[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.

                          ____________________