[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3604-S3622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bryan,
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Burns, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bennett,
Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Pressler):
S. 506. A bill to amend the general mining laws to provide a
reasonable royalty from mineral activities on Federal lands, to specify
reclamation requirements for mineral activities on Federal lands, to
create a State program for the reclamation of abandoned hard rock
mining sites on Federal lands, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
mining law reform act
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in the last Congress, Members in the Senate
and our colleagues in the other Chamber worked hard to reform the laws
under which the U.S. mining industry operate on the vast Federal lands
of the west. Members on both sides of the aisle, from all regions of
the country, acknowledged that the mining law of 1872 needed change.
While I was disappointed we did not pass legislation in the last
Congress to reform mining law, I would have been more disappointed if
Congress had accepted some of the reform proposals that were put
forward at that time. The reason for my concern was the proposals
offered at that time did not meet my primary test of fair legislation.
That test is this country's mining industry that annually contributes
approximately $53 billion to our economy will not be driven to economic
ruin nor to operate only in other countries.
Today, I am introducing, a bipartisan bill in conjunction with
Chairman Murkowski, Senator Reid and 10 other of my colleagues. The
Mining Law Reform Act of 1995, is a bill which will ensure continued
mineral production in the United States. It provides for a fair
economic return from minerals extracted on public lands, and will link
mining practices on Federal lands to State and Federal environmental
laws and land-use plans. This bill provides a balanced and equitable
solution to concerns raised over the existing mining law.
Mining in the United States is an important part of our Nation's
economy. It serves the national interest by maintaining a steady and
reliable supply of the materials that drive our industries. Revenue
from mining fuels local economies by providing family income and
preserving community tax bases. Mining has become an American success
story. Fifteen years ago, U.S. manufacturers were forced to rely on
foreign producers for 75 percent of the gold they needed. Today, the
United States is more than self-sufficient. The domestic mining
industry not only meets the demand, but produces a gold surplus of 36
percent, worth $1.5 billion in export balance of payments.
Mining, however, is a business associated with enormous up-front
costs and marginal profits. Excessive royalties discourage, and in
other countries have discouraged, mineral exploration. Too large a
royalty would undermine the competitiveness of the mining industry. The
end result of excessive Government involvement would be the movement of
mining operations overseas and the loss of American jobs. The
legislation I am introducing today will keep U.S. mines competitive and
prevent the movement of U.S. jobs to other countries.
The general mining law is the cornerstone of U.S. mining practices.
It establishes a useful relationship between industry and Government to
promote the extraction of minerals from mineral rich Federal lands.
Although the cornerstone of this law was originally enacted in 1872, it
remains to function effectively today. The law has
been amended and revised many times since its original passage. The
legislation I am introducing today preserves the solid foundation
provided by this law and makes some important revisions that address
the concerns that have been paramount in this debate that I have been
involved in for nearly a decade.
Specifically, the Mining Law Reform Act of 1995 will insure revenue
to the Federal Government by imposing fair and equitable net royalties.
It requires payment of fair market value for lands to be mined. It
assures lands will return to the public sector it they are not
developed for mineral production, as is intended in this legislation.
Furthermore, to prevent mining interests from using patented land for
purposes other than mining, the bill limits residential occupancy to
that which is only necessary to carry out mining activities.
To ensure mining activities do not unnecessarily degrade Federal
lands, the Mining Law Reform Act mandates compliance with all Federal
State and local environmental laws with regard to land use and
reclamation. To enforce these provisions, the bill includes civil
penalties and the authority for compliance orders.
Finally, this bill creates a program to address the environmental
problems associated with abandoned mines. Working directly with the
States, the Mining Law Reform Act directs one-third of the royalty
receipts to abandoned mine cleanup programs; another one-third of those
receipts could be used by States if they so decided.
The legislation I am proposing today is in the best interest of the
American people because it provides revenue from public resources,
assures mines will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner
and that abandoned mines from earlier eras will be reclaimed. It is
fair to mining interests because it imposes reasonable fees and
royalties. It is good for the environment because it assures land use
and reclamation activities. I ask my colleagues to join me in support
of this legislation and look forward to hearings and Senate legislative
action.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today
in introducing legislation to reform the mining law of 1872. I
congratulate my distinguished friend, Senator Larry Craig, for all of
his hard work on this very important issue.
As a Senator from a State with significant mining activity, reform of
the obsolete mining law of 1872 is imperative. There are currently 95
mining companies operating in the State of South Dakota, bringing in
more than $321 million in gross State revenues. Many of these are small
businesses.
[[Page S3605]] The mining industry employs almost 2,500 South
Dakotans.
I therefore represent many dedicated individuals who are an integral
part of South Dakota's economy. I also represent a number of citizens
who believe all mining activity should be stopped. In South Dakota, as
in a number of States, citizens are deeply divided on issues related to
mining.
However, my constituents are all in agreement on one basic point: the
mining law of 1872 is outdated. It needs to be revised. I believe the
legislation we are introducing today is a fair approach to reforming
this antiquated law.
Mr. President, in my State of South Dakota, five major gold mining
companies conduct large scale surface mining for gold on roughly 2,400
acres of land in the Black Hills. Current expansion proposals cover at
least another 1,300 acres, including 800 acres of U.S. Forest Service
land. Additionally, there are numerous exploratory drilling operations
on Forest Service lands in the Black Hills.
Over the past few years, I have held many public meetings in South
Dakota in which South Dakota mining operations were discussed. The
problems inherent in the mining law of 1872 come up again and again at
these meetings.
Many South Dakotans are particularly concerned about the existing
land patent provisions and the extremely low fees required to purchase
Federal land. Current law allows Federal land to be offered at a base
price of $2.50 or $5.00 per acre. This is a virtual giveaway. Anyone
who has visited the beautiful Black Hills National Forest in western
South Dakota would certainly agree that those lands are worth far more.
It is important that responsible mining activity be permitted. However,
in this time of huge Federal deficit spending, it is time these fees
were reformed to reflect good fiscal common sense.
This legislation takes care of that. It brings much needed revenue
back to the Federal Government. This legislation mandates that the fair
market value be charged for ownership of Federal lands. In addition, it
imposes claim holding fees of $100 per year, per claim.
This legislation also would ensure that the Government gets paid for
some of the value of what is in the land. It would impose a net royalty
of 3 percent on proceeds from mining activity. This provision is based
on the State-imposed net proceeds tax, which is working quite
successfully in Nevada. It makes good economic sense.
Another issue South Dakotans always raise is reclamation. It is
certainly important that we encourage responsible caretaking of South
Dakota's Federal lands--both to maintain the health of the Black Hills
National Forest, and to preserve its natural beauty. Who knows best how
to take care of South Dakota's Federal lands than South Dakotans?
That's why I support the provision of this bill which places the
responsibility for developing reclamation standards in the hands of the
States. Those of us here in Washington, from Members of Congress to
Government bureaucrats, don't always know what is best for the Federal
lands in South Dakota--or even Wyoming or Colorado. Each State is in a
better position to judge for itself what is best for its own
environmental well-being.
Last year, we spent a great deal of time working to develop a
compromise on mining law reform. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in
passing a final bill. I believe that this year's legislation
incorporates many elements of last year's compromise. This bill has
widespread support from the mining industry. It is sound legislation,
and we should not delay in moving it forward.
On behalf of many South Dakotans, I urge my colleagues in the Senate
to give this matter serious consideration. Many provisions of the 1872
mining law need to be revised. The dedicated miners of South Dakota and
the rest of the country should no longer be asked to shoulder the
burdens imposed by this antiquated law. I look forward to working with
members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as they
strive to make this bill into a fair and equitable mining reform law.
______
By Mr. PRESSLER:
S. 507. A bill to amend title 18 of the United States Code regarding
false identification documents, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
false identification act
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to reintroduce
legislation designed to attack a growing problem: the use of false
identification documents [ID's] by young people under 21 years of age.
I introduced a similar bill late last year.
Several years ago, Congress conditioned Federal highway funding on
the requirement that States have a minimum drinking age of at least 21
years. Since then, all 50 States have come into compliance. One
consequence has been a dramatic increase in the use of false ID's by
young people to illegally purchase alcoholic beverages. An illegal,
underground black market has emerged, supplying cheap documents to
satisfy this demand. The prevalence of counterfeit ID's poses a growing
menace to the licensed beverage industry, and promotes alcohol abuse
among young Americans.
With modern computer graphic programs, counterfeiting a driver's
license is child's play for sophisticated computer users. On October 3,
1994, the Washington Times published a front-page article entitled
``Fake IDs surmount high-tech obstacles: Underage drinkers flock to buy
them.'' The article describes how easily falsified identification
documents can be created by computers and the steps various States are
taking in response.
Several State driver's licenses, including Maryland and California,
now include a hologram, two separate pictures, and a magnetic strip in
an effort to make counterfeiting more difficult. However, even these
measures are being duplicated with relative ease. It is time for
Congress to take action.
The bill I am introducing today attacks this problem in two ways.
First, it reduces, from five to three, the number of false
identification documents that must be in an individual's possession
before a prison sentence, a fine, or both, can be imposed under Federal
law. Second, it requires a prison sentence, a fine, or both, for anyone
convicted of using the mail to send a false ID to someone under 21
years of age.
Mr. President, let me explain both of these provisions in more
detail. The first provision tightens current Federal law which provides
penalties for knowingly possessing or transferring unlawfully five or
more false identification documents. The number of false ID's necessary
to trigger this law would be reduced from five to three. Someone
convicted under this provision would face a fine of up to $15,000,
imprisonment of up to 3 years, or both.
These days, it is far too easy and cheap to buy a fake ID. therefore,
buying alcohol is not difficult for someone under 21. A recent report
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated that
``minors can get state driver's license in Times Square in New York
City for $10 to $15 each.'' Young people always have attempted to buy
alcohol at an early age. Nothing Congress does will suppress the urge
for alcohol in young people.
However, this bill is not directed at someone under 21 years of age
who possesses one or two false ID's. We can do little to address the
demand, but we can do something to reduce the supply. The Federal
Government needs to crack down on those in the business of illegally
producing and transferring false ID's. By stiffening Federal penalties
for the production and distribution of false ID's, this bill will
punish those who profit from teenage alcohol abuse and make obtaining
false documents more difficult.
The second provision of this bill creates a new penalty for using the
mails to distribute false ID's. Under this provision, anyone who
knowingly sends an identification document showing an individuals to be
21 years old or older through the mails--without first verifying the
individual's actual age--can be imprisoned for up to 1 year, be fined,
or both. Verification can be satisfied by viewing a certification or
other written communication confirming the age of the individual being
identified.
This provision attempts to stem the interstate distribution of false
ID's. Forty-six States currently have laws prohibiting youths from
misrepresenting their age in order to purchase alcohol. But nothing
prohibits minors from obtaining false ID's from other States
[[Page S3606]] through the mail. Tough Federal action is necessary.
This provision will affect businesses specializing in mail-order false
ID's.
To conclude, let me say this legislation has the support of the
National Licensed Beverage Association and the South Dakota Retail
Liquor Dealers Association. I urge my colleagues to join them in
supporting this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record at this point. I also ask consent that several newspaper
articles be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 507
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 ``False Identification Act of
1995.''
SEC. 2. MINIMUM NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSE.
Section 1028 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``five'' and
inserting ``3''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``five'' and
inserting ``3''.
SEC. 3. REQUIRED VERIFICATION OF MAILED IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 83 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Sec. 1739. Verification of identification documents
``(a) Whoever knowingly sends through the mails any
unverified identification document that bears a birth date--
``(1) purporting to be that of the individual named in the
document; and
``(2) showing such individual to be 21 years of age or
older;
when in fact that individual has not attained the age of 21
years, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both.
``(b) As used in this section--
``(1) the term `unverified', with respect to an
identification document, means that the sender has not
personally viewed a certification or other written
communication confirming the age of the individual to be
identified in the document from--
``(A) a governmental entity within the United States or any
of its territories or possessions; or
``(B) a duly licensed physician, hospital, or medical
clinic within the United States; and
``(2) the term `identification document' means a card,
certificate, or paper intended to be used primarily to
identify an individual.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 83 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1739. Verification of identification documents.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3001(a) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 1738'' and
inserting ``1738, or 1739''.
____
[From the Washington Times, Oct. 3, 1994]
Fake IDs Surmount High-tech Obstacles--Underage Drinkers Flock to Buy
Them
(By Matt Neufeld)
The high-tech revolution has helped boost one local cottage
industry with a potentially lethal product: fake
identification cards for underaged drinkers.
Illegal, falsified ID cards are prevalent among underage
drinkers, especially college students, and their production
flourishes no matter how many steps authorities take to make
them difficult to copy, police and government officials say.
``Fake IDs are rampant,'' said Trina Leonard, an aide to
Montgomery County Council member Gail Ewing, who is also
chairwoman of the Maryland Underage Drinking Prevention
Coalition. ``Fake IDs are an enormous problem among teenagers
because they frequently are a passport to death and injury
for kids.''
The use and manufacture of fake IDs has been a concern of
parents, police and state motor vehicle authorities for
decades. The problem surfaced again after Friday's
announcement that three of the four Walt Whitman High School
girls involved in the Sept. 6 double-fatal car crash in
Potomac were carrying fake IDs.
The girls did not use their IDs that night, Montgomery
County police said, but relied instead on another way in
which teens procure alcohol: They had an adult buy 2\1/2\
cases of beer for them from a liquor store in Georgetown the
night of the crash.
One mother of a boy who knew the girls later found four
different phony IDs in her own son's wallet, she told
friends.
Even as states take dozens of precautions in preparing
high-technology licenses designed to be difficult to copy,
technology-savvy students and underground counterfeiters
match the authorities' steps in meticulous and frustrating
ways.
``It continues to be a problem, because, as police say, no
matter how tough they get, kids are smart and they always
find a way to get them,'' said Tim Kime, a spokesman for the
Washington Regional Alcohol Program, a private advocacy
group.
``We live in the age of computers, and you can do wonderful
things with a computer. You get the right background [cloth],
the picture, the laminator, and you've got a pretty good
ID,'' said Sgt. David Dennison, who heads the Prince George's
County police collision analysis and reconstruction unit. The
unit's responsibilities include drunken driving and underage
drinking.
``You bet there's some computer geniuses out there at these
colleges who find it very easy to do,'' Sgt. Dennison said.
``If they can print money with computers, driver's licenses
aren't that hard.''
In the Potomac crash, driver Elizabeth Clark, 16, and a
front-seat passenger, Katherine Zirkle, 16, were killed with
Elizabeth's 1987 BMW hit a tree along River Road at 12:55
a.m.
Two friends riding in the back seat, Elinor ``Nori''
Andrews, 15, and Gretchen Sparrow, 16, were hospitalized with
serious injuries but were released last week.
Police said Elizabeth had a blood-alcohol level of .17
percent, nearly double the .10 percent level that state law
defines as driving while intoxicated. Katherine's blood-
alcohol level was .03 percent police said.
In Maryland, minors with a blood-alcohol level of .02
percent can have their licenses taken on the spot.
Detecting homegrown phony IDs isn't always easy,
authorities say.
``In fact some police officers on the street couldn't tell
the difference unless they thoroughly examine them. You can
be fooled,'' said Sgt. John Daly of the Metropolitan Police
check and fraud division.
Earlier this year, Maryland introduced driver's licenses
with holograms, two separate pictures and a magnetic strip in
an effort to counter the counterfeiters.
``But the kids are duplicating those,'' said Ms. Leonard,
the Montgomery council aide. ``A police officer told me that
[soon] after those came out, a kid took electrical tape and
put it on a fake ID.''
Although many high school students have fake IDs, police
find that most of them are manufactured, distributed and used
by college students. The IDs are bought, sold and distributed
through an underground black market spread by word of mouth.
Area students often make or procure fake IDs in the form of
licenses from far-away states such as Iowa or Kansas,
thinking local businesses won't know the difference. A widely
known legal guidebook available to businesses shows up-to-
date pictures of licenses from every state, but police say
that many merchants are too lazy to consult it.
____
Three Charged in Fake-ID Scam
Charlottesville.--Three former University of Virginia
students have been charged in what police said was a scheme
to pass stolen student identification cards and fraudulent
checks.
Police at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
said the ring operated in two states. Based in
Charlottesville, it included several former members of Alpha
Phi Alpha, a service fraternity at the University of Virginia
that was suspended in 1992 after a hazing incident.
Investigators believe the students stole about 400 UNC-
Chapel Hill ID cards in January to pass stolen or
counterfeited checks and to get state ID cards in North
Carolina and Virginia.
North Carolina authorities last week charged Canu C.
DiBona, 21, of Durham, N.C. with one count of felony
financial transaction card theft. Marcus A. Tucker, 23, of
Charlottesville was arrested Sept. 15 on several charges,
including felony financial transaction card theft and two
counts of forgery.
Authorities said Phillipe Zamore, 21, also of
Charlottesville also was implicated in the scheme. He was
arrested in April and charged with felony larceny after
attempting to use an illegally obtained credit card at a
University of Virginia bookstore.
Authorities said more arrests are expected.
Investigators said the cards reportedly have turned up as
far away as New York and Florida. Near the UNC-Chapel Hill
campus alone, the ring has used up to $20,000 in bad checks,
Lt. Clay Williams of the campus police said.
Police said members of the alleged ring used sophisticated
equipment to read information on magnetic tape on the backs
of the IDs, and even printed their own checks with a laser
printer.
``All these kids are smart--that's what's striking about
this.'' Lt. Williams said. ``We have very intelligent young
men--extremely computer literate, highly articulate--that
could be upstanding professionals in the community, but
instead they chose the lure of fast money.''
____
[From the St. Joseph's University (PA) Hawk, Mar. 15 1994]
Busted!--2 SJU Students Arrested in Fake I.D. Ring
(By Maureen O'Connell)
The population of the state of New Jersey recently
fluctuated by an estimated 100 to 200 citizens as students
under the age of 21 obtained fraudulent drivers' licenses for
that
[[Page S3607]] state through an operation based on the
ground floor of Sourin Residence Hall and the Adam's Mark
Hotel last weekend.
St. Joseph's University Security and the Pennsylvania State
Police stepped in to curb this rapid population boom and
arrested six students and two juveniles directly connected
with the scheme. Two of the six students, identified by The
Philadelphia Inquirer as Salvatore Carollo and Carl Lynn,
attend St. Joseph's and are residents of Sourin room 15.
According to the Inquirer both were arraigned on Sunday
evening on charges of forgery and manufacturing false
identification.
The fake ID factory, which turned out near-authentic
licenses with the help of advanced computer programming and
other electronic devices at the cost of $100 a pop, was not a
well kept secret and was quickly leaked to St. Joseph's
University Security and the Pennsylvania State Police.
According to director of public safety and security Albert
Hall, a ``top security'' officer discovered the operation
during a shift on Friday evening.
``He notified me at home and had some very good information
that this was happening,'' said Hall.
``By the sign-in logs it is pretty evident that it started
on Thursday evening,'' said Hall.
``I decided we had a felony being committed and I knew we
had to bring it to law enforcement's attention or we would be
obstructing justice. I then called the Pennsylvania State
Police and left a message. Later that evening, [an officer in
the] Fraudulent Document Unit called
and he was very interested in what was going on.''
Hall said that shortly after he made his call, the State
Police received a call from an informed parent.
According to Hall, University security met with State
Police the next morning, Saturday, at 8 a.m. to determine a
strategy.
``A plan was devised to introduce a state trooper as a
student and to have the Pennsylvania state trooper be sent
through the process,'' said Hall.
The trooper joined students in the assembly line--he
entered Sourin, gave the necessary personal information which
was logged into a computer, trekked to the Adams Mark Hotel,
was photographed, and received his ``bogus ID.''
Almost immediately, Security and the State Police entered
Sourin while the State Police alone entered the Adam's Mark.
``We went through the room (in Sourin) and found the
outside person who we believe to be responsible for typing
information into the computer,'' said Hall. He also mentioned
that the Police also found ``more electronic equipment.''
According to Hall, four St. Joseph's students were present
in the room in Sourin. One was completely unconnected with
the operation and consequently released. Two others were
given non-traffic citations for summary offenses and the
fourth was arrested for misdemeanors of fraud and
manufacturing false documents.
Hall mentioned that three visiting students were also in
the room, one of whom was released. The remaining two
visitors were charged with felonies for fraud and
manufacturing false documents.
``I have very good information that they have worked other
schools in the Maryland area and I have put them in touch
with the State Police,'' said Hall.
He also claimed that State Police seized ``what appeared to
be back-up discs for information saved on computers.''
``Another group of St. Joseph's students who went to the
Adam's Mark Hotel with the trooper were issued non-traffic
citations,'' added Hall.
``Several other participants were charged with felonies at
the Adam's Mark Hotel,'' he said.
According to Pennsylvania State Trooper Gant who has been
involved in subsequent investigations, an additional 5 to 7
students were given non-traffic citations in the hotel.
Gant explained that these citations involve ``sliding
fines'' up to $500 dollars, depending upon judicial decision.
``The people arrested were held at Eighth and Race awaiting
arraignment until Sunday,'' said Hall. ``For the parties
involved charged with felonies and misdemeanors there is a
range of penalties from fines to jail sentences.''
Regardless of Commonwealth penalties, the University will
subject the two arrested students to the traditional
disciplinary system.
``Two St. Joseph's undergraduates arrested over the weekend
in a counterfeit I.D. scheme have been suspended by the
University pending further investigation and review,'' said
director of external relations Joseph Lundardi in a press
release on Monday. ``An internal disciplinary hearing will be
conducted later this week, with findings and/or sanctions
referred to the Vice President for Student Life and
Provost.''
According to the Student Handbook both students committed
the following major violations: 1) Misrepresentation of
identity or age; forging or altering records
including University identification card: 2.) Maliciously
entering and/or using University premises, facilities or
property without authorization. The two may also have
violated the guest policy.
Possible sanctions for such violations include summary
discipline dismissal, expulsion, suspension, removal from the
residence community, disciplinary probation, restitution or
fines.
The pair have been given the choice to appear before an
administrator within the Student Life system or to have a
hearing with the Peer Review Board. According to the Peer
Review Board's handbook ``present attitude; past record (both
positive and negative); severity of damage, injury, harm or
destruction or potential for such; honesty, cooperation and
willingness to make amends'' will all be taken into
consideration when deliberating for sanctions.
Regardless of their fate, an undetermined number of
students currently possess the false I.D.s and according to
both Hall and Gant, the State Police have a record of names.
``The Police will be making a decision on how to handle the
students who purchased these fraudulent New Jersey
licenses,'' said Hall. ``The state police have alerted all
liquor stores in the area to be on the lookout for those New
Jersey. I.D.s which are distinguishable by a code which is on
all of them,'' he added.
____
[From the St. Joseph's University (PA) Hawk, Mar. 25, 1994]
Student Accounts of Raid and Aftermath
(By Jessica Hausmann)
Students were stunned this Saturday as police busted a fake
ID ring centered in a room in Sourin, as well as in the
Adam's Mark Hotel on City Avenue. Several St. Joe's students
purchased ID's and some of them were understandably worried.
One student, who did not purchase an ID, was present in the
room when the police arrived.
``The door gets kicked in (and they shout) `Hit the floor!
F.B.I., State Police! Everybody down, down!' just like a
scene out of `Cops','' said the student. ``They handcuffed me
to one of the guys whose room it was, who I felt bad for
because he didn't know the full impact of what was going
on,'' he added.
Police spent some time in the room trying to sort out who
was in charge. ``They recognized one of the girls as the
person who takes the people from Sourin to the Adam's Mark.
Her and the kid at the computer, those two played it cool and
calm. Everybody else was flipping out. One kid was crying,
bawling and he didn't even do anything. He was in there
looking for one of his friends,'' said the student.
``Eventually they took three of us out, me, the other one
and this girl. They didn't take us out in handcuffs or
anything, they just took us in the police car, and took us
down,'' explained the student. ``The cop was trying to get
something out of the kids that would incriminate the other
kids,'' he said.
``When they took us down to the station, at one point there
was this St. Joe's official and he saw the one kid was crying
and he went up to him and said, `You better tell him
everything you know if you want to stay in this school,'''
the student reported.
The student said he was held
for two and a half hours and then released. He claims that
some of the agents looked very familiar to him.
``I recognized three undercover agents as people who I
thought were St. Joe's students,'' he said.
He also claimed that this is not the only location this
group has hit.
``I knew a guy whose sister came up for the weekend and she
got the same exact ID from the same people at a different
school,'' he said.
Some students who did purchase an ID at St. Joseph's, but
were not present when the police arrived, are worried because
of rumors of a computer disk containing all of the names of
students who purchased the fake NJ licenses.
``I'm very nervous,'' said one student who purchased an ID
on Friday. She reported that she paid $100 for the fake
license.
``I went over to Sourin and went in the room. I filled out
a sheet with all the information and someone entered it into
a computer. They printed it out and I gave it to this guy.
Then they took us to the Adam's Mark Hotel on the twelfth
floor where all the camera stuff was set up. I signed a paper
and then they took the picture. They ran it through these
machines and five minutes later I had the ID,'' she
explained.
The student had been signed into Sourin by a friend who
lives in the building. She said it was obvious that not
everyone could have been signed into the same room since it
was fairly crowded.
``There were twelve people there when I was there,'' she
noted.
One student reported that he had to sign a disclaimer
stating that the license was not endorsed by the government
or the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles. He claimed it
also stated that all of the information given by the student
was true to the best of his knowledge.
Another student reported purchasing a different kind of
fake ID in the same room in Sourin prior to the scandal.
``I got a Virginia license in the same room almost a month
ago for $60,'' reported the student. She intends to use the
ID, but not around here.
Students who were not involved in the incident in any way
were also affected. Some 21-year-old students with legitimate
New Jersey licenses are concerned that it may become more
difficult for them to get into area bars.
``I better be able to get into The Duck or I'm going to
kill someone, said junior Chris
[[Page S3608]] Ferland, who recently turned 21. Some
students who are under 21 are worried that it will now be
more difficult to obtain alcohol from places that previously
did not card or that accepted fake IDs.
Students working for the admissions office as tour guides
are also affected. The office has prepared them for possible
difficulties they may encounter on tours as parents and
perspective students ask them about the scandal itself or
about a quote appearing in a front page article in Monday's
Philadelphia Inquirer regarding the incident, in which a
student is quoted as saying that there are no activities or
events for students on campus during the weekend.
``They told us to be honest about what happened and to
stress that there are activities on campus but that they are
not alcohol related events and some students choose not to
attend them or they choose to drink before they go to them,''
said junior tour guide Angie Faust.
Faust believes that this student's statement can hurt all
St. Joe's students.
``What one student said can hurt our reputation as a
school,'' she said.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Campbell):
S. 508. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
certain provisions relating to the treatment of forestry activities; to
the Committee on Finance.
reforestation tax act
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Breaux, Gorton, Stevens, Cochran, and Campbell in introducing the
Reforestation Tax Act of 1995. This legislation will encourage
investment in and sound management of privately owned forest land.
Mr. President, our forests serve as the foundation of a multibillion
dollar forest products industry. From lumber and construction materials
to pulp and paper, timber provides a wide range of products that are
essential to modern living. At the same time, our forests provide
wildlife habitat, maintain watershed, and are used for a broad range of
recreational activities, including fishing, hunting, hiking, and
camping.
One of the challenges facing this country is ensuring that we have
enough forests to meet our wildlife habitat and watershed needs as well
as sustaining a reliable supply of timber for forest products. As
harvest levels on public lands decline, we need to encourage private
foresters to invest in and properly maintain their stock of trees.
Yet there is strong evidence that private and public tree replanting
is declining. According to the U.S. Forest Service tree replanting and
direct seeding has been steadily declining. Between 1980 and 1988,
annual private tree planting increased from 1.76 million acres per year
to 2.96 million acres per year. However, in every year since 1988,
private tree replantings have continuously declined, reaching barely
2.04 million acres in 1993--one-third lower than in 1988.
The decline in private reforestation reflects the reality that this
is a very long-term, high-risk business. Trees can take anywhere from
25 to 75 years to grow to maturity, depending on the type of tree and
regional weather and soil conditions. The key to success is good
management which is costly. And fire and disease can wipe out acres of
trees at any time during the long growing period.
The legislation we are introducing today will boost private
investment in forests and aid in the cost of maintaining these forests.
Our legislation has four components:
Partial elimination of the tax on inflationary gains. The gain from
the sale of private timber would be reduced by 3 percent for each year
the timber is owned, up to a maximum reduction of 50 percent of the
gain. This should protect long-term investors in forest land from being
taxed on inflationary gains.
Doubling the reforestation tax credit. The current reforestation tax
credit has been significantly eroded by inflation because it has not
been increased in 15 years. Our bill doubles the amount of
reforestation expenditures eligible for the credit--from $10,000 to
$20,000--and indexes this amount for future inflation.
Amortization of reforestation expenses. The current law special 7-
year amortization for up to $10,000 of forestation expenses also has
not kept up with inflation since it was enacted in 1980. Our
legislation increases this amount to $20,000 and indexes it for future
inflation. In addition, it reduces the amortization period to 5 years.
Passive loss rules. Treasury regulations seriously discourage private
forester from employing sound forest management practices. Our bill
revises the regulations by providing that private foresters, like most
other business entrepreneurs, can prove that they are materially
participating in the forestry business.
Mr. President, there can be no doubt that passage of this legislation
is a key to the preservation and expansion of investment in this vital
natural resources. It has been endorsed by conservation, environmental
and forestry organizations including the American Forest and Paper
Association, the National Association of State Foresters, the
Wilderness Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to encourage long-term
investment in private forest land and cosponsor this important
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of the
organizations supporting this legislation be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 508
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 ``Reforestation Tax Act of
1995''.
SEC. 2. PARTIAL INFLATION ADJUSTMENT FOR TIMBER.
(a) In General.--Part I of subchapter P of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treatment of
capital gains) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 1203. PARTIAL INFLATION ADJUSTMENT FOR TIMBER.
``(a) In General.--At the election of any taxpayer who has
qualified timber gain for any taxable year, there shall be
allowed as a deduction from gross income an amount equal to
the qualified percentage of such gain.
``(b) Qualified Timber Gain.--For purposes of this section,
the term `qualified timber gain' means the lesser of--
``(1) the net capital gain for the taxable year, or
``(2) the net capital gain for the taxable year determined
by taking into account only gains and losses from timber.
``(c) Qualified Percentage.--For purposes of this section,
the term `qualified percentage' means the percentage (not
exceeding 50 percent) determined by multiplying--
``(1) 3 percent, by
``(2) the number of years in the holding period of the
taxpayer with respect to the timber.
``(d) Estates and Trusts.--In the case of an estate or
trust, the deduction under subsection (a) shall be computed
by excluding the portion (if any) of the gains for the
taxable year from sales or exchanges of capital assets which,
under sections 652 and 662 (relating to inclusions of amounts
in gross income of beneficiaries of trusts), is includible by
the income beneficiaries as gain derived from the sale or
exchange of capital assets.''
(b) Coordination With Existing Limitations.--
(1) Subsection (h) of section 1 of such Code (relating to
maximum capital gains rate) is amended by inserting after
``net capital gain'' each place it appears the following:
``(other than qualified timber gain with respect to which an
election is made under section 1203)''.
(2) Subsection (a) of section 1201 of such Code (relating
to alternative tax for corporations) is amended by inserting
after ``net capital gain'' each place it appears the
following: ``(other than qualified timber gain with respect
to which an election is made under section 1203)''.
(c) Allowance of Deduction in Computing Adjusted Gross
Income.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code (relating
to definition of adjusted gross income) is amended by adding
after paragraph (15) the following new paragraph:
``(16) Partial inflation adjustment for timber.--The
deduction allowed by section 1203.''
(d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part I
of subchapter P of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 1203. Partial inflation adjustment for timber.''
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to sales or exchanges after December 31, 1994.
SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF PASSIVE LOSS LIMITATIONS TO TIMBER
ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Treasury regulations sections 1.469-
5T(b)(2) (ii) and (iii) shall not apply to any closely held
timber activity if the nature of such activity is such that
the aggregate hours devoted to management of the activity for
any year is generally less than 100 hours.
[[Page S3609]] (b) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection
(a)--
(1) Closely held activity.--An activity shall be treated as
closely held if at least 80 percent of the ownership
interests in the activity is held--
(A) by 5 or fewer individuals, or
(B) by individuals who are members of the same family
(within the meaning of section 2032A(e)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986).
An interest in a limited partnership shall in no event be
treated as a closely held activity for purposes of this
section.
(2) Timber activity.--The term ``timber activity'' means
the planting, cultivating, caring, cutting, or preparation
(other than milling) for market, of trees.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1994.
SEC. 4. AMORTIZATION OF REFORESTATION EXPENDITURES AND
REFORESTATION TAX CREDIT.
(a) Increase in Maximum Amortizable Amount.--Paragraph (1)
of section 194(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to maximum dollar amount) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The aggregate'' and inserting ``(A) In
general.--The aggregate'',
(2) by striking ``$10,000 ($5,000'' and inserting ``$20,000
($10,000'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in a calendar year after 1995, each dollar amount
contained in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount
equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment under section 1(f)(3)
for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins,
determined by substituting `calendar year 1994' for `calendar
year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section.
``(ii) Rounding.--If any increase determined under clause
(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to
the next lowest multiple of $50.''
(b) Decrease in Amortization Period.--
(1) In general.--Section 194(a) of such Code is amended by
striking ``84 months'' and inserting ``60 months''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 194(a) of such Code is
amended by striking ``84-month period'' and inserting ``60-
month period''.
(c) Availability of Deduction and Credit to Trusts.--
Subsection (b) of section 194 of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph
(4) as paragraph (3), and
(2) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated)--
(A) by inserting ``and trusts'' after ``Estates'' in the
heading, and
(B) by inserting ``and trusts'' after ``estates'' in the
text.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) Amortization provisions.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall
apply to additions to capital account made after December 31,
1994.
(2) Tax credit provisions.--In the case of the
reforestation credit under section 48(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, the amendments made by this section
shall apply to property acquired after December 31, 1994.
____
List of Cosponsoring Organizations for RTA
American Forest and Paper Association.
Forest Industries Council on Taxation.
Forest Farmers Association.
Southern Forest Products Association.
Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association.
Maine Forest Products Council.
Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine.
Oklahoma Forestry Association.
Arkansas Forestry Association.
Southern State Foresters.
Georgia Forestry Association.
Louisiana Forestry Association.
North Carolina Forestry Association.
South Carolina Forestry Association.
Mississippi Forestry Association.
Texas Forestry Association.
Virginia Forestay Association.
American Pulpwood Association.
National Association of State Foresters.
Hardwood Manufacturing Association.
National Hardwood Lumber Association.
Hardwood Research Council.
Hardwood Forest Foundation.
Alabama Forestry Commission.
Stewards of Family Farms, Ranches and Forests.
The Wilderness Society.
The National Woodland Owners Association.
The Oregon Small Woodlands Association.
The Washington Farm Forestry Association.
1,000 Friends of Oregon.
The Idaho Forest Owners Association.
The Forest Landowners of California.
The National Resources Defense Council.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Brown):
S. 509. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into an appropriate form of agreement with, the town of Grand Lake,
CO., authorizing the town to maintain permanently a cemetery in the
Rocky Mountain National Park; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
rocky mountain national park grand lake cemetery act
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, On January 26, 1915, Congress passed
legislation creating a 265,726-acre Rocky Mountain National Park. In
1892, long before the park was created, the town of grand lake
established a small, less than 5-acre community cemetery that lies
barely 1,000 feet inside the western edge of the park. Apparently, in
the early 1950's, the National Park Service took notice of the cemetery
and issued the town a formal special use permit, which has been renewed
over the years. In 1991, Rocky Mountain National Part apparently
informed the town of grand lake that it would issue one final 5-year
special use permit.
This 103-year-old cemetery has become part of the community's
heritage. Grand Lake residents have very strong emotional and personal
attachments to it and need to be assured of its continued use and
designation as a cemetery. The current permit is due to expire in 1996.
All parties have agreed that a more permanent solution was needed to
meet the needs of the community and the resource preservation and
protection intended by the establishment of the park.
Existing measures available to the National Park Service, including
special use permit authority, do not provide for a permanent solution
that satisfies both the park and the community. In addition, special
uses apparently can only be permitted for a maximum period of 5 years.
Given that the town and park agree that the small cemetery is a
permanent use, continued renewal of a 5-year permit is not a realistic
solution.
In an effort to avoid future difficulties, park and town
representatives have agreed that this legislation would offer the best
solution to this problem. Authorizing the continued existence of the
cemetery with specific size and boundaries within the park also
protects park resources. The community has expressed a strong
willingness and desire to assume responsibility for permanent
management of the cemetery. This legislation would authorize the
development of an agreement to turn maintenance responsibilities for
the cemetery and road over to the town, resulting in a financial
savings to the park. It also recognizes the cultural significance of
the cemetery and its strong ties with the history of the Grand Lake
area, which includes the story of Rocky Mountain National Park.
This legislation would negate the need for repeated negotiations
between the community and the National Park Service, and the chance for
misunderstandings. The National Park Service and Grand Lake
representatives have worked long and hard on developing this proposal.
Enactment of this legislation would go a long way in maintaining and
enhancing the spirit of cooperation and good will between park and
community that has been achieved during the development of this
resolution.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 510. A bill to extend the authorization for certain programs under
the Native American Programs Act of 1974, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the vice chairman of
the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, join me today in
introducing a bill to extend the authorization for certain programs
under the Native American Programs Act of 1974. This program is
administered by the Administration for Native Americans, or ANA, within
the Department of Health and Human Services.
Each year ANA awards several hundred grants to Indian and Alaska
Native tribes and other native communities and organizations for
governance, social and economic development, and environmental
mitigation projects. While modest in size, ANA grants have proven to be
extremely valuable tools for tribes and other native community groups
seeking to further their self-sufficiency. ANA and its grants are vital
to many Indian and native communities. ANA has earned
[[Page S3610]] strong support from Indian and Alaska Native tribes.
The authority for most of the grants distributed by ANA expires at
the end of fiscal year 1995. Although the administration has requested
funding for fiscal year 1996 at fiscal year 1995 levels, it has yet to
forward a bill to Congress to reauthorize the act.
This important but small program should not be placed in jeopardy by
the administration's distraction-of-the-month. Therefore, I am
introducing this reauthorization bill without the benefit of the
administration's request. The bill would simply extend by 4 years the
general authority for ANA appropriations and by 3 years the authority
for ANA tribal environmental quality grant appropriations. In both
cases, the reauthorization would extend to fiscal year 1999 and the
amounts authorized would remain unchanged. The Committee on Indian
Affairs has scheduled a hearing on the bill for March 22, 1995, at 2:30
p.m. We hope to complete consideration of the bill by the end of March.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join with me in enacting this
reauthorization so that these important funds are not interrupted. I
ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary and the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 510
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATIVE
AMERICAN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIES GRANT PROGRAM.
Section 816 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 2992d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (2), by striking ``for fiscal years 1992,
1993, 1994, and 1995.'' and inserting ``for each of fiscal
years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``and 1996,'' and
inserting ``1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999,''.
____
Section-by-Section Summary
Section 1. Authorization of Appropriations of Native
American Social and Economic Development Strategies Grant
Program.
(1) General Grant Reauthorization. This subsection provides
for a four year extension to fiscal year 1999 of the present
authority to appropriate such sums as may be necessary for
the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Native
American Programs Act of 1974 which do not otherwise have an
express authorization of appropriation.
(2) Tribal Environmental Quality Grant Reauthorization.
This subsection provides for a three year extension to fiscal
year 1999 of the present authority to appropriate $8,000,000
for the purpose of carrying out the provisions Title 42,
Section 2991b(d) of the United States Code relating to grants
to improve tribal regulation of environmental quality.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Abraham):
S. 511. A bill to require the periodic review and automatic
termination of Federal regulations; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
regulatory sunset and review act
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Regulatory
Sunset and Review Act of 1995, a bill that requires all existing
Federal regulations to terminate in 7 years and new regulations to
terminate in 5 years unless the appropriate agency, after soliciting
public input and with the direction and guidance from Congress and the
Office of Management and Budget, determines the regulations are still
relevant and necessary.
The purpose of this bill is to address the staggering volume of
regulations promulgated each year and the enormous costs associated
with these regulations that place such a financial and management
burden on all Americans.
This bill could be termed a ``consumers'' bill. As regulations are
promulgated by various Government agencies, the cost of complying with
these regulations is estimated to be between $250 and $500 billion
annually. As noted in the March 4, 1995, Washington Post article, ``The
Myths That Rule us:''
. . . economists are nearly unanimous in believing at least
half the cost (of regulations) is passed on to consumers in
the form of higher prices. Most of the rest is passed on to
employees in the form of lower wages. . . . Put another way,
regulation is a form of taxation that amounts to about $2,000
per year for the average U.S. household . . .
It is time we review these regulations to determine if they are
necessary--if their benefits outweigh the costs, if they are
duplicative, out-of-date, and if they are written in the most clear and
unambiguous way possible.
Americans from all walks of life are affected by these regulations:
small to large businesses, hospitals and schools, farmers and ranchers,
and local, State, and tribal governments, to name but just a few. In
the last two months of 1994 alone, 615 proposed and final regulations
were published in the Federal Register. In all, the Federal Register
totaled 68,107 pages in length in 1994. It is time to get a handle on
these regulations to determine if they should be modified or
eliminated, and this bill will respond to this need by establishing a
mandatory review process by the agencies.
The importance of examining the thousands of existing regulations has
been enunciated clearly by my constituents in New Mexico. In 1994, I
created a Small Business Advocacy Council to advise me about the
problems of small businesses and how Congress could address some of
their concerns. The council held 7 meetings in 6 locations throughout
the State of New Mexico, and more than 400 businesses participated in
these meetings. The consistent theme at all of these meetings was the
appearance of an adversarial relationship between the Federal
Government and business, as well as the lack of accountability of
regulatory agencies in their dealings with business.
A few weeks ago in Albuquerque, the Senate Small Business Committee
kicked off a series of field hearings entitled ``Entrepreneurship in
America.'' Many members of the Small Business Advocacy Council
testified at this hearing and explained to Chairman Christopher Bond
how difficult it is to not only understand the regulations, but to
comply with them.
As an example, one witness said that the EEOC performs audits to
ensure that an employer is in compliance with title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC asks for a roster of employees to identify
minority group, sex, and disabilities. The witness said, however, that
while the information may be useful, an employer is unable to ask these
questions of applicants or employees.
This is only one example, but over the past year, I can assure you
that I have heard countless similar examples that point out the
inconsistencies, duplications, and burdensome nature of these
Government regulations. And, an important emphasis must be made: all
the witnesses understood and supported the positive aspects of
regulations--that they were developed with the best intentions for good
purposes. The witnesses simply believe that there must be a better way
than the present system.
I would like to mention briefly a report by the General Accounting
Office [GAO], completed in June 1994, entitled ``Workplace Regulation--
Information on Selected Employer and Union Experience.'' While I intend
to devote more detail to this report at a later time, let me just
mention that the GAO's finding were strikingly similar to the findings
of the New Mexico Business Advocacy Council: Those interviewed called
for the adoption of a more service-oriented approach to workplace
regulation; an improvement to information access and educational
assistance to employers, workers, and unions; and more input into
agency standard setting and enforcement efforts. The report discussed
the constantly changing and complex nature of regulations and that they
are often ambiguous with an increased potential for lawsuits.
It is obvious the time has come to review these regulations in a
concise and systematic way. The process needs an overhaul, and this
bill is designed to help facilitate this restructuring.
I am pleased my distinguished colleague, Senator Spencer Abraham, is
joining me in introduction of this timely measure, and I hope others
will soon join us in this endeavor. This bill is almost identical to a
measure introduced in the House last week by Representatives Chapman,
Mica, and DeLay, H.R. 994. As regulatory reform measures are considered
in both Chambers, I believe the Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of
1995 will be an important component of these efforts.
[[Page S3611]] I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Senator
Abraham be included as a part of the Record and that the text of the
bill be printed following these remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 511
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 ``Regulatory Sunset and Review
Act of 1995''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To require agencies to regularly review their
regulations and make recommendations to terminate, continue
in effect, modify, or consolidate those regulations.
(2) To require agencies to submit those recommendations to
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs and to the Congress.
(3) To provide for the automatic termination of regulations
that are not continued in effect after such review.
(4) To designate a Regulatory Review Officer within each
agency, who is responsible for the implementation of this Act
by the agency.
SEC. 3. REVIEW AND TERMINATION OF REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), the
effectiveness of a regulation issued by an agency shall
terminate on the applicable termination date under subsection
(b), and the regulation shall have no force or effect after
that termination date, unless the head of the agency--
(1) reviews the regulation in accordance with section 4;
(2) after the review, and at least 120 days before that
termination date, submits in accordance with section 5(a) a
preliminary report on the findings and proposed
recommendations of that review in accordance with section
5(a)(2);
(3) reviews and considers comments regarding the
preliminary report that are transmitted to the agency by the
Administrator and appropriate committees of the Congress
during the 60-day period beginning on the date of submission
of the preliminary report; and
(4) after the 60-day period beginning on the date of
submission of the preliminary report to the Congress, but not
later than 60 days before that termination date, submits to
the President, the Administrator, and the Congress, and
publishes in the Federal Register--
(A) a final report on the review under section 4 in
accordance with section 5(a)(3), and
(B) a notice extending the effectiveness of the regulation,
with or without modifications, as of the end of the 60-day
period beginning on the date of that publication.
(b) Termination Dates.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
termination date of a regulation is as follows:
(1) Existing regulations.--For a regulation in effect on
the date of the enactment of the Act, the termination date is
the last day of the 7-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) New regulations.--For a regulation that first takes
effect after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
termination date is the last day of the 5-year period
beginning on the date the regulation takes effect.
(3) Regulations continued in effect.--For a regulation the
effectiveness of which is extended under subsection (a), the
termination date is the last day of the 7-year period
beginning on the date of publication of a notice under
subsection (a)(4) for that extension.
(c) Temporary Extension.--The termination date under
subsection (b) for a regulation may be delayed by not more
than 6 months by the head of the agency that issued the
regulation if the agency head submits to the Congress and
publishes in the Federal Register a preliminary report that
describes modifications that should be made to the
regulation.
(d) Relationship to Other Law.--Section 553 of title 5,
United States Code, shall not apply to the extension or
modification of a regulation in accordance with this Act.
SEC. 4. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS BY AGENCY.
(a) In General.--The head of each agency shall, under the
criteria set forth in subsection (b)--
(1) conduct thorough and systematic reviews of all
regulations issued by the agency to determine if those
regulations are obsolete, inconsistent, or duplicative or
impede competition; and
(2) issue reports on the findings of those reviews, which
contain recommendations for--
(A) terminating or extending the effectiveness of those
regulations;
(B) any appropriate modifications to a regulation
recommended to be extended; or
(C) any appropriate consolidations of regulations.
(b) Criteria for Review.--The head of an agency shall
review, make recommendations, and terminate or extend the
effectiveness of a regulation under this section under the
following criteria:
(1) The extent to which the regulation is outdated,
obsolete, or unnecessary.
(2) The extent to which the regulation or information
required to comply with the regulation duplicates, conflicts
with, or overlaps requirements under regulations of other
agencies.
(3) The extent to which the regulation impedes competition.
(4) Whether the benefits to society from the regulation
exceed the costs to society from the regulation.
(5) Whether the regulation is based on adequate and correct
information.
(6) Whether the regulation is worded as simply and clearly
as possible.
(7) Whether the most cost-efficient alternative was chosen
in the regulation to achieve the objective of the regulation.
(8) The extent to which information requirements under the
regulation can be reduced, particularly for small businesses.
(9) Whether the regulation is fashioned to maximize net
benefits to society.
(10) Whether the regulation is clear and certain regarding
who is required to comply with the regulation.
(11) Whether the regulation maximizes the utility of market
mechanisms to the extent feasible.
(12) Whether the condition of the economy and of regulated
industries is considered.
(13) Whether the regulation imposes on the private sector
the minimum economic burdens necessary to achieve the
purposes of the regulation.
(14) Whether the total effect of the regulation across
agencies has been examined.
(15) Whether the regulation is crafted to minimize needless
litigation.
(16) Whether the regulation is necessary to protect the
health and safety of the public.
(17) Whether the regulation has resulted in unintended
consequences.
(18) Whether performance standards or other alternatives
were utilized to provide adequate flexibility to the
regulated industries.
(c) Requirement to Solicit Comments From the Public and
Private Sector.--In reviewing regulations under this section,
the head of an agency shall publish in the Federal Register a
solicitation of comments from the public (including the
private sector) regarding the application of the criteria set
forth in subsection (b) to the regulation, and shall consider
such comments, before making determinations under this
section and sending a report under section 5(a) regarding a
regulation.
SEC. 5. AGENCY REPORTS.
(a) Preliminary and Final Reports on Reviews of
Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The head of an agency shall submit to the
President, the Administrator, and the Congress and publish in
the Federal Register a preliminary report and a final report
for each review of a regulation under section 4.
(2) Preliminary report.--A preliminary report shall
contain--
(A) specific findings of the agency regarding--
(i) application of the criteria set forth in section 4(b)
to the regulation;
(ii) the need for the function of the regulation; and
(iii) whether the regulation duplicates functions of
another regulation; and
(B) proposed recommendations on whether--
(i) the effectiveness of the regulation should terminate or
be extended;
(ii) the regulation should be modified; and
(iii) the regulation should be consolidated with another
regulation.
(3) Final report.--A final report on the findings and
recommendations of the agency head regarding extension of the
effectiveness of the regulation and any appropriate
modifications to the regulation shall include--
(A) a full justification of the decision to extend and, if
applicable, modify the regulation; and
(B) the basis for all determinations made with respect to
that extension or modification under the criteria set forth
in section 4(b).
(b) Report on Schedule for Reviewing Existing
Regulations.--Not later than 100 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and on or before March 1, annually
thereafter, the head of each agency shall submit to the
Administrator and the Congress and publish in the Federal
Register a report stating a schedule for the review of
regulations in accordance with this Act. The schedule shall
identify the review actions intended to be conducted during
the calendar year in which such report is submitted.
SEC. 6. FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall--
(1) review and evaluate each report submitted by the head
of an agency under section 5(a), regarding--
(A) the quality of the analysis in the reports;
(B) whether the agency has properly applied the criteria
set forth in section 4(b); and
(C) the consistency of the agency action with actions of
other agencies; and
(2) transmit to the head of the agency the recommendations
of the Administrator regarding the report.
(b) Guidance.--The Administrator shall provide guidance to
agencies on the conduct of reviews and the preparation of
reports under this Act.
SEC. 7. DESIGNATION OF AGENCY REGULATORY REVIEW OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--The head of each agency shall designate an
officer of the agency as the Regulatory Review Officer of the
agency.
[[Page S3612]] (b) Functions.--The Regulatory Review
Officer of an agency shall--
(1) be responsible for the implementation of this Act by
the agency; and
(2) report directly to the head of the agency with respect
to that responsibility.
SEC. 8. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Limitation of Action.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, an action seeking judicial review of an
agency action under this Act extending, terminating,
modifying, or consolidating a regulation shall not be brought
after the 30-day period beginning on the date of the
publication of a notice under section 3(a)(4) for that
action.
(b) Scope of Review.--Agency compliance or noncompliance
with the provisions of this Act shall be subject to judicial
review only pursuant to section 706(1) of title 5, United
States Code.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Office.
(2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that
term in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Appropriate committee of the congress.--The term
``appropriate committee of the Congress'' means with respect
to a regulation each standing committee of the Congress
having authority under the rules of the House of
Representatives or the Senate to report a bill to enact or
amend the provision of law under which the regulation is
issued.
(4) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of
Management and Budget.
(5) Regulation.--The term ``regulation'' means the whole or
a part of an agency statement of general or particular
applicability and future effect designed to implement,
interpret, or prescribe law or policy, other than such a
statement to carry out a routine administrative function of
an agency.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly support the legislation
sponsored by my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Pete Domenici.
Not long ago we passed legislation that finally subjects Congress to
most work place and other laws that affect the American people. I
enthusiastically supported this legislation out of a sense of
fundamental fairness: it seemed to me that the body that legislates
rules for the rest of society at the very least ought to be obliged to
follow those rules itself.
But I had another reason for supporting the accountability act. You
see, it seemed to me that when Members of Congress actually had to
confront and deal with some of the onerous regulations they have been
imposing on the people of America they might decide that it was time to
eliminate some of the overregulation that is strangling our economy.
For too long Congress has acted as if regulation is cost free, even
though at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's estimate, they cost our
economy $510 billion a year--9 percent of our gross domestic product.
For too long Congress has acted as if the burden of paperwork these
regulations impose is either light or nonexistent when, according to
the chamber of commerce, Federal regulations alone require 6.8 billion
hours of paperwork to our businesses and entrepreneurs.
But the accountability act alone will not be enough because the sheer
inertia of Government regulation continues to push our businesses, and
small businesses in particular, into bankruptcy. We must cull the code
books of regulations that are redundant, obsolete, unnecessarily costly
and just plain unnecessary.
This Regulatory Sunset and Review Act will go a long way toward
fighting the inertia of Government regulation by putting in place a
mandatory review procedure for all regulations our bureaucrats want to
see continued. It would place in each agency a review officer who would
review all regulations, new and old, with the aid of Congress and the
Office of Management and Budget.
All existing regulations would terminate within 7 years unless they
pass a rigorous review process. For new regulations the initial sunset
period would be 5 years. The goal would not be to eliminate all
regulations, after all some regulations are needed to enforce statutes
we have passed to protect Americans' health and safety as well as their
rights. But we do not need regulations, and should not have them,
unless as required by this act they are shown to be: necessary; more
beneficial than costly; reasonable in their cost and other impact on
consumers; clear and unambiguous; unlikely to cause unnecessary
litigation; and reasonable in their burden on local, State and National
economies.
Only by subjecting our regulations to rigorous, repeated review can
we finally bring the spread of over-regulation under control. Only by
setting up a standardized review procedure can we ensure that
bureaucratic inertia and discretion no longer stifle our economy and
our liberties.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of endorsement for the
Domenici-Abraham regulatory sunset bill from the National Federation of
Independent Business be entered into the Record:
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
NFIB,
Washington, DC, March 6, 1995.
Hon. Spence Abraham,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Abraham: On behalf of the more than 600,000
members of the National Federation of Independent Business, I
am writing to support your legislation, the Regulatory Sunset
and Review Act.
Government regulations constitute an enormous burden for
small businesses. Even beneficial regulations are so complex
that small business owners find it increasingly difficult to
comply.
The Domenici-Abraham legislation will help curb the cost of
federal regulations on small business by sunsetting them.
Requiring a periodic justification for existing and future
regulations is essential if small businesses are going to
start-up, grow and expand while creating jobs all along the
way.
With regulatory sunsetting regulations and the federal
agencies responsible for them must justify their existence
through a review process in order to keep them on the books.
Necessary regulations would continue while others would be
modified and the unnecessary would disappear.
The Domenici-Abraham regulatory sunset legislation is a
concept NFIB members have been supporting for years. Seventy-
seven percent of our members voted overwhelmingly to support
reevaluating regulations on a frequent basis. We think the
Domenici-Abraham approach is a balanced and fair approach to
weeding out what works with what is unnecessary in the
current regulatory system.
NFIB strongly supports your Regulatory Sunset and Review
legislation. We look forward to working with you to pass this
legislation.
Sincerely,
John J. Morley III,
Vice President,
Federal Governmental Relations.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 512. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for a 5-year extension of the Medicare-dependent, small, rural
hospital payment provisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
medicare dependent hospitals program extension act
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which would
extend the Medicare-dependent Hospital Program.
This program expired in October 1994. As its title implied, the
hospitals it helped were those which were very dependent on Medicare
reimbursement. These were small--100 beds or less--rural, hospitals
with not less than 60 percent of total discharges or with 60 percent of
total inpatient days attributable to Medicare beneficiaries. The
program enabled the hospitals in question to choose the most favorable
of three reimbursement methods.
This program was extended, and phased out down to October 1994, in
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. That act retained the
choice of the three original reimbursement methods. But it reduced the
reimbursement available from those original computation methods by 50
percent.
My legislation would not extend the program as it was originally
enacted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. Rather, it
would extend for 5 years the provisions contained in the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993. My bill would also extend those provisions
retroactively. That is, as though the program had not expired in
October 1994.
As I noted above, the hospitals which benefited from this program are
small, rural, hospitals providing an essential point of access to
hospital or hospital-based services in rural areas and small towns.
Obviously, as those of my colleagues who have followed, and
participated in, our debates about the health care needs of rural areas
know only too well, if we lose these hospitals, we will also have a
hard time keeping physicians in those communities.
[[Page S3613]] Mr. President, 44, or 36 percent, of Iowa's 122
community hospitals qualified to participate in this program, and 29,
or 24 percent, chose to participate in 1994. I believe that this was
the largest number of such hospitals of any State.
The percentage of all inpatient days attributable to Medicare
patients is 77.4 percent for these hospitals, and Medicare discharges
represent 65.5 percent of total discharges.
These Iowa hospitals will lose about $3 million dollars as a
consequence of the expiration of this program, according to estimates
made by the Iowa Hospital Association. The annual losses will vary from
a low of $3,635 to a high of $248,016. Fourteen of these hospitals will
lose $100,000 or more. Fourteen of these hospitals had negative
operating margins in 1994. Those negative operating margins varied from
minus $30,970 to minus $1,065,105. It is highly likely that the
financial situation of these hospitals will be even worse in the coming
years. Two of the hospitals with positive operating margins will
probably begin to have negative margins with the expiration of the
program.
The bottom line is that many of these hospitals are going to have a
very difficult time continuing to exist when this program expires.
Mr. President, I am also going to work toward extension of the each/
rpch program--the Essential Access Community Hospital and Rural Primary
Care Hospital Program. If this program is extended to all the States,
and if the Medicare-Dependent Hospital Program is extended, the smaller
hospitals in Iowa would be able to modify their missions in a
deliberate and nondisruptive way and continue to provide essential
health care services in their communities.
______
By Mr. HEFLIN:
S. 513. A bill to amend chapter 23 of title 28, United States Code,
to authorize voluntary alternative dispute resolution programs in
Federal courts, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
voluntary alternative dispute resolution act
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that
would authorize our Nation's Federal district courts to adopt and
utilize voluntary alternative dispute resolution programs.
The time has come for Congress and the Federal courts to realize that
there must be alternative ways of settling disputes other than the
traditional methods utilizing a Federal judge and jury. With criminal
cases crowding the dockets, many litigants in civil cases, especially
small businesses, simply cannot get their cases heard in a timely
manner.
Recent statistics from the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts indicate that a majority of cases in the Federal courts are
civil cases and that the number of filings since 1990 has increased 9
percent. With criminal cases being put on a fast track, the time has
come for Congress to assist the Federal courts in processing civil
cases for the benefit of the American people.
Our Federal court system is one of the best in the world, and our
judges work long hours to hear cases which come before them. I believe
the approach that my legislation takes will bring the Federal courts
into the 21st century ahead of schedule by expressing Congress' intent
that if parties want to voluntarily settle their civil disputes by such
methods as court annexed arbitration, meditation, early neutral
evaluation, minitrials, or summary trials, then they should be allowed
to do so.
I am introducing this legislation as a result of a hearing which the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice held
several months ago. I was privileged to Chair this subcommittee hearing
which heard testimony from a number of distinguished witnesses
including Judge Anne Williams, on behalf of the U.S. Judicial
Conference; Judge Bill Wilson, U.S. District Court (E.D. Arkansas);
Judge William Schwarzer on behalf of the Federal Judicial Center; U.S.
Magistrate Judge Wayne Brazil (N.D. California); Judge Raymond
Broderick (E.D. Pennsylvania); Stuart Grossman, on behalf of the
American Board of Trial Advocates; Jack Watson, on behalf of the
American Bar Association; and Dianne Nast, a practicing attorney in
Philadelphia.
The focus of the hearing was to consider H.R. 1102, introduced by
Congressman Bill Hughes of New Jersey, which would have required, not
merely authorized, each of the 94 Federal district courts to adopt
either a mandatory or a voluntary court-annexed arbitration program
which would operate under the existing authority of Chapter 44,
Sections 651-658 of Title 28 of the United States Code. H.R. 1102 would
have increased the maximum amount in controversy for cases referred
under the mandatory programs from $100,000 to $150,000.
In 1988, Congress enacted legislation to authorize the continuation
of 10 pilot programs of mandatory court-annexed arbitration that were
in operation in the Federal courts, and this legislation also
authorized 10 additional pilot programs that would be of a voluntary
nature.
This authorization was to terminate toward the end of 1993, and H.R.
1102 would have made that authorization permanent and would have
required each district court to adopt either a mandatory or a voluntary
program of court-annexed arbitration. Because of strong concerns raised
at the hearing regarding the mandatory nature of court-annexed
arbitration, our subcommittee was unwilling to immediately go forward
with H.R. 1102. Instead, S. 1732, which became Public Law 103-192, was
introduced toward the end of 1993, which simply extended the existing
authority for one year with regard to the 20 pilot districts utilizing
court-annexed arbitration.
In early August last year, I, along with my colleagues Senators
Biden, Hatch, Grassley, and Specter, introduced S. 2407, the Judicial
Amendments Act of 1994, to extend this authority for an additional 3
years until the end of 1997. S. 2407 was introduced and passed by the
Senate on August 19, and sent to the House of Representatives which
also passed it at the close of session. It was signed by the President
on October 25, 1994, and became Public Law 103-420.
Let me return now to the hearing which the subcommittee held in
October 1993 and which focused primarily on arbitration which is one of
the programs of ADR as alternative dispute resolution is popularly
called. Judge Ann Claire Williams of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois appeared on behalf of the U.S. Judicial
Conference which is the policymaking body of the Federal judiciary. The
Judicial Conference has recommended that Congress should authorize all
Federal district courts to have the discretion to utilize voluntary
nonbinding court-annexed arbitration. Thus, the judicial Conference did
not recommend the expansion of mandatory court-annexed arbitration for
the remainder of the Federal district courts.
The legislation which I am introducing today builds on the
recommendation of the Judicial Conference by authorizing each of the 94
Federal district courts to adopt not only voluntary court-annexed
arbitration but also other ADR programs, including but not limited to
mediation, early neutral evaluation, minitrials, summary jury or bench
trials.
My legislation also contains a provision that clearly states that
``[a]n alternative dispute resolution program shall not in any way
infringe on a litigant's right to trial de novo and shall impose no
penalty on participating litigants.''
Over the last year, I have talked with many people from both the bar
and the business community, and I believe that it is an undeniable fact
that civil litigation in the Federal courts has become more
complicated, time-consuming, and expensive. Further, the Speedy Trial
Act, requiring criminal cases to proceed on a fast track, has resulted
in delays in civil cases being considered by the Federal courts.
I want to make certain that the Congress clearly intends for our
Federal courts to consider alternative means of dispute resolution, so
that litigants can have a speedy and less expensive alternative to
formal civil adjudication, consistent with the requirements of the
seventh amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Where parties are willing
[[Page S3614]] to mutually participate in such alternatives, I believe
there are merits that justify our support for such programs.
I hope that this legislation will be carefully considered by my
colleagues, and I look forward to further discussion on its merits in
the days ahead.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 514. A bill for the relief of the heirs, successors, or assigns of
Sadae Tamabayashi; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
relief for the family of sadae tamabayashi
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill for the relief
of the family of Sadae Tamabayashi.
In 1941, Mrs. Tamabayashi was the owner of Paradise Clothes Cleaning
Shop in Honolulu, HI. On the fateful morning of December 7, she and her
family lost everything that they owned. The attack on Pearl Harbor not
only had national repercussions, it affected the lives of many
individuals as well, especially those who lived in Hawaii at the time.
For Sadae Tamabayashi and her family, the bombing was devastating to
their livelihood.
On the morning of December 7, Paradise Clothes Cleaning Shop was
destroyed by fire which started as a result of the attack on Pearl
Harbor and the subsequent retaliatory shots by U.S. Armed Forces. The
entire building and its contents, which included the Tamabayashi's
family quarters, were destroyed.
The Tamabayashi family attempted to seek compensation through the War
Damage Corporation Claims Service Office in 1942. Their efforts were to
no avail. Their claim for reparations was denied by the corporation
because Mrs. Tamabayashi was a Japanese national. However, Mrs.
Tamabayashi was prohibited from becoming a citizen under the
Immigration Act of 1924, which excluded persons of Japanese descent. It
was not until 1952, 7 years after the end of World War II, that the
1924 Immigration Act was repealed, and Asians were finally given equal
citizenship status in this country.
The family of Sadae Tamabayashi seeks fair treatment of their
mother's losses. I hope that my colleagues will support this effort to
bring to a close this sad chapter in the lives of the Tamabayashi
family.
______
By Mr. BRADLEY:
S. 515. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the
Poultry Products Inspection Act to provide for improved public health
and food safety through the reduction of harmful substances in meat and
poultry that present a threat to public health, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
family food protection act
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, let me tell you about Katie O'Connell.
Katie's picture ended up on postcards that thousands of Americans have
sent and will be sending to Washington. Neither her parents nor I are
glad that this is the case. You see, Katie was a beautiful, happy, 2-
year-old girl from my home State of New Jersey. Yet, she died from
eating a hamburger served at a fast food restaurant. Unknown to anyone,
her meal was contaminated with a deadly pathogen called E coli. Sadly,
the meat that Katie ate had been declared safe by inspectors from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Katie died from a disease that should have been detected through our
Federal meat inspection system. Katie is no longer alive because that
system failed her and her family, and has failed thousands of others
across the country. The legislation I am introducing today, the Family
Food Protection Act, is designed to ensure a Federal system that
protects the public and not just meat processors and slaughterhouses.
Diseases cause by foodborne illness often strike those most
vulnerable in our society: our children. Last summer, health officials
in New Jersey battled another outbreak of the disease that killed Katie
O'Connell. One family the McCormick's of Newton, NJ, had two of their
children--ages 2 and 3--hospitalized. Their lives were in danger
because they too ate meat that had been declared safe by Federal
inspectors in the Department of Agriculture.
These cases in New Jersey are far from isolated: The Centers for
Disease Control estimates that over 9,000 people die, and another 6.5
million become sick, from foodborne illness every year.
That the current system represents a false promise to the public is
not news. Many studies, including work by the GAO and the National
Academy of Science, make this point.
About 1 month ago, the USDA proposed a series of new regulations for
food inspection. These rules would require a daily testing for
salmonella at meat/poultry processing plants. Additionally, each of the
Nation's 6,000 slaughterhouses and processing plants would have to
develop operating plans designed to minimize the possible sources of
contamination.
This proposal represents a significant improvement over the current
system--which has remained remarkably unchanged for 90 years. However,
the proposal leaves some significant holes. The Family Food Protection
Act fills the holes:
First, the Family Food Protection Act is comprehensive--we need to
recognize the scope of the problem. It's not just salmonella. We need
USDA to consider the whole range of human pathogens--bacteria--and
other harmful substances--for example animal drugs, pollutants--that
can threaten health. My bill calls on the Secretary to enact standards
and regulations designed to control and reduce any of these dangerous
substances that is likely to cause foodborne illness.
Second, the Family Food Protection Act gives the Secretary the
enforcement tools he needs--the bill allows the Secretary: to order a
recall of contaminated food; to demand the identification of the whole
chain of companies that may have handled a contaminated food--
``traceback''; to withdraw Federal inspection, and the USDA seal of
approval from plants that are repeated violators of regulations; to
issue civil fines, which makes it more likely that the processors will
follow through with their improved operating procedures.
Third, the Family Food Protection Act helps protect the conscientious
worker--the new USDA regulations depend on changes in the daily
operations of thousands of plants to protect the public. In order to
provide the most protection to the public, we need the cooperation of
workers as well as managers. This bill provides explicit whistleblower
protection to food processing employees who step forward with public
health concerns.
Fourth, the Family Food Protection Act keeps the public involved and
informed--this bill would: provide for public access to food safety
inspection records; create a public advisory board of food safety.
Last Congress, Congressman Torricelli and I introduced the Katie
O'Connell Safe Food Act. Like most legislation, that bill didn't make
it into law. But that fact does not mean that we haven't changed policy
as a result. This bill exposed the inadequacies of the status quo and
shook up the bureaucrats at USDA.
I'm pleased that the USDA is trying to respond to the challenge of
food safety. But the USDA has much more to do before the public can
really believe their program means a guarantee of healthy food. This
new bill is the blueprint for the work yet to be done.
The Family Food Protection Act is supported by a wide range of
consumer and food safety advocacy groups. I urge my colleagues in the
Senate to consider this legislation carefully and support its
enactment.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a bill summary and the
legislation be printed following these remarks.
There being no objection, the materials was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 515
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 ``Family
Food Protection Act of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
TITLE I--MEAT INSPECTION
Sec. 101. References to the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Inspection of meat and meat food products.
[[Page S3615]] Sec. 104. Post mortem examination of carcasses and
marking or labeling.
Sec. 105. Storage and handling regulations.
Sec. 106. Federal and State cooperation.
Sec. 107. Auxiliary provisions.
Sec. 108. Reducing adulteration of meat and meat food products.
TITLE II--POULTRY INSPECTION
Sec. 201. References to the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Federal and State cooperation.
Sec. 204. Ante mortem and post mortem inspection, reinspection, and
quarantine.
Sec. 205. Exemptions.
Sec. 206. Reducing adulteration of poultry and poultry products.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) bacterial foodborne illness exacts a terrible toll on
United States citizens, taking approximately 9,000 lives each
year and causing between 6,500,000 and 80,000,000 illnesses;
(2) meat and meat food products, and poultry and poultry
products, contaminated with pathogenic bacteria are a leading
cause of foodborne illness;
(3) foodborne illness related to meat and poultry cost
Americans between $2,000,000,000 and $4,000,000,000 each year
in medical expenses and lost wages;
(4) the number of illnesses and deaths associated with
adulterated meat and poultry undermines public confidence in
the food supply of the United States and tends to destroy
both domestic and foreign markets for wholesome meat and
poultry;
(5) the meat and poultry inspection system costs United
States taxpayers approximately $600,000,000 per year but does
not provide adequate protection against foodborne illness
because the system does not test for and limit the presence
of disease-causing bacteria;
(6) the Federal Government must--
(A) set levels of disease-causing bacteria above which meat
and meat food products and poultry and poultry products are
determined to be unsafe for human consumption and
adulterated; and
(B) remove the products from commerce unless and until the
products are made safe;
(7) beginning with the National Academy of Sciences report
entitled ``Meat and Poultry: The Scientific Basis for the
Nation's Program'', the United States Department of
Agriculture has been urged to shift from organoleptic
inspection to inspection based on the detection and
limitation of disease-causing bacteria;
(8) to sustain the confidence of the people of the United
States and justify the expenditure of tax dollars, the
inspection system must--
(A) be based on sound application of modern science;
(B) effectively protect human health;
(C) be open to public scrutiny;
(D) create incentives for high standards;
(E) provide for fines for failure to meet standards; and
(F) assess severe penalties for intentional violation of
the law;
(9) a modern system of meat and poultry inspection should
extend from farm to table and require livestock and poultry
producers, handlers, processors, distributors, transporters,
and retailers to assume responsibility for handling
livestock, meat, meat food products, poultry, and poultry
products in such a way as to limit contamination to a level
that will not endanger human health;
(10) to effectively protect human health, there must be an
orderly transition from the system of inspection in effect on
the date of enactment of this Act to a new system based on
preventive controls that are designed to limit the presence
of disease-causing bacteria on meat, meat food products,
poultry, and poultry products, and the efficacy of the new
system must be demonstrated by pilot projects;
(11)(A) consumer confidence is further undermined by the
``USDA Inspected and Passed'' seal that appears on every
package of meat or a meat food product and the ``USDA
Inspected for Wholesomeness'' seal that appears on every
package of poultry and poultry products, a seal that misleads
consumers into believing the products are safe when the
products often are contaminated with disease-causing
bacteria; and
(B) the Federal Government should not affix a seal that
misleads consumers and may increase the incidence of
foodborne illness and death; and
(12)(A) all articles and other animals that are subject to
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and
the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.)
are in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect
commerce; and
(B) regulation by the Secretary of Agriculture and
cooperation by the States, consistent with this Act and the
amendments made by this Act, are necessary to prevent or
eliminate burdens on commerce and to protect the health and
welfare of consumers of the United States.
TITLE I--MEAT INSPECTION
SEC. 101. REFERENCES TO THE FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT.
Whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed
in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Federal Meat Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), except to the extent otherwise
specifically provided.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Adulterated.--Section 1(m)(1) (21 U.S.C. 601(m)(1)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) if it bears or contains a poisonous or deleterious
substance that may render it injurious to health, except
that, in the case of a substance that is not an added
substance, the article shall be considered adulterated under
this subsection if there is a reasonable probability that the
quantity of the substance in the article will cause adverse
health consequences;''.
(b) Added Substance; Official Establishment.--Section 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(w) The term `added substance'--
``(1) means a substance that is not an inherent constituent
of a food and whose intended use results, or may reasonably
be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in the
substance becoming a component of, or otherwise affecting the
characteristics of, the food; and
``(2) includes--
``(A) a substance that is intentionally added to any food;
or
``(B) a substance that is the result of microbial, viral,
environmental, agricultural, industrial, or other
contamination.
``(x) The term `official establishment' means an
establishment at which inspection of the slaughter of cattle,
sheep, swine, goats, mules, and other equines, or the
processing of meat and meat food products of the animals, is
maintained in accordance with this Act.''.
SEC. 103. STORAGE AND HANDLING REGULATIONS.
The last sentence of section 24 (21 U.S.C. 624) is amended
by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
except that regulations issued under section 503 shall apply
to a retail store or other type of retail establishment''.
SEC. 104. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.
Section 301(c) (21 U.S.C. 661(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by inserting after ``the Wholesome Meat Act,'' the
following: ``or by 30 days prior to the expiration of the 2-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Family
Food Protection Act of 1995,''; and
(ii) by striking ``title I and IV'' and inserting ``titles
I, IV, and V'';
(B) by striking ``titles I and IV'' each place it appears
and inserting ``titles I, IV, and V''; and
(C) by striking ``title I and title IV'' each place it
appears and inserting ``titles I, IV, and V''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``titles I and IV'' each
place it appears and inserting ``titles I, IV, and V''.
SEC. 105. AUXILIARY PROVISIONS.
Sections 402 and 403 (21 U.S.C. 672 and 673) are amended by
striking ``title I or II'' each place it appears and
inserting ``title I, II, or V''.
SEC. 106. REDUCING ADULTERATION OF MEAT AND MEAT FOOD
PRODUCTS.
The Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``TITLE V--REDUCING ADULTERATION OF MEAT AND MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS
``SEC. 501. REDUCING ADULTERATION OF MEAT AND MEAT FOOD
PRODUCTS.
``(a) In General.--On the basis of the best available
scientific and technological data, the Secretary shall issue
regulations to--
``(1) limit the presence of human pathogens and other
potentially harmful substances in cattle, sheep, swine, or
goats, or horses, mules, or other equines at the time the
animals are presented for slaughter;
``(2) ensure that appropriate measures are taken to control
and reduce the presence and growth of human pathogens and
other potentially harmful substances on carcasses and parts
of carcasses and on meat or meat food products derived from
the animals prepared in any official establishment;
``(3) ensure that all ready-to-eat meat or meat food
products prepared in any official establishment preparing the
meat or food product for distribution in commerce are
processed in such a manner as to destroy any human pathogens
and other potentially harmful substances that are likely to
cause foodborne illness; and
``(4) ensure that meat and meat food products, other than
meat and meat food products referred to in paragraph (3),
prepared at any official establishment preparing meat or a
meat food product for distribution in commerce are labeled
with instructions for handling and preparation for
consumption that, when adhered to, will destroy any human
pathogens or other potentially harmful substances that are
likely to cause foodborne illness.
``(b) Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
carcass or part of a carcass, or meat or a meat food product,
prepared at any official establishment preparing the article
for distribution in commerce, that is found not to be in
compliance with the regulations issued under paragraph (2),
(3), or (4) of subsection (a) shall be--
``(A) considered adulterated and determined to be
condemned; and
``(B) if no appeal is made to the determination of
condemnation, destroyed for human food purposes under the
supervision of a duly authorized representative of the
Secretary.
``(2) Reprocessing or labeling.--A carcass or part of a
carcass, or meat or a meat food
[[Page S3616]] product that is not in compliance with
paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (a), but that may by
reprocessing or labeling, or both, be made not adulterated,
need not be condemned and destroyed if after reprocessing or
labeling, or both, as applicable and as determined by the
Secretary, under the supervision of a duly authorized
representative of the Secretary, the carcass, part of a
carcass, meat, or meat food product is subsequently inspected
and found to be not adulterated.
``(3) Appeals.--
``(A) Action pending appeal.--If an appeal is made to a
determination of condemnation, the carcass, part of a
carcass, meat, or meat food product shall be appropriately
marked, segregated, and held by the official establishment
pending completion of an appeal inspection.
``(B) Condemnation sustained.--If the determination of
condemnation is sustained, the carcass, part of a carcass,
meat, or meat food product if not so reprocessed or labeled,
or both, under paragraph (2) so as to be made not
adulterated, shall be destroyed for human food purposes under
the supervision of a duly authorized representative of the
Secretary.
``(c) Human Pathogens and Other Harmful Substances.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title,
the Secretary shall issue regulations that--
``(1) require meat and meat food products in an official
establishment to be tested, in such manner and with such
frequency as the Secretary considers necessary, to identify
human pathogens, or markers for the pathogens, and other
potentially harmful substances in the meat and meat food
products;
``(2) require that the results of any test conducted in
accordance with paragraph (1) be reported to the Secretary,
in such manner and with such frequency as the Secretary
considers necessary;
``(3)(A) establish interim limits for human pathogens and
other potentially harmful substances that, when found on meat
or meat food products, may present a threat to public health;
and
``(B) in carrying out subparagraph (A)--
``(i) establish interim limits that are below the industry
mean as determined by the Secretary for the pathogen or other
potentially harmful substance established through national
baseline studies; and
``(ii) reestablish the interim limits every two years after
the initial interim limits until the regulatory limits
referred to in subsection (d)(2), tolerances, or other
standards are established under this Act or other applicable
law; and
``(4) prohibit or restrict the sale, transportation, offer
for sale or transportation, or receipt for transportation of
any meat or meat food products that--
``(A) are capable of use as human food; and
``(B) exceed the regulatory limits, interim limits,
tolerances, or other standards established under this Act or
other applicable law for human pathogens or other potentially
harmful substances.
``(d) Research and Regulatory Limits.--
``(1) Research on food safety.--The Secretary, acting
through the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety,
shall conduct or support appropriate research on food safety,
including--
``(A) developing and reevaluating appropriate limits for
human pathogens or other potentially harmful substances that
when found on meat and meat food products prepared in
official establishments may present a threat to public
health;
``(B) developing efficient, rapid, and sensitive methods
for determining and detecting the presence of microbial
contamination, chemical residues, and animal diseases that
have an adverse impact on human health;
``(C) conducting baseline studies on the prevalence of
human pathogens or other potentially harmful substances in
processing facilities; and
``(D) conducting risk assessments to determine the human
pathogens and other potentially harmful substances that pose
the greatest risk to human health.
``(2) Regulatory limits for human pathogens and other
harmful substances.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish regulatory limits, to the maximum
extent scientifically supportable, for human pathogens and
other potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals,
that, when found as a component of meat or meat food products
prepared in official establishments, may present a threat to
public health.
``(B) Risk to human health.--In establishing the regulatory
limits, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
consider the risk to human health, including the risk to
children, the elderly, individuals whose immune systems are
compromised, and other population subgroups, posed by
consumption of the meat or meat food products containing the
human pathogen or other potentially harmful substance.
``(C) Funding.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall annually
transfer to the Secretary of Health and Human Services an
amount, to be determined by the Secretaries, to defray the
cost of establishing the regulatory limits.
``(e) Surveillance and Sampling Systems.--
``(1) Surveillance system.--In conjunction with the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Secretary shall
develop and administer an active surveillance system for
foodborne illness, that is based on a representative sample
of the population of the United States, to assess more
accurately the frequency and sources of human disease in the
United States associated with the consumption of food
products.
``(2) Sampling system.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary shall establish a
sampling system, using data collected under subsection (c)(2)
and other sources, to analyze the nature, frequency of
occurrence, and quantities of human pathogens and other
potentially harmful substances in meat and meat food
products.
``(B) Information.--The sampling system shall provide--
``(i) statistically valid monitoring, including market
basket studies, on the nature, frequency of occurrence, and
quantity of human pathogens and other potentially harmful
substances in meat and meat food products available to
consumers; and
``(ii) such other information as the Secretary determines
may be useful in assessing the occurrence of human pathogens
and other potentially harmful substances in meat and meat
food products.
``(C) Noncompliance.--If a sample is found to exceed
regulatory limits, interim limits, tolerances, or standards
established under this Act or other applicable law, the
Secretary shall take action to prevent violative products
from entering commerce or to remove the violative products
from the market.
``(f) Review and Consultation.--
``(1) Review.--The Secretary shall review, at least 2
years, all regulations, processes, procedures, and methods
designed to limit and control human pathogens and other
potentially harmful substances present on or in carcasses and
parts of carcasses and in meat and meat food products. The
ongoing review shall include, as necessary, epidemiologic and
other scientific studies to ascertain the efficiency and
efficacy of the regulations, processes, procedures, and
methods.
``(2) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraphs (1) and (3)
of subsection (c), subsection (d), subsection (e)(1), and
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with the Assistant
Secretary for Health, the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
and the heads of such other Federal and State public health
agencies as the Secretary considers appropriate.
``SEC. 502. HAZARD CONTROLS.
``(a) Regulations.--
``(1) Issuance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary shall issue
regulations that require an official establishment to--
``(A) adopt processing controls that are adequate to
protect public health; and
``(B) limit the presence and growth of human pathogens and
other potentially harmful substances in carcasses and parts
of carcasses and on meat and meat food products derived from
animals prepared in the establishment.
``(2) Content.--The regulations shall--
``(A) set standards for sanitation;
``(B) set interim limits for biological, chemical, and
physical hazards, as appropriate;
``(C) require processing controls to ensure that relevant
regulatory standards are met;
``(D) require recordkeeping to monitor compliance;
``(E) require sampling to ensure that processing controls
are effective and that regulatory standards are being met;
and
``(F) provide for agency access to records kept by official
establishments and submission of copies of the records to the
Secretary as the Secretary considers appropriate.
``(3) Public access.--Public access to records that relate
to the adequacy of measures taken by an official
establishment to protect the public health, and to limit the
presence and growth of human pathogens and other potentially
harmful substances, shall be subject to section 552 of title
5, United States Code.
``(4) Processing controls.--The Secretary may, as the
Secretary considers necessary, require any person with
responsibility for, or control over, any animals or meat or
meat food products intended for human consumption to adopt
processing controls, if the processing controls are needed to
ensure the protection of public health.
``(b) Advisory Board.--
``(1) In general.--On the issuance of regulations under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall convene an advisory board
on meat and poultry safety to--
``(A) recommend improvements to the meat and poultry
inspection programs;
``(B) evaluate alternatives to the programs; and
``(C) provide other relevant advice to the Secretary.
``(2) Composition.--The advisory board shall include
representatives of consumers, processors, producers, retail
outlets, inspectors, plant workers, public health officials,
and victims of foodborne illness.
``(3) Duties.--The advisory board shall--
``(A) evaluate--
``(i) the meat and poultry inspection programs; and
``(ii) the significance of the programs in ensuring the
proper operation of mandatory processing controls; and
[[Page S3617]] ``(B) make recommendations to the Secretary
described in paragraph (4).
``(4) Report.--The Secretary shall report to Congress on
the recommendations of the advisory board for improving the
meat and poultry inspection programs, including--
``(A) the timing and criteria for any changes in the
programs;
``(B) alternative approaches for addressing safety and
quality issues; and
``(C) the minimum time needed to ensure that processing
controls effectively reduce foodborne illness prior to any
change in the programs.
``(5) Procedure.--The advisory board shall be subject to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
``(c) Labeling.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, if the Secretary discontinues carcass-by-carcass
inspection of meat, the `USDA Inspected and Passed' seal, or
a similar seal, shall not be affixed to any carcasses and
parts of carcasses and to meat and meat food products derived
from the animals prepared in any official establishment.
``SEC. 503. VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES FOR RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
``(a) Standards.--
``(1) In general.--In consultation with representatives of
States, the Conference for Food Protection, the Association
of Food and Drug Officials, and Federal agencies, the
Secretary shall establish minimum standards for the handling,
processing, and storage of meat and meat food products at
retail stores, restaurants, and similar types of retail
establishments (collectively referred to in this section as
`retail establishments').
``(2) Content.--The standards shall--
``(A) be designed to ensure that meat and meat food
products sold by retail establishments are safe for human
consumption;
``(B) be based on the principles of preventive controls;
and
``(C) include--
``(i) safe food product processing and handling practices
for retail establishments, including time and temperature
controls on meat and meat food products sold by the
establishments;
``(ii) equipment handling practices, including standards
for the cleaning and sanitization of food equipment and
utensils;
``(iii) minimum personnel hygiene requirements; and
``(iv) requirements for the use of temperature warning
devices on raw meat and meat food products to alert consumers
to inadequate temperature controls.
``(b) Guidelines.--
``(1) Issuance.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary, after notice and
opportunity for comment, shall issue guidelines for retail
establishments that offer meat and meat food products that
include the standards established under subsection (a).
``(2) Compliance.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall issue a final
regulation defining the circumstances that constitute
substantial compliance by retail establishments with the
guidelines issued under paragraph (1). The regulation shall
provide that there is not substantial compliance if a
significant number of retail establishments have failed to
comply with the guidelines.
``(3) Report.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this title, the Secretary shall issue a report
to Congress on actions taken by retail establishments to
comply with the guidelines. The report shall include a
determination of whether there is substantial compliance with
the guidelines.
``(B) Substantial compliance.--If the Secretary determines
that there is substantial compliance with the guidelines, the
Secretary shall issue a report and make a determination in
accordance with subparagraph (A) not less than every 2 years.
``(C) No substantial compliance.--If the Secretary
determines that there is not substantial compliance with the
guidelines, the Secretary shall (at the time the
determination is made) issue proposed regulations requiring
that retail establishments comply with the guidelines. The
Secretary shall issue final regulations imposing the
requirement not later than 180 days after issuance of any
proposed regulations. Any final regulations shall become
effective 180 days after the date of the issuance of the
final regulations.
``(c) Enforcement.--A State may bring, in the name of the
State and within the jurisdiction of the State, a proceeding
for the civil enforcement, or to restrain a violation, of
final regulations issued pursuant to subsection (b)(3)(C) if
the food that is the subject of the proceeding is located in
the State.
``SEC. 504. LIVESTOCK TRACEBACK.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Identification.--For the purpose of understanding the
nature of foodborne illness and minimizing the risks of
foodborne illness from carcasses and parts of carcasses and
meat and meat food products distributed in commerce, the
Secretary shall, as the Secretary considers necessary,
prescribe by regulation that cattle, sheep, swine, and goats,
and horses, mules, and other equines presented for slaughter
for human food purposes be identified in a manner prescribed
by the Secretary to enable the Secretary to trace each animal
to any premises at which the animal has been held for such
period prior to slaughter as the Secretary considers
necessary to carry out this Act.
``(2) Prohibition or restriction on entry.--The Secretary
may prohibit or restrict entry into any slaughtering
establishment inspected under this Act of any cattle, sheep,
swine, or goats, or horses, mules, or other equines not
identified as prescribed by the Secretary.
``(b) Records.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may require that a person
required to identify livestock pursuant to subsection (a)
maintain accurate records, as prescribed by the Secretary,
regarding the purchase, sale, and identification of the
livestock.
``(2) Access.--A person subject to paragraph (1) shall, at
all reasonable times, on notice by a duly authorized
representative of the Secretary, afford the representative
access to the place of business of the person and an
opportunity to examine the records of the person and copy the
records.
``(3) Duration.--Any record required to be maintained under
this subsection shall be maintained for such period of time
as the Secretary prescribes.
``(c) False Information.--No person shall falsify or
misrepresent to the Secretary or any other person any
information concerning the premises at which any cattle,
sheep, swine, or goats, or horses, mules, or other equines,
or carcasses thereof, were held.
``(d) Maintenance of Records.--No person shall, without
authorization from the Secretary, alter, detach, or destroy
any records or other means of identification prescribed by
the Secretary for use in determining the premises at which
were held any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, or horses,
mules, or other equines, or the carcasses thereof.
``(e) Human Pathogens or Other Harmful Substances.--
``(1) Identification of source.--If the Secretary finds any
human pathogen or any other potentially harmful substance in
any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, or horses, mules, or
other equines at the time they are presented for slaughter or
in any carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, or meat food
products prepared in an official establishment and the
Secretary finds that there is a reasonable probability that
human consumption of any meat or meat food product containing
the human pathogen or other potentially harmful substance
presents a threat to public health, the Secretary may take
such action as the Secretary considers necessary to determine
the source of the human pathogen or other potentially harmful
substance.
``(2) Action.--If the Secretary identifies the source of
any human pathogen or other potentially harmful substance
referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary may prohibit or
restrict the movement of any animals, carcasses, parts of
carcasses, meat, meat food products, or any other article
from any source of the human pathogen or other potentially
harmful substance until the Secretary determines that the
human pathogen or other potentially harmful substance at the
source no longer presents a threat to public health.
``(f) Producers and Handlers.--
``(1) Use of methods.--The Secretary shall use any means of
identification and recordkeeping methods utilized by
producers or handlers of cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, or
horses, mules, or other equines whenever the Secretary
determines that the means of identification and recordkeeping
methods will enable the Secretary to carry out this section.
``(2) Cooperation.--The Secretary may cooperate with
producers or handlers of cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, or
horses, mules, or other equines, in which any human pathogen
or other potentially harmful substance described in
subsection (e)(1) is found, to develop and carry out methods
to limit or eliminate the human pathogen or other potentially
harmful substance at the source.
``SEC. 505. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL OF NONCONFORMING
ARTICLES.
``(a) Notification.--Any person preparing carcasses or
parts of carcasses, meat, or meat food products for
distribution in commerce who obtains knowledge that provides
a reasonable basis for believing that any carcasses or parts
of carcasses or any meat or meat food products--
``(1) are unsafe for human consumption, adulterated, or not
produced in accordance with section 501(a); or
``(2) are misbranded;
shall immediately notify the Secretary, in such manner and by
such means as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe, of
the identity and location of the articles.
``(b) Recall.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary finds, on notification
or otherwise, that any carcasses or parts of carcasses or any
meat or meat food products--
``(A) are unsafe for human consumption, adulterated, or not
produced in accordance with section 501(a); or
``(B) are misbranded;
the Secretary shall by order require any person engaged in
the processing, handling, transportation, storage,
importation, distribution, or sale of the articles to
immediately cease any distribution of the articles, and to
recall the articles from commercial distribution and use, if
the Secretary determines that there is a reasonable
probability that the product is unsafe for human consumption,
adulterated, or misbranded, unless the person is engaged in a
voluntary recall of the articles that the Secretary considers
adequate.
``(2) Order.--The order shall--
``(A) include a timetable during which the recall shall
occur;
[[Page S3618]] ``(B) require periodic reports by the person
to the Secretary describing the progress of the recall; and
``(C) require notice to consumers to whom the articles
were, or may have been, distributed as to how the consumers
should treat the article.
``(c) Informal Hearing.--
``(1) In general.--The order shall provide any person
subject to the order with an opportunity for an informal
hearing, to be held not later than 5 days after the date of
issuance of the order, on the actions required by the order.
``(2) Vacation of order.--If, after providing an
opportunity for the hearing, the Secretary determines that
inadequate grounds exist to support the actions required by
the order, the Secretary shall vacate the order.
``(d) Judicial Recall.--A district court of the United
States may order any person engaged in the processing,
handling, transportation, storage, importation, distribution,
or sale of any carcass, part of a carcass, meat, or meat food
product to recall the carcass, part of a carcass, meat, or
meat food product if the court finds that there is a
reasonable probability that the carcass, part of a carcass,
meat, or meat food product is unsafe for human consumption,
adulterated, or misbranded.
``SEC. 506. REFUSAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF INSPECTION.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may, for such period or
indefinitely as the Secretary considers necessary to carry
out this Act, refuse to provide, or withdraw, inspections
under title I with respect to any official establishment if
the Secretary determines, after opportunity for a hearing is
accorded to the applicant for, or recipient of, the service
that the applicant or recipient, or any person connected with
the applicant or recipient, has repeatedly failed to comply
with this Act.
``(b) Inspections Pending Review.--The Secretary may direct
that, pending opportunity for an expedited hearing in the
case of any refusal or withdrawal of inspections and the
final determination and order under subsection (a) and any
judicial review of the determination and order, inspections
shall be denied or suspended if the Secretary considers the
action necessary in the public interest in order to protect
the health or welfare of consumers or to ensure the safe and
effective performance of official duties under this Act.
``(c) Judicial Review.--
``(1) In general.--The determination and order of the
Secretary with respect to refusal or withdrawal of
inspections under this section shall be final and conclusive
unless the applicant for, or recipient of, inspections files
an application for judicial review not later than 30 days
after the effective date of the order.
``(2) Inspections pending review.--Inspections shall be
refused or withdrawn as of the effective date of the order
pending any judicial review of the order unless the Secretary
or the Court of Appeals directs otherwise.
``(3) Venue; record.--Judicial review of the order shall
be--
``(A) in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit
in which the applicant for, or the recipient of, inspections
has the principal place of business of the applicant or
recipient or in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit; and
``(B) based on the record on which the determination and
order are based.
``(4) Process.--Section 204 of the Packers and Stockyards
Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 194), shall be applicable to appeals
taken under this section.
``(d) Additional Authority.--This section shall be in
addition to, and not derogate from, any provision of this Act
for refusal, withdrawal, or suspension of inspections under
title I.
``SEC. 507. CIVIL PENALTIES.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Assessment.--A person who violates this title, a
regulation issued under this title, or an order issued under
subsection (b) or (d) of section 505 may be assessed a civil
penalty by the Secretary of not more than $100,000 for each
day of violation.
``(2) Separate violation.--Each offense described in
paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a separate violation.
``(3) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--No penalty may
be assessed against a person under this section unless the
person is given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on
the record before the Secretary in accordance with sections
554 and 556 of title 5, United States Code.
``(4) Amount.--The amount of the civil penalty shall be
assessed by the Secretary by written order, taking into
account the gravity of the violation, the degree of
culpability, and any history of prior offenses. The amount
may be reviewed only as provided in subsection (b).
``(b) Review.--
``(1) In general.--A person against whom a violation is
found and a civil penalty assessed by order of the Secretary
under subsection (a) may obtain review of the order in the
United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the
party resides or has a place of business or in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by filing a notice of appeal in the court not later than 30
days after the date of the order and by simultaneously
sending a copy of the notice by certified mail to the
Secretary.
``(2) Record.--The Secretary shall promptly file in the
court a certified copy of the record on which the violation
was found and the penalty assessed.
``(3) Findings.--The findings of the Secretary shall be set
aside only if found to be unsupported by substantial evidence
on the record as a whole.
``(c) Civil Action To Recover Assessment.--
``(1) In general.--If a person fails to pay an assessment
of a civil penalty after the penalty has become a final and
unappealable order, or after the appropriate Court of Appeals
has entered final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the
Secretary shall refer the matter to the Attorney General, who
shall institute a civil action to recover the amount assessed
in any appropriate district court of the United States.
``(2) Scope of review.--In a recovery action under
paragraph (1), the validity and appropriateness of the order
of the Secretary imposing the civil penalty shall not be
subject to review.
``(d) Disposition of Amounts.--All amounts collected under
this section shall be paid into the Treasury of the United
States.
``(e) Equitable Relief.--
``(1) Relationship to other actions.--Nothing in this Act
requires the Secretary to report for criminal prosecution, or
for the institution of an injunction or other proceeding, a
violation of this Act, if the Secretary believes that the
public interest will be adequately served by assessment of
civil penalties.
``(2) Modification of penalty.--The Secretary may
compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any
civil penalty assessed under this section.
``SEC. 508. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.
``(a) In General.--No person subject to this Act may
harass, prosecute, hold liable, or discriminate against any
employee or other person because the person--
``(1) is assisting or demonstrating an intent to assist in
achieving compliance with any Federal or State law (including
a rule or regulation);
``(2) is refusing to violate or assist in the violation of
any Federal or State law (including a rule or regulation); or
``(3) has commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to
commence a proceeding, has testified or is about to testify
at a proceeding, or has assisted or participated or is about
to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding
or in any other action to carry out the functions or
responsibilities of any agency, office, or unit of the
Department of Agriculture.
``(b) Procedures and Penalties.--The procedures and
penalties applicable to prohibited acts under subsection (a)
shall be governed by the applicable provisions of section
31105 of title 49, United States Code.
``(c) Burdens of Proof.--The legal burdens of proof with
respect to prohibited acts under subsection (a) shall be
governed by the applicable provisions of sections 1214 and
1221 of title 5, United States Code.''.
TITLE II--POULTRY INSPECTION
SEC. 201. REFERENCES TO THE POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT.
Whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed
in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Poultry Products Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), except to the extent otherwise
specifically provided.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Adulterated.--Section 4(g)(1) (21 U.S.C. 453(g)(1)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) if it bears or contains a poisonous or deleterious
substance that may render it injurious to health, except
that, in the case of a substance that is not an added
substance, the article shall be considered adulterated under
this subsection if there is a reasonable probability that the
quantity of the substance in the article will cause adverse
health consequences;''.
(b) Added Substance.--Section 4 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(cc) The term `added substance'--
``(1) means a substance that is not an inherent constituent
of a food and whose intended use results, or may reasonably
be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in the
substance becoming a component of, or otherwise affecting the
characteristics of, the food; and
``(2) includes--
``(A) a substance that is intentionally added to any food;
or
``(B) a substance that is the result of microbial, viral,
environmental, agricultural, industrial, or other
contamination.''.
SEC. 203. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.
The first sentence of section 5(c)(1) (21 U.S.C. 454(c)(1))
is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``the Wholesome Poultry Products
Act,'' the following: ``or by 30 days prior to the expiration
of the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of
the Family Food Protection Act of 1995,''; and
(2) by striking ``sections 1-4, 6-10, and 12-22 of this
Act'' and inserting ``sections 1 through 4, 6 through 10, 12
through 22, and 30 through 37''.
SEC. 204. EXEMPTIONS.
Section 15(a)(1) (21 U.S.C. 464(a)(1)) is amended by
inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ``,
except that regulations issued under section 32 shall apply
to
[[Page S3619]] a retail store or other type of retail
establishment''.
SEC. 205. REDUCING ADULTERATION OF POULTRY AND POULTRY
PRODUCTS.
The Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 30. REDUCING ADULTERATION OF POULTRY AND POULTRY
PRODUCTS.
``(a) In General.--On the basis of the best available
scientific and technological data, the Secretary shall issue
regulations to--
``(1) limit the presence of human pathogens and other
potentially harmful substances in poultry at the time the
poultry are presented for slaughter;
``(2) ensure that appropriate measures are taken to control
and reduce the presence and growth of human pathogens and
other potentially harmful substances on poultry or poultry
products prepared in any official establishment;
``(3) ensure that all ready-to-eat poultry or poultry
products prepared in any official establishment preparing the
poultry or poultry products for distribution in commerce are
processed in such a manner as to destroy any human pathogens
and other potentially harmful substances that are likely to
cause foodborne illness; and
``(4) ensure that poultry and poultry products, other than
the poultry and products referred to in paragraph (3),
prepared at any official establishment preparing the poultry
or poultry products for distribution in commerce are labeled
with instructions for handling and preparation for
consumption that, when adhered to, will destroy any human
pathogens or other potentially harmful substances that are
likely to cause foodborne illness.
``(b) Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
poultry or a poultry product prepared at any official
establishment preparing the poultry or poultry product for
distribution in commerce, that is found not to be in
compliance with the regulations issued under paragraph (2),
(3), or (4) of subsection (a) shall be--
``(A) considered adulterated and determined to be
condemned; and
``(B) if no appeal is made to the determination of
condemnation, destroyed for human food purposes under the
supervision of an inspector.
``(2) Reprocessing or labeling.--Poultry or a poultry
product that is not in compliance with paragraph (2), (3), or
(4) of subsection (a), but that may by reprocessing or
labeling, or both, be made not adulterated, need not be
condemned and destroyed if after reprocessing or labeling, or
both, as applicable and as determined by the Secretary, under
the supervision of an inspector, the poultry or poultry
product is subsequently inspected and found to be not
adulterated.
``(3) Appeals.--
``(A) Action pending appeal.--If an appeal is made to a
determination of condemnation, the poultry or poultry product
shall be appropriately marked, segregated, and held by the
official establishment pending completion of an appeal
inspection.
``(B) Condemnation sustained.--If the determination of
condemnation is sustained, the poultry or poultry product if
not reprocessed or labeled, or both, under paragraph (2) so
as to be made not adulterated, shall be destroyed for human
food purposes under the supervision of a duly authorized
representative of the Secretary.
``(c) Human Pathogens and Other Harmful Substances.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
section, the Secretary shall issue regulations that--
``(1) require poultry and poultry products in an official
establishment to be tested, in such manner and with such
frequency as the Secretary considers necessary, to identify
human pathogens, or markers for the pathogens, and other
potentially harmful substances in the poultry and poultry
products;
``(2) require that the results of any test conducted in
accordance with paragraph (1) be reported to the Secretary,
in such manner and with such frequency as the Secretary
considers necessary;
``(3)(A) establish interim limits for human pathogens and
other potentially harmful substances that, when found on
poultry or poultry products, may present a threat to public
health; and
``(B) in carrying out subparagraph (A)--
``(i) establish interim limits that are below the industry
mean as determined by the Secretary for the pathogen or other
potentially harmful substance established through national
baseline studies; and
``(ii) reestablish the interim limits every two years after
the initial interim limits until the regulatory limits
referred to in subsection (d)(2), tolerances, or other
standards are established under this Act or other applicable
law; and
``(4) prohibit or restrict the sale, transportation, offer
for sale or transportation, or receipt for transportation of
any poultry or poultry products that--
``(A) are capable of use as human food; and
``(B) exceed the regulatory limits, interim limits,
tolerances, or other standards established under this Act or
other applicable law for human pathogens or other potentially
harmful substances.
``(d) Research and Regulatory Limits.--
``(1) Research on food safety.--The Secretary, acting
through the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety,
shall conduct or support appropriate research on food safety,
including--
``(A) developing and reevaluating appropriate limits for
human pathogens or other potentially harmful substances that
when found on poultry and poultry products prepared in
official establishments may present a threat to public
health;
``(B) developing efficient, rapid, and sensitive methods
for determining and detecting the presence of microbial
contamination, chemical residues, and animal diseases that
have an adverse impact on human health;
``(C) conducting baseline studies on the prevalence of
human pathogens or other potentially harmful substances in
processing facilities; and
``(D) conducting risk assessments to determine the human
pathogens and other potentially harmful substances that pose
the greatest risk to human health.
``(2) Regulatory limits for human pathogens and other
harmful substances.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish regulatory limits, to the maximum
extent scientifically supportable, for human pathogens and
other potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals,
that, when found as a component of poultry or poultry
products prepared in official establishments, may present a
threat to public health.
``(B) Risk to human health.--In establishing the regulatory
limits, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
consider the risk to human health, including the risk to
children, the elderly, individuals whose immune systems are
compromised, and other population subgroups, posed by
consumption of the poultry or poultry products containing the
human pathogen or other potentially harmful substance.
``(C) Funding.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall annually
transfer to the Secretary of Health and Human Services an
amount, to be determined by the Secretaries, to defray the
cost of establishing the regulatory limits.
``(e) Surveillance and Sampling Systems.--
``(1) Surveillance system.--In conjunction with the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Secretary shall
develop and administer an active surveillance system for
foodborne illness, that is based on a representative sample
of the population of the United States, to assess more
accurately the frequency and sources of human disease in the
United States associated with the consumption of poultry and
poultry products.
``(2) Sampling system.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall establish a
sampling system, using data collected under subsection (c)(2)
and other sources, to analyze the nature, frequency of
occurrence, and quantities of human pathogens and other
potentially harmful substances in poultry and poultry
products.
``(B) Information.--The sampling system shall provide--
``(i) statistically valid monitoring, including market
basket studies, on the nature, frequency of occurrence, and
quantity of human pathogens and other potentially harmful
substances in poultry and poultry products available to
consumers; and
``(ii) such other information as the Secretary determines
may be useful in assessing the occurrence of human pathogens
and other potentially harmful substances in poultry and
poultry products.
``(C) Noncompliance.--If a sample is found to exceed
regulatory limits, interim limits, tolerances, or standards
established under this Act or other applicable law, the
Secretary shall take action to prevent violative products
from entering commerce or to remove the violative products
from the market.
``(f) Review and Consultation.--
``(1) Review.--The Secretary shall review, at least every 2
years, all regulations, processes, procedures, and methods
designed to limit and control human pathogens and other
potentially harmful substances present on or in poultry and
poultry products. The ongoing review shall include, as
necessary, epidemiologic and other scientific studies to
ascertain the efficiency and efficacy of the regulations,
processes, procedures, and methods.
``(2) Consultation.--In carrying out paragraphs (1) and (3)
of subsection (c), subsection (d), subsection (e)(1), and
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with the Assistant
Secretary for Health, the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
and the heads of such other Federal and State public health
agencies as the Secretary considers appropriate.
``SEC. 31. HAZARD CONTROLS.
``(a) Regulations.--
``(1) Issuance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue
regulations that require an official establishment to--
``(A) adopt processing controls that are adequate to
protect public health; and
``(B) limit the presence and growth of human pathogens and
other potentially harmful substances in poultry and poultry
products prepared in the establishment.
``(2) Content.--The regulations shall--
``(A) set standards for sanitation;
``(B) set interim limits for biological, chemical, and
physical hazards, as appropriate;
[[Page S3620]] ``(C) require processing controls to ensure
that relevant regulatory standards are met;
``(D) require recordkeeping to monitor compliance;
``(E) require sampling to ensure that processing controls
are effective and that regulatory standards are being met;
and
``(F) provide for agency access to records kept by official
establishments and submission of copies of the records to the
Secretary as the Secretary considers appropriate.
``(3) Public access.--Public access to records that relate
to the adequacy of measures taken by an official
establishment to protect the public health, and to limit the
presence and growth of human pathogens and other potentially
harmful substances, shall be subject to section 552 of title
5, United States Code.
``(4) Processing controls.--The Secretary may, as the
Secretary considers necessary, require any person with
responsibility for, or control over, any poultry or poultry
products intended for human consumption to adopt processing
controls, if the processing controls are needed to ensure the
protection of public health.
``(b) Advisory Board.--On the issuance of regulations under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall convene an advisory board
on meat and poultry safety in accordance with section 502(b)
of the Federal Meat Inspection Act.
``(c) Labeling.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, if the Secretary discontinues carcass-by-carcass
inspection of poultry, the `USDA Inspected for Wholesomeness'
seal, or a similar seal, shall not be affixed to any poultry
and poultry products derived from the poultry prepared in any
official establishment.
``SEC. 32. VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES FOR RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
``(a) Standards.--
``(1) In general.--In consultation with representatives of
States, the Conference for Food Protection, the Association
of Food and Drug Officials, and Federal agencies, the
Secretary shall establish minimum standards for the handling,
processing, and storage of poultry and poultry products at
retail stores, restaurants, and similar types of retail
establishments (collectively referred to in this section as
`retail establishments').
``(2) Content.--The standards shall--
``(A) be designed to ensure that poultry and poultry
products sold by the retail establishments are safe for human
consumption;
``(B) be based on the principles of preventive controls;
and
``(C) include--
``(i) safe food product processing and handling practices
for retail establishments, including time and temperature
controls on poultry and poultry products sold by the
establishments;
``(ii) equipment handling practices, including standards
for the cleaning and sanitization of food equipment and
utensils;
``(iii) minimum personnel hygiene requirements; and
``(iv) requirements for the use of temperature warning
devices on raw poultry or poultry products to alert consumers
to inadequate temperature controls.
``(b) Guidelines.--
``(1) Issuance.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary, after notice and
opportunity for comment, shall issue guidelines for retail
establishments that offer poultry and poultry products that
include the standards established under subsection (a).
``(2) Compliance.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue a
final regulation defining the circumstances that constitute
substantial compliance by retail establishments with the
guidelines issued under paragraph (1). The regulation shall
provide that there is not substantial compliance if a
significant number of retail establishments have failed to
comply with the guidelines.
``(3) Report.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue a report
to Congress on actions taken by retail establishments to
comply with the guidelines. The report shall include a
determination of whether there is substantial compliance with
the guidelines.
``(B) Substantial compliance.--If the Secretary determines
that there is substantial compliance with the guidelines, the
Secretary shall issue a report and make a determination in
accordance with subparagraph (A) not less than every 2 years.
``(C) No substantial compliance.--If the Secretary
determines that there is not substantial compliance with the
guidelines, the Secretary shall (at the time the
determination is made) issue proposed regulations requiring
that retail establishments comply with the guidelines. The
Secretary shall issue final regulations imposing the
requirement not later than 180 days after issuance of any
proposed regulations. Any final regulations shall become
effective 180 days after the date of the issuance of the
final regulations.
``(c) Enforcement.--A State may bring, in the name of the
State and within the jurisdiction of the State, a proceeding
for the civil enforcement, or to restrain a violation, of
final regulations issued pursuant to subsection (b)(3)(C) if
the food that is the subject of the proceeding is located in
the State.
``SEC. 33. LIVESTOCK TRACEBACK.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Identification.--For the purpose of understanding the
nature of foodborne illness and minimizing the risks of
foodborne illness from poultry and poultry products
distributed in commerce, the Secretary shall, as the
Secretary considers necessary, prescribe by regulation that
poultry presented for slaughter for human food purposes be
identified in a manner prescribed by the Secretary to enable
the Secretary to trace each poultry to any premises at which
the poultry has been held for such period prior to slaughter
as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out this Act.
``(2) Prohibition or restriction on entry.--The Secretary
may prohibit or restrict entry into any slaughtering
establishment inspected under this Act of any poultry not
identified as prescribed by the Secretary.
``(b) Records.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may require that a person
required to identify poultry pursuant to subsection (a)
maintain accurate records, as prescribed by the Secretary,
regarding the purchase, sale, and identification of the
poultry.
``(2) Access.--A person subject to paragraph (1) shall, at
all reasonable times, on notice by a duly authorized
representative of the Secretary, afford the representative
access to the place of business of the person and an
opportunity to examine the records of the person and copy the
records.
``(3) Duration.--Any record required to be maintained under
this subsection shall be maintained for such period of time
as the Secretary prescribes.
``(c) False Information.--No person shall falsify or
misrepresent to the Secretary or any other person any
information concerning the premises at which any poultry were
held.
``(d) Maintenance of Records.--No person shall, without
authorization from the Secretary, alter, detach, or destroy
any records or other means of identification prescribed by
the Secretary for use in determining the premises at which
were held any poultry.
``(e) Human Pathogens or Other Harmful Substances.--
``(1) Identification of source.--If the Secretary finds any
human pathogen or any other potentially harmful substance in
any poultry at the time the poultry is presented for
slaughter or in any poultry or poultry products prepared in
an official establishment and the Secretary finds that there
is a reasonable probability that human consumption of any
poultry or poultry product containing the human pathogen or
other potentially harmful substance presents a threat to
public health, the Secretary may take such action as the
Secretary considers necessary to determine the source of the
human pathogen or other potentially harmful substance.
``(2) Action.--If the Secretary identifies the source of
any human pathogen or other potentially harmful substance
referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary may prohibit or
restrict the movement of any poultry or poultry products, or
any other article from any source of the human pathogen or
other potentially harmful substance until the Secretary
determines that the human pathogen or other potentially
harmful substance at the source no longer presents a threat
to public health.
``(f) Producers and Handlers.--
``(1) Use of methods.--The Secretary shall use any means of
identification and recordkeeping methods utilized by
producers or handlers of poultry whenever the Secretary
determines that the means of identification and recordkeeping
methods will enable the Secretary to carry out this section.
``(2) Cooperation.--The Secretary may cooperate with
producers or handlers of poultry in which any human pathogen
or other potentially harmful substance described in
subsection (e)(1) is found, to develop and carry out methods
to limit or eliminate the human pathogen or other potentially
harmful substance at the source.
``SEC. 34. NOTIFICATION AND RECALL OF NONCONFORMING ARTICLES.
``(a) Notification.--Any person preparing poultry or
poultry products for distribution in commerce who obtains
knowledge that provides a reasonable basis for believing that
any poultry or poultry products--
``(1) are unsafe for human consumption, adulterated, or not
produced in accordance with section 30(a); or
``(2) are misbranded;
shall immediately notify the Secretary, in such manner and by
such means as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe, of
the identity and location of the articles.
``(b) Recall.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary finds, on notification
or otherwise, that any poultry or poultry products--
``(A) are unsafe for human consumption, adulterated, or not
produced in accordance with section 30(a); or
``(B) are misbranded;
the Secretary shall by order require any person engaged in
the processing, handling, transportation, storage,
importation, distribution, or sale of poultry or poultry
products to immediately cease any distribution of the poultry
or poultry products, and to recall the poultry or poultry
products from commercial distribution and use, if the
Secretary determines that there is a reasonable probability
that the product is unsafe for human consumption,
adulterated, or misbranded, unless the person is engaged in a
voluntary recall of the poultry or poultry products that the
Secretary considers adequate.
[[Page S3621]] ``(2) Order.--The order shall--
``(A) include a timetable during which the recall shall
occur;
``(B) require periodic reports by the person to the
Secretary describing the progress of the recall; and
``(C) require notice to consumers to whom the articles
were, or may have been, distributed as to how the consumers
should treat the article.
``(c) Informal Hearing.--
``(1) In general.--The order shall provide any person
subject to the order with an opportunity for an informal
hearing, to be held not later than 5 days after the date of
issuance of the order, on the actions required by the order.
``(2) Vacation of order.--If, after providing an
opportunity for the hearing, the Secretary determines that
inadequate grounds exist to support the actions required by
the order, the Secretary shall vacate the order.
``(d) Judicial Recall.--A district court of the United
States may order any person engaged in the processing,
handling, transportation, storage, importation, distribution,
or sale of poultry or a poultry product to recall the poultry
or product if the court finds that there is a reasonable
probability that the poultry or poultry product is unsafe for
human consumption, adulterated, or misbranded.
``SEC. 35. REFUSAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF INSPECTION.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may, for such period or
indefinitely as the Secretary considers necessary to carry
out this Act, refuse to provide, or withdraw, inspections
under this Act with respect to any official establishment if
the Secretary determines, after opportunity for a hearing is
accorded to the applicant for, or recipient of, the service
that the applicant or recipient, or any person connected with
the applicant or recipient, has repeatedly failed to comply
with this Act.
``(b) Inspections Pending Review.--The Secretary may direct
that, pending opportunity for an expedited hearing in the
case of any refusal or withdrawal of inspections and the
final determination and order under subsection (a) and any
judicial review of the determination and order, inspections
shall be denied or suspended if the Secretary considers the
action necessary in the public interest in order to protect
the health or welfare of consumers or to ensure the safe and
effective performance of official duties under this Act.
``(c) Judicial Review.--
``(1) In general.--The determination and order of the
Secretary with respect to refusal or withdrawal of
inspections under this section shall be final and conclusive
unless the applicant for, or recipient of, inspections files
an application for judicial review not later than 30 days
after the effective date of the order.
``(2) Inspections pending review.--Inspections shall be
refused or withdrawn as of the effective date of the order
pending any judicial review of the order unless the Secretary
or the Court of Appeals directs otherwise.
``(3) Venue; record.--Judicial review of the order shall
be--
``(A) in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit
in which the applicant for, or the recipient of, inspections
has the principal place of business of the applicant or
recipient or in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit; and
``(B) based on the record on which the determination and
order are based.
``(4) Process.--Section 204 of the Packers and Stockyards
Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 194), shall be applicable to appeals
taken under this section.
``(d) Additional Authority.--This section shall be in
addition to, and not derogate from, any provision of this Act
for refusal, withdrawal, or suspension of inspections under
this Act.
``SEC. 36. CIVIL PENALTIES.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Assessment.--A person who violates any of sections 30
through 37, a regulation issued under any of the sections, or
an order issued under subsection (b) or (d) of section 34 may
be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than
$100,000 for each day of violation.
``(2) Separate violation.--Each offense described in
paragraph (1) shall considered to be a separate violation.
``(3) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--No penalty may
be assessed against a person under this section unless the
person is given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on
the record before the Secretary in accordance with sections
554 and 556 of title 5, United States Code.
``(4) Amount.--The amount of the civil penalty shall be
assessed by the Secretary by written order, taking into
account the gravity of the violation, the degree of
culpability, and any history of prior offenses. The amount
may be reviewed only as provided in subsection (b).
``(b) Review.--
``(1) In general.--A person against whom a violation is
found and a civil penalty assessed by order of the Secretary
under subsection (a) may obtain review of the order in the
United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the
party resides or has a place of business or in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by filing a notice of appeal in the court not later than 30
days after the date of the order and by simultaneously
sending a copy of the notice by certified mail to the
Secretary.
``(2) Record.--The Secretary shall promptly file in the
court a certified copy of the record on which the violation
was found and the penalty assessed.
``(3) Findings.--The findings of the Secretary shall be set
aside only if found to be unsupported by substantial evidence
on the record as a whole.
``(c) Civil Action To Recover Assessment.--
``(1) In general.--If a person fails to pay an assessment
of a civil penalty after the penalty has become a final and
unappealable order, or after the appropriate Court of Appeals
has entered final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the
Secretary shall refer the matter to the Attorney General, who
shall institute a civil action to recover the amount assessed
in any appropriate district court of the United States.
``(2) Scope of review.--In a recovery action under
paragraph (1), the validity and appropriateness of the order
of the Secretary imposing the civil penalty shall not be
subject to review.
``(d) Disposition of Amounts.--All amounts collected under
this section shall be paid into the Treasury of the United
States.
``(e) Equitable Relief.--
``(1) Relationship to other actions.--Nothing in this Act
requires the Secretary to report for criminal prosecution, or
for the institution of a injunction or other proceeding, a
violation of this Act, if the Secretary believes that the
public interest will be adequately served by assessment of
civil penalties.
``(2) Modification of penalty.--The Secretary may
compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any
civil penalty assessed under this section.
``SEC. 37. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.
``(a) In General.--No person subject to this Act may
harass, prosecute, hold liable, or discriminate against any
employee or other person because the person--
``(1) is assisting or demonstrating an intent to assist in
achieving compliance with any Federal or State law (including
a rule or regulation);
``(2) is refusing to violate or assist in the violation of
any Federal or State law (including a rule or regulation); or
``(3) has commenced, caused to be commenced, or is about to
commence a proceeding, has testified or is about to testify
at a proceeding, or has assisted or participated or is about
to assist or participate in any manner in such a proceeding
or in any other action to carry out the functions or
responsibilities of any agency, office, or unit of the
Department of Agriculture.
``(b) Procedures and Penalties.--The procedures and
penalties applicable to prohibited acts under subsection (a)
shall be governed by the applicable provisions of section
31105 of title 49, United States Code.
``(c) Burdens of Proof.--The legal burdens of proof with
respect to prohibited acts under subsection (a) shall be
governed by the applicable provisions of sections 1214 and
1221 of title 5, United States Code.''.
____
Summary of the Family Food Protection Act
The laws governing meat and poultry safety, first developed
in the early 1900's, need to be brought up-to-date to assure
that new systems to reduce foodborne illness from meat and
poultry are as effective as possible. Current programs for
inspecting meat and poultry must be supplemented with more
modern methods that control and test for the substances that
cause foodborne illness and death.
Harmfull bacteria on meat and poultry products are
responsible for at least five million illnesses and 4000
deaths each year. Yet, under the current law, the government
can't stop contaminated meat from reaching consumer's tables.
The Family Food Protection Act will require the United States
Department of Agriculture [USDA] to use scientific standards
and testing to prevent contaminated food from reaching
consumers and gives the agency modern enforcement tools like
recall and traceback to get contaminated food off the market
and to trade it to its source.
The Family Food Protection Act adds a new Title V to the
Federal Meat Inspection Act and new sections 30 through 37 to
the Poultry Products Inspection Act. These sections are
parallel between the two Acts. Unless otherwise noted, ``the
Secretary'' refers to the Secretary of Agriculture.
reducing adulteration of meat and poultry products
Under this section, the Secretary would be required to
control and reduce the presence and growth of human pathogens
and other harmful substances in meat and poultry products.
Modern microbial testing for such contaminants would be
required within two years of enactment of the Act. Results of
the tests would be reported to the USDA.
Interim limits would be established by the Secretary for
human pathogens and other harmful substances until regulatory
limits, tolerances or other standards are set by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary would
conduct or support appropriate research. Meat or poultry that
exceeds the limits would be prohibited from sale or
transportation. Regulatory limits set by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services would protect all consumers
including
[[Page S3622]] children, the elderly and the immune
compromised.
The Secretary, in conjunction with the Centers of Disease
Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration,
would administer an active surveillance system for foodborne
illnesses and a sampling system to analyze the nature and
frequency of human pathogens and other harmful substances in
meat and poultry products. The Secretary shall review all
regulations every two years and consult with relevant federal
and state public health agencies as appropriate.
hazard controls
The Secretary shall require slaughter and processing plants
to adopt processing controls adequate to protect public
health and to limit the presence and growth of human
pathogens and other harmful substances in meat and poultry.
The regulations will include standards for sanitation;
interim limits for biological, chemical and physical hazards;
process controls to assure the limits are met; record keeping
requirements; sampling requirements; and agency access to
records. Public access to records is assured through the
Freedom of Information Act. The Secretary may require other
processing controls as deemed necessary to assure the
protection of public health.
Once processing controls are required, an advisory board
shall be appointed, consisting of consumer and victim
representatives, processors, producers, retail outlets,
inspectors, plant workers, and public health officials, to
recommend other changes to the existing inspection programs,
including improvements in and alternatives to the current
programs.
The Secretary is directed to discontinue use of the
existing inspection seals if, at any time, the Secretary
discontinues the carcass-by-carcass inspection of meat. The
seal for meat and meat food products says ``Inspected and
passed.'' The seal for poultry and poultry products says
``Inspected for wholesomeness by U.S. Department of
Agriculture.''
voluntary guidelines for retail establishments
The Secretary is directed to develop minimum standards for
the handling, processing and storage of meat and poultry
products by retail stores, restaurants, and similar
establishments to assure that food sold by such
establishments is safe for human consumption. Following
notice and comment, guidelines are established within 18
months after enactment of the Act. So long as there is
substantial compliance by retailers, the guidelines remain
voluntary. If substantial compliance is not achieved, the
guidelines may become regulations. States may bring actions
against retailers to restrain violation of any final
regulations under the Act.
livestock traceback
Traceback of animal and animal carcasses is allowed for the
purpose of understanding the nature of foodborne illness and
minimizing the risks of such illness. The Secretary shall
prescribe methods that permit animal identification
sufficient to accomplish traceback to the farm or other
places where livestock or poultry are held.
If animals are presented for slaughter that contain human
pathogens or other harmful substances sufficient to pose a
threat to health, the Secretary may take action to determine
the source of the human pathogen or other harmful substance.
The Secretary may prohibit or restrict the movement of
animals, carcasses, meat or meat food products containing the
human pathogen or other harmful substance.
notification and recall of nonconforming articles
Under this section, any person, firm or corporation
preparing meat or poultry products for distribution with a
reasonable basis for believing that the products are unsafe
for human consumption, adulterated or misbranded shall
immediately notify the Secretary of the identity and location
of such products.
If the Secretary finds the products are unsafe for human
consumption, adulterated or misbranded, the Secretary shall
order the recall of such products and all further
distribution shall be halted, unless the products are subject
to a voluntary recall that the Secretary deems adequate. The
person, firm or corporation subject to the order has the
opportunity for a hearing within 5 days after the date of the
order.
Any district court may order any person, firm or
corporation to recall any meat or poultry product if the
court finds that there is a reasonable probability that the
product is unsafe for human consumption, adulterated or
misbranded.
refusal or withdrawal of inspection
The Secretary may refuse to provide or withdraw inspection
services if the Secretary determines, after providing the
opportunity for a hearing, that the recipient of the service
has repeatedly failed to comply with the requirements of the
Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection
Act or corresponding regulations.
Inspection can be withdrawn prior to a hearing if such
action is necessary in order to protect the health and
welfare of consumers or to assure the safe and effective
performance of official duties.
Judical review of these orders shall be in the United
States Court of Appeals.
Civil penalties
Civil penalties may be assessed against persons, firms or
corporations that violate provisions of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act or
relevant orders. Civil penalties are limited to $100,000 per
day of violation. The amount of the penalty shall be assessed
by written order following consideration of the gravity of
the violation, degree of culpability, and the history of
prior offenses.
Judicial review of these orders shall be in the United
States Court of Appeals. Penalties collected under this
section shall be paid into the United States Treasury.
Corporate whistleblower protection
Employees are protected against harassment, discrimination,
prosecution and liability by employers because the employee
is assisting in achieving compliance with federal or state
laws, rules or regulations; refusing to violate federal or
state laws, rules or regulations; or otherwise attempting to
carry out the functions of or responsibilities of the USDA.
This section is governed by the Surface Transportation Act
and the Whistleblower Protection Act.
______
By Mr. HEFLIN (for himself and Mr. Shelby):
S. 516. A bill to transfer responsibility for the aquaculture
research program under Public Law 85-342 from the Secretary of the
Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
national aquaculture research center act
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the National
Aquaculture Research Center Act of 1995.
The first major provision within my legislation transfers
responsibility for the aquaculture research program from the Secretary
of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture. This transfer simply
recognizes the reality that the vast majority of aquaculture research
and funding comes through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This is a
long-overdue streamlining measure that will greatly improve the overall
efficiency and timeliness of aquaculture research.
The second provision stipulates that the Southeastern Fish Culture
Laboratory in Marion, AL be named and designated as the ``Claude Harris
National Aquaculture Research Center.'' Many of my colleagues remember
former Congressman Claude Harris, who passed away last fall after a
battle with lung cancer. He spent 6 years in the House of
Representatives from the Seventh District of Alabama, and was an
outstanding Member of Congress. At the time of his death, he was
serving as the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama. He
was honest and amiable and never took his political accomplishments for
granted.
During his time in Congress, Claude Harris was a strong supporter of
aquaculture research, and was instrumental in promoting it through his
hard work on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The fish culture
laboratory in Marion is located in Claude's former district.
This designation will serve as a proper and fitting tribute to the
memory of Congressman Claude Harris, whose drive, determination, and
energy did so much to advance the important science of aquaculture in
this country.
____________________