[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11892-S11894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator
Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to comment on a provision
of the recently enacted omnibus children's health legislation (H.R.
4365; Public Law 106-310) that established a number of excellent
children's health programs. The bill also included important new
legislation, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act [DATA], which I authored
along with Senator Hatch, working with our colleagues Senators Biden
and Moynihan. It will make a revolutionary difference in the way in
which we battle heroin and other opiate addiction.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan is correct.
Additionally, as my colleagues are aware, the bill reauthorized the
operation of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, and established and reinforced penalties for illegal
manufacture, sale, and possession of certain illicit drugs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when implemented, the DATA bill, as we call
it, will change significantly the way opiate addiction is addressed by
allowing qualified physicians, for the first time, to prescribe in
their private offices, substances which block the craving for heroin
and otherwise address this deadly addiction.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as Senator Levin knows, the DATA bill
includes a provision similar to one applicable for many years to both
the Medicaid and Medicare programs, which makes clear that basic
decisions about the way medicine is practiced are to be made by
physicians and patients, not by the federal government.
Mr. LEVIN. In other words, it is our intent that with respect to the
amendments to the Controlled Substances
[[Page S11893]]
Act made by the provisions incorporated in H.R. 4365, decisions by
qualified physicians about the appropriate means to treat their
patients and to prescribe and dispense medications are not a proper
matter for government regulation.
While the bill clearly provides authority for the Department of
Health and Human Services to issue regulations to expand the pool of
qualified physicians, it is not the intention of our legislation that
those regulations extend to the practice of medicine.
Mr. HATCH. I certainly agree with that. Indeed, such an
interpretation is expressly prohibited by the language: ``Nothing in
such regulations or practice guidelines may authorize any Federal
official or employee to exercise supervision or control over the
practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are
provided.''
Mr. LEVIN. This clarification is important, both for the qualified
physicians who wish to participate in this new approach to addiction
treatment and for patients for whom a new treatment option may present
a life-changing possibility. I know my colleague from Utah agrees that
we want this legislation to work. An unauthorized and ill-advised
attempt to regulate the practice of medicine, including the practice of
prescribing anti-addiction medication, would make it unworkable.
Mr. HATCH. I do agree wholeheartedly. I feel compelled to add,
however, that as the Chairman of the Committee of jurisdiction, it was
important to me to make certain that the bill in no way impedes the
Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] from vigorously enforcing the
Controlled Substances Act. Specifically, the DATA legislation is not
intended to prevent the DEA from its historic role of prosecuting
physicians for dispensing controlled substances without a legitimate
medical purpose.
Mr. LEVIN. I agree with my colleague. I believe we successfully
balanced both interests in the DATA bill. It is important legislation
and I am pleased to have had the support of the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and Senators Biden and Moynihan as we successfully
moved this bipartisan legislation to enactment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of H.R.
1653, which includes the Pribilof Islands Transition Act and the Coral
Reef Conservation Act of 2000. This bill contains a number of ocean,
coastal, and fisheries related titles that will result in major
conservation gains for our nation's marine resources at a time when we
are placing enormous demands on them. The bill not only attempts to
provide additional environmental protections through a number of state
and local programs, but also tools for better management.
Title I of this bill is the Pribilof Islands Transition Act. The
Alaskan Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea were a former reserve for
harvesting fur seals. The Commerce Department, acting through the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been
involved in municipal and social services on the islands since 1910. In
1983, NOAA tried to remove themselves from administering these
programs. However, despite the $20 million in funds the Pribilof
Islands received to replace future annual Federal appropriations, the
Pribilof Islanders claim that the terms of the transition process were
not met and the withdrawal failed.
This title authorizes $28 million over five years to again attempt to
achieve the orderly withdrawal of NOAA from the civil administration of
the Pribilof Islands. Additionally, it authorizes $10 million a year
for five years for NOAA to complete its environmental cleanup and
landfill closure obligations prior to the final transfer of federal
property to the six local entities. The Pribilof Islands have
historically been a very expensive program to the American taxpayers.
Congress expects that this title will provide a final termination of
NOAA's municipal and social service responsibilities on the islands and
a distinct end to federal taxpayer funding of those services.
Title II of this bill is the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. It
is based on legislation that I first introduced over three years ago
and S. 725, a bill that I introduced earlier in the 106th Congress
along with Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee.
Over the last decade, the United States had been leading a focused
effort to conserve and manage coral reef ecosystems. The plight of
coral reefs, both in the United States and internationally, gained much
attention in 1997, the International Year of the Reef. One very
successful program undertaken during the year-long event involved
grants to local groups to build grassroots support for coral reef
conservation, management, and educational programs. Since that time,
NOAA has steadily improved coral reef management programs utilizing the
full range of existing statutory authorities including the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. These complementary
authorities provide the framework for comprehensive coral reef
conservation and management. Working in partnership with the States and
other agencies, NOAA has demonstrated its unique ability among the
federal agencies to effectively manage these valuable resources.
This title will augment the tools already available and provides an
outline to assist NOAA as it moves forward with coral reef ecosystem
management plans. It requires the creation of a national coral reef
action strategy. Of particular note is the use of marine protected
areas to serve as replenishment zones. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
has called for setting aside 20 percent of coral reefs in each region
of the United States that contains reefs as no-take areas. However,
many of the U.S. islands that have coral reefs have significant
cultural ties to these reefs. It is imperative that any new marine
protected areas are developed in close cooperation with the people of
these islands and account for traditional and cultural uses of these
resources. Without such cooperation, there will not be public support.
The national strategy will address how such traditional uses will be
incorporated into these replenishment zones.
The national program will also incorporate such important topics as
mapping; research, monitoring, and assessment; international and
regional management; outreach and education; and restoration. According
to NOAA, the majority of our nation's coral reefs are within federal
waters, therefore it is expected that NOAA will continue to work
cooperatively with the states, territories, and commonwealths in the
development and implementation of coral reef management plans and not
shift the burden of responsibility onto these states, territories, and
commonwealths. It is particularly important that NOAA not let recent
activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands consume too much of the
agency's personnel and financial resources at the expense of the rest
of the nation's reefs. While the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral
Reef Reserve will provide protection for the majority of reefs within
our borders, it will not provide protection for our most heavily
degraded reefs. NOAA must work collaboratively with our island partners
to implement meaningful coral reef management strategies that target
the full range of problems.
The title also creates a new coral reef conservation program, which
will provide grants to states, governmental authorities, educational
institutions, and non-governmental organizations. This is intended to
foster locally based coral reef conservation and management. Creation
of a coral reef conservation fund is also authorized. This fund would
allow the Administration to enter into agreements with nonprofit
organizations to support partnerships between the public and private
sectors to further the conservation of coral reefs and help raise the
matching funds required as part of the new grants program.
The title authorizes a total of $16 million a year for fiscal years
2001 through 2004 to be spilt equally between the local coral reef
conservation program and national coral reef activities. It is our
expectation that this money will be utilized in such a way that builds
upon partnerships with the U.S. islands.
Title III of the bill makes a number of minor technical changes to
fisheries
[[Page S11894]]
laws. The fourth title of the bill authorizes the study of biological
and environmental factors that are responsible for an increase in
deaths in the eastern gray whale population. Two-hundred ninety
thousand dollars is authorized for fiscal year 2001, and $500,000 is
authorized for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
Title V of the bill makes a technical correction to the American
Fisheries Act (AFA) with regard to two fishing vessels, the Providian
(United States Official Number 1062183) and the Hazel Lorraine (United
States Official Number 592211). The 1998 AFA authorized the
participation of certain US-owned fishing vessels in the Bering Sea
pollock fishery. The AFA was designed to work in conjunction with the
license limitation provisions of the fishery management plan developed
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Certain ``qualifying
years'' were established in order to determine which vessels had earned
a ``fishing history'' to allow them future access to pollock-fishing
quotas. During the consideration of the AFA, the special circumstances
of many vessels were taken into account. At that time, the fishing
vessel Providian was being built in a U.S. shipyard as a replacement
vessel for the pollock-fishing vessel Ocean Spray.
In 1994, the Ocean Spray was lost at sea--fortunately without the
loss of a single life. Had the Ocean Spray not been lost, the vessel
would have continued to fish for Bering Sea pollock during the years
leading up to the development of the AFA. After the loss of the Ocean
Spray, the owner-operator followed the replacement guidelines in order
to secure his federal fishing permits and endorsement for his new
vessel, the Providian. According to landing records, it appears that
the average pollock harvest of the Ocean Spray during the years 1992
through 1994, exceeded 2000 metric tons.
Since the construction on the Providian was completed, the owner
decided to bring his vessel to Bath, Maine to work in the Maine herring
fishery. The current location of this vessel does not eliminate the
need to establish fairness and restore the vessel owner's pollock-
fishing rights earned with the Ocean Spray during 1992-1994. This
amendment to the AFA is intended to provide the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service with the
authority to qualify the Providian under the AFA with directed onshore
pollock-fishing rights equivalent to those earned by the Ocean Spray
during the years 1992-1994.
Mr. President, the authors of the AFA certainly took into account the
particular circumstances of other vessel owners and companies. This
technical amendment simply qualifies two vessels, the Providian and the
Hazel Lorraine under the AFA for fishing rights that they otherwise
should have received allow for the participation of two additional
catcher vessels in the Alaskan pollock fishery. These vessels were able
to demonstrate that they should have been included in the Act when it
passed in 1998.
I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans
and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this bill.
I would also like to thank Senator Inouye for his support, particularly
for his contributions to the coral reef conservation section of the
bill. In addition, I would like to thank Senator McCain, the chairman
of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking member of
the Committee, for their bipartisan support of this measure. We have
before us an opportunity to significantly improve our nation's ability
to conserve and manage our marine resources and I urge the Senate to
pass H.R. 1653, as amended.
____________________