Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
black canyon national park and gunnison gorge national conservation
area act of 1999
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation to create the Black Canyon National Park. This bill is
based on legislation which I introduced in the 104th Congress, but has
been revised to include additional input from the Bureau of Land
Management and the National Park Service. In 1996, as the former
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and
Recreation, I conducted a field hearing and received input from local
groups and individuals which I also incorporated into my new bill.
With its narrow opening, sheer walls, and scenic depths, the Black
Canyon is a jewel in North America. Nearly everyone who has visited the
site is struck by the breathtaking beauty of this 2,000 foot deep,
nearly impenetrable canyon. The canyon is also home to a vast
assortment of wildlife that range from chipmunks to black bear, from
bobcats to coyotes. Its unique combination of geologic features makes
the Black Canyon deserving of National Park status.
This legislation has been a long time coming to the State of
Colorado, and in particular, the Western Slope of my state. My Black
Canyon bill incorporates the input of the federal agencies involved
and, in my view, represents an innovative approach to protecting unique
natural resources for future generations in the most fiscally
responsible manner possible.
This legislation does far more than simply create a new national park
from what is now a national monument. This legislation establishes a
cooperative approach to managing this natural resource and calls on all
affected resource management agencies in the area to play key
collaborative roles.
I want to stress that this legislation does not increase federal
expenditures, and the collective management approach this legislation
creates does not in any way require, imply, or contemplate an attempt
by the Federal Government to usurp state water rights, state water law,
or intrude upon private property rights.
The Secretary of the Interior will manage the entire area and will be
able to utilize all available fiscal and human resources in the
administration and management of this natural resource in a unique,
money-saving manner. This legislation will also eliminate duplicate
operations and form a coordinated, efficient and fiscally responsible
management structure.
I have worked to forge consensus on this issue, and I am pleased to
propose this cooperative management plan for this beautiful example of
our natural heritage. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this
bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 323
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 ``Black Canyon National Park
and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument was
established for the preservation of its spectacular gorges
and additional features of scenic, scientific, and
educational interest;
(2) the Black Canyon and adjacent upland include a variety
of unique ecological, geological, scenic, historical, and
wildlife components enhanced by the serenity and rural
western setting of the area;
[[Page 1471]]
(3) the Black Canyon and adjacent land provide extensive
opportunities for educational and recreational activities,
and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and fishing, and
for wilderness value, including solitude;
(4) adjacent public land downstream of the Black Canyon of
the Gunnison National Monument has wilderness value and
offers unique geological, paleontological, scientific,
educational, and recreational resources;
(5) public land adjacent to the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Monument contributes to the protection of
the wildlife, viewshed, and scenic qualities of the Black
Canyon;
(6) some private land adjacent to the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Monument has exceptional natural and scenic
value, that, would be threatened by future development
pressures;
(7) the benefits of designating public and private land
surrounding the national monument as a national park include
greater long-term protection of the resources and expanded
visitor use opportunities; and
(8) land in and adjacent to the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison Gorge is--
(A) recognized for offering exceptional multiple use
opportunities;
(B) recognized for offering natural, cultural, scenic,
wilderness, and recreational resources; and
(C) worthy of additional protection as a national
conservation area, and with respect to the Gunnison Gorge
itself, as a component of the national wilderness system.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area''
means the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area,
consisting of approximately 57,725 acres surrounding the
Gunnison Gorge as depicted on the Map.
(2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Black
Canyon National Park and Gunnison Gorge NCA--1/22/99''.
(3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Black Canyon
National Park established under section 4 and depicted on the
Map.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACK CANYON NATIONAL PARK.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established the Black Canyon
National Park in the State of Colorado, as generally depicted
on the Map.
(2) Availability of map.--The Map shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the offices of the
National Park Service of the Department of the Interior.
(3) Redesignation of monument.--
(A) Termination of black canyon designation.--The
designation of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Monument in existence on the date of enactment of this Act is
terminated.
(B) Transfer.--All land and interests within the boundary
of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument are
incorporated in and made part of the Black Canyon National
Park, including--
(i) land and interests within the boundary of the Black
Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument as established by
section 2(a) of the first section of Public Law 98-357; and
(ii) any land and interests identified on the Map and
transferred by the Bureau of Land Management under this Act.
(C) Reference to park.--Any reference to the Black Canyon
of the Gunnison National Monument shall be deemed a reference
to Black Canyon National Park.
(D) Funds.--Any funds made available for the purposes of
the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument shall be
available for purposes of the Park.
(b) Authority.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the National Park Service, shall manage the Park subject
to valid rights, in accordance with this Act and the
provisions of law applicable to units of the National Park
System, including--
(1) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park
Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916
(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.);
(2) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects,
and antiquities of national significance, and for other
purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.);
and
(3) other applicable provisions of law.
(c) Grazing.--
(1) Grazing permitted.--The Secretary may permit grazing
within the Park, if the use of the Park for grazing is
permitted on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Grazing plan.--The Secretary shall prepare a grazing
management plan to administer any grazing activities within
the Park.
SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND MINOR BOUNDARY
ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Additional Acquisitions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land or
interests in land depicted on the Map as proposed additions.
(2) Method of acquisition.--
(A) In general.--Land or interests in land may be acquired
by--
(i) donation;
(ii) transfer;
(iii) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
(iv) exchange.
(B) Consent.--No land or interest in land may be acquired
without the consent of the owner of the land.
(b) Boundary Revision.--After acquiring land for the Park,
the Secretary shall--
(1) revise the boundary of the Park to include newly-
acquired land within the boundary; and
(2) administer newly-acquired land subject to applicable
laws (including regulations).
(c) Boundary Survey.--Not later than 5 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete an
official boundary survey of the Park
(d) Hunting on Privately Owned Lands.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may permit hunting on
privately owned land added to the Park under this Act,
subject to limitations, conditions, or regulations that may
be prescribed by the Secretary.
(2) Termination of authority.--On the date that the
Secretary acquires fee ownership of any privately owned land
added to the Park under this Act, the authority under
paragraph (1) shall terminate with respect to the privately
owned land acquired.
SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF THE BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON
WILDERNESS.
(a) Expansion of Black Canyon.--The Black Canyon of the
Gunnison Wilderness, as established by subsection (b) of the
first section of Public Law 94-567 (90 Stat. 2692), is
expanded to include the parcel of land depicted on the Map as
``Tract A'' and consisting of approximately 4,460 acres.
(b) Administration.--The Black Canyon of the Gunnison
Wilderness shall be administered as a component of the Park.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA.
(a) In General.--There is established the Gunnison Gorge
National Conservation Area, consisting of approximately
57,725 acres as generally depicted on the Map.
(b) Management of Conservation Area.--The Secretary, acting
through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall
manage the Conservation Area to protect the resources of the
Conservation Area in accordance with--
(1) this Act;
(2) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(3) other applicable provisions of law.
(c) Withdrawal of Land.--Subject to valid rights in
existence on the date of enactment of this Act, all Federal
land and interests within the Conservation Area acquired by
the United States are withdrawn from--
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.
(d) Permitted Uses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall permit hunting,
trapping, and fishing within the Conservation Area in
accordance with applicable laws (including regulations) of
the United States and the State of Colorado.
(2) Exception.--The Secretary, after consultation with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife, may issue regulations
designating zones where and establishing periods when no
hunting or trapping shall be permitted for reasons
concerning--
(A) public safety;
(B) administration; or
(C) public use and enjoyment.
(e) Use of Motorized Vehicles.--In addition to the use of
motorized vehicles on established roadways, the use of
motorized vehicles in the Conservation Area shall be
allowed--
(1) to the extent the use is compatible with off-highway
vehicle designations as described in the management plan in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) to the extent the use is practicable under a management
plan prepared under this Act.
(f) Conservation Area Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
(A) develop a comprehensive plan for the long-range
protection and management of the Conservation Area; and
(B) transmit the plan to--
(i) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate; and
(ii) the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Contents of plan.--The plan--
(A) shall describe the appropriate uses and management of
the Conservation Area in accordance with this Act;
(B) may incorporate appropriate decisions contained in any
management or activity plan for the area completed prior to
the date of enactment of this Act;
(C) may incorporate appropriate wildlife habitat management
plans or other plans prepared for the land within or adjacent
to the Conservation Area prior to the date of enactment of
this Act;
(D) shall be prepared in close consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, county, and local agencies; and
[[Page 1472]]
(E) shall use information developed prior to the date of
enactment of this Act in studies of the land within or
adjacent to the Conservation Area.
(g) Boundary Revisions.--The Secretary may make revisions
to the boundary of the Conservation Area following
acquisition of land necessary to accomplish the purposes for
which the Conservation Area was designated.
SEC. 8. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
AREA.
(a) Gunnison Gorge Wilderness.--
(1) In general.--Within the Conservation Area, there is
designated as wilderness, and as a component of the National
Wilderness Preservation System, the Gunnison Gorge
Wilderness, consisting of approximately 17,700 acres, as
generally depicted on the Map.
(2) Administration.--
(A) Wilderness study area exemption.--The approximately
300-acre portion of the wilderness study area depicted on the
Map for release from section 603 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782) shall not be
subject to section 603(c) of that Act.
(B) Incorporation into national conservation area.--The
portion of the wilderness study area described in
subparagraph (A) shall be incorporated into the Conservation
Area.
(b) Administration.--Subject to valid rights in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act, the wilderness areas
designated under this Act shall be administered by the
Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.).
(c) State Responsibility.--As provided in section 4(d)(7)
of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(7)), nothing in this
Act or in the Wilderness Act shall affect the jurisdiction or
responsibilities of the State of Colorado with respect to
wildlife and fish on the public land located in that State.
SEC. 9. WITHDRAWAL.
The land identified as tract B on the Map, consisting of
approximately 1,554 acres, is withdrawn--
(1) from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal
under the public land laws;
(2) from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
(3) from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal
leasing laws.
SEC. 10. WATER RIGHTS.
(a) Effect on Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall--
(1) constitute an express or implied reservation of water
for any purpose; or
(2) affect any water rights in existence prior to the date
of enactment of this Act, including any water rights held by
the United States.
(b) Additional Water Rights.--Any new water right that the
Secretary determines is necessary for the purposes of this
Act shall be established in accordance with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the laws of the State of
Colorado.
SEC. 11. STUDY OF LANDS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO CURECANTI
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Director of the National Park Service, shall conduct a study
concerning land protection and open space within and adjacent
to the area administered as the Curecanti National Recreation
Area.
(b) Purpose of Study.--The study required to be completed
under subsection (a) shall--
(1) assess the natural, cultural, recreational and scenic
resource value and character of the land within and
surrounding the Curecanti National Recreation Area (including
open vistas, wildlife habitat, and other public benefits);
(2) identify practicable alternatives that protect the
resource value and character of the land within and
surrounding the Curecanti National Recreation Area;
(3) recommend a variety of economically feasible and viable
tools to achieve the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and
(2); and
(4) estimate the costs of implementing the approaches
recommended by the study.
(c) Submission of Report.--Not later than 3 years from the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress that--
(1) contains the findings of the study required by
subsection (a);
(2) makes recommendations to Congress with respect to the
findings of the study required by subsection (a); and
(3) makes recommendations to Congress regarding action that
may be taken with respect to the land described in the
report.
(d) Acquisition of Additional Land and Interests in Land.--
(1) In general.--Prior to the completion of the study
required by subsection (a), the Secretary may acquire certain
private land or interests in land as depicted on the Map
entitled ``Proposed Additions to the Curecanti National
Recreation Area,'' dated 09/15/98, totaling approximately
1,065 acres and entitled ``Hall and Fitti properties''.
(2) Method of acquisition.--
(A) In general.--Land or an interest in land under
paragraph (1) may be acquired by--
(i) donation;
(ii) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
(iii) exchange.
(B) Consent.--No land or interest in land may be acquired
without the consent of the owner of the land.
(C) Boundary revisions following acquisition.--Following
the acquisition of land under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall--
(i) revise the boundary of the Curecanti National
Recreation Area to include newly-acquired land; and
(ii) administer newly-acquired land according to applicable
laws (including regulations).
SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
____
Montrose Chamber of Commerce,
Montrose, CO, January 26, 1999.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: The Montrose Chamber of Commerce,
Board of Directors, has been informed of your intent to
introduce legislation regarding the Black Canyon National
Park endeavor. We are writing to endorse the legislation. The
Black Canyon is truly one of God's gifts to Colorado. By
giving it National Park status, it receives the accolades it
deserves.
Please keep us apprised as to the status of the
legislation. If there is any way we can assist with your
efforts please do not hesitate to ask. We thank you for your
efforts and dedication to Western Colorado and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Marge Keehfuss,
Executive Director.
____
Board of County Commissioners,
Gunnison County, CO,
January 19, 1999.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Senator, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: As you are aware, the National Park
Service administers the lands within Curecanti National
Recreation Area under a 1965 agreement with the Bureau of
Reclamation. Colorado State Highway 92 is one of the most
scenic drives in Colorado as it skirts the Black Canyon on
the Gunnison within and adjacent to Curecanti. This portion
of the highway is also designated as a component of the West
Elk Loop Scenic and Historic Byway. The preservation of the
rural values now dominating Highway 92 will play an important
role in maintaining the quality of life for area residents as
well as providing a quality visitor experience worth
remembering. The National Park Service has been working with
two willing landowners that own property adjacent to Highway
92 and within the Curecanti National Recreation Area.
Collectively, this ownership represents 1,065 acres and
development of this significant amount of land would forever
alter the scenic values.
We realize the National Park Service has very limited
authority to acquire lands outside of its boundaries. This is
especially true for the recreation area since its boundary
has never been formally established. Therefore, it is our
understanding that specific authority will need to be granted
through legislation by Congress in order to adjust the
boundary and acquire these lands.
The Gunnison County Board of Commissioners is very
supportive of these properties being acquired by the National
Park Service. The Board of Commissioners would encourage you
to also support this acquisition and hopes you would consider
sponsoring legislation to achieve this goal. If you have any
questions regarding Gunnison County's support of this
acquisition or its importance, please don't hesitate to
contact my office.
Respectfully,
John DeVore,
County Manager.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 324. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to
registration requirements for practitioners who dispense narcotic drugs
in schedule IV or V for maintenance treatment or detoxification
treatment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 324, the
``Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999''--the DATA Act. The goal in
this bill is simple but it is important: S. 324 attempts to help make
drug treatment more available and more effective.
In developing this legislation I have worked closely with
Representative Thomas Bliley of Virginia, Chairman of the House
Committee on Commerce who plans to introduce shortly the House
counterpart of this bill. I am very pleased to report that in
sponsoring this bi-partisan bill I am joined by two colleagues from
across the aisle--Senator Levin from Michigan and Senator Moynihan from
New York. Senators Levin and Moynihan and I
[[Page 1473]]
have long shared an interest in speeding the development of anti-
addiction medications.
One of the most troublesome problems that our Nation faces today is
drug abuse. The spectrum of deleterious by-products of drug abuse
include rampant and often violent crime, breakdown in family life and
other fundamental social structures, and the inability of addicted
individuals to reach their full potential as contributing members of
American society. For example, a 1997 report by the Utah State Division
of Substance Abuse, ``Substance Abuse and Need for Treatment Among
Juvenile Arrestees in Utah'' cites literature reporting that heroin-
using offenders committed 15 times more robberies, 20 times more
burglaries, and 10 times more thefts than offenders who do not use
drugs.
In my own state of Utah--I am sorry to report--a 1997 survey by the
State Division of Substance Abuse reported that 9.6% of Utahns--one in
ten of our citizens--used illicit drugs in the past month. That is
simply too high.
Unfortunately, no state or city in our great Nation is immune from
the dangers of illicit drugs. I want the children of Utah to grow up
drug free so that they may realize their enormous potential. And I want
to help my neighbors in Salt Lake and fellow citizens across Utah and
throughout the country who are addicted to break the grip of this
deadly epidemic.
The wide variety of negative behaviors associated with drug abuse
require policymakers to employ a wide variety of techniques to cut down
both the supply of and demand for illegal drugs. We must do all we can
do to stop the criminal behavior involved in supplying the contraband
products as well as taking steps to stop all Americans from starting or
continuing to use drugs.
This legislation I am introducing today focuses on increasing the
availability and effectiveness of drug treatment. The purpose of the
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 is to allow qualified physicians,
as determined by experts at the Department of Health and Human
Services, to prescribe schedule IV and V anti-addiction medications in
physicians' offices without an additional Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) registration if certain conditions are met.
These conditions include certification by participating physicians
that: they are licensed under state law and have the training and
experience to treat opium addicts; they have the capacity to refer
patients to counseling and other ancillary services; and they will not
treat more than 20 in an office setting unless the Secretary of Health
and Human Services adjusts this number.
The DATA provisions allow the Secretary, as appropriate, to add to
these conditions and allow the Attorney General to terminate a
physician's DEA registration if these conditions are violated. This
program will continue after three years only if the Secretary and
Attorney General determine that this new type of decentralized
treatment should not continue based on a number of determinations.
These determinations include whether the availability of drug treatment
has significantly increased without adverse consequences to the public
health and the extent to which covered drugs have been diverted or
dispensed in violation of the law such as exceeding the initial 20-
patient per doctor limitation. This bill would allow the Secretary and
Attorney General to discontinue the program earlier than three years
if, upon consideration of the specified factors, they determine that
early termination is advisable.
Nothing in the waiver policy undertaken in the new bill is intended
to change the rules pertaining to methadone clinics or other facilities
or practitioners that conduct drug treatment services under the dual
registration system imposed by current law.
In drafting the waiver provisions of the bill, the co-sponsors have
consulted with the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. As well, this
initiative is consistent with the recent announcement of the Director
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, General Barry McCaffrey,
of the Administration's intent to work to decentralize methadone
treatment.
In 1995, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences issued a report, ``Development of Medications for Opiate and
Cocaine Addictions: Issues for the Government and Private Sector.'' The
study called for ``(d)eveloping flexible, alternative means of
controlling the dispensing of anti-addiction narcotic medications that
would avoid the `methadone model' of individually approved treatment
centers.''
The Drug Addiction Treatment Act--DATA--is exactly the kind of policy
initiative that experts have called for in America's multifaceted
response to the drug abuse epidemic. I recognize that the DATA
legislation is just one mechanism to attack this problem and I plan to
work with my colleagues to devise additional strategies to reduce both
the supply and demand for drugs. I urge all my colleagues to support S.
324 because it promises to get more patients into treatment and back on
the road to honest, productive lives.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 324 be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 324
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 ``Drug Addiction Treatment Act
of 1999''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.
Section 303(g) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
823(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(A) security'' and
inserting ``(i) security'', and by striking ``(B) the
maintenance'' and inserting ``(ii) the maintenance'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as
subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively;
(3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)'';
(4) by striking ``Practitioners who dispense'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (2),
practitioners who dispense''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (D) and (G), the
requirements of paragraph (1) are waived in the case of the
dispensing, by a practitioner, of narcotic drugs in schedule
IV or V or combinations of such drugs if the practitioner
meets the conditions specified in subparagraph (B) and the
narcotic drugs or combinations of such drugs meet the
conditions specified in subparagraph (C).
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the conditions
specified in this subparagraph with respect to a practitioner
are that, before dispensing narcotic drugs in schedule IV or
V, or combinations of such drugs, to patients for maintenance
or detoxification treatment, the practitioner submit to the
Secretary a notification of the intent of the practitioner to
begin dispensing the drugs or combinations for such purpose,
and that the notification contain the following
certifications by the practitioner:
``(i) The practitioner is a physician licensed under State
law, and the practitioner has, by training or experience, the
ability to treat and manage opiate-dependent patients.
``(ii) With respect to patients to whom the practitioner
will provide such drugs or combinations of drugs, the
practitioner has the capacity to refer the patients for
appropriate counseling and other appropriate ancillary
services.
``(iii) In any case in which the practitioner is not in a
group practice, the total number of such patients of the
practitioner at any one time will not exceed the applicable
number. For purposes of this clause, the applicable number is
20, except that the Secretary may by regulation change such
total number.
``(iv) In any case in which the practitioner is in a group
practice, the total number of such patients of the group
practice at any one time will not exceed the applicable
number. For purposes of this clause, the applicable number is
20, except that the Secretary may by regulation change such
total number, and the Secretary for such purposes may by
regulation establish different categories on the basis of the
number of practitioners in a group practice and establish for
the various categories different numerical limitations on the
number of such patients that the group practice may have.
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the conditions
specified in this subparagraph with respect to narcotic drugs
in schedule IV or V or combinations of such drugs are as
follows:
``(i) The drugs or combinations of drugs have, under the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or section 351 of the
Public Health Service Act, been approved for use in
maintenance or detoxification treatment.
[[Page 1474]]
``(ii) The drugs or combinations of drugs have not been the
subject of an adverse determination. For purposes of this
clause, an adverse determination is a determination published
in the Federal Register and made by the Secretary, after
consultation with the Attorney General, that the use of the
drugs or combinations of drugs for maintenance or
detoxification treatment requires additional standards
respecting the qualifications of practitioners to provide
such treatment, or requires standards respecting the
quantities of the drugs that may be provided for unsupervised
use.
``(D)(i) A waiver under subparagraph (A) with respect to a
practitioner is not in effect unless (in addition to
conditions under subparagraphs (B) and (C)) the following
conditions are met:
``(I) The notification under subparagraph (B) is in writing
and states the name of the practitioner.
``(II) The notification identifies the registration issued
for the practitioner pursuant to subsection (f).
``(III) If the practitioner is a member of a group
practice, the notification states the names of the other
practitioners in the practice and identifies the
registrations issued for the other practitioners pursuant to
subsection (f).
``(IV) A period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on
which the notification was submitted, and during such period
the practitioner does not receive from the Secretary a
written notice that one or more of the conditions specified
in subparagraph (B), subparagraph (C), or this subparagraph,
have not been met.
``(ii) The Secretary shall provide to the Attorney General
such information contained in notifications under
subparagraph (B) as the Attorney General may request.
``(E) If in violation of subparagraph (A) a practitioner
dispenses narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V or combinations
of such drugs for maintenance treatment or detoxification
treatment, the Attorney General may, for purposes of section
304(a)(4), consider the practitioner to have committed an act
that renders the registration of the practitioner pursuant to
subsection (f) to be inconsistent with the public interest.
``(F) In this paragraph, the term `group practice' has the
meaning given such term in section 1877(h)(4) of the Social
Security Act.
``(G)(i) This paragraph takes effect on the date of
enactment of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999, and
remains in effect thereafter except as provided in clause
(iii) (relating to a decision by the Secretary or the
Attorney General that this paragraph should not remain in
effect).
``(ii) For the purposes relating to clause (iii), the
Secretary and the Attorney General shall, during the 3-year
period beginning on the date of enactment of the Drug
Addiction Treatment Act of 1999, make determinations in
accordance with the following:
``(I)(aa) The Secretary shall--
``(aaa) make a determination of whether treatments provided
under waivers under subparagraph (A) have been effective
forms of maintenance treatment and detoxification treatment
in clinical settings;
``(bbb) make a determination regarding whether such waivers
have significantly increased (relative to the beginning of
such period) the availability of maintenance treatment and
detoxification treatment; and
``(ccc) make a determination regarding whether such waivers
have adverse consequences for the public health.
``(bb) In making determinations under this subclause, the
Secretary--
``(aa) may collect data from the practitioners for whom
waivers under subparagraph (A) are in effect;
``(bb) shall promulgate regulations (in accordance with
procedures for substantive rules under section 553 of title
5, United States Code) specifying the scope of the data that
will be required to be provided under this subclause and the
means through which the data will be collected; and
``(cc) shall, with respect to collecting such data, comply
with applicable provisions of chapter 6 of title 5, United
States Code (relating to a regulatory flexibility analysis)
and of chapter 8 of such title (relating to congressional
review of agency rulemaking).
``(II) The Attorney General shall--
``(aa) make a determination of the extent to which there
have been violations of the numerical limitations established
under subparagraph (B) for the number of individuals to whom
a practitioner may provide treatment;
``(bb) make a determination regarding whether waivers under
subparagraph (A) have increased (relative to the beginning of
such period) the extent to which narcotic drugs in schedule
IV or V or combinations of such drugs are being dispensed or
possessed in violation of this Act; and
``(cc) make a determination regarding whether such waivers
have adverse consequences for the public health.
``(iii) If, before the expiration of the period specified
in clause (ii), the Secretary or the Attorney General
publishes in the Federal Register a decision, made on the
basis of determinations under such clause, that this
paragraph should not remain in effect, this paragraph ceases
to be in effect 60 days after the date on which the decision
is so published. The Secretary shall, in making any such
decision, consult with the Attorney General, and shall, in
publishing the decision in the Federal Register, include any
comments received from the Attorney General for inclusion in
the publication. The Attorney General shall, in making any
such decision, consult with the Secretary, and shall, in
publishing the decision in the Federal Register, include any
comments received from the Secretary for inclusion in the
publication.
``(H) During the 3-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999, a
State may not preclude a practitioner from dispensing
narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V, or combinations of such
drugs, to patients for maintentance or detoxification
treatment in accordance with the Drug Addiction Treatment Act
of 1999, unless, before the expiration of that 3-year period,
the State enacts a law prohibiting a practitioner from
dispensing such drugs or combination of drugs.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 304 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph
(5), by striking ``section 303(g)'' each place the term
appears and inserting ``section 303(g)(1)''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 303(g)'' and
inserting ``section 303(g)(1)''.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the need for additional anti-
addiction medications is a matter of great concern to me and an issue
that I have been deeply involved with for a number of years. We must
come up with new medications which block the craving of heroin. This is
why I am very pleased to join with Senator Hatch and Senator Moynihan
in introducing legislation that would establish the infrastructure to
enable qualified physicians to prescribe schedule IV and V anti-
addiction medications in their offices without an additional DEA
registration if certain conditions are met. This will allow for a
promising new drug, buprenorphine, to be used in the treatment of
opiate addiction in physicians' offices, under a separate registration
from the Attorney General. Specific conditions would have to be met.
These conditions include: Certification by participating physicians
that they are licensed under state law and have the training and
experience to treat heroin addicts; and that they have the capacity to
refer patients to counseling and other ancillary services.
Mr. President, there are a number of reasons why this legislation is
necessary. The Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, requires separate
DEA registrations for physicians who want to use approved narcotics in
drug abuse treatment and separate approvals of registrants by U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by state agencies.
The result has been a treatment system consisting primarily of large
methadone clinics located in big cities, and preventing physicians from
treating patients in an office setting or in rural areas or small
towns, thereby denying treatment to thousands in need of it.
Additionally, experts say that many heroin addicts who want treatment
are often deterred because of the stigma that is associated with such
with such clinics.
The intent of our legislation is to exclude medications like
buprenorphine from burdensome regulatory requirements of the Narcotic
Treatment Act, in order to carry drug abuse treatment beyond the
methadone clinics and into physicians' offices. In so doing, the
legislation includes protections against abuse. These protections
include the following: Physicians may not treat more than 20 patients
in an office setting unless the HHS Secretary adjusts this number; the
HHS Secretary, as appropriate, may add to these conditions and allow
the Attorney General to terminate a physician's DEA registration if
these conditions are violated; and the program will continue after
three years only if the HHS Secretary and Attorney General determine
that this new type of decentralized treatment should continue based on
a number of determinations.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], under a Cooperative
Research and Development Agreement with a pharmaceutical manufacturer,
has helped to develop buprenorphine, which is expected to be approved
by the Food and Drug Administration in the near future. The Congress,
NIDA and the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM)
have long recognized the urgent need to develop
[[Page 1475]]
new medications for drug addiction treatment. This is evident in the
enactment of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which established the
Medications Development Division of the National Institute on Drug
Abuse, and the enactment of legislation requiring HHS and IOM to
cooperate in the development of anti-addiction medications.
Recent data show that five out of six opiate addicts are currently
not in treatment. This has contributed to a continuing public health
crisis of significant proportions--the age of first heroin use is
dropping; the number of heroin users is increasing; and the number of
people becoming dependent on heroin is increasing. According to NIDA,
the incidence of first-time use of heroin in the 12-17 year old group
has increased fourfold from the 1980s to 1995.
These facts and sentiments were also expressed by experts in this
field of critical importance to the Nation during a May 9, 1997 Drug
Forum on Anti-addiction Research, which I convened along with Senator
Moynihan and Senator Bob Kerrey. Forum participants, including
distinguished experts such as Dr. Herbert Kleber and Dr. Donald Landry
of Columbia University, Dr. Charles Schuster of Wayne State University
and Dr. James Woods of the University of Michigan, made it crystal
clear that time is of the essence--we must act expeditiously on new
treatment discoveries. According to public health experts, the
untreated population of opiate addicts (and other injection drug users)
is the primary means for the spread of HIV, hepatitis B and C, and
tuberculosis into the general population, not to mention the families
of such addicted persons. Failure to block the craving for drugs along
with failure to provide traditional treatment will most certainly
continue the spiral of huge health care costs--costs that will largely
be borne not by the addicts, not by insurance companies--but by the
American taxpayer.
Buprenorphine, currently in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances
Act, has a unique property--it has a ceiling effect, it is well
tolerated by opiate addicted persons, and has a very low value for
diversion on the street. Clinical trials conducted in 12 hospitals
around the United States proved the new medication to be an extremely
effective treatment medication. According to NIDA, of the 100,000
heroin addicts in France, between 40,000-50,000 addicts are being
treated with buprenorphine without ill effects. Dr. Donald Wesson,
Chairman of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM)
Medication Development Committee wrote:
(The availability of buprenorphine in physicians' offices
adds a needed level of care and is one avenue to expand
current opioid treatment capacity. ASAM strongly supports
federal legislation to enable buprenorphine to be prescribed
in physicians' offices for treatment of opioid dependence . .
. We are very pleased to see that the bill makes provisions
for physician training and qualification.)
Mr. President, finally, there are a number of questions that I raised
with NIDA regarding buprenorphine prior to the introduction of this
legislation which I would like to share with my colleagues in the
Senate. I would also like to share the informative memo on this subject
which I received from The American Society of Addiction Medicine
(ASAM). I ask unanimous consent that the October 5, 1998 reply from
NIDA Director, Dr. Alan Leshner, and the October 8, 1998 memo from Dr.
Donald R. Wesson of ASAM be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institute on Drug Abuse,
Rockville, MD, October 5, 1998.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for your letter dated
September 17 requesting the views of the National Institute
on Drug Abuse (NIDA) regarding the use of buprenorphine and
buprenorphine/naloxone for the treatment of opiate
dependence. Your letter asked us to address three specific
questions. Our answers are provided below.
Question No. 1. Is buprenorphine (alone and in combination)
a safe and effective treatment for drug addiction?
While the ultimate decision concerning safety and efficacy
rests with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), NIDA has
funded many studies that support the safety and efficacy of
buprenorphine and the buprenorphine/naloxone combination for
the treatment of opiate dependence. During the time NIDA has
studied this medication, we have been impressed with its
safety and efficacy as a treatment for opiate dependence.
Over the last 5 years, NIDA has worked with Reckitt & Colman
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., under a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement in an attempt to bring buprenorphine
(which the FDA has designated as an orphan product), to a
marketable status in the United States. These studies have
been submitted by Reckitt & Colman to the FDA in support of a
New Drug Application for buprenorphine products in the
treatment of opiate dependence. The major studies of
relevance have shown that buprenorphine is more effective
than a low dose of methadone (Johnson et al, J.A.M.A., 1992),
and that an orderly dose effect of buprenorphine on reduction
of opiate use occurred (Ling et al, Addiction, 1998). Most
recently, buprenorphine tablets (either buprenorphine alone
or the combination with naxolone) were shown in a large
clinical trial to be superior to placebo treatment in
reducing opiate use (Fudala et al, CPDD, 1998). Additional
clinical studies have shown that the addition of naxolone to
the buprenorphine tablet decreased the response to
buprenorphine when the combination is injected under
controlled conditions. This means that when persons attempt
to dissolve the tablets and inject them, they will either
experience withdrawal or a diminished buprenorphine effect.
These properties will make buprenorphine combined with
naxolone undesirable for diversion to illicit use, especially
when compared with other existing illegal and legal opiate
products.
Pharmacologically, buprenorphine is related to morphine but
is a partial agonist (possesses both agonist and antagonist
properties). Partial agonists exhibit ceiling effects (i.e.,
increasing the dose only has effects to a certain level).
Therefore, partial agonists usually have greater safety
profiles than full agonists (such as heroin or morphine and
certain analgesic products chemically related to morphine).
This means that buprenorphine is less likely to cause
respiratory depression, the major toxic effect of opiate
drugs, in comparison to full agonists such as morphine or
heroin. We believe this will translate into a greatly reduced
chance of accidental or intentional overdose. Another benefit
of buprenorphine is that the withdrawal syndrome seen upon
discontinuation with buprenorphine is, at worst, mild to
moderate and can often be managed without administration of
narcotics.
Question No. 2. Do current regulations properly set forth
the rules for administration, delivery, and use of these
drugs?
There are no current regulations which address the use of
buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone for the treatment of
opiate dependence because these products are not yet approved
for this purpose by the FDA. The current regulations (21 CFR
291) for administration and delivery of narcotic medications
in the treatment of narcotic dependent persons were written
for the use of full agonist medications such as methadone
with demonstrated abuse potential and do not take into
account the unique pharmacological properties of these drugs.
Therefore, these regulations would need to be re-examined and
substantially rewritten in order to recognize the unique
possibilities posed by buprenorphine/naloxone. Among these
are the potential to administer buprenorphine and
buprenorphine/naloxone in settings and situations other than
the formal Narcotic Treatment Programs (NTPs) which have
existed to date under existing regulations. As you may be
aware, NTPs are the most highly regulated form of medicine
practiced in the U.S., as they are subject to Federal, State,
and local regulation. Under this regulatory burden, expansion
of this system has been static for many years. This has
resulted in a ``treatment gap'', which is defined as the
difference between the number of opiate dependent persons and
those in treatment. The gap currently is over 600,000 persons
and represents 75-80% of all addicts.
It may be useful to note the status of the last new product
introduced to the opiate dependence treatment market
(levoacetyl methadol, tradename ORLAAM). ORLAAM was an orphan
product developed by NIDA and a U.S. small business in the
early 1990s for narcotic dependence. ORLAAM was approved by
the FDA as a treatment medication for opiate dependence in
July 1993. In the five years since its approval and
dispensing under the more restrictive rules relating to the
use of full agonist medications (21 CFR 291), ORLAAM has been
poorly utilized to increase treatment for narcotic
dependence. It is estimated that 2,000 of the estimated
120,000 patients in narcotic treatment programs are receiving
ORLAAM. The failure of ORLAAM to make an appreciable impact
under the more restrictive rules suggests that if
buprenorphine is to make an appreciable impact on the
``treatment gap'' it must be delivered under different rules
and regulations.
[[Page 1476]]
The issue then becomes why should buprenorphine products be
delivered differently from ORLAAM and methadone. First,
buprenorphine's different pharmacology should be kept in mind
when rules and regulations are promulgated. The regulatory
burden should be determined based on a review of the risks to
individuals and society of this medication being dispensed by
prescription and commensurate with its safety profile, as is
the case with evaluation of all controlled substances. It is
our understanding that the Drug Enforcement Administration
has recognized the difference between buprenorphine treatment
products and those currently subject to 21 CFR 291 and has
communicated these views to your staff. Second, there are
many narcotic addicts who refuse treatment under the current
system. In a recent NIDA funded study (NIDA/VA #1008),
approximately 50% of the subjects had never been in treatment
before. Of that group, fully half maintained that they did
not want treatment in the current narcotic treatment program
system. The opportunity to participate in a new treatment
regimen (buprenorphine) was a motivating factor. Fear of
stigmatization is a very real factor holding back narcotic
dependent individuals from entering treatment. Third,
narcotic addiction is spreading from urban to suburban areas.
The current system, which tends to be concentrated in urban
areas, is a poor fit for the suburban spread of narcotic
addiction. There are many communities whose zoning will not
permit the establishment of narcotic treatment facilities,
which has in part been responsible for the treatment gap
described above. While narcotic treatment capacity has been
static, there has been an increase in the amount of heroin of
high purity. The high purity of this heroin has made it
possible to nasally ingest (snort) or smoke heroin. This
change in the route of heroin administration removes a major
taboo, injection and its attendant use of needles, from
initiation and experimentation with heroin use. The result of
these new routes of administration is an increase in the
number of younger Americans experimenting with, and becoming
addicted to, heroin. The incidence of first-time use of
heroin in the 12 to 17 year old group has increased fourfold
from the 1980s to 1995. Treatment for adolescents should be
accessible, and graduated to the level of dependence
exhibited in the patient. Buprenorphine products will likely
be the initial medication(s) for most of the heroin-dependent
adolescents.
Question No. 3: Should more physicians be permitted to
dispense these drugs under controlled circumstances?
It is our contention that more treatment should be made
more widely available for the reasons stated above. The
safety and effectiveness profiles for buprenorphine and
buprenorphine/naloxone suggest they could be dispensed under
controlled circumstances that would be delineated in the
product labeling and associated rules and regulations. As
currently envisioned, buprenorphine and buprenorphine/
naloxone would be prescription, Schedule V controlled
substances. The treatment of patients by physicians or group
practice would allow office-based treatment to augment the
current system, while placing an adequate level of control on
the dispensing of these medications. Given the increased need
for treatment, the relative safety and efficacy of the
treatment product, and the development of a regulatory scheme
satisfactory to the Department of Health and Human Services,
we believe that these goals could be accomplished in a timely
and effective manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions.
Should you need additional information, please feel free to
contact me again.
Sincerely,
Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D,
Director.
____
Chairman, Medication Development Committee, The American Society of
Addiction Medicine, October 8, 1998
(By Donald R. Wesson, M.D.)
Clinical experience within the context of narcotic
treatment clinics, drug abuse treatment clinics, and private
practice shows that opioid \1\ abusers are very diverse in
lifestyle, extent of involvement in the drug subculture, and
criminal activities. Clinical experience has also established
that many opioid abusers relapse to opioid use unless they
are maintained on medications with opioid properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Opioid is a broad term that covers drugs and medications
with morphine-like effects. Technically, opiate refers to
drugs or medications that are derived from the opium poppy
plant. The most common abused opiate is heroin; however,
synthetic medications with morphine-like effects, such a
fentanyl, are also abused. Opioid is the more inclusive term.
Opioid and opiate are often used interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opioid maintenance treatment, by blocking the effect of
illicit opioids and stabilizing patients' emotional states,
allows patients to receive outpatient treatment while making
the life-style changes needed to remain abstinent. Most
opioid abusers will relapse to illicit opioid abuse unless
they are also provided drug counseling, group therapy or
individual psychotherapy; however, all opioid abusers do not
require the same level of drug abuse treatment services. Some
need the highly-structured, behavior modification services
and maintenance with methadone or LAAM. Others require less
intensive drug abuse treatment and could be adequately
treated with a less potent opioid maintenance medication,
such as buprenorphine, provided within the context of
physicians' offices in conjunction with an appropriate level
of psychosocial services.
Treatment of opioid addiction has for many years been
separated from mainstream medical practice. There is a body
of specialized knowledge concerning treatment of opioid
addiction that has evolved from clinical experience with
methadone maintenance and from non-narcotic treatment of
opioid addiction. Unlike most areas of medicine in which
physicians voluntarily confine their medical practice to
areas in which they have specialized training, treatment of
drug abusers is unusual in that many physicians may assume
competence that they may not, in fact, possess. At the
present time, many physicians who are not addiction
specialists do not understand addiction, particularly
narcotic addiction. Further, there are no generally accepted
practice guidelines for office-based narcotic addiction
treatment.
The American Society on Addiction Medicine strongly
supports the position that physicians appropriately trained
and qualified in the treatment of opiate withdrawal and
opiate dependence should be permitted to prescribe
buprenorphine in the normal course of medical practice and in
accordance with appropriate medical practice guidelines, and
that federal controlled substance scheduling guidelines and
other federal and state regulations should permit
buprenorphine to be made available for physicians to
prescribe to their patients in accordance with documented
clinical indications.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Adopted by ASAM Board April 15, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has a
certification examination in addiction medicine and the
American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology has a
certification examination in addiction psychiatry. The
American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American
Methadone Treatment Association and the American Academy of
Addiction Psychiatry have agreed to develop guidelines and
physician training for use of opioids in office-based
physician practices.
It is highly desirable that physicians who plan to
prescribe opioids from their offices be certified by one of
the national organizations that offers training and
certification in addiction medicine or psychiatry.
A problem with current federal regulation of opioid
treatment is that opioid maintenance is viewed as a treatment
of last resort and only possible within the context of
specially licensed clinics with methadone or LAAM. Because of
costs, or limited public sector treatment capacity, or
because they do not meet state and federal requirements for
maintenance with methadone or LAAM, many patients who need
opioid medication treatment cannot access methadone or LAAM
treatment. The availability of buprenorphine in physicians'
offices adds a needed level of care and is one avenue to
expand current opioid treatment capacity.
______
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Inhofe, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Thomas, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Lott):
S. 325. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax incentives to encourage production of oil and gas within the United
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the u.s. energy economic growth act
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
the U.S. Energy Economic Growth Act.
Mr. President, the oil and gas industry in this country is in a state
of crisis. In energy producing states, we are hearing daily from our
constituents about this crisis.
This week the oil and gas rig count hit an all-time low of 588 rigs
nationwide. This is down from nearly 5,000 rigs operating in 1981.
Crude oil prices are at their lowest point in decades, and some think
they will fall further.
According to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, for every
dollar drop in the price of oil, ten thousand Texas jobs are at risk.
Last year, the energy industry lost 30,000 jobs in the United States.
Mr. President, not only is this an economic issue, it's a national
security issue. We are importing more oil than we produce. This is not
a healthy situation for shaping our foreign policy agenda.
To reverse these trends and increase our energy independence, I have
[[Page 1477]]
worked, on a bi-partisan basis, to develop the U.S. Energy Economic
Growth Act.
This legislation provides tax incentives in two significant areas to
boost U.S. oil production. First, the legislation would provide a $3
dollar a barrel tax credit, on the first three barrels that can offset
the cost of keeping marginal wells operating at a time of low prices.
Marginal wells are those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. On
average, they produce two barrels a day. There are close to 500,000
such wells across the U.S. that collectively produce 20 percent of
America's oil. To put this in perspective, we import 20 percent of our
oil from Saudia Arabia. Texas, alone, has 100,000 marginal wells.
Regrettably, 48,000 wells have been idled or shut in the past year.
In recent months, some marginal well producers report prices as low
as $6 per barrel. If we don't act soon, these producers--and the
thousands they employ--will go out of business.
These marginal wells can still be profitable for all of us. In 1998,
these low-volume wells generated $314 million in taxes paid annually to
state governments.
Second, Mr. President, the bill would provide incentives to restart
inactive wells by offering producers a tax exemption for the costs of
doing so.
In Texas, a similar program has resulted in 6,000 wells being
returned to production, injecting approximately $1.65 billion into the
Texas economy.
Mr. President, improving the production and flow from both marginal
wells and inactive wells will do a great deal to improve our energy
production. This is vital to improving the state of the U.S. oil and
gas industry.
I am pleased that this legislation has 18 co-sponsors from both sides
of the aisle. I would invite all members of the Senate to join me as a
co-sponsor.
This morning I testified before the Senate Energy Committee on this
bill. Certainly that Committee recognizes the gravity of this
situation. I would hope that, with the introduction of this bill, the
Senate as a whole will begin to focus on this problem and we can begin
finding solutions.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to join in offering
the U.S. Energy and Economic Growth Act. This legislation is an effort
to help revive our domestic oil and gas industry which plays such a
vital role in our national security. If our domestic industry is to
survive, then Congress needs to act now to provide tax incentives to
encourage energy production in America.
Since the early 1980's, oil and gas extraction employment has been
cut in half. Employment in the oil and gas industry has declined by
almost 500,000 since 1984. Imports of crude oil products were $71
billion in 1977, and the import dependency ratio now exceeds fifty
percent. From 1973 to 1998, crude oil production dropped 43% in the
lower 48 states. We must take action now to save domestic production
not only for the sake of the oil and gas industry but for the sake of
the national security of this nation.
To date, the Clinton Administration has done nothing to encourage
domestic production. In the President's State of the Union address, he
named no initiatives to aid this troubled industry and recently, his
Administration has conspired with the U.N. to almost double the amount
of oil Iraq can export under the so-called food-for-oil program.
The U.S. Energy and Economic Growth Act is intended to do just what
its name implies--preserve and revitalize the domestic oil and gas
industry through economic incentives to production. This bill would
accomplish these goals through specific tax proposals.
Marginal wells are those which produce less than 15 barrels per day
or gas wells which produce less than 90 thousand cubic feet per day.
The United States has over 500,000 marginal wells producing nearly 700
million barrels of oil each year and contributing 80,000 jobs and $14
billion to the annual economy.
This legislation provides incentives to keep these valuable wells in
production through a $3 per barrel tax credit on the first three
barrels of daily production, or $0.50 per mcf for the first 18 mcf of
daily natural gas production. These credits would only apply when low
market prices necessitated them for the survival of the industry, and
are phased out when prices increase.
In an effort to reclaim oil lost to closed wells, this bill allows
producers to exclude income attributable to oil and natural gas from a
recovered inactive well. The provision only applies to wells which have
been inactive for at least two years prior to the date of enactment,
and which are recovered within five years from the date of enactment.
The U.S. Energy and Economic Growth Act would also allow current
expensing of geological and geophysical costs incurred domestically
including the Outer Continental Shelf. These costs are an important and
integral part of exploration and production for oil and natural gas,
and should be expensed.
Furthermore, this bill clarifies that delay rental payments are
deductible, at the election of the taxpayer, as ordinary and necessary
business expenses. This clarifies an otherwise gray area in Treasury
regulations and eliminates costly administrative and compliance burdens
on both taxpayers and the IRS.
Lastly, the legislation includes hydro injection and horizontal
drilling as tertiary recovery methods for purposes of the Enhanced Oil
Recovery Credit. Although the Treasury Department is tasked with
continued evaluations and editions to the list of recovery methods
covered under this credit, they have proven notably lax in pursuing
this objective. By legislating this outcome, this bill keeps domestic
production of our endangered marginal wells on the cutting edge of
available technology.
Collectively, the provisions of this bill provide much needed
incentives to an industry that is vital to our national security. The
sooner the Administration and Congress acknowledge the critical
importance of the domestic oil and gas industry and stop burdening this
industry with high taxes and regulatory obstacles, the sooner we can
take the necessary actions to preserve and revitalize this important
sector of our economy. Passage of the U.S. Energy and Economic Growth
Act would be a significant step in that direction. I urge my colleagues
to support this legislation which will positively impact the domestic
oil and gas industry by helping to bridge the gap in these lean
economic times.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator
Hutchison, many members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
and other Senators who recognize the importance of our domestic energy
market in presenting the United States Energy Economic Growth Act. This
act is extremely important given the current state of our domestic oil
and gas industry. The current market, coupled with government inaction
and misguided regulation, has created an environment that is forcing
many of our producers out of the energy market.
I have risen many times before, and unless things change I will rise
many times again, to voice my concern over that fact that we are
running our producers into the ground. Agriculture, timber, mining and
energy; it doesn't seem to make a difference these days which natural
resource market you work in, you don't get a fair price for an honest
day's work.
This morning in the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, we had a
hearing on this very problem. I must say, I heard some of the best
testimony that I have ever heard before a Senate Committee. It just
made good sense. We didn't have people asking for handouts. We didn't
have people placing blame. We had some hard working oil and gas
producers, state governors and representatives of oil and gas producing
states outline the problem and offer solutions.
One of the biggest problems discussed was the loss of domestic
production capability in the form of marginal wells. We are losing
these wells at an alarming rate. As a result our reliance on foreign
energy sources is skyrocketing. We are running our producers out of
business, increasing our dependence on
[[Page 1478]]
foreign oil, and throwing our trade balance askew.
This legislation will help our independent producers running marginal
wells stay in business. Much more needs to be done, but this bill will
help relax the heavy hand of government on an ailing industry. As
pointed out this morning, the current administration stepped in to help
the straw broom industry when less than a hundred jobs were at risk.
It's time this Congress takes a stand, and hopefully the administration
will join us, in supporting an industry where tens of thousands of
jobs, our national security, and our economic well-being are all being
placed at risk.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Enzi,
Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Collins, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Hagel, and Mr.
Sessions);
S. 326. A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to
quality, affordable health care, to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with
eight other members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions in introducing the ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' I think it is
solid legislation that will result in a greatly improved health care
system for Americans.
As Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, with its jurisdiction of private health insurance and public
health programs, I anticipate that the Committee will have an active
health care agenda during the 106th Congress, including early
consideration of patient protection legislation. In fact, on January
20th, the Committee held a hearing on the Department of Labor's
proposed rules on health plan information requirements and internal and
external appeals rights.
Last week's hearing builds on the foundation of 14 related hearings,
which my Committee held during the 105th Congress. These included 11
hearings related to the issues of health care quality, confidentiality,
genetic discrimination, and the Health Care Financing Administration's
(HCFA) implementation of its new health insurance responsibilities. And
Senator Bill Frist's Public Health and Safety Subcommittee held three
hearings on the work of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
(AHCPR). Each of these hearings helped us in developing the separate
pieces of legislation that are reflected in our ``Patients' Bill of
Rights.''
People need to know what their plan will cover and how they will get
their health care. The ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' requires full
information disclosure by an employer about the health plans he or she
offers to employees. Patients also need to know how adverse decisions
by the plan can be appealed, both internally and externally, to an
independent medical reviewer.
The limited set of standards under the Employee Retirement and Income
Security Act (ERISA) may have worked well for the simple payment of
health insurance claims under the fee-for-service system in 1974. We
have moved from a system where an individual received a treatment or
procedure, and the bill was simply paid. In our current system, an
individual frequently obtains authorization before a treatment or
procedure can be provided. And it is in the context of these changes
that ERISA needs to be amended in order to give participants and
beneficiaries the right to appeal adverse coverage or medical necessity
decisions to an independent medical expert.
Under the ``Patients' Bill of Rights,'' enrollees will get timely
decisions about what will be covered. Furthermore, if an individual
disagrees with the plan's decision, that individual may appeal the
decision to an independent, external reviewer. The reviewer's decision
will be binding on the health plan. However, the patient maintains his
or her current rights to go to court. Timely utilization decisions and
a defined process for appealing such decisions is the key to restoring
trust in the health care system.
Another important provision of the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' would
limit the collection and use of predictive genetic information by group
health plans and health insurance companies. As our body of scientific
knowledge about genetics increases, so, too, do the concerns about how
this information may be used. There is no question that our
understanding of genetics has brought us to a new future. Our challenge
as a Congress is to quickly enact legislation to help ensure that our
society reaps the full health benefits of genetic testing, and also to
put to rest any concerns that the information will be used as a new
tool to discriminate against specific ethnic groups or individual
Americans.
Our legislation addresses these concerns by prohibiting group health
plans and health insurance companies in all markets from adjusting
premiums on the basis of predictive genetic information; and it
prohibits group health plans and health insurance companies from
requesting predictive genetic information as a condition of enrollment.
Many of our colleagues argue that the current accountability
structure of ERISA is insufficient to protect patients from bad
decisions made by health plans. They would like to hold health plans
accountable by removing the ERISA preemption and allowing group health
plans to be sued in State court for damages resulting from personal
injury or for wrongful death due to ``the treatment of or the failure
to treat a mental illness or disease.''
Mr. President, patients already have the right to sue their health
plan in State court. Patients can sue health plans for personal injury
or wrongful death resulting from the delivery of substandard care or
the failure to diagnose and properly treat an illness or disease.
Furthermore, the courts have determined that health plans can be held
liable for having policies that encourage providers to deliver
inadequate medical care.
You simply cannot sue your way to better health. We believe that
patients need to get the care they need when they need it. In the
``Patients' Bill of Rights,'' we make sure each patient is afforded
every opportunity to have the right treatment decision made by health
care professionals. And, we make sure that a patient can appeal an
adverse decision to an independent medical expert outside the health
plan. This approach, Mr. President, puts teeth into ERISA and will
assure that patients get the care they need. Prevention, not
litigation, is the best medicine.
As the Health and Education Committee works on health care quality
legislation, I will keep in mind three goals. First, to give families
the protections they want and need. Second, to ensure that medical
decisions are made by physicians in consultation with their patients.
And, finally, to keep the cost of this legislation low, so that it
displaces no one from getting health care coverage.
Our goal is to give Americans the protections they want and need in a
package that they can afford and that we can enact. This is why I hope
the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' we have introduced today will be
enacted and signed into law by the President.
______
By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grams, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Warner):
S. 327. A bill to exempt agricultural products, medicines, and
medical products from U.S. economic sanctions; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
____________________