[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 22 (Thursday, February 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2051-S2058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 324. A bill acquisition from willing sellers for certain trails in
the National Trails System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Willing
Seller bill be printed in the Record.
[[Page S2052]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 324
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM.
(a) Acquisition of Land From Willing Sellers.--Section 5(a)
of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by adding at the end the following:
``No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries
of any federally administered area may be acquired by the
Federal Government for the trail without the consent of the
owner of the land or interest.'';
(2) in paragraph (10), by adding at the end the following:
``No land or interest in land outside the exterior boundaries
of any federally administered area may be acquired by the
Federal Government for the trail without the consent of the
owner of the land or interest.''; and
(3) in the fourth sentence of paragraph (11)--
(A) by striking ``No lands or interests therein outside the
exterior'' and inserting ``No land or interest in land
outside the exterior''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``without the consent of the owner of the land or
interest''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 10(c)(1) of the National
Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1249(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``the North Country National Scenic Trail, The Ice
Age National Scenic Trail,''.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 325. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to
increase competition and transparency among packers that purchase
livestock from producers; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, during the last Congress Senator
Feingold and I sponsored the Transparency for Independent Livestock
Producers Act, or what we have generally referred to as the
``Transparency Act''. Today we are once again working together in a
bipartisan fashion to re-introduce this important legislation.
As everyone knows, I introduced the packer ban this Congress because
I want more competition in the marketplace. While I don't think packers
should be in the same business as independent livestock producers, it's
not the fact that the packers own the livestock that bothers me as much
as the fact that the packers' livestock competes for shackle space and
adversely impacts the price independent producers receive.
My sponsorship of the packer ban is based on the belief that
independent producers should have the opportunity to receive a fair
price for their livestock. The last few years have led to widespread
consolidation and concentration in the packing industry. Add on the
trend toward vertical integration among packers and there is no
question why independent producers are losing the opportunity to market
their own livestock during profitable cycles in the live meat markets.
The past CEO of IBP in 1994 explained that the reason packers own
livestock is that when the price is high the packers use their own
livestock for the lines and when the price is low the packers buy
livestock. This means that independent producers are most likely being
limited from participating in the most profitable ranges of the live
market. This is not good for the survival of the independent producer.
This bipartisan legislation would guarantee that independent
producers have a share in the market place while assisting the
Mandatory Price Reporting system. The proposal would require that 25
percent of a packer's daily kill comes from the spot market. By
requiring a 25 percent spot market purchase daily, the mandatory price
reporting system, which has been criticized due to reporting and
accuracy problems, would have consistent, reliable numbers being
purchased from the spot market, improving the accuracy and transparency
of daily prices. In addition, independent livestock producers would be
guaranteed a competitive position due to the packers need to fill the
daily 25 percent spot/cash market requirement.
The packs required to comply would be the same packs required to
report under the Mandatory Price Reporting system. Those are packs that
kill either 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of hogs, or 75,000
lambs annually, over a 5 year average.
Packers are arguing that this will hurt their ability to offer
contracts to producers, but the fact of the matter is that the majority
of livestock contracts pay out on a calculation incorporating Mandatory
Price Reporting data. If the Mandatory Price Reporting data is not
accurate, or open to possible manipulation because of low numbers on
the spot market, contracts are not beneficial tools for producers to
manage their risk. This legislative proposal will hopefully give
confidence to independent livestock producers by improving the accuracy
and viability of the Mandatory Price reporting system and secure fair
prices for contracts based on that data.
It's just common sense, when there aren't a lot of cattle and pigs
being purchased on the cash market, it's easier for the Mandatory Price
reporting data to be inaccurate or manipulated. The majority of
livestock production contracts are based on that data, so if that
information is wrong the contract producers suffer.
This legislation will guarantee independent livestock producers
market access and a fair price. It will accomplish these goals by
making it more difficult for the Mandatory Price Reporting System to be
manipulated because of low numbers being reported by the packs. The
Transparency Act is crucial legislation to guarantee livestock
producers receive a fair shake at the farm gate and I am looking
forward to working on this legislation in a bipartisan fashion.
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. 325
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS.
Chapter 5 of subtitle B of the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1636 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 260. SPOT MARKET PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK BY PACKERS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Cooperative association of producers.--The term
`cooperative association of producers' has the meaning given
the term in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 1a).
``(2) Covered packer.--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered packer' means a packer
that is required under this subtitle to report to the
Secretary each reporting day information on the price and
quantity of livestock purchased by the packer.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `covered packer' does not
include a packer that owns only 1 livestock processing plant.
``(3) Nonaffiliated producer.--The term `nonaffiliated
producer' means a producer of livestock--
``(A) that sells livestock to a packer;
``(B) that has less than 1 percent equity interest in the
packer, which packer has less than 1 percent equity interest
in the producer;
``(C) that has no officers, directors, employees, or owners
that are officers, directors, employees, or owners of the
packer;
``(D) that has no fiduciary responsibility to the packer;
and
``(E) in which the packer has no equity interest.
``(4) Spot market sale.--
``(A) In general.--The term `spot market sale' means a
purchase and sale of livestock by a packer from a producer--
``(i) under an agreement that specifies a firm base price
that may be equated with a fixed dollar amount on the date
the agreement is entered into;
``(ii) under which the livestock are slaughtered not more
than 7 days after the date on which the agreement is entered
into; and
``(iii) under circumstances in which a reasonable
competitive bidding opportunity exists on the date on which
the agreement is entered into.
``(B) Reasonable competitive bidding opportunity.--For the
purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), circumstances in which a
reasonable competitive bidding opportunity shall be
considered to exist if--
``(i) no written or oral agreement precludes the producer
from soliciting or receiving bids from other packers; and
``(ii) no circumstance, custom, or practice exists that--
``(I) establishes the existence of an implied contract (as
determined in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code);
and
``(II) precludes the producer from soliciting or receiving
bids from other packers.
``(b) General Rule.--Of the quantity of livestock that is
slaughtered by a covered packer during each reporting day in
each plant, the covered packer shall slaughter not less than
the applicable percentage specified in subsection (c) of the
quantity through spot market sales from nonaffiliated
producers.
[[Page S2053]]
``(c) Applicable Percentages.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
applicable percentage shall be--
``(A) in the case of a covered packer that is not a
cooperative association, 25 percent; and
``(B) in the case of a covered packer that is a cooperative
association, 12.5 percent.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Covered packers with a high percentage of captive
supply cattle.--In the case of a covered packer (other than a
covered packer described in subparagraph (B)) that reported
to the Secretary in the 2001 annual report that more than 75
percent of the cattle of the covered packer were captive
supply cattle, the applicable percentage shall be the greater
of--
``(i) the difference between the percentage of captive
supply so reported and 100 percent; and
``(ii)(I) during each of calendar years 2004 and 2005, 5
percent;
``(II) during each of calendar years 2006 and 2007, 15
percent; and
``(III) during calendar year 2008 and each calendar year
thereafter, 25 percent.
``(B) Cooperative associations with high percentage of
captive supply cattle.--In the case of a covered packer that
is a cooperative association and that reported to the
Secretary in the 2001 annual report that more than 87.5
percent of the cattle of the covered packer were captive
supply cattle, the applicable percentage shall be the greater
of--
``(i) the difference between the percentage of captive
supply so reported and 100 percent; and
``(ii)(I) during each of calendar years of 2004 and 2005, 5
percent;
``(II) during each of calendar years of 2006 and 2007, 7.5
percent; and
``(III) during calendar year 2008 and each calendar year
thereafter, 12.5 percent.
``(d) Nonpreemption.--Notwithstanding section 259, this
section does not preempt any requirement of a State or
political subdivision of a State that requires a covered
packer to purchase on the spot market a greater percentage of
the livestock purchased by the covered packer than is
required under this section.
``(e) Relationship to Other Provisions.--Nothing in this
section affects the interpretation of any other provision of
this Act, including section 202.''.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 326. A bill to amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to apply
to prosecutions of child abuse cases in courts-martial an extended
statute of limitations applicable to prosecutions of child abuse cases
in United States District Courts, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Forces.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation to close a gaping loophole in the Victims of Child Abuse
Act that currently ties the hands of military prosecutors.
Congress passed the Victims of Child Abuse Act to extend the statute
of limitations for prosecuting offenses involving the sexual or
physical abuse of minor children. But the military's highest court
recently said the VCCA's extended statute of limitations doesn't apply
to courts martial.
Because Congress did not expressly address the relationship of this
provision to the Uniform Code of Military Justice serious crimes
against children are now out of military prosecutors' reach.
This loophole became tragically apparent to me after I was contacted
by the father of a young girl who was sexually abused by a member of
the military. The victim's father called my office to express his
frustration that the Air Force couldn't properly prosecute the man for
molesting his daughter over a 7-year period. The military couldn't
convict the offender on the worst counts levied against him because of
the insufficient 5-year statute of limitations provided by the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.
Air Force prosecutors originally used the extended statute of
limitations provided by the Victims of Child Abuse Act to convict the
defendant of several crimes, but the most serious convictions were
overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which
determined that the shorter statute of limitations provided by the UCMJ
applied to the case instead of the extended prosecution period provided
by the VCAA.
The Court's narrow interpretation of the VCAA means this sex offender
will do a very short sentence at best, even though he abused this young
girl for years.
The bill I introduce today is designed to ensure that kids aren't
denied justice just because the defendant happens to be a member of the
military. Military prosecutors need the power to put these criminals
away for a long time.
The statute of limitations provided by the VCAA allows prosecutions
until the victim's 25th birthday. My bill clarifies that the VCAA's
statute of limitations applies to courts martial whenever a case arises
involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child.
Child victims of sexual crimes sometimes struggle to come to terms
with the crimes committed against them and often are not willing, or
able, to bring the crime to the attention of authorities until they are
much older. Applying the longer statute of limitations provided by the
VCAA to courts martial will allow military prosecutors to throw the
book at sexual predators.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this simple, but very
important, change to the law. Our kids deserve this protection and we
should give it to them without delay.
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. 326
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENDED LIMITATION PERIOD FOR PROSECUTION OF
CHILD ABUSE CASES IN COURTS-MARTIAL.
Section 843(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 43
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Section 3283 of title 18, relating to an extension of
a period of limitation for prosecution of an offense
involving sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age
of 18 years, shall apply to liability of a person for trial
for such an offense by a court-martial and liability of a
person for punishment for such an offense under section 815
of this title (article 15).''.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 327. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
to allow up to 2 months of vocational educational training to be
counted as a work activity under the temporary assistance to needy
families program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the Senator
Jeffords in reintroducing legislation that seeks to add an important
measure of flexibility to a provision of the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families program, TANF, under the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The legislation we are
introducing increases from 12 to 24 months the limit on the amount of
vocational education training that a State can count towards meeting
its work participation rate.
Under the pre-1996 Aid to Families with Dependent Children program,
welfare recipients could participate in post-secondary vocational
training or community college programs for up to 24 months while
receiving assistance. While I support TANF's emphasis on moving welfare
recipients into jobs, I am troubled by the restriction on post-
secondary education training, limiting it to 12 months. Only one year
of vocational education counts as an approved work activity. The second
year of post-secondary education study does not.
The limitation on post-secondary education and training raises a
number of concerns, not the least of which is whether individuals may
be forced into low-paying, short-term employment that will lead them
back onto public assistance because they are unable to support
themselves or their families. According to recent studies, this is
exactly what has happened in far too many cases.
A March 13, 2001, report of the Congressional Research Service,
indicates that the average hourly wage for these former welfare
recipients ranged from $5.50 to $8.80 per hour. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, the mean earnings of adults with an associate degree are
20 percent higher than adults who have not achieved such a degree.
A majority of the Senate has previously voted to make 24 months of
post-secondary education a permissible work activity under TANF. The
Levin-Jeffords amendment to the 1997 Reconciliation bill, permitting up
to 24 months of post-secondary education, received 55 votes--falling
five votes short of the required procedural vote of 60. I must note the
efforts of our dear friend and colleague Senator Paul
[[Page S2054]]
Wellstone who was committed to this issue and who subsequently, in
1998, offered similar legislation as an amendment to the Higher
Education Act reauthorization, which I cosponsored. The Senate adopted
his amendment, however, the amendment was dropped during conference
negotiations.
In June of last year, Senator Jeffords and I were very pleased that
our proposal was included in the Senate Finance Committee reported bill
reauthorizing TANF. It is our hope that the Senate will again act
favorably and expeditiously on this legislation and that the House will
support this much-needed state flexibility. We must do what is
necessary to achieve TANF's intended goal of getting families
permanently off of welfare and onto self-sufficiency.
Finally, I would like to share with my colleagues some examples of
the difference that completion of two years of vocational or community
college can make. The following are jobs that an individual could
prepare for in a structured two-year training or community college
program, including the average starting salary, as provided by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
AVERAGE STARTING SALARY NATIONWIDE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respiratory Therapist......................................... $29,700
Occupational Therapy Assistant................................ 25,220
Electrician................................................... 24,230
Physical Therapy Assistant.................................... 23,590
Computer Support Specialist................................... 22,710
Interior Designer............................................. 21,490
Legal Secretary............................................... 22,360
Food Service Manager.......................................... 20,370
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to become
productive and successful members of the workforce. Again, I urge my
colleagues to act with haste on this legislation. This modification
will give the states the flexibility they need to improve the economic
status of families across America.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation Senator
Jeffords and I are introducing be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 327
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MONTHS OF VOCATIONAL
EDUCATIONAL TRAINING COUNTED AS A WORK ACTIVITY
UNDER THE TANF PROGRAM.
Section 407(d)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
607(d)(8)) is amended by striking ``12'' and inserting
``24''.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 328. A bill to designate Catoctin Mountain Park in the State of
Maryland as the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area,'' and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing legislation,
together with my colleague Senator Mikulski, to re-designate Catoctin
Mountain Park as the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. I
first introduced this measure in October 2002, but unfortunately it was
not acted upon during the closing days of the 107th Congress. It is my
hope that the legislation will receive full and prompt consideration
this year.
I spoke last year about the need for this legislation and would like
to underscore the principal arguments today. Catoctin Mountain Park is
a hidden gem in our National Park System. Home to Camp David, the
Presidential retreat, it has been aptly described as ``America's most
famous unknown park.'' Comprising nearly 6000 acres of the eastern
reach of the Appalachian Mountains in Maryland, the park is rich in
history as well as outdoor recreation opportunities. Visitors can enjoy
camping, picnicking, cross-country skiing, fishing, as well as the
solitude and beauty of the woodland mountain and streams in the park.
Catoctin Mountain Park had its origins during the Great Depression as
one of 46 Recreational Demonstration Areas, RDA, established under the
authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Federal
Government purchased more than 10,000 acres of mountain land that had
been heavily logged and was no longer productive to demonstrate how
sub-marginal land could be turned into a productive recreational area
and help put people back to work. From 1936 through 1941, hundreds of
workers under the Works Progress Administration and later the Civilian
Conservation Corps were employed in reforestation activities and in the
construction of a number of camps, roads and other facilities,
including the camp now known as Camp David, and one of the earliest--if
not the oldest--camp for disabled individuals. In November 1936,
administrative authority for the Catoctin RDA was transferred to the
National Park Service by Executive Order.
In 1942, concern about President Roosevelt's health and safety led to
the selection of Catoctin Mountain, and specifically Camp Hi-Catoctin
as the location for the President's new retreat. Subsequently
approximately 5,000 acres of the area was transferred to the State of
Maryland, becoming Cunningham Falls State Park in 1954. The remaining
5,770 acres of the Catoctin Recreation Demonstration Area was renamed
Catoctin Mountain Park by the Director of the National Park Service in
1954. Unfortunately, the Director failed to include the term
``National'' in the title and the park today remains one of 17 units in
the entire National Park System and one of 9 units in the National
Capital Region that does not have this designation. Those units include
four parkways, four wild and scenic rivers, the White House and Wolf
Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts.
The proximity of Catoctin Mountain Park, Camp David, and Cunningham
Falls State Park, and the differences between national and state park
management, has caused longstanding confusion for visitors to the area.
Catoctin Mountain Park is continually misidentified by the public as
containing lake and beach areas associated with Cunningham Falls State
Park, being operated by the State of Maryland, or being closed to the
public because of the presence of Camp David. National Park employees
spend countless hours explaining, assisting and redirecting visitors to
their desired destinations.
My legislation would help to address this situation and clearly
identify this park as a unit of the National Park System by renaming it
the Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area. The mission and
characteristics of this park--which include the preservation of
significant historic resources and important natural areas in locations
that provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of people--make this
designation appropriate. This measure would not change access
requirements or current recreational uses occurring within the park.
But it would assist the visiting public in distinguishing between the
many units of the State and Federal systems. It will also, in my
judgment, help promote tourism by enhancing public awareness of the
National Park unit.
The legislation is supported by the Board of County Commissioners and
Tourism Council of Frederick County. I urge approval of this
legislation.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Miller, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Bunning, Mr. Domenici, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Craig):
S. 330. A bill to further the protection and recognition of veterans'
memorials, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would
recognize and protect the sanctity of veterans' memorials standing
tributes to the brave American men and women who have fought for our
enduring freedom. I am pleased to be joined by eleven of my colleagues,
who are original cosponsors of this bill, the ``Veterans' Memorial
Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003.''
This bill is based on legislation which passed the Senate in the
107th Congress, S.1644. When I introduced S.1644, it was four days
before Veterans' Day--an appropriate marker to honor those who so
admirably served our country. Under my bill, someone who willfully
destroys any type of monument commemorating those in the Armed Services
on Federal property would be fined or put in jail. The violator would
be subject to a civil penalty in addition to a fine, equal to the cost
of repairing the damage.
The second part of this bill would permit states to place
supplemental
[[Page S2055]]
guide signs for veterans' cemeteries on Federal-aid highways. By
allowing signs to be posted on well-traveled roads, these sites will
gain the recognition they deserve. It is my goal to make cemeteries
easily accessible to those who want to pay their respect there. Many
Americans do stop and recognize the sacrifice so many have made for our
freedom, and I am convinced many more would if they were aware of where
our memorials are located.
Our veterans, living and lost, are reminders of our national unity.
Those who have served in our Armed Services remind us of freedom and
justice in the midst of conflict and during times of peace. We are
losing thousands of them forever, each year, as the veteran population
ages. We have to honor their sacrifices by protecting those sites that
recognize them. There are hundreds of veterans' memorials, on Federal
property, where we go to heal and to remember. As a veteran myself, I
am committed to seeing that not a single one is stripped of its
dignity.
I learned that approximately one month before introducing my bill,
vandals in Mead, CO, had stolen four headstones and shattered another
at a local cemetery. One of those headstones belonged to a Civil War
veteran. I commend the Weld County Sheriff's office for their work on
the ongoing investigation into the crime, as well as local residents
who have volunteered their time to rebuild the site.
This was a local cemetery, which received overwhelming local support.
Unfortunately, when heartbreaking incidents like this happen on Federal
land, there currently is no comprehensive law to protect the site nor
to punish the perpetrators.
I encourage my colleagues to work together for swift consideration of
this important legislation. It doesn't cost the taxpayers a thing, but
it could save the American people from the injustices of thoughtless
vandalism. I have the support of several veterans' organizations who
have offered words of encouragement for this bill. These Americans
know, first hand, the concept of service. Let's honor what they and
thousands of others have done so bravely to preserve our freedom.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 330
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 ``Veterans' Memorial
Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DESTRUCTION OF VETERANS'
MEMORIALS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 65 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1369. Destruction of veterans' memorials
``(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection
(b), willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or
destroy, any structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on
public property commemorating the service of any person or
persons in the armed forces of the United States shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
both.
``(b) A circumstance described in this subsection is that--
``(1) in committing the offense described in subsection
(a), the defendant travels or causes another to travel in
interstate or foreign commerce, or uses the mail or an
instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce; or
``(2) the structure, plaque, statue, or other monument
described in subsection (a) is located on property owned by,
or under the jurisdiction of, the Federal Government.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``1369. Destruction of veterans' memorials.''.
SEC. 3. HIGHWAY SIGNS RELATING TO VETERANS CEMETERIES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the terms of any agreement
entered into by the Secretary of Transportation and a State
under section 109(d) or 402(a) of title 23, United States
Code, a veterans cemetery shall be treated as a site for
which a supplemental guide sign may be placed on any Federal-
aid highway.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to an
agreement entered into before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
____
The American Legion,
Washington, DC, January 27, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: On behalf of the 2.9 million members
of The American Legion, I would like to express full support
for the Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act.
We applaud your effort to prohibit the desecration of
veterans' memorials, and to permit guide signs to veterans
cemeteries on federal highways.
The American Legion recognizes the need to preserve the
sanctity and solemnity of veterans' memorials. these historic
monuments serve not only to honor the men and women of the
Nation's armed services, but to educate future generations of
the sacrifices endured to preserve the freedoms and liberties
enjoyed by all Americans.
Once again, The American Legion fully supports the
Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act. We
appreciate your continued leadership in addressing the issues
that are important to veterans and their families.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Robertson,
Director, National Legislative Commission.
____
AMVETS,
Lanham, MD, January 14, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senate, Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: On behalf of AMVETS, I am writing to
commend your introduction of legislation to ban desecration
of veterans' memorials, provide for timely repair of
memorials, and ensure appropriate placement of guide signs to
veterans' cemeteries along federal highways.
Our nation's veterans' memorials are national shrines to
the bravery and dedication of the men and women who have
served in our Armed Forces. It is hard to believe that
certain individuals within our communities would even
consider the desecration of a memorial to those who defended
freedom. Yet, it unfortunately occurs.
AMVETS strongly supports the goals of your legislative
proposal and endorses your effort to do more to protect our
veterans' memorials and honor the memory of their military
service. We also give strong backing to the provision in your
proposal that identifies the need and importance of providing
information to travelers on our Nation's highways about the
location of these beautiful memorials.
We appreciate your steadfast support on issues important to
the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces. And,
again, thank you for the leadership on veterans' issues.
Sincerely,
Richard ``Rick'' Jones,
National Legislative Director.
____
Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Washington, DC, January 8, 2003.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans
of America (PVA) I am writing to offer our support of the
``Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of
2003.''
Memorials to the men and women who have served this Nation,
in times of war and in times of peace, are tokens of our
gratitude for this service, and their sacrifice. They are
tangible reminders of our past, and an inspiration for our
future. For this reason they are well worth protecting and
preserving. This legislation addresses both of these goals.
Again, thank you for introducing the ``Veterans' Memorial
Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003.''
Sincerely,
Richard B. Fuller,
National Legislative Director.
____
Rolling Thunder, Inc,
National Chapter 1,
Neshanic Station, NJ, January 8, 2003.
Senator Ben ``Nighthorse'' Campbell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Honorable Ben Campbell: I am sending this letter in support
of Bill, ``Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act
of 2003.
Rolling Thunder National and our members are in full
support of this bill. Those who destroy and deface any
Veterans Memorial should be punished and made to pay full
restitution for the damages they have caused. Many Americans
have fought and died for the Freedom of all Americans and
their Memorials should be honored and respected by all.
I thank you for all your help and support to all American
Veterans.
Sincerely,
SGT. Artie Muller,
National President.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Baucus,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Cochran, and Ms.
Stabenow):
S. 331. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act
to provide equitable access for foster care and adoption services for
Indian children in tribal areas; to the Committee on Finance.
[[Page S2056]]
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to
correct an inequity in the laws affecting many Native American
children. I am joined by Senators McCain, Inouye, Baucus, Johnson,
Domenici, Bingaman, Cochran and Stabenow, in sponsoring this important
piece of legislation. This effort is also supported by the National
Indian Child Welfare Association, the American Public Human Services
Association, and the National Congress of American Indians.
Every year, for a variety of often tragic reasons, thousands of
children across the country are placed in foster care. To assist with
the cost of food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision and school
supplies, foster parents of children who have come to their homes
through state court placement receive financial assistance through
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Additionally, States receive
funding for administrative training and data collection to support this
program. Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many Native
American children who are placed in foster care by tribal courts do not
receive foster care and adoptive services and assistance to which all
other income-eligible children are entitled.
Not only are otherwise eligible Native children denied foster care
maintenance payments, but this inequity also extends to children who
are adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program
offers limited assistance for expenses associated with adoption and the
training of professional staff and parents involved in the adoption.
These circumstances, sadly, have made it even harder for Indian
children to attain the permanency they need and deserve.
In many instances, these children face insurmountable odds. Many come
from abusive homes. Foster parents who open their doors to care for
these special children deserve our help. These generous people should
not have to worry about whether they have the resources to provide
nourishing food or a warm coat, or even adequate shelter for these
children. This legislation will go a long way to ease their concerns.
Currntly, some tribes and states have entered into IV-E agreements,
but these arrangements are the exception. They also, by and large, do
not include funds to train tribal social workers and foster and
adoptive parents. This bill would make it clear that tribes would be
treated like a state when they choose to run their own programs under
the IV-E program.
The bill we are introducing today would: extend the Title IV-E
entitlement programs to children placed by tribal agencies in foster
and adoptive homes; authorize tribal governments to receive direct
funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for
administration of IV-E programs (tribes must have HHS-approved
programs); allow the Secretary flexibility to modify the requirements
of the IV-E law for tribes if those requirements are not in the best
interest of Native children; and allow continuation of tribal-State IV-
E agreements.
In a 1994 report, HHS found that the best way to serve this
underfunded group is to provide direct assistance to tribal governments
qualified tribal families. This bill would not result in reduced
funding for the States, as they would continue to be reimbursed for
their expenses under the law.
I strongly believe Congress should address this oversight and provide
equitable benefits to native American children who are under the
jurisdiction of their tribal governments, and I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Levin, Mr. Baucus,
and Mr. Conrad):
S. 332. 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. Today I am introducing legislation to correct a long-
standing inequity that has caused hardship for American farmers. That
inequity is the pricing of agricultural pesticides for American
producers in relationship to Canadian pesticide pricing. My bill would
solve this inequity by allowing individual States to label Canadian
pesticides that have the same formula as those used in the U.S. for use
by American farmers.
Farmers combine land, water, commercial inputs, labor, and their
management skills into practices and systems to produce food and fiber.
To sustain production over time, farmers must make a profit and
preserve their resource and financial assets. Society wants food and
fiber products that are low-cost, safe to consume, and aesthetically
pleasing, and wants production systems that preserve or enhance the
environment. These often competing goals and pressures are reflected
not only in the inputs made available for production, but also in how
the inputs are selected, combined, and managed at the farm level.
Time and time again I have come to Senate floor to point out the
stark realities of free trade. I have talked at length about the flood
of imported grain that streams across our border. Come to my State of
North Dakota. Every day truckload after truckload of Canadian
commodities, wheat, barley, durum, come across our border to compete
with commodities grown here at home. These Canadian imports are grown
with the aid of pesticides, pesticides of the same makeup and
composition as those purchased in the United States. Yet Canadian
producers have the luxury of buying those same chemicals at prices
substantially lower than those American farmers have to pay.
Why? The answer is simple; pesticide manufacturers charge American
farmers more because they can. In agricultural policy, benefits from
the North American Free Trade Agreement flow the same direction as the
Red River of my State, north. This is especially true of pesticide
pricing.
A recent survey completed by North Dakota State University surveyed
15 different pesticides commonly used in both Canada and North Dakota.
All would qualify for registration in North Dakota under this bill. Of
the 15, not one, not one, had a price differential in favor of the
American farmer. When you totaled it all out, those 15 chemicals cost,
in North Dakota alone, $23.7 million more, in 1 year, for the American
producer. That's just not right.
If we're going to have free trade, let's make it fair trade. If we
are going to open our borders to Canadian grain grown with Canadian
pesticides, we ought to open our borders to similar pesticides for U.S.
producers at the same cost. It's time to level the playing field for
American farmers, we must give them the same advantages that Canadian
producers have enjoyed for years. If we're going to have a free trade
agreement with Canada, let's all sing from the same page, using the
same music. Because putting American farmers at a disadvantage in the
world marketplace over pesticide prices that are not in harmony with
our competitors is a practice that must be stopped. It must be stopped
now.
Nothing in this legislation harms the environment, unless you're in
the environment of profits. This legislation would create a procedure
whereby individual states could apply 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 new labels for the chemicals would still be under the strict
scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency as would their use.
This would continue to insure safety in the food supply. Food safety is
a number one priority for all of us. Chemical safety is a number one
priority for all of us. This bill keeps those priorities intact.
It is impossible to defend chemical price imbalance. You can't defend
it to the growers, you can't defend it to the chemical distributor, and
you can't defend it to the chemical retailer. Most importantly, you
can't defend it to the American consumer, who ultimately pays the tab.
Let's be clear, this is not the end of the journey but the beginning.
We have a long way to go to cure the imbalances of trade between our
nations. If we don't begin the journey, we can't end it. This bill is a
step in the right direction.
I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
[[Page S2057]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 332
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;
``(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.
``(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--
[[Page S2058]]
``(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 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.
____________________