[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3660-3673]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 528. A bill to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 
to modify the requirements for voter mail registration and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a commonsense 
election reform bill which we have entitled the Safeguard the Vote Act. 
I realize other reform issues have received a lot of media attention, 
but I think it is vital to focus on the fundamental issue of casting 
and counting votes honestly and fairly as well.
  Over the past months, many Americans saw for the first time how 
actual vote counting is done or not done. We have had a real-life 
civics lesson that was as unexpected as it was frustrating. Those of us 
in positions of responsibility need to fix what needs fixing, reform 
what needs reforming, and prosecute where actual wrongdoing has 
occurred.
  Voting is the most important civic duty and responsibility for 
citizens in our form of government. It should not be diluted by fraud, 
false filings in lawsuits, judges who do not follow the law, 
politicians who try to profit from confusion, and people who just abuse 
the system.
  Let me be clear, at the same time voters must not be unduly confused 
by complicated ballots or confounded by inadequate phone lines or 
voting booths. These barriers to voting are absolutely unacceptable, 
and we need to make sure they do not exist.
  Having said that--and I believe very strongly in it--I also say to 
some who want to hide the other abuses, do not try to use general 
confusion as an excuse or a justification for fraud.
  I want to make one simple point as I begin. Vote fraud is not about 
partisanship. It is not about Democrats versus Republicans. It is not 
about the north side of St. Louis versus the south side of St. Louis. 
It is not about somebody getting a partisan advantage. It is about 
justice.
  Vote fraud is a criminal not a political act. Illegal votes dilute 
the value

[[Page 3661]]

of votes cast legally. When people try to stuff the ballot box, what 
they are really doing is trying to steal political power from those who 
follow election laws.
  On election night in November of 2000, I was exercised and somewhat 
upset, one might say, as we learned about what was going on in St. 
Louis city where orders had been issued to keep the voting booths open 
in certain areas for an extended period of time. Lawyers appealed that 
decision, and the Missouri Court of Appeals shut them down. They wrote:

       (E)qual vigilance is required to ensure that only those 
     entitled to vote are allowed to cast a ballot. Otherwise, the 
     rights of those lawfully entitled to vote are inevitably 
     diluted.

  Unfortunately, what we have seen in St. Louis these past months has 
been nothing short of breathtaking. Some might say that we have even 
become a national laughingstock. We have dead people registering by 
mail.
  This city alderman died more than 10 years ago. He was registered to 
vote on cards turned in just before the March 6 mayoral primary. We had 
people registering from vacant lots. The media in St. Louis was very 
aggressive, and they checked on some of the voter addresses. There was 
no building there. They did not even see the tents in which people were 
living.
  Voter rolls in St. Louis had more names on the registered active and 
inactive list than there were people in St. Louis city. It begins to 
raise suspicions.
  A city judge exceeded the law by providing extended voting hours for 
only selected polling places. Then there is the strange story of a 
plaintiff in that case who claimed he ``has not been able to vote and 
fears he will not be able to vote because of long lines at the polling 
places and machine breakdowns.'' It was discovered he had two problems. 
He was dead, in which case long lines should not have been a problem 
because he was not going anywhere anyway.
  The lawyer then came up with somebody else: Oh, what we really meant 
to say was a guy whose name is similar to that, so they tracked him 
out. The problem was he had already voted when the lawyers filed the 
sworn statement saying that he was worried about not being able to 
vote, which, I guess, we can only conclude meant he was worried about 
casting a second illegal ballot.
  We have had felons voting, people not even registered voting. Just 
when you think we have seen it all--this is my favorite--here is the 
voting registration card that was sent in in October of 1994 by one 
Ritzy Mekler. The interesting thing about Ritzy Mekler is that Ritzy is 
a dog. We do not know how many times Ritzy may have voted, but this 
seems to be an unwarranted extension of the voting franchise. Much as I 
love dogs, I don't really think they should be voting. This is 
certainly a new avenue for those who like pets. But that is the kind of 
thing with which we need to deal.
  The end result of all these revelations is that a city grand jury in 
St. Louis is now investigating fraudulent voter registration, and the 
lawyers involved have sent the U.S. attorney a 250-page report. People 
are beginning to take it seriously. You don't have to take my word for 
it. Local St. Louis city Democrats have had a few things to say.
  St. Louis' current mayor, Clarence Harmon, said:

       I think there is ample, longstanding evidence of voter 
     fraud in our community.

  State representative Quincy Troupe said:

       There is no doubt in any black elected official's mind that 
     the whole process has discouraged honest elections in the 
     city of St. Louis for some time. We know that we have people 
     who cheat in every election. The only way you can win a close 
     election in this town, you have to beat the cheat.

  From another side, 11th ward alderman, Matt Villa, said:

       Who knows who did it. But it is apparent they are trying to 
     cheat and steal this election.

  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which has been aggressively covering 
this story, noted on its editorial page:

       St. Louis appears to have a full-blown election scandal 
     that grows with each newly discovered box of bogus 
     registration cards.

  As I noted earlier, I believe it is our duty to fix what needs to be 
fixed, reform what needs to be reformed, and prosecute where there has 
been wrongdoing. In St. Louis, I believe criminal prosecutions are 
being considered. Coupled with the bill I am introducing today, this 
should go a long way toward cleaning up what has gone wrong in St. 
Louis.
  I might add, just the threat of criminal prosecutions appear to have 
made a difference in the mayoral primary in St. Louis last week. It was 
a lot more honest than it has been in a long time. There is nothing 
like the healthy atmosphere of possible criminal prosecutions to make 
people think maybe we should not try to steal this election.
  Well, let me go through the list of things we found out are 
contributing to fraud.
  The first obvious problem is the blatant fraud of the bogus voter 
registrations. With dead people reregistering, fake names, phony 
addresses, and dogs being registered, it is clear the system is being 
abused.
  Nearly all of these fraudulent registrations were the mail-in forms. 
Our plan begins by addressing this type of fraud with a few simple 
reforms. These are changing Federal law, which in some instances, has 
actually facilitated voter fraud.
  1. First-time voters who register by mail would be required to vote 
in person and present a photo ID the first time after registration. We 
trust that the local officials would recognize the dog if she came in--
even with a photo registration.
  2. If the follow-up registration card is returned to the election 
office as undeliverable by the post office, States would be allowed 
immediately to remove those names from the rolls, provided they made a 
good-faith effort to ensure that eligible voters would not be removed 
from the rolls.
  3. Finally, the bill would give the States the authority to include 
on the mail registration form a place for notarization or other form of 
authentication. Under current Federal law, States are actually 
prohibited from including this safeguard.
  I believe the incentives for the bogus addresses and fake names would 
be virtually eliminated by these simple safeguards, while all the 
legitimate efforts to encourage new voters to register could, should, 
and must continue.
  The second major problem we have seen in St. Louis is that the voter 
rolls are so clogged up with incorrect or fraudulent data that legal 
voters are shortchanged. St. Louis city actually, as I said earlier, 
has more voters listed on its active plus inactive rolls than the 
voting age population of the city. That is not surprising if they are 
registering dead people, dogs, and people from vacant lots.
  Even more amazing is the fact that the Secretary of State said in a 
recent report that 5,000 of the names on the inactive list are actually 
duplicates of other names on the inactive list. There are numerous 
other examples of names on both the active and inactive lists at the 
same time. These inactive lists are what is being used for election day 
registration and voting. They just go in and say my name is on the 
inactive list. Hundreds were allowed to vote in that instance.
  Thus, it is painfully clear that something must be done to keep the 
voter rolls clean and accurate.
  The bill I introduce includes two basic reforms to assist in the 
cleanup of voter rolls. First, it would require States to conduct a 
program of cleaning up lists wherever the voter roll list of eligible 
voters is larger than the number of people of voting age in that county 
or city. That seems to make only common sense. I can't imagine anyone 
opposing that if you have more people registered than you have people, 
something is wrong.
  Second, my proposal adopts the commonsense approach just used by the 
St. Louis election board in their March primary. For those voters whose 
names have been moved to the inactive list, it would require that a 
photo ID be presented by the voter as part of their oral or written 
affirmation of their address

[[Page 3662]]

when they seek to vote again. The board of elections just required this 
in last week's election, and that election seemed to go off without a 
hitch.
  I believe these straightforward reforms will go a long way toward 
restoring the confidence in the voter registration and balloting 
process. But for those who insist on continuing their fraudulent 
activities, this bill strengthens criminal penalties for those who 
commit fraud or conspire to commit voter fraud.
  Finally, given the dimensions of the vote fraud scandal in St. Louis, 
this legislation creates a national pilot project to clean up voter 
lists in St. Louis in order to assist in ending election day corruption 
across the Nation.
  I have proposed that the Federal Election Commission run the project 
in St. Louis city and St. Louis County to develop a method we can use 
nationally to maintain accurate voter rolls and ensure that all 
properly registered voters are permitted to vote without wrongfully 
being disenfranchised by failure of their registration to be effective, 
or by allowing others who are not qualified and registered to vote, 
diluting their votes. The FEC would also coordinate records of voters 
registered to vote at places authorized under the National Voter 
Registration Act of 1993, along with State death and felony conviction 
records and the official voter registered for each polling place.
  As the Missouri Court of Appeals wrote when they shut down the 
improper efforts to keep only certain polling places open:

       . . . (C)ommendable zeal to protect voting rights must be 
     tempered by the corresponding duty to protect the integrity 
     of the voting process. . . . (E)qual vigilance is required to 
     ensure that only those entitled to vote are allowed to cast a 
     ballot. Otherwise, the rights of those lawfully entitled to 
     vote are inevitably diluted.

  With these new tools, and some real leadership, the election boards 
of St. Louis City, and St. Louis County could get the big broom--and 
start cleaning up the mess. Criminal investigations are ongoing, I hope 
that anyone responsible for cheating will be caught and punished. But 
we must get a handle on the voter rolls. People who register and follow 
the rules shouldn't be frustrated by inadequate polling places and 
phone lines or confused by out-of-date lists. At the same time, we must 
require voter lists to be scrubbed and reviewed in a much more timely 
manner--so the cheaters cannot use confusion as their friend.
  I certainly don't want St. Louis to have the lasting reputation 
described by my old friend Quincy Troupe:

       The only way you can win a close election in this town, you 
     have to beat the cheat.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Schumer, 
        and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 530. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a 5-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important tax 
legislation for myself and Senators Jeffords, Leahy, Murkowski, Breaux, 
Smith of Oregon, Dorgan, Feinstein, Craig, Murray, Johnson, Schumer, 
and Conrad.
  This legislation, entitled the ``Bipartisan Renewable Efficient 
Energy with Zero Effluent, (BREEZE) Act'', extends the production tax 
credit for energy generated by wind for five years. The current tax 
credit is set to expire on January 1, 2002.
  As author of the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, I sought to give 
this alternative energy source the ability to compete against 
traditional, finite energy sources. I strongly believe that the 
expansion and development of wind energy must be facilitated by this 
production tax credit.
  Wind, unlike most energy sources, is an efficient and environmentally 
safe form of energy production. Wind energy makes valuable 
contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment. 
Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can 
reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing 
the combustion of fossil fuels.
  Since the inception of the wind energy production tax credit in 1993, 
more than 1,128 megawatts of generating capacity have been put online. 
This generating capacity powers nearly 300,000 homes, or 750,000 
people.
  Over 900 megawatts of new wind energy capacity was added just last 
year, bringing wind energy generating capacity in the U.S. to more than 
2,500 megawatts. This new wind energy will power the equivalent of over 
240,000 American homes, while displacing over 1.8 million tons of 
carbon dioxide.
  Equally important, wind energy increases our energy independence, 
thereby providing the United States with insulation from an oil supply 
dominated by the Middle East. Our national security is currently 
threatened by a heavy reliance on oil from abroad.
  The price of wind energy has been reduced more than 80 percent in the 
past two decades, making it the most affordable type of renewable 
energy. In order to continue this investment in America's energy 
future, we must extend the production tax credit.
  Currently, my own State of Iowa has 4 new wind power projects ready 
to go online just this year. These 4 projects, with the megawatt 
capacity of over 240, will join the already existing 20 facilities in 
Iowa. Even large petroleum producing States like Texas are recognizing 
the growing potential of wind energy. Texas has the third largest wind 
farm in the world, and plans to add 5 new facilities this year, adding 
to the 7 already online.
  Moreover, wind energy has vast potential to contribute to 
California's electricity supply. As we all know, California is 
currently suffering because of an energy market with insufficient 
energy generation and production that is overly dependent on natural 
gas.
  Just in the past few weeks, plans have been unveiled to develop what 
will be the world's two largest wind power plants in the Northwest. One 
will be installed on the Oregon-Washington boundary and the other at 
the U.S. Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site. Together, the two 
plants will have a capacity of 560 megawatts and will generate enough 
power annually to serve more than half a million people. In addition, a 
number of other new projects coming online this year in the West will 
also bring much-needed additional generating capacity to the region.
  Wind energy also produces substantial economic benefits. For each 
wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year 
for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa's major wind farms already 
pay more than $640,000 per year to landowners. In California, the 
development of 1,000 megawatts would mean annual payments of 
approximately $2 million to farm and forest landowners.
  Extending the wind energy tax credit would allow for even greater 
expansion in the wind energy field. Wind is a domestically produced 
natural resource, found abundantly across the country. Because wind 
energy is homegrown, it cannot be controlled by any foreign power.
  Wind energy can be harnessed without injury to our environment. Wind 
is a reliable form of power that is renewable and inextinguishable. 
This legislation ensures that wind energy does not fall by the wayside 
as a productive alternative energy source.
  The Senate needs to extend this important legislation and I encourage 
my colleagues to join us in this effort.
  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. 530

       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 ``Bipartisan Renewable, 
     Efficient Energy with Zero Effluent (BREEZE) Act''.

     SEC. 2. 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY 
                   FROM WIND.

       Section 45(c)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to wind facility) is

[[Page 3663]]

     amended by striking ``January 1, 2002'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2007''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 531. A bill to promote recreation on Federal lakes, to require 
Federal agencies responsible for managing Federal lakes to pursue 
strategies for enhancing recreational experiences of the public, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Recreation Lakes Act of 2001--a bill that will recognize the benefits 
and value of recreation at federal lakes and give recreation a seat at 
the table in the management decisions of all our federal lakes. I am 
proud to be joined in this effort today by Senator Cleland of Georgia 
and Senator Dorgan of North Dakota.
  Recreation on our federal lakes has become a powerful tourist magnet, 
attracting some 900 million visitors annually and generating an 
estimated $44 billion in economic activity--mostly spent on privately-
provided goods and services. And by the middle of this century, our 
federal lakes are expected to host nearly 2 billion visitors per year.
  Yet, even with the millions of visitors each year to our lakes and 
reservoirs, recreation has suffered from a lack of unifying policy 
direction and leadership, as well as insufficient interagency and 
intergovernmental planning and coordination. Most federal agencies are 
focused on the traditional functions of man-made lakes and reservoirs: 
flood control, hydroelectric power, water supply, irrigation, and 
navigation. And often recreation is left out of the decision process.
  This legislation will reaffirm that recreation is also an authorized 
purpose at almost all federal lakes and direct the agencies managing 
these projects to take action to reemphasize recreation programs in 
their management plans. This legislation will emphasize partnerships 
between the Federal Government, local governments, and private groups 
to promote responsible recreation on all our federal lakes.
  It will establish a National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program 
comprised of up to 25 lakes across the nation. At each of these federal 
lakes, the managing agency will be empowered to develop creative 
agreements with private sector recreation providers as well as state 
land agencies to enhance recreation opportunities. Rather than just 
building new federal campgrounds with tax dollars, we need to create 
new partnerships to provide support for building recreation 
infrastructure that is in line with visitor and tourist desires for 
recreation. The National Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program will be 
a pilot project to test these creative agreements and management 
techniques on a small scale to demonstrate their effectiveness at 
promoting recreation on federal lakes.
  Second, this legislation will establish a Federal Recreation Lakes 
Leadership Council to coordinate the National Recreation Lakes 
Demonstration Program and coordinate efforts among federal agencies to 
promote recreation on federal lakes.
  It also will include the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The Fee 
Demo Program has had wide successes in Arkansas and across the country 
in allowing individual parks and recreation areas to keep more of their 
fee revenues on-site to reduce the often overwhelming maintenance 
backlog.
  The legislation will also provide for periodic review of the 
management of recreation at federal water projects--something long 
overdue. A great deal has changed since many of the water projects were 
authorized, yet the initial legislative direction from over 70 years 
ago continues to be the basis for the management practices now in the 
year 2001--and that is not right.
  Finally, the legislation will provide new opportunities to link the 
national recreation lakes initiative with other federal recreation 
assistance efforts, including the Wallop-Breaux program for boating and 
fishing.
  Let me give you a little background on how this legislation was 
developed. In 1996, the U.S. Senate recognized that recreation was 
becoming more important on federal lakes and conceived the National 
Recreation Lakes Study Commission to review the current and anticipated 
demand for recreational opportunities on federally managed lakes and 
reservoirs. The National Recreation Lakes Study Commission were charged 
to ``review the current and anticipated demand for recreational 
opportunities at federally managed man-made lakes and reservoirs'' and 
``to develop alternatives for enhanced recreational use of such 
facilities.''
  The Commission released its long-awaited report confirming the impact 
of recreation on federally-managed, man-made lakes in June of last 
year. The Commission also recognized that we are far from realizing 
their full potential. The study documented that these lakes are 
powerful tourist magnets, attracting some 900 million visitors annually 
and generating an estimated $44 billion dollars in economic activity--
mostly spent on privately-provided goods and services.
  During the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's hearing in 1999 
on the Recreation Lakes Study, the chairman and I spent some time 
discussing how children today do not take full advantage of the outdoor 
opportunities that are available to them. It is so important that we 
encourage our children to enjoy the great outdoors that often times is 
less than an hour's drive away.
  As the mother of twin 4-year-old boys, I feel we need to encourage 
our children to be children, not to become adults too quickly, to learn 
how to enjoy the outdoors. The only way we can do that is by exposing 
them to it early and often.
  In this Nation, we have nearly 1,800 federally managed lakes and 
reservoirs. There are 38 in my home state of Arkansas. With so many 
federal lakes throughout the country, there's no reason why we 
shouldn't do all we can to promote recreation. I know that in Arkansas, 
we don't think twice about getting away to the lake for the weekend to 
go boating or fishing, or to just get away from the day-to-day grind. 
And that doesn't even begin to get into the tremendous economic impact 
from recreation on our federal lakes.
  Last August, I conducted a tour of two of our Corps of Engineers 
managed lakes in Arkansas--Lake Ouachita and Greers Ferry Lake--to 
observe how our lakes are managed and to see where recreation falls on 
the priority list. I saw many opportunities where the Corps of 
Engineers, working with local officials and private citizens, could, 
through innovative management techniques, better provide for the 
recreation needs of the thousands of Arkansans that visit Arkansas' 
lakes each year. This bill will enable our federal lakes in Arkansas 
and around the country to invest in and manage for recreation so we all 
can enjoy a day out on the lake.
  This bill is not an attempt to completely rewrite how federal lakes 
in this country are managed or to put recreation in front of all other 
authorized purposes at federal lakes. The National Recreation Lakes Act 
of 2001 will work with all current laws and regulations to ensure that 
recreation is given a seat at the table when the management decisions 
are made for our federal lakes.
  This is a good bill. In everything from the creation of jobs to the 
money that tourists like myself spend at the marinas and local stores 
surrounding the lake--our Federal lakes and reservoirs have an immense 
recreational value that can and does bring revenues into our local 
economies. The best way to encourage and expand this aspect is to 
ensure that recreation is given a higher priority in the management of 
our federal lakes.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and look 
forward to the debate on how we can promote recreation on our federal 
lakes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page 3664]]



                                 S. 531

       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 ``National Recreation Lakes 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) recreation is an authorized purpose at almost all 
     Federal lakes;
       (2) lakes created by Federal dam projects have become 
     powerful magnets for diverse recreation activities, drawing 
     hundreds of millions of visits annually and generating tens 
     of billions of dollars in economic benefits;
       (3) recreational opportunities are provided at such lakes, 
     on surrounding land, and on downstream tailwaters by Federal 
     agencies and through partnerships among Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies and private persons; and
       (4) the quality of recreational opportunities at and around 
     Federal lakes depends on clean air and water and attractive 
     viewsheds.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to require Federal agencies responsible for management 
     of lakes created by Federal dam projects to pursue strategies 
     for enhancing recreational experiences at the lakes; and
       (2) to direct Federal agencies to investigate the 
     possibilities for the use of, and to use, creative management 
     of the project lakes that optimizes both recreational 
     opportunities and other purposes of the project lakes, 
     including--
       (A) provision of agricultural and municipal water supplies;
       (B) provision of flood control and navigation benefits;
       (C) production of hydroelectric power; and
       (D) protection of water quality.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Federal Lakes 
     Recreation Leadership Council established by section 5.
       (2) National recreation demonstration lake.--The term 
     ``national recreation demonstration lake'' means a project 
     lake that is designated as a national recreation 
     demonstration lake under section 4.
       (3) Participating agency.--The term ``participating 
     agency'' means--
       (A) the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
       (B) the Bureau of Land Management;
       (C) the Bureau of Reclamation;
       (D) the National Park Service;
       (E) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
       (F) the Forest Service;
       (G) the Army Corps of Engineers;
       (H) the Tennessee Valley Authority; and
       (I) any other project lake management agency that 
     participates in the Program at the request of the Council.
       (4) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the national 
     recreation lakes demonstration program established by section 
     4.
       (5) Project lake.--The term ``project lake'' means an 
     impoundment of water that--
       (A) is part of a water resources project operated, 
     maintained, or constructed by or with the participation of 
     any Federal agency;
       (B) has a maximum storage capacity of 200 acre feet or 
     more; and
       (C) includes recreation as an authorized purpose.
       (6) Project lake management agency.--The term ``project 
     lake management agency'' means a Federal agency that manages 
     a project lake.
       (7) Recreation.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``recreation'' means--
       (i) a water-related recreational activity that takes place 
     on, adjacent to, or in a project lake or tailwater; and
       (ii) a recreational activity or wildlife-related activity 
     that takes place on federally managed land in the vicinity of 
     a project lake that is permitted under a land management plan 
     in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``recreation'' includes--
       (i) boating (including power boating, sailing, rafting, 
     kayaking, and canoeing), diving, swimming, camping, trail-
     based activities, and picnicking; and
       (ii) fishing and other wildlife-related activity.

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL RECREATION LAKES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the National 
     Recreation Lakes Demonstration Program consisting of the 25 
     national recreation demonstration lakes to be established 
     under this Act.
       (b) Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall develop and establish 
     criteria for use in selecting project lakes managed by 
     participating agencies for designation as national recreation 
     demonstration lakes.
       (2) Requirements.--The criteria shall--
       (A) include lake size, diversity of current and potential 
     recreational uses, opportunities for partnerships with 
     private and public entities, and present and projected 
     regional recreation demand; and
       (B) require a strong showing of local support from the area 
     of the lake, including support from State and local 
     governments, private citizens, and businesses.
       (3) Consultation.--In developing the criteria, the Council 
     shall consult with participating agencies to encourage the 
     nomination of project lakes for the Program so as to include 
     project lakes in all regions of the country and project lakes 
     that will provide a variety of recreational experiences.
       (c) Nomination of National Recreation Demonstration 
     Lakes.--A participating agency or an interest group located 
     in the immediate vicinity of a project lake may nominate the 
     project lake to become a national recreation demonstration 
     lake by submitting to the Council a nomination in accordance 
     with such procedures as the Council may establish.
       (d) Designation of National Recreation Demonstration 
     Lakes.--
       (1) In general.--On receiving the nominations from 
     participating agencies and local interest groups, the Council 
     shall designate 25 project lakes to be national recreation 
     demonstration lakes.
       (2) Selection criteria.--In selecting project lakes for 
     designation as national recreation demonstration lakes, the 
     Council shall endeavor to include project lakes in all 
     regions of the country and project lakes that will provide a 
     variety of recreational experiences.
       (3) Effective Period.--A designation of a project lake as a 
     national recreation demonstration lake shall be effective for 
     a period not to exceed 10 years.
       (e) Authorized Activities at National Recreation 
     Demonstration Lakes.--
       (1) Enhancement of recreation activities.--Each 
     participating agency shall use authorities under this Act to 
     enhance opportunities for recreation activities on, in, and 
     in the vicinity of national recreation demonstration lakes.
       (2) New authorities.--In accordance with the Act of October 
     22, 1986 (16.U.S.C 497b) and the Act of November 13, 1998 (16 
     U.S.C. 5951 et seq.), the head of any participating agency 
     except the National Park Service may conduct any activity to 
     experiment with permits, fees, concession agreements, and 
     innovative management structures at a national recreation 
     demonstration lake under the jurisdiction of the 
     participating agency.
       (3) Assistance to units of local government in the vicinity 
     of a national recreation demonstration lake.--The head of any 
     participating agency that manages a national recreation 
     demonstration lake may carry out activities (including 
     planning and marketing activities, the establishment of 
     advisory boards, and other activities) to improve 
     communications and cooperation between the agency and local 
     community interests in the vicinity of the lake with respect 
     to management of the national recreation demonstration lake.
       (f) Local Advisory Committees.--
       (1) Establishment and purpose.--Under guidelines developed 
     by the Council, the head of a participating agency shall 
     establish, for each national recreation demonstration lake 
     managed by the agency, a local advisory committee comprised 
     of State and local government and private sector 
     representatives.
       (2) Duties.--The duties of a local advisory committee shall 
     be to recommend and coordinate with project lake managers on 
     projects proposed to be completed by the participating agency 
     under the Program.
       (3) Other authorities and requirements.--
       (A) Meetings.--All meetings of a local advisory committee 
     shall be announced at least 1 week in advance in a local 
     newspaper of record and shall be open to the public.
       (B) Records.--A local advisory committee shall maintain 
     records of the meetings of the committee and make the records 
     available for public inspection.
       (C) Compensation.--Members of a local advisory committee 
     shall not receive any compensation.
       (D) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a local 
     advisory committee established under paragraph (1).

      SEC. 5. FEDERAL LAKES RECREATION LEADERSHIP COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a council to be 
     known as the ``Federal Lakes Recreation Leadership Council'' 
     as contemplated by the memorandum of agreement among the 
     Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, 
     Secretary of the Army, and Chairman of the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority dated October 27, 1999.
       (b) Membership.--The Council shall be composed of--
       (1) the Secretary of the Interior (or designee), who shall 
     serve as the Chairperson of the Council;
       (2) the Secretary of the Army (or designee);
       (3) the Secretary of Agriculture (or designee);
       (4) the Director of the Tennessee Valley Authority (or 
     designee);
       (5) a representative of the recreation industry, appointed 
     by the President;
       (6) a representative of the National Association of State 
     Park Directors, appointed by the President; and

[[Page 3665]]

       (7) a director of a State Fish and Wildlife Agency, 
     appointed by the President.
       (c) Terms; Vacancies.--
       (1) Term.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (B), 
     a member shall be appointed for the life of the Council.
       (B) Presidential appointee.--A member of the Council 
     appointed under paragraphs (5), (6), or (7) of subsection (b) 
     shall be appointed for a term of 5 years.
       (2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Council--
       (A) shall not affect the powers of the Council; and
       (B) shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment was made.
       (d) Purpose.--The purpose of the Council shall be to--
       (1) increase the awareness of the social and economic 
     values associated with project lake recreation among project 
     lake management agencies and other stakeholders with an 
     interest in recreation at project lakes;
       (2) develop policies that provide an environment for 
     success that emphasizes the role of recreation at project 
     lakes;
       (3) protect and manage recreation and other resources to 
     optimize all resource benefits; and
       (4) promote a process that will involve Federal, State, 
     tribal, and local units of government and field managers in 
     the planning, development, and management of recreation uses 
     at project lakes.
       (e) Duties.--The Council shall--
       (1)(A) work to implement the goals and recommendations of 
     the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission as detailed in 
     the Commission's 1999 report entitled ``Reservoirs of 
     Opportunity''; and
       (B) use the report as a guide for all Council actions;
       (2) solicit each project lake management agency to become a 
     participating agency;
       (3) respond to requests for assistance from Members of 
     Congress in drafting legislation, including new authorization 
     and funding requirements, to best achieve the purposes of 
     this Act;
       (4) promote collaboration among agencies to provide 
     training opportunities, interagency development assignments, 
     and regular lake manager meetings;
       (5) promote the development and consistency of--
       (A) data collection at project lakes, including--
       (i) making scientific assessments of watershed and natural 
     resource conditions; and
       (ii) making assessments of customer facility and 
     infrastructure needs; and
       (B) required maintenance schedules;
       (6) promote agency policies that encourage construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of high quality visitor and 
     recreational services and facilities by concessioners and 
     permittees at project lakes, including adequate opportunities 
     for profitability and recovery of capital investments;
       (7) develop consistent guidance to encourage construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of commercial recreation 
     facilities and other visitor amenities at project lakes;
       (8) recognize and reward innovation and collaboration at 
     project lakes;
       (9) develop public information materials to identify the 
     type and location of recreation facilities and programs at 
     project lakes;
       (10) promote cooperation and share new approaches from 
     Federal and State managing agencies, Indian tribes, and the 
     private sector to embrace a culture of innovation and 
     entrepreneurship;
       (11) develop training courses on business skills to close 
     the recreation needs gap;
       (12) support annual regional workshops with State, tribal, 
     local, and private sector participants to seek feedback and 
     assistance in achieving the goals of the Program;
       (13) develop and establish an application and selection 
     process to implement the Program;
       (14) develop guidelines for the formation of local advisory 
     committees to be established by project lake management 
     agencies managing national recreation demonstration lakes; 
     and
       (15) develop and administer a competitive grant program for 
     distributing available funds among national recreation 
     demonstration lakes for purposes described in this Act under 
     which--
       (A) the total number of lakes improved under the program 
     shall not exceed 25 lakes; and
       (B) grants are provided in a manner that, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, reflects the geographical diversity of 
     the United States.
       (f) Principles.--In all its actions and recommendations, 
     the Council shall consider the following principles:
       (1) Watershed health.--The health of the watersheds 
     associated with project lakes must be protected.
       (2) Neighboring communities.--Neighboring communities 
     should be encouraged to participate in planning the 
     recreation needs and other uses of project lakes to help to 
     diversify the economic base of the community and promote 
     sustainable practices to protect resources.
       (3) Federal responsibilities.--Federal responsibilities to 
     enhance recreation at project lakes while operating projects 
     to optimize water use for all beneficial purposes should be 
     reaffirmed.
       (4) Management flexibility.--Management flexibility should 
     be increased and support for management innovation should be 
     demonstrated.
       (5) Support.--Public and private support should be 
     attracted to provide public outdoor recreation activities at 
     project lakes.
       (g) FACA.--The Council shall be subject to the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (h) Termination of Council.--The Council shall terminate 15 
     years after the date on which funds are first made available 
     to carry out this section.

      SEC. 6. PERIODIC REVIEW AND REVISION OF OPERATING POLICIES 
                   FOR PROJECT LAKES.

       (a) Reports.--
       (1) Project lake management agencies.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of 
     each project lake management agency shall submit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Council a report that describes--
       (A) actions taken by the agency to communicate to personnel 
     of the agency the requirements of this Act and other laws 
     relating to recreation use of project lakes; and
       (B) actions to be taken by the agency to expand recreation 
     opportunities at project lakes, including a schedule for 
     taking the actions.
       (2) Council.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Council shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate, and the Committee on Resources of 
     the House of Representatives a report describing actions 
     taken by participating agencies to expand recreation 
     opportunities at project lakes.
       (3) Participating agencies.--
       (A) Periodic reports.--The head of each participating 
     agency shall periodically report to the Council regarding 
     activities of the participating agency under this section.
       (B) Comprehensive review.--Not later than 5 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act and at least once every 15 
     years thereafter, the head of each participating agency shall 
     conduct a comprehensive review of operating policies for 
     project lakes managed by the agency that describes--
       (i) the actions taken by the agency to communicate to 
     personnel of the agency the requirements of this Act and 
     other laws relating to recreation use of project lakes; and
       (ii) the actions to be taken by the agency to expand 
     recreation opportunities at project lakes, including a 
     schedule for taking the actions.
       (b) Policies.--
       (1) In general.--The head of each project lake management 
     agency shall--
       (A) revise the policies of the agency as necessary to 
     incorporate new information and ensure coordinated management 
     of project lakes to produce high levels of benefits for 
     recreation and all authorized purposes and designated uses of 
     project lakes; and
       (B) where recreation is consistent with the project lake 
     purposes and designated uses of project lands and waters, 
     give recreation appropriate attention in all agency decisions 
     and policies relating to the project lake.
       (2) Tailwaters.--In conducting any activity relating to the 
     tailwater of a project lake, the head of a project lake 
     management agency shall--
       (A) investigate ways to consider recreational uses 
     dependent on water release schedules and release volumes;
       (B) consider release schedules to enhance such 
     opportunities and uses of the tailwater; and
       (C) appropriately balance all of the purposes of the 
     project.

      SEC. 7. RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       Section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note; 
     Public Law 104-134), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``, the Bureau of Reclamation,'' after 
     ``the National Park Service'';
       (B) by striking ``Service) and'' and inserting 
     ``Service),''; and
       (C) by inserting before ``shall each'' the following: ``, 
     and the Secretary of the Army (acting through the Corps of 
     Engineers)'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``four agencies'' and 
     inserting ``6 agencies''; and
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' and inserting a comma; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and the Secretary of the Army'' before 
     ``shall carry out''.

     SEC. 8. USE OF FEDERAL WATER PROJECT FUNDING FOR MATCHING 
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION PROJECTS AT 
                   NATIONAL RECREATION DEMONSTRATION LAKES.

       (a) Federal Water Project Recreation Act.--The Federal 
     Water Project Recreation Act is amended--
       (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 460l-13)--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``it and to bear'' and 
     all that follows through ``recreation,'' and inserting ``the 
     project,''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``recreation and''; and
       (ii) by striking ``recreation or'';

[[Page 3666]]

       (2) in section 3 (16 U.S.C. 460l-14)--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``it and will bear'' 
     the first place it appears and all that follows through 
     ``recreation,'' and inserting ``the project,''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2); and
       (3) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460l-15), by striking 
     ``recreation and'' and all that follows through ``those 
     purposes'' and inserting ``fish and wildlife purposes''.
       (b) Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act.--The Act of August 
     9, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.) is amended by striking the 
     first section 13 (relating to effective date) and the second 
     section 13 (relating to State use of contributions) and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 13. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL WATER PROJECT SPENDING TO 
                   NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF COVERED RECREATION 
                   PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered recreation project.--The term `covered 
     recreation project' means construction or reconstruction of a 
     facility for recreation at a national recreation 
     demonstration lake that is carried out with assistance under 
     this Act.
       ``(2) National recreation demonstration lake.--The term 
     `national recreation demonstration lake' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2 of the National Recreation Lakes 
     Act of 2001.
       ``(3) Recreation.--The term `recreation' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2 of the National Recreation Lakes 
     Act of 2001.
       ``(b) Treatment of Use of Amounts Appropriated for a 
     Federal Water Project.--The use for any covered recreation 
     project of amounts appropriated for a Federal water project 
     shall be treated as payment of the non-Federal share of costs 
     required under this Act.''.
       (c) Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.--The Act of 
     September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 10 as section 11; and
       (2) by inserting after section 9 the following:

     ``SEC. 10. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL WATER PROJECT SPENDING TO 
                   NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF RECREATION PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered recreation project.--The term `covered 
     recreation project' means construction or reconstruction of a 
     facility for recreation at a national recreation 
     demonstration lake that is carried out with assistance under 
     this Act.
       ``(2) National recreation demonstration lake.--The term 
     `national recreation demonstration lake' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2 of the National Recreation Lakes 
     Act of 2001.
       ``(3) Recreation.--The term `recreation' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2 of the National Recreation Lakes 
     Act of 2001.
       ``(b) Treatment of Use of Amounts Appropriated for a 
     Federal Water Project.--The use for any covered recreation 
     project of amounts appropriated for a Federal water project 
     shall be treated as payment of the non-Federal share of costs 
     required under this Act.''.

     SEC. 9. COST-SHARE ASSISTANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR 
                   REPLACEMENT OF RECREATION FACILITY.

       (a) Assistance Authorized.--The head of each project lake 
     management agency may provide financial assistance to a State 
     or local agency to cover a portion of the total costs 
     incurred for the reconstruction or replacement of a 
     recreation facility operated under an agreement with the 
     State or local agency at a project lake.
       (b) Costs Included.--The total costs of reconstruction or 
     replacement of a recreation facility include the costs 
     associated with all components of the reconstruction or 
     replacement project, including--
       (1) project administration;
       (2) the provision of technical assistance; and
       (3) contracting and construction costs.
       (c) Limitation.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) 
     shall not be used for costs incurred in maintaining or 
     operating the recreation facility.

     SEC. 10. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

       This Act does not affect--
       (1) the purposes of any project lake authorized before the 
     date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) the authority of any State to manage fish and wildlife; 
     or
       (3) the authority of any State or the Federal Government to 
     enter into any agreement relating to a project lake.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2006, to remain available until expended.
       (b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the 
     funds made available under subsection (a) may be used to pay 
     administrative costs incurred by the Secretary of the 
     Interior in coordinating the activities of the Council and 
     participating agencies under this Act.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the 
National Recreation Lakes Act which is being introduced today by 
Senator Blanche Lincoln and others. This bill will give recreation 
interests a seat at the table when decisions are made about the use of 
Federal lakes. I think that this bill in an important part of 
recognizing the great benefits that our Federal lakes provide to 
communities all across the country.
  This bill creates a pilot program that will encompass 25 national 
recreation demonstration lakes. These lakes will ensure that 
recreational interests get a voice in the decision making process. We 
rely on these lakes for so many different things: irrigation, hydro-
power, navigation. In many cases, recreational interests are an 
afterthought. This bill will give recreation the priority that it 
deserves.
  Lake Sakakawea is located in my home state of North Dakota. I have 
worked with the community leaders there to try and make the importance 
of recreational interests a part of the discussion regarding the level 
of the lake and the use of the water in the lake. This is a perfect 
example of a lake that would benefit from this legislation.
  I commend Senator Lincoln for the hard work that she has done on this 
legislation and I look forward to working with her to move this bill 
through the legislative process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 532. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for 
distribution and use within that State; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Baucus, Burns, 
Daschle, Johnson, and Conrad, I am introducing legislation that would 
provide equitable treatment for U.S. farmers in the pricing of 
agricultural pesticides. This legislation would allow a state, a 
person, or a farm organization or cooperative/farm supply company to 
serve as a registrant for a Canadian pesticide which is identical or 
substantially similar to a U.S. registered pesticide. This bill is 
identical to the legislation I introduced last September.
  The need for this legislation is as great as ever. We are about to 
start spring planting, and U.S. farmers are once again going to be 
required to pay more--in some cases almost twice as much--than their 
Canadian counterparts for crop protection products that are virtually 
identical in substance.
  I have pointed out in the past that when the U.S.-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement came into effect, part of the understanding on agriculture 
was that our two nations were going to move rapidly toward the 
harmonization of pesticide regulations. Howsever, we have entered a new 
decade, and century, no less, and relatively little progress in 
harmonization has been accomplished that is meaningful to family 
farmers.
  Since this trade agreement took effect, the pace of Canadian spring 
and durum wheat, and barley exports to the United States have grown 
from a barely noticeable trickle into annual floods of imported grain 
into our markets. Over the years, I have described many factors that 
have produced this unfair trade relationship and un-level playing field 
between farmers of our two nations. The failure to achieve 
harmonization in pesticides between the United States and Canada 
compounds this ongoing trade problem.
  Our farmers are concerned that agricultural pesticides that are not 
available in the United States are being utilized by farmers in Canada 
to produce wheat, barley, and other agricultural commodities that are 
subsequently imported and consumed in the United States. They 
rightfully believe that it is unfair to import commodities produced 
with agricultural pesticides that are not available to U.S. producers. 
However, it is not just a difference of availability of agricultural 
pesticides between our two countries, but also in the pricing of these 
chemicals.
  A year ago, our farmers were denied the right to bring a pesticide 
across the border that was cleared for use in our country, but was not 
available locally because the company who manufacturers this product 
chose not to sell it

[[Page 3667]]

here. They were selling a more expensive version of the product here. 
The simple fact is, this company was using our environmental protection 
laws as a means to extract a higher price from our farmers. This simply 
is not right.
  I have pointed out, time and time again, the fact that there are 
significant differences in prices being paid for essentially the same 
pesticide by farmers in our two countries. In fact, in a recent survey, 
farmers in the United States were paying between 117 percent and 193 
percent higher prices than Canadian farmers for a number of pesticides. 
This was after adjusting for differences in currency exchange rates at 
that time.
  The farmers in my state are simply fed up with what is going on. They 
see grain flooding across the border, while they are unable to access 
the more inexpensive production inputs available in our ``free trade'' 
environment. And I might add, this grain coming into our country has 
been treated with these products which our farmers are denied access 
to. This simply must end.
  As I stated earlier, today, my colleagues and I are reintroducing 
legislation that would take an important step in providing equitable 
treatment for U.S. farmers in the pricing of agricultural pesticides. 
This bill would only deal with agricultural chemicals that are 
identical or substantially similar. It only deals with pesticides that 
have already undergone rigorous review processes and whose formulations 
have been registered and approved for use in both countries by the 
respective regulatory agencies.
  The bill would establish a procedure by which states may apply for 
and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural 
chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to 
agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers 
and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the 
United States. The need for this bill is created by pesticide companies 
which use chemical labeling laws to protect their marketing and pricing 
structures, rather than the public interest. In their selective 
labeling of identical or substantially similar products across the 
border they are able to extract unjustified profits from farmers, and 
create un-level pricing fields between our two countries.
  This bill is one legislative step in the process of full 
harmonization of pesticides between our two nations. It is designed 
specifically to address the problem of pricing differentials on 
chemicals that are currently available in both countries. We need to 
take this step, so that we can begin the process of creating a level 
playing field between farmers of our two countries. This bill would 
make harmonization a reality for those pesticides in which their actual 
selling price is the only real difference.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text 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. 532

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

     SECTION 1. REGISTRATION OF CANADIAN PESTICIDES BY STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 24 of the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Registration of Canadian Pesticides by States.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Canadian pesticide.--The term `Canadian pesticide' 
     means a pesticide that--
       ``(i) is registered for use as a pesticide in Canada;
       ``(ii) is identical or substantially similar in its 
     composition to a comparable domestic pesticide registered 
     under section 3; and
       ``(iii) is registered in Canada by the registrant of the 
     comparable domestic pesticide or by an affiliated entity of 
     the registrant.
       ``(B) Comparable domestic pesticide.--The term `comparable 
     domestic pesticide' means a pesticide--
       ``(i) that is registered under section 3;
       ``(ii) the registration of which is not under suspension;
       ``(iii) that is not subject to--

       ``(I) a notice of intent to cancel or suspend under any 
     provision of this Act;
       ``(II) a notice for voluntary cancellation under section 
     6(f); or
       ``(III) an enforcement action under any provision of this 
     Act;

       ``(iv) that is used as the basis for comparison for the 
     determinations required under paragraph (4);
       ``(v) that is registered for use on each site of 
     application for which registration is sought under this 
     subsection;
       ``(vi) for which no use is the subject of a pending interim 
     administrative review under section 3(c)(8);
       ``(vii) that is not subject to any limitation on production 
     or sale agreed to by the Administrator and the registrant or 
     imposed by the Administrator for risk mitigation purposes; 
     and
       ``(viii) that is not classified as a restricted use 
     pesticide under section 3(d).
       ``(2) Authority to register canadian pesticides.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State may register a Canadian 
     pesticide for distribution and use in the State if the 
     registration--
       ``(i) complies with this subsection;
       ``(ii) is consistent with this Act; and
       ``(iii) has not previously been disapproved by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(B) Production of another pesticide.--A pesticide 
     registered under this subsection shall not be used to produce 
     a pesticide registered under section 3 or subsection (c).
       ``(C) Effect of registration.--A registration of a Canadian 
     pesticide by a State under this subsection--
       ``(i) shall be deemed to be a registration under section 3 
     for all purposes of this Act; and
       ``(ii) shall authorize distribution and use only within 
     that State.
       ``(D) Registrant.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State may register a Canadian 
     pesticide under this subsection on its own motion or on 
     application of any person.
       ``(ii) State or applicant as registrant.--

       ``(I) State.--If a State registers a Canadian pesticide 
     under this subsection on its own motion, the State shall be 
     considered to be the registrant of the Canadian pesticide for 
     all purposes of this Act.
       ``(II) Applicant.--If a State registers a Canadian 
     pesticide under this subsection on application of any person, 
     the person shall be considered to be the registrant of the 
     Canadian pesticide for all purposes of this Act.

       ``(3) Requirements for registration sought by person.--A 
     person seeking registration by a State of a Canadian 
     pesticide in a State under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) demonstrate to the State that the Canadian pesticide 
     is identical or substantially similar in its composition to a 
     comparable domestic pesticide; and
       ``(B) submit to the State a copy of--
       ``(i) the label approved by the Pesticide Management 
     Regulatory Agency for the Canadian pesticide; and
       ``(ii) the label approved by the Administrator for the 
     comparable domestic pesticide.
       ``(4) State requirements for registration.--A State may 
     register a Canadian pesticide under this subsection if the 
     State--
       ``(A) obtains the confidential statement of formula for the 
     Canadian pesticide;
       ``(B) determines that the Canadian pesticide is identical 
     or substantially similar in composition to a comparable 
     domestic pesticide;
       ``(C) for each food or feed use authorized by the 
     registration--
       ``(i) determines that there exists an adequate tolerance or 
     exemption under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.) that permits the residues of the 
     pesticide on the food or feed; and
       ``(ii) identifies the tolerances or exemptions in the 
     notification submitted under subparagraph (E);
       ``(D) obtains a label approved by the Administrator that--
       ``(i)(I) includes all statements, other than the 
     establishment number, from the approved labeling of the 
     comparable domestic pesticide that are relevant to the uses 
     registered by the State; and
       ``(II) excludes all labeling statements relating to uses 
     that are not registered by the State;
       ``(ii) identifies the State in which the product may be 
     used;
       ``(iii) prohibits sale and use outside the State identified 
     under clause (ii);
       ``(iv) includes a statement indicating that it is unlawful 
     to use the Canadian pesticide in the State in a manner that 
     is inconsistent with the labeling approved by the 
     Administrator under this subsection; and
       ``(v) identifies the establishment number of the 
     establishment in which the labeling approved by the 
     Administrator will be affixed to each container of the 
     Canadian pesticide; and
       ``(E) not later than 10 business days after the issuance by 
     the State of the registration, submit to the Administrator a 
     written notification of the action of the State that 
     includes--
       ``(i) a description of the determination made under this 
     paragraph;
       ``(ii) a statement of the effective date of the 
     registration;
       ``(iii) a confidential statement of the formula of the 
     registered pesticide; and
       ``(iv) a final printed copy of the labeling approved by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(5) Disapproval of registration by administrator.--

[[Page 3668]]

       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may disapprove the 
     registration of a Canadian pesticide by a State under this 
     subsection if the Administrator determines that the 
     registration of the Canadian pesticide by the State--
       ``(i) does not comply with this subsection or the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
       ``(ii) is inconsistent with this Act.
       ``(B) Effective period.--If the Administrator disapproves a 
     registration by a State under this subsection by the date 
     that is 90 days after the date on which the State issues the 
     registration, the registration shall be ineffective after the 
     90th day.
       ``(6) Labeling of canadian pesticides.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each container containing a Canadian 
     pesticide registered by a State shall bear the label that is 
     approved by the Administrator under this subsection.
       ``(B) Display of label.--The label shall be securely 
     attached to the container and shall be the only label visible 
     on the container.
       ``(C) Original canadian label.--The original Canadian label 
     on the container shall be preserved underneath the label 
     approved by the Administrator.
       ``(D) Preparation and use of labels.--After a Canadian 
     pesticide is registered under this subsection, the registrant 
     shall--
       ``(i) prepare labels approved by the Administrator for the 
     Canadian pesticide; and
       ``(ii) conduct or supervise all labeling of the Canadian 
     pesticide with the approved labeling.
       ``(E) Registered establishments.--Labeling of a Canadian 
     pesticide under this subsection shall be conducted at an 
     establishment registered by the registrant under section 7.
       ``(F) Establishment reporting requirements.--An 
     establishment registered for the sole purpose of labeling 
     under this paragraph shall be exempt from the reporting 
     requirements of section 7(c).
       ``(7) Revocation.--
       ``(A) In general.--After the registration of a Canadian 
     pesticide, if the Administrator finds that the Canadian 
     pesticide is not identical or substantially similar in 
     composition to a comparable domestic pesticide, the 
     Administrator may issue an emergency order revoking the 
     registration of the Canadian pesticide.
       ``(B) Terms of order.--The order--
       ``(i) shall be effective immediately;
       ``(ii) may prohibit the sale, distribution, and use of the 
     Canadian pesticide; and
       ``(iii) may require the registrant of the Canadian 
     pesticide to purchase and dispose of any unopened product 
     subject to the order.
       ``(C) Request for hearing.--Not later than 10 days after 
     issuance of the order, the registrant of the Canadian 
     pesticide subject to the order may request a hearing on the 
     order.
       ``(D) Final order.--If a hearing is not requested in 
     accordance with subparagraph (C), the order shall become 
     final and shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(E) Judicial review.--If a hearing is requested on the 
     order, judicial review may be sought only at the conclusion 
     of the hearing on the order and following the issuance by the 
     Administrator of a final revocation order.
       ``(F) Procedure.--A final revocation order issued following 
     a hearing shall be reviewable in accordance with section 16.
       ``(8) Suspension of state authority to register canadian 
     pesticides.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Administrator finds that a State 
     that has registered 1 or more Canadian pesticides under this 
     subsection is not capable of exercising adequate controls to 
     ensure that registration under this subsection is consistent 
     with this subsection, other provisions of this Act, or the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), 
     or has failed to exercise adequate controls of 1 or more 
     Canadian pesticides registered under this subsection, the 
     Administrator may suspend the authority of the State to 
     register Canadian pesticides under this subsection until such 
     time as the Administrator determines that the State can and 
     will exercise adequate control of the Canadian pesticides.
       ``(B) Notice and opportunity to respond.--Before suspending 
     the authority of a State to register a Canadian pesticide, 
     the Administrator shall--
       ``(i) notify the State that the Administrator proposes to 
     suspend the authority and the reasons for the proposed 
     suspension; and
       ``(ii) before taking final action to suspend authority 
     under this subsection, provide the State an opportunity to 
     respond to the proposal to suspend within 30 calendar days 
     after the State receives notice under clause (i).
       ``(9) Limits on liability.--No action for monetary damages 
     may be heard in any Federal court against--
       ``(A) a State acting as a registering agency under the 
     authority of and consistent with this subsection for injury 
     or damage resulting from the use of a product registered by 
     the State under this subsection; or
       ``(B) a registrant for damages resulting from adulteration 
     or compositional alteration of a Canadian pesticide 
     registered under this subsection if the registrant did not 
     have and could not reasonably have obtained knowledge of the 
     adulteration or compositional alteration.
       ``(10) Disclosure of information by administrator to the 
     state.--The Administrator may disclose to a State that is 
     seeking to register a Canadian pesticide in the State 
     information that is necessary for the State to make the 
     determinations required by paragraph (4) if the State 
     certifies to the Administrator that the State can and will 
     maintain the confidentiality of any trade secrets and 
     commercial or financial information provided by the 
     Administrator to the State under this subsection to the same 
     extent as is required under section 10.
       ``(11) Provision of information by registrants of 
     comparable domestic pesticides.--
       ``(A) In general.--On request by a State, the registrant of 
     a comparable domestic pesticide shall provide to the State 
     that is seeking to register a Canadian pesticide in the State 
     under this subsection information that is necessary for the 
     State to make the determinations required by paragraph (4) if 
     the State certifies to the registrant that the State can and 
     will maintain the confidentiality of any trade secrets and 
     commercial and financial information provided by the 
     registrant to the State under this subsection to the same 
     extent as is required under section 10.
       ``(B) Penalty for noncompliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the registrant of a comparable 
     domestic pesticide fails to provide to the State, not later 
     than 15 days after receipt of a written request by the State, 
     information possessed by or reasonably accessible to the 
     registrant that is necessary to make the determinations 
     required by paragraph (4), the Administrator may assess a 
     penalty against the registrant of the comparable pesticide.
       ``(ii) Amount.--The amount of the penalty shall be equal to 
     the product obtained by multiplying--

       ``(I) the difference between the per-acre cost of the 
     application of the comparable domestic pesticide and the 
     application of the Canadian pesticide, as determined by the 
     Administrator; and
       ``(II) the number of acres in the State devoted to the 
     commodity for which the State registration is sought.

       ``(C) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--No penalty under 
     this paragraph shall be assessed unless the registrant is 
     given notice and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with 
     section 14(a)(3).
       ``(D) Issues at hearing.--The only issues for resolution at 
     the hearing shall be--
       ``(i) whether the registrant of the comparable domestic 
     pesticide failed to timely provide to the State the 
     information possessed by or reasonably accessible to the 
     registrant that was necessary to make the determinations 
     required by paragraph (4); and
       ``(ii) the amount of the penalty.
       ``(12) Penalty for disclosure by state.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State shall not make public 
     information obtained under paragraph (10) or (11) that is 
     privileged and confidential and contains or relates to trade 
     secrets or commercial or financial information.
       ``(B) Disclosure.--Any State employee who willfully 
     discloses information described in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     subject to penalties described in section 10(f).
       ``(13) Data compensation.--A State or person registering a 
     Canadian pesticide under this subsection shall not be liable 
     for compensation for data supporting the registration if the 
     registration of the Canadian pesticide in Canada and the 
     registration of the comparable domestic pesticide are held by 
     the same registrant or by affiliated entities.
       ``(14) Formulation changes.--
       ``(A) In general.--The registrant of a comparable domestic 
     pesticide shall notify the Administrator of any change in the 
     formulation of a comparable domestic pesticide or a Canadian 
     pesticide registered by the registrant or an affiliated 
     entity not later than 30 days before any sale or distribution 
     of the pesticide containing the new formulation.
       ``(B) Statement of formula.--The registrant of the 
     comparable domestic pesticide shall submit, with the notice 
     required under subparagraph (A), a confidential statement of 
     the formula for the new formulation if the registrant has 
     possession of or reasonable access to the information.
       ``(C) Suspension of registration for noncompliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the registrant fails to provide 
     notice or submit a confidential statement of formula as 
     required by this paragraph, the Administrator may issue a 
     notice of intent to suspend the registration of the 
     comparable domestic pesticide for a period of not less than 1 
     year.
       ``(ii) Effective date.--The suspension shall become final 
     not later than the end of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date of the issuance by the Administrator of the notice of 
     intent to suspend the registration, unless during the period 
     the registrant requests a hearing.
       ``(iii) Hearing procedure.--If a hearing is requested, the 
     hearing shall be conducted in accordance with section 6(d).
       ``(iv) Issues.--The only issues for resolution at the 
     hearing shall be whether the registrant has failed to provide 
     notice or submit a confidential statement of formula as 
     required by this paragraph.''.

[[Page 3669]]

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
     and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``In general.--'' after 
     ``(1)``;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``Disapproval.--'' after 
     ``(2)'';
       (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``Consistency with 
     federal food, drug, and cosmetic act.--'' after ``(3)''; and
       (D) by striking ``(4) If the Administrator'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(4) Suspension of authority to register pesticides.--
     Except as provided in subsection (d)(8), if the 
     Administrator''.
       (2) The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. prec. 
     121) is amended by striking the item relating to section 
     24(c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Additional uses.
       ``(1) In general.
       ``(2) Disapproval.
       ``(3) Consistency with Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act.
       ``(4) Suspension of authority to register pesticides.
       ``(d) Registration of Canadian pesticides by States.
       ``(1) Definitions.
       ``(2) Authority to register Canadian pesticides.
       ``(3) Requirements for registration sought by person.
       ``(4) State requirements for registration.
       ``(5) Disapproval of registration by Administrator.
       ``(6) Labeling of Canadian pesticides.
       ``(7) Revocation.
       ``(8) Suspension of State authority to register Canadian 
     pesticides.
       ``(9) Limits on liability.
       ``(10) Disclosure of information by Administrator to the 
     State.
       ``(11) Provision of information by registrants of 
     comparable domestic pesticides.
       ``(12) Penalty for disclosure by State.
       ``(13) Data compensation.
       ``(14) Formulation changes.''.
     (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section take effect 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of the 
Pesticide Harmonization Act. Last year, Senator Dorgan attempted to 
address this problem in the VA/HUD Appropriations Conference. I 
committed myself to work with him and move this legislation this year. 
I am a cosponsor of this bill because of this commitment and to even 
out a serious trade imbalance facing the agriculture industry in our 
country.
  In my home State of Montana and many other western and mid-western 
States, we have faced a number of trade disputes between Canada and the 
United States. One of the most glaring discrepancies deals with 
pesticides. Chemicals that are sold for one price just across the 
border in Canada are sold at a considerably higher cost to American 
producers. Why does this happen you may ask? The EPA places strong 
regulations on chemicals used in the United States and therefore, the 
chemical companies believe they should hike up the prices to pay for 
their trouble.
  The chemicals in Canada and the United States, in most cases, have 
the exact same chemical make-up. The same company manufactures them, 
but often gives them a different name and nearly always prices the 
American chemicals higher. The crops treated with chemicals our farmers 
are not allowed to use are easily imported into the United States. 
These crops were developed at a lower production cost and are now 
competing with American products. I am a strong believer in fair trade, 
but for free trade to actually occur, this problem must be addressed.
  Currently, American farmers are facing a serious economic recession. 
Prices are the lowest they have been in a number of years and there 
does not appear to be a light at the end of the tunnel. Additionally, 
the West is looking at yet another year of severe drought. Already, 
snow packs are considerably below normal. Also, fertilizer costs are 
sky-rocketing with the high cost of fuel and energy. Compounding their 
problem is being forced to pay twice as much for nearly the same 
chemicals as their foreign neighbors.
  If enacted, this bill would eliminate current obstacles and even the 
playing field for our farmers. It would allow States or individual 
producers to seek a registration for a Canadian pesticide. This could 
only be done if, upon request by the State, the pesticide is found to 
be identical or substantially similar to the U.S. pesticide. The EPA 
still has final authority to disapprove the registrations within 90 
days. Once the pesticide is found to be the same or similar and the EPA 
approves, the State or individual can travel to Canada and purchase the 
chemical.
  Our farmers and ranchers have been paying too much for their 
pesticides and chemicals for too long. From my years as a football 
referee, I learned everyone needs to follow the same rules to play the 
game. We need to make sure Canadian farmers and U.S. farmers are 
playing under the same rules. I believe this bill makes that happen. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on this crucial issue to 
America's farmers and ranchers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 534. A bill to establish a Federal interagency task force for the 
purpose of coordinating actions to prevent the outbreak of bovine 
spongiform encephalopathy (commonly known as ``mad cow disease'') and 
foot-and-mouth disease in the United States; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Mad Cow Prevention 
Act of 2001 which would help ease the American consumer's growing 
concern about our food supply. We can no longer take for granted that 
our food supply will not be tainted by bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy, BSE, commonly known as Mad Cow Disease, which has 
infected over 175,000 cattle in Great Britain and Europe. We also 
should be concerned about the growing threat of foot-and-mouth disease 
and other associated diseases to America's meat supply.
  The bill I introduce today establishes a Federal Interagency Task 
Force, to be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, for the purpose 
of coordinating actions to prevent the outbreak of Mad Cow Disease. The 
agencies will include the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of 
Commerce, the Secretary of Health and Human Service, the Secretary of 
Treasury, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, the 
Director of the National Institutes of Health, the Director of the 
Centers for Disease Control, the Commissioner of Customs, and any other 
agencies the President deems appropriate.
  No later than 60 days after the enactment of this legislation the 
task force will submit to Congress a report which will describe the 
actions the agencies are taking and plan to take to prevent the spread 
of BSE and make recommendations for the future prevention of the spread 
of this disease to the United Sates. The Task Force should also 
consider and report on foot-and-mouth disease, chronic wasting disease 
and other diseases associated with our meat industries.
  Recently, a situation developed in Texas prompting the quarantine of 
over a 1000 head of cattle. The animals were quickly purchased and 
taken out of the food chain by Purina. But, this incident shows how 
easily a contamination may start. It also has raised questions on how 
this disease can be controlled.
  In order to address this problem, on February 9, 2001, I wrote to 
Secretary Veneman and requested a report from the USDA regarding our 
government's response to mad cow disease specifically addressing: what 
USDA is doing to address this problem; what other federal agencies are 
doing; what any future plans are; and how USDA proposes to prevent the 
introduction and spread of mad cow disease in the United States.
  However, since I sent my letter to the USDA Secretary, the situation 
in Europe has gone from bad to worse. Therefore, I believe a 
government-wide approach is now necessary and that is why I am 
introducing this bill today. We simply must act quickly.
  Currently, our nation's farmers and ranchers are benefitting from 
profitable good cattle prices, and our meat supply is safe. But, as a 
Western Senator from a state with a significant cattle industry that 
trades in the international market, I share the growing fears of 
constituents about the potential devastating impact mad cow disease 
would have if it spreads to and within the United States. The emerging 
potential for mad cow disease in

[[Page 3670]]

the United States would also raise devastating health implications for 
humans. We cannot, in good conscience, take a chance that would allow 
an outbreak to occur in the U.S. which would destroy America's cattle 
industry and devastate consumers' confidence in our food supply.
  In my home state of Colorado alone there are more than 3.15 million 
head of cattle and more than 12,000 beef producers. Nationwide, 
Colorado ranks 4th in cattle on feed and 10th in overall cattle 
numbers. Nearly one-third of Colorado counties are classified as either 
economically dependent on the cattle industry or a vital role in their 
economies. It is critical that we in Congress do everything we can to 
protect this industry in Colorado and across the country.
  Over the past two months, there has been a series of news reports 
which highlight the spread of Mad Cow in Europe. Newsweek ran a cover 
story, ABC aired a provocative story and countless other reports have 
shown the potential situation we could face. And, today, the crisis 
surrounding foot-and-mouth disease is on the front page of our major 
newspapers. With the focus shifting to the United States, consumers are 
becoming wary and growing more concerned about the potential of the 
spread of the disease to our shores.
  The Mad Cow Prevention Act of 2001 I introduce today is a necessary 
step towards addressing the potential disaster of this disease in our 
country. I urge my colleagues to support its speedy passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that recent news clips, and the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 534

       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 ``Mad Cow Prevention Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

       (a) In General.--There is established a Federal interagency 
     task force, to be chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     for the purpose of coordinating actions to prevent the 
     outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (commonly known 
     as ``mad cow disease''), foot-and-mouth disease and related 
     diseases in the United States.
       (b) Membership.--The membership of the task force shall be 
     composed of--
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (2) the Secretary of Commerce;
       (3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
       (4) the Secretary of the Treasury;
       (5) the Commissioner of Food and Drug;
       (6) the Director of the National Institutes of Health;
       (7) the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention;
       (8) the Commissioner of Customs; and
       (9) the heads of such other Federal departments and 
     agencies as the President considers appropriate.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to 
     Congress a report that--
       (1) describes actions that are being taken, and will be 
     taken, to prevent the outbreak of bovine spongiform 
     encephalopathy, foot-and-mouth disease and related diseases 
     in the United States; and
       (2) contains any recommendations for legislative and 
     regulatory actions that should be taken to prevent the 
     outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, foot-and-mouth 
     disease and related diseases in the United States.
                                  ____


           [From ABCNEW.com: ``20.20'' Feature, Mar. 3, 2001]

                      Could Mad Cow Reach America?


    some scientists worry the u.s. is not taking protective measures

       Across Europe, hundreds of thousands of cows and bulls 
     suspected of having mad cow disease have been ground up and 
     stored in huge mounds in airplane hangars--still infected and 
     dangerous to humans. Others are being incinerated but the 
     ashes themselves are contaminated.
       Michael Hansen, of the consumer advocacy group the 
     Consumers Union, says the infectious strain is ``virtually 
     indestructible . . . it defies all of our thinking about what 
     living things are and how they should act.''
       No cases of mad cow disease have been found yet in the 
     United States, but some say America is not in the clear.


                    possible threat in united states

       Professor Richard Lacey is one of the leading experts on 
     mad cow disease and was one of the first to sound the alarm 
     in Britain. He says America needs to be very much on the 
     alert. ``It is just possible that there is no mad cow disease 
     in the U.S.A., but I believe it's more likely there is, but 
     not detected yet,'' he says.
       Lacey, a microbiologist at Leeds University in England, was 
     perhaps the most outspoken scientist to warn British 
     authorities that human could contract bovine spongiform 
     encephalopathy by eating infected beef. The warning was 
     largely ignored and dismissed as scientifically impossible 
     until five years ago when people began to die.
       Victims of the degenerative brain disease lose their motor 
     skills and slowly waste away. There is no vaccine and no 
     treatment, which is why Lacey is concerned that the United 
     States isn't doing all it could to protect itself.
       The U.S. banned British beef and cattle products in 1989 
     and the American beef industry has taken additional 
     precautions. The head of the National Cattleman's Beef 
     Association, Chuck Shroeder, says that along with federal 
     regulators, his group has actually gone through mock drills 
     to prepare for the discovery of mad cow disease. Containment 
     procedures have been planned and a full-scale public 
     relations campaign is ready to go. ``We're not just whistling 
     on our way past the graveyard on this,'' he says.
       Shroeder is confident that necessary measures have been 
     taken and protections in place. ``If the disease were ever 
     discovered here, we could number one, identify it, number two 
     contain it, and number three, eliminate it as quickly as 
     possible.'' The government reports that its inspectors have 
     yet to find a single cow with mad cow disease in the U.S.


                        Feeding Cattle to Cattle

       How was mad cow disease able to spread from cow to cow in 
     England and elsewhere in Europe?
       A key reason, Lacey says, was the practice of including 
     group-up remnants of cattle in cattle feed. This practice was 
     widespread in Europe and, to a lesser extent, the United 
     States.
       Lacey refers to this as a kind of forced animal 
     cannibalism.
       When mad cow disease broke out, the practice of feeding 
     cattle back to cattle was stopped in England, but it 
     continued in the United States until four years ago. And 
     Hansen says other potentially dangerous feeding practices now 
     banned in the U.K. continue in the United States today.
       It remains legal in the United States, for example, to 
     ``grind up cattle, feed them to pigs, and then grind up the 
     pigs and feed them to the cows,'' says Hansen. Lacey calls 
     this a ``real danger,'' that ``must be stopped immediately.''
       But government and industry officials say there's no reason 
     to follow Europe in banning the practice, because there's no 
     evidence to date that the disease can spread between pigs and 
     cattle.
       Lacey says nevertheless the United States should adopt the 
     same ban as a precaution: ``My advice to the U.S. authorities 
     is to simply ban the incorporation of animal remains in 
     animal feed.''
       But Shroeder defends U.S. practices. ``We have been driven 
     here by the best science that we can access, we have 
     protected the U.S. beef supply very, very carefully,'' he 
     says.


              Chronic Wasting Disease: A Different Strain?

       There's another concern no so easily answered. There is 
     growing concern about a possible American version of mad cow 
     disease showing up in deer and elk in the West. It is called 
     chronic wasting disease and some suspect it has already 
     claimed human lives.
       Hansen says this chronic wasting disease is dangerously 
     similar to mad cow disease. ``It's a different strain of the 
     disease and it appears to be spreading in the wild,'' he 
     says.
       Tracie McEwen believes her 30-year-old husband Doug, who 
     ate elk all his life, may have been a victim. He died of a 
     rare brain disorder normally only seen in people older than 
     55, with symptoms remarkably similar to those who died the 
     slow, agonizing death of mad cow disease in England.
       The death of Tracie McEwen's husband and that of two others 
     under the age of 30 have raised questions for health 
     officials concerned about the similarity to mad cow disease.
       Lacey thinks the ``link between eating deer and getting a 
     type of mad cow disease is very plausible,'' and it's one 
     more reason that American authorities shouldn't think they 
     have all the answers about the disease. He says, ``you have 
     to act on the assumption that the disease may well be there, 
     because if you wait until you know it's there, then it's too 
     late.''
       Meanwhile, some members of Congress have asked for an 
     investigation into whether the government should be taking 
     additional steps to protect against the spread of mad cow 
     disease should it arrive in this country.
                                  ____


                     [From Newsweek, Mar. 12, 2001]

            Cannibals to Cows: The Path of a Deadly Disease

                          (By Geoffrey Cowley)

       Health officials say they've got Mad Cow under control, but 
     millions of unaware people may be infected. Why it could 
     still turn into an epidemic.
       Peter Stent was a seasoned dairyman, but he had never seen 
     anything like this. Just

[[Page 3671]]

     before Christmas, in 1984, one of his cows at Pitsham Farm in 
     South Downs, England, started shedding weight, losing its 
     balance and acting as skittish as a cat.
       When the vet came to investigate, the animal was acting 
     completely crazy--drooling, arching its back, waving its 
     head, threatening its peers. And by the time it died six 
     weeks later, Stent was seeing the same symptoms in other 
     cows. Nine were soon dead, and no one could explain why. The 
     vet dubbed the strange malady Pitsham Farm syndrome, since it 
     didn't seem to exist anywhere else. Little did he know.
       Alison Williams was 20 years old at the time, and living in 
     the coastal village of Caernarfon, in north Wales. She was 
     bright and outgoing, a business student who loved to sail and 
     swim in the nearby mountain lakes. but her personality 
     changed suddenly when she was 22. She lost interest in other 
     people, her father recalls, and quit school to live at home 
     with her parents and her brother. She still enjoyed the 
     outdoors, but she took to sitting alone on her bed, staring 
     out the window for hours at a time. By 1992, Alison was 
     having what her doctors diagnosed as nervous breakdowns, and 
     by 1995 she had grown paranoid and incontinent. ``A month 
     before she died, she went blind and lost use of her tongue,'' 
     her dad recalls. ``She spent her last five days in a coma.''


                           something bigger?

       Anyone with a television has heard such stories, maybe even 
     sussed out the connection between them. Mad-cow disease, or 
     bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), has killed nearly 
     200,000 British and European cattle since it cropped up on 
     Pitsham Farm. The human variant that Alison Williams 
     contracted has claimed 94 lives as well. What few of us 
     realize is that these tolls could mark the beginning of 
     something vastly bigger. No one knows just how BSE first 
     emerged. But once a few cattle contracted it, 20th-century 
     farming practices guaranteed that millions more would follow. 
     For 11 years following the Pitsham Farm episode, British 
     exporters shipped the remains of BSE-infected cows all over 
     the world, as cattle feed. The potentially tainted gruel 
     reached more than 80 countries. And millions of people--not 
     only in Europe but throughout Russia and Southeast Asia--have 
     eaten cattle that were raised on it.
       It's possible, of course, that the worst is already behind 
     us. After dithering for a decade, governments in the United 
     Kingdom and Europe have lately taken bold steps to control 
     BSE. The number of bovine cases is now falling in Britain--
     and the United States has yet to even report one. American 
     officials banned British cattle feed in 1988, as soon as 
     scientists implicated it in BSE, and later barred the 
     recycling of domestic cows as well. The U.S. government, the 
     cattle industry and many experts now voice confidence in the 
     nation's fire wall and say the risk to consumers is slight. 
     In truth, however, America's safeguards and surveillance 
     efforts are far weaker than most people realize. And in many 
     of the developing countries that now face the greatest risk, 
     such efforts are nonexistent. How many of the world's cattle 
     are now silently incubating BSE? How many people are 
     contracting it? The truth is, we don't know. ``We have no 
     idea how many deaths we're going to seek in the coming 
     years,'' says Dr. Frederic Saldmann, a French physician who 
     has recently seen both cows and people stricken in his 
     country. ``We've been checkmated.''
       Mad cow is the creepiest in a family of disorders that can 
     make Ebola look like chickenpox. Scientists are only 
     beginning to understand these afflictions. Known as 
     transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs, they 
     arise spontaneously in species as varied as sheep, cattle, 
     mink, deer and people. And once they take hold they can 
     spread. Some TSEs stick to a single species, while others 
     ignore such boundaries. But each of them is fatal and 
     untreatable, and they all ravage the brain--usually after 
     long latency periods--causing symptoms that can range from 
     dementia to psychosis and paralysis. If the prevailing theory 
     is right, they're caused not by germs but by ``prions''--
     normal protein molecules that become infectious when folded 
     into abnormal shapes. Prions are invisible to the immune 
     system, yet tough enough to survive harsh solvents and 
     extreme temperatures. You can freeze them, boil them, soak 
     them in formaldehyde or carbolic acid or chloroform, and most 
     will emerge no less deadly than they were.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2001]

  U.S. Adds To Ban on European Meats--Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic Is Cited

                            (By David Brown)

       The Agriculture Department yesterday banned importation of 
     most pork and goat products from the 15 European Union 
     countries to protect American livestock from an epidemic of 
     foot-and-mouth disease causing panic overseas.
       Canada instituted a similar ban yesterday in an effort to 
     keep the highly contagious animal disease out of North 
     America. Foot-and-mouth does not spread to human beings, but 
     can kill or severely sicken animals. The disease was last 
     seen in the United States in 1929, and in Canada in 1952.
       An epidemic of the disease broke out in England last month 
     and French officials confirmed yesterday that it had found 
     foot-and-mouth in a herd of cattle in the nation's northwest 
     region. It was the first detection of the viral infection in 
     the country since 1981 and the first case on the continent 
     since the British outbreak began.
       While the economic impact of the U.S. ban is relatively 
     small, the move illustrates the level of concern about this 
     pathogen in particular, and the ease of spread of infectious 
     diseases across national boundaries in general.
       The ban will cover about $294 million worth of meat 
     products and about $1 million in live animals. The vast 
     majority of the meat is pork from Denmark and other 
     Scandinavian countries.
       Certain dairy products, such as hard cheeses and yogurt, 
     will not be covered by the ban. Canned hams also will not be 
     affected by the ban. Importation of horses will be permitted.
       ``This temporary ban is in place for USDA to take time to 
     assess our exclusion efforts as a precaution to ensure that 
     we do not get'' foot-and-mouth disease in the United States, 
     said department spokeswoman Meghan Thomas.
       A spokeswoman for the European Commission expressed 
     surprise at yesterday's announcement, saying the organization 
     learned of it from reporters. ``We've had no formal prior 
     notification,'' said Maeve O'Beirne. ``We don't know what the 
     definitive list [of banned products] O'Beirne. ``We don't 
     know what the definitive list [of banned products] will be. 
     This is, hopefully, a temporary measure.''
       The value of the products is small compared to total meat 
     imports to the United States, although not trivial. Total 
     pork imports from all countries last year totaled slightly 
     more than $1 billion in value. Beef and veal imports from all 
     sources in 1999 were worth $2.1 billion.
       This latest move almost eliminates non-fish meat imports 
     from Europe. Beef imports from Britain were banned in 1989 as 
     protection against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also 
     known as ``mad cow disease.'' Beef and sheep products have 
     also been banned from other European countries.
       Nicholas D. Giordano, international trade specialist with 
     the National Pork Producers Council, said the pork imported 
     from Europe consists mostly of ribs produced in Denmark. The 
     United States is a net exporter of pork, and European imports 
     equal about 1 percent of U.S. pork production, he said.
       Non-meat products covered by the new ban consist mostly of 
     purebred pigs and pig seman, an Agriculture Department 
     official said.
       The ban was also praised by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a 
     member of the Senate Agriculture Committee from a large pork-
     producing state.
       ``If [the disease] were to return to America, the results 
     would be absolutely devastating,'' he said in a statement. 
     ``USDA is taking the right step in temporarily banning 
     imports . . . Right now we just don't know how far this 
     disease has spread. It is common sense to take protective 
     measures.''
       Although horses can still be brought from Europe to the 
     United States, they must be cleaned and disinfected, along 
     with any equipment that accompanies them, said Thomas, the 
     USDA spokeswoman. Straw and manure are burned.
       Agriculture officials have alerted airports and ports of 
     entry to more closely inspect travelers from Europe for 
     products that might possibly carry the foot-and-mouth virus. 
     Food-sniffing dogs are being used in some places. The virus 
     can persist in feed and environmental surfaces for weeks, and 
     people reporting visits to farms or contact with livestock 
     must have any footwear disinfected.
       French Agriculture Minister Jean Glavany yesterday 
     announced that the disease had been found among cattle on a 
     farm in Mayenne, between Paris and the Atlantic coast. The 
     disease was evidently carried by sheep imported from Britain 
     to a nearby farm, and then spread to the Mayenne cows.
       In Britain, more than 120,000 carcasses have been burned 
     because of the disease, the Agriculture Ministry said, with 
     another 50,000 due for destruction. Separate cases have 
     broken out at more than 200 farms and sluaghterhouses.
       France has burned some 20,000 sheep that were imported from 
     Britain before the outbreak was known, and another 30,000 
     home-grown animals that might have been exposed. Most other 
     European countries have also burned animals imported from 
     Britain. Now, they will presumably burn any recent imports 
     from France as well--as some parts of Germany started doing 
     yesterday.
       The basic approach is to kill and burn any animal that may 
     have been exposed to the disease. The animals are lined up, 
     shot, and then piled around gasoline-stacked timbers for 
     burning. Farms where even a single case was suspected now 
     have no animals left--and thus no source of income. 
     Governments are now gearing up large-scale compensation 
     programs.

[[Page 3672]]

     
                                  ____
                [From the New York Times, Mar. 14, 2001]

         Meat From Europe Is Banned by U.S. as Illness Spreads

           (By Christopher Marquis and Donald G. McNeil Jr.)

       Washington, March 13.--The United States banned imports of 
     animals and animal products from the European Union today 
     after learning that foot-and-mouth disease had spread to 
     France from Britain.
       The Agriculture Department said it was taking the 
     precaution to protect the domestic industry from a possible 
     outbreak of the virus, which could cost the American industry 
     billions of dollars in just one year.
       The virus poses little danger to people, even if they eat 
     the meat of infected animals. But it is virulently contagious 
     and is devastating for cattle, swine, sheep, deer and other 
     cloven-hoofed animals, which it generally debilitates and 
     often leaves unable to grow or produce milk.
       The ban, which applies to exports from all 15 countries of 
     the European Union, prompted some European officials to 
     complain that the Bush administration was overreacting.
       But three members of the European Union--Belgium, Portugal 
     and Spain--are closing their borders to French meat, as is 
     Switzerland. Norway banned imports of French farm products, 
     and Germany and Italy took protective measures. Canada also 
     banned meat imports from the European Union, as well as from 
     Argentina, which has found foot-and-mouth disease in the 
     northwest. Argentina said it would voluntarily restrict beef 
     exports.
       Kimberley Smith, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture 
     Department, said many items including most cheeses and cured 
     or cooked meats, are not affected because they are heated in 
     a way that kills the virus.
       The ban is expected to hit pork producers the most. 
     European beef is already banned by the United States because 
     of mad cow disease, which can cause fatal Creutzfeldt-Jakob 
     disease in humans.
       The Agriculture Department is ``taking this time to assess 
     our exclusion activities as a precaution to ensure that we 
     don't get foot-and-mouth disease in the United States,'' Ms. 
     Smith said. She said the department could not say how long 
     the ban would last.
       Department officials did not detail which European products 
     would be subject to the ban. But they said it would prohibit 
     the importation of live swine, pork and meat from sheep and 
     goats, regardless of whether it is fresh or frozen. Yogurt 
     and most cheeses would be permitted, they said, because those 
     sold in the United States are made from pasteurized milk.
       Canned ham or any other food products that have been heated 
     above 175 degrees Fahrenheit are permitted because such 
     processing inactivates the virus, the officials said.
       The production of such favored items as French brie and 
     Italian prosciutto is closely monitored to meet stringent 
     export standards, she said, so they are not affected by 
     today's ban. Brie entering the United States is made from 
     pasteurized milk and is considered safe.
       A spokesman for the European Commission in Washington, 
     Gerry Kiely, said the ban would cost European exporters as 
     much as $458 million a year in sales. The agriculture 
     department put the cost at $400 million at most.
       Earlier today French officials confirmed that foot-and-
     mouth disease was found among cattle at a dairy farm in 
     Laval, in northwestern France. Officials said farmers in the 
     area had imported sheep from Britain, which is at the center 
     of the current outbreak and has already slaughtered about 
     170,000 animals to contain the disease.
       The disease, which is so infectious that it can be spread 
     by footwear and cars, appeared in France despite tight 
     precautions. The infected dairy farm, near La Baroche-
     Gondouin in the Mayenne district, was inside an isolation 
     zone.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Baucus, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 535. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
clarify that Indian women with breast or cervical cancer who are 
eligible for health services provided under a medical care program of 
the Indian Health Service or of a tribal organization are included in 
the optional medicaid eligibility category of breast or cervical cancer 
patients added by the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and 
Treatment Act of 2000; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with 11 original cosponsors, including Senators McCain and Daschle, 
entitled the ``Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment 
Technical Amendment Act of 2001.'' The legislation makes a simple, yet 
important, technical change to the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer 
Treatment and Prevention Act'' by correcting a provision of last year's 
bill to ensure the coverage of breast and cervical cancer treatment for 
Native American women.
  The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 
funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 
supports screening activities in all 50 states and through 15 American 
Indian/Alaska Native organizations. However, the CDC program provides 
funding only for screening services and not for treatment.
  Last year's bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and 
had 76 cosponsors, gives states the option to extend Medicaid treatment 
coverage to certain women who have been screened by programs operated 
under the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program 
and diagnosed as having breast or cervical cancer. Through passage of 
the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act,'' for 
those women not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, States may elect to 
expand their Medicaid programs to provide breast and cervical cancer 
treatment as an optional benefit and receive an enhanced federal match 
to encourage participation.
  Last year's legislation restricts Medicaid treatment coverage to 
those who have no ``creditable coverage'' or treatment options. 
Unfortunately, the term ``creditable coverage'' is defined under the 
Act to include the Indian Health Service, IHS. In short, the reference 
to IHS in the law effectively excludes Indian women from receiving 
Medicaid breast and cervical cancer treatment, as provided for under 
last year's bill, regardless of whether a State chooses to provide that 
coverage. Not only does the definition deny coverage to Native American 
women, but the provision runs counter to the general Medicaid rule 
treating IHS facilities as full Medicaid providers. My legislation 
corrects these issues.
  During 2001, almost 50,000 women are expected to die from breast or 
cervical cancer in the United States despite the fact that early 
detection and treatment of these diseases could substantially decrease 
this mortality. While passage of last year's bill makes significant 
strides to address this problem, it fails to do so for Native American 
women and that must be changed as soon as possible.
  In support of Native American women across this country that are 
being diagnosed through CDC screening activities as having breast or 
cervical cancer, my legislation would assure that they can also access 
much needed treatment through the Medicaid program. I urge its 
immediate adoption.
  I request unanimous consent that the text 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. 535

       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 ``Native American Breast and 
     Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INCLUSION OF INDIAN WOMEN WITH 
                   BREAST OR CERVICAL CANCER IN OPTIONAL MEDICAID 
                   ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY.

       (a) Technical Amendment.--The subsection (aa) of section 
     1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) added by 
     section 2(a)(2) of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention 
     and Treatment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-354; 114 Stat. 
     1381) is amended in paragraph (4) by inserting ``, but 
     applied without regard to paragraph (1)(F) of such section'' 
     before the period at the end.
       (b) BIPA Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a), as amended by section 702(b) of the Medicare, 
     Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act 
     of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 
     106-554), is amended by redesignating the subsection (aa) 
     added by such section as subsection (bb).
       (2) Section 1902(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396a(a)(15)), as added by section 702(a)(2) of the 
     Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
     Protection Act of 2000 (as so enacted into law), is amended 
     by striking ``subsection (aa)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (bb)''.

[[Page 3673]]

       (3) Section 1915(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396n(b)), as amended by section 702(c)(2) of the Medicare, 
     Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act 
     of 2000 (as so enacted into law), is amended by striking 
     ``1902(aa)'' and inserting ``1902(bb)''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) BCCPTA technical amendment.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and 
     Treatment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-354; 114 Stat. 1381).
       (2) BIPA technical amendments.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (b) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of section 702 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted 
     into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S. 536. A bill to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide for a 
limitation on sharing of marketing and behavioral profiling 
information, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Freedom 
From Behavioral Profiling Act of 2001.'' This legislation would require 
financial institutions to provide proper notice and obtain permission 
from a consumer before they could buy, sell or otherwise share an 
individual's behavioral profile.
  Everyone recognizes the importance of insuring the accuracy and 
security of credit and debit card transactions. Without basic safety 
features, consumers would avoid non-cash transactions and our economy 
would greatly suffer as a result. However, financial institutions have 
taken their data gathering efforts far beyond what is necessary to 
protect consumers from fraud, inaccurate billing and theft. Companies 
are using transactional records generated by debit and credit card use 
and are developing detailed consumer profiles. From these files they 
know the food you eat, the drugs you must take, the places you go, and 
the books you read, as well as every other thing about you that can be 
gleaned from your buying habits.
  Troubling as it is that financial institutions are assembling such 
profiles, I find it even more worrisome that these companies are 
selling and trading these intimate details without consumer knowledge 
or consent. In as much, ``your'' sensitive personal information has 
become a commodity bought and sold like some latter day widget. I 
believe the American people have the right to be informed of these 
activities and should have the option to decide for themselves whether 
or not their personal information is shared or sold.
  I find it quite ironic that the very institutions that work so hard 
to secure sensitive corporate information are the same companies that 
work so hard to exploit the personal information of consumers. 
Unfortunately, it would seem that corporate America has decided that 
the ``Golden Rule'' is not applicable in the Information Age.
  The American people are only now becoming aware of the behavioral 
profiling practices of the industry. The more they find out, the more 
they do not like it. That is why I am offering this legislation, to 
give the consumer the ability to control his or her most personal 
behavioral profile. Where they go, who they see, what they buy and when 
they do it, all of these are personal decisions that the majority of 
Americans do not want monitored and recorded under the watchful eye of 
corporate America.
  Colleagues in the Senate, I hope you will join me in an effort to 
give the people what they want, the ability to control the 
indiscriminate sharing of their own personal, and private, consumption 
habits.

                          ____________________