To find out the status of these or any other bills, contact the congressional bill status line at (202) 225-1772. This information is also available on the World Wide Web at http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d106query.html (106th Congress) or http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d105query.html (105th Congress) or http://thomas.loc.gov/d104/d104query.html (104th Congress).
| H.R. 39 | H.R. 75 | H.R. 88 | H.R. 187 | H.R. 443 | H.R. 453 |
| H.R. 494 | H.R. 525 | H.R. 571 | H.R. 574 | H.R. 765 | H.R. 1074 |
| H.R. 1199 | H.R. 1202 | H.R. 1791 | S. 345 | S. 725 | S. 1006 |
106th CONGRESS
H.R.39 A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
Introduced January 6, 1999, by Don Young (R-Alaska) and referred to the House Committee on Resources. On January 11, Executive Comment was requested from Interior and on January 11, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. Subcommittee hearings were held on February 11. Reported to the Full House on March 17. This Act may be cited as the “Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.”
“The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To perpetuate healthy populations of neotropical migratory birds.
(2) To assist in the conservation of neotropical migratory birds by supporting conservation initiatives in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
(3) To provide financial resources and to foster international cooperation for those initiatives.”
H.R. 75 To schedule Gamma y-hydroxybutyrate in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and to schedule Ketamine in schedule II of such Act and for other purposes.
Introduced January 6, 1999, by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) and referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime on February 25. This Act may be cited as the “Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act.” Related bill H.R. 1065, introduced by Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), would regulate both drugs as schedule III controlled substances.
“The Attorney General shall schedule Gamma y-hydroxybutyrate in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and shall schedule Ketamine in schedule II of such Act.
H.R. 88 To amend the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, to repeal the requirement regarding data produced under Federal grants and agreements awarded to institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations.
Introduced January 6, 1999, by George Brown (D-California) and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.
“Amends the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 to repeal: (1) the mandate that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) amend a specified OMB circular to require Federal awarding agencies to ensure that all data produced under an award (to institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations) be made available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act; and (2) agency authority to charge a user fee for obtaining such data at the request of a private party.”
H.R. 187 To deem the Florida Panther to be an endangered species for purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Introduced January 6, 1999, by Bill McCollum (R-Florida) and referred to the Committee on Resources. Executive comment requested from Interior on January 15.
“...the species commonly known as the Florida Panther is deemed to be an endangered species for purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior shall include the species known as the 'Florida Panther' in the appropriate list published under section 4(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)).”
H.R. 443 To amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to make it unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to transfer or market nonambulatory cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, or goats, and for other purposes.
Introduced February 2, 1999, by Gary L. Ackerman and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture on February11. This Act may be cited as the “Downed Animal Protection Act.”
“SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.
(a) UNLAWFUL PRACTICES- Title III of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, is amended by inserting after section 317 (7 U.S.C. 217a) the following new section:
SEC. 318. UNLAWFUL STOCKYARD PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.
(a) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section:
(1) The term 'humanely euthanized' means to kill an animal by mechanical, chemical, or other means that immediately render the animal unconscious, with this state remaining until the animal's death.
(2) The term 'nonambulatory livestock' means any livestock that is unable to stand and walk unassisted.
(b) UNLAWFUL PRACTICES- It shall be unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, market, hold, or drag any nonambulatory livestock unless the nonambulatory livestock has been humanely euthanized.
(c) CIVIL PENALTY- The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 against any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer that violates this section or any regulation or order of the Secretary under this section. A penalty under this subsection shall be assessed by the Secretary on the record after an opportunity for a hearing. Each day on which a violation occurs and each instance of prohibited action against nonambulatory livestock shall be considered a separate violation.
(d) CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS- Any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer that knowingly violates this section or any regulation or order of the Secretary under this section shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, for each violation.'.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE; RULES- Section 318 of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect at the end of the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. By the end of such period, the Secretary shall issue rules to implement such section.”
H.R. 453 To amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally.
Introduced February 2, 1999, by Charles T. Canady (R-Florida) and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. On February 11, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture. Executive comment was requested from USDA on February 17. This Act may be cited as the “Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1999.”
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS
(a) SECTION 7- Section 7 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2137) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 7. SOURCES OF DOGS AND CATS FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES.
(a) USE OF CERTAIN DOGS AND CATS- No research facility or Federal research facility may use a dog or cat for research or educational purposes if the dog or cat was obtained from a person other than a person described in subsection (c).
(b) SELLING, DONATING, OR OFFERING DOGS AND CATS- No person, other than a person described in subsection (c), may sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat to any research facility or Federal research facility.
(c) PERMISSIBLE SOURCES- Persons from whom a research facility or a Federal research facility may obtain a dog or cat for research or educational purposes under subsection (a) and persons who may sell, donate, or offer a dog or cat to a research facility or a Federal research facility under subsection (b) are—
(1) a dealer licensed under section 3 who has bred and raised such dog or cat;
(2) a publicly owned and operated pound or shelter that—
(A) is registered with the Department of Agriculture;
(B) is in compliance with section 28(a)(1) and with the requirements for dealers in section 28(b) and (c); and
(C) obtained such dog or cat from its legal owner, other than a pound or shelter;
(3) a person who is donating such dog or cat and who—
(A) bred and raised such dog or cat; or
(B) owned such dog or cat for not less than 1 year immediately preceding the donation;
(4) a research facility licensed by the Department of Agriculture; and
(5) a Federal research facility licensed by the Department of Agriculture.
(d) PENALTIES-
(1) Any person found to have violated subsection (b) shall pay $1,000 for each violation.
(2) Any penalty under this subsection shall be in addition to any other applicable penalty and shall be imposed whether or not the Secretary imposes any other penalty.
(e) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section the term 'person' includes any individual, partnership, firm, joint stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate, pound, shelter, or other legal entity.
(f) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this section may be construed to require a pound or shelter to sell, donate, or offer dogs or cats to research facilities or Federal research facilities.
H.R. 494 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to reform the regulatory process under that Act.
Introduced February 2, 1999, by William M. Thomas (R-California) and referred to the Committee on Resources. This Act may be cited as the “Endangered Species Fair Regulatory Process Reform Act.” Related bills introduced by Rep. Thomas include H.R. 495—the 'Endangered Species Land Management Reform Act'— and H.R. 496-the 'Endangered Species Criminal and Civil Liability Reform Act.'
According to comments by Rep. Thomas in the Congressional Record the purposes of these bills are the following:
H.R. 525 A bill to provide for the defense of the environment and for other purposes.
Introduced on February 3, 1999, by Henry A. Waxman (D-California) and referred to the Committee on Rules and, in addition, to the Committee on Government Reform. This Act may be cited as the “Defense of the Environment Act of 1999.”
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that provisions that reduce protection of the environment have been included in legislation without adequate consideration and an opportunity for Members to vote on the provisions.
(b) PURPOSE- The purposes of this Act are to—
(1) require Members of Congress to vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate on provisions included in legislation that reduce protection of the environment; and
(2) require the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that each department or agency makes available to Congress and the public information to assist in assessing whether provisions included in legislation would reduce protection of the environment.
SEC. 3. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
(a) IN GENERAL- This Act shall apply to any provision in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report before Congress that reduces protection of the environment.
(b) PROVISIONS REDUCING PROTECTION- A provision shall be considered to reduce protection of the environment if the provision meets the criteria of one or more of the following paragraphs:
(1) DEFENSE OF CLEAN AIR AND WATER- The provision may allow increased pollution of ambient air, indoor air, surface water, ground water, the oceans, or other terrestrial or aquatic resources.
(2) DEFENSE OF NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS- The provision may—
(A) cause adverse impacts on the environmental quality of national parks or other public lands, including the effect of decreasing the quantity or quality of outdoor educational or recreational opportunities on such lands; or
(B) diminish protection of species that may be endangered.
(3) DEFENSE OF CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH- The provision may increase children's exposure to environmental contaminants and other environmental risks.
(c) OTHER PROVISIONS- A provision shall also be considered to reduce protection of the environment if the provision may have the effect of shielding any violators of environmental laws from penalties or limiting judicial review of agency action under the authority of any environmental law.
(d) BASELINE FOR EFFECTS- The baseline for determining the effects of a provision described in subsection (b) or (c) shall be the circumstances that would exist if the provision were not enacted.
H.R. 571 To prohibit Federal payments to any business, institution, or organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques.
Introduced February 4, 1999, by Ron Paul (R-Texas) and referred to the Committee on Commerce. Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment on February 16. This Act may be cited as the “Human Cloning Prevention Act of 1999.”
“Except as provided in subsection (b), no Federal agency shall—
(1) make any grant, contract, or other payment; or
(2) enter into any obligation for making any such payment, to any business, institution, or organization that, within the past one year, has engaged in human cloning, or to any business, institution, or organization that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with any business, institution, or organization that, within the past one year, has engaged in human cloning.
(b) EXCEPTION- Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any payment a Federal agency is obligated to make.
For purposes of this Act, the term 'human cloning' means making an identical, or substantially identical, copy of the genetic material of an individual human being, living or deceased, so as to cultivate one or more new human cells which could, if not otherwise engineered, develop into a new individual human being.”
H.R. 574 To require peer review of scientific data used in support of Federal regulations and purposes.
Introduced February 4, 1999, by Richard W. Pombo (R-California) and referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Science. Referred to the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs on February 18. This Act may be cited as the “Science Integrity Act.”
“SEC. 2. PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT
(a) IN GENERAL- Not later than January 1, 2001, the head of each Federal department or agency which issues or may issue regulations supported by scientific data shall issue regulations under this section establishing procedures to ensure that the acquisition, interpretation, incorporation, and application of all such scientific data is subject to peer review by at least two but not more than five individuals from the list created pursuant to subsection (b).
(b) LIST OF PEER REVIEWERS- The head of each Federal department or agency which issues or may issue regulations supported by scientific data shall create, using the Federal Register, scientific and commercial journals, the National Academy of Sciences, and other similar resources, a list of individuals who are qualified and willing to perform peer review functions for the department or agency. Such list shall include only individuals who—
(1) by virtue of advanced education, training, or avocational, academic, commercial, research, or other experience, are competent to review the appropriateness of any scientific methodology supporting regulations that the department or agency may issue, the validity of any conclusions drawn from the supporting data, and the competency of the research or preparation of the scientific data; and
(2) are not otherwise employed by or under contract with the department or agency.
(c) SELECTION OF PEER REVIEWERS- The head of each department or agency shall select individuals from the list created pursuant to subsection (b) to peer review each proposed regulation of the department or agency that is supported by scientific data. No individual shall be selected who—
(1) has actively participated in advocating or opposing the issuance of the proposed regulation;
(2) has a direct financial interest in the proposed regulation; or
(3) is employed by or related to any person having a direct financial interest in the proposed regulation.
(d) PROVISION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA TO PEER REVIEWERS- Peer reviewers selected under subsection (c) shall be provided with all scientific data used in support of the proposed regulation and any other related data requested by the peer reviewer that is reasonably available to the department or agency.
(e) EXPENSES- Peer reviewers selected under subsection (c) shall be reimbursed by the department or agency for expenses directly incurred in performing the peer review, but shall not otherwise be compensated for performing the peer review.
(f) AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT- Upon receipt of all peer review reports for a proposed regulation, the head of a department or agency shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the availability of those reports, and the scientific data reviewed therein, for public comment. The department or agency shall make such reports and scientific data readily available upon request and shall receive public comment thereon for a period of 60 days after the publication of notice in the Federal Register.
(g) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW- Within 30 days after the completion of a public comment period described in subsection (f), the head of a department or agency shall transmit to the Congress—
(1) each peer review report;
(2) all scientific data used in support of the proposed regulation or requested by a peer reviewer;
(3) the response of the head of the department or agency to points of disagreement, if any, among the peer reviewers; and
(4) all public comments received.
The proposed regulation may not be issued in final form until 30 days after the transmittal under this subsection.
(h) FINAL ISSUANCE- The publication of a final regulation peer reviewed under this section shall include a summary of the related peer review reports and any points of disagreement among the peer reviewers, and the response of the head of the department or agency to the peer review reports.
(i) EMERGENCY EXCEPTION- Regulations issued under subsection (a) shall include provisions that permit the issuance of regulations supported by scientific data in emergency circumstances without peer review, on the condition that peer review be completed within 90 days after such issuance.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF PEER REVIEW
For purposes of this Act, the term 'peer review' means identifying technical or scientific deficiencies of a proposal, assessing whether the methodology and analysis supporting a proposal conform to the standards of the academic and scientific community, and determining whether a proposal is supported by sufficient credible evidence.”
H.R. 765 To amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act to cover birds of the order Ratitae that are raised for use as human food.
Introduced February 12, 1999, by Bennie G. Thompson (D-Mississippi) and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. On February 18, Executive Comment was requested from USDA and it was also referred to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture.
“SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF POULTRY TO INCLUDE RATITES
(a) DEFINITION OF POULTRY- Section 4(e) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 453(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 'The term includes birds of the order Ratitae, such as ostriches, emus, and rheas, that are raised for distribution in commerce as human food.'
(b) IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT- Beginning 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, establishments in the United States that slaughter or process birds of the order Ratitae for distribution in commerce as human food shall be subject to the ante mortem and post mortem inspection, reinspection and sanitation requirements of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) rather than the voluntary poultry inspection program of the Department of Agriculture under section 203 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622).”
H.R. 1074 To provide Governmentwide accounting of regulatory costs and benefits, and for other purposes.
Introduced March 11, 1999, by Tom Bliley (R-Virginia) and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. This Act may be cited as the “Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999.”
The purposes of this Act are to—
(1) promote the public right-to-know about the costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs and rules;
(2) increase Government accountability; and
(3) improve the quality of Federal regulatory programs and rules.
H.R. 1199 To prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the creation of new National Wildlife Refuges without specific authorization from Congress pursuant to a recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to create the refuge.
Introduced March 18, 1999, by Richard Pombo (R-California) and referred to the
Committee on Resources. This Act may be cited as the “New Wildlife Refuge Authorization Act.”
SEC. 2. NEW REFUGES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be expended from the Land and Water Conservation Fund established by Public Law 88-578, for the creation of a new refuge within the National Wildlife Refuge System without specific authorization from Congress pursuant to recommendation from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to create that new refuge.
H.R. 1202 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interstate-connected conduct relating to exotic animals.
Introduced March 18, 1999, by George Brown (D-California) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This Act may be cited as the “Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1999.”
SEC. 2. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
SEC. 48. EXOTIC ANIMALS
(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or the collection of a trophy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
H.R. 1791 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for harming animals used in Federal law enforcement.
Introduced May 13, 1999, by Jerry Weller (R-Illinois) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This act may be cited as the “Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act of 1999.”
Chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
SEC. 1368. HARMING ANIMALS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
(a) Whoever willfully harms any police animal, or attempts to conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than one year. If the offense disables or disfigures the animal, or causes the death of the animal, the maximum term of imprisonment shall be 10 years.
(b) In this section, the term 'police animal' means a dog or horse employed by a Federal agency (whether in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch) for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of criminal activity, enforcement of laws, or apprehension of criminal offenders'.
S. 345 A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to remove the limitation that permits interstate movement of live birds, for the purpose of fighting, to States in which animal fighting is lawful.
Introduced February 3, 1999, by Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) and referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Related bill H.R. 1275 introduced by Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota).
Amends the Animal Welfare Act to eliminate the provision permitting interstate movement of live fighting birds if the fighting venture is to take place in a State allowing such fights.
S.725 A bill to preserve and protect coral reefs, and for other purposes.
Introduced March 25, 1999, by Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This Act may be referred to as the “Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1999.”
The purposes of this title are:
(1) To preserve, sustain, and restore the health of coral reef ecosystems;
(2) To assist in the conservation and protection of coral reefs by supporting conservation programs;
(3) To provide financial resources for those programs; and
(4) To establish a formal mechanism for collecting and allocating monetary donations from the private sector to be used for coral reef conservation projects.
S. 1006 To end the use of conventional steel-jawed leghold traps on animals in the United States.
Introduced May 11, 1999, by Robert Torricelli (D-New Jersey) and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States to end the needless maiming and suffering inflicted upon animals through the use of leghold traps by prohibiting the import or export of, and the shipment in interstate commerce of, such traps and of articles of fur from animals that were trapped in such traps.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES.
It is unlawful for any person knowingly—
(1) to import, export, ship, or receive in interstate commerce an article of fur if any part of the article of fur is derived from an animal that was trapped in a conventional steel-jawed leghold trap; (2) to import, export, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatever, in interstate commerce, any conventional steel-jawed leghold trap; or (3) to sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any conventional steel-jawed leghold trap that was delivered, carried, transported, or shipped in violation of paragraph (2).
Go to:
Contents, Animal Welfare Information Center Bulletin
Top of Document
The Animal Welfare Information Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
Phone: (301) 504-6212
FAX: (301) 504-7125
Contact us: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/contact.php
