[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 27203-27205]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Hatch, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to comment on a provision 
of the recently enacted omnibus children's health legislation (H.R. 
4365; Public Law 106-310) that established a number of excellent 
children's health programs. The bill also included important new 
legislation, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act [DATA], which I authored 
along with Senator Hatch, working with our colleagues Senators Biden 
and Moynihan. It will make a revolutionary difference in the way in 
which we battle heroin and other opiate addiction.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan is correct. 
Additionally, as my colleagues are aware, the bill reauthorized the 
operation of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, and established and reinforced penalties for illegal 
manufacture, sale, and possession of certain illicit drugs.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when implemented, the DATA bill, as we call 
it, will change significantly the way opiate addiction is addressed by 
allowing qualified physicians, for the first time, to prescribe in 
their private offices, substances which block the craving for heroin 
and otherwise address this deadly addiction.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as Senator Levin knows, the DATA bill 
includes a provision similar to one applicable for many years to both 
the Medicaid and Medicare programs, which makes clear that basic 
decisions about the way medicine is practiced are to be made by 
physicians and patients, not by the federal government.
  Mr. LEVIN. In other words, it is our intent that with respect to the 
amendments to the Controlled Substances Act made by the provisions 
incorporated in H.R. 4365, decisions by qualified physicians about the 
appropriate means to treat their patients and to prescribe and dispense 
medications are not a proper matter for government regulation.
  While the bill clearly provides authority for the Department of 
Health and Human Services to issue regulations to expand the pool of 
qualified physicians, it is not the intention of our legislation that 
those regulations extend to the practice of medicine.
  Mr. HATCH. I certainly agree with that. Indeed, such an 
interpretation is expressly prohibited by the language: ``Nothing in 
such regulations or practice guidelines may authorize any Federal 
official or employee to exercise supervision or control over the 
practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are 
provided.''
  Mr. LEVIN. This clarification is important, both for the qualified 
physicians who wish to participate in this new approach to addiction 
treatment and for patients for whom a new treatment option may present 
a life-changing possibility. I know my colleague from Utah agrees that 
we want this legislation to work. An unauthorized and ill-advised 
attempt to regulate the practice of medicine, including the practice of 
prescribing anti-addiction medication, would make it unworkable.
  Mr. HATCH. I do agree wholeheartedly. I feel compelled to add, 
however, that as the Chairman of the Committee of jurisdiction, it was 
important to me to make certain that the bill in no way impedes the 
Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] from vigorously enforcing the 
Controlled Substances Act. Specifically, the DATA legislation is not 
intended to prevent the DEA from its historic role of prosecuting 
physicians for dispensing controlled substances without a legitimate 
medical purpose.
  Mr. LEVIN. I agree with my colleague. I believe we successfully 
balanced both interests in the DATA bill. It is important legislation 
and I am pleased to have had the support of the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and Senators Biden and Moynihan as we successfully 
moved this bipartisan legislation to enactment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of H.R. 
1653, which includes the Pribilof Islands Transition Act and the Coral 
Reef Conservation Act of 2000. This bill contains a number of ocean, 
coastal, and fisheries related titles that will result in major 
conservation gains for our nation's marine resources at a time when we 
are placing enormous demands on them. The bill not only attempts to 
provide additional environmental protections through a number of state 
and local programs, but also tools for better management.
  Title I of this bill is the Pribilof Islands Transition Act. The 
Alaskan

[[Page 27204]]

Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea were a former reserve for harvesting 
fur seals. The Commerce Department, acting through the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been involved in municipal 
and social services on the islands since 1910. In 1983, NOAA tried to 
remove themselves from administering these programs. However, despite 
the $20 million in funds the Pribilof Islands received to replace 
future annual Federal appropriations, the Pribilof Islanders claim that 
the terms of the transition process were not met and the withdrawal 
failed.
  This title authorizes $28 million over five years to again attempt to 
achieve the orderly withdrawal of NOAA from the civil administration of 
the Pribilof Islands. Additionally, it authorizes $10 million a year 
for five years for NOAA to complete its environmental cleanup and 
landfill closure obligations prior to the final transfer of federal 
property to the six local entities. The Pribilof Islands have 
historically been a very expensive program to the American taxpayers. 
Congress expects that this title will provide a final termination of 
NOAA's municipal and social service responsibilities on the islands and 
a distinct end to federal taxpayer funding of those services.
  Title II of this bill is the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. It 
is based on legislation that I first introduced over three years ago 
and S. 725, a bill that I introduced earlier in the 106th Congress 
along with Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee.
  Over the last decade, the United States had been leading a focused 
effort to conserve and manage coral reef ecosystems. The plight of 
coral reefs, both in the United States and internationally, gained much 
attention in 1997, the International Year of the Reef. One very 
successful program undertaken during the year-long event involved 
grants to local groups to build grassroots support for coral reef 
conservation, management, and educational programs. Since that time, 
NOAA has steadily improved coral reef management programs utilizing the 
full range of existing statutory authorities including the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. These complementary 
authorities provide the framework for comprehensive coral reef 
conservation and management. Working in partnership with the States and 
other agencies, NOAA has demonstrated its unique ability among the 
federal agencies to effectively manage these valuable resources.
  This title will augment the tools already available and provides an 
outline to assist NOAA as it moves forward with coral reef ecosystem 
management plans. It requires the creation of a national coral reef 
action strategy. Of particular note is the use of marine protected 
areas to serve as replenishment zones. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 
has called for setting aside 20 percent of coral reefs in each region 
of the United States that contains reefs as no-take areas. However, 
many of the U.S. islands that have coral reefs have significant 
cultural ties to these reefs. It is imperative that any new marine 
protected areas are developed in close cooperation with the people of 
these islands and account for traditional and cultural uses of these 
resources. Without such cooperation, there will not be public support. 
The national strategy will address how such traditional uses will be 
incorporated into these replenishment zones.
  The national program will also incorporate such important topics as 
mapping; research, monitoring, and assessment; international and 
regional management; outreach and education; and restoration. According 
to NOAA, the majority of our nation's coral reefs are within federal 
waters, therefore it is expected that NOAA will continue to work 
cooperatively with the states, territories, and commonwealths in the 
development and implementation of coral reef management plans and not 
shift the burden of responsibility onto these states, territories, and 
commonwealths. It is particularly important that NOAA not let recent 
activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands consume too much of the 
agency's personnel and financial resources at the expense of the rest 
of the nation's reefs. While the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral 
Reef Reserve will provide protection for the majority of reefs within 
our borders, it will not provide protection for our most heavily 
degraded reefs. NOAA must work collaboratively with our island partners 
to implement meaningful coral reef management strategies that target 
the full range of problems.
  The title also creates a new coral reef conservation program, which 
will provide grants to states, governmental authorities, educational 
institutions, and non-governmental organizations. This is intended to 
foster locally based coral reef conservation and management. Creation 
of a coral reef conservation fund is also authorized. This fund would 
allow the Administration to enter into agreements with nonprofit 
organizations to support partnerships between the public and private 
sectors to further the conservation of coral reefs and help raise the 
matching funds required as part of the new grants program.
  The title authorizes a total of $16 million a year for fiscal years 
2001 through 2004 to be spilt equally between the local coral reef 
conservation program and national coral reef activities. It is our 
expectation that this money will be utilized in such a way that builds 
upon partnerships with the U.S. islands.
  Title III of the bill makes a number of minor technical changes to 
fisheries laws. The fourth title of the bill authorizes the study of 
biological and environmental factors that are responsible for an 
increase in deaths in the eastern gray whale population. Two-hundred 
ninety thousand dollars is authorized for fiscal year 2001, and 
$500,000 is authorized for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
  Title V of the bill makes a technical correction to the American 
Fisheries Act (AFA) with regard to two fishing vessels, the Providian 
(United States Official Number 1062183) and the Hazel Lorraine (United 
States Official Number 592211). The 1998 AFA authorized the 
participation of certain US-owned fishing vessels in the Bering Sea 
pollock fishery. The AFA was designed to work in conjunction with the 
license limitation provisions of the fishery management plan developed 
by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Certain ``qualifying 
years'' were established in order to determine which vessels had earned 
a ``fishing history'' to allow them future access to pollock-fishing 
quotas. During the consideration of the AFA, the special circumstances 
of many vessels were taken into account. At that time, the fishing 
vessel Providian was being built in a U.S. shipyard as a replacement 
vessel for the pollock-fishing vessel Ocean Spray.
  In 1994, the Ocean Spray was lost at sea--fortunately without the 
loss of a single life. Had the Ocean Spray not been lost, the vessel 
would have continued to fish for Bering Sea pollock during the years 
leading up to the development of the AFA. After the loss of the Ocean 
Spray, the owner-operator followed the replacement guidelines in order 
to secure his federal fishing permits and endorsement for his new 
vessel, the Providian. According to landing records, it appears that 
the average pollock harvest of the Ocean Spray during the years 1992 
through 1994, exceeded 2000 metric tons.
  Since the construction on the Providian was completed, the owner 
decided to bring his vessel to Bath, Maine to work in the Maine herring 
fishery. The current location of this vessel does not eliminate the 
need to establish fairness and restore the vessel owner's pollock-
fishing rights earned with the Ocean Spray during 1992-1994. This 
amendment to the AFA is intended to provide the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service with the 
authority to qualify the Providian under the AFA with directed onshore 
pollock-fishing rights equivalent to those earned by the Ocean Spray 
during the years 1992-1994.

[[Page 27205]]

  Mr. President, the authors of the AFA certainly took into account the 
particular circumstances of other vessel owners and companies. This 
technical amendment simply qualifies two vessels, the Providian and the 
Hazel Lorraine under the AFA for fishing rights that they otherwise 
should have received allow for the participation of two additional 
catcher vessels in the Alaskan pollock fishery. These vessels were able 
to demonstrate that they should have been included in the Act when it 
passed in 1998.
  I would like to thank Senator Kerry, the ranking member of the Oceans 
and Fisheries Subcommittee for his hard work and support of this bill. 
I would also like to thank Senator Inouye for his support, particularly 
for his contributions to the coral reef conservation section of the 
bill. In addition, I would like to thank Senator McCain, the chairman 
of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking member of 
the Committee, for their bipartisan support of this measure. We have 
before us an opportunity to significantly improve our nation's ability 
to conserve and manage our marine resources and I urge the Senate to 
pass H.R. 1653, as amended.

                          ____________________