[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1459-1478]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 317. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland which is similar to the 
exclusion from gain on the sale of a principal residence, to the 
Committee on Finance.


             CAPITAL GAINS TAX FAIRNESS FOR FAMILY FARMERS

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today Senator Hagel of Nebraska and 
I rise to introduce a bill to correct a fundamental flaw and inequity 
in the tax code that we need to fix immediately. This legislation is 
identical to a bill that I authored in the last Congress.
  Too often, family farmers are not able to take full advantage of the 
$500,000 capital gains tax break that city folks get when they sell 
their homes. Today, this inequity is particularly onerous for thousands 
of family farmers who are being forced to sell their farms due to 
depressed commodity prices, crop disease and failed federal farm 
policies. Once family farmers have been beaten down and forced to sell 
the farm they've farmed for generations, they get a rude awakening. 
Many of them discover, as they leave the farm, that Uncle Sam is 
waiting for them at the end of the lane with a big tax bill.
  One of the most popular provisions included in the major tax bill in 
1997 permits families to exclude from federal income tax up to $500,000 
of gain from the sale of their principal residences. That's a good 
deal, especially for most urban and suburban dwellers who have spent 
many years paying for their houses, and who regard their houses as both 
a home and a retirement account. For many middle income families, their 
home is their major financial asset, an asset the family can draw on 
for retirement. House prices in major growth markets such as 
Washington, D.C., New York, or California may start at hundreds of 
thousands of dollars. As a result, the urban dwellers who have owned 
their homes through many years of appreciation can often benefit from a 
large portion of this new $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion. 
Unfortunately this provision, as currently applied, is virtually 
useless to family farmers.
  For farm families, their farm is their major financial asset. 
Unfortunately, family farmers under current law receive little or no 
benefit from the new $500,000 exclusion because the IRS separates the 
value of their homes from the value of the land the homes sit on. As 
people from my state of North Dakota know, houses out on the farmsteads 
of rural America are more commonly sold for $5,000 to $40,000. Most 
farmers plow any profits they make into the whole farm rather than into 
a house that will hold little or no value when the farm is

[[Page 1460]]

sold. It's not surprising that the IRS often judges that homes far out 
in the country have very little value and thus farmers receive much 
less benefit from this $500,000 exclusion than do their urban and 
suburban counterparts. As a result, the capital gains exclusion is 
little or no help to farmers who are being forced out of business. They 
may immediately face a hefty capital gains tax bill from the IRS.
  This is simply wrong, Mr. President. It is unfair. Federal farm 
policy helped create the hole that many of these farmers find 
themselves in. Federal tax policy shouldn't dig the hole deeper as they 
attempt to shovel their way out.
  The Dorgan-Hagel bill recognizes the unique character and role of our 
family farmers and their important contributions to our economy. It 
expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of principal 
residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or 
surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively engaged in farming 
prior to the sales. In this way, farmers may get some benefit from a 
tax break that would otherwise be unavailable to them.
  Our bill is not a substitute for larger policy reforms that are 
needed to restore the economic health of our farm communities. This tax 
relief measure is just one of a number of policy initiatives we can use 
to ease the pain for family farmers as we pursue other initiatives to 
help turn around the crippled farm economy.
  Specifically, the Dorgan-Hagel bill would expand the $500,000 tax 
exclusion for principle residences to cover the entire farm. This 
provision will allow a family or individual who has actively engaged in 
farming prior to the farm sale to exclude the gain from the sale up to 
the $500,000 maximum.
  What does this relief mean to the thousands of farmers who are being 
forced to sell off the farm due to current economic conditions?
  Take, for example, a farmer who is forced to leave today because of 
crop disease and slumping grain prices and sells his farmstead that his 
family has operated for decades. If he must report a gain of $10,000 on 
the sale of farm house, that is all he can exclude under current law. 
But if, for example, he sold 1000 acres surrounding the farm house for 
$400,000, and the capital gain was $200,000, he would be subject to 
$40,000 tax on that gain. Again, our provision excludes from tax the 
gain on the farmhouse and land up to the $500,000 maximum that is 
otherwise available to a family on the sale of its residence.
  We must wage, on every federal and state policy front, the battle to 
stem the loss of family farmers. Reforming tax provisions has grown 
increasingly important as a tool in helping our farm families deal with 
drought, floods, crop disease and price swings.
  We believe that Congress should move quickly to pass this legislation 
and other meaningful measures to get working capital into the hands of 
our family farmers in the Great Plains and all across the nation. Let's 
stop penalizing farmers who are forced out of agriculture. Let's allow 
farmers to benefit from the same kind of tax exclusion that most 
homeowners already receive. This is the right thing to do. And it's the 
fair thing to do.
 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Dorgan to 
introduce tax legislation that will help our family farmers cope with 
the economic crisis now affecting them.
  Our tax code is full of provisions that are unfair and punitive. We 
need to overhaul our tax code to make it flatter, fairer and simpler. 
However, until the present tax code is overhauled, it is important that 
we fix specific provisions of the tax code to ensure that all taxpayers 
are treated fairly and equally.
  In the 105th Congress we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This 
legislation included capital gains tax and federal estate tax relief. 
It was a good first step, but we can't stop there. We have much more to 
do. We need more capital gains tax relief, and I will keep pushing for 
more cuts and the eventual elimination of the tax. The federal estate 
tax also needs to be abolished. The estate tax is a leading cause for 
the break-up of family-run businesses, including farming, and I will 
continue to work for its elimination. Additionally, we need to provide 
all American taxpayers with an across-the-board tax cut.
  We gave most Americans serious capital gains tax relief in 1997, but 
we neglected the family farmer. We now have the opportunity and 
obligation to correct this omission. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 
created a $500,000 exclusion for homeowners on the sale of a principal 
residence, but this does not adequately address the needs of family 
farmers. Most farmers put whatever profit they earn from their hard 
work back into the land, not their home. As a result, the $500,000 
exclusion for the sale of a principal residence does not provide the 
same level of relief to the family farmer as it does for the vast 
majority of others. So, when family farmers are forced to sell their 
farms due to economic downturns, not only are they out of the farming 
business, but the federal government is waiting to take a large portion 
in taxes on the sale of their home and farmland.
  The legislation that Senator Dorgan and I are introducing would help 
ease the financial burden associated with selling the farm. It would 
allow the family farmer to take advantage of capital gains tax relief. 
It expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of 
principal residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses 
and/or surrounding farmlands.
  This legislation is not a cure-all solution to the many problems now 
affecting our family farmers and ranchers. However, it will help. There 
are many other things that can be done including more tax relief in the 
areas of the estate tax and capital gains tax. We need to continue to 
open new markets for our commodities and knock down unilateral economic 
sanctions that are unfairly punishing our farmers. The future of U.S. 
agriculture lies in export expansion and trade reform. This tax 
legislation starts the process, but we must continue to push forward to 
help our family farmers and ranchers.
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 318. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
facilitate the immigration to the United States of certain aliens born 
in the Philippines or Japan who were fathered by United States 
citizens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            THE AMERASIAN IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT OF 1999

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce 
legislation which amends Public Law 97-359, the Amerasian Immigration 
Act, to include American children from the Philippines and Japan as 
eligible applicants. This legislation also expands the eligibility 
period for the Philippines to November 24, 1992, the date of the last 
United States military base closure and the date of enactment of the 
proposed legislation for Japan.
  Under the Amerasian Immigration Act (Public Law 97-359) children born 
in Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam after December 31, 
1950, and before October 22, 1982, who were fathered by United States 
citizens, are allowed to immigrate to the United States. The initial 
legislation introduced in the 97th Congress included Amerasians born in 
the Philippines and Japan with no time limits on their births. The 
final version enacted by the Congress included only those areas where 
the U.S. had engaged in active military combat from the Korean War 
onward. Consequently, Amerasians from the Philippines and Japan were 
excluded from eligibility.
  Although the Philippines and Japan were not considered war zones from 
1950 to 1982, the extent and nature of U.S. military involvement in 
both countries are not dissimilar to U.S. military involvement in other 
Asian countries during the Korean and Viet- nam conflicts. The role of 
the Philippines and Japan as vital supply and stationing bases brought 
tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel to these countries. As a 
result, interracial relations in both countries were common, leading to 
a significant number of Amerasian children being fathered by U.S. 
citizens. There are now more than 50,000 Amerasian children in the 
Philippines. According to the Embassy of

[[Page 1461]]

Japan, there are 6,000 Amerasian children in Japan born between 1987 
and 1992.
  Public Law 97-359 was enacted in the hope of redressing the situation 
of Amerasian children in Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam 
who, due to their illegitimate or mixed ethnic make-up, their lack of a 
father or stable mother figure, or impoverished state, have little hope 
of escaping their plight. It became the ethical and social obligation 
of the United States to care for these children.
  The stigmatization and ostracism felt by Amerasian children in those 
countries covered by the Amerasian Immigration Act also is felt by 
Amerasian children in the Philippines and Japan. These children of 
American citizens deserve the same viable opportunities of employment, 
education and family life that are afforded their counterparts from 
Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 318

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     section 204(f)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1154(f)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``born''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``subsection,'' the following ``(II) 
     in the Philippines after 1950 and before November 24, 1992, 
     or (III) in Japan after 1950 and before the date of enactment 
     of this subclause,''.
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 319. A bill to provide for childproof handguns, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       the childproof handgun act

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation 
that will help prevent the tragedies that occur when children gain 
access to firearms.
  Each year, there are 10,000 injuries and deaths due to the accidental 
discharge or unauthorized use of a firearm. Many of these incidents 
involve children who have gained access to improperly stored guns.
  Recently, a family in my home state of New Jersey suffered this type 
of tragedy. Akeen Williams, a 4-year-old boy from Lawnside, was 
visiting a relative with his 5-year-old sister, Gabrielle, and their 6-
year-old brother, Phillip. Eventually, the children were put in a 
bedroom for an afternoon nap. But they found a gun stored in the room, 
and Akeen and Gabrielle began playing with it. The gun accidentally 
discharged, and Akeen was hit in the face by the ricocheting bullet.
  Across the nation, similar stories have become all too common. 
Families in Jonesboro, Paducah, Pearl, Edinboro, and Springfield are 
still struggling to deal with the horrific shootings in their 
communities. We must find new ways to stop gun violence.
  In many other areas the federal government has taken steps to protect 
consumer safety: cars are now sold with seat belts and airbags; drug 
containers have childproof caps; and lawn mowers have guards and 
automatic braking devices. It is hard to understand how anyone can 
oppose similar safety measures for deadly weapons. The time has come to 
hold firearm manufacturers to a higher standard of safety.
  The bill I am introducing today will help prevent children from being 
killed or injured in firearm tragedies. My bill would require that all 
handguns be engineered so that they can only be fired by an authorized 
user. To give manufacturers time to comply, this requirement would not 
go into effect until 3 years after the bill is enacted. Additionally, 
to spur additional innovation and help lower the cost of the new 
handgun designs, my bill would also authorize the National Institute of 
Justice to provide grants for improvements in firearms safety. In order 
to prevent the unauthorized use of handguns and better protect children 
in the 3-year period before this regulation goes into effect, my bill 
would also require that, 90 days after enactment, all handguns be sold 
with a locking device and a warning concerning responsible firearm 
storage.
  Despite what some members of the gun lobby may say, the technology to 
make handguns childproof exists today. Since 1976, more than 30 patents 
have been granted for various technologies that will prevent a handgun 
from being fired by anyone except the authorized user. For example, the 
SafTLok company in Florida manufactures a push-button combination lock 
that is incorporated into the grip of a handgun. If the buttons are not 
pushed in the proper sequence, the gun will not fire. These locks sell 
for $80 each, and the Boston police department recently announced that 
these locks will be standard equipment for its officers.
  Similarly, the Fulton Arms Company in Texas has developed a revolver 
that cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a magnetic ring. And 
Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut has designed a prototype handgun that 
emits a radio signal and cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a 
small transponder that returns a coded radio signal.
  In addition to making children safer, these technologies will also 
help law enforcement. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
shows that about 16 percent of the officers killed in the line of duty, 
as many as 19 in a single year, are killed by a suspect armed with 
either the officer's firearm or that of another officer. Because of the 
potential to stop these ``take away'' shootings, the National Institute 
of Justice has funded studies of these technologies and supported 
development of the Colt prototype. However, in order to ensure that the 
police have the weapons they need to protect the public, law 
enforcement entities are exempt from the requirements in the bill.
  None of the provisions in this legislation will burden the vast 
majority of firearm owners who are already storing their handguns 
safely and securely. Of course, Congress cannot legislate 
responsibility. But we can and should take steps to lessen the 
likelihood that guns will fall into the wrong hands and be used 
improperly.
  I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this measure and help 
make homes, school, and communities safer for our children.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 319

       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 ``Childproof Handgun Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. HANDGUN SAFETY.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35)(A) The term `childproof' means, with respect to a 
     firearm that is a handgun, a handgun that incorporates within 
     its design and as part of its original manufacture technology 
     that--
       ``(i) automatically limits the operational use of the 
     handgun;
       ``(ii) is not capable of being readily deactivated; and
       ``(iii) ensures that the handgun may only be fired by an 
     authorized or recognized user.
       ``(B) The technology referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     includes--
       ``(i) radio tagging;
       ``(ii) touch memory;
       ``(iii) remote control;
       ``(iv) fingerprint;
       ``(v) magnetic encoding; and
       ``(vi) other automatic user identification systems that 
     utilize biometrics, mechanical, or electronic systems.
       ``(36) The term `locking device' means--
       ``(A) a device that, if installed on a firearm and secured 
     by means of a key or a mechanically, electronically, or 
     electromechanically operated combination lock, prevents the 
     firearm from being discharged without first deactivating or 
     removing the device by means of a key or mechanically, 
     electronically, or electromechanically operated combination 
     lock; or
       ``(B) a locking mechanism incorporated into the design of a 
     firearm that prevents discharge of the firearm by any person 
     who does not have access to the key or other device designed 
     to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the 
     firearm.''.
       (b) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the 
     following:
       ``(z) Childproof Handguns.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     beginning 3 years after the

[[Page 1462]]

     date of enactment of the Childproof Handgun Act of 1999, it 
     shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed 
     importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer 
     any handgun to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the handgun is 
     childproof.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the--
       ``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the 
     United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-
     duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State, 
     of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or 
     off-duty).''.
       ``(aa) Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Childproof Handgun Act of 1999, it shall be unlawful for any 
     licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer 
     to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun--
       ``(A) to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a locking device for that handgun; or
       ``(B) to any person, unless the handgun is accompanied by 
     the following warning, which shall appear in conspicuous and 
     legible type in capital letters, and which shall be printed 
     on a label affixed to the gun and on a separate sheet of 
     paper included within the packaging enclosing the handgun:

     `` `THE USE OF A LOCKING DEVICE OR SAFETY LOCK IS ONLY ONE 
     ASPECT OF RESPONSIBLE FIREARM STORAGE. FIREARMS SHOULD BE 
     STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION THAT IS BOTH 
     SEPARATE FROM THEIR AMMUNITION AND INACCESSIBLE TO CHILDREN.

     `FAILURE TO PROPERLY LOCK AND STORE YOUR FIREARM MAY RESULT 
     IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW. IN ADDITION, 
     FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR 
     IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.'
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the--
       ``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the 
     United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-
     duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State, 
     of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or 
     off-duty).''.
       (c) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f) or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Failure To Provide for 
     Childproof Handguns or Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of section 922(z)(1) or subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     section 922(aa)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary may, after 
     notice and opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee 
     under this chapter; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $10,000.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO IMPROVE GUN SAFETY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Grants.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, 
     the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Director''), shall make grants under this section for 
     the purpose specified in paragraph (2) to applicants that 
     submit an application that meets requirements that the 
     Attorney General, acting through the Director, shall 
     establish.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of a grant under this section 
     shall be to reduce violence caused by firearms through the 
     improvement of firearm safety technology, weapon detection 
     technology, or other technology.
       (3) Consultation.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General, acting through the Director, shall consult 
     with appropriate employees of the National Institute of 
     Justice with expertise in firearms and weapons technology.
       (b) Period of Grant.--A grant under this section shall be 
     for a period of not to exceed 3 years.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Justice to carry out 
     this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 320. A bill to amend the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 to clarify 
the acreage limitations and incorporate a means test for certain farm 
operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                irrigation subsidy reduction act of 1999

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing a measure that I 
sponsored in the 105th Congress to reduce the amount of federal 
irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. I 
believe that reforming federal water pricing policy by reducing 
subsidies is an important area to examine as a means to achieve our 
broader objectives of achieving a truly balanced budget. This 
legislation is also needed to curb fundamental abuses of reclamation 
law that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars every year.
  In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which 
came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage 
development of family farms throughout the western United States. The 
idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and 
give small farms--those no larger than 160 acres--a chance, with a 
helping hand from the federal government, to establish themselves. 
According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage 
of the Reclamation Act, the federal government has spent $21.8 billion 
to construct 133 water projects in the west which provide water for 
irrigation. Irrigators, and other project beneficiaries, are required 
under the law to repay to the federal government their allocated share 
of the costs of constructing these projects.
  However, as a result of the subsidized financing provided by the 
federal government, some of the beneficiaries of federal water projects 
repay considerably less than their full share of these costs. According 
to the 1996 GAO report, irrigators generally receive the largest amount 
of federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of the irrigation 
program in 1902, construction costs associated with irrigation have 
been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in reviewing the 
Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9 billion, or 78 
percent, of the $21.8 billion of federal investment in water projects 
is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable costs, the 
largest share--$7.1 billion--is allocated to irrigators. As of 
September 30, 1994 irrigators have repaid only $941 million of the $7.1 
billion they owe. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will 
likely shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by irrigators to other users 
of the water projects for repayment.
  There are several reasons why irrigators continue to receive such 
significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 
Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive 
subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly 
prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally-
subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the Reclamation law 
to close loopholes through which federal subsidies were flowing to 
large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that 
Reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were 
expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of 
their 960 acre entitlement. Despite the express mandate of Congress, 
regulations promulgated under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have 
failed to keep big agricultural water users from receiving federal 
subsidies. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of 
the Department of the

[[Page 1463]]

Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law 
are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming 
trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage well exceed the 960 acre 
limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the 
reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single 
management agreement often through a combination of leasing and 
ownership.
  In a 1989 GAO report, the activities of six agribusiness trusts were 
fully explored. According to GAO, one 12,345 acre cotton farm (roughly 
20 square miles), operating under a single partnership, was reorganized 
to avoid the 960 acre limitation into 15 separate land holdings through 
18 partnerships, 24 corporations, and 11 trusts which were all operated 
as one large unit. A seventh trust very large trust was the sole topic 
of a 1990 GAO report. The Westhaven trust is a 23,238 acre farming 
operation in California's Central Valley. It was formed for the benefit 
of 326 salaried employees of the J.G. Boswell Company. Boswell, GAO 
found, had taken advantage of section 214 of the RRA, which exempts 
from its 960 acre limit land held for beneficiaries by a trustee in a 
fiduciary capacity, as long as no single beneficiary's interest exceeds 
the law's ownership limits. The RRA, as I have mentioned, does not 
preclude multiple land holdings from being operated collectively under 
a trust as one farm while qualifying individually for federally 
subsidized water. Accordingly, the J.G. Boswell Company re-organized 
23,238 acres it held as the Boston Ranch by selling them to the 
Westhaven Trust, with the land holdings attributed to each beneficiary 
being eligible to receive federally subsidized water.
  Before the land was sold to Westhaven Trust, the J.G. Boswell Company 
operated the acreage as one large farm and paid full cost for the 
federal irrigation water delivered for the 18-month period ending in 
May 1989. When the trust bought the land, due to the loopholes in the 
law, the entire acreage became eligible to receive federally subsidized 
water because the land holdings attributed to the 326 trust 
beneficiaries range from 21 acres to 547 acres--all well under the 960 
acre limit.
  In the six cases the GAO reviewed in 1989, owners or lessees paid a 
total of about $1.3 million less in 1987 for federal water then they 
would have paid if their collective land holdings were considered as 
large farms subject to the Reclamation Act acreage limits. Had 
Westhaven trust been required to pay full cost, GAO estimated in 1990, 
it would have paid $2 million more for its water. The GAO also found, 
in all seven of these cases, that reduced revenues are likely to 
continue unless Congress amends the Reclamation Act to close the 
loopholes allowing benefits for trusts.
  The Department of the Interior has acknowledged that these problems 
do exist. Interior published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register on November 18, 1998. The proposed rulemaking requires farm 
operators who provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres 
westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of 
trusts and legal entities to submit RRA forms to the district(s) where 
such land is located. If the rule is finalized, the districts will be 
required to provide specific information about declaring farm operators 
to Interior annually. This information will be an important step toward 
enforcing the legislation that I am reintroducing today.
  This legislation combines various elements of proposals introduced by 
other members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation 
and to impose a $500,000 means test. This new approach limits the 
amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in 
excess of the 960 acre limit which claimed $500,000 or more in gross 
income, as reported on their most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000 
threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would be used to determine how 
much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost 
rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre 
operation earned $1 million dollars, a ratio of $500,000 (the means 
test value) divided by their gross income would determine the full cost 
rate, thus the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their 
acreage and the below cost rate on the remaining half.
  This means testing proposal is featured, for the fourth year in a 
row, in this year's 1999 Green Scissors report which is being released 
today. This report is compiled by Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers 
for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental, consumer 
and taxpayer groups. I am pleased to join with the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) in distributing a copy of this report to all 
members of the Senate. The premise of the report is that there are a 
number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce the 
deficit and benefit the environment. This report underscores what I and 
many others in the Senate have long known: we must eliminate practices 
that can no longer be justified in light of our effort to achieve a 
truly balanced budget and eliminate our national debt. The Green 
Scissors recommendation on means testing water subsidies indicates that 
if a test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest 
grossing 10% of farms, then the federal government would recover 
between $440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2 
billion over five years.
  When countless federal programs are subjected to various types of 
means tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it 
makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip 
into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive. 
Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard 
earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate 
interests in select regions of the country who benefit from these 
loopholes, particularly in tight budgetary times. Other users of 
federal water projects, such as the power recipients, should also be 
concerned when they learn that they will be expected to pick up the tab 
for a portion of the funds that irrigators were supposed to pay back. 
The federal water program was simply never intended to benefit these 
large interests, and I am hopeful that legislative efforts, such as the 
measure I am introducing today, will prompt Congress to fully 
reevaluate our federal water pricing policy.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, it is clear that the conflicting 
policies of the federal government in this area are in need of reform, 
and that Congress should act. Large agribusinesses should not be able 
to continue to soak the taxpayers, and should pay their fair share. We 
should act to close these loopholes and increase the return to the 
treasury from irrigators as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent 
that the text of the measure be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 320

       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 ``Irrigation Subsidy Reduction 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal reclamation program has been in existence 
     for over 90 years, with an estimated taxpayer investment of 
     over $70,000,000,000;
       (2) the program has had and continues to have an enormous 
     effect on the water resources and aquatic environments of the 
     western States;
       (3) irrigation water made available from Federal water 
     projects in the West is a very valuable resource for which 
     there are increasing and competing demands;
       (4) the justification for providing water at less than full 
     cost was to benefit and promote the development of small 
     family farms and exclude large corporate farms, but this 
     purpose has been frustrated over the years due to inadequate 
     implementation of subsidy and acreage limits;
       (5) below-cost water prices tend to encourage excessive use 
     of scarce water supplies in the arid regions of the West, and 
     reasonable price increases to the wealthiest western farmers 
     would provide an economic incentive for greater water 
     conservation;
       (6) the Federal Government has increasingly applied 
     eligibility tests based on income for Federal entitlement and 
     subsidy

[[Page 1464]]

     programs, measures that are consistent with the historic 
     approach of the reclamation program's acreage limitations 
     that seek to limit water subsidies to smaller farms; and
       (7) including a means test based on gross income in the 
     reclamation program will increase the effectiveness of 
     carrying out the family farm goals of the Federal reclamation 
     laws.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 202 of the Reclamation Reform Act 
     of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390bb) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (8), (9), (10), and 
     (11) as paragraphs (9), (10), (11), (12), and (13), 
     respectively;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``owned or operated under 
     a lease which'' and inserting ``that is owned, leased, or 
     operated by an individual or legal entity and that'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Legal entity.--The term `legal entity' includes a 
     corporation, association, partnership, trust, joint tenancy, 
     or tenancy in common, or any other entity that owns, leases, 
     or operates a farm operation for the benefit of more than 1 
     individual under any form of agreement or arrangement.
       ``(8) Operator.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `operator'--
       ``(i) means an individual or legal entity that operates a 
     single farm operation on a parcel (or parcel) of land that is 
     owned or leased by another person (or persons) under any form 
     of agreement or arrangement (or agreements or arrangements); 
     and
       ``(ii) if the individual or legal entity--

       ``(I) is an employee of an individual or legal entity, 
     includes the individual or legal entity; or
       ``(II) is a legal entity that controls, is controlled by, 
     or is under common control with another legal entity, 
     includes each such other legal entity.

       ``(B) Operation of a farm operation.--For the purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), an individual or legal entity shall be 
     considered to operate a farm operation if the individual or 
     legal entity is the person that performs the greatest 
     proportion of the decisionmaking for and supervision of the 
     agricultural enterprise on land served with irrigation 
     water.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Single farm operation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `single farm operation' means 
     the total acreage of land served with irrigation water for 
     which an individual or legal entity is the operator.
       ``(B) Rules for determining whether separate parcels are 
     operated as a single farm operation.--
       ``(i) Equipment- and labor-sharing activities.--The conduct 
     of equipment- and labor-sharing activities on separate 
     parcels of land by separate individuals or legal entities 
     shall not by itself serve as a basis for concluding that the 
     farming operations of the individuals or legal entities 
     constitute a single farm operation.
       ``(ii) Performance of certain services.--The performance by 
     an individual or legal entity of an agricultural chemical 
     application, pruning, or harvesting for a farm operation on a 
     parcel of land shall not by itself serve as a basis for 
     concluding that the farm operation on that parcel of land is 
     part of a single farm operation operated by the individual or 
     entity on other parcels of land.''.
       (b) Identification of Owners, Lessees, and Operators and of 
     Single Farm Operations.--The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 
     (43 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 201 the following:

     ``SEC. 201A. IDENTIFICATION OF OWNERS, LESSEES, AND OPERATORS 
                   AND OF SINGLE FARM OPERATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), for each 
     parcel of land to which irrigation water is delivered or 
     proposed to be delivered, the Secretary shall identify a 
     single individual or legal entity as the owner, lessee, or 
     operator.
       ``(b) Shared Decisionmaking and Supervision.--If the 
     Secretary determines that no single individual or legal 
     entity is the owner, lessee, or other individual that 
     performs the greatest proportion of decisionmaking for and 
     supervision of the agricultural enterprise on a parcel of 
     land--
       ``(1) all individuals and legal entities that own, lease, 
     or perform a proportion of decisionmaking and supervision 
     that is equal as among themselves but greater than the 
     proportion performed by any other individual or legal entity 
     shall be considered jointly to be the owner, lessee, or 
     operator; and
       ``(2) all parcels of land of which any such individual or 
     legal entity is the owner, lessee, or operator shall be 
     considered to be part of the single farm operation of the 
     owner, lessee, or operator identified under subsection (1).
       (c) Pricing.--Section 205 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 
     1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ee) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Single Farm Operations Generating More Than $500,000 
     in Gross Farm Income.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), 
     and (c), in the case of--
       ``(A) a qualified recipient that reports gross farm income 
     from a single farm operation in excess of $500,000 for a 
     taxable year; or
       ``(B) a limited recipient that received irrigation water on 
     or before October 1, 1981, and that reports gross farm income 
     from a single farm operation in excess of $500,000 for a 
     taxable year;

     irrigation water may be delivered to the single farm 
     operation of the qualified recipient or limited recipient at 
     less than full cost to a number of acres that does not exceed 
     the number of acres determined under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Maximum number of acres to which irrigation water may 
     be delivered at less than full cost.--The number of acres 
     determined under this subparagraph is the number equal to the 
     number of acres of the single farm operation multiplied by a 
     fraction, the numerator of which is $500,000 and the 
     denominator of which is the amount of gross farm income 
     reported by the qualified recipient or limited recipient in 
     the most recent taxable year.
       ``(3) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The $500,000 amount under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) for any taxable year beginning in a calendar year 
     after 1998 shall be equal to the product of--
       ``(i) $500,000, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the inflation adjustment factor for the taxable 
     year.
       ``(B) Inflation adjustment factor.--The term `inflation 
     adjustment factor' means, with respect to any calendar year, 
     a fraction the numerator of which is the GDP implicit price 
     deflator for the preceding calendar year and the denominator 
     of which is the GDP implicit price deflator for 1998. Not 
     later than April 1 of any calendar year, the Secretary shall 
     publish the inflation adjustment factor for the preceding 
     calendar year.
       ``(C) GDP implicit price deflator.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (B), the term `GDP implicit price deflator' 
     means the first revision of the implicit price deflator for 
     the gross domestic product as computed and published by the 
     Secretary of Commerce.
       ``(D) Rounding.--If any increase determined under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $100, the increase 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $100.''.
       (d) Certification of Compliance.--Section 206 of the 
     Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ff) is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 206. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--As a condition to the receipt of 
     irrigation water for land in a district that has a contract 
     described in section 203, each owner, lessee, or operator in 
     the district shall furnish the district, in a form prescribed 
     by the Secretary, a certificate that the owner, lessee, or 
     operator is in compliance with this title, including a 
     statement of the number of acres owned, leased, or operated, 
     the terms of any lease or agreement pertaining to the 
     operation of a farm operation, and, in the case of a lessee 
     or operator, a certification that the rent or other fees paid 
     reflect the reasonable value of the irrigation water to the 
     productivity of the land.
       ``(b) Documentation.--The Secretary may require a lessee or 
     operator to submit for the Secretary's examination--
       ``(1) a complete copy of any lease or other agreement 
     executed by each of the parties to the lease or other 
     agreement; and
       ``(2) a copy of the return of income tax imposed by chapter 
     1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year 
     in which the single farm operation of the lessee or operator 
     received irrigation water at less than full cost.''.
       (e) Trusts.--Section 214 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 
     1982 (43 U.S.C. 390nn) is repealed.
       (f) Administrative Provisions.--
       (1) Penalties.--Section 224(c) of the Reclamation Reform 
     Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ww(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(c) The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Regulations; Data Collection; Penalties.--
       ``(1) Regulations; data collection.--The Secretary''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Penalties.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall establish appropriate and effective 
     penalties for failure to comply with any provision of this 
     Act or any regulation issued under this Act.''.
       (2) Interest.--Section 224(i) of the Reclamation Reform Act 
     of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390ww(i)) is amended by striking the last 
     sentence and inserting the following: ``The interest rate 
     applicable to underpayments shall be equal to the rate 
     applicable to expenditures under section 202(3)(C).''.
       (g) Reporting.--Section 228 of the Reclamation Reform Act 
     of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390zz) is amended by inserting ``operator 
     or'' before ``contracting entity'' each place it appears.
       (h) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Reclamation Reform 
     Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390aa et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 229 and 230 as sections 230 
     and 231; and
       (2) by inserting after section 228 the following:

     ``SEC. 229. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

       ``The Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into a memorandum of 
     understanding or other appropriate instrument to permit the 
     Secretary, notwithstanding section 6103 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, to have access to and use of available

[[Page 1465]]

     information collected or maintained by the Department of the 
     Treasury and the Department of Agriculture that would aid 
     enforcement of the ownership and pricing limitations of 
     Federal reclamation law.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 321. A bill to streamline, modernize, and enhance the authority of 
the Secretary of Agriculture relating to plant protection and 
quarantine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                    THE PLANT PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Plant Protection Act of 1999''--a comprehensive bill which will focus 
the effort of federal agencies in fighting noxious weeds and other 
plant pests.
  Noxious weeds are a serious problem on both public and private lands 
across the nation. They are particularly troublesome in the West where 
much of our land is entrusted to the management of the federal 
government. A ``slow burning wildfire,'' noxious weeds take land out of 
production, force native species off the land, and interrupt the 
commerce and activities of all those who rely on the land for their 
livelihoods--including farmers, ranchers, recreationists, and others.
  The bill I introduce today will focus the efforts of the federal 
government to better fight this wildfire. It organizes and expands the 
functions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and 
appoints it as the lead government agency in this fight.
  The bill was drafted with the assistance and advice of APHIS as well 
as several national agriculture organizations such as the American 
Nursery and Landscape Association, National Association of State 
Departments of Agriculture, National Christmas Tree Association, 
National Potato Council, and American Farm Bureau Federation. The Idaho 
Department of Agriculture and many concerned citizens from my state 
have also helped me shape the bill I introduce today.
  Similar legislation will be introduced in the House of 
Representatives some time next month by Representative Canady of 
Florida. The two bills have only one difference. The bill I introduce 
today lacks the section on federal preemption included in Mr. Canady's 
legislation. This is an issue that will have to be addressed during the 
legislative process. I will admit that APHIS will not endorse the 
legislation without the preemption section. However, I am confident 
that, working together with all of those interested in fighting noxious 
weeds at the federal and state levels, we can resolve this matter in a 
way we might all agree to.
  Working together is what this entire effort is about. Along that same 
vein, I know of several Senators with an interest in this issue, 
including Senator Akaka who introduced legislation on this matter 
earlier this month, and I hope we can work together in finding a 
solution we can all support. In addition, I might mention that it is my 
understanding that the President and the Secretary of the Interior have 
expressed interest in noxious weeds and may be planning their own 
announcement. I invite them--indeed, I invite everyone interested in 
this matter--to work with me to find an approach which confronts this 
problem head on.
  Mr. President, I believe we must focus our efforts to rid our lands 
of these noxious weeds and plant pests. We must reclaim the rangeland 
for natural species. We must return the acres of lost farmland to 
production. Doing so will require the combined efforts of the federal 
government, state governments, local weed control boards, and private 
land owners.
  I believe the ``Plant Protection Act of 1999'' is the first step in 
this process.
  Mr. President, I ask unaminous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 321

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Plant 
     Protection Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                       TITLE I--PLANT PROTECTION

Sec. 101. Regulation of movement of plant pests.
Sec. 102. Regulation of movement of plants, plant products, biological 
              control organisms, noxious weeds, articles, and means of 
              conveyance.
Sec. 103. Notification and holding requirements on arrival.
Sec. 104. General remedial measures for new plant pests and noxious 
              weeds.
Sec. 105. Extraordinary emergencies.
Sec. 106. Recovery of compensation for unauthorized activities.
Sec. 107. Control of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets.
Sec. 108. Certification for exports.

                  TITLE II--INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 201. Inspections, seizures, and warrants.
Sec. 202. Collection of information.
Sec. 203. Subpoena authority.
Sec. 204. Penalties for violation.
Sec. 205. Enforcement actions of Attorney General.
Sec. 206. Court jurisdiction.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Cooperation.
Sec. 302. Buildings, land, people, claims, and agreements.
Sec. 303. Reimbursable agreements.
Sec. 304. Protection for mail carriers.
Sec. 305. Regulations and orders.
Sec. 306. Repeal of superseded laws.

               TITLE IV--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 402. Transfer authority.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the detection, control, eradication, suppression, 
     prevention, and retardation of the spread of plant pests and 
     noxious weeds is necessary for the protection of the 
     agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States;
       (2) biological control--
       (A) is often a desirable, low-risk means of ridding crops 
     and other plants of plant pests and noxious weeds; and
       (B) should be facilitated by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     Federal agencies, and States, whenever feasible;
       (3) the smooth movement of enterable plants, plant 
     products, certain biological control organisms, or other 
     articles into, out of, or within the United States is vital 
     to the economy of the United States and should be facilitated 
     to the extent practicable;
       (4) markets could be severely impacted by the introduction 
     or spread of plant pests or noxious weeds into or within the 
     United States;
       (5) the unregulated movement of plants, plant products, 
     biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, and 
     articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds 
     would present an unacceptable risk of introducing or 
     spreading plant pests or noxious weeds;
       (6) the existence on any premises in the United States of a 
     plant pest or noxious weed new to or not known to be widely 
     prevalent in or distributed within and throughout the United 
     States could threaten crops, other plants, and plant products 
     of the United States and burden interstate commerce or 
     foreign commerce; and
       (7) all plants, plant products, biological control 
     organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or articles capable of 
     harboring plant pests or noxious weeds regulated under this 
     Act are in or affect interstate commerce or foreign commerce.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Article.--The term ``article'' means a material or 
     tangible object that could harbor a pest, disease, or noxious 
     weed.
       (2) Biological control organism.--The term ``biological 
     control organism'' means an enemy, antagonist, or competitor 
     organism used to control a plant pest or noxious weed.
       (3) Enter.--The term ``enter'' means to move into the 
     commerce of the United States.
       (4) Entry.--The term ``entry'' means the act of movement 
     into the commerce of the United States.
       (5) Export.--The term ``export'' means to move from the 
     United States to any place outside the United States.
       (6) Exportation.--The term ``exportation'' means the act of 
     movement from the United States to any place outside the 
     United States.
       (7) Import.--The term ``import'' means to move into the 
     territorial limits of the United States.
       (8) Importation.--The term ``importation'' means the act of 
     movement into the territorial limits of the United States.
       (9) Interstate.--The term ``interstate'' means--
       (A) from 1 State into or through any other State; or
       (B) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin 
     Islands of the United States, or any other territory or 
     possession of the United States.

[[Page 1466]]

       (10) Interstate commerce.--The term ``interstate commerce'' 
     means trade, traffic, movement, or other commerce--
       (A) between a place in a State and a point in another 
     State;
       (B) between points within the same State but through any 
     place outside the State; or
       (C) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin 
     Islands of the United States, or any other territory or 
     possession of the United States.
       (11) Means of conveyance.--The term ``means of conveyance'' 
     means any personal property or means that could harbor a 
     pest, disease, or noxious weed and that is used for or 
     intended for use for the movement of any other personal 
     property.
       (12) Move.--The term ``move'' means to--
       (A) carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport;
       (B) aid, abet, cause, or induce the carrying, entering, 
     importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
       (C) offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (D) receive to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (E) release into the environment; or
       (F) allow any of the activities referred to this paragraph 
     to be conducted by a person under another person's control.
       (13) Movement.--The term ``move'' means the act of--
       (A) carrying, entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or 
     transporting;
       (B) aiding, abetting, causing, or inducing the carrying, 
     entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
       (C) offering to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (D) receiving to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (E) releasing into the environment; or
       (F) allowing any of the activities referred to this 
     paragraph to be conducted by a person under another person's 
     control.
       (14) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' means a plant 
     or plant product that has the potential to directly or 
     indirectly injure or cause damage to a plant or plant product 
     through injury or damage to a crop (including nursery stock 
     or a plant product), livestock, poultry, or other interest of 
     agriculture (including irrigation), navigation, natural 
     resources of the United States, public health, or the 
     environment.
       (15) Permit.--The term ``permit'' means a written 
     (including electronic) or oral authorization by the Secretary 
     to move a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     under conditions prescribed by the Secretary.
       (16) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual, 
     partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, or 
     other legal entity.
       (17) Plant.--The term ``plant'' means a plant (including a 
     plant part) for or capable of propagation (including a tree, 
     tissue culture, plantlet culture, pollen, shrub, vine, 
     cutting, graft, scion, bud, bulb, root, and seed).
       (18) Plant pest.--The term ``plant pest'' means--
       (A) a living stage of a protozoan, invertebrate animal, 
     parasitic plant, bacteria, fungus, virus, viroid, infection 
     agent, or pathogen that has the potential to directly or 
     indirectly injure or cause damage to, or cause disease in, a 
     plant or plant product; or
       (B) an article that is similar to or allied with an article 
     referred to in subparagraph (A).
       (19) Plant product.--The term ``plant product'' means--
       (A) a flower, fruit, vegetable, root, bulb, seed, or other 
     plant part that is not considered by the Secretary to be a 
     plant; and
       (B) a manufactured or processed plant or plant part.
       (20) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (21) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.
       (22) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used 
     in a geographical sense, means all of the States.
                       TITLE I--PLANT PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS.

       (a) Prohibition of Unauthorized Movement of Plant Pests.--
     Except as provided in subsection (b), no person shall import, 
     enter, export, or move in interstate commerce a plant pest, 
     unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is 
     authorized under general or specific permit and is in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may 
     promulgate to prevent the introduction of plant pests into 
     the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within 
     the United States.
       (b) Authorization of Movement of Plant Pests by 
     Regulation.--
       (1) Exception to permit requirement.--The Secretary may 
     promulgate regulations to allow the importation, entry, 
     exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of specified 
     plant pests without further restriction if the Secretary 
     finds that a permit under subsection (a) is not necessary.
       (2) Petition to add or remove plant pests from 
     regulation.--A person may petition the Secretary to add a 
     plant pest to, or remove a plant pest from, the regulations 
     promulgated under paragraph (1).
       (3) Response to petition by the secretary.--In the case of 
     a petition submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
       (B) notify the petitioner of the final action the Secretary 
     takes on the petition.
       (4) Basis for determination.--The determination of the 
     Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
       (c) Prohibition of Unauthorized Mailing of Plant Pests.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to section 304, a letter, parcel, 
     box, or other package containing a plant pest, whether sealed 
     as letter-rate postal matter, is nonmailable, and a mail 
     carrier shall not knowingly convey in the mail or deliver 
     from a post office such a package, unless the package is 
     mailed in compliance with such regulations as the Secretary 
     may promulgate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests 
     into the United States or interstate.
       (2) Application of postal laws.--Nothing in this subsection 
     authorizes a person to open a mailed letter or other mailed 
     sealed matter except in accordance with the postal laws 
     (including regulations).
       (d) Regulations.--Regulations promulgated by the Secretary 
     to implement subsections (a), (b), or (c) may include 
     provisions requiring that a plant pest imported, entered, to 
     be exported, moved in interstate commerce, mailed, or 
     delivered from a post office--
       (1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary 
     before the importation, entry, exportation, movement in 
     interstate commerce, mailing, or delivery of the plant pest;
       (2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued 
     (in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by 
     appropriate officials of the country or State from which the 
     plant pest is to be moved;
       (3) be raised under post-entry quarantine conditions by or 
     under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes of 
     determining whether the plant pest may be infested with other 
     plant pests, may pose a significant risk of causing injury 
     to, damage to, or disease in a plant or plant product, or may 
     be a noxious weed; and
       (4) be subject to such remedial measures as the Secretary 
     determines are necessary to prevent the dissemination of 
     plant pests.

     SEC. 102. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANTS, PLANT PRODUCTS, 
                   BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS, NOXIOUS WEEDS, 
                   ARTICLES, AND MEANS OF CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may prohibit or restrict the 
     importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate 
     commerce of a plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance, if 
     the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction 
     is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United 
     States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed 
     within the United States.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate regulations 
     to carry out this section, including regulations requiring 
     that a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported, 
     entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce--
       (1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary 
     prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in 
     interstate commerce;
       (2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued in 
     a manner and form required by the Secretary or by appropriate 
     official of the country or State from which the plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article, 
     or means of conveyance is to be moved;
       (3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant 
     pests or noxious weeds; and
       (4) in the case of a plant or biological control organism, 
     be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions by 
     or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purpose of 
     determining whether the plant or biological control organism 
     may be infested with a plant pest or noxious weed, or may be 
     a plant pest or noxious weed.
       (c) List of Restricted Noxious Weeds.--
       (1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation, 
     a list of noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted 
     from entering the United States or that are subject to 
     restrictions on interstate movement within the United States.
       (2) Petitions to add plant species to or remove plant 
     species from list.--
       (A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add 
     a plant species to, or remove a plant species from, the list 
     authorized under paragraph (1).
       (B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
       (ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the 
     Secretary takes on the petition.
       (C) Basis for determination.--The determination of the 
     Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.

[[Page 1467]]

       (d) List of Biological Control Organisms.--
       (1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation, 
     a list of biological control organisms the movement of which 
     in interstate commerce is not prohibited or restricted.
       (2) Distinctions.--In publishing the list, the Secretary 
     may take into account distinctions between biological control 
     organisms that are indigenous, nonindigenous, newly 
     introduced, or commercially raised.
       (3) Petitions to add biological control organisms to or 
     remove biological control organisms from list.--
       (A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add 
     a biological control organism to, or remove a biological 
     control organism from, the list authorized under paragraph 
     (1).
       (B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
       (ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the 
     Secretary takes on the petition.
       (C) Basis for determination.--The determination of the 
     Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.

     SEC. 103. NOTIFICATION AND HOLDING REQUIREMENTS ON ARRIVAL.

       (a) Duty of Secretary of the Treasury.--
       (1) Notification.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     promptly notify the Secretary of the arrival of a plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, 
     noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance at a port of 
     entry.
       (2) Holding.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall hold a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance for which 
     notification is made under paragraph (1) at the port of entry 
     until the plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     is--
       (A) inspected and authorized by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for entry into or movement through the United 
     States; or
       (B) otherwise released by the Secretary.
       (3) Exceptions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to 
     a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance that is 
     imported from a country or region of a country designated by 
     the Secretary, by regulation, as exempt from the requirements 
     of those paragraphs.
       (b) Notification by Responsible Person.--The person 
     responsible for a plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance required to have a permit under section 101 or 102 
     shall promptly, on arrival at the port of entry and before 
     the plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is moved 
     from the port of entry, notify the Secretary or, at the 
     Secretary's direction, the proper official of the State to 
     which the plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is 
     destined, or both, as the Secretary may prescribe, of--
       (1) the name and address of the consignee;
       (2) the nature and quantity of the plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, 
     article, or means of conveyance proposed to be moved; and
       (3) the country and locality where the plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance was grown, produced, or 
     located.
       (c) Prohibition of Movement of Items Without Inspection and 
     Authorization.--No person shall move from a port of entry or 
     interstate an imported plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means 
     of conveyance unless the imported plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, 
     article, or means of conveyance has been--
       (1) inspected and authorized by the Secretary for entry 
     into or movement through the United States; or
       (2) otherwise released by the Secretary.

     SEC. 104. GENERAL REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR NEW PLANT PESTS AND 
                   NOXIOUS WEEDS.

       (a) Authority To Hold, Treat, or Destroy Items.--If the 
     Secretary considers it necessary to prevent the dissemination 
     of a plant pest or noxious weed that is new to or not known 
     to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout 
     the United States, the Secretary may hold, seize, quarantine, 
     treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or 
     otherwise dispose of a plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means 
     of conveyance that--
       (1)(A) is moving into or through the United States or 
     interstate, or has moved into or through the United States or 
     interstate; and
       (B)(i) the Secretary has reason to believe is a plant pest 
     or noxious weed or is infested with a plant pest or noxious 
     weed at the time of the movement; or
       (ii) is or has been otherwise in violation of this Act;
       (2) has not been maintained in compliance with a post-entry 
     quarantine requirement; or
       (3) is the progeny of a plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed that is moving 
     into or through the United States or interstate, or has moved 
     into the United States or interstate, in violation of this 
     Act.
       (b) Authority To Order an Owner To Treat or Destroy.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may order the owner of a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject 
     to action under subsection (a), or the owner's agent, to 
     treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or 
     otherwise dispose of the plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means 
     of conveyance, without cost to the Federal Government and in 
     a manner the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (2) Failure to comply.--If the owner or agent of the owner 
     fails to comply with an order of the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may take an action authorized by 
     subsection (a) and recover from the owner or agent of the 
     owner the costs of any care, handling, application of 
     remedial measures, or disposal incurred by the Secretary in 
     connection with actions taken under subsection (a).
       (c) Classification System.--
       (1) In general.--To facilitate control of noxious weeds, 
     the Secretary may develop a classification system to describe 
     the status and action levels for noxious weeds.
       (2) Categories.--The classification system may include the 
     geographic distribution, relative threat, and actions 
     initiated to prevent introduction or distribution.
       (3) Management plans.--In conjunction with the 
     classification system, the Secretary may develop integrated 
     management plans for noxious weeds for the geographic region 
     or ecological range where the noxious weed is found in the 
     United States.
       (d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be destroyed, 
     exported, or returned to the shipping point of origin, or 
     ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to the 
     shipping point of origin under this section unless, in the 
     opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action 
     that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the 
     dissemination of any plant pest or noxious weed new to or not 
     known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and 
     throughout the United States.

     SEC. 105. EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Authority To Declare.--Subject to subsection (b), if 
     the Secretary determines that an extraordinary emergency 
     exists because of the presence of a plant pest or noxious 
     weed that is new to or not known to be widely prevalent in or 
     distributed within and throughout the United States and that 
     the presence of the plant pest or noxious weed threatens 
     plants or plant products of the United States, the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial 
     measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, a plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, article, or means of 
     conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
       (2) quarantine, treat, or apply other remedial measures to 
     any premises, including a plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, article, or means of conveyance on the 
     premises, that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
       (3) quarantine a State or portion of a State in which the 
     Secretary finds the plant pest or noxious weed or a plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, article, or means 
     of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed; or
       (4) prohibit or restrict the movement within a State of a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, article, 
     or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the 
     prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the 
     dissemination of the plant pest or noxious weed or to 
     eradicate the plant pest or noxious weed.
       (b) Required Finding of Emergency.--The Secretary may take 
     action under this section only on finding, after review and 
     consultation with the Governor or other appropriate official 
     of the State affected, that the measures being taken by the 
     State are inadequate to prevent the dissemination of the 
     plant pest or noxious weed or to eradicate the plant pest or 
     noxious weed.
       (c) Notification Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     before any action is taken in a State under this section, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) notify the Governor or another appropriate official of 
     the State;
       (B) issue a public announcement; and
       (C) except as provided in paragraph (2), publish in the 
     Federal Register a statement of--
       (i) the findings of the Secretary;
       (ii) the action the Secretary intends to take;
       (iii) the reason for the intended action; and
       (iv) if practicable, an estimate of the anticipated 
     duration of the extraordinary emergency.

[[Page 1468]]

       (2) Time sensitive actions.--If it is not practicable to 
     publish a statement in the Federal Register under paragraph 
     (1) before taking an action under this section, the Secretary 
     shall publish the statement in the Federal Register within a 
     reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 business days, 
     after commencement of the action.
       (d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be destroyed, 
     exported, or returned to the shipping point of origin, or 
     ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to the 
     shipping point of origin under this section unless, in the 
     opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action 
     that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the 
     dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed new to or not 
     known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and 
     throughout the United States.
       (e) Payment of Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may pay compensation to a 
     person for economic losses incurred by the person as a result 
     of action taken by the Secretary under this section.
       (2) Amount.--The determination by the Secretary of the 
     amount of any compensation to be paid under this subsection 
     shall be final and shall not be subject to judicial review.

     SEC. 106. RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR UNAUTHORIZED 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Recovery Action.--The owner of a plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, 
     article, or means of conveyance destroyed or otherwise 
     disposed of by the Secretary under section 104 or 105 may 
     bring an action against the United States to recover just 
     compensation for the destruction or disposal of the plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, 
     noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance (not including 
     compensation for loss due to delays incident to determining 
     eligibility for importation, entry, exportation, movement in 
     interstate commerce, or release into the environment) if the 
     owner establishes that the destruction or disposal was not 
     authorized under this Act.
       (b) Time for Action; Location.--
       (1) Time for action.--An action under this section shall be 
     brought not later than 1 year after the destruction or 
     disposal of the plant, plant product, biological control 
     mechanism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance involved.
       (2) Location.--The action may be brought in a United States 
     District Court where the owner is found, resides, transacts 
     business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated.
       (c) Payment of Judgments.--A judgment in favor of the owner 
     shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury appropriated 
     for plant pest control activities of the Department of 
     Agriculture.

     SEC. 107. CONTROL OF GRASSHOPPERS AND MORMON CRICKETS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of funds under 
     this section, the Secretary shall carry out a program to 
     control grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets on all Federal land 
     to protect rangeland.
       (b) Transfer Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), on the request 
     of the Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     transfer to the Secretary, from any no-year appropriations, 
     funds for the prevention, suppression, and control of actual 
     or potential grasshopper and Mormon Cricket outbreaks on 
     Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (2) Use.--The transferred funds shall be available only for 
     the payment of obligations incurred on the Federal land.
       (3) Transfer requests.--The Secretary shall make a request 
     for the transfer of funds under this subsection as promptly 
     as practicable.
       (4) Limitation.--The Secretary may not use funds 
     transferred under this subsection until funds specifically 
     appropriated to the Secretary for grasshopper and Mormon 
     Cricket control have been exhausted.
       (5) Replenishment of transferred funds.--Funds transferred 
     under this section shall be replenished by supplemental or 
     regular appropriations, which the Secretary shall request as 
     promptly as practicable.
       (c) Treatment for Grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the availability of funds under 
     this section, on request of the head of the administering 
     agency or the agriculture department of an affected State, 
     the Secretary, to protect rangeland, shall immediately treat 
     Federal, State, or private land that is infested with 
     grasshoppers or Mormon Crickets at levels of economic 
     infestation, unless the Secretary determines that delaying 
     treatment will not cause greater economic damage to adjacent 
     owners of rangeland.
       (2) Other programs.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall work in conjunction with other Federal, 
     State, and private prevention, control, or suppression 
     efforts to protect rangeland.
       (d) Federal Cost Share of Treatment.--
       (1) Control on federal land.--Out of funds made available 
     under this section, the Secretary shall pay 100 percent of 
     the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket control on Federal 
     land to protect rangeland.
       (2) Control on state land.--Out of funds made available 
     under this section, the Secretary shall pay 50 percent of the 
     cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket control on State land.
       (3) Control on private land.--Out of funds made available 
     under this section, the Secretary shall pay 33.3 percent of 
     the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket control on private 
     land.
       (e) Training.--From funds made available or transferred by 
     the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary to carry out 
     this section, the Secretary shall provide adequate funding 
     for a program to train personnel to accomplish effectively 
     the purposes of this section.

     SEC. 108. CERTIFICATION FOR EXPORTS.

       The Secretary may certify a plant, plant product, or 
     biological control organism as free from plant pests and 
     noxious weeds, and exposure to plant pests and noxious weeds, 
     according to the phytosanitary or other requirements of the 
     countries to which the plant, plant product, or biological 
     control organism may be exported.
                  TITLE II--INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 201. INSPECTIONS, SEIZURES, AND WARRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Consistent with guidelines approved by the 
     Attorney General, the Secretary may--
       (1) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving into the United States to determine 
     whether the person or means of conveyance is carrying a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject 
     to this Act;
       (2) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving in interstate commerce on probable cause 
     to believe that the person or means of conveyance is carrying 
     a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject 
     to this Act;
       (3) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving in intrastate commerce or on premises 
     quarantined as part of an extraordinary emergency declared 
     under section 105 on probable cause to believe that the 
     person or means of conveyance is carrying a plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance subject to this Act; 
     and
       (4) enter, with a warrant, a premises in the United States 
     for the purpose of conducting investigations or making 
     inspections and seizures under this Act.
       (b) Warrants.--
       (1) In general.--A United States judge, a judge of a court 
     of record in the United States, or a United States magistrate 
     judge may, on proper oath or affirmation showing probable 
     cause to believe that there is on certain premises a plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, 
     noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance regulated under 
     this Act, issue a warrant for entry on the premises to 
     conduct an investigation or make an inspection or seizure 
     under this Act.
       (2) Execution.--The warrant may be applied for and executed 
     by the Secretary or a United States marshal.

     SEC. 202. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

       The Secretary may gather and compile information and 
     conduct such investigations as the Secretary considers 
     necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act.

     SEC. 203. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authority to Issue.--The Secretary may require by 
     subpoena--
       (1) the attendance and testimony of a witness; and
       (2) the production of all documentary evidence relating to 
     the administration or enforcement of this Act or a matter 
     under investigation in connection with this Act.
       (b) Location of Production.--The attendance of a witness 
     and production of documentary evidence may be required from 
     any place in the United States at any designated place of 
     hearing.
       (c) Enforcement of Subpoena.--If a person fails to comply 
     with a subpoena, the Secretary may request the Attorney 
     General to invoke the aid of a court of the United States 
     within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is 
     conducted, or where the person resides, is found, transacts 
     business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated, in 
     obtaining compliance.
       (d) Fees and Mileage.--
       (1) In general.--A witness summoned by the Secretary shall 
     be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid to a witness 
     in a court of the United States.
       (2) Depositions.--A witness whose depositions is taken, and 
     the person taking the deposition, shall be entitled to the 
     same fees that are paid for similar services in a court of 
     the United States.
       (e) Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall publish procedures for 
     the issuance of subpoenas under this section.
       (2) Legal sufficiency.--The procedures shall include a 
     requirement that a subpoena be reviewed for legal sufficiency 
     and signed by the Secretary.

[[Page 1469]]

       (3) Delegation.--If the authority to sign a subpoena is 
     delegated, the agency receiving the delegation shall seek 
     review for legal sufficiency outside that agency.
       (f) Scope of Subpoena.--A subpoena for a witness to attend 
     a court in a judicial district or to testify or produce 
     evidence at an administrative hearing in a judicial district 
     in an action or proceeding arising under this Act may run to 
     any other judicial district.

     SEC. 204. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.

       (a) Criminal Penalties.--A person that knowingly violates 
     this Act, or that knowingly forges, counterfeits, or, without 
     authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or 
     destroys a certificate, permit, or other document provided 
     under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on 
     conviction, shall be fined in accordance with title 18, 
     United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--A person that violates this Act, or that 
     forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the 
     Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys a certificate, 
     permit, or other document provided under this Act may, after 
     notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record, be 
     assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary that does not 
     exceed the greater of--
       (A) $50,000 in the case of an individual (except that the 
     civil penalty may not exceed $1,000 in the case of an initial 
     violation of this Act by an individual moving regulated 
     articles not for monetary gain), or $250,000 in the case of 
     any other person for each violation, except the amount of 
     penalties assessed under this subparagraph in a single 
     proceeding shall not exceed $500,000; or
       (B) twice the gross gain or gross loss for a violation or 
     forgery, counterfeiting, or unauthorized use, defacing or 
     destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document 
     provided for in this Act that results in the person's 
     deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another 
     person.
       (2) Factors in determining civil penalty.--In determining 
     the amount of a civil penalty, the Secretary--
       (A) shall take into account the nature, circumstance, 
     extent, and gravity of the violation; and
       (B) may take into account the ability to pay, the effect on 
     ability to continue to do business, any history of prior 
     violations, the degree of culpability of the violator, and 
     any other factors the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (3) Settlement of civil penalties.--The Secretary may 
     compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, a 
     civil penalty that may be assessed under this subsection.
       (4) Finality of orders.--
       (A) In general.--An order of the Secretary assessing a 
     civil penalty shall be treated as a final order reviewable 
     under chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.
       (B) Collection action.--The validity of an order of the 
     Secretary may not be reviewed in an action to collect the 
     civil penalty.
       (C) Interest.--A civil penalty not paid in full when due 
     under an order assessing the civil penalty shall (after the 
     due date) accrue interest until paid at the rate of interest 
     applicable to a civil judgment of the courts of the United 
     States.
       (c) Liability for Acts of an Agent.--For purposes of this 
     Act, the act, omission, or failure of an officer, agent, or 
     person acting for or employed by any other person within the 
     scope of employment or office of the officer, agent, or 
     person, shall be considered to be the act, omission, or 
     failure of the other person.
       (d) Guidelines for Civil Penalties.--The Secretary shall 
     coordinate with the Attorney General to establish guidelines 
     to determine under what circumstances the Secretary may issue 
     a civil penalty or suitable notice of warning in lieu of 
     prosecution by the Attorney General of a violation of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 205. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       The Attorney General may--
       (1) prosecute, in the name of the United States, a criminal 
     violation of this Act that is referred to the Attorney 
     General by the Secretary or is brought to the notice of the 
     Attorney General by any person;
       (2) bring a civil action to enjoin the violation of or to 
     compel compliance with this Act, or to enjoin any 
     interference by a person with the Secretary in carrying out 
     this Act, if the Attorney General has reason to believe that 
     the person has violated or is about to violate this Act, or 
     has interfered, or is about to interfere, with the Secretary; 
     and
       (3) bring a civil action for the recovery of an unpaid 
     civil penalty, funds under a reimbursable agreement, late 
     payment penalty, or interest assessed under this Act.

     SEC. 206. COURT JURISDICTION.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in section 204(b), a 
     United States district court, the District Court of Guam, the 
     District Court of the Virgin Islands, the highest court of 
     American Samoa, and the United States courts of other 
     territories and possessions are vested with jurisdiction in 
     all cases arising under this Act.
       (b) Location.--An action arising under this Act may be 
     brought, and process may be served, in the judicial district 
     where--
       (1) a violation or interference occurred or is about to 
     occur; or
       (2) the person charged with the violation, interference, 
     impending violation, impending interference, or failure to 
     pay resides, is found, transacts business, is licensed to do 
     business, or is incorporated.
                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--To carry out this Act, the Secretary may 
     cooperate with--
       (1) other Federal agencies or entities;
       (2) States or political subdivisions of States;
       (3) national governments;
       (4) local governments of other nations;
       (5) domestic or international organizations;
       (6) domestic or international associations; and
       (7) other persons.
       (b) Responsibility.--The individual or entity cooperating 
     with the Secretary shall be responsible for conducting the 
     operations or taking measures on all land and property within 
     the foreign country or State, other than land and property 
     owned or controlled by the United States, and for other 
     facilities and means determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Transfer of Biological Control Methods.--The Secretary 
     may transfer to a Federal or State agency or other person 
     biological control methods using biological control organisms 
     against plant pests or noxious weeds.
       (d) Cooperation in Program Administration.--The Secretary 
     may cooperate with State authorities or other persons in the 
     administration of programs for the improvement of plants, 
     plant products, and biological control organisms.

     SEC. 302. BUILDINGS, LAND, PEOPLE, CLAIMS, AND AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire and maintain 
     such real or personal property, and employ such persons, make 
     such grants, and enter into such contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements, 
     as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Tort Claims.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may pay a tort claim (in the manner authorized in 
     the first paragraph of section 2672 of title 28, United 
     States Code) if the claim arises outside the United States in 
     connection with an activity authorized under this Act.
       (2) Requirements of claim.--A claim may not be allowed 
     under paragraph (1) unless the claim is presented in writing 
     to the Secretary not later than 2 years after the claim 
     arises.

     SEC. 303. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Preclearance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     reimbursable fee agreement with a person for preclearance (at 
     a location outside the United States) of plants, plant 
     products, biological control organisms, articles, and means 
     of conveyance for movement to the United States.
       (2) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection 
     shall be credited to an account that may be established by 
     the Secretary and shall remain available until expended 
     without fiscal year limitation.
       (b) Overtime.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary may pay an employee of the Department of 
     Agriculture performing services under this Act relating to 
     imports into and exports from the United States, for all 
     overtime, night, or holiday work performed by the employee, 
     at a rate of pay determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Reimbursement of secretary.--The Secretary may require 
     a person for whom the services are performed to reimburse the 
     Secretary for funds paid by the Secretary for the services.
       (3) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection 
     shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and 
     remain available until expended without fiscal year 
     limitation.
       (c) Late Payment Penalty and Interest.--
       (1) Collection.--On failure of a person to reimburse the 
     Secretary in accordance with this section, the Secretary may 
     assess a late payment penalty against the person.
       (2) Interest.--Overdue funds due the Secretary under this 
     section shall accrue interest in accordance with section 3717 
     of title 31, United States Code.
       (3) Account.--A late payment penalty and accrued interest 
     shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and 
     shall remain available until expended without fiscal year 
     limitation.

     SEC. 304. PROTECTION FOR MAIL CARRIERS.

       This Act shall not apply to an employee of the United 
     States in the performance of the duties of the employee in 
     handling the mail.

     SEC. 305. REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.

       The Secretary may promulgate such regulations, and issue 
     such orders, as the Secretary considers necessary to carry 
     out this Act.

     SEC. 306. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED LAWS.

       (a) Repeal.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) Subsections (a) through (e) of section 102 of the 
     Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 
     147a).

[[Page 1470]]

       (2) Section 1773 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     148f).
       (3) The Golden Nematode Act (7 U.S.C. 150 et seq.).
       (4) The Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.).
       (5) The Joint Resolution of April 6, 1937 (56 Stat. 57, 
     chapter 69; 7 U.S.C. 148 et seq.).
       (6) The Act of January 31, 1942 (56 Stat. 40, chapter 31; 7 
     U.S.C. 149).
       (7) The Act of August 20, 1912 (commonly known as the 
     ``Plant Quarantine Act'') (37 Stat. 315, chapter 308; 7 
     U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
       (8) The Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act (7 U.S.C. 1651 et 
     seq.).
       (9) The Act of August 28, 1950 (64 Stat. 561, chapter 815; 
     7 U.S.C. 2260).
       (10) The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et 
     seq.), other than the first section and section 15 of that 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2801 note, 2814).
       (b) Effect on Regulations.--Regulations promulgated under 
     the authority of a provision of law repealed by subsection 
     (a) shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary 
     promulgates a regulation under section 304 that supersedes 
     the earlier regulation.
               TITLE IV--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Compensation.--Except as provided in section 106 and as 
     specifically authorized by law, no part of the amounts 
     appropriated under this section shall be used to provide 
     compensation for property injured or destroyed by or at the 
     direction of the Secretary.

     SEC. 402. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authority To Transfer Certain Funds.--In connection 
     with an emergency in which a plant pest or noxious weed 
     threatens a segment of the agricultural production of the 
     United States, the Secretary may transfer from other 
     appropriations or funds available to the agencies or 
     corporations of the Department of Agriculture such amounts as 
     the Secretary considers necessary to be available in the 
     emergency for the arrest, control, eradication, and 
     prevention of the dissemination of the plant pest or noxious 
     weed and for related expenses.
       (b) Availability.--Any funds transferred under this section 
     shall remain available for such purposes without fiscal year 
     limitation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 322. A bill to amend title 4, United States Code, to add the 
Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the flag 
should especially be displayed; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


      The Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Recognition Act of 1999

 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation that would amend the ``Flag Code'' to add the Martin Luther 
King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the American flag should 
be displayed nationwide.
  It is a testament to the greatness of Martin Luther King, Jr., that 
nearly every major city in the U.S. has a street or school named after 
him. I have to admit, I was surprised to learn that the American flag 
was not flown to commemorate the Dr. King holiday.
  Dr. King, a minister, prolific writer and Nobel Prize winner 
originated the nonviolence strategy within the activist civil rights 
movement. He was one of the most important black leaders of his era and 
in American history.
  When Dr. King was tragically assassinated on April 4, 1968, he had 
already transformed himself as a national hero and a pioneer in trying 
to unite a divided nation. He strove to build communities of hope and 
opportunity for all and recognized that all Americans must be free to 
truly have a great country.
  Dr. King was a person who wanted all people to get along regardless 
of their race, color or creed. His holiday came about due to the work 
of many determined people who wanted all of us to pause to remember his 
legacy.
  This legislation simply would make sure that we celebrate his 
birthday as a federal holiday in the fashion afforded to other great 
Americans whose birthdays are cause for national commemoration. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 322

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ADDITION OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HOLIDAY TO LIST 
                   OF DAYS.

       Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, third Monday 
     in January;'' after ``January 20;''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 323. A bill to redesignate the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
National Monument as a national park and establish the Gunnison Gorge 
National Conservation Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


  black canyon national park and gunnison gorge national conservation 
                            area act of 1999

 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation to create the Black Canyon National Park. This bill is 
based on legislation which I introduced in the 104th Congress, but has 
been revised to include additional input from the Bureau of Land 
Management and the National Park Service. In 1996, as the former 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and 
Recreation, I conducted a field hearing and received input from local 
groups and individuals which I also incorporated into my new bill.
  With its narrow opening, sheer walls, and scenic depths, the Black 
Canyon is a jewel in North America. Nearly everyone who has visited the 
site is struck by the breathtaking beauty of this 2,000 foot deep, 
nearly impenetrable canyon. The canyon is also home to a vast 
assortment of wildlife that range from chipmunks to black bear, from 
bobcats to coyotes. Its unique combination of geologic features makes 
the Black Canyon deserving of National Park status.
  This legislation has been a long time coming to the State of 
Colorado, and in particular, the Western Slope of my state. My Black 
Canyon bill incorporates the input of the federal agencies involved 
and, in my view, represents an innovative approach to protecting unique 
natural resources for future generations in the most fiscally 
responsible manner possible.
  This legislation does far more than simply create a new national park 
from what is now a national monument. This legislation establishes a 
cooperative approach to managing this natural resource and calls on all 
affected resource management agencies in the area to play key 
collaborative roles.
  I want to stress that this legislation does not increase federal 
expenditures, and the collective management approach this legislation 
creates does not in any way require, imply, or contemplate an attempt 
by the Federal Government to usurp state water rights, state water law, 
or intrude upon private property rights.
  The Secretary of the Interior will manage the entire area and will be 
able to utilize all available fiscal and human resources in the 
administration and management of this natural resource in a unique, 
money-saving manner. This legislation will also eliminate duplicate 
operations and form a coordinated, efficient and fiscally responsible 
management structure.
  I have worked to forge consensus on this issue, and I am pleased to 
propose this cooperative management plan for this beautiful example of 
our natural heritage. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this 
bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 323

       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 ``Black Canyon National Park 
     and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument was 
     established for the preservation of its spectacular gorges 
     and additional features of scenic, scientific, and 
     educational interest;
       (2) the Black Canyon and adjacent upland include a variety 
     of unique ecological, geological, scenic, historical, and 
     wildlife components enhanced by the serenity and rural 
     western setting of the area;

[[Page 1471]]

       (3) the Black Canyon and adjacent land provide extensive 
     opportunities for educational and recreational activities, 
     and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and fishing, and 
     for wilderness value, including solitude;
       (4) adjacent public land downstream of the Black Canyon of 
     the Gunnison National Monument has wilderness value and 
     offers unique geological, paleontological, scientific, 
     educational, and recreational resources;
       (5) public land adjacent to the Black Canyon of the 
     Gunnison National Monument contributes to the protection of 
     the wildlife, viewshed, and scenic qualities of the Black 
     Canyon;
       (6) some private land adjacent to the Black Canyon of the 
     Gunnison National Monument has exceptional natural and scenic 
     value, that, would be threatened by future development 
     pressures;
       (7) the benefits of designating public and private land 
     surrounding the national monument as a national park include 
     greater long-term protection of the resources and expanded 
     visitor use opportunities; and
       (8) land in and adjacent to the Black Canyon of the 
     Gunnison Gorge is--
       (A) recognized for offering exceptional multiple use 
     opportunities;
       (B) recognized for offering natural, cultural, scenic, 
     wilderness, and recreational resources; and
       (C) worthy of additional protection as a national 
     conservation area, and with respect to the Gunnison Gorge 
     itself, as a component of the national wilderness system.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' 
     means the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area, 
     consisting of approximately 57,725 acres surrounding the 
     Gunnison Gorge as depicted on the Map.
       (2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Black 
     Canyon National Park and Gunnison Gorge NCA--1/22/99''.
       (3) Park.--The term ``Park'' means the Black Canyon 
     National Park established under section 4 and depicted on the 
     Map.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACK CANYON NATIONAL PARK.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--There is established the Black Canyon 
     National Park in the State of Colorado, as generally depicted 
     on the Map.
       (2) Availability of map.--The Map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the offices of the 
     National Park Service of the Department of the Interior.
       (3) Redesignation of monument.--
       (A) Termination of black canyon designation.--The 
     designation of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
     Monument in existence on the date of enactment of this Act is 
     terminated.
       (B) Transfer.--All land and interests within the boundary 
     of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument are 
     incorporated in and made part of the Black Canyon National 
     Park, including--
       (i) land and interests within the boundary of the Black 
     Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument as established by 
     section 2(a) of the first section of Public Law 98-357; and
       (ii) any land and interests identified on the Map and 
     transferred by the Bureau of Land Management under this Act.
       (C) Reference to park.--Any reference to the Black Canyon 
     of the Gunnison National Monument shall be deemed a reference 
     to Black Canyon National Park.
       (D) Funds.--Any funds made available for the purposes of 
     the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument shall be 
     available for purposes of the Park.
       (b) Authority.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the National Park Service, shall manage the Park subject 
     to valid rights, in accordance with this Act and the 
     provisions of law applicable to units of the National Park 
     System, including--
       (1) the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National Park 
     Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 1916 
     (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.);
       (2) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     preservation of historic American sites, buildings, objects, 
     and antiquities of national significance, and for other 
     purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.); 
     and
       (3) other applicable provisions of law.
       (c) Grazing.--
       (1) Grazing permitted.--The Secretary may permit grazing 
     within the Park, if the use of the Park for grazing is 
     permitted on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Grazing plan.--The Secretary shall prepare a grazing 
     management plan to administer any grazing activities within 
     the Park.

     SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND MINOR BOUNDARY 
                   ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Additional Acquisitions.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire land or 
     interests in land depicted on the Map as proposed additions.
       (2) Method of acquisition.--
       (A) In general.--Land or interests in land may be acquired 
     by--
       (i) donation;
       (ii) transfer;
       (iii) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
       (iv) exchange.
       (B) Consent.--No land or interest in land may be acquired 
     without the consent of the owner of the land.
       (b) Boundary Revision.--After acquiring land for the Park, 
     the Secretary shall--
       (1) revise the boundary of the Park to include newly-
     acquired land within the boundary; and
       (2) administer newly-acquired land subject to applicable 
     laws (including regulations).
       (c) Boundary Survey.--Not later than 5 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete an 
     official boundary survey of the Park
       (d) Hunting on Privately Owned Lands.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may permit hunting on 
     privately owned land added to the Park under this Act, 
     subject to limitations, conditions, or regulations that may 
     be prescribed by the Secretary.
       (2) Termination of authority.--On the date that the 
     Secretary acquires fee ownership of any privately owned land 
     added to the Park under this Act, the authority under 
     paragraph (1) shall terminate with respect to the privately 
     owned land acquired.

     SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF THE BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON 
                   WILDERNESS.

       (a) Expansion of Black Canyon.--The Black Canyon of the 
     Gunnison Wilderness, as established by subsection (b) of the 
     first section of Public Law 94-567 (90 Stat. 2692), is 
     expanded to include the parcel of land depicted on the Map as 
     ``Tract A'' and consisting of approximately 4,460 acres.
       (b) Administration.--The Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
     Wilderness shall be administered as a component of the Park.

     SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL 
                   CONSERVATION AREA.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Gunnison Gorge 
     National Conservation Area, consisting of approximately 
     57,725 acres as generally depicted on the Map.
       (b) Management of Conservation Area.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall 
     manage the Conservation Area to protect the resources of the 
     Conservation Area in accordance with--
       (1) this Act;
       (2) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (3) other applicable provisions of law.
       (c) Withdrawal of Land.--Subject to valid rights in 
     existence on the date of enactment of this Act, all Federal 
     land and interests within the Conservation Area acquired by 
     the United States 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) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing 
     laws.
       (d) Permitted Uses.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall permit hunting, 
     trapping, and fishing within the Conservation Area in 
     accordance with applicable laws (including regulations) of 
     the United States and the State of Colorado.
       (2) Exception.--The Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Colorado Division of Wildlife, may issue regulations 
     designating zones where and establishing periods when no 
     hunting or trapping shall be permitted for reasons 
     concerning--
       (A) public safety;
       (B) administration; or
       (C) public use and enjoyment.
       (e) Use of Motorized Vehicles.--In addition to the use of 
     motorized vehicles on established roadways, the use of 
     motorized vehicles in the Conservation Area shall be 
     allowed--
       (1) to the extent the use is compatible with off-highway 
     vehicle designations as described in the management plan in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) to the extent the use is practicable under a management 
     plan prepared under this Act.
       (f) Conservation Area Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) develop a comprehensive plan for the long-range 
     protection and management of the Conservation Area; and
       (B) transmit the plan to--
       (i) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Contents of plan.--The plan--
       (A) shall describe the appropriate uses and management of 
     the Conservation Area in accordance with this Act;
       (B) may incorporate appropriate decisions contained in any 
     management or activity plan for the area completed prior to 
     the date of enactment of this Act;
       (C) may incorporate appropriate wildlife habitat management 
     plans or other plans prepared for the land within or adjacent 
     to the Conservation Area prior to the date of enactment of 
     this Act;
       (D) shall be prepared in close consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, county, and local agencies; and

[[Page 1472]]

       (E) shall use information developed prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act in studies of the land within or 
     adjacent to the Conservation Area.
       (g) Boundary Revisions.--The Secretary may make revisions 
     to the boundary of the Conservation Area following 
     acquisition of land necessary to accomplish the purposes for 
     which the Conservation Area was designated.

     SEC. 8. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION 
                   AREA.

       (a) Gunnison Gorge Wilderness.--
       (1) In general.--Within the Conservation Area, there is 
     designated as wilderness, and as a component of the National 
     Wilderness Preservation System, the Gunnison Gorge 
     Wilderness, consisting of approximately 17,700 acres, as 
     generally depicted on the Map.
       (2) Administration.--
       (A) Wilderness study area exemption.--The approximately 
     300-acre portion of the wilderness study area depicted on the 
     Map for release from section 603 of the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782) shall not be 
     subject to section 603(c) of that Act.
       (B) Incorporation into national conservation area.--The 
     portion of the wilderness study area described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be incorporated into the Conservation 
     Area.
       (b) Administration.--Subject to valid rights in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, the wilderness areas 
     designated under this Act shall be administered by the 
     Secretary in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1131 et seq.).
       (c) State Responsibility.--As provided in section 4(d)(7) 
     of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(7)), nothing in this 
     Act or in the Wilderness Act shall affect the jurisdiction or 
     responsibilities of the State of Colorado with respect to 
     wildlife and fish on the public land located in that State.

     SEC. 9. WITHDRAWAL.

       The land identified as tract B on the Map, consisting of 
     approximately 1,554 acres, is withdrawn--
       (1) from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal 
     under the public land laws;
       (2) from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; 
     and
       (3) from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal 
     leasing laws.

     SEC. 10. WATER RIGHTS.

       (a) Effect on Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall--
       (1) constitute an express or implied reservation of water 
     for any purpose; or
       (2) affect any water rights in existence prior to the date 
     of enactment of this Act, including any water rights held by 
     the United States.
       (b) Additional Water Rights.--Any new water right that the 
     Secretary determines is necessary for the purposes of this 
     Act shall be established in accordance with the procedural 
     and substantive requirements of the laws of the State of 
     Colorado.

     SEC. 11. STUDY OF LANDS WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO CURECANTI 
                   NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the National Park Service, shall conduct a study 
     concerning land protection and open space within and adjacent 
     to the area administered as the Curecanti National Recreation 
     Area.
       (b) Purpose of Study.--The study required to be completed 
     under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) assess the natural, cultural, recreational and scenic 
     resource value and character of the land within and 
     surrounding the Curecanti National Recreation Area (including 
     open vistas, wildlife habitat, and other public benefits);
       (2) identify practicable alternatives that protect the 
     resource value and character of the land within and 
     surrounding the Curecanti National Recreation Area;
       (3) recommend a variety of economically feasible and viable 
     tools to achieve the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2); and
       (4) estimate the costs of implementing the approaches 
     recommended by the study.
       (c) Submission of Report.--Not later than 3 years from the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress that--
       (1) contains the findings of the study required by 
     subsection (a);
       (2) makes recommendations to Congress with respect to the 
     findings of the study required by subsection (a); and
       (3) makes recommendations to Congress regarding action that 
     may be taken with respect to the land described in the 
     report.
       (d) Acquisition of Additional Land and Interests in Land.--
       (1) In general.--Prior to the completion of the study 
     required by subsection (a), the Secretary may acquire certain 
     private land or interests in land as depicted on the Map 
     entitled ``Proposed Additions to the Curecanti National 
     Recreation Area,'' dated 09/15/98, totaling approximately 
     1,065 acres and entitled ``Hall and Fitti properties''.
       (2) Method of acquisition.--
       (A) In general.--Land or an interest in land under 
     paragraph (1) may be acquired by--
       (i) donation;
       (ii) purchase with donated or appropriated funds; or
       (iii) exchange.
       (B) Consent.--No land or interest in land may be acquired 
     without the consent of the owner of the land.
       (C) Boundary revisions following acquisition.--Following 
     the acquisition of land under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (i) revise the boundary of the Curecanti National 
     Recreation Area to include newly-acquired land; and
       (ii) administer newly-acquired land according to applicable 
     laws (including regulations).

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                  ____



                                 Montrose Chamber of Commerce,

                                   Montrose, CO, January 26, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: The Montrose Chamber of Commerce, 
     Board of Directors, has been informed of your intent to 
     introduce legislation regarding the Black Canyon National 
     Park endeavor. We are writing to endorse the legislation. The 
     Black Canyon is truly one of God's gifts to Colorado. By 
     giving it National Park status, it receives the accolades it 
     deserves.
       Please keep us apprised as to the status of the 
     legislation. If there is any way we can assist with your 
     efforts please do not hesitate to ask. We thank you for your 
     efforts and dedication to Western Colorado and its citizens.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Marge Keehfuss,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                    Board of County Commissioners,


                                          Gunnison County, CO,

                                                 January 19, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: As you are aware, the National Park 
     Service administers the lands within Curecanti National 
     Recreation Area under a 1965 agreement with the Bureau of 
     Reclamation. Colorado State Highway 92 is one of the most 
     scenic drives in Colorado as it skirts the Black Canyon on 
     the Gunnison within and adjacent to Curecanti. This portion 
     of the highway is also designated as a component of the West 
     Elk Loop Scenic and Historic Byway. The preservation of the 
     rural values now dominating Highway 92 will play an important 
     role in maintaining the quality of life for area residents as 
     well as providing a quality visitor experience worth 
     remembering. The National Park Service has been working with 
     two willing landowners that own property adjacent to Highway 
     92 and within the Curecanti National Recreation Area. 
     Collectively, this ownership represents 1,065 acres and 
     development of this significant amount of land would forever 
     alter the scenic values.
       We realize the National Park Service has very limited 
     authority to acquire lands outside of its boundaries. This is 
     especially true for the recreation area since its boundary 
     has never been formally established. Therefore, it is our 
     understanding that specific authority will need to be granted 
     through legislation by Congress in order to adjust the 
     boundary and acquire these lands.
       The Gunnison County Board of Commissioners is very 
     supportive of these properties being acquired by the National 
     Park Service. The Board of Commissioners would encourage you 
     to also support this acquisition and hopes you would consider 
     sponsoring legislation to achieve this goal. If you have any 
     questions regarding Gunnison County's support of this 
     acquisition or its importance, please don't hesitate to 
     contact my office.
           Respectfully,
                                                      John DeVore,
                                           County Manager.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 324. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to 
registration requirements for practitioners who dispense narcotic drugs 
in schedule IV or V for maintenance treatment or detoxification 
treatment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                THE DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT ACT OF 1999

 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 324, the 
``Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999''--the DATA Act. The goal in 
this bill is simple but it is important: S. 324 attempts to help make 
drug treatment more available and more effective.
  In developing this legislation I have worked closely with 
Representative Thomas Bliley of Virginia, Chairman of the House 
Committee on Commerce who plans to introduce shortly the House 
counterpart of this bill. I am very pleased to report that in 
sponsoring this bi-partisan bill I am joined by two colleagues from 
across the aisle--Senator Levin from Michigan and Senator Moynihan from 
New York. Senators Levin and Moynihan and I

[[Page 1473]]

have long shared an interest in speeding the development of anti-
addiction medications.
  One of the most troublesome problems that our Nation faces today is 
drug abuse. The spectrum of deleterious by-products of drug abuse 
include rampant and often violent crime, breakdown in family life and 
other fundamental social structures, and the inability of addicted 
individuals to reach their full potential as contributing members of 
American society. For example, a 1997 report by the Utah State Division 
of Substance Abuse, ``Substance Abuse and Need for Treatment Among 
Juvenile Arrestees in Utah'' cites literature reporting that heroin-
using offenders committed 15 times more robberies, 20 times more 
burglaries, and 10 times more thefts than offenders who do not use 
drugs.
  In my own state of Utah--I am sorry to report--a 1997 survey by the 
State Division of Substance Abuse reported that 9.6% of Utahns--one in 
ten of our citizens--used illicit drugs in the past month. That is 
simply too high.
  Unfortunately, no state or city in our great Nation is immune from 
the dangers of illicit drugs. I want the children of Utah to grow up 
drug free so that they may realize their enormous potential. And I want 
to help my neighbors in Salt Lake and fellow citizens across Utah and 
throughout the country who are addicted to break the grip of this 
deadly epidemic.
  The wide variety of negative behaviors associated with drug abuse 
require policymakers to employ a wide variety of techniques to cut down 
both the supply of and demand for illegal drugs. We must do all we can 
do to stop the criminal behavior involved in supplying the contraband 
products as well as taking steps to stop all Americans from starting or 
continuing to use drugs.
  This legislation I am introducing today focuses on increasing the 
availability and effectiveness of drug treatment. The purpose of the 
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 is to allow qualified physicians, 
as determined by experts at the Department of Health and Human 
Services, to prescribe schedule IV and V anti-addiction medications in 
physicians' offices without an additional Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) registration if certain conditions are met.
  These conditions include certification by participating physicians 
that: they are licensed under state law and have the training and 
experience to treat opium addicts; they have the capacity to refer 
patients to counseling and other ancillary services; and they will not 
treat more than 20 in an office setting unless the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services adjusts this number.
  The DATA provisions allow the Secretary, as appropriate, to add to 
these conditions and allow the Attorney General to terminate a 
physician's DEA registration if these conditions are violated. This 
program will continue after three years only if the Secretary and 
Attorney General determine that this new type of decentralized 
treatment should not continue based on a number of determinations. 
These determinations include whether the availability of drug treatment 
has significantly increased without adverse consequences to the public 
health and the extent to which covered drugs have been diverted or 
dispensed in violation of the law such as exceeding the initial 20-
patient per doctor limitation. This bill would allow the Secretary and 
Attorney General to discontinue the program earlier than three years 
if, upon consideration of the specified factors, they determine that 
early termination is advisable.
  Nothing in the waiver policy undertaken in the new bill is intended 
to change the rules pertaining to methadone clinics or other facilities 
or practitioners that conduct drug treatment services under the dual 
registration system imposed by current law.
  In drafting the waiver provisions of the bill, the co-sponsors have 
consulted with the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Food and Drug 
Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. As well, this 
initiative is consistent with the recent announcement of the Director 
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, General Barry McCaffrey, 
of the Administration's intent to work to decentralize methadone 
treatment.
  In 1995, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of 
Sciences issued a report, ``Development of Medications for Opiate and 
Cocaine Addictions: Issues for the Government and Private Sector.'' The 
study called for ``(d)eveloping flexible, alternative means of 
controlling the dispensing of anti-addiction narcotic medications that 
would avoid the `methadone model' of individually approved treatment 
centers.''
  The Drug Addiction Treatment Act--DATA--is exactly the kind of policy 
initiative that experts have called for in America's multifaceted 
response to the drug abuse epidemic. I recognize that the DATA 
legislation is just one mechanism to attack this problem and I plan to 
work with my colleagues to devise additional strategies to reduce both 
the supply and demand for drugs. I urge all my colleagues to support S. 
324 because it promises to get more patients into treatment and back on 
the road to honest, productive lives.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 324 be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 324

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug Addiction Treatment Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

       Section 303(g) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     823(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(A) security'' and 
     inserting ``(i) security'', and by striking ``(B) the 
     maintenance'' and inserting ``(ii) the maintenance'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively;
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)'';
       (4) by striking ``Practitioners who dispense'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     practitioners who dispense''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (D) and (G), the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) are waived in the case of the 
     dispensing, by a practitioner, of narcotic drugs in schedule 
     IV or V or combinations of such drugs if the practitioner 
     meets the conditions specified in subparagraph (B) and the 
     narcotic drugs or combinations of such drugs meet the 
     conditions specified in subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the conditions 
     specified in this subparagraph with respect to a practitioner 
     are that, before dispensing narcotic drugs in schedule IV or 
     V, or combinations of such drugs, to patients for maintenance 
     or detoxification treatment, the practitioner submit to the 
     Secretary a notification of the intent of the practitioner to 
     begin dispensing the drugs or combinations for such purpose, 
     and that the notification contain the following 
     certifications by the practitioner:
       ``(i) The practitioner is a physician licensed under State 
     law, and the practitioner has, by training or experience, the 
     ability to treat and manage opiate-dependent patients.
       ``(ii) With respect to patients to whom the practitioner 
     will provide such drugs or combinations of drugs, the 
     practitioner has the capacity to refer the patients for 
     appropriate counseling and other appropriate ancillary 
     services.
       ``(iii) In any case in which the practitioner is not in a 
     group practice, the total number of such patients of the 
     practitioner at any one time will not exceed the applicable 
     number. For purposes of this clause, the applicable number is 
     20, except that the Secretary may by regulation change such 
     total number.
       ``(iv) In any case in which the practitioner is in a group 
     practice, the total number of such patients of the group 
     practice at any one time will not exceed the applicable 
     number. For purposes of this clause, the applicable number is 
     20, except that the Secretary may by regulation change such 
     total number, and the Secretary for such purposes may by 
     regulation establish different categories on the basis of the 
     number of practitioners in a group practice and establish for 
     the various categories different numerical limitations on the 
     number of such patients that the group practice may have.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the conditions 
     specified in this subparagraph with respect to narcotic drugs 
     in schedule IV or V or combinations of such drugs are as 
     follows:
       ``(i) The drugs or combinations of drugs have, under the 
     Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, been approved for use in 
     maintenance or detoxification treatment.

[[Page 1474]]

       ``(ii) The drugs or combinations of drugs have not been the 
     subject of an adverse determination. For purposes of this 
     clause, an adverse determination is a determination published 
     in the Federal Register and made by the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Attorney General, that the use of the 
     drugs or combinations of drugs for maintenance or 
     detoxification treatment requires additional standards 
     respecting the qualifications of practitioners to provide 
     such treatment, or requires standards respecting the 
     quantities of the drugs that may be provided for unsupervised 
     use.
       ``(D)(i) A waiver under subparagraph (A) with respect to a 
     practitioner is not in effect unless (in addition to 
     conditions under subparagraphs (B) and (C)) the following 
     conditions are met:
       ``(I) The notification under subparagraph (B) is in writing 
     and states the name of the practitioner.
       ``(II) The notification identifies the registration issued 
     for the practitioner pursuant to subsection (f).
       ``(III) If the practitioner is a member of a group 
     practice, the notification states the names of the other 
     practitioners in the practice and identifies the 
     registrations issued for the other practitioners pursuant to 
     subsection (f).
       ``(IV) A period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on 
     which the notification was submitted, and during such period 
     the practitioner does not receive from the Secretary a 
     written notice that one or more of the conditions specified 
     in subparagraph (B), subparagraph (C), or this subparagraph, 
     have not been met.
       ``(ii) The Secretary shall provide to the Attorney General 
     such information contained in notifications under 
     subparagraph (B) as the Attorney General may request.
       ``(E) If in violation of subparagraph (A) a practitioner 
     dispenses narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V or combinations 
     of such drugs for maintenance treatment or detoxification 
     treatment, the Attorney General may, for purposes of section 
     304(a)(4), consider the practitioner to have committed an act 
     that renders the registration of the practitioner pursuant to 
     subsection (f) to be inconsistent with the public interest.
       ``(F) In this paragraph, the term `group practice' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1877(h)(4) of the Social 
     Security Act.
       ``(G)(i) This paragraph takes effect on the date of 
     enactment of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999, and 
     remains in effect thereafter except as provided in clause 
     (iii) (relating to a decision by the Secretary or the 
     Attorney General that this paragraph should not remain in 
     effect).
       ``(ii) For the purposes relating to clause (iii), the 
     Secretary and the Attorney General shall, during the 3-year 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of the Drug 
     Addiction Treatment Act of 1999, make determinations in 
     accordance with the following:
       ``(I)(aa) The Secretary shall--
       ``(aaa) make a determination of whether treatments provided 
     under waivers under subparagraph (A) have been effective 
     forms of maintenance treatment and detoxification treatment 
     in clinical settings;
       ``(bbb) make a determination regarding whether such waivers 
     have significantly increased (relative to the beginning of 
     such period) the availability of maintenance treatment and 
     detoxification treatment; and
       ``(ccc) make a determination regarding whether such waivers 
     have adverse consequences for the public health.
       ``(bb) In making determinations under this subclause, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(aa) may collect data from the practitioners for whom 
     waivers under subparagraph (A) are in effect;
       ``(bb) shall promulgate regulations (in accordance with 
     procedures for substantive rules under section 553 of title 
     5, United States Code) specifying the scope of the data that 
     will be required to be provided under this subclause and the 
     means through which the data will be collected; and
       ``(cc) shall, with respect to collecting such data, comply 
     with applicable provisions of chapter 6 of title 5, United 
     States Code (relating to a regulatory flexibility analysis) 
     and of chapter 8 of such title (relating to congressional 
     review of agency rulemaking).
       ``(II) The Attorney General shall--
       ``(aa) make a determination of the extent to which there 
     have been violations of the numerical limitations established 
     under subparagraph (B) for the number of individuals to whom 
     a practitioner may provide treatment;
       ``(bb) make a determination regarding whether waivers under 
     subparagraph (A) have increased (relative to the beginning of 
     such period) the extent to which narcotic drugs in schedule 
     IV or V or combinations of such drugs are being dispensed or 
     possessed in violation of this Act; and
       ``(cc) make a determination regarding whether such waivers 
     have adverse consequences for the public health.
       ``(iii) If, before the expiration of the period specified 
     in clause (ii), the Secretary or the Attorney General 
     publishes in the Federal Register a decision, made on the 
     basis of determinations under such clause, that this 
     paragraph should not remain in effect, this paragraph ceases 
     to be in effect 60 days after the date on which the decision 
     is so published. The Secretary shall, in making any such 
     decision, consult with the Attorney General, and shall, in 
     publishing the decision in the Federal Register, include any 
     comments received from the Attorney General for inclusion in 
     the publication. The Attorney General shall, in making any 
     such decision, consult with the Secretary, and shall, in 
     publishing the decision in the Federal Register, include any 
     comments received from the Secretary for inclusion in the 
     publication.
       ``(H) During the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999, a 
     State may not preclude a practitioner from dispensing 
     narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V, or combinations of such 
     drugs, to patients for maintentance or detoxification 
     treatment in accordance with the Drug Addiction Treatment Act 
     of 1999, unless, before the expiration of that 3-year period, 
     the State enacts a law prohibiting a practitioner from 
     dispensing such drugs or combination of drugs.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 304 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
     (5), by striking ``section 303(g)'' each place the term 
     appears and inserting ``section 303(g)(1)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 303(g)'' and 
     inserting ``section 303(g)(1)''.

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the need for additional anti-
addiction medications is a matter of great concern to me and an issue 
that I have been deeply involved with for a number of years. We must 
come up with new medications which block the craving of heroin. This is 
why I am very pleased to join with Senator Hatch and Senator Moynihan 
in introducing legislation that would establish the infrastructure to 
enable qualified physicians to prescribe schedule IV and V anti-
addiction medications in their offices without an additional DEA 
registration if certain conditions are met. This will allow for a 
promising new drug, buprenorphine, to be used in the treatment of 
opiate addiction in physicians' offices, under a separate registration 
from the Attorney General. Specific conditions would have to be met. 
These conditions include: Certification by participating physicians 
that they are licensed under state law and have the training and 
experience to treat heroin addicts; and that they have the capacity to 
refer patients to counseling and other ancillary services.
  Mr. President, there are a number of reasons why this legislation is 
necessary. The Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, requires separate 
DEA registrations for physicians who want to use approved narcotics in 
drug abuse treatment and separate approvals of registrants by U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and by state agencies. 
The result has been a treatment system consisting primarily of large 
methadone clinics located in big cities, and preventing physicians from 
treating patients in an office setting or in rural areas or small 
towns, thereby denying treatment to thousands in need of it. 
Additionally, experts say that many heroin addicts who want treatment 
are often deterred because of the stigma that is associated with such 
with such clinics.
  The intent of our legislation is to exclude medications like 
buprenorphine from burdensome regulatory requirements of the Narcotic 
Treatment Act, in order to carry drug abuse treatment beyond the 
methadone clinics and into physicians' offices. In so doing, the 
legislation includes protections against abuse. These protections 
include the following: Physicians may not treat more than 20 patients 
in an office setting unless the HHS Secretary adjusts this number; the 
HHS Secretary, as appropriate, may add to these conditions and allow 
the Attorney General to terminate a physician's DEA registration if 
these conditions are violated; and the program will continue after 
three years only if the HHS Secretary and Attorney General determine 
that this new type of decentralized treatment should continue based on 
a number of determinations.
  The National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], under a Cooperative 
Research and Development Agreement with a pharmaceutical manufacturer, 
has helped to develop buprenorphine, which is expected to be approved 
by the Food and Drug Administration in the near future. The Congress, 
NIDA and the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) 
have long recognized the urgent need to develop

[[Page 1475]]

new medications for drug addiction treatment. This is evident in the 
enactment of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which established the 
Medications Development Division of the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, and the enactment of legislation requiring HHS and IOM to 
cooperate in the development of anti-addiction medications.
  Recent data show that five out of six opiate addicts are currently 
not in treatment. This has contributed to a continuing public health 
crisis of significant proportions--the age of first heroin use is 
dropping; the number of heroin users is increasing; and the number of 
people becoming dependent on heroin is increasing. According to NIDA, 
the incidence of first-time use of heroin in the 12-17 year old group 
has increased fourfold from the 1980s to 1995.
  These facts and sentiments were also expressed by experts in this 
field of critical importance to the Nation during a May 9, 1997 Drug 
Forum on Anti-addiction Research, which I convened along with Senator 
Moynihan and Senator Bob Kerrey. Forum participants, including 
distinguished experts such as Dr. Herbert Kleber and Dr. Donald Landry 
of Columbia University, Dr. Charles Schuster of Wayne State University 
and Dr. James Woods of the University of Michigan, made it crystal 
clear that time is of the essence--we must act expeditiously on new 
treatment discoveries. According to public health experts, the 
untreated population of opiate addicts (and other injection drug users) 
is the primary means for the spread of HIV, hepatitis B and C, and 
tuberculosis into the general population, not to mention the families 
of such addicted persons. Failure to block the craving for drugs along 
with failure to provide traditional treatment will most certainly 
continue the spiral of huge health care costs--costs that will largely 
be borne not by the addicts, not by insurance companies--but by the 
American taxpayer.
  Buprenorphine, currently in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances 
Act, has a unique property--it has a ceiling effect, it is well 
tolerated by opiate addicted persons, and has a very low value for 
diversion on the street. Clinical trials conducted in 12 hospitals 
around the United States proved the new medication to be an extremely 
effective treatment medication. According to NIDA, of the 100,000 
heroin addicts in France, between 40,000-50,000 addicts are being 
treated with buprenorphine without ill effects. Dr. Donald Wesson, 
Chairman of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) 
Medication Development Committee wrote:

       (The availability of buprenorphine in physicians' offices 
     adds a needed level of care and is one avenue to expand 
     current opioid treatment capacity. ASAM strongly supports 
     federal legislation to enable buprenorphine to be prescribed 
     in physicians' offices for treatment of opioid dependence . . 
     . We are very pleased to see that the bill makes provisions 
     for physician training and qualification.)

  Mr. President, finally, there are a number of questions that I raised 
with NIDA regarding buprenorphine prior to the introduction of this 
legislation which I would like to share with my colleagues in the 
Senate. I would also like to share the informative memo on this subject 
which I received from The American Society of Addiction Medicine 
(ASAM). I ask unanimous consent that the October 5, 1998 reply from 
NIDA Director, Dr. Alan Leshner, and the October 8, 1998 memo from Dr. 
Donald R. Wesson of ASAM be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Department of Health and Human Services, National 
           Institute on Drug Abuse,
                                   Rockville, MD, October 5, 1998.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for your letter dated 
     September 17 requesting the views of the National Institute 
     on Drug Abuse (NIDA) regarding the use of buprenorphine and 
     buprenorphine/naloxone for the treatment of opiate 
     dependence. Your letter asked us to address three specific 
     questions. Our answers are provided below.
       Question No. 1. Is buprenorphine (alone and in combination) 
     a safe and effective treatment for drug addiction?
       While the ultimate decision concerning safety and efficacy 
     rests with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), NIDA has 
     funded many studies that support the safety and efficacy of 
     buprenorphine and the buprenorphine/naloxone combination for 
     the treatment of opiate dependence. During the time NIDA has 
     studied this medication, we have been impressed with its 
     safety and efficacy as a treatment for opiate dependence. 
     Over the last 5 years, NIDA has worked with Reckitt & Colman 
     Pharmaceuticals, Inc., under a Cooperative Research and 
     Development Agreement in an attempt to bring buprenorphine 
     (which the FDA has designated as an orphan product), to a 
     marketable status in the United States. These studies have 
     been submitted by Reckitt & Colman to the FDA in support of a 
     New Drug Application for buprenorphine products in the 
     treatment of opiate dependence. The major studies of 
     relevance have shown that buprenorphine is more effective 
     than a low dose of methadone (Johnson et al, J.A.M.A., 1992), 
     and that an orderly dose effect of buprenorphine on reduction 
     of opiate use occurred (Ling et al, Addiction, 1998). Most 
     recently, buprenorphine tablets (either buprenorphine alone 
     or the combination with naxolone) were shown in a large 
     clinical trial to be superior to placebo treatment in 
     reducing opiate use (Fudala et al, CPDD, 1998). Additional 
     clinical studies have shown that the addition of naxolone to 
     the buprenorphine tablet decreased the response to 
     buprenorphine when the combination is injected under 
     controlled conditions. This means that when persons attempt 
     to dissolve the tablets and inject them, they will either 
     experience withdrawal or a diminished buprenorphine effect. 
     These properties will make buprenorphine combined with 
     naxolone undesirable for diversion to illicit use, especially 
     when compared with other existing illegal and legal opiate 
     products.
       Pharmacologically, buprenorphine is related to morphine but 
     is a partial agonist (possesses both agonist and antagonist 
     properties). Partial agonists exhibit ceiling effects (i.e., 
     increasing the dose only has effects to a certain level). 
     Therefore, partial agonists usually have greater safety 
     profiles than full agonists (such as heroin or morphine and 
     certain analgesic products chemically related to morphine). 
     This means that buprenorphine is less likely to cause 
     respiratory depression, the major toxic effect of opiate 
     drugs, in comparison to full agonists such as morphine or 
     heroin. We believe this will translate into a greatly reduced 
     chance of accidental or intentional overdose. Another benefit 
     of buprenorphine is that the withdrawal syndrome seen upon 
     discontinuation with buprenorphine is, at worst, mild to 
     moderate and can often be managed without administration of 
     narcotics.
       Question No. 2. Do current regulations properly set forth 
     the rules for administration, delivery, and use of these 
     drugs?
       There are no current regulations which address the use of 
     buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone for the treatment of 
     opiate dependence because these products are not yet approved 
     for this purpose by the FDA. The current regulations (21 CFR 
     291) for administration and delivery of narcotic medications 
     in the treatment of narcotic dependent persons were written 
     for the use of full agonist medications such as methadone 
     with demonstrated abuse potential and do not take into 
     account the unique pharmacological properties of these drugs. 
     Therefore, these regulations would need to be re-examined and 
     substantially rewritten in order to recognize the unique 
     possibilities posed by buprenorphine/naloxone. Among these 
     are the potential to administer buprenorphine and 
     buprenorphine/naloxone in settings and situations other than 
     the formal Narcotic Treatment Programs (NTPs) which have 
     existed to date under existing regulations. As you may be 
     aware, NTPs are the most highly regulated form of medicine 
     practiced in the U.S., as they are subject to Federal, State, 
     and local regulation. Under this regulatory burden, expansion 
     of this system has been static for many years. This has 
     resulted in a ``treatment gap'', which is defined as the 
     difference between the number of opiate dependent persons and 
     those in treatment. The gap currently is over 600,000 persons 
     and represents 75-80% of all addicts.
       It may be useful to note the status of the last new product 
     introduced to the opiate dependence treatment market 
     (levoacetyl methadol, tradename ORLAAM). ORLAAM was an orphan 
     product developed by NIDA and a U.S. small business in the 
     early 1990s for narcotic dependence. ORLAAM was approved by 
     the FDA as a treatment medication for opiate dependence in 
     July 1993. In the five years since its approval and 
     dispensing under the more restrictive rules relating to the 
     use of full agonist medications (21 CFR 291), ORLAAM has been 
     poorly utilized to increase treatment for narcotic 
     dependence. It is estimated that 2,000 of the estimated 
     120,000 patients in narcotic treatment programs are receiving 
     ORLAAM. The failure of ORLAAM to make an appreciable impact 
     under the more restrictive rules suggests that if 
     buprenorphine is to make an appreciable impact on the 
     ``treatment gap'' it must be delivered under different rules 
     and regulations.

[[Page 1476]]

       The issue then becomes why should buprenorphine products be 
     delivered differently from ORLAAM and methadone. First, 
     buprenorphine's different pharmacology should be kept in mind 
     when rules and regulations are promulgated. The regulatory 
     burden should be determined based on a review of the risks to 
     individuals and society of this medication being dispensed by 
     prescription and commensurate with its safety profile, as is 
     the case with evaluation of all controlled substances. It is 
     our understanding that the Drug Enforcement Administration 
     has recognized the difference between buprenorphine treatment 
     products and those currently subject to 21 CFR 291 and has 
     communicated these views to your staff. Second, there are 
     many narcotic addicts who refuse treatment under the current 
     system. In a recent NIDA funded study (NIDA/VA #1008), 
     approximately 50% of the subjects had never been in treatment 
     before. Of that group, fully half maintained that they did 
     not want treatment in the current narcotic treatment program 
     system. The opportunity to participate in a new treatment 
     regimen (buprenorphine) was a motivating factor. Fear of 
     stigmatization is a very real factor holding back narcotic 
     dependent individuals from entering treatment. Third, 
     narcotic addiction is spreading from urban to suburban areas. 
     The current system, which tends to be concentrated in urban 
     areas, is a poor fit for the suburban spread of narcotic 
     addiction. There are many communities whose zoning will not 
     permit the establishment of narcotic treatment facilities, 
     which has in part been responsible for the treatment gap 
     described above. While narcotic treatment capacity has been 
     static, there has been an increase in the amount of heroin of 
     high purity. The high purity of this heroin has made it 
     possible to nasally ingest (snort) or smoke heroin. This 
     change in the route of heroin administration removes a major 
     taboo, injection and its attendant use of needles, from 
     initiation and experimentation with heroin use. The result of 
     these new routes of administration is an increase in the 
     number of younger Americans experimenting with, and becoming 
     addicted to, heroin. The incidence of first-time use of 
     heroin in the 12 to 17 year old group has increased fourfold 
     from the 1980s to 1995. Treatment for adolescents should be 
     accessible, and graduated to the level of dependence 
     exhibited in the patient. Buprenorphine products will likely 
     be the initial medication(s) for most of the heroin-dependent 
     adolescents.
       Question No. 3: Should more physicians be permitted to 
     dispense these drugs under controlled circumstances?
       It is our contention that more treatment should be made 
     more widely available for the reasons stated above. The 
     safety and effectiveness profiles for buprenorphine and 
     buprenorphine/naloxone suggest they could be dispensed under 
     controlled circumstances that would be delineated in the 
     product labeling and associated rules and regulations. As 
     currently envisioned, buprenorphine and buprenorphine/
     naloxone would be prescription, Schedule V controlled 
     substances. The treatment of patients by physicians or group 
     practice would allow office-based treatment to augment the 
     current system, while placing an adequate level of control on 
     the dispensing of these medications. Given the increased need 
     for treatment, the relative safety and efficacy of the 
     treatment product, and the development of a regulatory scheme 
     satisfactory to the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     we believe that these goals could be accomplished in a timely 
     and effective manner.
       Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions. 
     Should you need additional information, please feel free to 
     contact me again.
           Sincerely,
                                            Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D,
     Director.
                                  ____


  Chairman, Medication Development Committee, The American Society of 
                  Addiction Medicine, October 8, 1998

                       (By Donald R. Wesson, M.D.)

       Clinical experience within the context of narcotic 
     treatment clinics, drug abuse treatment clinics, and private 
     practice shows that opioid \1\ abusers are very diverse in 
     lifestyle, extent of involvement in the drug subculture, and 
     criminal activities. Clinical experience has also established 
     that many opioid abusers relapse to opioid use unless they 
     are maintained on medications with opioid properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Opioid is a broad term that covers drugs and medications 
     with morphine-like effects. Technically, opiate refers to 
     drugs or medications that are derived from the opium poppy 
     plant. The most common abused opiate is heroin; however, 
     synthetic medications with morphine-like effects, such a 
     fentanyl, are also abused. Opioid is the more inclusive term. 
     Opioid and opiate are often used interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Opioid maintenance treatment, by blocking the effect of 
     illicit opioids and stabilizing patients' emotional states, 
     allows patients to receive outpatient treatment while making 
     the life-style changes needed to remain abstinent. Most 
     opioid abusers will relapse to illicit opioid abuse unless 
     they are also provided drug counseling, group therapy or 
     individual psychotherapy; however, all opioid abusers do not 
     require the same level of drug abuse treatment services. Some 
     need the highly-structured, behavior modification services 
     and maintenance with methadone or LAAM. Others require less 
     intensive drug abuse treatment and could be adequately 
     treated with a less potent opioid maintenance medication, 
     such as buprenorphine, provided within the context of 
     physicians' offices in conjunction with an appropriate level 
     of psychosocial services.
       Treatment of opioid addiction has for many years been 
     separated from mainstream medical practice. There is a body 
     of specialized knowledge concerning treatment of opioid 
     addiction that has evolved from clinical experience with 
     methadone maintenance and from non-narcotic treatment of 
     opioid addiction. Unlike most areas of medicine in which 
     physicians voluntarily confine their medical practice to 
     areas in which they have specialized training, treatment of 
     drug abusers is unusual in that many physicians may assume 
     competence that they may not, in fact, possess. At the 
     present time, many physicians who are not addiction 
     specialists do not understand addiction, particularly 
     narcotic addiction. Further, there are no generally accepted 
     practice guidelines for office-based narcotic addiction 
     treatment.
       The American Society on Addiction Medicine strongly 
     supports the position that physicians appropriately trained 
     and qualified in the treatment of opiate withdrawal and 
     opiate dependence should be permitted to prescribe 
     buprenorphine in the normal course of medical practice and in 
     accordance with appropriate medical practice guidelines, and 
     that federal controlled substance scheduling guidelines and 
     other federal and state regulations should permit 
     buprenorphine to be made available for physicians to 
     prescribe to their patients in accordance with documented 
     clinical indications.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ Adopted by ASAM Board April 15, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has a 
     certification examination in addiction medicine and the 
     American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology has a 
     certification examination in addiction psychiatry. The 
     American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American 
     Methadone Treatment Association and the American Academy of 
     Addiction Psychiatry have agreed to develop guidelines and 
     physician training for use of opioids in office-based 
     physician practices.
       It is highly desirable that physicians who plan to 
     prescribe opioids from their offices be certified by one of 
     the national organizations that offers training and 
     certification in addiction medicine or psychiatry.
       A problem with current federal regulation of opioid 
     treatment is that opioid maintenance is viewed as a treatment 
     of last resort and only possible within the context of 
     specially licensed clinics with methadone or LAAM. Because of 
     costs, or limited public sector treatment capacity, or 
     because they do not meet state and federal requirements for 
     maintenance with methadone or LAAM, many patients who need 
     opioid medication treatment cannot access methadone or LAAM 
     treatment. The availability of buprenorphine in physicians' 
     offices adds a needed level of care and is one avenue to 
     expand current opioid treatment capacity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Thomas, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 325. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives to encourage production of oil and gas within the United 
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  the u.s. energy economic growth act

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce 
the U.S. Energy Economic Growth Act.
  Mr. President, the oil and gas industry in this country is in a state 
of crisis. In energy producing states, we are hearing daily from our 
constituents about this crisis.
  This week the oil and gas rig count hit an all-time low of 588 rigs 
nationwide. This is down from nearly 5,000 rigs operating in 1981. 
Crude oil prices are at their lowest point in decades, and some think 
they will fall further.
  According to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, for every 
dollar drop in the price of oil, ten thousand Texas jobs are at risk. 
Last year, the energy industry lost 30,000 jobs in the United States.
  Mr. President, not only is this an economic issue, it's a national 
security issue. We are importing more oil than we produce. This is not 
a healthy situation for shaping our foreign policy agenda.
  To reverse these trends and increase our energy independence, I have

[[Page 1477]]

worked, on a bi-partisan basis, to develop the U.S. Energy Economic 
Growth Act.
  This legislation provides tax incentives in two significant areas to 
boost U.S. oil production. First, the legislation would provide a $3 
dollar a barrel tax credit, on the first three barrels that can offset 
the cost of keeping marginal wells operating at a time of low prices.
  Marginal wells are those that produce 15 barrels a day or less. On 
average, they produce two barrels a day. There are close to 500,000 
such wells across the U.S. that collectively produce 20 percent of 
America's oil. To put this in perspective, we import 20 percent of our 
oil from Saudia Arabia. Texas, alone, has 100,000 marginal wells. 
Regrettably, 48,000 wells have been idled or shut in the past year.
  In recent months, some marginal well producers report prices as low 
as $6 per barrel. If we don't act soon, these producers--and the 
thousands they employ--will go out of business.
  These marginal wells can still be profitable for all of us. In 1998, 
these low-volume wells generated $314 million in taxes paid annually to 
state governments.
  Second, Mr. President, the bill would provide incentives to restart 
inactive wells by offering producers a tax exemption for the costs of 
doing so.
  In Texas, a similar program has resulted in 6,000 wells being 
returned to production, injecting approximately $1.65 billion into the 
Texas economy.
  Mr. President, improving the production and flow from both marginal 
wells and inactive wells will do a great deal to improve our energy 
production. This is vital to improving the state of the U.S. oil and 
gas industry.
  I am pleased that this legislation has 18 co-sponsors from both sides 
of the aisle. I would invite all members of the Senate to join me as a 
co-sponsor.
  This morning I testified before the Senate Energy Committee on this 
bill. Certainly that Committee recognizes the gravity of this 
situation. I would hope that, with the introduction of this bill, the 
Senate as a whole will begin to focus on this problem and we can begin 
finding solutions.
 Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to join in offering 
the U.S. Energy and Economic Growth Act. This legislation is an effort 
to help revive our domestic oil and gas industry which plays such a 
vital role in our national security. If our domestic industry is to 
survive, then Congress needs to act now to provide tax incentives to 
encourage energy production in America.
  Since the early 1980's, oil and gas extraction employment has been 
cut in half. Employment in the oil and gas industry has declined by 
almost 500,000 since 1984. Imports of crude oil products were $71 
billion in 1977, and the import dependency ratio now exceeds fifty 
percent. From 1973 to 1998, crude oil production dropped 43% in the 
lower 48 states. We must take action now to save domestic production 
not only for the sake of the oil and gas industry but for the sake of 
the national security of this nation.
  To date, the Clinton Administration has done nothing to encourage 
domestic production. In the President's State of the Union address, he 
named no initiatives to aid this troubled industry and recently, his 
Administration has conspired with the U.N. to almost double the amount 
of oil Iraq can export under the so-called food-for-oil program.
  The U.S. Energy and Economic Growth Act is intended to do just what 
its name implies--preserve and revitalize the domestic oil and gas 
industry through economic incentives to production. This bill would 
accomplish these goals through specific tax proposals.
  Marginal wells are those which produce less than 15 barrels per day 
or gas wells which produce less than 90 thousand cubic feet per day. 
The United States has over 500,000 marginal wells producing nearly 700 
million barrels of oil each year and contributing 80,000 jobs and $14 
billion to the annual economy.
  This legislation provides incentives to keep these valuable wells in 
production through a $3 per barrel tax credit on the first three 
barrels of daily production, or $0.50 per mcf for the first 18 mcf of 
daily natural gas production. These credits would only apply when low 
market prices necessitated them for the survival of the industry, and 
are phased out when prices increase.
  In an effort to reclaim oil lost to closed wells, this bill allows 
producers to exclude income attributable to oil and natural gas from a 
recovered inactive well. The provision only applies to wells which have 
been inactive for at least two years prior to the date of enactment, 
and which are recovered within five years from the date of enactment.
  The U.S. Energy and Economic Growth Act would also allow current 
expensing of geological and geophysical costs incurred domestically 
including the Outer Continental Shelf. These costs are an important and 
integral part of exploration and production for oil and natural gas, 
and should be expensed.
  Furthermore, this bill clarifies that delay rental payments are 
deductible, at the election of the taxpayer, as ordinary and necessary 
business expenses. This clarifies an otherwise gray area in Treasury 
regulations and eliminates costly administrative and compliance burdens 
on both taxpayers and the IRS.
  Lastly, the legislation includes hydro injection and horizontal 
drilling as tertiary recovery methods for purposes of the Enhanced Oil 
Recovery Credit. Although the Treasury Department is tasked with 
continued evaluations and editions to the list of recovery methods 
covered under this credit, they have proven notably lax in pursuing 
this objective. By legislating this outcome, this bill keeps domestic 
production of our endangered marginal wells on the cutting edge of 
available technology.
  Collectively, the provisions of this bill provide much needed 
incentives to an industry that is vital to our national security. The 
sooner the Administration and Congress acknowledge the critical 
importance of the domestic oil and gas industry and stop burdening this 
industry with high taxes and regulatory obstacles, the sooner we can 
take the necessary actions to preserve and revitalize this important 
sector of our economy. Passage of the U.S. Energy and Economic Growth 
Act would be a significant step in that direction. I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation which will positively impact the domestic 
oil and gas industry by helping to bridge the gap in these lean 
economic times.
 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator 
Hutchison, many members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
and other Senators who recognize the importance of our domestic energy 
market in presenting the United States Energy Economic Growth Act. This 
act is extremely important given the current state of our domestic oil 
and gas industry. The current market, coupled with government inaction 
and misguided regulation, has created an environment that is forcing 
many of our producers out of the energy market.
  I have risen many times before, and unless things change I will rise 
many times again, to voice my concern over that fact that we are 
running our producers into the ground. Agriculture, timber, mining and 
energy; it doesn't seem to make a difference these days which natural 
resource market you work in, you don't get a fair price for an honest 
day's work.
  This morning in the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, we had a 
hearing on this very problem. I must say, I heard some of the best 
testimony that I have ever heard before a Senate Committee. It just 
made good sense. We didn't have people asking for handouts. We didn't 
have people placing blame. We had some hard working oil and gas 
producers, state governors and representatives of oil and gas producing 
states outline the problem and offer solutions.
  One of the biggest problems discussed was the loss of domestic 
production capability in the form of marginal wells. We are losing 
these wells at an alarming rate. As a result our reliance on foreign 
energy sources is skyrocketing. We are running our producers out of 
business, increasing our dependence on

[[Page 1478]]

foreign oil, and throwing our trade balance askew.
  This legislation will help our independent producers running marginal 
wells stay in business. Much more needs to be done, but this bill will 
help relax the heavy hand of government on an ailing industry. As 
pointed out this morning, the current administration stepped in to help 
the straw broom industry when less than a hundred jobs were at risk. 
It's time this Congress takes a stand, and hopefully the administration 
will join us, in supporting an industry where tens of thousands of 
jobs, our national security, and our economic well-being are all being 
placed at risk.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Enzi, 
        Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Collins, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. 
        Sessions);
  S. 326. A bill to improve the access and choice of patients to 
quality, affordable health care, to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


                        PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with 
eight other members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions in introducing the ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' I think it is 
solid legislation that will result in a greatly improved health care 
system for Americans.
  As Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions, with its jurisdiction of private health insurance and public 
health programs, I anticipate that the Committee will have an active 
health care agenda during the 106th Congress, including early 
consideration of patient protection legislation. In fact, on January 
20th, the Committee held a hearing on the Department of Labor's 
proposed rules on health plan information requirements and internal and 
external appeals rights.
  Last week's hearing builds on the foundation of 14 related hearings, 
which my Committee held during the 105th Congress. These included 11 
hearings related to the issues of health care quality, confidentiality, 
genetic discrimination, and the Health Care Financing Administration's 
(HCFA) implementation of its new health insurance responsibilities. And 
Senator Bill Frist's Public Health and Safety Subcommittee held three 
hearings on the work of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research 
(AHCPR). Each of these hearings helped us in developing the separate 
pieces of legislation that are reflected in our ``Patients' Bill of 
Rights.''
  People need to know what their plan will cover and how they will get 
their health care. The ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' requires full 
information disclosure by an employer about the health plans he or she 
offers to employees. Patients also need to know how adverse decisions 
by the plan can be appealed, both internally and externally, to an 
independent medical reviewer.
  The limited set of standards under the Employee Retirement and Income 
Security Act (ERISA) may have worked well for the simple payment of 
health insurance claims under the fee-for-service system in 1974. We 
have moved from a system where an individual received a treatment or 
procedure, and the bill was simply paid. In our current system, an 
individual frequently obtains authorization before a treatment or 
procedure can be provided. And it is in the context of these changes 
that ERISA needs to be amended in order to give participants and 
beneficiaries the right to appeal adverse coverage or medical necessity 
decisions to an independent medical expert.
  Under the ``Patients' Bill of Rights,'' enrollees will get timely 
decisions about what will be covered. Furthermore, if an individual 
disagrees with the plan's decision, that individual may appeal the 
decision to an independent, external reviewer. The reviewer's decision 
will be binding on the health plan. However, the patient maintains his 
or her current rights to go to court. Timely utilization decisions and 
a defined process for appealing such decisions is the key to restoring 
trust in the health care system.
  Another important provision of the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' would 
limit the collection and use of predictive genetic information by group 
health plans and health insurance companies. As our body of scientific 
knowledge about genetics increases, so, too, do the concerns about how 
this information may be used. There is no question that our 
understanding of genetics has brought us to a new future. Our challenge 
as a Congress is to quickly enact legislation to help ensure that our 
society reaps the full health benefits of genetic testing, and also to 
put to rest any concerns that the information will be used as a new 
tool to discriminate against specific ethnic groups or individual 
Americans.
  Our legislation addresses these concerns by prohibiting group health 
plans and health insurance companies in all markets from adjusting 
premiums on the basis of predictive genetic information; and it 
prohibits group health plans and health insurance companies from 
requesting predictive genetic information as a condition of enrollment.
  Many of our colleagues argue that the current accountability 
structure of ERISA is insufficient to protect patients from bad 
decisions made by health plans. They would like to hold health plans 
accountable by removing the ERISA preemption and allowing group health 
plans to be sued in State court for damages resulting from personal 
injury or for wrongful death due to ``the treatment of or the failure 
to treat a mental illness or disease.''
  Mr. President, patients already have the right to sue their health 
plan in State court. Patients can sue health plans for personal injury 
or wrongful death resulting from the delivery of substandard care or 
the failure to diagnose and properly treat an illness or disease. 
Furthermore, the courts have determined that health plans can be held 
liable for having policies that encourage providers to deliver 
inadequate medical care.
  You simply cannot sue your way to better health. We believe that 
patients need to get the care they need when they need it. In the 
``Patients' Bill of Rights,'' we make sure each patient is afforded 
every opportunity to have the right treatment decision made by health 
care professionals. And, we make sure that a patient can appeal an 
adverse decision to an independent medical expert outside the health 
plan. This approach, Mr. President, puts teeth into ERISA and will 
assure that patients get the care they need. Prevention, not 
litigation, is the best medicine.
  As the Health and Education Committee works on health care quality 
legislation, I will keep in mind three goals. First, to give families 
the protections they want and need. Second, to ensure that medical 
decisions are made by physicians in consultation with their patients. 
And, finally, to keep the cost of this legislation low, so that it 
displaces no one from getting health care coverage.
  Our goal is to give Americans the protections they want and need in a 
package that they can afford and that we can enact. This is why I hope 
the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' we have introduced today will be 
enacted and signed into law by the President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Grams, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 327. A bill to exempt agricultural products, medicines, and 
medical products from U.S. economic sanctions; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.

                          ____________________