Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 34 (Wednesday, March 14, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2307-S2319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BOND:
S. 528. A bill to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
to modify the requirements for voter mail registration and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a commonsense
election reform bill which we have entitled the Safeguard the Vote Act.
I realize other reform issues have received a lot of media attention,
but I think it is vital to focus on the fundamental issue of casting
and counting votes honestly and fairly as well.
Over the past months, many Americans saw for the first time how
actual vote counting is done or not done. We have had a real-life
civics lesson that was as unexpected as it was frustrating. Those of us
in positions of responsibility need to fix what needs fixing, reform
what needs reforming, and prosecute where actual wrongdoing has
occurred.
Voting is the most important civic duty and responsibility for
citizens in our form of government. It should not be diluted by fraud,
false filings in lawsuits, judges who do not follow the law,
politicians who try to profit from confusion, and people who just abuse
the system.
Let me be clear, at the same time voters must not be unduly confused
by complicated ballots or confounded by inadequate phone lines or
voting booths. These barriers to voting are absolutely unacceptable,
and we need to make sure they do not exist.
Having said that--and I believe very strongly in it--I also say to
some who want to hide the other abuses, do not try to use general
confusion as an excuse or a justification for fraud.
I want to make one simple point as I begin. Vote fraud is not about
partisanship. It is not about Democrats versus Republicans. It is not
about the north side of St. Louis versus the south side of St. Louis.
It is not about somebody getting a partisan advantage. It is about
justice.
Vote fraud is a criminal not a political act. Illegal votes dilute
the value of votes cast legally. When people try to stuff the ballot
box, what they are really doing is trying to steal political power from
those who follow election laws.
On election night in November of 2000, I was exercised and somewhat
upset, one might say, as we learned about what was going on in St.
Louis city where orders had been issued to keep the voting booths open
in certain areas for an extended period of time. Lawyers appealed that
decision, and the Missouri Court of Appeals shut them down. They wrote:

(E)qual vigilance is required to ensure that only those
entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot. Otherwise, the
rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are inevitably
diluted.

Unfortunately, what we have seen in St. Louis these past months has
been nothing short of breathtaking. Some might say that we have even
become a national laughingstock. We have dead people registering by
mail.
This city alderman died more than 10 years ago. He was registered to
vote on cards turned in just before the March 6 mayoral primary. We had
people registering from vacant lots. The media in St. Louis was very
aggressive, and they checked on some of the voter addresses. There was
no building there. They did not even see the tents in which people were
living.
Voter rolls in St. Louis had more names on the registered active and
inactive list than there were people in St. Louis city. It begins to
raise suspicions.
A city judge exceeded the law by providing extended voting hours for
only selected polling places. Then there is the strange story of a
plaintiff in that case who claimed he ``has not been able to vote and
fears he will not be able to vote because of long lines at the polling
places and machine breakdowns.'' It was discovered he had two problems.
He was dead, in which case long lines should not have been a problem
because he was not going anywhere anyway.
The lawyer then came up with somebody else: Oh, what we really meant
to say was a guy whose name is similar to that, so they tracked him
out. The

[[Page S2308]]

problem was he had already voted when the lawyers filed the sworn
statement saying that he was worried about not being able to
vote, which, I guess, we can only conclude meant he was worried about
casting a second illegal ballot.

We have had felons voting, people not even registered voting. Just
when you think we have seen it all--this is my favorite--here is the
voting registration card that was sent in in October of 1994 by one
Ritzy Mekler. The interesting thing about Ritzy Mekler is that Ritzy is
a dog. We do not know how many times Ritzy may have voted, but this
seems to be an unwarranted extension of the voting franchise. Much as I
love dogs, I don't really think they should be voting. This is
certainly a new avenue for those who like pets. But that is the kind of
thing with which we need to deal.
The end result of all these revelations is that a city grand jury in
St. Louis is now investigating fraudulent voter registration, and the
lawyers involved have sent the U.S. attorney a 250-page report. People
are beginning to take it seriously. You don't have to take my word for
it. Local St. Louis city Democrats have had a few things to say.
St. Louis' current mayor, Clarence Harmon, said:

I think there is ample, longstanding evidence of voter
fraud in our community.

State representative Quincy Troupe said:

There is no doubt in any black elected official's mind that
the whole process has discouraged honest elections in the
city of St. Louis for some time. We know that we have people
who cheat in every election. The only way you can win a close
election in this town, you have to beat the cheat.

From another side, 11th ward alderman, Matt Villa, said:

Who knows who did it. But it is apparent they are trying to
cheat and steal this election.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which has been aggressively covering
this story, noted on its editorial page:

St. Louis appears to have a full-blown election scandal
that grows with each newly discovered box of bogus
registration cards.

As I noted earlier, I believe it is our duty to fix what needs to be
fixed, reform what needs to be reformed, and prosecute where there has
been wrongdoing. In St. Louis, I believe criminal prosecutions are
being considered. Coupled with the bill I am introducing today, this
should go a long way toward cleaning up what has gone wrong in St.
Louis.
I might add, just the threat of criminal prosecutions appear to have
made a difference in the mayoral primary in St. Louis last week. It was
a lot more honest than it has been in a long time. There is nothing
like the healthy atmosphere of possible criminal prosecutions to make
people think maybe we should not try to steal this election.
Well, let me go through the list of things we found out are
contributing to fraud.
The first obvious problem is the blatant fraud of the bogus voter
registrations. With dead people reregistering, fake names, phony
addresses, and dogs being registered, it is clear the system is being
abused.
Nearly all of these fraudulent registrations were the mail-in forms.
Our plan begins by addressing this type of fraud with a few simple
reforms. These are changing Federal law, which in some instances, has
actually facilitated voter fraud.
1. First-time voters who register by mail would be required to vote
in person and present a photo ID the first time after registration. We
trust that the local officials would recognize the dog if she came in--
even with a photo registration.

2. If the follow-up registration card is returned to the election
office as undeliverable by the post office, States would be allowed
immediately to remove those names from the rolls, provided they made a
good-faith effort to ensure that eligible voters would not be removed
from the rolls.
3. Finally, the bill would give the States the authority to include
on the mail registration form a place for notarization or other form of
authentication. Under current Federal law, States are actually
prohibited from including this safeguard.
I believe the incentives for the bogus addresses and fake names would
be virtually eliminated by these simple safeguards, while all the
legitimate efforts to encourage new voters to register could, should,
and must continue.
The second major problem we have seen in St. Louis is that the voter
rolls are so clogged up with incorrect or fraudulent data that legal
voters are shortchanged. St. Louis city actually, as I said earlier,
has more voters listed on its active plus inactive rolls than the
voting age population of the city. That is not surprising if they are
registering dead people, dogs, and people from vacant lots.
Even more amazing is the fact that the Secretary of State said in a
recent report that 5,000 of the names on the inactive list are actually
duplicates of other names on the inactive list. There are numerous
other examples of names on both the active and inactive lists at the
same time. These inactive lists are what is being used for election day
registration and voting. They just go in and say my name is on the
inactive list. Hundreds were allowed to vote in that instance.
Thus, it is painfully clear that something must be done to keep the
voter rolls clean and accurate.
The bill I introduce includes two basic reforms to assist in the
cleanup of voter rolls. First, it would require States to conduct a
program of cleaning up lists wherever the voter roll list of eligible
voters is larger than the number of people of voting age in that county
or city. That seems to make only common sense. I can't imagine anyone
opposing that if you have more people registered than you have people,
something is wrong.
Second, my proposal adopts the commonsense approach just used by the
St. Louis election board in their March primary. For those voters whose
names have been moved to the inactive list, it would require that a
photo ID be presented by the voter as part of their oral or written
affirmation of their address when they seek to vote again. The board of
elections just required this in last week's election, and that election
seemed to go off without a hitch.
I believe these straightforward reforms will go a long way toward
restoring the confidence in the voter registration and balloting
process. But for those who insist on continuing their fraudulent
activities, this bill strengthens criminal penalties for those who
commit fraud or conspire to commit voter fraud.
Finally, given the dimensions of the vote fraud scandal in St. Louis,
this legislation creates a national pilot project to clean up voter
lists in St. Louis in order to assist in ending election day corruption
across the Nation.
I have proposed that the Federal Election Commission run the project
in St. Louis city and St. Louis County to develop a method we can use
nationally to maintain accurate voter rolls and ensure that all
properly registered voters are permitted to vote without wrongfully
being disenfranchised by failure of their registration to be effective,
or by allowing others who are not qualified and registered to vote,
diluting their votes. The FEC would also coordinate records of voters
registered to vote at places authorized under the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993, along with State death and felony conviction
records and the official voter registered for each polling place.
As the Missouri Court of Appeals wrote when they shut down the
improper efforts to keep only certain polling places open:

. . . (C)ommendable zeal to protect voting rights must be
tempered by the corresponding duty to protect the integrity
of the voting process. . . . (E)qual vigilance is required to
ensure that only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a
ballot. Otherwise, the rights of those lawfully entitled to
vote are inevitably diluted.

With these new tools, and some real leadership, the election boards
of St. Louis City, and St. Louis County could get the big broom--and
start cleaning up the mess. Criminal investigations are ongoing, I hope
that anyone responsible for cheating will be caught and punished. But
we must get a handle on the voter rolls. People who register and follow
the rules shouldn't be frustrated by inadequate polling places and
phone lines or confused by out-of-date lists. At the same time, we must
require voter lists to be scrubbed and reviewed in a much more timely
manner--so the cheaters cannot use confusion as their friend.
I certainly don't want St. Louis to have the lasting reputation
described by my old friend Quincy Troupe:

[[Page S2309]]

The only way you can win a close election in this town, you
have to beat the cheat.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Murkowski, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Schumer,
and Mr. Conrad):
S. 530. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a 5-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important tax
legislation for myself and Senators Jeffords, Leahy, Murkowski, Breaux,
Smith of Oregon, Dorgan, Feinstein, Craig, Murray, Johnson, Schumer,
and Conrad.
This legislation, entitled the ``Bipartisan Renewable Efficient
Energy with Zero Effluent, (BREEZE) Act'', extends the production tax
credit for energy generated by wind for five years. The current tax
credit is set to expire on January 1, 2002.
As author of the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, I sought to give
this alternative energy source the ability to compete against
traditional, finite energy sources. I strongly believe that the
expansion and development of wind energy must be facilitated by this
production tax credit.
Wind, unlike most energy sources, is an efficient and environmentally
safe form of energy production. Wind energy makes valuable
contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment.
Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can
reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing
the combustion of fossil fuels.
Since the inception of the wind energy production tax credit in 1993,
more than 1,128 megawatts of generating capacity have been put online.
This generating capacity powers nearly 300,000 homes, or 750,000
people.
Over 900 megawatts of new wind energy capacity was added just last
year, bringing wind energy generating capacity in the U.S. to more than
2,500 megawatts. This new wind energy will power the equivalent of over
240,000 American homes, while displacing over 1.8 million tons of
carbon dioxide.
Equally important, wind energy increases our energy independence,
thereby providing the United States with insulation from an oil supply
dominated by the Middle East. Our national security is currently
threatened by a heavy reliance on oil from abroad.
The price of wind energy has been reduced more than 80 percent in the
past two decades, making it the most affordable type of renewable
energy. In order to continue this investment in America's energy
future, we must extend the production tax credit.
Currently, my own State of Iowa has 4 new wind power projects ready
to go online just this year. These 4 projects, with the megawatt
capacity of over 240, will join the already existing 20 facilities in
Iowa. Even large petroleum producing States like Texas are recognizing
the growing potential of wind energy. Texas has the third largest wind
farm in the world, and plans to add 5 new facilities this year, adding
to the 7 already online.
Moreover, wind energy has vast potential to contribute to
California's electricity supply. As we all know, California is
currently suffering because of an energy market with insufficient
energy generation and production that is overly dependent on natural
gas.
Just in the past few weeks, plans have been unveiled to develop what
will be the world's two largest wind power plants in the Northwest. One
will be installed on the Oregon-Washington boundary and the other at
the U.S. Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site. Together, the two
plants will have a capacity of 560 megawatts and will generate enough
power annually to serve more than half a million people. In addition, a
number of other new projects coming online this year in the West will
also bring much-needed additional generating capacity to the region.
Wind energy also produces substantial economic benefits. For each
wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year
for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's major wind farms already
pay more than $640,000 per year to landowners. In California, the
development of 1,000 megawatts would mean annual payments of
approximately $2 million to farm and forest landowners.
Extending the wind energy tax credit would allow for even greater
expansion in the wind energy field. Wind is a domestically produced
natural resource, found abundantly across the country. Because wind
energy is homegrown, it cannot be controlled by any foreign power.
Wind energy can be harnessed without injury to our environment. Wind
is a reliable form of power that is renewable and inextinguishable.
This legislation ensures that wind energy does not fall by the wayside
as a productive alternative energy source.
The Senate needs to extend this important legislation and I encourage
my colleagues to join us in this effort.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 530

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 ``Bipartisan Renewable,
Efficient Energy with Zero Effluent (BREEZE) Act''.

SEC. 2. 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY
FROM WIND.

Section 45(c)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to wind facility) is amended by striking ``January
1, 2002'' and inserting ``January 1, 2007''.
______

By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 531. A bill to promote recreation on Federal lakes, to require
Federal agencies responsible for managing Federal lakes to pursue
strategies for enhancing recreational experiences of the public, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National
Recreation Lakes Act of 2001--a bill that will recognize the benefits
and value of recreation at federal lakes and give recreation a seat at
the table in the management decisions of all our federal lakes. I am
proud to be joined in this effort today by Senator Cleland of Georgia
and Senator Dorgan of North Dakota.
Recreation on our federal lakes has become a powerful tourist magnet,
attracting some 900 million visitors annually and generating an
estimated $44 billion in economic activity--mostly spent on privately-
provided goods and services. And by the middle of this century, our
federal lakes are expected to host nearly 2 billion visitors per year.
Yet, even with the millions of visitors each year to our lakes and
reservoirs, recreation has suffered from a lack of unifying policy
direction and leadership, as well as insufficient interagency and
intergovernmental planning and coordination. Most federal agencies are
focused on the traditional functions of man-made lakes and reservoirs:
flood control, hydroelectric power, water supply, irrigation, and
navigation. And often recreation is left out of the decision process.
This legislation will reaffirm that recreation is also an authorized
purpose at almost all federal lakes and direct the agencies managing
these projects to take action to reemphasize recreation programs in
their management plans. This legislation will emphasize partnerships
between the Federal Government, local governments, and private groups
to promote responsible recreation on all our federal lakes.
It will establish a National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program
comprised of up to 25 lakes across the nation. At each of these federal
lakes, the managing agency will be empowered to develop creative
agreements with private sector recreation providers as well as state
land agencies to enhance recreation opportunities. Rather than just
building new federal campgrounds with tax dollars, we need to create
new partnerships to provide support for building recreation
infrastructure that is in line with visitor and tourist desires for
recreation. The National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program will be
a pilot project to test these creative agreements and management
techniques on a small scale to demonstrate their effectiveness at
promoting recreation on federal lakes.

[[Page S2310]]

Second, this legislation will establish a Federal Recreation Lakes
Leadership Council to coordinate the National Recreation Lakes
Demonstration Program and coordinate efforts among federal agencies to
promote recreation on federal lakes.
It also will include the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The Fee
Demo Program has had wide successes in Arkansas and across the country
in allowing individual parks and recreation areas to keep more of their
fee revenues on-site to reduce the often overwhelming maintenance
backlog.

The legislation will also provide for periodic review of the
management of recreation at federal water projects--something long
overdue. A great deal has changed since many of the water projects were
authorized, yet the initial legislative direction from over 70 years
ago continues to be the basis for the management practices now in the
year 2001--and that is not right.
Finally, the legislation will provide new opportunities to link the
national recreation lakes initiative with other federal recreation
assistance efforts, including the Wallop-Breaux program for boating and
fishing.
Let me give you a little background on how this legislation was
developed. In 1996, the U.S. Senate recognized that recreation was
becoming more important on federal lakes and conceived the National
Recreation Lakes Study Commission to review the current and anticipated
demand for recreational opportunities on federally managed lakes and
reservoirs. The National Recreation Lakes Study Commission were charged
to ``review the current and anticipated demand for recreational
opportunities at federally managed man-made lakes and reservoirs'' and
``to develop alternatives for enhanced recreational use of such
facilities.''
The Commission released its long-awaited report confirming the impact
of recreation on federally-managed, man-made lakes in June of last
year. The Commission also recognized that we are far from realizing
their full potential. The study documented that these lakes are
powerful tourist magnets, attracting some 900 million visitors annually
and generating an estimated $44 billion dollars in economic activity--
mostly spent on privately-provided goods and services.
During the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's hearing in 1999
on the Recreation Lakes Study, the chairman and I spent some time
discussing how children today do not take full advantage of the outdoor
opportunities that are available to them. It is so important that we
encourage our children to enjoy the great outdoors that often times is
less than an hour's drive away.
As the mother of twin 4-year-old boys, I feel we need to encourage
our children to be children, not to become adults too quickly, to learn
how to enjoy the outdoors. The only way we can do that is by exposing
them to it early and often.
In this Nation, we have nearly 1,800 federally managed lakes and
reservoirs. There are 38 in my home state of Arkansas. With so many
federal lakes throughout the country, there's no reason why we
shouldn't do all we can to promote recreation. I know that in Arkansas,
we don't think twice about getting away to the lake for the weekend to
go boating or fishing, or to just get away from the day-to-day grind.
And that doesn't even begin to get into the tremendous economic impact
from recreation on our federal lakes.
Last August, I conducted a tour of two of our Corps of Engineers
managed lakes in Arkansas--Lake Ouachita and Greers Ferry Lake--to
observe how our lakes are managed and to see where recreation falls on
the priority list. I saw many opportunities where the Corps of
Engineers, working with local officials and private citizens, could,
through innovative management techniques, better provide for the
recreation needs of the thousands of Arkansans that visit Arkansas'
lakes each year. This bill will enable our federal lakes in Arkansas
and around the country to invest in and manage for recreation so we all
can enjoy a day out on the lake.

This bill is not an attempt to completely rewrite how federal lakes
in this country are managed or to put recreation in front of all other
authorized purposes at federal lakes. The National Recreation Lakes Act
of 2001 will work with all current laws and regulations to ensure that
recreation is given a seat at the table when the management decisions
are made for our federal lakes.
This is a good bill. In everything from the creation of jobs to the
money that tourists like myself spend at the marinas and local stores
surrounding the lake--our Federal lakes and reservoirs have an immense
recreational value that can and does bring revenues into our local
economies. The best way to encourage and expand this aspect is to
ensure that recreation is given a higher priority in the management of
our federal lakes.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and look
forward to the debate on how we can promote recreation on our federal
lakes.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 531

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 ``National Recreation Lakes
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) recreation is an authorized purpose at almost all
Federal lakes;
(2) lakes created by Federal dam projects have become
powerful magnets for diverse recreation activities, drawing
hundreds of millions of visits annually and generating tens
of billions of dollars in economic benefits;
(3) recreational opportunities are provided at such lakes,
on surrounding land, and on downstream tailwaters by Federal
agencies and through partnerships among Federal, State, and
local government agencies and private persons; and
(4) the quality of recreational opportunities at and around
Federal lakes depends on clean air and water and attractive
viewsheds.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to require Federal agencies responsible for management
of lakes created by Federal dam projects to pursue strategies
for enhancing recreational experiences at the lakes; and
(2) to direct Federal agencies to investigate the
possibilities for the use of, and to use, creative management
of the project lakes that optimizes both recreational
opportunities and other purposes of the project lakes,
including--
(A) provision of agricultural and municipal water supplies;
(B) provision of flood control and navigation benefits;
(C) production of hydroelectric power; and
(D) protection of water quality.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Federal Lakes
Recreation Leadership Council established by section 5.
(2) National recreation demonstration lake.--The term
``national recreation demonstration lake'' means a project
lake that is designated as a national recreation
demonstration lake under section 4.
(3) Participating agency.--The term ``participating
agency'' means--
(A) the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
(B) the Bureau of Land Management;
(C) the Bureau of Reclamation;
(D) the National Park Service;
(E) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
(F) the Forest Service;
(G) the Army Corps of Engineers;
(H) the Tennessee Valley Authority; and
(I) any other project lake management agency that
participates in the Program at the request of the Council.
(4) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the national
recreation lakes demonstration program established by section
4.
(5) Project lake.--The term ``project lake'' means an
impoundment of water that--
(A) is part of a water resources project operated,
maintained, or constructed by or with the participation of
any Federal agency;
(B) has a maximum storage capacity of 200 acre feet or
more; and
(C) includes recreation as an authorized purpose.
(6) Project lake management agency.--The term ``project
lake management agency'' means a Federal agency that manages
a project lake.
(7) Recreation.--
(A) In general.--The term ``recreation'' means--
(i) a water-related recreational activity that takes place
on, adjacent to, or in a project lake or tailwater; and
(ii) a recreational activity or wildlife-related activity
that takes place on federally managed land in the vicinity of
a project

[[Page S2311]]

lake that is permitted under a land management plan in effect
on the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``recreation'' includes--
(i) boating (including power boating, sailing, rafting,
kayaking, and canoeing), diving, swimming, camping, trail-
based activities, and picnicking; and
(ii) fishing and other wildlife-related activity.

SEC. 4. NATIONAL RECREATION LAKES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the National
Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program consisting of the 25
national recreation demonstration lakes to be established
under this Act.
(b) Criteria.--
(1) In general.--The Council shall develop and establish
criteria for use in selecting project lakes managed by
participating agencies for designation as national recreation
demonstration lakes.
(2) Requirements.--The criteria shall--
(A) include lake size, diversity of current and potential
recreational uses, opportunities for partnerships with
private and public entities, and present and projected
regional recreation demand; and
(B) require a strong showing of local support from the area
of the lake, including support from State and local
governments, private citizens, and businesses.
(3) Consultation.--In developing the criteria, the Council
shall consult with participating agencies to encourage the
nomination of project lakes for the Program so as to include
project lakes in all regions of the country and project lakes
that will provide a variety of recreational experiences.
(c) Nomination of National Recreation Demonstration
Lakes.--A participating agency or an interest group located
in the immediate vicinity of a project lake may nominate the
project lake to become a national recreation demonstration
lake by submitting to the Council a nomination in accordance
with such procedures as the Council may establish.
(d) Designation of National Recreation Demonstration
Lakes.--
(1) In general.--On receiving the nominations from
participating agencies and local interest groups, the Council
shall designate 25 project lakes to be national recreation
demonstration lakes.
(2) Selection criteria.--In selecting project lakes for
designation as national recreation demonstration lakes, the
Council shall endeavor to include project lakes in all
regions of the country and project lakes that will provide a
variety of recreational experiences.
(3) Effective Period.--A designation of a project lake as a
national recreation demonstration lake shall be effective for
a period not to exceed 10 years.
(e) Authorized Activities at National Recreation
Demonstration Lakes.--
(1) Enhancement of recreation activities.--Each
participating agency shall use authorities under this Act to
enhance opportunities for recreation activities on, in, and
in the vicinity of national recreation demonstration lakes.
(2) New authorities.--In accordance with the Act of October
22, 1986 (16.U.S.C 497b) and the Act of November 13, 1998 (16
U.S.C. 5951 et seq.), the head of any participating agency
except the National Park Service may conduct any activity to
experiment with permits, fees, concession agreements, and
innovative management structures at a national recreation
demonstration lake under the jurisdiction of the
participating agency.
(3) Assistance to units of local government in the vicinity
of a national recreation demonstration lake.--The head of any
participating agency that manages a national recreation
demonstration lake may carry out activities (including
planning and marketing activities, the establishment of
advisory boards, and other activities) to improve
communications and cooperation between the agency and local
community interests in the vicinity of the lake with respect
to management of the national recreation demonstration lake.
(f) Local Advisory Committees.--
(1) Establishment and purpose.--Under guidelines developed
by the Council, the head of a participating agency shall
establish, for each national recreation demonstration lake
managed by the agency, a local advisory committee comprised
of State and local government and private sector
representatives.
(2) Duties.--The duties of a local advisory committee shall
be to recommend and coordinate with project lake managers on
projects proposed to be completed by the participating agency
under the Program.
(3) Other authorities and requirements.--
(A) Meetings.--All meetings of a local advisory committee
shall be announced at least 1 week in advance in a local
newspaper of record and shall be open to the public.
(B) Records.--A local advisory committee shall maintain
records of the meetings of the committee and make the records
available for public inspection.
(C) Compensation.--Members of a local advisory committee
shall not receive any compensation.
(D) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a local
advisory committee established under paragraph (1).

SEC. 5. FEDERAL LAKES RECREATION LEADERSHIP COUNCIL.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a council to be
known as the ``Federal Lakes Recreation Leadership Council''
as contemplated by the memorandum of agreement among the
Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture,
Secretary of the Army, and Chairman of the Tennessee Valley
Authority dated October 27, 1999.
(b) Membership.--The Council shall be composed of--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior (or designee), who shall
serve as the Chairperson of the Council;
(2) the Secretary of the Army (or designee);
(3) the Secretary of Agriculture (or designee);
(4) the Director of the Tennessee Valley Authority (or
designee);
(5) a representative of the recreation industry, appointed
by the President;
(6) a representative of the National Association of State
Park Directors, appointed by the President; and
(7) a director of a State Fish and Wildlife Agency,
appointed by the President.
(c) Terms; Vacancies.--
(1) Term.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (B),
a member shall be appointed for the life of the Council.
(B) Presidential appointee.--A member of the Council
appointed under paragraphs (5), (6), or (7) of subsection (b)
shall be appointed for a term of 5 years.
(2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Council--
(A) shall not affect the powers of the Council; and
(B) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment was made.
(d) Purpose.--The purpose of the Council shall be to--
(1) increase the awareness of the social and economic
values associated with project lake recreation among project
lake management agencies and other stakeholders with an
interest in recreation at project lakes;
(2) develop policies that provide an environment for
success that emphasizes the role of recreation at project
lakes;
(3) protect and manage recreation and other resources to
optimize all resource benefits; and
(4) promote a process that will involve Federal, State,
tribal, and local units of government and field managers in
the planning, development, and management of recreation uses
at project lakes.
(e) Duties.--The Council shall--
(1)(A) work to implement the goals and recommendations of
the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission as detailed in
the Commission's 1999 report entitled ``Reservoirs of
Opportunity''; and
(B) use the report as a guide for all Council actions;
(2) solicit each project lake management agency to become a
participating agency;
(3) respond to requests for assistance from Members of
Congress in drafting legislation, including new authorization
and funding requirements, to best achieve the purposes of
this Act;
(4) promote collaboration among agencies to provide
training opportunities, interagency development assignments,
and regular lake manager meetings;
(5) promote the development and consistency of--
(A) data collection at project lakes, including--
(i) making scientific assessments of watershed and natural
resource conditions; and
(ii) making assessments of customer facility and
infrastructure needs; and
(B) required maintenance schedules;
(6) promote agency policies that encourage construction,
operation, and maintenance of high quality visitor and
recreational services and facilities by concessioners and
permittees at project lakes, including adequate opportunities
for profitability and recovery of capital investments;
(7) develop consistent guidance to encourage construction,
operation, and maintenance of commercial recreation
facilities and other visitor amenities at project lakes;
(8) recognize and reward innovation and collaboration at
project lakes;
(9) develop public information materials to identify the
type and location of recreation facilities and programs at
project lakes;
(10) promote cooperation and share new approaches from
Federal and State managing agencies, Indian tribes, and the
private sector to embrace a culture of innovation and
entrepreneurship;
(11) develop training courses on business skills to close
the recreation needs gap;
(12) support annual regional workshops with State, tribal,
local, and private sector participants to seek feedback and
assistance in achieving the goals of the Program;
(13) develop and establish an application and selection
process to implement the Program;
(14) develop guidelines for the formation of local advisory
committees to be established by project lake management
agencies managing national recreation demonstration lakes;
and
(15) develop and administer a competitive grant program for
distributing available funds among national recreation
demonstration lakes for purposes described in this Act under
which--
(A) the total number of lakes improved under the program
shall not exceed 25 lakes; and

[[Page S2312]]

(B) grants are provided in a manner that, to the maximum
extent practicable, reflects the geographical diversity of
the United States.
(f) Principles.--In all its actions and recommendations,
the Council shall consider the following principles:
(1) Watershed health.--The health of the watersheds
associated with project lakes must be protected.
(2) Neighboring communities.--Neighboring communities
should be encouraged to participate in planning the
recreation needs and other uses of project lakes to help to
diversify the economic base of the community and promote
sustainable practices to protect resources.
(3) Federal responsibilities.--Federal responsibilities to
enhance recreation at project lakes while operating projects
to optimize water use for all beneficial purposes should be
reaffirmed.
(4) Management flexibility.--Management flexibility should
be increased and support for management innovation should be
demonstrated.
(5) Support.--Public and private support should be
attracted to provide public outdoor recreation activities at
project lakes.
(g) FACA.--The Council shall be subject to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(h) Termination of Council.--The Council shall terminate 15
years after the date on which funds are first made available
to carry out this section.

SEC. 6. PERIODIC REVIEW AND REVISION OF OPERATING POLICIES
FOR PROJECT LAKES.

(a) Reports.--
(1) Project lake management agencies.--Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of
each project lake management agency shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, and
the Council a report that describes--
(A) actions taken by the agency to communicate to personnel
of the agency the requirements of this Act and other laws
relating to recreation use of project lakes; and
(B) actions to be taken by the agency to expand recreation
opportunities at project lakes, including a schedule for
taking the actions.
(2) Council.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Council shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate, and the Committee on Resources of
the House of Representatives a report describing actions
taken by participating agencies to expand recreation
opportunities at project lakes.
(3) Participating agencies.--
(A) Periodic reports.--The head of each participating
agency shall periodically report to the Council regarding
activities of the participating agency under this section.
(B) Comprehensive review.--Not later than 5 years after the
date of enactment of this Act and at least once every 15
years thereafter, the head of each participating agency shall
conduct a comprehensive review of operating policies for
project lakes managed by the agency that describes--
(i) the actions taken by the agency to communicate to
personnel of the agency the requirements of this Act and
other laws relating to recreation use of project lakes; and
(ii) the actions to be taken by the agency to expand
recreation opportunities at project lakes, including a
schedule for taking the actions.
(b) Policies.--
(1) In general.--The head of each project lake management
agency shall--
(A) revise the policies of the agency as necessary to
incorporate new information and ensure coordinated management
of project lakes to produce high levels of benefits for
recreation and all authorized purposes and designated uses of
project lakes; and
(B) where recreation is consistent with the project lake
purposes and designated uses of project lands and waters,
give recreation appropriate attention in all agency decisions
and policies relating to the project lake.
(2) Tailwaters.--In conducting any activity relating to the
tailwater of a project lake, the head of a project lake
management agency shall--
(A) investigate ways to consider recreational uses
dependent on water release schedules and release volumes;
(B) consider release schedules to enhance such
opportunities and uses of the tailwater; and
(C) appropriately balance all of the purposes of the
project.

SEC. 7. RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

Section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note;
Public Law 104-134), is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``, the Bureau of Reclamation,'' after
``the National Park Service'';
(B) by striking ``Service) and'' and inserting
``Service),''; and
(C) by inserting before ``shall each'' the following: ``,
and the Secretary of the Army (acting through the Corps of
Engineers)'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``four agencies'' and
inserting ``6 agencies''; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``and'' and inserting a comma; and
(B) by inserting ``, and the Secretary of the Army'' before
``shall carry out''.

SEC. 8. USE OF FEDERAL WATER PROJECT FUNDING FOR MATCHING
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION PROJECTS AT
NATIONAL RECREATION DEMONSTRATION LAKES.

(a) Federal Water Project Recreation Act.--The Federal
Water Project Recreation Act is amended--
(1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 460l-13)--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``it and to bear'' and
all that follows through ``recreation,'' and inserting ``the
project,''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``recreation and''; and
(ii) by striking ``recreation or'';
(2) in section 3 (16 U.S.C. 460l-14)--
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``it and will bear''
the first place it appears and all that follows through
``recreation,'' and inserting ``the project,''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460l-15), by striking
``recreation and'' and all that follows through ``those
purposes'' and inserting ``fish and wildlife purposes''.
(b) Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act.--The Act of August
9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.) is amended by striking the
first section 13 (relating to effective date) and the second
section 13 (relating to State use of contributions) and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 13. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL WATER PROJECT SPENDING TO
NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF COVERED RECREATION
PROJECTS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered recreation project.--The term `covered
recreation project' means construction or reconstruction of a
facility for recreation at a national recreation
demonstration lake that is carried out with assistance under
this Act.
``(2) National recreation demonstration lake.--The term
`national recreation demonstration lake' has the meaning
given the term in section 2 of the National Recreation Lakes
Act of 2001.
``(3) Recreation.--The term `recreation' has the meaning
given the term in section 2 of the National Recreation Lakes
Act of 2001.
``(b) Treatment of Use of Amounts Appropriated for a
Federal Water Project.--The use for any covered recreation
project of amounts appropriated for a Federal water project
shall be treated as payment of the non-Federal share of costs
required under this Act.''.
(c) Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.--The Act of
September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 10 as section 11; and
(2) by inserting after section 9 the following:

``SEC. 10. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL WATER PROJECT SPENDING TO
NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF RECREATION PROJECTS.

SEC. 9. COST-SHARE ASSISTANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR
REPLACEMENT OF RECREATION FACILITY.

(a) Assistance Authorized.--The head of each project lake
management agency may provide financial assistance to a State
or local agency to cover a portion of the total costs
incurred for the reconstruction or replacement of a
recreation facility operated under an agreement with the
State or local agency at a project lake.
(b) Costs Included.--The total costs of reconstruction or
replacement of a recreation facility include the costs
associated with all components of the reconstruction or
replacement project, including--
(1) project administration;
(2) the provision of technical assistance; and
(3) contracting and construction costs.
(c) Limitation.--Assistance provided under subsection (a)
shall not be used for costs incurred in maintaining or
operating the recreation facility.

SEC. 10. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

This Act does not affect--
(1) the purposes of any project lake authorized before the
date of enactment of this Act;
(2) the authority of any State to manage fish and wildlife;
or
(3) the authority of any State or the Federal Government to
enter into any agreement relating to a project lake.

SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2006, to remain available until expended.
(b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the
funds made available under

[[Page S2313]]

subsection (a) may be used to pay administrative costs
incurred by the Secretary of the Interior in coordinating the
activities of the Council and participating agencies under
this Act.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the
National Recreation Lakes Act which is being introduced today by
Senator Blanche Lincoln and others. This bill will give recreation
interests a seat at the table when decisions are made about the use of
Federal lakes. I think that this bill in an important part of
recognizing the great benefits that our Federal lakes provide to
communities all across the country.
This bill creates a pilot program that will encompass 25 national
recreation demonstration lakes. These lakes will ensure that
recreational interests get a voice in the decision making process. We
rely on these lakes for so many different things: irrigation, hydro-
power, navigation. In many cases, recreational interests are an
afterthought. This bill will give recreation the priority that it
deserves.
Lake Sakakawea is located in my home state of North Dakota. I have
worked with the community leaders there to try and make the importance
of recreational interests a part of the discussion regarding the level
of the lake and the use of the water in the lake. This is a perfect
example of a lake that would benefit from this legislation.
I commend Senator Lincoln for the hard work that she has done on this
legislation and I look forward to working with her to move this bill
through the legislative process.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 532. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for
distribution and use within that State; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Baucus, Burns,
Daschle, Johnson, and Conrad, I am introducing legislation that would
provide equitable treatment for U.S. farmers in the pricing of
agricultural pesticides. This legislation would allow a state, a
person, or a farm organization or cooperative/farm supply company to
serve as a registrant for a Canadian pesticide which is identical or
substantially similar to a U.S. registered pesticide. This bill is
identical to the legislation I introduced last September.
The need for this legislation is as great as ever. We are about to
start spring planting, and U.S. farmers are once again going to be
required to pay more--in some cases almost twice as much--than their
Canadian counterparts for crop protection products that are virtually
identical in substance.
I have pointed out in the past that when the U.S.-Canada Free Trade
Agreement came into effect, part of the understanding on agriculture
was that our two nations were going to move rapidly toward the
harmonization of pesticide regulations. Howsever, we have entered a new
decade, and century, no less, and relatively little progress in
harmonization has been accomplished that is meaningful to family
farmers.
Since this trade agreement took effect, the pace of Canadian spring
and durum wheat, and barley exports to the United States have grown
from a barely noticeable trickle into annual floods of imported grain
into our markets. Over the years, I have described many factors that
have produced this unfair trade relationship and un-level playing field
between farmers of our two nations. The failure to achieve
harmonization in pesticides between the United States and Canada
compounds this ongoing trade problem.
Our farmers are concerned that agricultural pesticides that are not
available in the United States are being utilized by farmers in Canada
to produce wheat, barley, and other agricultural commodities that are
subsequently imported and consumed in the United States. They
rightfully believe that it is unfair to import commodities produced
with agricultural pesticides that are not available to U.S. producers.
However, it is not just a difference of availability of agricultural
pesticides between our two countries, but also in the pricing of these
chemicals.
A year ago, our farmers were denied the right to bring a pesticide
across the border that was cleared for use in our country, but was not
available locally because the company who manufacturers this product
chose not to sell it here. They were selling a more expensive version
of the product here. The simple fact is, this company was using our
environmental protection laws as a means to extract a higher price from
our farmers. This simply is not right.
I have pointed out, time and time again, the fact that there are
significant differences in prices being paid for essentially the same
pesticide by farmers in our two countries. In fact, in a recent survey,
farmers in the United States were paying between 117 percent and 193
percent higher prices than Canadian farmers for a number of pesticides.
This was after adjusting for differences in currency exchange rates at
that time.
The farmers in my state are simply fed up with what is going on. They
see grain flooding across the border, while they are unable to access
the more inexpensive production inputs available in our ``free trade''
environment. And I might add, this grain coming into our country has
been treated with these products which our farmers are denied access
to. This simply must end.
As I stated earlier, today, my colleagues and I are reintroducing
legislation that would take an important step in providing equitable
treatment for U.S. farmers in the pricing of agricultural pesticides.
This bill would only deal with agricultural chemicals that are
identical or substantially similar. It only deals with pesticides that
have already undergone rigorous review processes and whose formulations
have been registered and approved for use in both countries by the
respective regulatory agencies.
The bill would establish a procedure by which states may apply for
and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural
chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to
agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers
and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the
United States. The need for this bill is created by pesticide companies
which use chemical labeling laws to protect their marketing and pricing
structures, rather than the public interest. In their selective
labeling of identical or substantially similar products across the
border they are able to extract unjustified profits from farmers, and
create un-level pricing fields between our two countries.
This bill is one legislative step in the process of full
harmonization of pesticides between our two nations. It is designed
specifically to address the problem of pricing differentials on
chemicals that are currently available in both countries. We need to
take this step, so that we can begin the process of creating a level
playing field between farmers of our two countries. This bill would
make harmonization a reality for those pesticides in which their actual
selling price is the only real difference.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 532

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REGISTRATION OF CANADIAN PESTICIDES BY STATES.

(a) In General.--Section 24 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Registration of Canadian Pesticides by States.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Canadian pesticide.--The term `Canadian pesticide'
means a pesticide that--
``(i) is registered for use as a pesticide in Canada;
``(ii) is identical or substantially similar in its
composition to a comparable domestic pesticide registered
under section 3; and
``(iii) is registered in Canada by the registrant of the
comparable domestic pesticide or by an affiliated entity of
the registrant.
``(B) Comparable domestic pesticide.--The term `comparable
domestic pesticide' means a pesticide--
``(i) that is registered under section 3;
``(ii) the registration of which is not under suspension;
``(iii) that is not subject to--

``(I) a notice of intent to cancel or suspend under any
provision of this Act;

[[Page S2314]]

``(II) a notice for voluntary cancellation under section
6(f); or
``(III) an enforcement action under any provision of this
Act;

``(iv) that is used as the basis for comparison for the
determinations required under paragraph (4);
``(v) that is registered for use on each site of
application for which registration is sought under this
subsection;
``(vi) for which no use is the subject of a pending interim
administrative review under section 3(c)(8);
``(vii) that is not subject to any limitation on production
or sale agreed to by the Administrator and the registrant or
imposed by the Administrator for risk mitigation purposes;
and
``(viii) that is not classified as a restricted use
pesticide under section 3(d).
``(2) Authority to register canadian pesticides.--
``(A) In general.--A State may register a Canadian
pesticide for distribution and use in the State if the
registration--
``(i) complies with this subsection;
``(ii) is consistent with this Act; and
``(iii) has not previously been disapproved by the
Administrator.
``(B) Production of another pesticide.--A pesticide
registered under this subsection shall not be used to produce
a pesticide registered under section 3 or subsection (c).
``(C) Effect of registration.--A registration of a Canadian
pesticide by a State under this subsection--
``(i) shall be deemed to be a registration under section 3
for all purposes of this Act; and
``(ii) shall authorize distribution and use only within
that State.
``(D) Registrant.--
``(i) In general.--A State may register a Canadian
pesticide under this subsection on its own motion or on
application of any person.
``(ii) State or applicant as registrant.--

``(I) State.--If a State registers a Canadian pesticide
under this subsection on its own motion, the State shall be
considered to be the registrant of the Canadian pesticide for
all purposes of this Act.
``(II) Applicant.--If a State registers a Canadian
pesticide under this subsection on application of any person,
the person shall be considered to be the registrant of the
Canadian pesticide for all purposes of this Act.

``(3) Requirements for registration sought by person.--A
person seeking registration by a State of a Canadian
pesticide in a State under this subsection shall--
``(A) demonstrate to the State that the Canadian pesticide
is identical or substantially similar in its composition to a
comparable domestic pesticide; and
``(B) submit to the State a copy of--
``(i) the label approved by the Pesticide Management
Regulatory Agency for the Canadian pesticide; and
``(ii) the label approved by the Administrator for the
comparable domestic pesticide.
``(4) State requirements for registration.--A State may
register a Canadian pesticide under this subsection if the
State--
``(A) obtains the confidential statement of formula for the
Canadian pesticide;
``(B) determines that the Canadian pesticide is identical
or substantially similar in composition to a comparable
domestic pesticide;
``(C) for each food or feed use authorized by the
registration--
``(i) determines that there exists an adequate tolerance or
exemption under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) that permits the residues of the
pesticide on the food or feed; and
``(ii) identifies the tolerances or exemptions in the
notification submitted under subparagraph (E);
``(D) obtains a label approved by the Administrator that--
``(i)(I) includes all statements, other than the
establishment number, from the approved labeling of the
comparable domestic pesticide that are relevant to the uses
registered by the State; and
``(II) excludes all labeling statements relating to uses
that are not registered by the State;
``(ii) identifies the State in which the product may be
used;
``(iii) prohibits sale and use outside the State identified
under clause (ii);
``(iv) includes a statement indicating that it is unlawful
to use the Canadian pesticide in the State in a manner that
is inconsistent with the labeling approved by the
Administrator under this subsection; and
``(v) identifies the establishment number of the
establishment in which the labeling approved by the
Administrator will be affixed to each container of the
Canadian pesticide; and
``(E) not later than 10 business days after the issuance by
the State of the registration, submit to the Administrator a
written notification of the action of the State that
includes--
``(i) a description of the determination made under this
paragraph;
``(ii) a statement of the effective date of the
registration;
``(iii) a confidential statement of the formula of the
registered pesticide; and
``(iv) a final printed copy of the labeling approved by the
Administrator.
``(5) Disapproval of registration by administrator.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator may disapprove the
registration of a Canadian pesticide by a State under this
subsection if the Administrator determines that the
registration of the Canadian pesticide by the State--
``(i) does not comply with this subsection or the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
``(ii) is inconsistent with this Act.
``(B) Effective period.--If the Administrator disapproves a
registration by a State under this subsection by the date
that is 90 days after the date on which the State issues the
registration, the registration shall be ineffective after the
90th day.
``(6) Labeling of canadian pesticides.--
``(A) In general.--Each container containing a Canadian
pesticide registered by a State shall bear the label that is
approved by the Administrator under this subsection.
``(B) Display of label.--The label shall be securely
attached to the container and shall be the only label visible
on the container.
``(C) Original canadian label.--The original Canadian label
on the container shall be preserved underneath the label
approved by the Administrator.
``(D) Preparation and use of labels.--After a Canadian
pesticide is registered under this subsection, the registrant
shall--
``(i) prepare labels approved by the Administrator for the
Canadian pesticide; and
``(ii) conduct or supervise all labeling of the Canadian
pesticide with the approved labeling.
``(E) Registered establishments.--Labeling of a Canadian
pesticide under this subsection shall be conducted at an
establishment registered by the registrant under section 7.
``(F) Establishment reporting requirements.--An
establishment registered for the sole purpose of labeling
under this paragraph shall be exempt from the reporting
requirements of section 7(c).
``(7) Revocation.--
``(A) In general.--After the registration of a Canadian
pesticide, if the Administrator finds that the Canadian
pesticide is not identical or substantially similar in
composition to a comparable domestic pesticide, the
Administrator may issue an emergency order revoking the
registration of the Canadian pesticide.
``(B) Terms of order.--The order--
``(i) shall be effective immediately;
``(ii) may prohibit the sale, distribution, and use of the
Canadian pesticide; and
``(iii) may require the registrant of the Canadian
pesticide to purchase and dispose of any unopened product
subject to the order.
``(C) Request for hearing.--Not later than 10 days after
issuance of the order, the registrant of the Canadian
pesticide subject to the order may request a hearing on the
order.
``(D) Final order.--If a hearing is not requested in
accordance with subparagraph (C), the order shall become
final and shall not be subject to judicial review.
``(E) Judicial review.--If a hearing is requested on the
order, judicial review may be sought only at the conclusion
of the hearing on the order and following the issuance by the
Administrator of a final revocation order.
``(F) Procedure.--A final revocation order issued following
a hearing shall be reviewable in accordance with section 16.
``(8) Suspension of state authority to register canadian
pesticides.--
``(A) In general.--If the Administrator finds that a State
that has registered 1 or more Canadian pesticides under this
subsection is not capable of exercising adequate controls to
ensure that registration under this subsection is consistent
with this subsection, other provisions of this Act, or the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.),
or has failed to exercise adequate controls of 1 or more
Canadian pesticides registered under this subsection, the
Administrator may suspend the authority of the State to
register Canadian pesticides under this subsection until such
time as the Administrator determines that the State can and
will exercise adequate control of the Canadian pesticides.
``(B) Notice and opportunity to respond.--Before suspending
the authority of a State to register a Canadian pesticide,
the Administrator shall--
``(i) notify the State that the Administrator proposes to
suspend the authority and the reasons for the proposed
suspension; and
``(ii) before taking final action to suspend authority
under this subsection, provide the State an opportunity to
respond to the proposal to suspend within 30 calendar days
after the State receives notice under clause (i).
``(9) Limits on liability.--No action for monetary damages
may be heard in any Federal court against--
``(A) a State acting as a registering agency under the
authority of and consistent with this subsection for injury
or damage resulting from the use of a product registered by
the State under this subsection; or
``(B) a registrant for damages resulting from adulteration
or compositional alteration of a Canadian pesticide
registered under this subsection if the registrant did not
have and could not reasonably have obtained knowledge of the
adulteration or compositional alteration.
``(10) Disclosure of information by administrator to the
state.--The Administrator may disclose to a State that is
seeking to register a Canadian pesticide in the State
information that is necessary for the State to make the
determinations required by paragraph (4) if the State
certifies to the

[[Page S2315]]

Administrator that the State can and will maintain the
confidentiality of any trade secrets and commercial or
financial information provided by the Administrator to the
State under this subsection to the same extent as is required
under section 10.
``(11) Provision of information by registrants of
comparable domestic pesticides.--
``(A) In general.--On request by a State, the registrant of
a comparable domestic pesticide shall provide to the State
that is seeking to register a Canadian pesticide in the State
under this subsection information that is necessary for the
State to make the determinations required by paragraph (4) if
the State certifies to the registrant that the State can and
will maintain the confidentiality of any trade secrets and
commercial and financial information provided by the
registrant to the State under this subsection to the same
extent as is required under section 10.
``(B) Penalty for noncompliance.--
``(i) In general.--If the registrant of a comparable
domestic pesticide fails to provide to the State, not later
than 15 days after receipt of a written request by the State,
information possessed by or reasonably accessible to the
registrant that is necessary to make the determinations
required by paragraph (4), the Administrator may assess a
penalty against the registrant of the comparable pesticide.
``(ii) Amount.--The amount of the penalty shall be equal to
the product obtained by multiplying--

``(I) the difference between the per-acre cost of the
application of the comparable domestic pesticide and the
application of the Canadian pesticide, as determined by the
Administrator; and
``(II) the number of acres in the State devoted to the
commodity for which the State registration is sought.

``(C) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--No penalty under
this paragraph shall be assessed unless the registrant is
given notice and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with
section 14(a)(3).
``(D) Issues at hearing.--The only issues for resolution at
the hearing shall be--
``(i) whether the registrant of the comparable domestic
pesticide failed to timely provide to the State the
information possessed by or reasonably accessible to the
registrant that was necessary to make the determinations
required by paragraph (4); and
``(ii) the amount of the penalty.
``(12) Penalty for disclosure by state.--
``(A) In general.--The State shall not make public
information obtained under paragraph (10) or (11) that is
privileged and confidential and contains or relates to trade
secrets or commercial or financial information.
``(B) Disclosure.--Any State employee who willfully
discloses information described in subparagraph (A) shall be
subject to penalties described in section 10(f).
``(13) Data compensation.--A State or person registering a
Canadian pesticide under this subsection shall not be liable
for compensation for data supporting the registration if the
registration of the Canadian pesticide in Canada and the
registration of the comparable domestic pesticide are held by
the same registrant or by affiliated entities.
``(14) Formulation changes.--
``(A) In general.--The registrant of a comparable domestic
pesticide shall notify the Administrator of any change in the
formulation of a comparable domestic pesticide or a Canadian
pesticide registered by the registrant or an affiliated
entity not later than 30 days before any sale or distribution
of the pesticide containing the new formulation.
``(B) Statement of formula.--The registrant of the
comparable domestic pesticide shall submit, with the notice
required under subparagraph (A), a confidential statement of
the formula for the new formulation if the registrant has
possession of or reasonable access to the information.
``(C) Suspension of registration for noncompliance.--
``(i) In general.--If the registrant fails to provide
notice or submit a confidential statement of formula as
required by this paragraph, the Administrator may issue a
notice of intent to suspend the registration of the
comparable domestic pesticide for a period of not less than 1
year.
``(ii) Effective date.--The suspension shall become final
not later than the end of the 30-day period beginning on the
date of the issuance by the Administrator of the notice of
intent to suspend the registration, unless during the period
the registrant requests a hearing.
``(iii) Hearing procedure.--If a hearing is requested, the
hearing shall be conducted in accordance with section 6(d).
``(iv) Issues.--The only issues for resolution at the
hearing shall be whether the registrant has failed to provide
notice or submit a confidential statement of formula as
required by this paragraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``In general.--'' after
``(1)``;
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Disapproval.--'' after
``(2)'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``Consistency with
federal food, drug, and cosmetic act.--'' after ``(3)''; and
(D) by striking ``(4) If the Administrator'' and inserting
the following:
``(4) Suspension of authority to register pesticides.--
Except as provided in subsection (d)(8), if the
Administrator''.
(2) The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. prec.
121) is amended by striking the item relating to section
24(c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Additional uses.
``(1) In general.
``(2) Disapproval.
``(3) Consistency with Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act.
``(4) Suspension of authority to register pesticides.
``(d) Registration of Canadian pesticides by States.
``(1) Definitions.
``(2) Authority to register Canadian pesticides.
``(3) Requirements for registration sought by person.
``(4) State requirements for registration.
``(5) Disapproval of registration by Administrator.
``(6) Labeling of Canadian pesticides.
``(7) Revocation.
``(8) Suspension of State authority to register Canadian
pesticides.
``(9) Limits on liability.
``(10) Disclosure of information by Administrator to the
State.
``(11) Provision of information by registrants of
comparable domestic pesticides.
``(12) Penalty for disclosure by State.
``(13) Data compensation.
``(14) Formulation changes.''.
(c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by
this section take effect 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of the
Pesticide Harmonization Act. Last year, Senator Dorgan attempted to
address this problem in the VA/HUD Appropriations Conference. I
committed myself to work with him and move this legislation this year.
I am a cosponsor of this bill because of this commitment and to even
out a serious trade imbalance facing the agriculture industry in our
country.
In my home State of Montana and many other western and mid-western
States, we have faced a number of trade disputes between Canada and the
United States. One of the most glaring discrepancies deals with
pesticides. Chemicals that are sold for one price just across the
border in Canada are sold at a considerably higher cost to American
producers. Why does this happen you may ask? The EPA places strong
regulations on chemicals used in the United States and therefore, the
chemical companies believe they should hike up the prices to pay for
their trouble.
The chemicals in Canada and the United States, in most cases, have
the exact same chemical make-up. The same company manufactures them,
but often gives them a different name and nearly always prices the
American chemicals higher. The crops treated with chemicals our farmers
are not allowed to use are easily imported into the United States.
These crops were developed at a lower production cost and are now
competing with American products. I am a strong believer in fair trade,
but for free trade to actually occur, this problem must be addressed.
Currently, American farmers are facing a serious economic recession.
Prices are the lowest they have been in a number of years and there
does not appear to be a light at the end of the tunnel. Additionally,
the West is looking at yet another year of severe drought. Already,
snow packs are considerably below normal. Also, fertilizer costs are
sky-rocketing with the high cost of fuel and energy. Compounding their
problem is being forced to pay twice as much for nearly the same
chemicals as their foreign neighbors.
If enacted, this bill would eliminate current obstacles and even the
playing field for our farmers. It would allow States or individual
producers to seek a registration for a Canadian pesticide. This could
only be done if, upon request by the State, the pesticide is found to
be identical or substantially similar to the U.S. pesticide. The EPA
still has final authority to disapprove the registrations within 90
days. Once the pesticide is found to be the same or similar and the EPA
approves, the State or individual can travel to Canada and purchase the
chemical.
Our farmers and ranchers have been paying too much for their
pesticides and chemicals for too long. From my years as a football
referee, I learned everyone needs to follow the same rules to play the
game. We need to make sure Canadian farmers and U.S. farmers are
playing under the same rules. I

[[Page S2316]]

believe this bill makes that happen. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this crucial issue to America's farmers and ranchers.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 534. A bill to establish a Federal interagency task force for the
purpose of coordinating actions to prevent the outbreak of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (commonly known as ``mad cow disease'') and
foot-and-mouth disease in the United States; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Mad Cow Prevention
Act of 2001 which would help ease the American consumer's growing
concern about our food supply. We can no longer take for granted that
our food supply will not be tainted by bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, BSE, commonly known as Mad Cow Disease, which has
infected over 175,000 cattle in Great Britain and Europe. We also
should be concerned about the growing threat of foot-and-mouth disease
and other associated diseases to America's meat supply.
The bill I introduce today establishes a Federal Interagency Task
Force, to be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, for the purpose
of coordinating actions to prevent the outbreak of Mad Cow Disease. The
agencies will include the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Service, the Secretary of
Treasury, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, the
Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control, the Commissioner of Customs, and any other
agencies the President deems appropriate.
No later than 60 days after the enactment of this legislation the
task force will submit to Congress a report which will describe the
actions the agencies are taking and plan to take to prevent the spread
of BSE and make recommendations for the future prevention of the spread
of this disease to the United Sates. The Task Force should also
consider and report on foot-and-mouth disease, chronic wasting disease
and other diseases associated with our meat industries.
Recently, a situation developed in Texas prompting the quarantine of
over a 1000 head of cattle. The animals were quickly purchased and
taken out of the food chain by Purina. But, this incident shows how
easily a contamination may start. It also has raised questions on how
this disease can be controlled.
In order to address this problem, on February 9, 2001, I wrote to
Secretary Veneman and requested a report from the USDA regarding our
government's response to mad cow disease specifically addressing: what
USDA is doing to address this problem; what other federal agencies are
doing; what any future plans are; and how USDA proposes to prevent the
introduction and spread of mad cow disease in the United States.
However, since I sent my letter to the USDA Secretary, the situation
in Europe has gone from bad to worse. Therefore, I believe a
government-wide approach is now necessary and that is why I am
introducing this bill today. We simply must act quickly.
Currently, our nation's farmers and ranchers are benefitting from
profitable good cattle prices, and our meat supply is safe. But, as a
Western Senator from a state with a significant cattle industry that
trades in the international market, I share the growing fears of
constituents about the potential devastating impact mad cow disease
would have if it spreads to and within the United States. The emerging
potential for mad cow disease in the United States would also raise
devastating health implications for humans. We cannot, in good
conscience, take a chance that would allow an outbreak to occur in the
U.S. which would destroy America's cattle industry and devastate
consumers' confidence in our food supply.

In my home state of Colorado alone there are more than 3.15 million
head of cattle and more than 12,000 beef producers. Nationwide,
Colorado ranks 4th in cattle on feed and 10th in overall cattle
numbers. Nearly one-third of Colorado counties are classified as either
economically dependent on the cattle industry or a vital role in their
economies. It is critical that we in Congress do everything we can to
protect this industry in Colorado and across the country.
Over the past two months, there has been a series of news reports
which highlight the spread of Mad Cow in Europe. Newsweek ran a cover
story, ABC aired a provocative story and countless other reports have
shown the potential situation we could face. And, today, the crisis
surrounding foot-and-mouth disease is on the front page of our major
newspapers. With the focus shifting to the United States, consumers are
becoming wary and growing more concerned about the potential of the
spread of the disease to our shores.
The Mad Cow Prevention Act of 2001 I introduce today is a necessary
step towards addressing the potential disaster of this disease in our
country. I urge my colleagues to support its speedy passage.
I ask unanimous consent that recent news clips, and the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 534

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 ``Mad Cow Prevention Act of
2001''.

SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

(a) In General.--There is established a Federal interagency
task force, to be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture,
for the purpose of coordinating actions to prevent the
outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (commonly known
as ``mad cow disease''), foot-and-mouth disease and related
diseases in the United States.
(b) Membership.--The membership of the task force shall be
composed of--
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) the Secretary of Commerce;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(4) the Secretary of the Treasury;
(5) the Commissioner of Food and Drug;
(6) the Director of the National Institutes of Health;
(7) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention;
(8) the Commissioner of Customs; and
(9) the heads of such other Federal departments and
agencies as the President considers appropriate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to
Congress a report that--
(1) describes actions that are being taken, and will be
taken, to prevent the outbreak of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, foot-and-mouth disease and related diseases
in the United States; and
(2) contains any recommendations for legislative and
regulatory actions that should be taken to prevent the
outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, foot-and-mouth
disease and related diseases in the United States.
____

[From ABCNEW.com: ``20.20'' Feature, Mar. 3, 2001]

Could Mad Cow Reach America?

some scientists worry the u.s. is not taking protective measures

Across Europe, hundreds of thousands of cows and bulls
suspected of having mad cow disease have been ground up and
stored in huge mounds in airplane hangars--still infected and
dangerous to humans. Others are being incinerated but the
ashes themselves are contaminated.
Michael Hansen, of the consumer advocacy group the
Consumers Union, says the infectious strain is ``virtually
indestructible . . . it defies all of our thinking about what
living things are and how they should act.''
No cases of mad cow disease have been found yet in the
United States, but some say America is not in the clear.

possible threat in united states

Professor Richard Lacey is one of the leading experts on
mad cow disease and was one of the first to sound the alarm
in Britain. He says America needs to be very much on the
alert. ``It is just possible that there is no mad cow disease
in the U.S.A., but I believe it's more likely there is, but
not detected yet,'' he says.
Lacey, a microbiologist at Leeds University in England, was
perhaps the most outspoken scientist to warn British
authorities that human could contract bovine spongiform
encephalopathy by eating infected beef. The warning was
largely ignored and dismissed as scientifically impossible
until five years ago when people began to die.
Victims of the degenerative brain disease lose their motor
skills and slowly waste away. There is no vaccine and no
treatment, which is why Lacey is concerned that the United
States isn't doing all it could to protect itself.
The U.S. banned British beef and cattle products in 1989
and the American beef industry has taken additional
precautions. The head of the National Cattleman's Beef
Association, Chuck Shroeder, says that along

[[Page S2317]]

with federal regulators, his group has actually gone through
mock drills to prepare for the discovery of mad cow disease.
Containment procedures have been planned and a full-scale
public relations campaign is ready to go. ``We're not just
whistling on our way past the graveyard on this,'' he
says.
Shroeder is confident that necessary measures have been
taken and protections in place. ``If the disease were ever
discovered here, we could number one, identify it, number two
contain it, and number three, eliminate it as quickly as
possible.'' The government reports that its inspectors have
yet to find a single cow with mad cow disease in the U.S.

Feeding Cattle to Cattle

How was mad cow disease able to spread from cow to cow in
England and elsewhere in Europe?
A key reason, Lacey says, was the practice of including
group-up remnants of cattle in cattle feed. This practice was
widespread in Europe and, to a lesser extent, the United
States.
Lacey refers to this as a kind of forced animal
cannibalism.
When mad cow disease broke out, the practice of feeding
cattle back to cattle was stopped in England, but it
continued in the United States until four years ago. And
Hansen says other potentially dangerous feeding practices now
banned in the U.K. continue in the United States today.
It remains legal in the United States, for example, to
``grind up cattle, feed them to pigs, and then grind up the
pigs and feed them to the cows,'' says Hansen. Lacey calls
this a ``real danger,'' that ``must be stopped immediately.''
But government and industry officials say there's no reason
to follow Europe in banning the practice, because there's no
evidence to date that the disease can spread between pigs and
cattle.
Lacey says nevertheless the United States should adopt the
same ban as a precaution: ``My advice to the U.S. authorities
is to simply ban the incorporation of animal remains in
animal feed.''
But Shroeder defends U.S. practices. ``We have been driven
here by the best science that we can access, we have
protected the U.S. beef supply very, very carefully,'' he
says.

Chronic Wasting Disease: A Different Strain?

There's another concern no so easily answered. There is
growing concern about a possible American version of mad cow
disease showing up in deer and elk in the West. It is called
chronic wasting disease and some suspect it has already
claimed human lives.
Hansen says this chronic wasting disease is dangerously
similar to mad cow disease. ``It's a different strain of the
disease and it appears to be spreading in the wild,'' he
says.
Tracie McEwen believes her 30-year-old husband Doug, who
ate elk all his life, may have been a victim. He died of a
rare brain disorder normally only seen in people older than
55, with symptoms remarkably similar to those who died the
slow, agonizing death of mad cow disease in England.
The death of Tracie McEwen's husband and that of two others
under the age of 30 have raised questions for health
officials concerned about the similarity to mad cow disease.
Lacey thinks the ``link between eating deer and getting a
type of mad cow disease is very plausible,'' and it's one
more reason that American authorities shouldn't think they
have all the answers about the disease. He says, ``you have
to act on the assumption that the disease may well be there,
because if you wait until you know it's there, then it's too
late.''
Meanwhile, some members of Congress have asked for an
investigation into whether the government should be taking
additional steps to protect against the spread of mad cow
disease should it arrive in this country.
____

[From Newsweek, Mar. 12, 2001]

Cannibals to Cows: The Path of a Deadly Disease

(By Geoffrey Cowley)

Health officials say they've got Mad Cow under control, but
millions of unaware people may be infected. Why it could
still turn into an epidemic.
Peter Stent was a seasoned dairyman, but he had never seen
anything like this. Just before Christmas, in 1984, one of
his cows at Pitsham Farm in South Downs, England, started
shedding weight, losing its balance and acting as skittish as
a cat.
When the vet came to investigate, the animal was acting
completely crazy--drooling, arching its back, waving its
head, threatening its peers. And by the time it died six
weeks later, Stent was seeing the same symptoms in other
cows. Nine were soon dead, and no one could explain why. The
vet dubbed the strange malady Pitsham Farm syndrome, since it
didn't seem to exist anywhere else. Little did he know.
Alison Williams was 20 years old at the time, and living in
the coastal village of Caernarfon, in north Wales. She was
bright and outgoing, a business student who loved to sail and
swim in the nearby mountain lakes. but her personality
changed suddenly when she was 22. She lost interest in other
people, her father recalls, and quit school to live at home
with her parents and her brother. She still enjoyed the
outdoors, but she took to sitting alone on her bed, staring
out the window for hours at a time. By 1992, Alison was
having what her doctors diagnosed as nervous breakdowns, and
by 1995 she had grown paranoid and incontinent. ``A month
before she died, she went blind and lost use of her tongue,''
her dad recalls. ``She spent her last five days in a coma.''

something bigger?

Anyone with a television has heard such stories, maybe even
sussed out the connection between them. Mad-cow disease, or
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), has killed nearly
200,000 British and European cattle since it cropped up on
Pitsham Farm. The human variant that Alison Williams
contracted has claimed 94 lives as well. What few of us
realize is that these tolls could mark the beginning of
something vastly bigger. No one knows just how BSE first
emerged. But once a few cattle contracted it, 20th-century
farming practices guaranteed that millions more would follow.
For 11 years following the Pitsham Farm episode, British
exporters shipped the remains of BSE-infected cows all over
the world, as cattle feed. The potentially tainted gruel
reached more than 80 countries. And millions of people--not
only in Europe but throughout Russia and Southeast Asia--have
eaten cattle that were raised on it.
It's possible, of course, that the worst is already behind
us. After dithering for a decade, governments in the United
Kingdom and Europe have lately taken bold steps to control
BSE. The number of bovine cases is now falling in Britain--
and the United States has yet to even report one. American
officials banned British cattle feed in 1988, as soon as
scientists implicated it in BSE, and later barred the
recycling of domestic cows as well. The U.S. government, the
cattle industry and many experts now voice confidence in the
nation's fire wall and say the risk to consumers is slight.
In truth, however, America's safeguards and surveillance
efforts are far weaker than most people realize. And in many
of the developing countries that now face the greatest risk,
such efforts are nonexistent. How many of the world's cattle
are now silently incubating BSE? How many people are
contracting it? The truth is, we don't know. ``We have no
idea how many deaths we're going to seek in the coming
years,'' says Dr. Frederic Saldmann, a French physician who
has recently seen both cows and people stricken in his
country. ``We've been checkmated.''
Mad cow is the creepiest in a family of disorders that can
make Ebola look like chickenpox. Scientists are only
beginning to understand these afflictions. Known as
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs, they
arise spontaneously in species as varied as sheep, cattle,
mink, deer and people. And once they take hold they can
spread. Some TSEs stick to a single species, while others
ignore such boundaries. But each of them is fatal and
untreatable, and they all ravage the brain--usually after
long latency periods--causing symptoms that can range from
dementia to psychosis and paralysis. If the prevailing theory
is right, they're caused not by germs but by ``prions''--
normal protein molecules that become infectious when folded
into abnormal shapes. Prions are invisible to the immune
system, yet tough enough to survive harsh solvents and
extreme temperatures. You can freeze them, boil them, soak
them in formaldehyde or carbolic acid or chloroform, and most
will emerge no less deadly than they were.
____

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2001]

U.S. Adds To Ban on European Meats--Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic Is Cited

(By David Brown)

The Agriculture Department yesterday banned importation of
most pork and goat products from the 15 European Union
countries to protect American livestock from an epidemic of
foot-and-mouth disease causing panic overseas.
Canada instituted a similar ban yesterday in an effort to
keep the highly contagious animal disease out of North
America. Foot-and-mouth does not spread to human beings, but
can kill or severely sicken animals. The disease was last
seen in the United States in 1929, and in Canada in 1952.
An epidemic of the disease broke out in England last month
and French officials confirmed yesterday that it had found
foot-and-mouth in a herd of cattle in the nation's northwest
region. It was the first detection of the viral infection in
the country since 1981 and the first case on the continent
since the British outbreak began.
While the economic impact of the U.S. ban is relatively
small, the move illustrates the level of concern about this
pathogen in particular, and the ease of spread of infectious
diseases across national boundaries in general.
The ban will cover about $294 million worth of meat
products and about $1 million in live animals. The vast
majority of the meat is pork from Denmark and other
Scandinavian countries.
Certain dairy products, such as hard cheeses and yogurt,
will not be covered by the ban. Canned hams also will not be
affected by the ban. Importation of horses will be permitted.
``This temporary ban is in place for USDA to take time to
assess our exclusion efforts as a precaution to ensure that
we do not get'' foot-and-mouth disease in the United States,
said department spokeswoman Meghan Thomas.
A spokeswoman for the European Commission expressed
surprise at yesterday's announcement, saying the organization
learned

[[Page S2318]]

of it from reporters. ``We've had no formal prior
notification,'' said Maeve O'Beirne. ``We don't know what the
definitive list [of banned products] O'Beirne. ``We don't
know what the definitive list [of banned products] will
be. This is, hopefully, a temporary measure.''
The value of the products is small compared to total meat
imports to the United States, although not trivial. Total
pork imports from all countries last year totaled slightly
more than $1 billion in value. Beef and veal imports from all
sources in 1999 were worth $2.1 billion.
This latest move almost eliminates non-fish meat imports
from Europe. Beef imports from Britain were banned in 1989 as
protection against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also
known as ``mad cow disease.'' Beef and sheep products have
also been banned from other European countries.
Nicholas D. Giordano, international trade specialist with
the National Pork Producers Council, said the pork imported
from Europe consists mostly of ribs produced in Denmark. The
United States is a net exporter of pork, and European imports
equal about 1 percent of U.S. pork production, he said.
Non-meat products covered by the new ban consist mostly of
purebred pigs and pig seman, an Agriculture Department
official said.
The ban was also praised by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee from a large pork-
producing state.
``If [the disease] were to return to America, the results
would be absolutely devastating,'' he said in a statement.
``USDA is taking the right step in temporarily banning
imports . . . Right now we just don't know how far this
disease has spread. It is common sense to take protective
measures.''
Although horses can still be brought from Europe to the
United States, they must be cleaned and disinfected, along
with any equipment that accompanies them, said Thomas, the
USDA spokeswoman. Straw and manure are burned.
Agriculture officials have alerted airports and ports of
entry to more closely inspect travelers from Europe for
products that might possibly carry the foot-and-mouth virus.
Food-sniffing dogs are being used in some places. The virus
can persist in feed and environmental surfaces for weeks, and
people reporting visits to farms or contact with livestock
must have any footwear disinfected.
French Agriculture Minister Jean Glavany yesterday
announced that the disease had been found among cattle on a
farm in Mayenne, between Paris and the Atlantic coast. The
disease was evidently carried by sheep imported from Britain
to a nearby farm, and then spread to the Mayenne cows.
In Britain, more than 120,000 carcasses have been burned
because of the disease, the Agriculture Ministry said, with
another 50,000 due for destruction. Separate cases have
broken out at more than 200 farms and sluaghterhouses.
France has burned some 20,000 sheep that were imported from
Britain before the outbreak was known, and another 30,000
home-grown animals that might have been exposed. Most other
European countries have also burned animals imported from
Britain. Now, they will presumably burn any recent imports
from France as well--as some parts of Germany started doing
yesterday.
The basic approach is to kill and burn any animal that may
have been exposed to the disease. The animals are lined up,
shot, and then piled around gasoline-stacked timbers for
burning. Farms where even a single case was suspected now
have no animals left--and thus no source of income.
Governments are now gearing up large-scale compensation
programs.
____

[From the New York Times, Mar. 14, 2001]

Meat From Europe Is Banned by U.S. as Illness Spreads

(By Christopher Marquis and Donald G. McNeil Jr.)

Washington, March 13.--The United States banned imports of
animals and animal products from the European Union today
after learning that foot-and-mouth disease had spread to
France from Britain.
The Agriculture Department said it was taking the
precaution to protect the domestic industry from a possible
outbreak of the virus, which could cost the American industry
billions of dollars in just one year.
The virus poses little danger to people, even if they eat
the meat of infected animals. But it is virulently contagious
and is devastating for cattle, swine, sheep, deer and other
cloven-hoofed animals, which it generally debilitates and
often leaves unable to grow or produce milk.
The ban, which applies to exports from all 15 countries of
the European Union, prompted some European officials to
complain that the Bush administration was overreacting.
But three members of the European Union--Belgium, Portugal
and Spain--are closing their borders to French meat, as is
Switzerland. Norway banned imports of French farm products,
and Germany and Italy took protective measures. Canada also
banned meat imports from the European Union, as well as from
Argentina, which has found foot-and-mouth disease in the
northwest. Argentina said it would voluntarily restrict beef
exports.
Kimberley Smith, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture
Department, said many items including most cheeses and cured
or cooked meats, are not affected because they are heated in
a way that kills the virus.
The ban is expected to hit pork producers the most.
European beef is already banned by the United States because
of mad cow disease, which can cause fatal Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease in humans.
The Agriculture Department is ``taking this time to assess
our exclusion activities as a precaution to ensure that we
don't get foot-and-mouth disease in the United States,'' Ms.
Smith said. She said the department could not say how long
the ban would last.
Department officials did not detail which European products
would be subject to the ban. But they said it would prohibit
the importation of live swine, pork and meat from sheep and
goats, regardless of whether it is fresh or frozen. Yogurt
and most cheeses would be permitted, they said, because those
sold in the United States are made from pasteurized milk.
Canned ham or any other food products that have been heated
above 175 degrees Fahrenheit are permitted because such
processing inactivates the virus, the officials said.
The production of such favored items as French brie and
Italian prosciutto is closely monitored to meet stringent
export standards, she said, so they are not affected by
today's ban. Brie entering the United States is made from
pasteurized milk and is considered safe.
A spokesman for the European Commission in Washington,
Gerry Kiely, said the ban would cost European exporters as
much as $458 million a year in sales. The agriculture
department put the cost at $400 million at most.
Earlier today French officials confirmed that foot-and-
mouth disease was found among cattle at a dairy farm in
Laval, in northwestern France. Officials said farmers in the
area had imported sheep from Britain, which is at the center
of the current outbreak and has already slaughtered about
170,000 animals to contain the disease.
The disease, which is so infectious that it can be spread
by footwear and cars, appeared in France despite tight
precautions. The infected dairy farm, near La Baroche-
Gondouin in the Mayenne district, was inside an isolation
zone.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Baucus, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 535. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
clarify that Indian women with breast or cervical cancer who are
eligible for health services provided under a medical care program of
the Indian Health Service or of a tribal organization are included in
the optional medicaid eligibility category of breast or cervical cancer
patients added by the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and
Treatment Act of 2000; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with 11 original cosponsors, including Senators McCain and Daschle,
entitled the ``Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment
Technical Amendment Act of 2001.'' The legislation makes a simple, yet
important, technical change to the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer
Treatment and Prevention Act'' by correcting a provision of last year's
bill to ensure the coverage of breast and cervical cancer treatment for
Native American women.
The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program,
funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC,
supports screening activities in all 50 states and through 15 American
Indian/Alaska Native organizations. However, the CDC program provides
funding only for screening services and not for treatment.
Last year's bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and
had 76 cosponsors, gives states the option to extend Medicaid treatment
coverage to certain women who have been screened by programs operated
under the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program
and diagnosed as having breast or cervical cancer. Through passage of
the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act,'' for
those women not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, States may elect to
expand their Medicaid programs to provide breast and cervical cancer
treatment as an optional benefit and receive an enhanced federal match
to encourage participation.
Last year's legislation restricts Medicaid treatment coverage to
those who have no ``creditable coverage'' or treatment options.
Unfortunately, the term ``creditable coverage'' is defined under

[[Page S2319]]

the Act to include the Indian Health Service, IHS. In short, the
reference to IHS in the law effectively excludes Indian women from
receiving Medicaid breast and cervical cancer treatment, as provided
for under last year's bill, regardless of whether a State chooses to
provide that coverage. Not only does the definition deny coverage to
Native American women, but the provision runs counter to the general
Medicaid rule treating IHS facilities as full Medicaid providers. My
legislation corrects these issues.
During 2001, almost 50,000 women are expected to die from breast or
cervical cancer in the United States despite the fact that early
detection and treatment of these diseases could substantially decrease
this mortality. While passage of last year's bill makes significant
strides to address this problem, it fails to do so for Native American
women and that must be changed as soon as possible.
In support of Native American women across this country that are
being diagnosed through CDC screening activities as having breast or
cervical cancer, my legislation would assure that they can also access
much needed treatment through the Medicaid program. I urge its
immediate adoption.
I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 535

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 ``Native American Breast and
Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INCLUSION OF INDIAN WOMEN WITH
BREAST OR CERVICAL CANCER IN OPTIONAL MEDICAID
ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY.

(a) Technical Amendment.--The subsection (aa) of section
1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) added by
section 2(a)(2) of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention
and Treatment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-354; 114 Stat.
1381) is amended in paragraph (4) by inserting ``, but
applied without regard to paragraph (1)(F) of such section''
before the period at the end.
(b) BIPA Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a), as amended by section 702(b) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law
106-554), is amended by redesignating the subsection (aa)
added by such section as subsection (bb).
(2) Section 1902(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396a(a)(15)), as added by section 702(a)(2) of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000 (as so enacted into law), is amended
by striking ``subsection (aa)'' and inserting ``subsection
(bb)''.
(3) Section 1915(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396n(b)), as amended by section 702(c)(2) of the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000 (as so enacted into law), is amended by striking
``1902(aa)'' and inserting ``1902(bb)''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) BCCPTA technical amendment.--The amendment made by
subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and
Treatment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-354; 114 Stat. 1381).
(2) BIPA technical amendments.--The amendments made by
subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of section 702 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted
into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554).
______

By Mr. SHELBY:
S. 536. A bill to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide for a
limitation on sharing of marketing and behavioral profiling
information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Freedom
from Behavioral Profiling Act of 2001.'' This legislation would require
financial institutions to provide proper notice and obtain permission
from a consumer before they could buy, sell or otherwise share an
individual's behavioral profile.
Everyone recognizes the importance of insuring the accuracy and
security of credit and debit card transactions. Without basic safety
features, consumers would avoid non-cash transactions and our economy
would greatly suffer as a result. However, financial institutions have
taken their data gathering efforts far beyond what is necessary to
protect consumers from fraud, inaccurate billing and theft. Companies
are using transactional records generated by debit and credit card use
and are developing detailed consumer profiles. From these files they
know the food you eat, the drugs you must take, the places you go, and
the books you read, as well as every other thing about you that can be
gleaned from your buying habits.
Troubling as it is that financial institutions are assembling such
profiles, I find it even more worrisome that these companies are
selling and trading these intimate details without consumer knowledge
or consent. In as much, ``your'' sensitive personal information has
become a commodity bought and sold like some latter day widget. I
believe the American people have the right to be informed of these
activities and should have the option to decide for themselves whether
or not their personal information is shared or sold.
I find it quite ironic that the very institutions that work so hard
to secure sensitive corporate information are the same companies that
work so hard to exploit the personal information of consumers.
Unfortunately, it would seem that corporate America has decided that
the ``Golden Rule'' is not applicable in the Information Age.
The American people are only now becoming aware of the behavioral
profiling practices of the industry. The more they find out, the more
they do not like it. That is why I am offering this legislation, to
give the consumer the ability to control his or her most personal
behavioral profile. Where they go, who they see, what they buy and when
they do it, all of these are personal decisions that the majority of
Americans do not want monitored and recorded under the watchful eye of
corporate America.
Colleagues in the Senate, I hope you will join me in an effort to
give the people what they want, the ability to control the
indiscriminate sharing of their own personal, and private, consumption
habits.

____________________