[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2571-2577]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 366. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to eliminate the 5-
month waiting period for Social Security disability and the 24-month 
waiting period for Medicare benefits in the cases of individuals with 
disabling burn injuries; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year an estimated 500,000 people are 
treated for burn injuries, with 40,000 requiring hospitalization. It is 
time that we do more to aid those who suffer from disabling burns, 
which is why I am introducing the Social Security and Medicare Improved 
Burn Injury Treatment Access Act of 2009. I am pleased to join my 
colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Richard Neal, who introduced 
similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
  This legislation provides a waiver of the 24-month waiting period now 
required before an uninsured individual becomes eligible for Medicare 
coverage for disabling burn injuries. It also provides a waiver for the 
five-month waiting period for Social Security disability benefits. This 
will help provide greater assistance to those who suffer from burn 
injuries and much needed support for the burn centers that treat them. 
Burn care is highly specialized and expensive. Since approximately 40 
percent of burn victims are uninsured, this places a great financial 
strain on burn centers, causing some of them to close.
  At a time when we are asking burn centers to be prepared to deal with 
catastrophic cases, and expand their capacity, we also must provide the 
support they need. Chemical fires, explosions, terrorist attacks, and 
major accidents are scenarios where burn centers play a critical role 
in public health. Over one-third of those hospitalized in New York 
following the September 11 terrorist attacks had severe burn injuries.
  This legislation will provide immediate Medicare coverage for 
uninsured patients suffering serious, disabling burn injuries. It 
follows an approach already taken with other conditions such as End 
Stage Renal Disease, ESRD, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ALS or Lou 
Gehrig's disease, both of which result in waivers of the 24-month 
waiting period for Medicare eligibility.
  This legislation has important cost containment measures. To prevent 
shifting the burden of care, no one with public or private insurance at 
the time of their burn injury will be eligible for the 24-month waiver, 
and state public insurance programs will not be allowed to restrict 
coverage for burn patients as a way to shift the responsibility to 
Medicare. Each individual's disability status is required to be 
reevaluated at least once every three years to ensure that those who 
have made a full recovery are not allowed to stay on Medicare 
indefinitely.
  We cannot allow our Nation's burn centers to continue closing due to 
a lack of financial resources. They are a vital resource and through 
them, we have the opportunity to give burn victims the best possible 
chance at recovery. I ask all my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, 
        and Mr. Brown):
  S. 369. A bill to prohibit brand name drug companies from 
compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic 
drug into the market; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senators 
Grassley, Feingold, Durbin and Brown, the Preserve Access to Affordable 
Generics Act. Our legislation will prevent one of the most egregious 
tactics used to keep generic competitors off the market, leaving 
consumers with unnecessarily high drug prices. The way it is done is 
simple--a drug company that holds a patent on a brand-name drug pays a 
generic drug maker to not sell a competing product. The brand name 
company profits so much by delaying competition that it can easily 
afford to pay off the generic company. The only losers are the American 
people, who continue to pay unnecessarily high drug prices for years to 
come.
  Our legislation is basically very simple it will make these anti-
competitive, anti-consumer patent payoffs illegal. We will thereby end 
a practice seriously impeding generic drug competition, competition 
that could save consumers literally billions of dollars in health care 
costs. When we first introduced this legislation to ban these pay-off 
settlements in 2007, it had broad support from those concerned with 
rising health care costs, including the AARP. The New York Times 
editorialized in January 2007 in support of legislation to ban the pay-
off settlements, pointing out that the settlements ``are a costly legal 
loophole that needs to be plugged by Congressional legislation.''
  Despite the opposition of the Federal Trade Commission to these anti-
competitive patent settlements, two 2005 appellate court decisions have 
permitted these backroom payoffs. And the effect of these court 
decisions has been stark. In the two years after these two decisions, 
the FTC has found, half of all patent settlements involved payments 
from the brand name from the generic manufacturer in return for an 
agreement by the generic to keep its drug off the market. In the year 
before these decisions, not a single patent settlement reported to the 
FTC contained such an agreement.
  When brand name drugs lose their patent monopoly, this opens the door 
for consumers, employers, third-party payers, and other purchasers to 
save billions--30 percent to 80 percent on average--by using generic 
versions of these drugs. A recent study released by the Pharmaceutical 
Care Management Association showed that health plans and consumers 
could save $26.4 billion over 5 years by using the generic versions of 
14 popular drugs that are scheduled to lose their patent protections 
before 2010.
  The urgency of the need for this legislation was highlighted just 
yesterday, when the FTC filed an antitrust case challenging the latest 
``pay for delay'' settlement. The FTC's Complaint alleges that Solvay, 
the brand name manufacturer of a hormone-boosting drug, entered into an 
agreement with two generic companies to delay the entry of their 
generic version of the drug for nine years. The FTC alleged that Solvay 
agreed in 2006 to share its profits with the generic competitors as 
long as they did not launch their generic versions until 2015. If these 
allegations are true, this is exactly the anti-consumer, anti-
competition agreement that would be rendered illegal by our bill.
  We introduced this bill in the last Congress and it passed out of the 
Judiciary Committee without a dissenting vote. Nonetheless, we heard 
from some in the generic drug industry that on occasion these patent 
settlements may not harm competition. That is why this year's version 
of the legislation includes a new provision not contained in the bill 
introduced in the last Congress. This new provision would permit the 
Federal Trade Commission the guardians of competition in this industry 
to exempt from this amendment's ban certain agreements if the FTC 
determines such agreements would benefit consumers. This provision will 
ensure that our amendment does not prevent any agreements which will 
truly benefit consumers.
  It is also important to note that--contrary to the arguments made by 
some--our amendment will not ban all patent settlements. In fact, our 
bill will not ban any settlement which does not involve an exchange of 
money. This legislation will do nothing to prevent parties from 
settling patent litigation with an agreement that a generic will delay 
entry for some period of time in return for ending its challenge to the 
validity of the patent. Only the egregious pay-off settlements in which 
the

[[Page 2572]]

brand name company also pays the generic company a sum of money to do 
so will be banned.
  In closing, we cannot profess to care about the high cost of 
prescription drugs while turning a blind eye to anticompetitive 
backroom deals between brand and generic drug companies. It is time to 
stop these drug company pay-offs that only serve the companies involved 
and deny consumers to affordable generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in this effort by supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 369

       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 ``Preserve Access to 
     Affordable Generics Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) prescription drugs make up 10 percent of the national 
     health care spending but for the past decade have been 1 of 
     the fastest growing segments of health care expenditures.
       (2) 67 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in the United 
     States are generic drugs, yet they account for only 20 
     percent of all expenditures;
       (3) generic drugs, on average, cost 30 to 80 percent less 
     than their brand-name counterparts;
       (4) consumers and the health care system would benefit from 
     free and open competition in the pharmaceutical market and 
     the removal of obstacles to the introduction of generic 
     drugs;
       (5) full and free competition in the pharmaceutical 
     industry, and the full enforcement of antitrust law to 
     prevent anticompetitive practices in this industry, will lead 
     to lower prices, greater innovation, and inure to the general 
     benefit of consumers.
       (6) the Federal Trade Commission has determined that some 
     brand name pharmaceutical manufacturers collude with generic 
     drug manufacturers to delay the marketing of competing, low-
     cost, generic drugs;
       (7) collusion by pharmaceutical manufacturers is contrary 
     to free competition, to the interests of consumers, and to 
     the principles underlying antitrust law;
       (8) in 2005, 2 appellate court decisions reversed the 
     Federal Trade Commission's long-standing position, and upheld 
     settlements that include pay-offs by brand name 
     pharmaceutical manufacturers to generic manufacturers 
     designed to keep generic competition off the market;
       (9) in the 6 months following the March 2005 court 
     decisions, the Federal Trade Commission found there were 
     three settlement agreements in which the generic received 
     compensation and agreed to a restriction on its ability to 
     market the product;
       (10) the FTC found that \1/2\ of the settlements made in 
     2006 and 2007 between brand name and generic companies, and 
     over \2/3\ of the settlements with generic companies with 
     exclusivity rights that blocked other generic drug 
     applicants, included a pay-off from the brand name 
     manufacturer in exchange for a promise from the generic 
     company to delay entry into the market; and
       (11) settlements which include a payment from a brand name 
     manufacturer to a generic manufacturer to delay entry by 
     generic drugs are anti-competitive and contrary to the 
     interests of consumers.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to enhance competition in the pharmaceutical market by 
     prohibiting anticompetitive agreements and collusion between 
     brand name and generic drug manufacturers intended to keep 
     generic drugs off the market;
       (2) to support the purpose and intent of antitrust law by 
     prohibiting anticompetitive agreements and collusion in the 
     pharmaceutical industry; and
       (3) to clarify the law to prohibit payments from brand name 
     to generic drug manufacturers with the purpose to prevent or 
     delay the entry of competition from generic drugs.

     SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL COMPENSATION FOR DELAY.

       (a) In General.--The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 28 the following:

     ``SEC. 29. UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH GENERIC MARKETING.

       ``(a) It shall be unlawful under this Act for any person, 
     in connection with the sale of a drug product, to directly or 
     indirectly be a party to any agreement resolving or settling 
     a patent infringement claim in which--
       ``(1) an ANDA filer receives anything of value; and
       ``(2) the ANDA filer agrees not to research, develop, 
     manufacture, market, or sell the ANDA product for any period 
     of time.
       ``(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a resolution 
     or settlement of patent infringement claim in which the value 
     paid by the NDA holder to the ANDA filer as a part of the 
     resolution or settlement of the patent infringement claim 
     includes no more than the right to market the ANDA product 
     prior to the expiration of the patent that is the basis for 
     the patent infringement claim.
       ``(c) In this section:
       ``(1) The term `agreement' means anything that would 
     constitute an agreement under section 1 of the Sherman Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 1) or section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       ``(2) The term `agreement resolving or settling a patent 
     infringement claim' includes, any agreement that is 
     contingent upon, provides a contingent condition for, or is 
     otherwise related to the resolution or settlement of the 
     claim.
       ``(3) The term `ANDA' means an abbreviated new drug 
     application, as defined under section 505(j) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)).
       ``(4) The term `ANDA filer' means a party who has filed an 
     ANDA with the Food and Drug Administration.
       ``(5) The term `ANDA product' means the product to be 
     manufactured under the ANDA that is the subject of the patent 
     infringement claim.
       ``(6) The term `drug product' means a finished dosage form 
     (e.g., tablet, capsule, or solution) that contains a drug 
     substance, generally, but not necessarily, in association 
     with 1 or more other ingredients, as defined in section 
     314.3(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(7) The term `NDA' means a new drug application, as 
     defined under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)).
       ``(8) The term `NDA holder' means--
       ``(A) the party that received FDA approval to market a drug 
     product pursuant to an NDA;
       ``(B) a party owning or controlling enforcement of the 
     patent listed in the Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic 
     Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the `FDA Orange 
     Book') in connection with the NDA; or
       ``(C) the predecessors, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, 
     and affiliates controlled by, controlling, or under common 
     control with any of the entities described in subclauses (i) 
     and (ii) (such control to be presumed by direct or indirect 
     share ownership of 50 percent or greater), as well as the 
     licensees, licensors, successors, and assigns of each of the 
     entities.
       ``(9) The term `patent infringement' means infringement of 
     any patent or of any filed patent application, extension, 
     reissue, renewal, division, continuation, continuation in 
     part, reexamination, patent term restoration, patents of 
     addition and extensions thereof.
       ``(10) The term `patent infringement claim' means any 
     allegation made to an ANDA filer, whether or not included in 
     a complaint filed with a court of law, that its ANDA or ANDA 
     product may infringe any patent held by, or exclusively 
     licensed to, the NDA holder of the drug product.''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Federal Trade Commission may, by rule 
     promulgated under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
     exempt certain agreements described in section 29 of the 
     Clayton Act, as added by subsection (a), if the Commission 
     finds such agreements to be in furtherance of market 
     competition and for the benefit of consumers. Consistent with 
     the authority of the Commission, such rules may include 
     interpretive rules and general statements of policy with 
     respect to the practices prohibited under section 29 of the 
     Clayton Act.

     SEC. 4. NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Notice of All Agreements.--Section 1112(c)(2) of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003 (21 U.S.C. 3155 note) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``the Commission the'' and inserting ``the 
     Commission (1) the''; and
       (2) inserting before the period at the end the following: 
     ``; and (2) a description of the subject matter of any other 
     agreement the parties enter into within 30 days of an 
     entering into an agreement covered by subsection (a) or 
     (b)''.
       (b) Certification of Agreements.--Section 1112 of such Act 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Certification.--The Chief Executive Officer or the 
     company official responsible for negotiating any agreement 
     required to be filed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall 
     execute and file with the Assistant Attorney General and the 
     Commission a certification as follows: `I declare under 
     penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct: 
     The materials filed with the Federal Trade Commission and the 
     Department of Justice under section 1112 of subtitle B of 
     title XI of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
     Modernization Act of 2003, with respect to the agreement 
     referenced in this certification: (1) represent the complete, 
     final, and exclusive agreement between the parties; (2) 
     include any ancillary agreements that are contingent upon, 
     provide a contingent condition for, or are otherwise related 
     to, the referenced agreement; and (3) include written 
     descriptions of any oral agreements, representations, 
     commitments, or promises

[[Page 2573]]

     between the parties that are responsive to subsection (a) or 
     (b) of such section 1112 and have not been reduced to 
     writing.'.''.

     SEC. 5. FORFEITURE OF 180-DAY EXCLUSIVITY PERIOD.

       Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(V)) is amended by inserting ``section 
     29 of the Clayton Act or'' after ``that the agreement has 
     violated''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Carper, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 372. A bill to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to 
clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited 
personnel practices, require a statement in nondisclosure policies, 
forms, and agreements that such policies, forms, and agreements conform 
with certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for the 
Special Counsel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the 
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. I am pleased that Senators 
Collins, Grassley, Levin, Lieberman, Voinovich, Leahy, Kennedy, Carper, 
Pryor, and Mikulski have joined as cosponsors of this bill.
  I have been a long-time proponent of strengthening the rights and 
protections of federal whistleblowers. Last year, my bill, the Federal 
Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, S. 274, passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent in December 2007. A similar House bill, the 
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, also passed in March 2008. 
Unfortunately, we were not able to reconcile the two bills and enact 
whistleblower protections before the 110th Congress adjourned.
  The need for strengthened whistleblower protections is clear. In this 
time of economic crisis, we cannot wait to act on measures to make sure 
the government uses tax dollars efficiently and effectively. Indeed, 
President Obama emphasized the need for improved accountability in his 
inaugural address, stating:

       Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to 
     account--to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our 
     business in the light of day--because only then can we 
     restore the vital trust between a people and their 
     government.

  This legislation will help us hold those who manage the public's 
dollars accountable by strengthening protections for Federal workers 
who shed light on Government waste, fraud, and abuse. Our bill also 
will contribute to public health and safety, civil rights and civil 
liberties, national security, and other valuable interests. Federal 
employees often are in the best position to observe and disclose 
Federal Government wrongdoing that can affect every aspect of our 
economy and our lives, and fewer employees will have the courage to 
disclose wrongdoing without meaningful whistleblower protections.
  The Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, was intended to shield Federal 
whistleblowers from retaliation, but the Federal Circuit and the Merit 
Systems Protection Board repeatedly have issued decisions that 
misconstrue the WPA and scale back its protections. Federal 
whistleblowers have prevailed on the merits of their claims before the 
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sole jurisdiction over 
federal employee whistleblower appeals, only three times in hundreds of 
cases since 1994. That is why further action is necessary.
  I will highlight a few of the important provisions in this bill. Our 
bill would eliminate a number of restrictions that the Federal Circuit 
has read into the law regarding when disclosures are covered by the 
WPA. In light of the Federal Circuit's restrictive reading of the WPA, 
it would establish a pilot program to allow whistleblower appeals to be 
filed in the appropriate regional Federal Court of Appeals for five 
years, and would require a Government Accountability Office review of 
that change 40 months after enactment. This bill would bar agencies 
from enforcing a nondisclosure policy, revoking an employee's security 
clearance, or investigating an employee in retaliation for a protected 
disclosure.
  This bill also includes a few improvements in whistleblower 
protection that were not in S. 274. It would expand the coverage of the 
Whistleblower Protection Act to include employees of the Transportation 
Security Administration. Additionally, it would make clear that 
disclosures of censorship of scientific information that could lead to 
gross government waist or mismanagement, a substantial and specific 
danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law are protected.
  Congress has a duty to provide strong protections for Federal 
whistleblowers. Only when Federal employees are confident that they 
will not face retaliation will they feel comfortable coming forward to 
disclose information that can be used to improve government operations, 
our national security, and the health of our citizens.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 372

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

     SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION 
                   BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009''.
       (b) Clarification of Disclosures Covered.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``which the employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without 
     restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, forum, or 
     prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or 
     applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course 
     of an employee's duties, that the employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes is evidence of'';
       (ii) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and 
     inserting ``any violation''; and
       (iii) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``which the employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes evidences'' and inserting ``, without 
     restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, forum, or 
     prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or 
     applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course 
     of an employee's duties, of information that the employee or 
     applicant reasonably believes is evidence of'';
       (ii) in clause (i), by striking ``a violation'' and 
     inserting ``any violation (other than a violation of this 
     section)''; and
       (iii) in clause (ii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) any disclosure that--
       ``(i) is made by an employee or applicant of information 
     required by law or Executive order to be kept secret in the 
     interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign 
     affairs that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is 
     direct and specific evidence of--

       ``(I) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
       ``(II) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an 
     abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to 
     public health or safety; or
       ``(III) a false statement to Congress on an issue of 
     material fact; and

       ``(ii) is made to--

       ``(I) a member of a committee of Congress having a primary 
     responsibility for oversight of a department, agency, or 
     element of the Federal Government to which the disclosed 
     information relates and who is authorized to receive 
     information of the type disclosed;
       ``(II) any other Member of Congress who is authorized to 
     receive information of the type disclosed; or
       ``(III) an employee of Congress who has the appropriate 
     security clearance and is authorized to receive information 
     of the type disclosed.''.

       (2) Prohibited personnel practices under section 
     2302(b)(9).--
       (A) Technical and conforming amendments.--Title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended in subsections (a)(3), (b)(4)(A), and 
     (b)(4)(B)(i) of section 1214, in subsections (a), (e)(1) and 
     (i) of section 1221, and in subsection (a)(2)(C)(i) of 2302 
     by inserting ``or 2302(b)(9) (B) through (D)'' after 
     ``section 2302(b)(8)'' or ``(b)(8)'' each place it appears.
       (B) Other references.--Title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended in subsection (b)(4)(B)(i) of section 1214 and in 
     subsection

[[Page 2574]]

     (e)(1) of section 1221 by inserting ``or protected activity'' 
     after ``disclosure'' each place it appears.
       (c) Definitional Amendments.--
       (1) Disclosures.--Section 2302(a)(2) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``and'' at the 
     end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C)(iii), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) `disclosure' means a formal or informal communication 
     or transmission, but does not include a communication 
     concerning policy decisions that lawfully exercise 
     discretionary authority unless the employee or applicant 
     providing the disclosure reasonably believes that the 
     disclosure evidences--
       ``(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
       ``(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an 
     abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to 
     public health or safety.''.
       (2) Clear and convincing evidence.--Sections 
     1214(b)(4)(B)(ii) and 1221(e)(2) of title 5, United States 
     Code, are amended by adding at the end the following: ``For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, `clear and convincing 
     evidence' means evidence indicating that the matter to be 
     proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.''.
       (d) Rebuttable Presumption.--Section 2302(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by amending the matter 
     following paragraph (12) to read as follows:
     ``This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the 
     withholding of information from Congress or the taking of any 
     personnel action against an employee who discloses 
     information to Congress. For purposes of paragraph (8), any 
     presumption relating to the performance of a duty by an 
     employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, 
     recommend, or approve any personnel action may be rebutted by 
     substantial evidence. For purposes of paragraph (8), a 
     determination as to whether an employee or applicant 
     reasonably believes that they have disclosed information that 
     evidences any violation of law, rule, regulation, gross 
     mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, 
     or a substantial and specific danger to public health or 
     safety shall be made by determining whether a disinterested 
     observer with knowledge of the essential facts known to and 
     readily ascertainable by the employee could reasonably 
     conclude that the actions of the Government evidence such 
     violations, mismanagement, waste, abuse, or danger.''.
       (e) Personnel Actions and Prohibited Personnel Practices.--
       (1) Personnel action.--Section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in clause (x), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon; 
     and
       (B) by redesignating clause (xi) as clause (xiv) and 
     inserting after clause (x) the following:
       ``(xi) the implementation or enforcement of any 
     nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement;
       ``(xii) a suspension, revocation, or other determination 
     relating to a security clearance or any other access 
     determination by a covered agency;
       ``(xiii) an investigation, other than any ministerial or 
     nondiscretionary fact finding activities necessary for the 
     agency to perform its mission, of an employee or applicant 
     for employment because of any activity protected under this 
     section; and''
       (2) Prohibited personnel practice.--Section 2302(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     a semicolon; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
       ``(13) implement or enforce any nondisclosure policy, form, 
     or agreement, if such policy, form, or agreement does not 
     contain the following statement: `These provisions are 
     consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or 
     otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or 
     liabilities created by Executive Order No. 12958; section 
     7211 of title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to 
     Congress); section 1034 of title 10, United States Code 
     (governing disclosure to Congress by members of the 
     military); section 2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code 
     (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse, or 
     public health or safety threats); the Intelligence Identities 
     Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing 
     disclosures that could expose confidential Government 
     agents); and the statutes which protect against disclosures 
     that could compromise national security, including sections 
     641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of title 18, United States Code, 
     and section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 
     1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The definitions, requirements, 
     obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by 
     such Executive order and such statutory provisions are 
     incorporated into this agreement and are controlling'; or
       ``(14) conduct, or cause to be conducted, an investigation, 
     other than any ministerial or nondiscretionary fact finding 
     activities necessary for the agency to perform its mission, 
     of an employee or applicant for employment because of any 
     activity protected under this section.''.
       (f) Exclusion of Agencies by the President.--Section 
     2302(a)(2)(C) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii)(I) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central 
     Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the 
     National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National 
     Security Agency; and
       ``(II) as determined by the President, any executive agency 
     or unit thereof the principal function of which is the 
     conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence 
     activities, if the determination (as that determination 
     relates to a personnel action) is made before that personnel 
     action; or''.
       (g) Disciplinary Action.--Section 1215(a)(3) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) A final order of the Board may impose--
       ``(i) disciplinary action consisting of removal, reduction 
     in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not 
     to exceed 5 years, suspension, or reprimand;
       ``(ii) an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $1,000; or
       ``(iii) any combination of disciplinary actions described 
     under clause (i) and an assessment described under clause 
     (ii).
       ``(B) In any case in which the Board finds that an employee 
     has committed a prohibited personnel practice under paragraph 
     (8) or (9) of section 2302(b), the Board shall impose 
     disciplinary action if the Board finds that the activity 
     protected under paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b) was a 
     significant motivating factor, even if other factors also 
     motivated the decision, for the employee's decision to take, 
     fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel 
     action, unless that employee demonstrates, by preponderance 
     of evidence, that the employee would have taken, failed to 
     take, or threatened to take or fail to take the same 
     personnel action, in the absence of such protected 
     activity.''.
       (h) Remedies.--
       (1) Attorney fees.--Section 1204(m)(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``agency involved'' and 
     inserting ``agency where the prevailing party is employed or 
     has applied for employment''.
       (2) Damages.--Sections 1214(g)(2) and 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii) of 
     title 5, United States Code, are amended by striking all 
     after ``travel expenses,'' and inserting ``any other 
     reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages, and 
     compensatory damages (including attorney's fees, interest, 
     reasonable expert witness fees, and costs).'' each place it 
     appears.
       (i) Judicial Review.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7703(b)(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and 
     paragraph (2), a petition to review a final order or final 
     decision of the Board shall be filed in the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed 
     within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice 
     of the final order or decision of the Board.
       ``(B) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective 
     date of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009, 
     a petition to review a final order or final decision of the 
     Board in a case alleging a violation of paragraph (8) or (9) 
     of section 2302(b) shall be filed in the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of 
     competent jurisdiction as provided under subsection 
     (b)(2).''.
       (2) Review obtained by office of personnel management.--
     Section 7703(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), this 
     paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the Director 
     of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director of the 
     Office of Personnel Management may obtain review of any final 
     order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60 days 
     after the date the Director received notice of the final 
     order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial 
     review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit if the Director determines, in his discretion, that 
     the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule, or 
     regulation affecting personnel management and that the 
     Board's decision will have a substantial impact on a civil 
     service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive. If the 
     Director did not intervene in a matter before the Board, the 
     Director may not petition for review of a Board decision 
     under this section unless the Director first petitions the 
     Board for a reconsideration of its decision, and such 
     petition is denied. In addition to the named respondent, the 
     Board and all other parties to the proceedings before the 
     Board shall have the right to appear in the proceeding before 
     the Court of Appeals. The granting of the petition for 
     judicial review shall be at the discretion of the Court of 
     Appeals.
       ``(2) During the 5-year period beginning on the effective 
     date of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009, 
     this paragraph shall apply to any review relating to

[[Page 2575]]

     paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b) obtained by the 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director 
     of the Office of Personnel Management may obtain review of 
     any final order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60 
     days after the date the Director received notice of the final 
     order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial 
     review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction as 
     provided under subsection (b)(2) if the Director determines, 
     in his discretion, that the Board erred in interpreting 
     paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b). If the Director did 
     not intervene in a matter before the Board, the Director may 
     not petition for review of a Board decision under this 
     section unless the Director first petitions the Board for a 
     reconsideration of its decision, and such petition is denied. 
     In addition to the named respondent, the Board and all other 
     parties to the proceedings before the Board shall have the 
     right to appear in the proceeding before the court of 
     appeals. The granting of the petition for judicial review 
     shall be at the discretion of the Court of Appeals.''.
       (j) Merit System Protection Board Review of Security 
     Clearances.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 7702 the following:

     ``Sec. 7702a. Actions relating to security clearances

       ``(a) In any appeal relating to the suspension, revocation, 
     or other determination relating to a security clearance or 
     access determination, the Merit Systems Protection Board or 
     any reviewing court--
       ``(1) shall determine whether paragraph (8) or (9) of 
     section 2302(b) was violated;
       ``(2) may not order the President or the designee of the 
     President to restore a security clearance or otherwise 
     reverse a determination of clearance status or reverse an 
     access determination; and
       ``(3) subject to paragraph (2), may issue declaratory 
     relief and any other appropriate relief.
       ``(b)(1) If, in any final judgment, the Board or court 
     declares that any suspension, revocation, or other 
     determination with regard to a security clearance or access 
     determination was made in violation of paragraph (8) or (9) 
     of section 2302(b), the affected agency shall conduct a 
     review of that suspension, revocation, access determination, 
     or other determination, giving great weight to the Board or 
     court judgment.
       ``(2) Not later than 30 days after any Board or court 
     judgment declaring that a security clearance suspension, 
     revocation, access determination, or other determination was 
     made in violation of paragraph (8) or (9) of section 2302(b), 
     the affected agency shall issue an unclassified report to the 
     congressional committees of jurisdiction (with a classified 
     annex if necessary), detailing the circumstances of the 
     agency's security clearance suspension, revocation, other 
     determination, or access determination. A report under this 
     paragraph shall include any proposed agency action with 
     regard to the security clearance or access determination.
       ``(c) An allegation that a security clearance or access 
     determination was revoked or suspended in retaliation for a 
     protected disclosure shall receive expedited review by the 
     Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board, and any reviewing court.
       ``(d) For purposes of this section, corrective action may 
     not be ordered if the agency demonstrates by a preponderance 
     of the evidence that it would have taken the same personnel 
     action in the absence of such disclosure.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 77 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7702 
     the following:

``7702a. Actions relating to security clearances.''.
       (k) Prohibited Personnel Practices Affecting the 
     Transportation Security Administration.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) by redesignating sections 2304 and 2305 as sections 
     2305 and 2306, respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after section 2303 the following:

     ``Sec. 2304. Prohibited personnel practices affecting the 
       Transportation Security Administration

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any individual holding or applying for a position within 
     the Transportation Security Administration shall be covered 
     by--
       ``(1) the provisions of section 2302(b)(1), (8), and (9);
       ``(2) any provision of law implementing section 2302(b) 
     (1), (8), or (9) by providing any right or remedy available 
     to an employee or applicant for employment in the civil 
     service; and
       ``(3) any rule or regulation prescribed under any provision 
     of law referred to in paragraph (1) or (2).
       ``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to affect any rights, apart from those described 
     in subsection (a), to which an individual described in 
     subsection (a) might otherwise be entitled under law.''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the items relating to sections 2304 and 
     2305, respectively, and by inserting the following:

``Sec. 2304. Prohibited personnel practices affecting the 
              Transportation Security Administration.
``Sec. 2305. Responsibility of the Government Accountability Office.
``Sec. 2306. Coordination with certain other provisions of law.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this section.
       (l) Disclosure of Censorship Related to Research, Analysis, 
     or Technical Information.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this section--
       (A) the term ``applicant'' means an applicant for a covered 
     position;
       (B) the term ``censorship related to research, analysis, or 
     technical information'' means any effort to alter, 
     misrepresent, or suppress research, analysis, or technical 
     information;
       (C) the term ``covered position'' has the meaning given 
     under section 2302(a)(2)(B) of title 5, United States Code;
       (D) the term ``employee'' means an employee in a covered 
     position; and
       (E) the term ``disclosure'' has the meaning given under 
     section 2302(a)(2)(D) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Protected disclosure.--
       (A) In general.--Any disclosure of information by an 
     employee or applicant for employment that the employee or 
     applicant reasonably believes is evidence of censorship 
     related to research, analysis, or technical information shall 
     come within the protections of section 2302(b)(8)(A) of title 
     5, United States Code, if--
       (i) the employee or applicant reasonably believes that the 
     censorship related to research, analysis, or technical 
     information is or will cause--

       (I) any violation of law, rule, or regulation; or
       (II) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse 
     of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public 
     health or safety; and

       (ii) the disclosure and information satisfy the conditions 
     stated in the matter following clause (ii) of section 
     2302(b)(8)(A) of title 5, United States Code; and
       (iii) shall come within the protections of section 
     2302(b)(8)(B) of title 5, United States Code, if--

       (I) the conditions under clause (i) of this subparagraph 
     are satisfied; and
       (II) the disclosure is made to an individual referred to in 
     the matter preceding clause (i) of section 2302(b)(8)(B) of 
     title 5, United States Code, for the receipt of disclosures.

       (B) Application.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to any 
     disclosure of information by an employee or applicant without 
     restriction to time, place, form, motive, context, forum, or 
     prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or 
     applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course 
     of an employee's duties.
       (C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to imply any limitation on the protections of 
     employees and applicants afforded by any other provision of 
     law, including protections with respect to any disclosure of 
     information believed to be evidence of censorship related to 
     research, analysis, or technical information.
       (m) Clarification of Whistleblower Rights for Critical 
     Infrastructure Information.--Section 214(c) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 133(c)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``For purposes of this section a 
     permissible use of independently obtained information 
     includes the disclosure of such information under section 
     2302(b)(8) of title 5, United States Code.''.
       (n) Advising Employees of Rights.--Section 2302(c) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, including 
     how to make a lawful disclosure of information that is 
     specifically required by law or Executive order to be kept 
     secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of 
     foreign affairs to the Special Counsel, the Inspector General 
     of an agency, Congress, or other agency employee designated 
     to receive such disclosures'' after ``chapter 12 of this 
     title''.
       (o) Special Counsel Amicus Curiae Appearance.--Section 1212 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(h)(1) The Special Counsel is authorized to appear as 
     amicus curiae in any action brought in a court of the United 
     States related to any civil action brought in connection with 
     section 2302(b) (8) or (9), or subchapter III of chapter 73, 
     or as otherwise authorized by law. In any such action, the 
     Special Counsel is authorized to present the views of the 
     Special Counsel with respect to compliance with section 
     2302(b) (8) or (9) or subchapter III of chapter 73 and the 
     impact court decisions would have on the enforcement of such 
     provisions of law.
       ``(2) A court of the United States shall grant the 
     application of the Special Counsel to appear in any such 
     action for the purposes described in subsection (a).''.

[[Page 2576]]

       (p) Scope of Due Process.--
       (1) Special counsel.--Section 1214(b)(4)(B)(ii) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, after a 
     finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing 
     factor,'' after ``ordered if''.
       (2) Individual action.--Section 1221(e)(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, after a 
     finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing 
     factor,'' after ``ordered if''.
       (q) Nondisclosure Policies, Forms, and Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Requirement.--Each agreement in Standard Forms 312 and 
     4414 of the Government and any other nondisclosure policy, 
     form, or agreement of the Government shall contain the 
     following statement: ``These restrictions are consistent with 
     and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the 
     employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by 
     Executive Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United 
     States Code (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 
     of title 10, United States Code (governing disclosure to 
     Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of 
     title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures of 
     illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety 
     threats); the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 
     (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that could 
     expose confidential Government agents); and the statutes 
     which protect against disclosure that may compromise the 
     national security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 
     952 of title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The 
     definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, 
     and liabilities created by such Executive order and such 
     statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and 
     are controlling.''.
       (B) Enforceability.--Any nondisclosure policy, form, or 
     agreement described under subparagraph (A) that does not 
     contain the statement required under subparagraph (A) may not 
     be implemented or enforced to the extent such policy, form, 
     or agreement is inconsistent with that statement.
       (2) Persons other than government employees.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a nondisclosure policy, form, 
     or agreement that is to be executed by a person connected 
     with the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence-related 
     activity, other than an employee or officer of the United 
     States Government, may contain provisions appropriate to the 
     particular activity for which such document is to be used. 
     Such form or agreement shall, at a minimum, require that the 
     person will not disclose any classified information received 
     in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized 
     to do so by the United States Government. Such nondisclosure 
     forms shall also make it clear that such forms do not bar 
     disclosures to Congress or to an authorized official of an 
     executive agency or the Department of Justice that are 
     essential to reporting a substantial violation of law.
       (r) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Government accountability office.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) Report.--Not later than 40 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives on the 
     implementation of this Act.
       (ii) Contents.--The report under this paragraph shall 
     include--

       (I) an analysis of any changes in the number of cases filed 
     with the United States Merit Systems Protection Board 
     alleging violations of section 2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5, 
     United States Code, since the effective date of the Act;
       (II) the outcome of the cases described under clause (i), 
     including whether or not the United States Merit Systems 
     Protection Board, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, or 
     any other court determined the allegations to be frivolous or 
     malicious; and
       (III) any other matter as determined by the Comptroller 
     General.

       (B) Study on revocation of security clearances.--
       (i) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     of security clearance revocations of Federal employees at a 
     select sample of executive branch agencies. The study shall 
     consist of an examination of the number of security 
     clearances revoked, the process employed by each agency in 
     revoking a clearance, the pay and employment status of agency 
     employees during the revocation process, how often such 
     revocations result in termination of employment or 
     reassignment, how often such revocations are based on an 
     improper disclosure of information, and such other factors 
     the Comptroller General deems appropriate.
       (ii) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the results of the study required under this subparagraph.
       (2) Merit systems protection board.--
       (A) In general.--Each report submitted annually by the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board under section 1116 of title 
     31, United States Code, shall, with respect to the period 
     covered by such report, include as an addendum the following:
       (i) Information relating to the outcome of cases decided 
     during the applicable year of the report in which violations 
     of section 2302(b)(8) or (9) of title 5, United States Code, 
     were alleged.
       (ii) The number of such cases filed in the regional and 
     field offices, the number of petitions for review filed in 
     such cases, and the outcomes of such cases.
       (B) First report.--The first report described under 
     subparagraph (A) submitted after the date of enactment of 
     this Act shall include an addendum required under that 
     subparagraph that covers the period beginning on January 1, 
     2009 through the end of the fiscal year 2009.
       (s) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON, of Florida:
  S. 373. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to include 
constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss exotic 
pythons and the devastating impact they are having on wildlife in my 
home state. To combat this deadly nonnative nuisance, I am also filing 
a bill that will ban the interstate commerce and importation of these 
snakes.
  Pythons were first discovered in the Everglades in the mid-1990s, and 
now have a rapidly-growing breeding population within the boundary of 
Everglades National Park. They impact almost seventy endangered species 
living in the Everglades and threaten to upset the natural balance that 
we are spending billions of dollars to restore. When I toured the 
Everglades with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara 
Boxer, we witnessed firsthand the damage pythons are causing, and the 
efforts researchers are making to eradicate them from the wild.
  These snakes were brought to Florida to be sold as pets, and were 
introduced into the wild by owners who could no longer handle them. 
They eat animals ranging from songbirds to white ibises, as well as 
endangered and threatened species such as the Key Largo woodrat. 
Pythons can grow to be 23 feet long and weigh up to 200 pounds, and 
there is currently no effective way of eradicating them in the wild.
  They can consume animals many times their size, and recently, 
researchers also found cougar parts in the stomachs of captured 
pythons. This development could signal a new threat to the endangered 
Florida panther, which we have been working so hard to save.
  Python populations have also been discovered in Big Cypress National 
Preserve to the north, Miami's water management areas to the northeast, 
Key Largo to the southeast, and many state parks, municipalities, and 
public and private lands in the region.
  Because climate range projections from the U.S. Geological Survey 
show that pythons may soon expand their range to include much of the 
southern third of the United States, getting their populations under 
control is even more pressing.
  In the last year, the State of Florida has taken some actions to 
address the problems created by owners who release their pythons into 
the wild, and I applaud these efforts. The State now requires owners of 
animals they call ``Reptiles of Concern''--a category that includes two 
species besides pythons--not only to obtain permits for their animals, 
but also to implant a tracking microchip in larger pythons.
  I believe federal action is also needed. That is why today I am 
introducing a bill that would amend the Lacey Act to ban the 
importation and interstate commerce of the python. This step is needed 
to reduce the number of pythons released into the wild by pet owners 
who don't understand the responsibility caring for a python entails. In 
2007, preeminent environmentalist and former assistant secretary of the 
Interior Nathaniel Reed wrote, ``The dramatic increase in the number of 
snakes in the Park and Big Cypress call into question why it has

[[Page 2577]]

taken so long for the Service to utilize its powers under the Lacey Act 
to prevent importation of the snake into an ecosystem where escapees 
and rejects have built a sustainable population.''
  If we do not take action now, we will let python populations in 
Florida continue to grow and further ravage the already-fragile 
Everglades, as well as risk letting them spread throughout the Southern 
portion of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 373

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

     SECTION 1. IMPORTATION OR SHIPMENT OF INJURIOUS SPECIES.

       Section 42(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended in the first sentence by inserting ``; of the 
     constrictor snake of the species Python genera'' after 
     ``polymorpha''.

                          ____________________