[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.

                          ____________________