[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.


                          ____________________