[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1855-S1869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1604. A bill to improve the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act requirements regarding separate detention and 
confinement of juveniles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


               the juvenile jail improvement act of 1996

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Juvenile Jail 
Improvement Act of 1996.
  We face a growing and frightening tide of juvenile violence. And that 
tide is threatening to swamp our rural sheriffs. It is increasingly 
common for rural sheriffs to face a terrible dilemma every time they 
arrest a juvenile--they either have to release a potentially violent 
juvenile on the street to await trial or they have to spend invaluable 
time and manpower chauffeuring the juvenile around their State to an 
appropriate detention facility. Either way, the current system makes 
little sense and needs to be changed.
  Let me explain how this dilemma works. In most rural communities, the 
only jail available is built exclusively for adults. There are no 
special juvenile facilities. But sometimes, the community can create a 
separate portion of the jail for juveniles. However, under current law, 
a juvenile picked up for criminal activity can only be held in a 
separate portion of an adult facility for up to 24 hours. After that, 
the juvenile must be transported--often across hundreds of miles--to a 
separate juvenile detention facility, often to be returned to the very 
same jail 2 or 3 days later for a court date. This system often leaves 
rural law enforcement criss-crossing the State with a single juvenile--
and results in massive expenses for law enforcement with little benefit 
for juveniles, who spend endless hours in a squad car. Such a process 
does not serve anyone's interests.
  And that is not all that rural sheriffs face. Even qualifying for the 
24-hour exception can be a nightmare. That's because juveniles can be 
kept in adult jails only under a very stringent set of rules. Keeping 
juveniles in an adult jail is known as collocation. It can only be done 
if there is strict sight and sound separation between the adults and 
the juveniles as well as completely separate staff. For many small 
communities, making these physical and staff changes to their jails is 
prohibitively expensive.
  So sheriffs faced with diverting officers to drive around the State 
in search of a detention facility may chose to let the juvenile free 
while awaiting trial. This prospect should frighten anyone who is aware 
of the growing trend in juvenile violence.
  Today, I am introducing legislation that is designed to cure this 
problem. My legislative solution is simple, straightforward and 
effective. It extends from 24 to 72 hours the time during which rural 
law enforcement may collocate juvenile offenders in an adult facility, 
as long as juveniles remain separated from adults. It also relaxes the 
requirements for acceptable collocation. After taking a hard look at 
how the collocation rules have worked--and in what ways they have 
failed--this legislation comes to a reasonable compromise, and, as a 
result, it has the support of the Badger Sheriffs Association.
  Mr. President, one of our most important goals is assuring that any 
changes to these rules does not sacrifice the safety and welfare of 
arrested juveniles. In addition to the growing fear about juvenile 
violence, we have witnessed a growing anger and frustration at 
juveniles. That frustration should not lead us to forget the painful 
lessons we learned many years ago about abusive and dangerous treatment 
of delinquent children. Twenty years ago, we learned about kids who 
were thrown in jail where they were victimized and abused by adult 
prisoners; or where, without proper supervision, they committed 
suicide; or, where, guarded by people who only had experience with 
adult prisoners, they were disciplined savagely. When we give in to the 
temptation to just throw juveniles in jail and teach them a tough 
lesson, we are often ill rewarded. So even as we loosen these 
collocation requirements, we must bear in mind that the juvenile 
justice system still has as its principle goal rehabilitation, not 
harsh retribution.
  My conversations with administrators, sheriffs, and juvenile court 
judges have led me to conclude that we must

[[Page S1856]]

bring greater flexibility--and less redtape--to the Juvenile Justice 
Act. It is my hope that this legislation--which offers greater 
flexibility while retaining important protections regarding the 
separation of juveniles from adults--will meet with strong support from 
the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1604

       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 ``Juvenile Jail Improvement 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) current Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 
     rules and regulations concerning the separation of adults 
     from juveniles during short periods of detention or 
     confinement have proven unduly burdensome for rural law 
     enforcement;
       (2) altering requirements concerning the length of stay 
     permitted in a State-approved portion of a county jail or 
     secure detention facility, while retaining the separation of 
     juveniles from adults, would diminish these burdens without 
     harm to juveniles;
       (3) the requirement of completely separate staffing during 
     these short stays also creates large burdens yet yields 
     little benefit for juveniles; and
       (4) experience with shared staff indicates that juveniles 
     are not harmed by the use of shared staff, so long as the 
     staff members are appropriately trained and certified, and 
     juveniles do not have regular contact with adults.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONTACT RULES.

       Section 223(a)(14) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(14)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``2001'';
       (2) by striking ``pursuant to an enforceable State law 
     requiring such appearances within twenty-four hours after 
     being taken into custody (excluding weekends and holidays)'' 
     and inserting ``and permit the detention or confinement of 
     juveniles in a State approved portion of a county jail or 
     secure detention facility for up to 72 hours''; and
       (3) by striking ``such exceptions are'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting the 
     following: ``such exceptions--
       ``(A) are limited to areas that are in compliance with 
     paragraph (13) and--
       ``(i) are outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; 
     and
       ``(ii) have no existing acceptable alternative placement 
     available that is easily accessible;
       ``(B) permit the same staff members to oversee both 
     juveniles and adults only if such staff members have been 
     properly trained and certified to supervise juveniles; and
       ``(C) ensure that juveniles have no regular contact with 
     adult persons who are incarcerated because they have been 
     convicted of a crime or are awaiting trial on criminal 
     charges;''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (by request):
  S. 1605. A bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
manage the strategic petroleum reserve more effectively and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


     the energy policy and conservation act amendments act of 1996

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to an executive 
communication referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, at the request of the Secretary of Energy, I send to the 
desk a bill to amend and extend certain authorities in the Energy 
Policy and conservation Act which either have expired or will expire 
June 30, 1996.
  Although I do not necessarily agree with all of the provisions of 
this bill, the reauthorization of the programs covered by the 
legislation, including the strategic petroleum reserve, is an important 
issue that must be fully considered by the committee and the Senate. 
Thus, I introduce this draft legislation today and ask unanimous 
consent that the executive communication and the bill be printed in the 
Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1605

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
     Act may be cited as the ``Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     Amendments Act''.
       Sec. 2. Section 2 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6201) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``standby'' and ``, 
     subject to congressional review to impose rationing, to 
     reduce demand for energy through the implementation of energy 
     conservation plans, and'', and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (6).
       Sec. 3. Title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6211-6251) is amended--
       (a) by striking section 102 (42 U.S.C. 6211),
       (b) in section 105 (42 U.S.C. 6213)--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows--
       ``(a) The Secretary of the Interior shall prohibit the 
     bidding for any right to develop crude oil, natural gas, and 
     natural gas liquids on any lands located on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf by any person if more than one major oil 
     company, more than one affiliate of a major oil company, or a 
     major oil company and any affiliate of a major oil company, 
     has or have a significant ownership interest in that person, 
     when the Secretary determines prior to any lease sale that 
     this bidding would adversely affect competition or the 
     receipt of fair market value.'', and
       (2) by striking subsections (c) and (e).
       (c) by striking section 106 (42 U.S.C. 6214),
       (d) in section 151 (42 U.S.C. 6231)--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``limited'' and ``short-
     term'', and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) It is the policy of the United States to provide for 
     the creation of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the storage 
     of up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum products to reduce 
     the impact of disruptions in supplies of petroleum products 
     or to carry out obligations of the United States under the 
     international energy program.'',
       (e) in section 152 (42 U.S.C. 6232)--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (7), and
       (2) in paragraph (11) by striking ``, the Early Storage 
     Reserve, and the Regional Petroleum Reserve ``, and by adding 
     a period after Industrial Petroleum Reserve.
       (f) by striking section 153 (42 U.S.C. 6233),
       (g) in section 154 (42 U.S.C. 6234)--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) A Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the storage of up 
     to 1 billion barrels of petroleum products shall be created 
     pursuant to this part.''.
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) The Secretary, acting through the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve Office and in accordance with this part, shall 
     exercise authority over the development, operation, and 
     maintenance of the Reserve.'', and
       (3) by striking subsections (c), (d), and (e).
       (h) by striking section 155 (42 U.S.C. 6235),
       (i) in section 156(b) (42 U.S.C. 6236(b)), by striking ``To 
     implement the Early Storage Reserve Plan or the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve Plan which has taken effect pursuant to 
     section 159(a), the'' and inserting ``The''.
       (j) by striking section 157 (42 U.S.C. 6237),
       (k) by striking section 158 (42 U.S.C. 6238),
       (l) by amending the heading for section 159 (42 U.S.C. 
     6239) to read, ``Development, Operation, and Maintenance of 
     the Reserve'',
       (m) in section 159 (42 U.S.C. 6239)--
       (1) by striking subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e),
       (2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) In order to develop, operate, or maintain the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve the Secretary may:
       ``(1) issue rules, regulations, or orders;
       ``(2) acquire by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, land 
     or interests in land for the location of storage and related 
     facilities;
       ``(3) construct, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire 
     storage and related facilities;
       ``(4) use, lease, maintain, sell, or otherwise dispose of 
     storage and related facilities acquired under this part, 
     under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may deem 
     necessary or appropriate;
       ``(5) acquire, subject to the provisions of section 160, by 
     purchase, exchange, or otherwise, petroleum products for 
     storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
       ``(6) store petroleum products in storage facilities owned 
     and controlled by the United States or in storage facilities 
     owned by others if those facilities are subject to audit by 
     the United States;
       ``(7) execute any contracts necessary to develop, operate, 
     or maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;
       ``(8) require an importer of petroleum products or refiner 
     to acquire and to store and maintain, in readily available 
     inventories, petroleum products in the Industrial Petroleum 
     Reserve, under section 156;
       ``(9) require the storage of petroleum products in the 
     Industrial Petroleum Reserve, under section 156, on terms 
     that the Secretary specifies, in storage facilities owned and 
     controlled by the United States or in storage facilities 
     other than those owned by the United States if those 
     facilities are subject to audit by the United States;
       ``(10) require the maintenance of the Industrial Petroleum 
     Reserve;
       ``(11) bring an action, when the Secretary considers it 
     necessary, in any court having jurisdiction over the 
     proceedings, to acquire by condemnation any real or personal 
     property, including facilities, temporary use of facilities, 
     or other interests in land, together with any personal 
     property located on or used with the land, and
       ``(12) to the extent provided in an Appropriations Act, and 
     not withstanding section 649(b) of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7259(b)), the Secretary is

[[Page S1857]]

     authorized to store in unused SPR facilities by lease or 
     otherwise petroleum product owned by a foreign government or 
     its representative, petroleum product stored under this 
     paragraph is not part of the Reserve, is not subject to part 
     C of this title, and notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act, may be exported from the United States.''.
       (3) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``implementation'' and inserting 
     ``development'', and
       (B) by striking ``Plan''.
       (4) by striking subsections (h) and (i),
       (5) by amending subsection (j) to read as follows:
       ``(j) When the Secretary determines that a 750,000,000 
     barrel inventory can reasonably be expected to be reached in 
     the Reserve within 5 years, a plan for expansion will be 
     submitted to the Congress.'', and
       (6) by amending subsection (l) to read as follows:
       ``(l) During any period in which drawdown and distribution 
     are being implemented, the Secretary may issue rules, 
     regulations, or orders to implement the drawdown and 
     distribution of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in accordance 
     with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, without 
     regard to rulemaking requirements in section 523 of this Act, 
     and section 501 of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7191).
       (n) in section 160 (42 U.S.C. 6240)--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking all before the dash and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) To the extent funds are available under section 
     167(b) (2) and (3) and for the purposes of implementing the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Secretary may acquire place 
     in storage, transport, or exchange.''.
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``including the Early 
     Storage Reserve and the Regional Petroleum Reserve'' and 
     paragraph (2), and
       (3) by striking subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g).
       (o) in section 161 (42 U.S.C. 6241)--
       (1) by striking subsections (b) and (c),
       (2) by amending subsection (d)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) No drawdown and distribution of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve may be made unless the President has found 
     drawdown and distribution is required by a severe energy 
     supply interruption or by obligations of the United States 
     under the international energy program.'',
       (3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) The Secretary shall sell any petroleum products 
     withdrawn from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at public sale 
     to the highest qualified bidder in the amounts for the 
     period, and after a notice of sale the Secretary considers 
     proper, and without regard to Federal, State, or local 
     regulations controlling sales of petroleum products.
       ``(2) The Secretary may cancel in whole or in part any 
     offer to sell petroleum products as part of any drawdown and 
     distribution under this Section.'', and
       (4) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Distribution Plan'' and 
     inserting ``distribution procedures'',
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (6), and
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``90'' and inserting 
     ``95''.
       (p) by striking section 164 (42 U.S.C. 6244),
       (q) by amending section 165 (42 U.S.C. 6245) to read as 
     follows--
       ``Sec. 165. The Secretary shall report annually to the 
     President and the Congress on actions taken to implement this 
     part. This report shall include--
       ``(1) the status of the physical capacity of the Reserve 
     and the type and quantity of petroleum in the Reserve;
       ``(2) an estimate of the schedule and cost to complete 
     planned equipment upgrade or capital investment in the 
     Reserve, including those carried out as part of operational 
     maintenance or extension of life activities;
       ``(3) an identification of any life-limiting conditions or 
     operational problems at any Reserve facility, and proposed 
     remedial actions including an estimate of the schedule and 
     cost of implementing such remedial actions;
       ``(4) a description of current withdrawal and distribution 
     rates and capabilities, and an identification of any 
     operational or other limitations on such rates and 
     capabilities;
       ``(5) an identification of purchases of petroleum made in 
     the preceding year and planned in the following year, 
     including quantity, price, and type of petroleum;
       ``(6) a summary of the actions taken to develop, operate, 
     and maintain the Reserve;
       ``(7) a summary of the financial status and financial 
     transactions of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve Petroleum Accounts for the year;
       ``(8) a summary of expenses for the year, and the number of 
     Federal and contractor employees;
       ``(9) the status of contracts for development, operation, 
     maintenance, distribution, and other activities related to 
     the implementation of this part, and
       ``(10) any recommendation for supplemental legislation or 
     policy or operational changes the Secretary considers 
     necessary and appropriate to implement this part.''.
       (r) in section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) by striking all after 
     ``appropriated'' and inserting ``the funds necessary to 
     implement this part.'',
       (s) in section 167 (42 U.S.C. 6247)--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``for test sales of petroleum products 
     from the Reserve,'' after ``Strategic Petroleum Reserve,'', 
     and by inserting ``for'' before ``the drawdown'',
       (B) by striking paragraph (1), and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``after fiscal year 
     1982''.
       (t) in section 171 (42 U.S.C. 6249)--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (b)(2)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) the Secretary notifies each House of the Congress of 
     the determination and identifies in the notification the 
     location, type, and ownership of storage and related 
     facilities proposed to be included, or the volume, type, and 
     ownership of petroleum product proposed to be stored, in the 
     Reserve, and an estimate of the proposed benefits.''.
       (u) in section 172 (42 U.S.C. 6249a), by striking 
     subsections (a) and (b),
       (v) by striking section 173 (42 U.S.C. 6249b), and
       (w) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251), by striking ``June 30, 
     1996'' each time it appears and inserting ``September 30, 
     2001''.
       Sec. 4. Title II of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6211-6251) is amended--
       (a) by striking Part A (42 U.S.C. 6261 through 6264),
       (b) by striking ``section 252(l)(1)'' in section 251(e)(1) 
     (42 U.S.C. 6271(e)(1)) and inserting ``section 252(k)(1)'',
       (c) in section 252(42 U.S.C. 6272)--
       (1) in subsections (a)(1) and (b), by striking ``allocation 
     and information provisions of the international energy 
     program'' and inserting ``international emergency response 
     provisions'',
       (2) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``known'' and 
     inserting after ``circumstances'' ``known at the time of 
     approval'',
       (3) in subsection (e)(2) by striking ``shall'' and 
     inserting ``may'',
       (4) in subsection (f)(2) by inserting ``voluntary agreement 
     or'' after ``approved'',
       (5) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows--
       ``(h) Section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 
     shall not apply to any agreement or action undertaken for the 
     purpose of developing or carrying out--
       ``(1) the international energy program, or
       ``(2) any allocation, price control, or similar program 
     with respect to petroleum products under this Act.'',
       (6) in subsection (i) by inserting ``annually, or'' after 
     ``least'' and by inserting ``during an international energy 
     supply emergency'' after ``months'',
       (7) in subsection (k) by amending paragraph (2) to read as 
     follows--
       ``(2) The term ``international emergency response 
     provisions'' means--
       ``(A) the provisions of the international energy program 
     which relate to international allocation of petroleum 
     products and to the information system provided in the 
     program, and
       ``(B) the emergency response measures adopted by the 
     Governing Board of the International Energy Agency (including 
     the July 11, 1984, decision by the Governing Board on 
     ``Stocks and Supply Disruptions'') for--
       ``(i) the coordinated drawdown of stocks of petroleum 
     products held or controlled by governments, and
       ``(ii) complementary actions taken by governments during an 
     existing or impending international oil supply disruption'', 
     and
       (8) by amending subsection (l) to read as follows--
       ``(l) The antitrust defense under subsection (f) shall not 
     extend to the international allocation of petroleum products 
     unless allocation is required by chapters III and IV of the 
     international energy program during an international energy 
     supply emergency.''.
       (d) by adding at the end of section 256(h). ``There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1996 through 
     2001, such sums as may be necessary.'',
       (e) by striking Part C (42 U.S.C. 271 through 272), and
       (f) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285), by striking ``June 30, 
     1996'' each time it appears and inserting ``September 30, 
     2001''.
       Sec. 5. (a) Title III of the energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6291-6325 and 6361-6374) is amended--
       (1) in section 365(f) (42 U.S.C. 6325(f)) by amending 
     paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for the purpose 
     of carrying out this part, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $24,650,000 million for fiscal year 1996 and for 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2001, such sums as may be 
     necessary.'', and
       (2) section 397 (42 U.S.C. 6371f) is amended to read as 
     follows: ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there 
     are authorized $26,849,000 million to be appropriated for 
     fiscal year 1996 and for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, such 
     sums as may be necessary.''.
       (b) in section 400BB(b) (42 U.S.C. 6374a(b)) by amending 
     paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary for carrying out this section such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1996 through 2001, to remain 
     available until expended.''.
       Sec. 6. Title V of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6381-6422) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 507 (42 U.S.C. 6385), and
       (2) by striking section 522 (42 U.S.C. 6392).
                                                                    ____


                           Section-by-Section


           section 2. amendments to the statement of purposes

       Section 2 of the bill would amend section 2 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
       Paragraph (1) would strike language referring to standby 
     energy conservation and rationing authorities in title II, 
     part A, which expired June 30, 1985.

[[Page S1858]]

       Paragraph (2) would strike paragraphs (3) and (6) of the 
     Statement of Purposes to reflect the bill's elimination of 
     sections 102 (incentives to develop underground coal mines) 
     and 106 (Production of oil or gas at the maximum efficient 
     rate and temporary emergency production rate).


                section 3. amendments to title i of epca

       Subsection (a) would strike section 102 of EPCA.
       Section 102 of EPCA provides a loan guaranty program to 
     encourage the opening of underground coal mines. Coal supply, 
     however, is abundant, and the loan guarantee program has been 
     inactive since the early 1980s. Because there is no current 
     or foreseeable need for the program authorized by section 102 
     of EPCA, it is appropriate to delete the section.
       Subsection (b) would amend section 105(a) of EPCA by 
     providing that the Secretary of the Interior may allow joint 
     bidding by major oil companies unless the Secretary 
     determines that this bidding would adversely affect 
     competition or the receipt of fair market value. If the 
     Secretary decides to prohibit joint bidding, it may be done 
     without issuing a rule, as previously required. This change 
     would render unnecessary the exemption process required in 
     section 105(c). The report required in section 105(e) has 
     been issued to Congress.
       Subsection (c) would strike section 106 of EPCA.
       Section 106 of EPCA directs the Secretary of the Interior 
     to determine the maximum efficient rate of production and the 
     temporary emergency rate of production, if any, for each 
     field on Federal lands which produces or is capable of 
     producing significant volumes of crude oil or natural gas. 
     The President may then require production at those rates, and 
     the owner may sue for damages if economic loss is incurred.
       Subsection (d) would amend section 151 of EPCA to clarify 
     the policy for establishing a strategic reserve of petroleum 
     products, and delete references to the Early Storage Reserve, 
     the objectives of which have been achieved.
       Subsection (e) would amend section 152 of EPCA by deleting 
     the definition of ``Early Storage Reserve'' and ``Regional 
     Petroleum Reserve.'' Requirements for and all references to 
     these parts of the program would be deleted by this bill.
       Subsection (f) would strike section 153 of EPCA and amend 
     section 154 to reflect the transfer of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve Office from the Federal Energy 
     Administration to the Department of Energy.
       Subsection (g) would amend section 154 of EPCA to eliminate 
     requirements for a Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan, and for 
     specified fill rates and schedules, but would retain 
     authority for a one billion barrel Reserve.
       The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan is largely obsolete 
     because the sites that are described for development in the 
     Plan have now been developed. The need for the Drawdown and 
     Distribution Plan, contained in Plan Amendment 4, is 
     eliminated by the amendment to section 159, which would 
     codify competitive sales as the drawdown and distribution 
     policy and elimination allocation as a method of 
     distribution.
       Subsection (h) would delete section 155 of EPCA, which 
     requires the establishment of an Early Storage Reserve. All 
     of the volumetric goals for the Early Storage Reserve have 
     been accomplished, and there is no longer a distinction 
     between the Early Storage Reserve and any other facilities or 
     petroleum that make up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
       Subsection (i) would amend section 156(b) of EPCA on the 
     Industrial Petroleum Reserve authority to remove references 
     to the Early Storage Reserve and the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve Plan, which are being deleted by other amendments.
       Subsection (j) would delete section 157, Regional Petroleum 
     Reserve. Section 157 of the Act requires the establishment of 
     regional petroleum reserve of refined products in Federal 
     Energy Administration regions that are dependent upon imports 
     for more than 20 percent of their consumption. The Department 
     determined to substitute crude oil for products and also 
     determined that the Gulf Coast area is near enough to all 
     areas to provide protection.
       Subsection (k) would delete 158 of EPCA.
       Section 158 requires reports to Congress on Utility 
     Reserves, Coal Reserves, and Remote Crude Oil and Natural Gas 
     Reserves within six months of passage of the original Act. 
     This requirement has been fulfilled.
       Subsection (l) would amend the heading for section 159 of 
     EPCA to reflect amendment to its contents.
       Subsection (m) would amend section 159 of EPCA.
       Paragraph (1) would eliminate subsections (a) through (e) 
     of section 159 of EPCA, which require Congressional review of 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan and provide for Plan 
     amendments, to reflect the deletion of the requirement for 
     a Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan in subsection (g) of 
     this amendment.
       Paragraph (2) would amend subsection 159(f) of EPCA to 
     eliminate references to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan 
     and the Early Storage Reserve Plan. This amendment also would 
     clarify and make explicit the Secretary's discretionary 
     authority to lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of 
     underutilized Strategic Petroleum Reserve facilities. If 
     necessary or appropriate, lease terms could exceed the five-
     year limitation of section 649(b) of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act. In addition, the Secretary is given 
     authority to lease under-utilized Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facilities to foreign governments or their representatives. 
     These leases also may exceed the five-year limitation of 
     section 649(b).
       Paragraph (3) would remove references in subsection (g) of 
     section 159 of EPCA to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan.
       Paragraph (4) would delete subsections 159(h) and (i) of 
     EPCA. Subsection 159(h) deals with interim storage facilities 
     which provide for storage of petroleum prior to the creation 
     of Government-owned facilities. That authority is no longer 
     needed since the Reserve has 592 million barrels of oil in 
     storage and significant unutilized storage capacity 
     Subsection 159(i) required the submission of a report to 
     Congress within 18 months after enactment of the 1990 EPCA 
     Amendments on the results of contract negotiations conducted 
     pursuant to part C of EPCA. The Department did not conclude 
     any contracts pursuant to part C and the reporting provision 
     has expired by its own terms.
       Paragrah (5) would amend subsection 159(j) of the EPCA to 
     reflect the elimination of the statutory requirement for a 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan by amendment of section 154 
     of the Act. This amendment would continue the requirement for 
     submission to Congress of proposed plans for expansion of 
     storage capacity following a determination by the Secretary 
     that the Reserve can reasonably be expected to be filed to 
     750 million barrels within five years. This reflects the 
     uncertain financing situation for filling available capacity 
     in the Reserve and makes planning for capacity expansion 
     beyond current capacity premature.
       Paragraph (6) would amend subsection 159(l) to eliminate 
     the reference to the Distribution Plan, but would retain the 
     Secretary's authority, during drawdown and distribution of 
     the Reserve, to promulgate regulations necessary to the 
     drawdown and distribution without regard to rulemaking 
     requirements in section 523 of this Act and section 501 of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act.
       Subsection (n) would amend section 160 of EPCA.
       Paragraph (l) would amend subsection 160(a) of EPCA to 
     provide that the Secretary's authority to acquire petroleum 
     products for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is contingent on 
     the availability of funds.
       Paragraph (2) would amend subsection 160(b) of EPCA by 
     striking the references to the Early Storage Reserve and the 
     Regional Petroleum Reserve, which would be eliminated by this 
     bill.
       Paragraph (3) would strike subsections 160 (c), (d), (e), 
     and (g) of EPCA.
       Subsection 160(c) of EPCA requires minimum fill rates. 
     These requirements have proved unrealistic given changes in 
     oil markets and availability of financing. The proposed 
     amendment gives the Secretary flexibility to fill the Reserve 
     contingent upon the availability of funds.
       Subsection 160(d) links sales authority for the United 
     States' share of crude oil at Naval Petroleum Reserve 
     Numbered 1 to a fill level of 750,000,000 barrels or a fill 
     rate of 75,000 barrel per day. The requirement for Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve fill is dependent on the availability of 
     financing for Strategic Petroleum Reserve acquisition, and 
     the logistics of moving Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 
     crude oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have proved to 
     be very problematic.
       Subsection 160(e) describes various exceptions to the 
     linkage between the Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 crude 
     oil sales authority and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve fill 
     rate, which would be eliminated by this bill.
       Subsection 160(g) requires a refined petroleum product 
     reserve test in fiscal years 1992-94, and a report to 
     Congress. The test was not conducted due to insufficient 
     appropriations in fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993 and 
     was waived in fiscal year 1994. The required report has been 
     submitted.
       Subsection (o) would amend section 161 of EPCA.
       Paragraph (1) would strike subsections 161 (b) and (c) of 
     EPCA, because they refer to both the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve Plan and the Early Storage Reserve Plan which would 
     be eliminated by this bill.
       Paragraph (2) would amend subsection 161(d)(1) of EPCA by 
     eliminating the references to the Distribution Plan contained 
     in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan but would not change 
     the existing conditions for Presidential decision to draw 
     down and distribute the Reserve.
       Paragraph (3) would amend subsection 161(e) of EPCA to 
     require the Secretary to distribute oil from the Reserve via 
     a public competitive sale to the highest qualified bidder. 
     The amendment eliminates the Secretary's allocation 
     authority.
       The amendment also would make explicit the authority of the 
     Secretary to cancel a sale in progress. This authority would 
     enable the Secretary to respond to inordinately low bids, 
     changes in market conditions, or a sudden reversal in the 
     nature of the shortage or emergency.
       Paragraph (4) would amend subsection 161(g) of EPCA.
       Subparagraph (4)(A) would amend subsection 161(g)(1) of 
     EPCA to substitute ``distribution procedures'' for 
     ``Distribution Plan''.
       Subparagraph (4)(B) would strike subsection 161(g)(2) of 
     EPCA because it refers to

[[Page S1859]]

     the Distribution Plan eliminated by the bill, and subsection 
     161(g)(6) of EPCA because it refers to the minimum required 
     fill rate eliminated by the bill.
       Subparagraph (4)(C) would amend section 161(g)(4) of EPCA 
     to prevent the Secretary from selling oil during a test sale 
     of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a price less than ``95 
     percent'' of the sales price of comparable crude oil being 
     sold in the same area at the time the Secretary is offering 
     crude oil for sale rather than ``90 percent'' currently 
     stipulated in this section. Since 10 percent of current 
     prices upward of $1.50 per barrel, the Department believes a 
     smaller range of difference in price would protect the 
     Department from selling the oil below normal variations in 
     market prices.
       Subection (p) would strike section 164 of EPCA. Section 164 
     of EPCA required a study of the use of Naval Petroleum 
     Reserve No 4 jointly by the Secretaries of Energy, the 
     Interior and the Navy, with a report to Congress within 180 
     days of the passage of the original Act. The study and report 
     were completed.
       Subsection (q) would amend section 165 of EPCA by deleting 
     the requirement for quarterly reports on the operation of the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and requiring instead an annual 
     report consistent with other parts of this amendment. 
     Quarterly reports, considered important during the early 
     growth period of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to inform 
     the Congress of progress in construction and the rate of 
     fill, are now unnecessary, and their deletion would save 
     administrative costs. Subsection (q) would also eliminate 
     references to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan, the 
     Distribution Plan, and the Early Storage Reserve, which are 
     eliminated by the bill and would change some of the 
     requirements for information to be included in the annual 
     report to reflect more accurately the current status of the 
     Reserve.
       Subsection (r) would amend section 166 of EPCA to authorize 
     appropriations necessary to implement the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve, and to delete year specific authorizations for the 
     early years of the Reserve.
       Subsection (s) would amend section 167 of EPCA to clarify 
     that funds generated by test sales will be deposited in the 
     SPR Petroleum Account. The amendment would remove language 
     specific to fiscal year 1982 which limits the amount of money 
     in the SPR Petroleum Account that year. The amendment also 
     would delete reference to the use of funds for interim 
     storage, which will not be needed because the permanent 
     facilities are complete for the storage of 750 million 
     barrels of oil.
       Subsection (t) would amend section 171 of EPCA to eliminate 
     the reference to a requirement for information identical to 
     that in section 154(e) of EPCA. Section 154(e) describes 
     information that is included in the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve Plan, which is deleted in this legislation. Instead, 
     when the Secretary notifies the Congress that the Department 
     intends to contract for storage of petroleum under part C, 
     the notification will include a requirement for information 
     more pertinent to the contract.
       Subsection (u) would amend section 172 of EPCA.
       Paragraph (1) would delete subsections (a) and (b). The 
     exemption in subsection (a) from the requirement for a 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan amendment is no longer 
     necessary because the bill eliminates the requirement for 
     Plan amendments. Subsection (b) provides that, for purposes 
     of meeting the fill rate requirement in section 160 (d)(1) of 
     EPCA part C contract oil which is removed from the Reserve at 
     the end of the contract agreement shall be considered part of 
     the Reserve until the beginning of the fiscal year following 
     the fiscal year in which the oil is removed. This subsection 
     is unnecessary since the requirement for specific fill rates 
     is deleted by amendment of section 160 of the Act.
       Subsection (v) would delete section 173 of EPCA which 
     requires congressional review and therefore, public scrutiny 
     of the details of contracts even though no implementing 
     legislation is needed, and requires a 30-day ``lie before'' 
     period before the contract can go into effect. This 
     requirement is a substantial impediment to acquisition of oil 
     for the Reserve by ``leasing'' and other alternative 
     financing methods authorized by EPCA, part C.
       Subsection (w) would amend section 181 of EPCA by extending 
     the expiration date of title I, parts B and C from June 30, 
     1996 to September 30, 2001.
       Public Law 103-406 extended the expiration date to June 30, 
     1996.


               SECTION 4. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE II OF EPCA

       Subsection (a) would strike part A of EPCA title II, which 
     contains the authorities for gasoline rationing and other 
     mandatory energy conservation measures which expired on July 
     1, 1985.
       Subsection (b) would amend section 251(e)(1) by striking 
     section ``252(l)(l)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``252(k)(l).''
       Subsection (c) would amend section 252 of EPCA, which makes 
     available to United States oil companies a limited antitrust 
     defense and breach of contract defense for actions taken to 
     carry out a voluntary agreement or plan of action to 
     implement the ``allocation and information provisions'' of 
     the Agreement on an International Energy Program 
     (``IEP''). These limited defenses are now available only 
     in connection with the companies' participation in 
     planning for and implementation of the IEP's emergency oil 
     sharing and information programs. The amendment would 
     extend the section 252 antitrust defense (but not the 
     breach of contract defense) to U.S. companies when they 
     assist the International Energy Agency (``IEA'') in 
     planning for and implementing coordinated drawdown of 
     government-owned or government-controlled petroleum 
     stocks. In 1984, largely at the urging of the United 
     States, the IEA's Governing Board adopted a decision on 
     ``Stocks and Supply Disruptions'' which established a 
     framework for coordinating the drawdown of member 
     countries' government-owned and government-controlled 
     petroleum stocks in those oil supply disruptions that 
     appear capable of causing severe economic harm, whether or 
     not sufficient to activate the IEP emergency oil sharing 
     and information programs. During the 1990-91 Persian Gulf 
     crisis the IEA successfully tested the new coordinated 
     stockdraw policy.
       Paragraph 1 would amend subsections 252(a) and (b) of EPCA. 
     These sections would be amended by substituting the term 
     ``international emergency response provisions'' for the term 
     ``allocation and information provisions of the international 
     energy program.'' The new term establishes the scope of oil 
     company activities covered by the antitrust defense and 
     includes actions to assist the IEA in implementing 
     coordinated drawdown of petroleum stocks.
       Paragraph 2 would amend paragraph 252(d)(3) of EPCA to 
     clarify that a plan of action submitted to the Attorney 
     General for approval must be as specific in its description 
     of proposed substantive actions as is reasonable ``in light 
     of circumstances known at the time of approval'' rather than 
     ``in light of known circumstances.''
       Paragraph 3 would amend paragraph 252(e)(2) of EPCA to give 
     the Attorney General flexibility in promulgating rules 
     concerning the maintenance of records by oil companies 
     related to the development and carrying out of voluntary 
     agreements and plans of action.
       Paragraph 4 would amend paragraph 252(f)(2) of EPCA to 
     clarify that the antitrust defense applies to oil company 
     actions taken to carry out an approved voluntary agreement as 
     well as an approved plan of action.
       Paragraph 5 would amend subsection 252(h) of EPCA to strike 
     the reference to section 708(A) of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950, which was repealed by Public Law 102-558 (October 
     28, 1992), and the reference to the Emergency Petroleum 
     Allocation Act of 1973, which expired in 1981.
       Paragraph 6 would amend subsection 252(i) of EPCA to 
     require the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission 
     to submit reports to Congress and to the President on the 
     impact of actions authorized by section 252 on competition 
     and on small businesses annually rather than every six 
     months, except during an ``international energy supply 
     emergency,'' when the reports would be required every six 
     months.
       Paragraph 7 would amend paragraph 252(k)(2) of EPCA by 
     substituting a definition of the term ``international 
     emergency response provisions'' for the present definition of 
     ``allocation and information provisions of the international 
     energy program.'' The new term, which establishes the scope 
     of company actions covered by the antitrust defense, covers 
     (A) the allocation and information provisions of the IEP and 
     (B) emergency response measures adopted by the IEA Governing 
     Board for the coordinated drawdown of stocks of petroleum 
     products held or controlled by governments and complementary 
     actions taken by governments during an existing or impending 
     international oil supply disruption, whether or not 
     international allocation of petroleum products is required by 
     the IEP.
       Paragraph 8 would amend subsection 252(l) of EPCA to make 
     clear that the antitrust defense does not extend to 
     international allocation of petroleum unless the IEA's 
     Emergency Sharing System has been activated.
       Subsection (d) would amend subsection 256(h) of EPCA to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through 2001 
     for the activities of the interagency working group and 
     interagency working subgroups established by section 256 of 
     EPCA to promote exports of renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency products and services.
       Subsection (e) would strike EPCA part C, which was added to 
     the EPCA by the Energy Emergency Preparedness Act of 1982 and 
     which required the submission to Congress of reports on 
     energy emergency legal authorities and response procedures. 
     The reporting requirement was fulfilled in 1982.
       Subsection (f) would amend section 281 of EPCA by extending 
     the expiration date of title II from June 30, 1996 to 
     September 30, 2001.
       Public Law 103-406 extended the expiration date to June 30, 
     1996.


               section 5. amendments to title iii of epca

       Subsection (a) would amend sections 365 and 397 of EPCA, 
     which provide authorization for appropriations for fiscal 
     years 1991, 1992, and 1993 for State Energy Conservation 
     programs and the Energy Conservation Program for Schools and 
     Hospitals. The amendment would authorize appropriations of 
     $24.651 million for section 365 and $26.849 million for 
     section 397 for fiscal year 1996 and such funds as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
       Subsection (b) would amend section 400BB to extend the 
     authorization for the appropriation of the Alternative Fuels 
     Truck

[[Page S1860]]

     Commercial Application Program to fiscal year 2001.


                section 6. amendments to title v of epca

       Paragraph 1 would delete section 507 of the Act, which 
     provides that the Energy Information Administration must 
     continue to gather the same data on pricing, supply and 
     distribution of petroleum products as it did on September 1, 
     1981. This section hinders the flexibility of the 
     Administrator to collect information that is currently 
     meaningful. There is no reason to have a statutory 
     prohibition against modifying and amending the types of data 
     collected.
       Paragraph 2 would delete section 522 of the Act, which 
     provides conflict of interest disclosure requirements for the 
     Federal Energy Administration. This section was superseded by 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act.
                                                                    ____



                                          Secretary of Energy,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 1995.
     Hon. Al Gore,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a legislative proposal 
     cited as the ``Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments 
     Act of 1995.'' This proposal would amend and extend certain 
     authorities in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act) 
     which either have expired or will expire June 30, 1996. Not 
     all sections of the current act are proposed for extension.
       The Act was passed in 1975. Title I authorizes the creation 
     and maintenance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that would 
     mitigate shortages during an oil supply disruption. Title II 
     contains authorities essential for meeting key United States 
     obligations to the International Energy Agency. This is our 
     method of coordinating energy emergency response programs 
     with other countries. The current antitrust defense available 
     to American companies participating in the International 
     Energy Agency would be clarified by the proposed legislation. 
     Titles I and II are proposed for extension beyond their June 
     30, 1996 expiration date.
       Title III contains authorities for certain energy 
     efficiency and conservation programs. The authorization of 
     appropriations has expired for these programs. These 
     successful and very cost beneficial programs, designed to 
     encourage and subsidize demand reducing investment and 
     manufacturing, are proposed for extension without amendment. 
     Title V contains residual provisions from the Federal Energy 
     Administration pertaining to energy data bases and 
     information, and general and administrative matters. Those 
     provisions which hinder the flexibility of the Administrator 
     of the Energy Information Administration to collect currently 
     meaningful information are proposed for deletion.
       The proposed legislation would extend the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve, participation in the International Energy 
     Program, and conservation and efficiency authorities to 
     September 30, 2001. It would revise or delete certain 
     provisions which are outdated or unnecessary.
       The proposed legislation and a sectional analysis are 
     enclosed.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that enactment 
     of this proposal would be in accord with the program of the 
     President. We look forward to working with the Congress 
     toward enactment of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Hazel R. O'Leary.
       Enclosures.

                           Section-by-Section


           section 2. amendments to the statement of purposes

       Section 2 of the bill would amend section 2 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
       Paragraph (1) would strike language referring to standby 
     energy conservation and rationing authorities in title II, 
     part A, which expired June 30, 1985.
       Paragraph (2) would strike paragraphs (3) and (6) of the 
     Statement of Purposes to reflect the bill's elimination of 
     sections 102 (incentives to develop underground coal mines) 
     and 106 (Production of oil or gas at the maximum efficient 
     rate and temporary emergency production rate).


                section 3. amendments to title i of epca

       Section (a) would strike section 102 of EPCA.
       Section 102 of EPCA provides a loan guaranty program to 
     encourage the opening of underground coal mines. Coal supply, 
     however, is abundant, and the loan guarantee program has been 
     inactive since the early 1980s. Because there is no current 
     or foreseeable need for the program authorized by section 102 
     of EPCA, it is appropriate to delete the section.
       Section (b) would amend section 105(a) of EPCA by providing 
     that the Secretary of the Interior may allow joint bidding by 
     major oil companies unless the Secretary determines that this 
     bidding would adversely affect competition or the receipt of 
     fair market value. If the Secretary decides to prohibit joint 
     bidding, it may be done without issuing a rule, as previously 
     required. This change would render unnecessary the exemption 
     process required in section 105(c). The report required in 
     section 105(e) has been issued to Congress.
       Section (c) would strike section 106 of EPCA.
       Section 106 of EPCA directs the Secretary of the Interior 
     to determine the maximum efficient rate of production and the 
     temporary emergency rate of production, if any, for each 
     field on Federal lands which produces or is capable of 
     producing significant volumes of crude oil or natural gas. 
     The President may then require production at those rates, and 
     the owner may sue for damages if economic loss is incurred.
       Subsection (d) would amend section 151 of EPCA to clarify 
     the policy for establishing a strategic reserve of petroleum 
     products, and delete references to the Early Storage Reserve, 
     the objectives of which have been achieved.
       Subsection (e) would amend section 152 of EPCA by deleting 
     the definition of ``Early Storage Reserve'' and ``Regional 
     Petroleum Reserve.'' Requirements for and all references to 
     these parts of the program would be deleted by this bill.
       Subsection (f) would strike section 153 of EPCA and amend 
     section 154 to reflect the transfer of the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve Office from the Federal Energy 
     Administration to the Department of Energy.
       Subsection (g) would amend section 154 of EPCA to eliminate 
     requirements for a Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan, and for 
     specified fill rates and schedules, but would retain 
     authority for a one billion barrel Reserve.
       The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan is largely obsolete 
     because the sites that are described for development in the 
     Plan have now been developed. The need for the Drawdown and 
     Distribution Plan, contained in Plan Amendment 4, is 
     eliminated by the amendment to section 159, which would 
     codify competitive sale as the drawdown and distribution 
     policy and eliminate allocation as a method of distribution.
       Subsection (h) would delete section 155 of EPCA, which 
     requires the establishment of an Early Storage Reserve. All 
     of the volumetric goals for the Early Storage Reserve have 
     been accomplished, and there is no longer a distinction 
     between the Early Storage Reserve and any other facilities or 
     petroleum that make up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
       Subsection (i) would amend section 156(b) of EPCA on the 
     Industrial Petroleum Reserve authority to remove references 
     to the Early Storage Reserve and the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve Plan, which are being deleted by other amendments.
       Subsection (j) would delete section 157, Regional Petroleum 
     Reserve. Section 157 of the Act requires the establishment of 
     regional petroelum reserve of refined products in Federal 
     Energy Administration regions that are dependent upon imports 
     for more than 20 percent of their consumption. The Department 
     determined to substitute crude oil for products and also 
     determined that the Gulf Coast area is near enough to all 
     areas to provide protection.
       Subsection (k) would delete 158 of EPCA.
       Section 158 requires reports to Congress on Utility 
     Reserves, Coal Reserves, and Remote Crude Oil and Natural Gas 
     Reserves within six months of passage of the original Act. 
     This requirement has been fulfilled.
       Subsection (l) would amend the heading for section 159 of 
     EPCA to reflect amendment to its contents.
       Subsection (m) would amend section 159 of EPCA.
       Paragraph (l) would eliminate subsections (a) through (e) 
     of section 159 of EPCA, which require Congressional review of 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan and provide for Plan 
     amendments, to reflect the deletion of the requirement for 
     a Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan in subsection (g) of 
     this amendment.
       Paragraph (2) would amend subsection 159 (f) of EPCA to 
     eliminate references to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan 
     and the Early Storage Reserve Plan. This amendment also would 
     clarify and make explicit the Secretary's discretionary 
     authority to lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of 
     underutilized Strategic Petroleum Reserve facilities. If 
     necessary or appropriate, lease terms could exceed the five-
     year limitation of section 649(b) of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act. In addition, the Secretary is given 
     authority to lease under-utilized Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facilities to foreign governments or their representatives. 
     These leases also may exceed the five-year limitation of 
     section 649(b).
       Paragraph (3) would remove references in subsection (g) of 
     section 159 of EPCA to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan.
       Paragraph (4) would delete subsections 159(h) and (i) of 
     EPCA. Subsection 159(h) deals with interim storage facilities 
     which provide for storage of petroleum prior to the creation 
     of Government-owned facilities. That authority is no longer 
     needed since the Reserve has 592 million barrels of oil in 
     storage and significant unutilized storage capacity. 
     Subsection 159(i) required the submission of a report to 
     Congress within 18 months after enactment of the 1990 EPCA 
     Amendments on the results of contract negotiations conducted 
     pursuant to part C of EPCA. The Department did not conclude 
     any contracts pursuant to part C, and the reporting provision 
     has expired by its own terms.
       Paragraph (5) would amend subsection 159(j) of EPCA to 
     reflect the elimination of the statutory requirement for a 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan by amendment of section 154 
     of the Act. This amendment would continue the requirement for 
     submission to Congress of proposed plans for expansion of 
     storage capacity following a determination by the Secretary 
     that the Reserve

[[Page S1861]]

     can reasonably be expected to be filled to 750 million 
     barrels within five years. This reflects the uncertain 
     financing situation for filling available capacity in the 
     Reserve and makes planning for capacity expansion beyond 
     current capacity premature.
       Paragraph (6) would amend subsection 159(l) to eliminate 
     the reference to the Distribution Plan, but would retain the 
     Secretary's authority, during drawdown and distribution of 
     the Reserve, to promulgate regulations necessary to the 
     drawdown and distribution without regard to rulemaking 
     requirements in section 523 of this Act and section 501 of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act.
       Subsection (n) would amend section 160 of EPCA.
       Paragraph (1) would amend subsection 160(a) of EPCA to 
     provide that the Secretary's authority to acquire petroleum 
     products for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is contingent on 
     the availability of funds.
       Paragraph (2) would amend subsection 160(b) of EPCA by 
     striking the references to the Early Storage Reserve and the 
     Regional Petroleum Reserve, which would be eliminated by this 
     bill.
       Paragraph (3) would strike subsections 160(c), (d), (e), 
     and (g) of EPCA.
       Subsection 160(c) of EPCA requires minimum fill rates. 
     These requirements have proved unrealistic given changes in 
     oil markets and availability of financing. The proposed 
     amendment gives the Secretary flexibility to fill the Reserve 
     contingent upon the availability of funds.
       Subsection 160(d) links sales authority for the United 
     States' share of crude oil at Naval Petroleum Reserve 
     Numbered 1 to a fill level of 750,000,000 barrels or a fill 
     rate of 75,000 barrels per day. The requirement for Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve fill is dependent on the availability of 
     financing for Strategic Petroleum Reserve acquisition, and 
     the logistics of moving Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 
     crude oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have proved to 
     be very problematic.
       Subsection 160(e) describes various exceptions to the 
     linkage between the Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 crude 
     oil sales authority and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve fill 
     rate, which would be eliminated by this bill.
       Subsection 160(g) requires a refined petroleum product 
     reserve test in fiscal years 1992-94, and a report to 
     Congress. The test was not conducted due to insufficient 
     appropriations in fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993 and 
     was waived in fiscal year 1994. The required report has been 
     submitted.
       Subsection (o) would amend section 161 of EPCA.
       Paragraph (1) would strike subsections 161 (b) and (c) of 
     EPCA, because they refer to both the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve Plan and the Early Storage Reserve Plan which would 
     be eliminated by this bill.
       Paragraph (2) would amend subsection 161(d)(1) of EPCA by 
     eliminating the references to the Distribution Plan contained 
     in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan but would not change 
     the existing conditions for Presidential decision to draw 
     down and distribute the Reserve.
       Paragraph (3) would amend subsection 161(e) of EPCA to 
     require the Secretary to distribute oil from the Reserve via 
     a public competitive sale to the highest qualified bidder. 
     The amendment eliminates the Secretary's allocation 
     authority.
       The amendment also would make explicit the authority of the 
     Secretary to cancel a sale in progress. This authority would 
     enable the Secretary to respond to inordinately low bids, 
     changes in market conditions, or a sudden a reversal in the 
     nature of the shortage or emergency.
       Paragraph (4) would amend subsection 161(g) of EPCA.
       Subparagraph (4)(A) would amend subsection 161(g)(1) of 
     EPCA to substitute ``distribution procedures'' for 
     ``Distribution Plan.''
       Subparagraph (4)(B) would strike subsection 161(g)(2) of 
     EPCA because it refers to the Distribution Plan eliminated by 
     the bill, and subsection 161(g)(6) of EPCA because it refers 
     to the minimum required fill rate eliminated by the bill.
       Subparagraph (4)(C) would amend section 161(g)(4) of EPCA 
     to prevent the Secretary from selling oil during a test sale 
     of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a price less than ``95 
     percent'' of the sales price of comparable crude oil being 
     sold in the same area at the time the Secretary is offering 
     crude oil for sale rather than ``90 percent'' currently 
     stipuled in this section. Since 10 percent of current prices 
     ranges upward of $1.50 per barrel, the Department believes a 
     smaller range of difference in price would protect the 
     Department from selling the oil below normal variations in 
     market prices.
       Subsection (p) would strike section 164 of EPCA. Section 
     164 of EPCA required a study of the use of Naval Petroleum 
     Reserve No. 4 jointly by the Secretaries of Energy, the 
     Interior and the Navy, with a report to Congress within 180 
     days of the passage of the original Act. The study and report 
     were completed.
       Subsection (q) would amend section 165 of EPCA by deleting 
     the requirement for quarterly reports on the operation of the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve and requiring instead an annual 
     report consistent with other parts of this amendment. 
     Quarterly reports considered important during the early 
     growth period of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to inform 
     the Congress of progress in construction and the rate of 
     fill, are now unnecessary, and their deletion would save 
     administrative costs. Subsection (q) would also eliminate 
     references to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan, the 
     Distribution Plan, and the Early Storage Reserve, which are 
     eliminated by the bill and would change some of the 
     requirements for information to be included in the annual 
     report to reflect more accurately the current status of the 
     Reserve.
       Subsection (r) would amend section 166 of EPCA to authorize 
     appropriations necessary to implement the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve, and to delete year specific authorizations for the 
     early years of the Reserve.
       Subsection (s) would amend section 167 of EPCA to clarify 
     that funds generated by test sales will be deposited in the 
     SPR Petroleum Account. The amendment would remove language 
     specific to fiscal year 1982 which limits the amount of money 
     in the SPR Petroleum Account that year. The amendment also 
     would delete reference to the use of funds for interim 
     storage, which will not be needed because the permanent 
     facilities are complete for the storage of 750 million 
     barrels of oil.
       Subsection (t) would amend section 171 of EPCA to eliminate 
     the reference to a requirement for information identical to 
     that in section 154(e) of EPCA. Section 154(e) describes 
     information that is included in the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve Plan, which is deleted in this legislation. Instead, 
     when the Secretary notifies the Congress that the Department 
     intends to contract for storage of petroleum under part C, 
     the notification will include a requirement for information 
     more pertinent to the contract.
       Subsection (u) would amend section 172 of EPCA.
       Paragraph (1) would delete subsections (a) and (b). The 
     exemption in subsection (a) from the requirement for a 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan amendment is no longer 
     necessary because the bill eliminates the requirement for 
     Plan amendments. Subsection (b) provides that, for purposes 
     of meeting the fill rate requirement in section 160(d)(1) of 
     EPCA, part C contract oil which is removed from the Reserve 
     at the end of the contract agreement shall be considered part 
     of the Reserve until the beginning of the fiscal year 
     following the fiscal year in which the oil is removed. The 
     subsection is unnecessary since the requirement for specific 
     fill rates is deleted by amendment of section 160 of the Act.
       Subsection (v) would delete section 173 of EPCA which 
     requires congressional review and, therefore, public scrutiny 
     of the details of contracts even though no implementing 
     legislation is needed, and requires a 30-day ``lie before'' 
     period before the contract can go into effect. This 
     requirement is a substantial impediment to acquisition of oil 
     for the Reserve by ``leasing'' and other alternative 
     financing methods authorized by EPCA, part C.
       Subsection (w) would amend section 181 of EPCA by extending 
     the expiration date of title I, parts B and C from June 30, 
     1996 to September 30, 2001.
       Public Law 103-406 extended the expiration date to June 30, 
     1996.


               section 4. amendments to title ii of epca

       Subsection (a) would strike part A of EPCA title II, which 
     contains the authorities for gasoline rationing and other 
     mandatory energy conservation measures which expired on July 
     1, 1985.
       Subsection (b) would amend section 251(e)(1) by striking 
     section ``252(l)(1)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``252(k)(1).''
       Section (c) would amend section 252 of EPCA, which makes 
     available to United States oil companies a limited antitrust 
     defense and breach of contract defense for actions taken to 
     carry out a voluntary agreement or plan of action to 
     implement the ``allocation and information provisions'' of 
     the Agreement on an International Energy Program (``IEP''). 
     These limited defenses are now available only in connection 
     with the companies' participation in planning for and 
     implementation of the IEP's emergency oil sharing and 
     information programs. The amendment would extend the section 
     252 antitrust defense (but not the breach of contract 
     defense) to U.S. companies when they assist the International 
     Energy Agency (``IEA'') in planning for and implementing 
     coordinated drawndown of government-owned or government-
     controlled petroleum stocks. In 1984, largely at the urging 
     of the United States, the IEA's Governing Board adopted a 
     decision on ``Stocks and Supply Disruptions'' which 
     established a framework for coordinating the drawdown of 
     member countries' government-owned and government-controlled 
     petroleum stocks in those oil supply disruptions that appear 
     capable of causing severe economic harm, whether or not 
     sufficient to activate the IEP emergency oil sharing and 
     information programs. During the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis 
     the IEA successfully tested the new coordinated stockdraw 
     policy.
       Paragraph 1 would amend subsections 252 (a) and (b) of 
     EPCA. These sections would be amended by substituting the 
     term ``international emergency response provisions'' for the 
     term ``allocation and information provisions of the 
     international energy program.'' The new term establishes the 
     scope of oil company activities covered by the antitrust 
     defense and includes actions to assist the IEA in 
     implementing coordinated drawdown of petroleum stocks.
       Paragraph 2 would amend paragraph 252(d)(3) of EPCA to 
     clarify that a plan of action submitted to the Attorney 
     General for

[[Page S1862]]

     approval must be as specific in its description of proposed 
     substantive actions as is reasonable ``in light of 
     circumstances known at the time of approval'' rather than 
     ``in light of known circumstances.''
       Paragraph 3 would amend paragraph 252(e)(2) of EPCA to give 
     the Attorney General flexibility in promulgating rules 
     concerning the maintenance of records by oil companies 
     related to the development and carrying out of voluntary 
     agreements and plans of action.
       Paragraph 4 would amend paragraph 252(f)(2) of EPCA to 
     clarify that the antitrust defense applies to oil company 
     actions taken to carry out an approved voluntary agreement as 
     well as an approved plan of action.
       Paragraph 5 would amend subsection 252(h) of EPCA to strike 
     the reference to section 708(A) of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950, which was repealed by Public Law 102-558 (October 
     28, 1992), and the reference to the Emergency Petroleum 
     Allocation Act of 1973, which expired in 1981.
       Paragraph 6 would amend subsection 252(i) of EPCA to 
     require the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission 
     to submit reports to Congress and to the President on the 
     impact of actions authorized by section 252 on competition 
     and on small businesses annually rather than every six 
     months, except during an ``international energy supply 
     emergency,'' when the reports would be required every six 
     months.
       Paragraph 7 would amend paragraph 252(k)(2) of EPCA by 
     substituting a definition of the term ``international 
     emergency response provisions'' for the present definition of 
     ``allocation and information provisions of the international 
     energy program.'' The new term, which establishes the scope 
     of company actions covered by the antitrust defense, covers 
     (A) the allocation and information provisions of the IEP and 
     (B) emergency response measures adopted by the IEA Governing 
     Board for the coordinated drawdown of stocks of petroleum 
     products held or controlled by governments and complementary 
     actions taken by governments during an existing or impending 
     international oil supply disruption, whether or not 
     international allocation of petroleum products is required by 
     the IEP.
       Paragraph 8 would amend subsection 252(1) of EPCA to make 
     clear that the antitrust defense does not extend to 
     international allocation of petroleum unless the IEA's 
     Emergency Sharing System has been activated.
       Subsection (d) would amend subsection 256(h) of EPCA to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through 2001 
     for the activities of the interagency working group and 
     interagency working subgroups established by section 256 of 
     EPCA to promote exports of renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency products and services.
       Subsection (e) would strike EPCA part C, which was added to 
     the EPCA by the Energy Emergency Preparedness Act of 1982 and 
     which required the submission to Congress of reports on 
     energy emergency legal authorities and response procedures. 
     The reporting requirement was fulfilled in 1982.
       Subsection (f) would amend section 281 of EPCA by extending 
     the expiration date of title II from June 30, 1996 to 
     September 30, 2001.
       Public Law 103-406 extended the expiration date of June 30, 
     1996.


               section 5. amendments to title iii of epca

       Subsection (a) would amend sections 365 and 397 of EPCA, 
     which provide authorization for appropriations for fiscal 
     years 1991, 1992, and 1993 for State Energy Conservation 
     programs and the Energy Conservation Program for Schools and 
     Hospitals. The amendment would authorize appropriations of 
     $24,651 million for section 365 and $26,849 million for 
     section 397 for fiscal year 1996 and such funds as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
       Subsection (b) would amend section 400BB to extend the 
     authorization for the appropriation of the Alternative Fuels 
     Truck Commercial Application Program to fiscal year 2001.


                section 6. amendments to title v of epca

       Paragraph 1 would delete section 507 of the Act, which 
     provides that the Energy Information Administration must 
     continue to gather the same data on pricing, supply and 
     distribution of petroleum products as it did on September 1, 
     1981. This section hinders the flexibility of the 
     Administrator to collect information that is currently 
     meaningful. There is no reason to have a statutory 
     prohibition against modifying and amending the types of data 
     collected.
       Paragraph 2 would delete section 522 of the Act, which 
     provides conflict of interest disclosure requirements for the 
     Federal Energy Administration. This section was superseded by 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act.
       By Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Thurmond, 
     Mr. DeWine, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Biden):

  S. 1606. A bill to control the use of biological agents that have the 
potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


        THE BIOLOGICAL AGENTS ENHANCED PENALTIES AND CONTROL ACT

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that has a 
simple but important purpose: To decrease the opportunity for 
terrorists to use a biological weapons.
  S. 1606 is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Thurmond, DeWine, Kohl, 
and Biden. I welcome this broad bipartisan support to respond quickly 
to this threat to the safety of Americans.
  It may surprise the American people to know that very dangerous, 
indeed deadly, organisms that cause diseases and death in human beings 
are available for purchase across State lines--not only by legitimate 
users, but by those who may use them with criminal intent. These 
organisms include the agents that cause the bubonic plague, anthrax, 
and other diseases.
  Perversely, the Federal Government has stricter regulations on the 
interstate transportation of biological agents causing disease in 
plants and animals than it has for the interstate transportation of 
agents that cause disease in humans.
  I favor regulatory reform and a reduction in the Government's overall 
regulatory burden on the American people. But that is not to say that 
the Federal Government has no legitimate regulatory role to play. The 
interstate transport of dangerous biological agents should be 
regulated.
  A recent Washington Post story reported that, in May 1995, an 
individual in Ohio faxed an order for three vials of the agent that 
causes the bubonic plague, a disease that killed one-third of the 
people of 14th century Europe, from the American Type Culture 
Collection [ATCC] in Maryland. The purchaser's letterhead appeared to 
be that of a laboratory.
  When the purchaser called ATCC to complain about slow delivery, the 
sales representative became concerned about whether the caller was 
someone who should have the plague agent. Ohio police, public 
officials, the FBI, and emergency workers ultimately scoured the 
purchaser's home.
  In the home they found nearly a dozen M-1 rifles, smoke grenades, 
blasting caps, and white separatist literature. The deadly micro-
organisms were found in the glove compartment of the purchaser's 
automobile, still packed as shipped.
  The purchaser was prosecuted under wire and mail fraud statutes. But 
these charges would not have been possible if the purchaser had not 
sent a false statement on the letterhead of a nonexistent laboratory 
stating that the laboratory assumed responsibility for the shipment, as 
the seller had required.
  Unfortunately, both current laws and regulations are deficient in 
protecting Americans from the threat of the diversion of potentially 
dangerous biological agents. Gaps exist in current regulations that 
allow anyone to possess deadly biological agents, also referred to as 
human pathogens, and gaps exist in our criminal laws that make 
prosecution of people who attempt to obtain these agents for 
illegitimate purposes very difficult.
  I would like to take a moment to discuss these problems with you.
  Biological agents that cause disease in humans are available to 
several legitimate groups of users. First, small quantities of 
biological agents can be found in patient samples that are analyzed by 
clinical laboratories. Second, biological agents are used in the 
conduct of legitimate basic and clinical science research by scientists 
across the country, both within and outside of Government. Third, the 
Department of Defense has facilities to investigate biological agents, 
not as weapons, but to develop protective strategies in the event of 
military use of these agents during war. Currently, however, anyone 
else can also obtain these agents under Federal law. The only limits on 
who may purchase deadly biological agents are those imposed by the 
sellers themselves.
  There are many regulations in place with regard to the management of 
biological agents. These regulations come from many different 
governmental sources, including the CDC, the Postal Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Food and Drug 
Administration, and the Department of Transportation, among others. 
Unfortunately, the regulations were developed by these agencies with 
little or no apparent integration with other agencies, and with narrow 
purposes in mind. They were also developed in an era when domestic 
terrorism was not thought of as a real risk.
  In addition to the lack of coordination of efforts in the regulation 
of biological agents, existing regulations

[[Page S1863]]

have not kept up with advancing science. For instance, biological 
agents are currently classified by CDC into four classes, based on 
several criteria. This ranges from class 1 organisms, which are 
considered to be nonharmful to humans under ordinary circumstances, to 
class 4 organisms, which are considered to be highly harmful to humans. 
In the manual ``Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical 
Laboratories,''--hereafter Biosafety manual--CDC defines how legitimate 
laboratories should manage agents in these various classes.
  Again, these biohazard levels are designed for the protection of 
laboratory personnel and to prevent the accidental release of these 
agents into the environment. They do not take into account potential 
theft of these agents, or attempt to prevent misdirection of these 
agents to terrorists. In addition, the biosafety manual that 
establishes biohazard levels was last revised in 1993. It has not kept 
up with classification changes, or with the new strains of organisms 
that are constantly being described by microbiologists.
  Another example of how current regulation has not kept up with 
advancing scientific knowledge is the definition of what a biological 
agent actually is. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 
defines a biological agent--human pathogen--as ``a viable micro-
organism or its toxin which causes, or may cause, human disease'' [42 
CFR 72]. This definition includes algae, bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and 
viruses.
  Unfortunately, threats now exist that we did not even know about when 
this definition was written. For instance, we now are experiencing a 
rapid growth in the field of gene technology. This technology now gives 
scientists the ability to deliberately or accidentally insert genes 
into micro-organisms that could broaden their host range, alter their 
route of disease transmission to humans, make them more toxic, or make 
them more difficult to treat.
  CDC has wide authority to regulate biological agents that pose a 
threat to human health, and could establish rules limiting who may 
possess these agents. Current regulations do not protect communities 
from intentional diversion of biological agents or the potential for 
these agents to be turned into weapons of mass destruction.
  This fact was recognized by CDC testimony before the Senate Judiciary 
committee last week. Dr. James M. Hughes, the Assistant Surgeon General 
and Director of the National Center for Infectious Diseases for the CDC 
testified:

       The current safeguards governing the acquisition and 
     distribution, in the United States, of infectious and/or 
     toxic agents are not comprehensive. There is no single set of 
     consistent regulations but rather a number of different 
     departmental regulations that address the shipping and 
     handling of infectious agents. Taken together, these are 
     effective at controlling the packaging, labeling, and 
     transport of infectious materials, but they are not 
     completely effective at controlling the possession and 
     transfer of human infectious agents within the United States.

  Unfortunately, efforts by CDC and others have been slow. To date, 
there have been at least two multiagency task forces established to 
look at this issue. The first task force completed its work and made 
recommendations in July 1995. The second task force is well underway in 
the development of a regulatory system, but there does not appear to be 
a sufficient sense of urgency to get the job done.
  According to CDC's March 6 testimony before the Judiciary Committee, 
CDC does not plan to release proposed regulations for at least another 
6 months. That means that it might be another year before final rules 
regulating who may possess dangerous biological agents are in place and 
enforceable.
  Why is that a problem? Current criminal law has gaps that prevent the 
prosecution of someone who obtains biological agents under false 
pretenses, or who possesses these agents with the intent to harm 
others. Under current Federal law, it is legal for anyone to possess 
biological agents--we must wait until they actually use it as a weapon 
before there is anything we can do about it.
  These gaps in current criminal law were discussed in detail during 
the hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Mark M. Richard, the 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, testified on behalf of the 
Department of Justice. Mr. Richard stated that the multiagency task 
force looking into this issue determined ``that there were no 
comprehensive Federal regulations governing the control of these 
dangerous organisms.''
  My colleagues and I believe that current regulation and law have left 
us vulnerable to the potential use of biological agents as a terrorist 
weapon. We have not kept pace with science and technology, nor have we 
recognized that we live in a more dangerous world than we once did. We 
further believe that action must be taken sooner, rather than later, to 
avoid a potential disaster.
  This bill strikes a balance between protecting citizens from the 
threat that biological agents will be used as a weapon of domestic 
terrorism and placing over-burdensome demands on legitimate users of 
biological agents.
  The first title of our bill is directed at placing appropriate 
criminal provisions in place as requested by the Justice Department. 
Our provisions ensure that persons who develop or use biological 
organisms as a weapon will face severe and certain punishment.
  Our bill does this by amending sections 175 to 178 of Title 18, which 
relate to prohibitions with respect to biological weapons. As it 
currently is written, this provision makes it criminal to knowingly 
develop, produce, transfer, acquire, or possess any biological agent, 
toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon. It also prohibits 
knowingly assisting a foreign state or organization to do so. My bill 
will strengthen this provision to include an attempt, threat, and 
conspiracy prohibition within its scope. In addition, I broaden the 
definitions of biological agent, toxin, and vector in section 178 to 
cover biological products that can be engineered as a result of 
advances made in the field of biotechnology.
  The second statute in Title 18 that we amend is section 2332a. That 
provision currently makes it a criminal offense to use a weapon of mass 
destruction. Under current law, a ``weapon of mass destruction'' is 
defined to include ``any weapon involving a disease organism.'' 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2332a(b)(2)(C). This bill will expand that definition to 
include in its coverage the biological agents and toxins, as defined in 
section 178, including bioengineered products, that can be used as a 
weapon of mass destruction. In addition, we add a threat provision to 
this statute.
  The second title of our bill requires the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to establish interim regulations within 90 days and to 
issue proposed rules within 180 days that regulate the transfer within 
the United States of biological agents which have the potential to pose 
a severe threat to the public health and safety.
  I believe that the time limits required in our bill are reasonable 
and prudent, and allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
adequate time to develop appropriate regulations in this area. In fact, 
Dr. James Hughes testified last week that this process is well 
underway.
  The Judiciary Committee has been very concerned about the immediate 
potential for diversion of dangerous biological agents under the 
current law and regulation. In fact, at our hearing last week, we were 
disturbed to learn from agency representatives that no measures are in 
place to guard against reoccurrence of a situation like the Ohio case.
  For this reason, on March 6, Senators Feinstein, Specter, Kohl, and I 
sent a letter to the President urging that he:

       * * * direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     to implement on a priority basis emergency procedures which 
     will protect the American people against the threat of 
     dangerous, diverted pathogenic materials.

  In addition, our new legislation includes a requirement for the 
establishment of interim rules while the long-term rules are developed.
  In closing, Mr. President, I believe that the threat for the 
intentional diversion of biological agents is real, and that these 
agents pose a threat for use as a weapon of domestic terrorism.
  We are submitting a comprehensive bill that fixes the gaps in 
criminal code and requires the rapid development and implementation of 
a regulatory program that will limit the people who may possess these 
materials to those who have a legitimate need to possess

[[Page S1864]]

them. Obviously, time is of the essence, and I hope that the Senate 
will act as quickly as possible on the Biological Agents Enforcement 
Enhancement and Control Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1606 be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1606

       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 ``Biological Agents Enhanced 
     Penalties and Control Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) certain biological agents have the potential to pose a 
     severe threat to public health and safety;
       (2) such biological agents can be used as weapons by 
     individuals or organizations for the purpose of domestic or 
     international terrorism or for other criminal purposes;
       (3) the transfer and possession of potentially hazardous 
     biological agents should be regulated to protect public 
     health and safety; and
       (4) efforts to protect the public from exposure to such 
     agents should ensure that individuals and groups with 
     legitimate objectives continue to have access to such agents 
     for clinical and research purposes.

     SEC. 3. CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Biological Weapons.--Chapter 10 of title 18, United 
     States Code is amended--
       (1) in section 175(a), by inserting ``or attempts, 
     threatens, or conspires to do the same,'' after ``to do 
     so,'';
       (2) in section 177(a)(2), by inserting ``threat,'' after 
     ``attempt,''; and
       (3) in section 178--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or infectious 
     substance'' and inserting ``infectious substance, or 
     biological product that may be engineered as a result of 
     biotechnology, or any naturally occurring or bioengineered 
     component of any such microorganism, virus, infectious 
     substance, or biological product'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting ``the toxic material of plants, animals, 
     microorganisms, viruses, fungi, or infectious substances, or 
     a recombinant molecule'' after ``means'';
       (ii) by striking ``production--'' and inserting 
     ``production, including--'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or biological 
     product that may be engineered as a result of biotechnology'' 
     after ``substance''; and
       (iv) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or biological 
     product'' after ``isomer''; and
       (C) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``; or molecule, 
     including a recombinant molecule, or biological product that 
     may be engineered as a result of biotechnology,'' after 
     ``organism''.
       (b) Terrorism.--Section 2332a(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, threatens,'' after ``attempts''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, including any biological agent, toxin, 
     or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178)'' after 
     ``destruction''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATORY CONTROL OF BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

       (a) List of Biological Agents.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall, through regulations 
     promulgated under subsection (c), establish and maintain a 
     list of each biological agent that has the potential to pose 
     a severe threat to public health and safety.
       (2) Criteria.--In determining whether to include an agent 
     on the list under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) consider--
       (i) the effect on human health of exposure to the agent;
       (ii) the degree of contagiousness of the agent and the 
     methods by which the agent is transferred to humans;
       (iii) the availability and effectiveness of immunizations 
     to prevent and treatments for any illness resulting from 
     infection by the agent; and
       (iv) any other criteria the Secretary considers 
     appropriate; and
       (B) consult with scientific experts representing 
     appropriate professional groups.
       (b) Regulation of Transfers of Listed Biological Agents.--
     The Secretary shall, through regulations promulgated under 
     subsection (c), provide for--
       (1) the establishment and enforcement of safety procedures 
     for the transfer of biological agents listed pursuant 
     subsection (a), including measures to ensure--
       (A) proper training and appropriate skills to handle such 
     agents; and
       (B) proper laboratory facilities to contain and dispose of 
     such agents;
       (2) safeguards to prevent access to such agents for use in 
     domestic or international terrorism or for any other criminal 
     purpose;
       (3) the establishment of procedures to protect the public 
     safety in the event of a transfer or potential transfer of a 
     biological agent in violation of the safety procedures 
     established under paragraph (1) or the safeguards established 
     under paragraph (2); and
       (4) appropriate availability of biological agents for 
     research, education, and other legitimate purposes.
       (c) Times Limits.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     subsections (a) and (b) by issuing--
       (1) interim rules not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act;
       (2) proposed rules not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act; and
       (3) final rules not later than 360 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``biological agent'' has the same meaning as 
     in section 178 of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Reid and Mr. 
        Kyl):
  S. 1607. A bill to control access to precursor chemicals used to 
manufacture methamphetamine and other illicit narcotics, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  METHAMPHETAMINE CONTROL ACT OF 1996

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senators Grassley, Reid, and Kyl, the Methamphetamine Control Act of 
1996. This is legislation that, first, increases the regulation of 
precursor chemicals necessary to produce methamphetamine, a dangerous 
narcotic also known as speed, crank or ice.
  Second, it increases the penalties for possession of controlled 
chemicals or paraphernalia used to make methamphetamine.
  This legislation has been drafted over the past 6 months with the 
input of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the California Attorney General's 
Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, the California Narcotics Officers 
Association, and local, State, and Federal law enforcement and 
prosecutors. I have a particular interest in this issue because of the 
ravaging effects that methamphetamine has had in my own State and other 
States in the Southwest.
  Let me, for just a moment, explain how serious this problem is today. 
Methamphetamine has been around for a long time. But what once was a 
small-scale drug operation run by motorcycle gangs has now been taken 
over by at least one Mexican drug cartel. According to DEA, it is a 
multibillion-dollar industry in America.
  California has become the front line in this new and dangerous drug 
war. DEA has designated California as the ``source country,'' a source 
country for methamphetamine, much like Colombia is the source country 
for cocaine. It has identified that 93 percent of the methamphetamine 
seized nationwide has its point of origin in California.
  The explosion of this drug is being documented in hospital emergency 
rooms around California, and the epidemic is spreading eastward. In 
Sacramento just 4 weeks ago, law enforcement made the largest seizure 
in county history--80 pounds; street value, $2.5 million.
  Large-scale labs are now commonplace. Last year in the Central 
Valley, law enforcement convicted a man who manufactured in excess of 
900 pounds with a street value of $5 million. Literally hundreds of 
illicit laboratories exist throughout the State. In two counties alone, 
Riverside and San Bernardino, there were 589 methamphetamine labs 
discovered in 1995.
  Labs can be in apartments, in mobile homes, in moving vehicles, and 
in hotel rooms. They can be dismantled in a matter of hours. They are 
explosive, toxic, and they burn. Law enforcement has indicated that 
drug dealers come in, set up, produce their drugs in hotels, and leave.
  The California Environmental Protection Agency expects that 1,150 
sites will require cleanup by the end of this year in California. Most 
of the chemicals--iodine, refrigerants, hydrochloric gas, sodium 
hydroxide--are toxic and, in the case of red phosphorous, one of the 
precursor chemicals, highly flammable and explosive.
  Two months ago, a mobile home in Riverside used as a methamphetamine 
lab exploded, killing three small children. Incredibly enough, the 
mother of these children pleaded with neighbors that they not call for 
help. Before firefighters could find the children's burnt bodies, the 
woman walked away from the scene.
  Police in Phoenix say methamphetamine is mainly responsible for the 
40-percent jump in homicides the city is experiencing.
  In Contra-Costa County, law enforcement reports that methamphetamine 
is

[[Page S1865]]

involved in 89 percent of domestic disputes.
  Last year in San Diego, rival methamphetamine smuggling rings were 
responsible for 26 homicides.
  In 1994, among all adults arrested in the San Diego area, 42 percent 
of men and 53 percent of women tested positive for amphetamines. Sutter 
Memorial Hospital in Sacramento says that methamphetamine-affected 
babies now outnumber crack-addicted babies 7-1.
  The Methamphetamine Control Act which we are introducing today is 
carefully crafted. It is a targeted piece of legislation. It is drafted 
with the help of Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and it is 
aimed at the supply side of the problem.

  This bill would increase criminal penalties that can be applied to 
large-scale methamphetamine manufacturers throughout our Nation. It 
restricts access to the precursor chemicals used in mass quantities to 
produce methamphetamine.
  It would increase the penalties for possession of controlled 
chemicals or specialized equipment like the triple-neck flasks used to 
make methamphetamine.
  It would add chemicals used to make methamphetamine--iodine, red 
phosphorous, and hydrochloric gas--to the Chemical Diversion and 
Trafficking Act.
  It imposes a civil ``three strikes and you're out'' law, for 
companies that are found to be selling chemicals used to make 
methamphetamine.
  There are in our State about seven rogue chemical companies. Anyone 
with $100 and a mail order catalog can put themselves into business in 
manufacturing methamphetamine. They can buy large-scale quantities of 
those chemicals that go into making methamphetamine.
  This bill would double the maximum criminal penalty for possession of 
a chemical identified under the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act 
in methamphetamine production and would increase the maximum criminal 
penalty from 4 to 10 years for those who possess the specialized 
equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine.
  It would remove the loophole on pseudoephedrine in the Controlled 
Substances Act. Pseudoephedrine, a common ingredient in many over-the-
counter medicines, is now used as a substitute for ephedrine to make 
methamphetamine.
  I have met with retailers and manufacturers of over-the-counter 
medicines and I understand the concerns about regulations which the DEA 
has proposed to control the illicit diversion of pseudoephedrine to 
make methamphetamine. I intend to work with these groups over the 
coming weeks to ensure that the 37 million Americans who rely on these 
products continue to have access to them.
  We are creating an informal advisory group comprised of executives of 
chemical manufacturers and supply house companies, DEA officials, and 
other law enforcement agencies to devise strategies to see that this 
law is responsibly and sensibly enforced.
  This bill includes a sense-of-the-Congress resolution supporting 
efforts for global chemical control.
  The point is that many chemicals used to make methamphetamine, such 
as ephedrine, are tightly controlled in the United States but are 
literally smuggled into the United States through countries with little 
or no control, like Mexico. This legislation would express the sense of 
the Congress that ephedrine-producing countries should require approval 
from the Mexican Government for shipments of ephedrine and 
pseudoephedrine to Mexico, where they then come into this country.
  I am very pleased, Mr. President, that this is a bipartisan effort. I 
am delighted to have the cosponsorship of Senators Grassley and Kyl. I 
note that this bill is also being introduced in the House today by 
Congressman Riggs and Congressman Vic Fazio.
  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. 1607

       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 ``Methamphetamine Control Act 
     of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATION OF CHEMICAL SUPPLY HOUSES.

       Section 310 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     830) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d)(1) Any chemical supply house that sells a listed 
     chemical, after having been provided a warning under 
     paragraph (2) within the previous 10 years, to a person who 
     uses, or intends or attempts to use, the listed chemical, or 
     causes the listed chemical to be used or attempted to be 
     used, to manufacture or produce methamphetamine shall--
       ``(A) be subject to a civil penalty of not more than 
     $250,000; or
       ``(B) for the second violation of this subsection, be 
     ordered to cease the production and sale of any chemicals.
       ``(2) The Attorney General, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, shall 
     provide a written warning to each chemical supply house that 
     violates paragraph (1).
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `chemical 
     supply house' means any manufacturer, wholesaler, or 
     retailer, who owns, or who represents the owner of, any 
     operation or business enterprise engaging in regulated 
     transactions.
       ``(4) All amounts received from enforcement of the civil 
     penalty under paragraph (1) shall be used by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the 
     environmental cleanup of clandestine laboratories used, or 
     intended or attempted to be used, to manufacture 
     methamphetamine.''.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION 
                   OF LISTED CHEMICALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(d) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(d)) is amended by striking ``10 
     years'' and inserting ``20 years in a case involving a list I 
     chemical or 10 years in a case involving a list II 
     chemical''.
       (b) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines.--The United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal Sentencing 
     Guidelines to reflect the amendment made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 4. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR MANUFACTURE AND POSSESSION OF 
                   EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE METHAMPHETAMINE.

       Section 403(d) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     843(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d) Any person'' and inserting ``(d)(1) 
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Any person who, with the intent to manufacture 
     methamphetamine, violates subsection (a) (6) or (7), shall be 
     sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 
     years, a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.''.

     SEC. 5. REGULATION OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE.

       Section 102(39)(A)(iv) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802(3(9)(A)(iv)) is amended by striking ``ephedrine'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``ephedrine or 
     pseudoephedrine,''.

     SEC. 6. ADDITION OF SUBSTANCES TO DEFINITION OF LISTED 
                   CHEMICALS.

       Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (34) by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(Y) Iodine.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (35), by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraphs:
       ``(I) Red phosphorous.
       ``(J) Hydrochloric gas.''.

     SEC. 7. SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL DRUGS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the rise in manufacture and usage of the illegal 
     narcotic methamphetamine is of major concern to the United 
     States;
       (2) a substantial portion of the ephedrine used to make 
     methamphetamine is smuggled across the United States-Mexico 
     border;
       (3) the countries of China, India, the Czech Republic, 
     Germany, and Slovenia are the largest manufacturers of 
     ephedrine and pseudoephedrine;
       (4) one means of preventing the international diversion of 
     ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is the letter of nonobjection, 
     which requires that the government of a country receiving a 
     shipment of the chemical is aware of and approves the 
     shipment, the quantity involved, the company receiving the 
     shipment, and the ultimate use of the chemical;
       (5) therefore, all ephedrine and pseudoephedrine producing 
     countries should require letters of nonobjection from the 
     Mexican government before exporting ephedrine or 
     pseudoephedrine to that country; and
       (6) all ephedrine and pseudoephedrine producing countries 
     and Mexico should cooperate in any way possible to deter the 
     smuggling of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine into the United 
     States.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 with my colleague Senator 
Feinstein. This bipartisan bill takes aim at a rapidly growing problem 
in America--the abuse of methamphetamine, known on the street as meth 
or crank.
  I am from Iowa--a rural State which most people do not associate with 
rampant crime or drug use. But in Iowa today, meth use has increased 
dramatically. According to a report prepared

[[Page S1866]]

by the Governor's alliance on substance abuse, seizures of 
methamphetamine in Des Moines increased an astounding 4,000 percent 
from 1993 to 1994. I repeat: meth seizures in Des Moines increased by 
4,000 percent. The increase statewide was 400 percent. These numbers 
are scary, Mr. President. According to the Iowa Department of Public 
Health, 7.3 percent of Iowans seeking help from substance abuse 
treatment centers in 1995 cited meth as their primary addiction. That's 
up over 5 percent from 1994, when only 2.2 percent cited meth as their 
primary addiction.
  Why has meth become such a problem? I do not think anyone knows 
definitively, but experts have been able to identify some of the 
reasons. Meth is cheap; a meth high lasts for a very, very long time, 
so you get more for your money; and perhaps most disturbingly, meth 
does not have the stigma associated with cocaine and crack. Kids know 
that crack is dangerous. But they have not yet learned that meth is.
  In Waterloo, IA, though, people are beginning to learn this sad and 
painful lesson. According to the New York Times, a 17-year-old Iowan 
who had been a good boy, descended into meth addiction. His behavior 
changed for the worse. Last October, this young man checked himself 
into the hospital because he believed that he had the flu. He died only 
days later because meth had so destroyed his immune system that he 
developed a form of meningitis. I will never forget the words of this 
boy's mother: ``He made some wrong decisions and this drug sucked him 
away.'' I ask unanimous consent that this New York Times article be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 22, 1996]

         Good People Go Bad in Iowa, And a Drug Is Being Blamed

                           (By Dirk Johnson)

       Newton, IA. Feb. 16.--In this small town surrounded by corn 
     fields, nothing but Sunday morning church bells ever made 
     much noise, and the jail sat three-quarters empty most of the 
     time.
       And then about a year or so ago, things started to go 
     haywire.
       Crime began to soar, coupled with an outbreak of irrational 
     behavior; a man with a spotless record pulled a string of 
     burglaries; some parents suddenly became so neglectful that 
     their children were taken away; a man fled his workplace to 
     get a gun, terrified that helicopters were coming after him; 
     motorists in routine traffic stops greeted the police with 
     psychotic tirades.
       Prosecutors linked all of these cases and many more in this 
     town of 15,000 people to the influx of the drug 
     methamphetamine, and its frequent side-effects of paranoia 
     and violent behavior.
       A problem for several years in California and other 
     Southwestern states, the drug is now making its way across 
     America, ruining lives and families along the way and raising 
     the concern of policy makers in Washington.
       ``Meth seems to have taken control of these people,'' said 
     Steve Johnson, the prosecutor here in Jasper County, where 
     the 24-bed jail is now overflowing, and 90 percent of the 
     inmates have a problem with the drug. ``It's scary stuff. 
     We're pretty frustrated and don't know exactly what to do to 
     get it under control.''
       The drug, also known as crank or ice, is a stimulant that 
     is swallowed, snorted or injected. It is much cheaper than 
     cocaine, and its high lasts longer, the authorities say. 
     Users may stay awake for several days at a stretch, feeling 
     euphoric and full of energy before finally plunging into 
     terrible depression and paranoia.
       ``This is the most malignant, addictive drug known to 
     mankind,'' said Dr. Michael Abrams of Broadlawn Medical 
     Center in Des Moines, where more patients were admitted 
     during the past year for abuse of methamphetamine than for 
     alcoholism. ``It is often used by blue-collar workers, who 
     feel under pressure to perform at a fast pace for long 
     periods. And at first, it works. It turns you into wonder 
     person. You can do everything--for a while.''
       Crack, wicked as it is, cannot compare to the destructive 
     power of methamphetamine, Dr. Abrams said, He said the drug, 
     because of its molecular structure, is more stimulating to 
     the brain than any other drug.
       The effects of cocaine, whether snorted or smoked, might be 
     gone from the brain in 5 or 10 minutes, Dr. Abrams said, 
     while methamphetamine continues to work on receptors in the 
     brain for 8 to 24 hours.
       The price of the drug here might be $100 a gram, about the 
     same as that for powdered cocaine, but would last a user for 
     a week while the cocaine would probably be used in a day.
       Cocaine, which comes from the coca plant, is a natural 
     substance. Methamphetamine is purely synthetic. ``The body 
     has enzymes that break down cocaine,'' he said, ``but not 
     with methamphetamine.''
       Methamphetamine causes psychotic and violent reactions, he 
     said, because the drug throws out of control the production 
     of the brain chemical dopamine, which plays an important part 
     in movement, thought and emotion, as is the case with 
     schizophrenia. Over time, the drug damages the brain.
       ``A person addicted to this stuff looks and acts exactly 
     like a paranoid schizophrenic,'' he said. ``You cannot tell 
     any difference.''
       He said that a crack addict could reach the same point of 
     psychotic behavior but that it would take ``much longer and 
     much more of the drug.''
       The drug, combined with the effects of sleep deprivation, 
     can cause people to go mad, with ghastly consequences. In a 
     case last July, a man in New Mexico, who was high on 
     methamphetamine and alcohol, beheaded his 14-year-old son and 
     tossed the severed head from his van window onto a busy 
     highway.
       The drug has already exacted a big death toll in Western 
     states. In California, it was blamed for more than 400 deaths 
     from overdose and suicide in 1994, the latest year with 
     complete records on the drug. In Phoenix, it killed 122 
     people in 1994, the authorities said.
       Here in Iowa, the ravages of the drug have reached what 
     law-enforcement and health officials call an epidemic level. 
     The police in Des Moines seized $4.5 million worth of 
     methamphetamine in the last year alone.
       And for the first time in Polk County, which includes Des 
     Moines, arrests for drugs now surpass the number of arrests 
     for drunken driving. Methamphetamine accounts for 65 percent 
     of the drug arrests.
       The drug is often manufactured in makeshift laboratories in 
     rural areas, where the stench given off during its production 
     is more likely to go undetected, and where law-enforcement 
     agencies are more thinly spread.
       Drug agents found seven such laboratories in Iowa last 
     year. In the first six weeks of this year, they found five 
     more. One of them, in a house trailer near the small town of 
     Centerville, exploded and burned a man over 40 percent of his 
     body.
       The drug is also making its way into schools throughout 
     Iowa, with some ghastly consequences.
       One night about a year ago, 17-year-old Travis Swope of 
     Waterloo sat down with his parents, Tim and Keely, and began 
     to tremble. ``I'm scared,'' the boy told them. He said he 
     could not eat or sleep, and that he had been taking a drug 
     called crank.
       His parents, who had never heard of the drug, were shocked, 
     but supportive. Mr. Swope, a maintenance worker at the John 
     Deere Company, said his union insurance would cover drug 
     treatment. The next day, however, Travis said he would quit 
     on his own. And his parents believed him.
       ``I was in denial,'' Mr. Swope said. ``I though it was 
     something he'd get through.''
       Travis, who was a first-rate athlete, seemed better for a 
     while. But then he lost weight and looked pale, all the while 
     insisting that he was not using drugs. Then this manner 
     changed.
       ``He had never been disrespectful to us,'' his mother said. 
     ``But all of a sudden, he'd be like, `I'll be home when I 
     decide to come home!' That wasn't Travis. It was like he was 
     a different kid.''
       At the end of September, there was a blow-up with his 
     father, and Travis was told to leave the house.
       On Oct. 6, Travis checked into a hospital, feeling as if he 
     had a terrible case of the flue. In fact, the drug had broken 
     down his immune system and he had developed a form of 
     meningitis. Ten days later, he was dead.
       ``Learn about this drug, and sit down with your sons and 
     daughters,'' said Mrs. Swope, her voice breaking with emotion 
     as she talked with a reporter. ``I learned way too late, and 
     I feel like I failed him. Travis was a really good kid--not a 
     perfect kid. He made some wrong decisions, and this drug 
     sucked him away.''
       Mr. Swope said there were times he avoided discussions 
     about drugs with his son, because he feared it would lead to 
     a confrontation. ``But I would give everything to have him 
     sitting here now,'' he said, ``being mad at me.''
       While it seems puzzling why otherwise intelligent people 
     would risk ruining their lives with this poison, drug 
     counselors point out that stimulants have long held appeal in 
     American culture. Going back more than a generation, 
     students, athletes and workers have sought endurance by 
     taking ``uppers'' or ``speed'' in tablets called Black 
     Cadillacs or White Crosses.
       The old country song by Dave Dudley, ``Six Days on the 
     Road,'' spoke in the voice of a long-haul trucker in a big 
     hurry: ``I'm taking little white pills, and my eyes are open 
     wide.''
       Methamphetamine made inroads among many blue-collar people 
     because it did not carry the stigma of being a hard drug, the 
     authorities said.
       ``Crack has the stigma of being an inner-city drug, and 
     powder cocaine is thought to be for affluent people,'' said 
     Mike Balmer, the chief deputy sheriff in Jasper County. ``But 
     speed was a working-class drug. It's what people used to get 
     them through a shift at the factory or keep up on a 
     construction site.''
       Indeed, the use of methamphetamine goes back many years, 
     perhaps to the 20' or 30's. But today's form is farm more 
     powerful, and deadly.
       Years ago, the authorities said, a typical street does of 
     methamphetamine consisted of perhaps 20 percent of ephedrine, 
     the ingredient that delivers the kick. New methods that

[[Page S1867]]

     emerged in the late 1980's and early 90's often using a 
     synthetic psuedoephedrine, have yielded a much more potent 
     substance. Now the drug contains over 90 percent of the 
     active ingredient.
       Even before the big influx of methamphetamine, the use of 
     stimulants was a problem in Iowa. A public health survey in 
     1993 found that the use of stimulants like amphetamines among 
     Iowans was twice the national average, a finding that caused 
     some scholars to wonder if an intense Midwestern work ethic 
     was mainly to blame.
       The latest statistics show that more than 35 percent of the 
     people going to Iowa prisons last year reported using 
     methamphetamine. And 90 percent of the people being committed 
     to the mental health facilities in Polk County have used 
     methamphetamine.
       In some cases, the psychotic behavior provoked by the drug 
     becomes permanent. The drug also causes body sores, which are 
     worsened by the incessant scratching by users who feel like 
     bugs are crawling over their bodies.
       To fight the drug, Iowa has begun a radio and television 
     advertising campaign to warn people of the dangers. A new 
     prosecutor has been added to the United States Attorney's 
     office in Des Moines, just to concentrate on drugs. At least 
     five counties in Iowa have hired extra prosecutors to deal 
     with the rising tide of methamphetamine cases.
       ``They haven't seen much of this in the East Coast,'' said 
     Tom Murtha, the director of the First Step-Mercy Franklin 
     Center, an alcohol and drug treatment center. ``But it's 
     coming.''

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, what America is facing today is nothing 
short of an epidemic. Meth is cheap and easily manufactured from 
commonly available chemicals. Today, with Senator Feinstein, we are 
striking at the root of the problem: chemical suppliers who sell 
chemicals to illegal meth labs. The harder it is for criminal chemists 
to get the raw material to make meth, the more difficult it will be to 
produce. This in turn will make it more expensive. And this will reduce 
consumption. And that will help keep our kids alive a little longer.
  With the rapid increase of meth use among young people, unless we act 
quickly--and decisively--to pass this bill, I fear for an entire 
generation of Americans. Mr. President, in the 1980's, we almost lost a 
generation to crack and power cocaine. Let's not get that close to the 
edge again.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1608. A bill to extend the applicability of certain regulatory 
authority under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


 EXTENSION OF THE INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION CONTRACT REFORM ACT OF 1994

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that 
would extend for 60 days the authority Congress delegated in 1994 to 
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to promulgate regulations implementing the Indian Self-
Determination Contract Reform Act of 1994.
  Under longstanding Federal-Indian policies favoring tribal self-
determination, the United States has encouraged native American tribal 
governments and tribal organizations to assume the responsibility of 
carrying out essential governmental services previously performed by 
Federal employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] and the Indian 
Health Service [IHS]. Indian tribes have been waiting since 1988 for 
regulations that would guide the implementation of the act. The bill I 
am introducing today would elongate that delay by an additional 60 
days, extending the authority to issue final regulations from April 25, 
1996 to June 25, 1996.
  Despite my initial hesitancy to sponsor such an extension, tribal 
governments have now convinced me of the need for this 60-day 
extension. The United South and Eastern Tribes, the National Congress 
of American Indians, and numerous tribal governments have asked me to 
support the extension. I respect their judgment and ask that the 
Congress honor their request. In addition, several days ago the Senate 
referred executive communication No. 1959 to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, which I chair. EC 1959 forwards the request of the Department 
of Health and Human Services and the Department of the Interior that 
Congress enact the bill I am introducing today. The Departments argue 
that a 60-day extension is needed because winter weather conditions and 
recent Federal employee furloughs related to the budget impasse between 
the Congress and the administration have made it impossible for the 
administration to comply with the statutory deadline.
  I remain, however, very concerned that further delay in issuing the 
regulations will erode the power Congress placed with Indian tribes in 
the negotiated rulemaking provisions of the 1994 act. A 60-day delay 
could potentially allow the Federal agencies more time to undermine 
tribal provisions in the negotiated regulations that were published in 
proposed form in late January.
  My concern is based on history. On three occasions, the Congress has 
had to enact precise statutory directives--in 1988, 1990, and in 1994--
to overcome the two Departments' entrenched resistance to the 
requirements in the original act. When, for example, in 1988 the two 
Secretaries were given a statutory 10-month timeframe to promulgate 
regulations with tribal participation, they cut off all tribal input 
and began a delaying process that extended to 6 years. After 6 years--
not 10 months--the Clinton administration released proposed regulations 
in 1994 that sought in every conceivable way to retard, rather than 
enhance, tribal self-determination contracting. The Congress responded 
by promptly enacting the Indian Self-Determination Contract Reform Act 
of 1994. That act mandated, for the first time in the history of 
Federal-Indian legislation, that tribal governments be directly 
involved in the process of drafting the proposed regulations through a 
negotiated rulemaking format rather than the traditional process of 
being ``consulted'' on drafts prepared by Federal officials.
  In the 1994 act, the Congress accepted the administration's request 
that the 12-month regulatory period, originally proposed by the Senate, 
be enlarged to 18 months. That 18-month period ends on April 25, 1996. 
The Clinton administration assured the Congress that this would be 
ample time to get the job done.
  I am told that the proposed regulations prepared by the joint 
Federal-Tribal negotiated rulemaking committee were largely completed 
and ready for publication in October 1995. However, the draft 
regulations languished in the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, 
for over 3 months before they were finally released for publication in 
the Federal Register on January 24, 1996. Soon after publication, the 
administration began to mount pressure for an extension.
  Mr. President, I am very concerned about reports that OMB officials 
recently raised dozens of questions and issues after the joint Federal-
Tribal negotiated rulemaking committee had finalized the proposed 
regulations. This is particularly disturbing, because I and other 
authors of the 1994 act expected the entire administration, including 
the OMB, to raise its concerns and questions during the negotiated 
rulemaking committee's deliberations with the Indian tribes, not 
afterward. What is most troubling to me, is that tribal representatives 
on the joint Federal-Tribal negotiated rulemaking committee have 
informed me that many of these OMB questions reflected a basic lack of 
understanding of the act and the special statutory and historic context 
in which these regulations have been developed. It appears that the 
administration's negotiators did not release these OMB questions to the 
tribal representatives until late last month. The questions are of the 
type that could easily have been addressed during the Federal-Tribal 
negotiated rulemaking process. I am disturbed that the OMB has 
apparently elected not to participate directly in the negotiations, 
where the OMB officials could have openly aired their concerns and 
afforded tribal government representatives an opportunity to respond.
  The apparent risk associated with extending the deadline for final 
promulgation of the regulations is that the OMB, and their allies 
within the Departments, will have more time to unilaterally undo much 
of what the joint Federal-Tribal negotiated rulemaking committee has 
achieved to date as a result of government-to-government negotiations, 
and more time to resolve, against the Indian tribes, the remaining 
areas in dispute set forth in the January 24, 1996, notice of proposed 
rulemaking.
  I am deeply concerned that the Departments' resistance to the act has

[[Page S1868]]

undercut the negotiated rulemaking process, as evidenced by the nature 
of the issues remaining in dispute. For instance, neither Department 
wants to use the negotiated rulemaking process to develop their agency 
procedures, despite the law's directive that they do so. The Interior 
Department insists on incomprehensible organizational conflict-of-
interest provisions which can only serve to undermine the goal of 
tribal self-determination. The Interior Department insists that a 
standard contract renewal with no material change must be processed 
through the full contract application and declination process even 
though that is plainly not what Congress intended--as the IHS, to its 
credit, does recognize. The Departments both seek to preserve the right 
to impose on tribes unpublished requirements, despite the clear 
statutory prohibitions against doing so. And perhaps most 
distressingly, the Departments have resisted placing any language in 
the new regulations that would state that Federal laws and regulations 
will be interpreted liberally for the benefit of the Indian tribes in 
order to facilitate contracting activities under the act. This is the 
position of the Departments despite the fact that this language is a 
well-settled U.S. Supreme Court rule of statutory construction that 
applies to all remedial Indian legislation.
  To sum it up, Mr. President, I and other Members of Congress in 1994 
were persuaded by the Indian tribes to set a hard and fast publication 
deadline of April 25, 1996 in response to the delays tribes had 
experienced in getting final regulations under the 1988 amendments. 
Likewise, at the request of the Indian tribes, Congress mandated that 
the proposed regulations be developed by a joint, tribal-Federal 
negotiated rulemaking committee. Assuming substantial tribal 
involvement in that committee, and good faith on the part of the 
administration, it would be reasonable to expect that these timeframes 
could be met. But apparently, 60 more days is needed. Accordingly, I 
will support the extension with the warning to the administration that 
I do not want to learn at some later date that the expanded timeframe 
has allowed the administration additional advantage over tribal 
governments in the negotiation of the final regulations.
  Despite my reservations, I remain hopeful that the ongoing negotiated 
rulemaking process can be successfully concluded within the extended 
timeframe. But the Departments and the OMB must commit themselves to 
this process, just as the Indian tribes have done, and they must resist 
the temptation to slide back into the paternalistic, adversarial, and 
bureaucratic thinking that has compelled the Congress since 1988 to 
micromanage the Departments in the area of tribal self-determination 
contracting.
  I thank my friend, Senator Inouye, for joining with me as an original 
cosponsor of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the 60-day 
extension and to join me in ensuring that the administration does not, 
by reason of the 60-day delay, gain any negotiation advantage over the 
Indian tribes.
  Mr. President, 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. 1608

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REGULATORY 
                   AUTHORITY.

       Section 107(a)(2)(B) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450k(a)(2)(B)) is amended 
     by striking ``18 months'' and inserting ``20 months''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 1609. A bill to provide for the rescheduling of flunitrazepan into 
schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 controlled substances act legislation

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the best time to target a new drug 
with uncompromising enforcement pressure is before abuse of that drug 
has overwhelmed our communities.
  The advantages of doing so are clear--there are fewer pushers 
trafficking in the drug and, most important, fewer lives and fewer 
families will have suffered from the abuse of the drug.
  Today, we are tracking the arrival of two new drugs--rohypnol and 
what is called ``special K''--as they begin to show popularity in 
several States. So, today is the time for action against these drugs.
  Heightening this urgency is one stark fact--these new drugs are being 
used primarily by our children--our teens and young adults. One need 
not be unduly alarmist, but we must proceed with dispatch to do what we 
can to stop the spread of rohypnol and special K.
  That is why I am today introducing legislation to make both these 
drugs subject to much stricter regulation. This can be accomplished by 
moving these drugs to different schedules under the Federal Controlled 
Substances Act.
  This is not a step to be taken lightly, because there is a regulatory 
procedure in place for scheduling controlled substances. But, 
unfortunately, this regulatory procedure can take years to accomplish 
our goal, and what we need to do must be done in months, not years.
  In the past decade, Congress has taken legislative action to change 
schedules in at least two other instances.
  In 1984, in response to an alarming increase in illicit trafficking 
and nonmedical abuse of the drug, Congress enacted legislation to move 
quaaludes, a previously medically approved sedative, to schedule one of 
the Controlled Substances Act.
  In the decade since this legislation took effect, quaalude abuse has 
decreased significantly, with emergency room quaalude overdose reports 
down 80 percent from 1985 to 1994.
  And in legislation I sponsored, which was passed as part of the 1990 
Crime Control Act, steroids were reclassified as a schedule three 
substance, subjecting them to more strict controls and penalties.
  This change was also in response to an explosion of abuse--
particularly by young athletes. The effects of this legislation has 
also been significant, with the rate of annual use of steroids down 42 
percent in the first 2 years following the enactment of the 
legislation.
  It is now time to legislate stricter controls for rohypnol and 
special K. The record high drug abuse rates of the 1970's were 
accompanied by a unique drug culture signified by the presence of 
``club'' drugs--drugs that were popular with youth and young adults who 
frequented dance clubs and often mixed drugs with alcohol and other 
substances.
  Recently, club drugs have made a resurgence in popularity, and they 
are often showing up at both bars and ``raves,'' all-night dance 
marathons popular with teens.
  Club drugs are typified by the way they suddenly gain popularity and 
become the drug of choice, becoming trendy among youth. Often these 
drugs are legally manufactured but are being used by youth in ways 
unintended by the manufacturer and unapproved by the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Rohypnol and special K are two of the drugs which have recently hit 
the youth scene and quickly become popular. Both of these drugs are 
very dangerous drugs whose current legal status does not reflect the 
dangers inherent in their abuse.
  Rohypnol abuse was first documented in the United States in 1993. 
Although abuse was first noted in southern Florida, in the past 2 years 
abuse has spread rapidly, and rohypnol activity has now been reported 
in more than 30 States.
  Without rapid and strong Government action, abuse will continue to 
spread to uncontrollable levels.
  Teenagers find rohypnol attractive for a number of reasons. 
Frighteningly, one major reason is that youth do not see rohypnol as 
dangerous because it has a legitimate medical use in some areas of the 
world, and they mistakenly believe that if they are taking a drug which 
is in its original packaging from the manufacturer, it is both safe and 
unadulterated.
  In addition, there are few existing means for testing and prosecuting 
youth for rohypnol possession and intoxication. The combination of 
rohypnol and alcohol makes it possible for youth to feel very 
intoxicated while still remaining under the legal blood-alcohol level 
for driving.
  In addition to gaining attention for increasing rate of abuse, 
rohypnol has

[[Page S1869]]

also been the focus of another social problem: crime, particularly date 
rape. In fact, in many areas and in a number of newspaper accounts, 
rohypnol has been referred to as a ``date rape drug.''
  This connection between rohypnol and rape is due to the drug's 
disinhibitory effects and its likelihood of causing amnesia when 
combined with alcohol.
  Unfortunately, this amnesiac effect is one of the reasons many people 
who abuse rohypnol are attracted to it. It is commonly reported that 
people taking rohypnol in combination with alcohol typically have 
blackouts, or memory losses lasting 8 to 24 hours.
  The novelty of blackouts attract youth, particularly youth who are 
combining drugs with alcohol.
  This has led to rohypnol being referred to as the ``forget me pill'' 
or the ``forget pill.'' Even more frightening, many people are finding 
the drug attractive as a way of creating blackouts in others.
  The combination of disinhibition and memory loss caused by rohypnol 
mixed with alcohol makes women especially vulnerable to being victims 
of date rape by people who convince women to take rohypnol while 
drinking or put the drug in a woman's drink without her knowledge.
  Recently, in Florida and Texas, there have been a number of 
investigations into these types of victimizations.
  There have also been a number of reports of teens and young adults 
who have entered drug abuse treatment facilities in Florida, reporting 
rohypnol abuse and suicidal feelings they experienced while using 
rohypnol.
  The most famous example of rohypnol overdose made the news with the 
attempted suicide of Kurt Cobain, lead singer of the rock band Nirvana. 
Cobain ultimately succeeded in committing suicide on March 18, 1994, 
but the rock singer had attempted suicide earlier in the month when he 
fell into a coma following a near fatal mixture of champagne and 
rohypnol. Cobain remained comatose for nearly 2 days before regaining 
consciousness after this drug experience.
  Special K is also hitting the club scene at alarming rates. This drug 
is a hallucinogen very similar to PCP. Special K, or ketamine 
hydrochloride, has become popular as a new designer drug.
  Although this drug has been in existence for several years, its abuse 
has rapidly become more prevalent in recent years.
  Now many parties and raves at dance clubs are called bump parties, as 
a way of conveying special K is available. It is particularly 
attractive to kids at these types of events because along with its 
mind-altering effects, the drug gives a burst of energy, and it can be 
mixed with water so kids can take it in public without attracting 
attention.
  In fact, a club in New Jersey was recently closed by police after it 
was discovered that teens were attending raves there where club 
employees distributed bottled water for this purpose.
  In addition to seizures in New Jersey, recent newspaper articles have 
mentioned seizures in Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Arizona, 
California, and Florida. Drug tracking experts have also cited the 
presence of special K in Georgia and the District of Columbia, and in 
my home State of Delaware.
  Special K is considered the successor to PCP--or angel dust, as it is 
known on the street--due to similarity of the two drugs' chemical 
compositions and mind-altering effects. There have also been reports of 
PCP being sold to people who think they are buying special K.
  Ketamine is primarily a veterinary anesthetic. Although it has some 
limited use for human medical treatment, its use in this manner is not 
extensive due to the unpleasant and often dangerous side effects that 
can accompany its use.
  It is clear that the current controls on rohypnol and ketamine do not 
reflect the dangers these drugs now pose to our society, particularly 
to women and children. In the United States rohypnol is classified 
under the Federal Controlled Substances Act as only a schedule four 
drug, and ketamine is not scheduled at all.
  Last week, the Treasury Department announced that custom officials 
would begin seizing all rohypnol which is brought across U.S. borders. 
This is a step in the right direction. But this ban on all rohypnol is 
only the first step.
  Further action is needed to make sure cracking down on the illegal 
trafficking of rohypnol is a high priority and that illegal traffickers 
of rohypnol are given tough sanctions.
  That is why I am introducing legislation to increase the restrictions 
on both special K and rohypnol. By moving rohypnol to schedule one of 
the Federal Controlled Substances Act and adding special K to schedule 
two of the act, this legislation will subject both drugs to tighter 
controls, increased penalties for unlawful activity involving the two 
drugs, and will increase the attention and enforcement efforts directed 
at the drugs by Federal, State, and local law and drug enforcement 
officials.
  In essence, these tighter regulations will mean that rohypnol will be 
subjected to the same restrictions and penalties as heroin, and special 
K will face the same controls as cocaine.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in seeing to speedy passage of this 
legislation--taking action to make these drugs less available to our 
youth now.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1609

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

     SECTION 1. RESCHEDULING.

       Notwithstanding sections 201 and 202 (a) and (b) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811, 812 (a),(b)) 
     respecting the scheduling of controlled substances, the 
     Attorney General shall, by order--
       (1) transfer flunitrazepam from schedule IV of such Act to 
     schedule I of such Act; and
       (2) add ketamine hydrochloride to schedule II of such 
     Act.

                          ____________________