[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 59 (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2688-S2691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Johanns, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr.
Harkin, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska).
S. 884. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a variable VEETC rate based on the price of crude oil, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by a
number of my colleagues in introducing the Domestic Energy Promotion
Act of 2011, an important piece of legislation that I believe is a good
starting point in how tax policies for ethanol should evolve. I am
joined in this effort by Senators Conrad, Johanns, Klobuchar, Franken,
Tim Johnson, Harkin and Ben Nelson.
Over the years, I have supported domestic ethanol production as a
means to improve the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil,
increase our national security, and bring economic activity to rural
America. Those efforts have undoubtedly been an enormous success.
Domestic biofuels now supply more than 13 billion gallons of homegrown
fuel, accounting for nearly 10 percent of our Nation's transportation
fuel needs.
In 2010, Congress enacted a one-year extension of the Volumetric
Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, or VEETC, also known as the blenders'
credit. This 1-year extension has allowed Congress and the domestic
biofuels industry to determine the best path forward for Federal
support for biofuels. The legislation we are introducing today is a
serious, responsible first step to reducing and redirecting Federal tax
incentives for biofuels.
This legislation will reduce VEETC to a fixed rate of 20 cents in
2012, and 15 cents in 2013. It will then convert to a variable tax
incentive for the remaining 3 years, based on the price of crude oil.
When crude oil is more than $90 a barrel, there will be no blenders'
credit. When crude oil is $50 and below, the blenders' credit will be
30 cents. The rate will vary when the price of crude is between $50 and
$90 a barrel. When oil prices are high, a natural incentive should
exist in the market to drive ethanol use.
It also would extend, through 2016, the alternative fuel refueling
property credit; the cellulosic producers' tax credit; and the special
depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property. The bill
would modify the alternative fuel refueling property credit to allow
the credit for ethanol blends from E20 to E85. The credit would apply
to 100 percent of the cost of the property, so long as dual-use pumps
are used partly for alternative fuels. Finally, the bill would extend
the ethanol import tariff, through 2016, stepping it down to 20 cents
for 2012 and 15 cents for 2013 through 2016.
This legislation is a responsible approach that will reduce the
existing blenders' credit and put those valuable resources into
investing in alternative fuel infrastructure, including alternative
fuel pumps. It would responsibly and predictably reduce the existing
tax incentive, and help get alternative fuel infrastructure in place so
consumers can decide which fuel they would prefer. I know that when
American consumers have the choice, they will choose domestic, clean,
affordable renewable fuel. They will choose fuel from America's farmers
and ranchers, rather than oil sheiks and foreign dictators.
Some of my colleagues have argued that it is time to end the
incentives for biofuels immediately and entirely. Not only is this bad
energy policy, poor tax policy, and dangerous to our national security,
it is also intellectually dishonest. I believe a discussion concerning
our Nation's energy and tax policy should be debated in a comprehensive
manner. Biofuels are not the only form of energy that receives
incentives or supportive policies from the Federal Government.
How about the incentives for wind, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and
geothermal? If the Senate intends to consider reforms to biofuels
incentives, it should be in the context of a comprehensive review of
all energy tax incentives. This bill is meant to serve as a first step
in the process. This bill demonstrates a significant reduction in
biofuels incentives over the next 5 years. I challenge my colleagues to
find any other energy source that is contributing as much to our
economy and energy supply that is willing to step up and do that in the
current legislative debate.
Now is not the time to pull the rug out from under the only domestic
renewable energy source that is making significant contributions to our
energy supply. I thank my colleagues for their support, and I look
forward to a comprehensive discussion to advance sensible, responsible
energy tax policies.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Udall of New Mexico):
S. 885. A bill to amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century to reauthorize a provision relating to additional contract
authority for States with Indian reservations; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished
colleague Senator Udall of New Mexico to introduce the Indian School
Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2011. This bill continues an
important federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem
with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian
reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo
children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that
were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their
schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it
must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.
I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and
why
[[Page S2689]]
I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo
Nation is by far the nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering
25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three states:
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere
close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the state
of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 states are
smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,700 miles of
public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about 1/3 of these roads are
paved. The remaining 6,500 miles, 67 percent, are dirt roads. Every day
school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children
to and from school.
About 6,200 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA
roads, and about 3,300 miles are State and county roads. All public
roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including
BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian
Reservation Road System. However, only BIA and tribal roads are
eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, the
funding for road construction from the Federal Lands Highways Program
in SAFETEA is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the
states and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of
their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.
The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation
are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the
reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the
land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.
For example, in my State of New Mexico, \3/4\ of McKinley County is
either tribal or federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and
military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of
McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very
limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of
the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512
miles serve Indian land.
In San Juan County, Utah, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of
the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo
Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90
miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools,
two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.
The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, New Mexico,
and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, Arizona. In light of the
counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is
asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road
maintenance in this unique situation.
Families living in and around the reservation are no different from
families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same
opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education.
However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the
reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet,
muddy or snowy. If the school buses don't get through, the kids simply
cannot get to school.
These children are literally being left behind.
Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of
maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the
counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential
that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of-
a-kind situation.
In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began
providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo
reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to
and from their public schools. In 2005, the program was reauthorized in
SAFETEA through 2009, and now extended through 2011.
Under this program, $1.8 million is made available each year to be
shared equally among the three states. The funding is provided directly
to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the
Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be
used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the
reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and
that are used by school buses.
This program has been very successful. For 14 years, the counties
have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school
buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I have had
an opportunity to see firsthand the importance of this funding when I
rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using
funds from this program.
The bill we are introducing today provides a simple 6 year
reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2012 through 2017,
with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and
for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three states.
I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully
justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation, by far
the nation's largest, and the unique nature of this need that only the
Federal Government can deal with effectively.
I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school should
have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in
rural and remote areas, face enough hurdles to getting a good
education. I ask my colleagues to join me again this year in assuring
that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school
safely and get an education.
I look forward to working with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member
Inhofe of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Chairman
Baucus and Ranking Member Vitter of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee, to incorporate this legislation once again
into the next comprehensive 6 year reauthorization of surface
transportation programs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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. 885
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 ``Indian School Bus Route
Safety Reauthorization Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL CONTRACT AUTHORITY FOR
STATES WITH INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
Section 1214(d)(5)(A) of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 202 note; 112 Stat. 206; 119
Stat. 1460) is amended by striking ``$1,800,000 for each of
fiscal years 2005 through 2009'' and inserting ``$2,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2017''.
______
By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico:
S. 886. A bill to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 to
prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act. This legislation addresses an
issue affecting interstate commerce and an iconic American animal. I am
pleased to be working on this in a bipartisan manner with
Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky.
Although many recognize the horse as an iconic American animal,
particularly for the West, there are probably few who know how long
horseracing has been a part of our nation's history. My colleagues in
Kentucky, Maryland, and New York can boast of the Sport of Kings' long
tradition in their States. Yet the first recorded horserace in what is
now the United States took place in New Mexico. In 1541, the Spanish
explorer Coronado challenged one of his officers to a match race while
they were camped near Bernalillo.
The Spanish brought not only horses, but also horseracing to what is
now the United States. Decades before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth
Rock, Don Juan de Onate crossed into present day New Mexico with
Spanish colonists who were not just settlers but caballeros, or
``horse'' men. Native American petroglyphs record early encounters with
these new arrivals travelling on horseback. Horseracing became a
tradition in the Southwest as it later did in Eastern states.
That tradition continues today at racetracks in New Mexico and over
30 other States across the nation. With the Kentucky Derby this
Saturday,
[[Page S2690]]
many Americans will turn their attention to Churchill Downs for the
most exciting two minutes in sports. Some of the best of horseracing
will be on display. Away from the crowds, however, horseracing finds
itself facing an unattractive reality. Too many of its equine athletes
are overmedicated and doped. The Sport of Kings is no place for such a
drug problem.
American horseracing stands apart from the rest of the world when it
comes to permissive medication rules and tolerance of doping. Unlike
other countries that ban race day medications, racing jurisdictions
here allow injecting horses just hours before post time. There are
trainers who violate medication rules multiple times, seemingly with
impunity. According to a recent Racing Commissioners International,
RCI, letter, one trainer has been sanctioned at least 64 times for
various rule violations, including medication violations involving the
class 2 painkiller mepivacaine and the class 3 drug clenbuterol.
According to the New York Times, only two of the top 20 trainers, by
racing purses won, have never been cited for a medication violation.
This tolerance of doping represents a shameful abuse of an iconic
American animal, and it is time to put an end to it.
Anyone who goes to the track outside of a Triple Crown or Breeders'
Cup race knows that attendance is down across the country. The decline
is especially stark considering that horseracing was once the No. 1
spectator sport in the United States. One poll of sports industry
insiders found that most think horseracing is in decline or dying. With
the loss of fans, comes the loss of revenue that ultimately sustains a
$40 billion industry and 400,000 jobs nationwide, including 10,000 jobs
in my home State. As current fans leave the sport, many potential new
fans will probably never come to the track while doping is rampant.
Although a horse may need therapeutic medication from time to time,
there is no excuse for injecting almost all thoroughbreds hours before
they race. As RCI Chairman William Koester rightly noted, that just
does not pass the smell test with the public or anyone else. While
medicating sound horses on race day is concerning, the doping of sore
horses is appalling. Sore and lame horses should not be raced. Feeling
no pain, an injured horse on drugs may continue to charge down the
track, endangering every horse and jockey in the race. Drugs may
account for the fact that the U.S. horse fatality rate is more than
three times higher than in comparable British flat racing. Trainers or
anyone else caught doping racehorses should face stiff penalties,
including fines and meaningful suspensions.
This is a matter of concern to me as a senator from a state where
quarterhorse and thoroughbred racing is an important industry. But it
should be of concern to all my Senate colleagues since Congress granted
a special privilege to horseracing that no other U.S. gambling
enterprise enjoys: interstate and online wagering. The Interstate
Horseracing Act of 1978, IHA, allows off-track, or ``simulcast,''
wagering across state lines. Internet wagering on horseraces subject to
the IHA was granted a special exemption from the Unlawful Internet
Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, UIGEA. Given the benefits of the IHA,
the horse racing industry should not only protect the safety and
welfare of its animals and jockeys, but also ensure the integrity of
the sport.
I reluctantly believe that Congressional action is needed to address
this critical challenge facing the industry. Unlike other sports,
horseracing lacks a governing body that can issue uniform medication
rules and ban performance enhancing drugs. That is why recent calls
from the RCI and the Jockey Club to phase out race day medication are
not enough to save American horseracing. Despite repeated pledges from
the racing industry to address this issue, horseracing's drug problem
has festered for decades.
The legislation Representative Whitfield and I are introducing today
would amend the Interstate Horseracing Act to ban performance-enhancing
drugs and require stiff penalties for doping. Under the Interstate
Horseracing Improvement Act, anyone who knowingly provides or races a
horse on performance enhancing drugs faces minimum fines and
suspensions. The winner of each race plus one additional horse must be
tested for performance enhancing drugs. To ensure quality testing, the
bill requires that test labs are accredited to quality standards. This
legislation envisions that individual state racing commissions would
continue to enforce horseracing rules within their jurisdiction,
including the new anti-doping rules. However, the Federal Trade
Commission can also enforce the anti-doping rules if there is
inadequate enforcement. The new rules would apply only to those races
that are already governed by the IHA.
In addition to the animal welfare issues that doping creates, I know
how important drug reform is for those who make their living from the
sport. Passing this legislation will help bring integrity back to
racing, benefitting everyone involved and, most importantly, the health
and safety of the horses at the center of it all.
I urge my colleagues to support the Interstate Horseracing
Improvement Act.
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. 886
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 ``Interstate Horseracing
Improvement Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Congress enacted the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978
(15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) to regulate interstate commerce with
respect to parimutuel wagering on horseracing in order to
protect and further the horseracing industry of the United
States.
(2) The horseracing industry represents approximately
$40,000,000,000 to the United States economy annually and
generates nearly 400,000 domestic jobs.
(3) The use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing
adversely affects interstate commerce, creates unfair
competition, deceives horse buyers and the wagering public,
weakens the breed of the American Thoroughbred, is
detrimental to international sales of the American
Thoroughbred, and threatens the safety and welfare of horses
and jockeys.
(4) The use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing
is widespread in the United States, where no uniform
regulations exist with respect to the use of, and testing
for, performance-enhancing drugs in interstate horseracing.
(5) The use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing
is not permitted in most jurisdictions outside the United
States. In the internationally competitive sport of
horseracing, the United States stands alone in its permissive
use of performance-enhancing drugs.
(6) The use of performance-enhancing drugs is illegal in
the United States in every sport other than horseracing.
(7) To protect and further the horseracing industry of the
United States, it is necessary to prohibit the use of
performance-enhancing drugs in interstate horseracing.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS ON USE OF PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS.
(a) In General.--The Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15
U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 9 as section 11; and
(2) by inserting after section 8 the following:
``SEC. 9. PROHIBITIONS ON USE OF PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Accredited third party conformity assessment body.--
The term `accredited third party conformity assessment body'
means a testing laboratory that has an accreditation--
``(A) meeting International Organization for
Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission
standard 17025:2005 entitled `General Requirements for the
Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories' (or any
successor standard);
``(B) from an accreditation body that is a signatory to the
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual
Recognition Arrangement; and
``(C) that includes testing for performance-enhancing drugs
within the scope of the accreditation.
``(2) Performance-enhancing drug.--The term `performance-
enhancing drug'--
``(A) means any substance capable of affecting the
performance of a horse at any time by acting on the nervous
system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, digestive
system, urinary system, reproductive system, musculoskeletal
system, blood system, immune system (other than licensed
vaccines against infectious agents), or endocrine system of
the horse; and
``(B) includes the substances listed in the Alphabetized
Listing of Drugs in the January 2010 revision of the
Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc.,
publication entitled `Uniform Classification Guidelines for
Foreign Substances'.
[[Page S2691]]
``(b) Prohibition on Entering Horses Under the Influence of
Performance-enhancing Drugs in Races Subject to Interstate
Off-track Wagering.--A person may not--
``(1) enter a horse in a race that is subject to an
interstate off-track wager if the person knows the horse is
under the influence of a performance-enhancing drug; or
``(2) knowingly provide a horse with a performance-
enhancing drug if the horse, while under the influence of the
drug, will participate in a race that is subject to an
interstate off-track wager.
``(c) Regulations of the Host Racing Association Banning
Performance-enhancing Drugs.--A host racing association may
not conduct a horserace that is the subject of an interstate
off-track wager unless the host racing association has a
policy in place that--
``(1) bans any person from providing a horse with a
performance-enhancing drug if the horse will participate in
such a horserace while under the influence of the drug;
``(2) bans the racing of a horse that is under the
influence of a performance-enhancing drug;
``(3) requires, for each horserace that is the subject of
an interstate off-track wager, that an accredited third party
conformity assessment body test for any performance-enhancing
drug--
``(A) the first-place horse in the race; and
``(B) one additional horse, to be randomly selected from
the other horses participating in the race; and
``(4) requires the accredited third party conformity
assessment body performing tests described in paragraph (3)
to report any test results demonstrating that a horse may
participate, or may have participated, in a horserace that is
the subject of an interstate off-track wager while under the
influence of a performance-enhancing drug--
``(A) to the Federal Trade Commission; and
``(B) if the host racing commission has entered into an
agreement under subsection (e), to the host racing
commission.
``(d) Penalties.--
``(1) Civil penalties.--
``(A) In general.--A person that provides a horse with a
performance-enhancing drug or races a horse in violation of
subsection (b) shall be--
``(i) for the first such violation--
``(I) subject to a civil penalty of not less than $5,000;
and
``(II) suspended for a period of not less than 180 days
from all activities relating to any horserace that is the
subject of an interstate off-track wager;
``(ii) for the second such violation--
``(I) subject to a civil penalty of not less than $20,000;
and
``(II) suspended for a period of not less than 1 year from
all activities relating to any horserace that is the subject
of an interstate off-track wager; and
``(iii) for the third or subsequent such violation--
``(I) subject to a civil penalty of not less than $50,000;
and
``(II) permanently banned from all activities relating to
any horserace that is the subject of an interstate off-track
wager.
``(B) Horseracing activities.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), activities relating to a horserace that is the subject
of an interstate off-track wager include being physically
present at any race track at which any such horserace takes
place, placing a wager on any such horserace, and entering a
horse in any such horserace.
``(C) Payment of civil penalties.--A civil penalty imposed
under this paragraph shall be paid to the United States
without regard to whether the imposition of the penalty
results from the initiation of a civil action pursuant to
section 10.
``(2) Suspension of horses.--A horse that is provided with
a performance-enhancing drug or is raced in violation of
subsection (b) shall--
``(A) for the first such violation, be suspended for a
period of not less than 180 days from racing in any horserace
that is the subject of an interstate off-track wager;
``(B) for the second such violation, be suspended for a
period of not less than 1 year from racing in any horserace
that is the subject of an interstate off-track wager; and
``(C) for the third or subsequent such violation, be
suspended for a period of not less than 2 years from racing
in any horserace that is the subject of an interstate off-
track wager.
``(3) Violations in multiple states.--A person shall be
subject to a penalty described in clause (ii) or (iii) of
paragraph (1)(A), and a horse shall be subject to suspension
under subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2), for a second
or subsequent violation of subsection (b) without regard to
whether the prior violation and the second or subsequent
violation occurred in the same State.
``(e) Agreements for Enforcement by Host Racing
Commissions.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal Trade Commission may enter
into an agreement with a host racing commission under which
the host racing commission agrees to enforce the provisions
of this section with respect to horseraces that are the
subject of interstate off-track wagers in the host State.
``(2) Conditional availability of civil penalties to host
racing commissions.--If a host racing commission agrees to
enforce the provisions of this section pursuant to an
agreement under paragraph (1), any amounts received by the
United States as a result of a civil penalty imposed under
subsection (d)(1) with respect to a horserace that occurred
in the State in which the host racing commission operates
shall be available to the host racing commission, without
further appropriation and until expended, to cover the costs
incurred by the host racing commission in enforcing the
provisions of this section.
``(f) Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
enforce the provisions of this section--
``(A) with respect to horseraces that are the subject of
interstate off-track wagers that occur--
``(i) in any State in which the host racing commission does
not enter into an agreement under subsection (e); and
``(ii) in any State in which the host racing commission has
entered into an agreement under subsection (e) if the Federal
Trade Commission determines the host racing commission is not
adequately enforcing the provisions of this section; and
``(B) with respect to violations of subsection (b) by a
person, or with respect to a horse, in multiple States.
``(2) Unfair or deceptive act or practice; actions by
federal trade commission.--In cases in which the Federal
Trade Commission enforces the provisions of this section
pursuant to paragraph (1)--
``(A) a violation of a prohibition described in subsection
(b) or (c) shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining
an unfair or deceptive act or practice described under
section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)); and
``(B) except as provided in paragraph (3), the Federal
Trade Commission shall enforce the provisions of this section
in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same
jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable
terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made part of
this section.
``(3) Enforcement with respect to nonprofit
organizations.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), the Federal
Trade Commission shall have the authority to enforce the
provisions of this section pursuant to paragraph (1) with
respect to organizations that are described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that are
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
``(g) Rulemaking.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
prescribe such rules as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this section in accordance with the provisions
of section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
``(h) Effect on State Laws.--Nothing in this section
preempts a State from adopting or enforcing a law, policy, or
regulation prohibiting the use of performance-enhancing drugs
in horseracing to the extent that the law, policy, or
regulation imposes additional requirements or higher
penalties than are provided for under this section.
``SEC. 10. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS.
``Notwithstanding sections 6 and 7, in any case in which a
person has reason to believe that an interest of that person
is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of
another person in a practice that violates a provision of
section 9 or a rule prescribed under section 9, the person
may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of
the United States or other court of competent jurisdiction--
``(1) to enjoin the practice;
``(2) to enforce compliance with the provision or rule;
``(3) to enforce the penalties provided for under section
9(d);
``(4) to obtain damages or restitution, including court
costs and reasonable attorney and expert witness fees; and
``(5) to obtain such other relief as the court considers
appropriate.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and apply with respect to horseraces occurring on or after
that date.
____________________