[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 25, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4213-S4224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 3408. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain public land
in and around historic mining townsites located in the State of Nevada,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend Senator
Ensign to introduce the Nevada Mining Townsite Conveyance Act of 2010.
The residents of the towns Ione and Gold Point in Nevada have asked for
our help in settling longstanding trespass issues that have seriously
affected these communities for decades. This bill would convey 682
acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management's, BLM, Tonopah Field
Office to clear up decades old confusion over property ownership in
these two historic mining towns.
Ione and Gold Point were founded in central Nevada during the last
half of the nineteenth century. Like other early towns in Nevada, they
endured the boom and bust cycle so common to mining camps. A very long
time ago both of these towns were surveyed and approved for townships,
but through some misfortune the proof of patent was never recorded by
the U.S. Government Land Office and title for the land was never
transferred. Nevertheless, these towns have been continuously occupied
for over 100 years.
Many residents in Ione and Gold Point live on the same land that
their families settled on decades earlier. These citizens have paid
their property taxes and made improvements to their properties. They
have rehabilitated historic structures and built new ones. Regrettably,
the historical documents by which these citizens claim possession do
not satisfy modern requirements for demonstrating lawful ownership of
their properties. Because these documents are legally insufficient and
have been deemed invalid, the BLM retains legal ownership of the land.
Thus, the BLM has determined that these residents of Ione and Gold
Point and their homes are in trespass on Federal land.
This situation is untenable. Local residents, the counties, and the
BLM recognize that many of these citizens have substantial rights to
the lands in question; however, there is no readily available procedure
by which the BLM can adjudicate their claims. This puts the BLM at odds
with the local residents and the county governments. It also impedes
efforts to improve basic community services such as fire protection,
and water supply and treatment facilities.
In the simplest terms, our legislation will convey any unencumbered
property rights in the contested townsites to the counties and in turn
the counties will use the procedures outlined in the 2001 state mining
townsite law to consider residents' property claims and pass these
lands to the rightful owners.
[[Page S4214]]
In order to accomplish the transfer of the townsites, this bill
establishes a process for the BLM to determine the validity of any
existing mining claims in Ione and Gold Point and to convey to the
counties all surface ownership rights and any subsurface rights not
subject to valid mining claims. Valid mining claims will not be
conveyed to the counties, but they will be subject to various
restrictions designed to protect the home owners in Ione and Gold
Point.
I would like to thank Nye and Esmeralda counties, the Nevada State
Legislature, the Bureau of Land Management, and the residents of Ione
and Gold Point for their cooperation and hard work in resolving this
complex problem. We are pleased to bring this legislation to the
committee and we look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman,
Ranking Member Murkowski and the other distinguished members to move
this bill through the legislative process.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3408
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 ``Nevada Mining Townsite
Conveyance Act''.
SEC. 2. DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC LAND IN MINING TOWNSITES,
ESMERALDA AND NYE COUNTIES, NEVADA.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Federal Government owns real property in and around
historic mining townsites in the counties of Esmeralda and
Nye in the State of Nevada;
(2) while the real property described in paragraph (1) is
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, some of the real
property has been occupied for decades by individuals--
(A) who took possession by purchase or other documented and
putatively legal transactions; and
(B) the continued occupation by whom constitutes a trespass
on the title held by the Federal Government;
(3) as a result of the confused and conflicting ownership
claims, the real property described in paragraph (1)--
(A) is difficult to manage under multiple use policies; and
(B) creates a continuing source of friction and unease
between the Federal Government and local residents;
(4)(A) all of the real property described in paragraph (1)
is appropriate for disposal for the purpose of promoting
administrative efficiency and effectiveness; and
(B) as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Bureau of
Land Management has identified the mining townsites for
disposal; and
(5) to promote the responsible resource management of the
real property described in paragraph (1), certain parcels
should be conveyed to the county in which the property is
situated in accordance with land use management plans of the
Bureau of Land Management so that the county may, in addition
to other actions, dispose of the property to individuals
residing on or otherwise occupying the real property.
(b) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Conveyance maps.--The term ``conveyance maps'' means--
(A) the map entitled ``Original Mining Townsite Ione
Nevada'' and dated October 17, 2005; and
(B) the map entitled ``Original Mining Townsite Gold
Point'' and dated October 17, 2005.
(2) Mining townsite.--The term ``mining townsite'' means
real property--
(A) located in the Gold Point and Ione townsites within the
counties of Esmeralda and Nye, Nevada, as depicted on the
conveyance maps;
(B) that is owned by the Federal Government; and
(C) on which improvements were constructed based on the
belief that--
(i) the property had been or would be acquired from the
Federal Government by the entity that operated the mine; or
(ii) the individual or entity that made the improvement had
a valid claim for acquiring the property from the Federal
Government.
(D) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land
Management.
(c) Mining Claim Validity Review.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out an
expedited program to examine each unpatented mining claim
(including each unpatented mining claim for which a patent
application has been filed) within each mining townsite.
(2) Determination of validity.--With respect to a mining
claim, if the Secretary determines that the elements of a
contest are present, the Secretary shall immediately
determine the validity of the mining claim.
(3) Declaration by secretary.--If the Secretary determines
a mining claim to be invalid, as soon as practicable after
the date of the determination, the Secretary shall declare
the mining claim to be null and void.
(4) Treatment of valid mining claims.--
(A) In general.--Each mining claim that the Secretary
determines to be valid shall be maintained in compliance with
the general mining laws and subsection (d)(2)(B).
(B) Effect on holders.--A holder of a mining claim
described in subparagraph (A) shall not be entitled to a
patent.
(5) Abandonment of claim.--The Secretary shall provide--
(A) public notice that each mining claim holder may
affirmatively abandon the claim of the mining claim holder
prior to the validity review; and
(B) to each mining claim holder an opportunity to abandon
the claim of the mining claim holder before the date on which
the land that is subject to the mining claim is conveyed.
(d) Conveyance Authority.--
(1) In general.--After completing a validity review under
subsection (c) and notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1712, 1713), the Secretary shall convey to the appropriate
county, without consideration, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to mining townsites (including
improvements on the mining townsites)--
(A) identified for conveyance on the conveyance maps; and
(B) that are not subject to valid mining claims.
(2) Valid mining claims.--
(A) In general.--With respect to each parcel of land
located in a mining townsite subject to a valid mining claim,
the Secretary shall reserve the mineral rights and otherwise
convey, without consideration, the remaining right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the mining
townsite (including improvements on the mining townsite) that
is identified for conveyance on a conveyance map.
(B) Procedures and requirements.--Each valid mining claim
shall be subject to each procedure and requirement described
in section 9 of the Act of December 29, 1916 (43 U.S.C. 299)
(commonly known as the ``Stockraising Homestead Act of
1916'') (including regulations).
(3) Availability of conveyance maps.--The conveyance maps
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
(e) Recipients.--
(1) Original recipient.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
conveyance of a mining townsite under subsection (d) shall be
made to the county in which the mining townsite is situated.
(2) Reconveyance to occupants.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a mining townsite conveyed
under subsection (d) for which a valid interest is proven by
1 or more individuals, under the provisions of Nevada Revised
Statutes Chapter 244, the county that receives the mining
townsite under paragraph (1) shall reconvey the property to
the 1 or more individuals by appropriate deed or other legal
conveyance as provided in that chapter.
(B) Authority of county.--A county described in
subparagraph (A) is not required to recognize a claim under
this paragraph that is submitted on a date that is later than
5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(f) Valid Existing Rights.--The conveyance of a mining
townsite under subsection (d) shall be subject to valid
existing rights, including any easement or other right-of-way
or lease in existence as of the date of the conveyance.
(g) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid rights in existence on
the date of enactment of this Act, and except as otherwise
provided in this Act, the mining townsites are withdrawn
from--
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and
geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
(h) Survey.--A mining townsite to be conveyed by the United
States under subsection (d) shall be sufficiently surveyed as
a whole to legally describe the land for patent conveyance.
(i) Conveyance of Terminated Mining Claims.--If a mining
claim determined by the Secretary to be valid under
subsection (c) is abandoned, invalidated, or otherwise
returned to the Bureau of Land Management, the mining claim
shall be--
(1) withdrawn in accordance with subsection (g); and
(2) conveyed to the owner of the surface rights covered by
the mining claim.
(j) Release.--On completion of the conveyance of a mining
townsite under subsection (d), the United States shall be
relieved from liability for, and shall be held harmless from,
any and all claims arising from the presence of improvements
and materials on the conveyed property.
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Reed, and Mrs.
Gillibrand):
[[Page S4215]]
S. 3412. A bill to provide emergency operating funds for public
transportation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, millions of Americans rely on transit to go
about their daily lives.
Many of them are poor, elderly, or disabled.
For some, transit is more than a convenience--it is absolutely vital.
Unfortunately, in communities across the Nation, transit has become a
casualty of the economic downturn.
Service cuts, fare increases, and layoffs--the result of tight
budgets nationwide--have become an epidemic, disconnecting people from
their jobs, placing huge burdens on already disadvantaged populations,
and reducing quality of life for millions of American families.
The American Public Transportation Association recently found that 84
percent of transit systems either have enacted or are contemplating
fare hikes or reductions in service.
The transit crisis is having an impact on the American people.
In 2008, transit ridership reached 10.7 billion riders, the highest
level since 1956 and a 38 percent increase since 1995.
But last year, ridership fell by half a billion.
This has serious implications for national priorities like reducing
traffic congestion, addressing climate change, enhancing our energy
security, and restoring our economic competitiveness.
Of course, it has serious implications on the lives of ordinary
Americans.
Young people are finding it harder to get to school.
Low-income families, forced to pay more for less service, are losing
what is often their only option for getting to work.
The elderly and disabled, robbed of their mobility, can't access
health care facilities.
Many who have long relied on transit are being forced to purchase
cars, adding to congestion on our roads, pollution in our skies, and
the economic burden already weighing heavy on working families.
We need more transit service, not less.
Now, my preference would be to pass a significant infrastructure and
jobs bill, one that would invest billions in our infrastructure, our
roadways, and our transit systems.
That approach would create hundreds of thousands of good construction
jobs while simultaneously making critical long-term investments in our
nation's future productivity and economic growth.
But even if we can't do that, we can't afford to turn our backs on
the transit crisis.
Therefore, today I rise to introduce the Public Transportation
Preservation Act of 2010.
This legislation will provide $2 billion in emergency funding to
transit agencies across the nation so that we can minimize disruptions
in service, fare increases, and layoffs.
It is not nearly enough money to give America the transit system it
needs and deserves.
But I hope it will be enough to stop the bleeding and allow millions
of Americans who rely on transit to maintain their ability to go to
work, get to the doctor, and go about their daily lives without
significant disruption.
Senators Menendez, Durbin, Schumer, Lautenberg, Brown of Ohio, Reed,
and Gillibrand have joined this bill as original co-sponsors.
I thank them for their commitment to public transportation.
I urge my colleagues to join us on behalf of those who rely on
transit.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 3414. A bill to ensure that the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act of 1994 and other requirements for dietary supplements
under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration are fully
implemented and enforced, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am joining with the distinguished
senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Dietary
Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010. Forty
percent of Americans regularly take supplements--and I am one of them.
We are taking charge of our own health. We are developing healthier
habits. We are waking up to the fact that we don't live to eat, we eat
to live--and we need to be mindful of what we put into our bodies.
Countless people have told me how they have been helped by dietary
supplements. Consumers want alternatives. They want less invasive, less
expensive options. They don't want to just cure disease, they want to
prevent disease. They want to feel good--and to look good.
As you know, I have long championed the cause of health prevention,
and I strongly believe that safe, properly labeled dietary supplements
can be an important part of a healthy lifestyle. In 1994, I introduced
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act--DSHEA--along with my
good friend Senator Hatch, and we revolutionized the way that
supplements are regulated and sold in the United States.
DSHEA struck an important balance. On the one hand, it recognized the
importance of enhancing consumer access to vitamins, minerals, and
other dietary supplements, and it recognized the virtues of scientific
research and education on the benefits and risk of supplements. On the
other hand, it recognized the need for important regulatory safeguards
to protect consumer health, including new safety standards, penalties
for mislabeling or adulterating dietary supplements, and rules to
ensure the scientific substantiation of claims regarding dietary
supplements. As a result, over the last 15 years, Americans have
enjoyed unprecedented access to a range of safe products that help
improve their health.
In 2006, Congress identified a need for additional regulatory
safeguards, and we passed a law that requires manufacturers, packers,
and distributors of dietary supplements to report to FDA serious
adverse events associated with the use of supplements. Dietary
supplement manufacturers are also now required to register their
businesses with FDA under the BioTerrorism law we passed in 2002. S.
510, the food safety legislation approved by the Senate HELP Committee
last year, which I hope will soon be considered on the Senate floor,
contains additional provisions that apply to dietary supplements. The
legislation gives FDA the authority to revoke the registration of a
dietary supplement facility in certain instances, and it authorizes FDA
to initiate a mandatory recall of any food, including a dietary
supplement, that will cause serious adverse health consequences or
death.
In short, Congress has been active in passing laws that promote
access to dietary supplements, but also ensure those products are safe
for their intended uses. I am proud of our record on this issue, and I
believe we have established a regulatory framework that is in the best
interest of the American people and their long term health.
I am concerned, however, that not enough is being done to fully
implement and enforce these dietary supplement laws. I am very pleased
that FDA recently issued final regulations on current Good
Manufacturing Practice for dietary supplements, but it took them nearly
15 years to get those rules on the books. In the fall of 2004, FDA
opened a docket and held a public meeting on new dietary ingredients,
but it has still not produced guidance on that issue. Perhaps most
alarming, there are still scores of illegal products being sold in this
country that masquerade as dietary supplements. Some bad actors simply
slap a dietary supplement label on illegal products in the hopes that
the supplement label will help those products evade notice by FDA or
the label will help promote sales. These products are clearly not
dietary supplements and both consumers and the legitimate dietary
supplement industry have a right to be upset about their sale. I am
encouraged that President Obama's FDA has been sending Warning Letters
on some of these illegal products, but more needs to be done. Part of
the problem is that FDA's dietary supplement program has been under-
resourced. But part of the problem is that enforcement of DSHEA has not
been made a priority.
That is why I am proud to introduce the Dietary Supplement Full
Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010. This is an updated version
of a bill that Senator Hatch and I introduced in
[[Page S4216]]
the 108th Congress. I am grateful that the Senator from Utah joins me
again today in introducing this important legislation. Its basic goal
is to give FDA the resources it needs to fully implement and enforce
our dietary supplement laws, but also to hold FDA accountable for what
it does with those resources.
According to FDA, full implementation of the laws governing the
regulation of dietary supplement will require substantial additional
resources. My bill authorizes FDA to receive the necessary sums to
implement and enforce the law. It also authorizes the Office of Dietary
Supplements at NIH to receive additional sums to expand research and
development of consumer information on dietary supplements.
On the implementation front, the bill requires FDA to issue guidance
that clarifies for consumers and industry FDA's expectations with
regard to its new dietary ingredient premarket notification program.
On the enforcement front, the bill directs FDA to inspect facilities
to ensure compliance with the new dietary supplement good manufacturing
practice regulations; to use the authority under DSHEA to protect the
public from unsafe dietary supplements; and to ensure that claims made
for dietary supplements are truthful, non-misleading and substantiated.
It also requires FDA to notify the Drug Enforcement Administration if
FDA objects to a new dietary ingredient notification because the
product may contain an anabolic steroid or an analogue of an anabolic
steroid.
On the accountability front, the bill requires the Secretary of the
Health and Human Services to submit an annual report to Congress that
lists, among other things, how many people at FDA worked on supplement-
related issues in the prior years; the number of times FDA inspected
dietary supplement facilities; the number of times FDA issued a warning
letter or initiated an enforcement action because a manufacturer was
not in compliance; the number of times FDA objected to the marketing of
a new dietary ingredient; and the number of dietary supplement claims
the FDA determined to be false, misleading, or not substantiated.
The bottom line is that dietary supplements offer tremendous health
benefits to Americans, but it is not fair to consumers, the FDA, or the
people who make supplements if we don't take action to clarify our
current regulatory requirements, to better inform everyone about the
benefits and risk of these products, and to clear the market of the
clearly illegal or spiked products that masquerade as supplements. The
bill that Senator Hatch and I have developed is an important and
measured response to these challenges. I am heartened that a number of
organizations that are deeply concerned about these issues have
endorsed our bill, including, among others, the United Natural Products
Alliance, the Natural Products Association, the Council for Responsible
Nutrition, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the American
Herbal Products Association, the Major League Baseball Players
Association, and the NFL Players Association. The bill recognizes the
need to implement and enforce current law in this area rather than
simply discard the important balance we struck in 1994. And it is
grounded in the firm belief that safe, properly labeled dietary
supplements remain a vital part of our collective effort to help all
Americans improve their health.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and I are
introducing the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement
Act of 2010, which is similar to the legislation we introduced in the
108th Congress.
Our goal in introducing this commonsense bill is to ensure that the
Food and Drug Administration properly implements and enforces existing
dietary supplement laws--namely the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health
Education Act, DSHEA, and the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription
Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2006. This is important to protect the
150,000,000 Americans who regularly take dietary supplements and to
remove ``bad actor'' companies from the marketplace.
This issue is extremely important because the laws already on the
books are sufficient if the FDA has the resources and the will to fully
enforce them. Indeed, previous FDA commissioners--Dr. Jane Henney, Dr.
Mark McClellan, Dr. Lester Crawford and Dr. Andy von Eschenbach--have
all stated as much in Senate hearings and in my meetings with them.
Moreover, current FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg has assured me
that she will work with me to ensure these laws are enforced.
Bottom line: the FDA already has the regulatory authority it needs
under current law.
That is why I will not support any changes to existing dietary
supplement laws until the legislation we are introducing today has been
approved by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by the
President. We also need to ensure this legislation is fully funded by
this Congress and enforced by the FDA with the full backing of this
Administration. It is important to give FDA the resources it needs to
accomplish both tasks. The legislation that we are introducing today
will do just that.
Senator Harkin and I have asked our colleagues on the Senate
Appropriations Committee to provide the FDA with the funds it needs to
fully implement DSHEA. We will continue to work diligently to help them
succeed in that task.
As you know, DSHEA clarified the FDA's regulatory authority over
dietary supplements while ensuring that Americans will continue to have
access to safe dietary supplements and helpful information about these
products. It passed the Senate twice by unanimous consent. The
legislation we are introducing today includes a Sense of the Congress
and outlines the methods the FDA should use to better implement and
enforce laws related to dietary supplements. It further requires the
dietary supplement industry to redouble its efforts to comply with the
law and cooperate with the FDA.
To provide the FDA with the resources necessary to regulate
compliance with dietary supplement laws, this bill directs the agency
to use part of its 2010 Fiscal Year Budget for that purpose. It also
authorizes the National Institutes of Health's Office of Dietary
Supplements to expand research and develop more consumer information on
dietary supplements.
Furthermore, the legislation requires the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to submit an annual report to Congress, starting
no later than January 31, 2011, regarding HHS activities on dietary
supplements. Finally, it directs the FDA to issue its New Dietary
Ingredient (NDI) guidance, as recommended by the General Accountability
Office, within 180 days and requires the FDA to share any information
on tainted NDI with the Drug Enforcement Agency.
It is my sincere hope that all my colleagues will support this effort
to ensure that dietary supplement consumers and manufacturers are
protected and properly regulated. Our constituents deserve no less.
This legislation is supported by the Major League Baseball and NFL
players associations, the Natural Products Association, the United
Natural Products Alliance, Council for Responsible Nutrition, American
Herbal Products Association and the Consumer Health Care Products
Association.
I hope that each of you will see the wisdom in supporting this
measure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
NFL Players Association,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2010.
Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman,
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin and Senator Hatch: The issue of the
public disclosure--and regulation--of dietary supplements
remains a critically important concern to the NFLPA. As for
all professional athletes, professional football players rely
on supplement label information to educate themselves on the
nature of the ingredients contained therein. Without complete
and precise label disclosure of all ingredients contained in
a particular supplement, players can face sanctions--and even
career-ending sanctions--if unlisted ingredients would
violate League-Player drug-testing regimes.
Thus, the Association welcomes the introduction of the
Dietary Supplement full implementation and enforcement act of
2010,
[[Page S4217]]
which focuses on providing the FDA with sufficient resources
to play its role in overseeing the supplement marketplace.
We endorse your legislation, salute your leadership, and
will work with you to realize enactment of this important
measure.
Sincerely,
DeMaurice F. Smith,
Executive Director.
____
Major League Baseball
Players Association,
New York, NY, May 24, 2010.
Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman,
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S.
Senate, 428 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin and Senator Hatch: Over the last
several years, the Major League Baseball Players Association
has shared with you our concerns about the federal
government's regulation of dietary supplements. There are
still far too many supplements available in the United States
that contain pharmaceuticals, steroids and other dangerous
ingredients. And, too often, what is actually inside the
bottle is not listed on the label. This unfortunate reality
is especially problematic for professional athletes. Players
have been suspended, their careers jeopardized, for doing
nothing more than taking a supplement purchased at a national
nutrition store, only to learn later that the product
contained an ingredient not listed on the label that violated
drug testing protocols.
The Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement
Act of 2010 will address one of the biggest obstacles to
improved safety--an overall lack of enforcement. We
understand your concern that imposing new obligations and
requirements on legitimate supplement companies alone will
not rid the marketplace of adulterated products. By providing
the FDA with both additional resources and increased
accountability, your legislation should help make possible a
goal we all share--a reliable supplement marketplace.
The Association endorses the bill, and we look forward to
working with you throughout the legislative process on
additional measures to improve enforcement and ensure product
safety and label accuracy. Users of dietary supplements, be
they professional athletes or not, deserve the same promise
made to those who consume traditional food--the assurance
that the products they take, that are sold without
restriction to adults and children throughout the country,
are safe and the products' labels can be trusted.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Weiner.
____
Natural Products AssociationTM,
Washington, DC, May 25, 2010.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Harkin and Hatch: On behalf of the Natural
Products Association (NPA), I commend your leadership and
bipartisan efforts to craft sensible legislation that will
strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) ability
to fully enforce the current laws governing the regulation of
dietary supplements. Founded in 1936, NPA is the nation's
largest and oldest trade association dedicated to the natural
products industry, representing more than 10,000 retail,
manufacturing, wholesaler, and distribution outlets of
natural products, including dietary supplements, foods, and
health/beauty aids.
NPA supports the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and
Enforcement Act of 2010 as it appropriately recognizes that
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of
1994 grants the FDA more than adequate statutory authority to
regulate supplements. While some have called for new
regulations on supplements, you understand that the real need
to fully enforce the statutes already on the books.
Historically, concurrent with the passage of DSHEA, the FDA
experienced budget cuts, and lacked the resources to
effectively regulate all the industries under its watch. To
ensure that the FDA is able to carry out the law as Congress
intended, this legislation authorizes an increase in funding
for FDA to implement DSHEA. The Dietary Supplement Full
Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010 strengthens FDA's
ability to enforce DSHEA, tightens product-specific
enforcement, requires the release of the long-awaited New
Dietary Ingredient (NDI) guidance, and holds the FDA
accountable for filing annual reports to Congress about how
they are regulating dietary supplements.
Additionally we are supportive of the doubling of funding
given to the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) to expand
research and consumer information about dietary supplements.
An increase in funding for ODS is especially important
because dietary supplements come from natural ingredients and
cannot be patented. While this ensures that these products
are readily and affordably available, it takes away the
ability of manufacturers to recoup research costs.
Again, we applaud your introduction of the Dietary
Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010,
and look forward to working with you in enacting this
important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
John Gay,
Executive Director and
Chief Executive Officer.
____
United Natural Products
Alliance,
Salt Lake City, UT, May 24, 2010.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Harkin and Senator Hatch: The United Natural
Products Alliance (UNPA), an association of dietary
supplement and functional food companies that share a
commitment to providing consumers with natural health
products of superior quality, benefit, and reliability,
wishes to express its appreciation to you for your work to
develop the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and
Enforcement Act of 2010. We are very supportive of this
legislation and of your continued hard work to ensure that
consumers have access to safe, high-quality dietary
supplements and information about those products.
In 1994, you both led the effort to enact legislation that
would establish in law a rational and transparent framework
for the regulation of dietary supplements. As documented by
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources in the report
accompanying your bill, the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act (DSHEA) (S. 784), the Food and Drug
Administration had shown an animosity toward supplement
products through a series of divergent regulatory actions and
unpublished policies that consumers rightly concluded
threatened their access to supplement products. The
tremendous citizen reaction to those policies supported your
conclusion that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
needed to be amended.
DSHEA was passed, not once, but twice, by the Senate, and
once by the House of Representatives, all by unanimous
consent--testimony to the significance of this legislation.
In fact, when President Clinton signed DSHEA into law in
1994, he noted that ``In an era of greater consciousness
among people about the impact of what they eat on how they
live, indeed, how long they live, it is appropriate that we
have finally reformed the way government treats consumers and
these supplements in a way that encourages good health.''
DSHEA had several important components, a few of which I
will mention in the context of your new legislation. First,
it established the simple principle that all dietary
supplements on the market in the United States at the time of
enactment would be presumed to be dietary supplements in the
future, unless there were violations of other parts of the
law. For new ingredients sold after that date, a manufacturer
was required to submit a ``New Dietary Ingredient'' (NDI)
notification to the FDA in advance of marketing. Second, as
part of DSHEA's numerous provisions to ensure the safety of
supplement products, the law authorized issuance of current
Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMPs) regulations specific to
supplements. The law established the requirements for
labeling, product claims and supporting substantiation. And,
it established at the National Institutes of Health an Office
of Dietary Supplements (ODS) to conduct research, provide
consumer information on supplements and act as an advisor to
other federal agencies.
In the years following enactment of DSHEA, by any objective
measure, FDA was slow to implement the law. Very few warning
letters were issued. Very few enforcement actions were
taken--despite the fact that for many years you worked
together to provide FDA with additional resources to act
against products that were clearly violations of the law. The
cGMPs were not issued for 13 years--resulting in unwarranted
criticism that dietary supplements are ``not regulated''.
Likewise, uncertainty arose whether some products contained
old or new ingredients under the law, and guidance on New
Dietary Ingredients has not been forthcoming from FDA. This
must change.
It has become clear that there has been a lack of
enforcement against clear violations of the law and that this
is largely due to two factors: a lack of focus by the agency;
and a competition for resources that has drained funding into
other areas. Your bill would rectify that situation and
return needed attention to appropriate implementation of
DSHEA and successor laws such as the 2006 Dietary Supplement
and Non-Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act.
Specifically, we find beneficial the provisions that would
provide Congress with a professional judgment estimate of the
costs to implement the laws addressing dietary supplement
regulation. This will allow Congress, and specifically the
Appropriations Committees, the ability to evaluate the
adequacy of the agency's funding and that of the Office of
Dietary Supplements. We also highlight the need for
provisions urging increased FDA efforts to conduct
inspections under the new cGMPs, evaluate claims
(prioritizing with those that are clear violations of the
law), promptly issuing guidance on NDIs, and notifying the
Drug Enforcement Administration if NDI notification suggests
that the substance may contain anabolic steroids or their
analogues which by definition are not dietary supplements. In
addition, the Annual Accountability Report on the Regulation
of Dietary
[[Page S4218]]
Supplements which your bill would require will yield valuable
information showing the adequacy of dietary supplement
regulatory efforts.
Finally, we recognize our responsibility as representatives
of the regulated industry to comply fully with the laws
regulating dietary supplements, and we pledge to continue our
efforts to work cooperatively with the government to develop
and implement rational policies that will assure American
consumers the safe products upon which they have come to
rely. As a central part of our mission, UNPA has made efforts
to educate ingredient suppliers, manufacturers and retailers
about key components of the dietary supplement laws and how
they should be implemented. We always strive to partner with
the government (including both the FDA and the Federal Trade
Commission) in these activities. Good examples of these
efforts are the numerous seminars we conduct, including five
focused specifically on the new cGMP regulations. We invite
you to review this in more detail at www.UNPA.org.
Thank you for your leadership role on behalf of the 150
million Americans who regularly use dietary supplement
products.
Sincerely,
Loren D. Israelsen,
Executive Director.
____
Council for Responsible Nutrition,
Washington, DC, May 25, 2010.
Re S. 3414--Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and
Enforcement Act
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Harkin and Hatch: On behalf of the Council
for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and its members, I am writing
to express our support for S. 3414, the Dietary Supplement
Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010 (DSFIEA). We
want to thank you for your commitment to legislative and
regulatory initiatives that would help to fully fund,
implement and enforce the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, and this legislation is an
example of your commitment to consumers and the dietary
supplement industry to assure access to safe and beneficial
supplement products. The work that you and your colleagues
have devoted to providing FDA with tools and resources to
reinforce its authority in regulating the supplement industry
under DSHEA is commendable and CRN stands in support of your
efforts.
This legislation will help to ensure that the agency has
sufficient focus and resources at its disposal to implement a
law--DSHEA--which already provides FDA with ample authority
to ensure consumer safety, while still providing consumers
access to the products they seek. It will provide increased
funding for FDA, and in particular to the dietary supplement
programs within the Center for Food Safety & Applied
Nutrition (CFSAN). The legislation also directs the agency to
provide annual reports to Congress making itself accountable
for enforcing key provisions of the law, just as the industry
is responsible for complying with them. While some critics of
the dietary supplement industry have called for new laws to
change the way dietary supplements are regulated, this
legislation acknowledges that DSHEA carefully balanced
consumer access with consumer protection and seeks to make
the existing law work through real efforts to implement it.
Having more laws, without enforcement, only disadvantages the
responsible members of industry who do comply with the law
because it is the law and because it's the right thing to do
for their consumers, and gives rogue companies more laws to
violate. The better approach is to have a robust and
accountable FDA empowered and staffed to enforce the current
law that will level the playing field for all members of the
marketplace. As previous FDA Commissioners have testified to
Congress, DSHEA provides more than adequate authority for
government while still allowing consumers appropriate access
to the products and health information they demand.
More than 150 million Americans use dietary supplements,
and these consumers demand a strong industry that is
appropriately regulated. We hope Congress will give this
legislation expedient and thoughtful consideration on its way
to passage. CRN stands ready to work with you and
Congressional leadership to deliver a strong bill to the
President.
Please don't hesitate to contact me at SM[email protected]
or 202.204.7676 if CRN can be of any assistance in your
endeavors.
Best regards,
Steve Mister,
President and CEO.
____
American Herbal Products
Association,
Silver Spring, MD, May 25, 2010.
Senator Orrin Hatch,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Senator Tom Harkin,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Hatch and Harkin: This letter is to thank you
for introducing the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation
and Enforcement Act of 2010 and to express the support of the
American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) for this
important legislation.
AHPA recognizes that this bill will protect consumer access
to dietary supplements by providing the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) with better resources to enforce the
many regulations that govern this class of goods. The bill
will also instruct FDA to provide guidance on existing rules
that apply to new ingredients, and AHPA has long supported
full implementation of this section of the law so that
consumers are assured that all dietary supplements contain
only safe ingredients.
Thank you again for your efforts in protecting the
important health care choices now enjoyed by the millions of
Americans who use dietary supplements.
Sincerely,
Michael McGuffin,
President.
____
Consumer Healthcare Products
Association (CHPA),
May 25, 2010.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Harkin and Hatch: On behalf of the Consumer
Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), representing the
leading manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and
nutritional supplements, I am pleased to express our support
for the ``Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and
Enforcement Act of 2010.'' This bill is the most recent
example of your continued leadership in support of dietary
supplements.
The ``Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and
Enforcement Act of 2010'' strengthens FDA's ability to
enforce the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act
(DSHEA), expands research, calls for the release of the long-
awaited New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) guidance, and requires
the filing of an annual report to Congress on the
implementation and enforcement of DSHEA.
Critically, your bill also authorizes the funds needed for
the full implementation of DSHEA. In the years following
passage of the act, chronic budget shortfalls took a toll on
FDA, including funding for the Office of Dietary Supplements
(ODS). Authorizing these funds is an important step in making
sure ODS has the resources it needs.
Again, we applaud your introduction of the Dietary
Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010,
and look forward to working with you to enact this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Linda A. Suydam,
President.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 3415. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to the importation of prescription drugs and to amend part
D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to negotiate covered part D drug prices on
behalf of Medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fair Pricing
for Prescription Drugs Act to help make prescription drugs more
affordable for all Americans. This legislation endorses the excellent
work that my colleague Senator Dorgan of North Dakota has done to
promote importing prescription drugs from other industrialized
countries. And it includes companion language to Congressman Welch's
bill to call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate
drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Here in the
Senate, several of my colleagues, most recently Senator Bill Nelson of
Florida, have tirelessly pushed the need for negotiation of drug
prices. I am proud to have stood with my colleagues on these issues
over the last decade--and feel strongly that Congress must move quickly
to ensure that all Americans--whether they purchase private health
insurance or are enrolled in Medicare--have fairly priced prescription
drugs.
Allowing for importation of prescription drugs and price negotiation
for Medicare Part D are common sense policies, These are changes that
Congress can make to drastically improve the affordability of
prescription drugs for our constituents, save the government money, and
further enhance the health reform law passed earlier this year. I was
pleased to be a part of that historic effort, but the health reform law
was not perfect and did not go as far as it could have to reduce
prescription drug prices for consumers. I have heard from thousands of
Wisconsinites about the need for health reform during my time in the
Senate. The health reform law empowers consumers and small businesses
for the first time in our history to demand more for their health care
dollar. These changes will
[[Page S4219]]
improve the affordability of health insurance and medical care for
individuals and families. But I also continue to hear from
Wisconsinites about the burden of rising prescription drug costs. They
need our help.
One of the fastest ways to reduce prescription drug costs is to allow
for importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from other
industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and
European countries. Americans pay some of the highest prices for the
same prescription drugs that are sold 33 to 55 percent less in other
countries. Americans are now importing more than $1 billion in
prescription drugs from Canada alone. In these tough economic times,
and with equally safe but more affordable drugs just over the border,
it is no wonder that Americans are going to such lengths to buy the
prescriptions they need.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that allowing
importation of prescription drugs would save consumers upwards of $50
billion. Just last year, the CBO reviewed their original estimate of
government savings as a result of this policy, concluding that the
government would nearly double its expected savings to over $19
billion.
We do a lot of things in Congress that leave our constituents
scratching their heads. Well, now we have a chance to show them we are
listening to them, that we understand their concerns, and that we want
to bring down Federal spending while ensuring the prescriptions drugs
they need are more affordable.
We can also do more to ensure affordable prescription drugs for
Medicare beneficiaries by calling on the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D enrollees. Mr.
President, I opposed the legislation that created the Medicare Part D
drug benefit because I did not believe the program would provide
adequate financial relief for Medicare beneficiaries facing high
prescription drug costs. This legislation actually included a provision
which explicitly forbade the Secretary from negotiating with drug
manufacturers on behalf of seniors' interests. We should have done
better for our seniors. And they are living with the consequence of
that decision today--with ever-rising prescription drug costs.
The health reform law will provide some relief, particularly for the
dreaded ``donut hole'' of Medicare Part D. But health reform does not
speak to the other glaring shortfall of the Medicare Part D program--
that the government is prohibited from negotiating for better drug
prices for beneficiaries.
Negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries is hardly a radical idea, Mr.
President. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, negotiates on drug
prices and spends considerably less than the Medicare program on the
same drugs. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare released a study that found that VA drug prices are, on
average, 48 percent lower than Medicare Part D prices for the top 10
prescribed drugs. NCPSSM estimates that billions could be saved
annually by requiring the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for
Medicare Part D. With the government on the hook for over $50 billion
in drug costs for Part D alone, it is simply irresponsible to not
aggressively seek new savings from negotiating prices. Focusing on
lowering the price of prescription drugs rather than subsidizing
insurance and pharmaceutical companies will not only provide relief for
the sick, but will save taxpayer dollars.
Changing how we purchase prescription drugs by allowing importation
from industrialized countries and negotiation on pricing for Medicare
Part D is a clear and simple way to reduce prescription drug costs,
reduce government spending, and keep Americans healthier. I am thankful
for the leadership that my colleagues have shown in introducing
legislation on these topics, and add my voice, and my bill, to theirs
in our combined effort to answer the demands of our constituents.
______
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Casey, and Mr.
Brown of Ohio):
S. 3418. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
specifically include, in programs of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, programs to research, prevent, and
address the harmful consequences of pathological and other problem
gambling, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Comprehensive
Problem Gambling Act, a bill I introduced just moments ago with Senator
Mike Johanns. This bill would establish and implement programs targeted
at preventing, treating, and researching problem gambling.
Currently, the Federal Government provides millions of dollars to
treat alcohol and drug addiction, but does not dedicate resources to
treat the effects of problem gambling, which can destroy a person's
career and financial standing, disrupt marriages and personal
relationships, and encourage participation in criminal activity.
Over the past decade, gaming and gambling has grown significantly in
the United States. According to the National Council on Problem
Gambling, approximately 6 to 9 million American adults are problem
gamblers.
The recent economic downturn only compounds this situation as many
States consider relaxing gaming laws in an effort to raise state
revenues. At the same time, the Federal Government and most states have
devoted very little, if any, resources to the prevention and treatment
of compulsive gambling. In fact, no Federal agency is currently
responsible for coordinating efforts for treatment and prevention.
Prevention and treatment programs have been proven to save money by
decreasing the severity and prevalence of problem gambling, but cash-
strapped states are struggling just to maintain funding for pre-
existing programs.
I believe that if State governments benefit from gambling and lottery
proceeds, then those governments have an obligation to provide
assistance to those suffering from a gambling addiction. I am proud
that the State of Oregon understands this concept and has one of the
most comprehensive treatment systems in the country.
Through Oregon's Gambling Treatment Fund, one percent of Oregon
Lottery revenues are transferred to the Oregon Department of Human
Services for the administration of problem gambling services. However,
decreasing lottery revenues has resulted in reduced treatment dollars.
I'd like to share the story of one of my constituents. For Toni,
gambling started out as a fun trip to Reno or Las Vegas. She began
playing video poker on occasion, and when she ran out of money, she
would simply go home. But then the casinos brought in ATM machines, and
she no longer had to leave the facility to access money. She could stay
for hours, and did. Gambling quickly went from being a fun activity to
an escape from problems and stresses in her life.
Before long, gambling had consumed Toni's life. She gambled away her
life savings and went through credit card after credit card, racking up
the cash advance limits and borrowing money from family members to pay
it off. She tried to quit numerous times, but, as she describes it, the
urge to gamble was much stronger than she was. Eventually, she couldn't
do it anymore. She couldn't stop thinking about how she was going to
get her next ``fix''. She ``felt about as low as you can go.'' She knew
she had to get help.
Toni sought treatment in May 2009, and will soon reach the one year
goal she set with her counselor to be gambling-free. However, she
continues to face the long-term impacts of her gambling. Toni and her
family live paycheck to paycheck and she worries that the debt she has
accrued could cause her family to lose their house if the bank decides
to raise interest on their mortgage. But Toni sees hope in her future
because she had access to treatment and critical support services.
While Toni has been able to start her own recovery, thousands of
individuals across the country continue to struggle with their gambling
addictions because there are so few prevention and treatment resources
in place.
Unfortunately, the lack of education and research surrounding this
issue has made it difficult to allot the appropriate resources to
address these problems. The Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act would
provide $14.2 million in competitive grants annually for 5 years to
non-profits, universities, state agencies, and tribal governments
[[Page S4220]]
for prevention, research, and treatment of problem gambling.
Recent studies show conclusively that every $1 spent on treatment
saves more than $2 in social costs. This legislation is a minimal
investment with life-changing returns.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Toni and the countless
other individuals who struggle without supports by cosponsoring the
Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2010.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3418
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 ``Comprehensive Problem
Gambling Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Problem gambling is a public health disorder
characterized by increasing preoccupation with gambling, loss
of control, restlessness or irritability when attempting to
stop gambling, and continuation of the gambling behavior in
spite of mounting, serious, negative consequences.
(2) Over 6,000,000 adults met criteria for a gambling
problem last year.
(3) The estimated social cost to families and communities
from bankruptcy, divorce, job loss, and criminal justice
costs associated with problem gambling was $6,700,000,000
last year.
(4) Problem gambling is associated with higher incidences
of bankruptcy, domestic abuse, and suicide.
(5) People who engage in problem gambling have high rates
of co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders.
(6) In response to current budget shortfalls, many States
are considering enacting or have enacted legislation to
expand legal gambling activities with the intent of raising
State revenues.
(7) The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration is the lead Federal agency for substance abuse
and mental health services.
(8) There are no agencies or individuals in the Federal
Government with formal responsibility for problem gambling.
SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS GAMBLING IN SAMHSA
AUTHORITIES.
Section 501(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290aa(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (17);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (18) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(19) establish and implement programs for the
identification, prevention, and treatment of pathological and
other problem gambling.''.
SEC. 4. PROGRAMS TO RESEARCH, PREVENT, AND ADDRESS PROBLEM
GAMBLING.
Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa
et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part G (42 U.S.C. 290kk et seq.),
relating to services provided through religious organizations
and added by section 144 of the Community Renewal Tax Relief
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2763A-619), as enacted into law by
section 1(a)(7) of Public Law 106-554, as part J;
(2) by redesignating sections 581 through 584 of that part
J as sections 596 through 596C, respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``PART K--PROGRAMS TO RESEARCH, PREVENT, AND ADDRESS PROBLEM GAMBLING
``SEC. 597. PUBLIC AWARENESS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, shall carry out a national campaign to
increase knowledge and raise awareness within the general
public with respect to problem gambling issues. In carrying
out the campaign, the Secretary shall carry out activities
that include augmenting and supporting existing (as of the
date of the support) national campaigns and producing and
placing public service announcements.
``(b) Voluntary Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary may--
``(1) coordinate the voluntary donation of, and administer,
resources to assist in the implementation of new programs and
the augmentation and support of existing national campaigns
to provide national strategies for dissemination of
information, intended to address problem gambling, from--
``(A) television, radio, motion pictures, cable
communications, and the print media;
``(B) the advertising industry;
``(C) the business sector of the United States; and
``(D) professional sports organizations and associations;
and
``(2) encourage media outlets throughout the country to
provide information, aimed at preventing problem gambling,
including public service announcements, documentary films,
and advertisements.
``(c) Focus.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary
shall target radio and television audiences of events
including sporting and gambling events.
``(d) Evaluation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall evaluate the effectiveness of activities
under this section. The Secretary shall submit a report to
the President and Congress containing the results of the
evaluation.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through
2015.
``SEC. 597A. RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, shall establish and implement a national
program of research on problem gambling.
``(b) National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report.--In
carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consider the
recommendations that appear in chapter 8 of the June 18,
1999, report of the National Gambling Impact Study
Commission.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through
2015.
``SEC. 597B. PREVENTION AND TREATMENT.
``(a) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator, shall make grants to States, local and tribal
governments, and nonprofit agencies to provide comprehensive
services with respect to treatment and prevention of problem
gambling issues and education about problem gambling issues.
``(2) Application for grant.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection, an entity shall submit an
application to the Secretary in such form, in such manner,
and containing such agreements, assurances, and information
as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this
subsection.
``(b) Treatment Improvement Protocol.--The Secretary shall
develop a treatment improvement protocol specific to problem
gambling.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011
through 2015.''.
______
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 3419. A bill to exclude from consumer credit reports medical debt
that has been in collection and has been fully paid or settled, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to propose legislation to
address the problem of medical debt and credit scores. While historic
health reform legislation enacted this year sets us on a path towards
ending the crushing problem of Americans who lack health insurance, the
challenges of our health care billing system remain a work in progress.
One of those problems arises when our system of third-party payment
leads to errors in billing and payments that, through no fault of the
borrower, nevertheless undermine a borrower's credit scores. The
borrower then must pay more for a home, a car, or his or her credit
card, and in some cases, cannot at all get the loan he or she needs and
deserves. To address this unfair burden, I have introduced the Medical
Debt Relief Act.
Unlike consumer debt, Americans do not get to choose when accidents
or medical emergencies happen. Medical debt is not the result of
irresponsible consumer spending and is a not an indicator of poor
credit. According to the Commonwealth Fund, accrued medical debt
plagued nearly 72 million adults in 2007, and over 28 million American
consumers were harassed by collection agencies for unpaid medical bills
that same year. Research done by the Federal Reserve has found that
medical bills make up the majority of non-credit card related accounts
in collection and found on credit reports.
Nor is the problem of medical debt in relation to credit scores
simply a question of whether one has insurance or not. Rather, medical
debt credit challenges are a direct function of the nature of our
insurance system. Because of the third-party payment system of
insurance, medical debt is far more likely to be in dispute,
inconsistently reported, mired in the complex medical payment
bureaucracy, or transferred to collections without the consumer's
knowledge. It can often take months, if not years, to adjudicate these
claims. Unfortunately, even one negative medical collection mark can
damage a consumer's credit score, thereby costing the consumer higher
interest rates on automobile loans, home loans, and credit cards. It
can even block the consumer from making purchases entirely. Sadly, even
after the consumer has
[[Page S4221]]
paid off or settled delinquent medical debt, the negative mark on the
credit report continues to plague the consumer for years.
The Medical Debt Relief Act is a straight forward solution to this
problem. It would require the removal from a consumer's credit report
those medical-related debts that have been fully paid. Companion
legislation has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Mary Jo
Kilroy and presently enjoys the support of 70 cosponsors. This
legislation is also supported by the Consumer's Union, National
Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.
I am honored today to be joined by Senators Dorgan, Schumer,
Menendez, and Harkin in this effort to fix this important problem in
how Americans access credit. This is common sense legislation that will
offer tangible relief to the ordinary Americans who work hard, pay
their bills, and want to borrow money at reasonable rates to finance
the next step in their American dream. I urge my colleagues to join us
in the effort.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3419
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 ``Medical Debt Relief Act of
2010''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) medical debt is unique, and Americans do not choose
when accidents happen or when illness strikes;
(2) medical debt collection issues affect both insured and
uninsured consumers;
(3) according to credit evaluators, medical debt
collections are more likely to be in dispute, inconsistently
reported, and of questionable value in predicting future
payment performance because it is atypical and nonpredictive;
(4) nevertheless, medical debt that has been completely
paid off or settled can significantly damage the credit score
of a consumer for years;
(5) as a result, consumers may be denied credit or pay
higher interest rates when buying a home or obtaining a
credit card;
(6) healthcare providers are increasingly turning to
outside collection agencies to help secure payment from
patients, coming at the expense of the consumer, because
medical debts are not typically reported unless they become
assigned to collections;
(7) in fact, medical bills account for more than half of
all non-credit related collection actions reported to
consumer credit reporting agencies;
(8) the issue of medical debt affects millions of
consumers;
(9) according to the Commonwealth Fund, medical bill
problems or accrued medical debt affects roughly 72,000,000
working-age adults in America; and
(10) in 2007, 28,000,000 working-age American adults were
contacted by a collection agency for unpaid medical bills.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to exclude from
consumer credit reports medical debt that had been
characterized as debt in collection for credit reporting
purposes and has been fully paid or settled.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT.
(a) Medical Debt Defined.--Section 603 of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(y) Medical Debt.--The term `medical debt' means a debt
described in section 604(g)(1)(C).''.
(b) Exclusion for Paid or Settled Medical Debt.--Section
605(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c(a))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Any information related to a fully paid or settled
medical debt that had been characterized as delinquent,
charged off, or in collection which, from the date of payment
or settlement, antedates the report by more than 45 days.''.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 3420. A bill to provide a temporary extension of certain programs,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3420
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 ``Protecting Against Indebting
our Descendants through Fully Offset Relief (PAID FOR)
Temporary Extension Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``July 7, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``june 2, 2010'' and inserting ``july 7, 2010''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``November 6, 2010''
and inserting ``December 11, 2010''.
(2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed
Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public
Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438), is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``June 2, 2010'' and
inserting ``July 7, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking ``june 2,
2010'' and inserting ``july 7, 2010''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``December 7, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 11, 2011''.
(3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``July 7, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and
inserting ``December 11, 2010''.
(4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and inserting
``December 11, 2010''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the
Protecting Against Indebting our Descendants through Fully
Offset Relief (PAID FOR) Temporary Extension Act of 2010;
and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157).
SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR
COBRA BENEFITS.
(a) Extension of Eligibility Period.--Subsection (a)(3)(A)
of section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by
section 3(a) of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public
Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``June 30, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of section
3001 of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009.
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.
Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security
Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) and as amended
by section 5 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public
Law 111-144) and section 4 of the Continuing Extension Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-157), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``June 30, 2010''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``June 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``July 1, 2010''.
SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.
Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), as amended by section 6 of
the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157), is
amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and inserting ``June 30,
2010''.
SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Extension.--Section 129 of the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 111-68), as
amended by section 7 of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``by
substituting'' and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting ``by substituting June 30, 2010, for the
date specified in each such section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be considered to have taken effect on February 28,
2010.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any funds
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $60,000,000, for
an additional amount for ``Small Business Administration--
Business Loans Program Account'', to remain available until
expended, for the cost of fee reductions and eliminations
under section 501 of division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 151)
and loan guarantees under section 502 of division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section: Provided,
That such costs shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Extension of Sunset Date.--Section 502(f) of division A
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 153) is amended by striking ``May 31,
2010'' and inserting ``June 30, 2010''.
[[Page S4222]]
SEC. 8. USE OF STIMULUS FUNDS TO OFFSET SPENDING.
The unobligated balance of each amount appropriated or made
available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5) (other than under title X of division
A of such Act) is rescinded pro rata such that the aggregate
amount of such rescissions equals $13,000,000,000 in order to
offset the net increase in spending resulting from the
provisions of, and amendments made by, sections 2 through 7.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
report to each congressional committee the amounts so
rescinded within the jurisdiction of such committee.
SEC. 9. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
(a) In General.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
(b) Emergency Designation for Congressional Enforcement.--
In the House of Representatives, this Act, with the exception
of section 4, is designated as an emergency for purposes of
pay-as-you-go principles. In the Senate, this Act is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
(c) Emergency Designation for Statutory PAYGO.--This Act,
with the exception of section 4, is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2
U.S.C. 933(g)).
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 3421. A bill to provide a temporary extension of certain programs,
and for other purposes; read the first time.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3421
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 ``Protecting Against Indebting
our Descendants through Fully Offset Relief (PAID FOR)
Temporary Extension Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``July 7, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``june 2, 2010'' and inserting ``july 7, 2010''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``November 6, 2010''
and inserting ``December 11, 2010''.
(2) Section 2002(e) of the Assistance for Unemployed
Workers and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public
Law 111-5 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 438), is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``June 2, 2010'' and
inserting ``July 7, 2010'';
(B) in the heading for paragraph (2), by striking ``june 2,
2010'' and inserting ``july 7, 2010''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``December 7, 2010'' and
inserting ``January 11, 2011''.
(3) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``June 2, 2010'' each place it appears and
inserting ``July 7, 2010''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and
inserting ``December 11, 2010''.
(4) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``November 6, 2010'' and inserting
``December 11, 2010''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) the amendments made by section 2(a)(1) of the
Protecting Against Indebting our Descendants through Fully
Offset Relief (PAID FOR) Temporary Extension Act of 2010;
and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157).
SEC. 3. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR
COBRA BENEFITS.
(a) Extension of Eligibility Period.--Subsection (a)(3)(A)
of section 3001 of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by
section 3(a) of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public
Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``June 30, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of section
3001 of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009.
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.
Paragraph (10) of section 1848(d) of the Social Security
Act, as added by section 1011(a) of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118) and as amended
by section 5 of the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public
Law 111-144) and section 4 of the Continuing Extension Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-157), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and
inserting ``June 30, 2010''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``June 1, 2010'' and
inserting ``July 1, 2010''.
SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF USE OF 2009 POVERTY GUIDELINES.
Section 1012 of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), as amended by section 6 of
the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-157), is
amended by striking ``May 31, 2010'' and inserting ``June 30,
2010''.
SEC. 6. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Extension.--Section 129 of the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 111-68), as
amended by section 7 of the Continuing Extension Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-157), is amended by striking ``by
substituting'' and all that follows through the period at the
end and inserting ``by substituting June 30, 2010, for the
date specified in each such section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be considered to have taken effect on February 28,
2010.
SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
(a) Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out of any funds
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $60,000,000, for
an additional amount for ``Small Business Administration--
Business Loans Program Account'', to remain available until
expended, for the cost of fee reductions and eliminations
under section 501 of division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 151)
and loan guarantees under section 502 of division A of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5; 123 Stat. 152), as amended by this section: Provided,
That such costs shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(b) Extension of Sunset Date.--Section 502(f) of division A
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 153) is amended by striking ``May 31,
2010'' and inserting ``June 30, 2010''.
SEC. 8. USE OF STIMULUS FUNDS TO OFFSET SPENDING.
The unobligated balance of each amount appropriated or made
available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5) (other than under title X of division
A of such Act) is rescinded pro rata such that the aggregate
amount of such rescissions equals $13,000,000,000 in order to
offset the net increase in spending resulting from the
provisions of, and amendments made by, sections 2 through 7.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
report to each congressional committee the amounts so
rescinded within the jurisdiction of such committee.
SEC. 9. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
(a) In General.--The budgetary effects of this Act, for the
purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''
for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the
vote on passage.
(b) Emergency Designation for Congressional Enforcement.--
In the House of Representatives, this Act, with the exception
of section 4, is designated as an emergency for purposes of
pay-as-you-go principles. In the Senate, this Act is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
(c) Emergency Designation for Statutory PAYGO.--This Act,
with the exception of section 4, is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2
U.S.C. 933(g)).
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 3423. A bill to provide the President with expedited consideration
of proposals for cancellation of certain budget items; to the Committee
on the Budget.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veto Wasteful
Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 which establishes a
constitutional line-item veto by creating an expedited rescissions
process.
Yesterday, the Obama administration unveiled the Reduce Unnecessary
Spending Act of 2010. This legislation is very similar to my proposal
which I first introduced in 2006. They both provide for an expedited
rescission process. The line-item veto is not a panacea for record
level deficits, but it will provide the President with the necessary
tool to reduce wasteful spending.
[[Page S4223]]
Both bills will give the President the ability to target projects
that have been added in spending bills that benefit special interests
or are not necessary. I applaud President Obama for addressing this
issue.
I have been a long-time advocate of the line-item veto. It has been a
successful tool at the state level and I think it can effectively
reduce spending on the Federal level. We have made progress with
earmark reform and I think expedited rescission would result in further
spending reductions.
The major difference between my legislation and the Administration's
proposal is that the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act
of 2010 would allow the President to suspend and propose cancellation
for discretionary spending, new direct spending, and limited tax
benefits. The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010 focuses on
discretionary spending. If we really want to tackle wasteful spending,
I think we need to look at new entitlement spending and limited tax
benefits, not just discretionary spending.
In 1996, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law
the Line Item Veto Act, P.L. 104-130. Two years later, however, in
Clinton v. City of New York the Supreme Court concluded that the method
used to give the President line-item veto authority was
unconstitutional. The Court noted that presidents may only sign or veto
entire acts of Congress. The Constitution does not authorize presidents
to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes.
We can restore the line item veto and be consistent with the
Constitution. The key difference between what I am proposing and what
the Supreme Court struck down is the legal effect of the President's
actions. The Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to cancel
provisions in their entirety, but the Supreme Court rejected this
arrangement. My legislation will empower the President to suspend
provisions until the Congress decides to approve or disapprove the
suspension of that provision with an up or down vote. The provisions
are not cancelled out of the legislation. I believe this change
addresses the Supreme Court's concerns. My legislation also does not
include a mechanism which allows a provision to be suspended for a
lengthy time period.
Under the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010,
the President has 10 calendar days to submit to Congress a special
message. The President may transmit two messages per bill, but a
provision may only be proposed for suspension or cancellation one time.
The House and Senate would consider the special message under a special
process which does not allow for amendments or motions to strike.
I believe that the line-item veto is a valuable tool that should be
made available to any President regardless of political party. For this
reason, the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 is
permanent, rather than sunsetting after a few years.
It is time to reinstate the line-item veto. I look forward to working
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to return to the
President the authority to rein in wasteful spending.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Vitter):
S. 3424. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further
protection for puppies; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3424
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 ``Puppy Uniform Protection and
Safety Act''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF PUPPIES UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.
(a) High Volume Retail Breeder Defined.--Section 2 of the
Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2132) is amended--
(1) in subsection (l), by striking ``research.'' and
inserting ``research;'';
(2) in subsection (m), by striking ``members.'' and
inserting ``members;'';
(3) in subsection (n), by striking ``section 13(b); and''
and inserting ``section 13(b);'';
(4) in subsection (o), by striking ``experimentation.'' and
inserting ``experimentation; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(p) High Volume Retail Breeder.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Breeding female dog.--The term `breeding female dog'
means an intact female dog aged 4 months or older.
``(B) High volume retail breeder.--The term `high volume
retail breeder' means a person who, in commerce, for
compensation or profit--
``(i) has an ownership interest in or custody of 1 or more
breeding female dogs; and
``(ii) sells or offers for sale, via any means of
conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper),
more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs
for use as pets in any 1-year period.
``(2) Relationship to dealers.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this Act, a high volume
retail breeder shall be considered to be a dealer and subject
to all provisions of this Act applicable to a dealer.
``(B) Exception.--The retail pet store exemption in
subsection (f)(i) shall not apply to a high volume retail
breeder.''.
(b) Licenses.--Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act (7
U.S.C. 2133) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--The Secretary'';
(2) in subsection (a) (as so designated), in the second
proviso of the first sentence, by inserting ``(other than a
high volume retail breeder)'' after ``any retail pet store or
other person''.; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Dealers.--A dealer (including a high volume retail
breeder) applying for a license under subsection (a)
(including annual renewals) shall include on the license
application the total number of dogs exempted from exercise
on the premises of the dealer in the preceding year by a
licensed veterinarian under section 13(j)(2).''.
(c) Exercise Requirements.--Section 13 of the Animal
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2143) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively;
(2) by redesignating the second subsection (f) (as
redesignated by section 1752(a)(1) of Public Law 99-198 (99
Stat. 1645)) as subsection (g); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Exercise Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate
standards covering dealers that include requirements for the
exercise of dogs at facilities owned or operated by a dealer,
including exercise regulations that ensure that--
``(A) each dog that is at least 12 weeks old (other than a
female dog with unweaned puppies) has daily access to
exercise that--
``(i) allows the dog--
``(I) to move sufficiently to develop or maintain normal
muscle tone and mass as appropriate for the age, breed, sex,
and reproductive status of the dog; and
``(II) the ability to achieve a running stride; and
``(ii) is not a forced activity (other than a forced
activity used for veterinary treatment) or other physical
activity that is repetitive, restrictive of other activities,
solitary, and goal-oriented;
``(B) the provided area for exercise--
``(i) is separate from the primary enclosure if the primary
enclosure does not provide sufficient space to achieve a
running stride;
``(ii) has flooring that--
``(I) is sufficient to allow for the type of activity
described in subparagraph (A); and
``(II)(aa) is solid flooring; or
``(bb) is nonsolid, nonwire flooring, if the nonsolid,
nonwire flooring--
``(AA) is safe for the breed, size, and age of the dog;
``(BB) is free from protruding sharp edges; and
``(CC) is designed so that the paw of the dog is unable to
extend through or become caught in the flooring;
``(iii) is cleaned at least once each day;
``(iv) is free of infestation by pests or vermin; and
``(v) is designed in a manner to prevent escape of the
dogs.
``(2) Exemption.--
``(A) In general.--If a licensed veterinarian determines
that a dog should not exercise because of the health,
condition, or well-being of the dog, this subsection shall
not apply to that dog.
``(B) Documentation.--A determination described in
subparagraph (A) shall be--
``(i) documented by the veterinarian;
``(ii) subject to review and approval by the Secretary; and
``(iii) unless the basis for the determination is a
permanent condition, reviewed and updated at least once every
30 days by the veterinarian.
``(C) Reports.--A determination described in subparagraph
(A) shall be maintained by the dealer.''.
SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate any
regulations that the Secretary determines to be necessary to
implement this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
SEC. 4. EFFECT ON STATE LAW.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
preempt any law (including a regulation) of a State, or a
political subdivision of a State, containing requirements
that provide equivalent or greater protection for animals
than the requirements of this Act or the amendments made by
this Act.
[[Page S4224]]
____________________