[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8013-S8027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 1963. A bill to establish a demonstration project to study and 
provide coverage of routine patient care costs for medicare 
beneficiaries with cancer who are enrolled in an approved clinical 
trial program; to the Committee on Finance.


        THE MEDICARE CANCER CLINICAL TRIAL COVERAGE ACT OF 1996

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation 
to continue the effort to expand treatment options for older Americans 
who happen to have cancer. I am especially pleased my colleague from 
Florida, Senator Mack, is joining me as an original cosponsor. Senator 
Mack is a vigorous and persistent advocate for cancer research and 
improvements in patient care for those with cancer. He has been 
fighting this battle for a long time.
  Our bipartisan sponsorship, which is just a nice thing to happen 
around here anyway, is intended to say to the American people, 
especially to the millions of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, that 
we in the Congress are, in fact, very, very serious about trying to be 
helpful.
  Over 1.3 million people will be diagnosed with cancer this year. Over 
11,000 of those people, newly diagnosed with cancer, will be people I 
represent, that is West Virginians. Cancer is, in fact, the second 
leading cause of death in West Virginia, second only to heart disease. 
This legislation is aimed at improving Medicare coverage, since 
Medicare beneficiaries account for more than half of all cancer 
diagnoses, and 60 percent of all cancer deaths.
  Our bill deals with the very specific problem faced by Medicare 
beneficiaries who are currently prevented from receiving care that may 
extend or save their lives. To put it very simply and very bluntly, 
Americans over the age of 65 who are struck with cancer believe they 
should get the best shot in fighting their disease. The Medicare Cancer 
Clinical Trial Coverage Act of 1996, which is the bill I am 
introducing, is a bill to do something very targeted to give older 
Americans their best shot at fighting cancer. With this bill we want to 
tackle the frustrating, often anguishing problem faced by older 
Americans who are unable to participate in cancer clinical trials. Let 
me explain.
  Consider the story of a West Virginian who was treated with an 
experimental drug for lung cancer, under a research trial approved by 
the National Cancer Institute. Because Medicare would not cover the 
cost of hospitalization required to administer the anticancer 
treatment, he decided he could only pay for one more treatment out of 
the money from his own pocket. This West Virginian could not bring 
himself to bankrupt his family, yet getting the additional treatments

[[Page S8014]]

might bring the gift of a longer life for him and, obviously, much more 
stability and happiness for his family. This is a terrible choice that 
should not have to be made by anybody in this country.
  While we still have a long way to go in discovering a cure for 
cancer, there are constantly popping up reports of exciting new 
advances in the treatment of cancer. The bad news is that millions of 
people with cancer cannot take advantage of these path-breaking 
treatments because they are provided in a setup which is called 
clinical trials. To insurers, including the Medicare Program, that 
labels them experimental. In other words, clinical trials are labeled 
experimental and, therefore, the basis for turning down coverage with 
no ifs, ands, or buts.
  Critics of coverage for clinical trials argue that care provided in 
trials is purely investigational and too costly. In fact, these trials 
can provide essential information about which treatments are effective 
and which ones are not. This is one of the best ways for the health 
care system to learn about the various advantages and disadvantages of 
treatment options, including what costs are involved before a certain 
course is expanded widely or prematurely.
  The bill I am introducing today with Senator Connie Mack is very 
careful in pursuing a solution. We lay out a framework for a major 
demonstration project to come up with the information and the 
experience needed to then modify Medicare's policy toward clinical 
trials. With this demonstration we want the Medicare Program to find 
out more about the costs of covering high-quality clinical trials for 
its beneficiaries with cancer, and then compare them to the benefits 
and other results learned through the demonstration. There is truly an 
urgent need to get on with this study, and then where the findings 
should take us in changing Medicare's policy toward clinical trials. 
With new cancer therapies rapidly unfolding, dealing with a disease 
that its victims are desperately trying to battle, peer-reviewed 
clinical trials may be the best and only available care.

  Cancer researchers themselves--and there is a long list of 
associations and organizations who support this legislation--are eager 
to have more older Americans involved in these trials. More needs to be 
learned about the biological responses to various treatments within 
different age groups, and this bill can help fill that particular gap.
  In our bill we confine the demonstration to covering a select group 
of high-quality clinical trials. Our criteria say the trials covered 
under this demonstration have to be the result of top-notch peer review 
procedures.
  This legislation does not write any new policies for Medicare into 
stone, but it does lay the foundation for a Medicare policy toward 
cancer treatments that factors in what clinical trials now have to 
offer. We give the program 5 years to conduct the demonstration, and 
then we call on the Secretary of HHS to tell Congress how Medicare 
should or perhaps should not be changed in its policy toward cancer and 
other kinds of clinical trials.
  Many researchers, physicians, patients, and many of us in Congress 
have already been pushing for more coverage for clinical trials by 
Medicare and other insurers. In its 1994 report to Congress, a very 
long-named advisory group--something called the National Cancer 
Advisory Board's Subcommittee to Evaluate the National Cancer Program--
emphasized the need for private insurance and Medicare coverage for 
approved clinical trials. And we use that report in our bill to create 
the criteria for what kinds of trials should be covered in the Medicare 
demonstration that Senator Mack and I are proposing.
  I continue to believe that all Americans should be guaranteed access 
to quality health care. I would love to see Congress acting immediately 
to ensure that any American struck by cancer, whether age 21 or age 71, 
could get coverage for treatment in a clinical trial if that is judged 
the best option for them. Those are highly ambitious goals, and today 
Senator Mack and I offer this bill as one more incremental step in 
their direction.
  I actually started some years ago with legislation to improve cancer 
care for Medicare patients. That legislation ended up being enacted in 
1993. It was really sort of embarrassingly simple. My legislation 
required Medicare coverage of oral anticancer drugs if those drugs 
would otherwise have been covered by Medicare if administered 
intravenously in a doctor's office. Obviously, the result being cost 
savings and almost simple beyond belief. But, nevertheless, it was not 
allowed prior to my legislation.
  We changed the law, and now it is allowed. A lot of money is being 
saved, and people are being helped because they can take an oral drug 
at home rather than having an injection in a doctor's office. As a 
result, many Medicare beneficiaries with cancer can take advantage of 
drugs that they were, in a sense, walled off from before.
  The other part of my bill set an uniform standard for Medicare 
coverage of anticancer drugs. Prior to the enactment of my legislation, 
there was significant variation in Medicare coverage of anticancer 
drugs because individual Medicare carriers made their own decisions on 
coverage. A GAO report found that Medicare's unreliable and 
inconsistent coverage of accepted off-label uses of cancer drugs forced 
oncologists to alter their preferred treatment. Now there is clear and 
consistent Medicare policy regarding coverage of anticancer drugs.
  In conclusion, I think it is time again for Congress to take another 
small, yet crucial, step in improving coverage for elderly cancer 
patients who deserve every chance they have to battle this horrible 
disease.
  I hope to get the help of colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and 
I am sure Senator Mack shares this wish with me--to get more supporters 
to recognize that this urgent need has to be attended to as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our bill and a 
summary of the legislation, along with a list of its supporters, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                S. 1963

       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 ``Medicare Cancer Clinical 
     Trial Coverage Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICARE CANCER PATIENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than January 1, 1997, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this Act referred 
     to as the ``Secretary'') shall establish a demonstration 
     project which provides for payment under the medicare program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.) of routine patient care costs--
       (1) which are provided to an individual diagnosed with 
     cancer and enrolled in the medicare program under such title 
     as part of the individual's participation in an approved 
     clinical trial program; and
       (2) which are not otherwise eligible for payment under such 
     title for individuals who are entitled to benefits under such 
     title.
       (b) Application.--The beneficiary cost sharing provisions 
     under the medicare program, such as deductibles, coinsurance, 
     and copayment amounts, shall apply to any individual 
     participating in a demonstration project conducted under this 
     Act.
       (c) Approved Clinical Trial Program.--For purposes of this 
     Act, the term ``approved clinical trial program'' means a 
     clinical trial program which is approved by--
       (1) the National Institutes of Health;
       (2) a National Institutes of Health cooperative group or a 
     National Institutes of Health center;
       (3) the Food and Drug Administration (in the form of an 
     investigational new drug or device exemption);
       (4) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
       (5) the Department of Defense; or
       (6) a qualified nongovernmental research entity identified 
     in the guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health 
     for center support grants.
       (d) Routine Patient Care Costs.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this Act, ``routine 
     patient care costs'' shall include the costs associated with 
     the provision of items and services that--
       (A) would otherwise be covered under the medicare program 
     if such items and services were not provided in connection 
     with an approved clinical trial program; and
       (B) are furnished according to the design of an approved 
     clinical trial program.
       (2) Exclusion.--For purposes of this Act, ``routine patient 
     care costs'' shall not include the costs associated with the 
     provision of--
       (A) an investigational drug or device, unless the Secretary 
     has authorized the manufacturer of such drug or device to 
     charge for such drug or device; or
       (B) any item or service supplied without charge by the 
     sponsor of the approved clinical trial program.

[[Page S8015]]

     SEC. 3. STUDY, REPORT, AND TERMINATION.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall study the impact on the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     of covering routine patient care costs for individuals with a 
     diagnosis of cancer and other diagnoses, who are entitled to 
     benefits under such title and who are enrolled in an approved 
     clinical trial program.
       (b) Report To Congress.--Not later than January 1, 2001, 
     the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that contains 
     a statement regarding--
       (1) any incremental cost to the medicare program under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act resulting from the 
     provisions of this Act; and
       (2) a projection of expenditures under the medicare program 
     if coverage of routine patient care costs in an approved 
     clinical trial program were extended to individuals entitled 
     to benefits under the medicare program who have a diagnosis 
     other than cancer.
       (c) Termination.--The provisions of this Act shall not 
     apply after June 30, 2001.
                                                                    ____


          Medicare Cancer Clinical Trial Coverage Act of 1996


                              current law

       Medicare generally does not pay for the costs of patient 
     care if they are incurred in the course of a clinical trial. 
     An exception adopted last year allows Medicare coverage of 
     investigational medical devices used in clinical trials, and 
     of the associated medical care, if the FDA determines that 
     the investigational device is similar to a previously 
     approved or cleared device.


                            proposed change

       The Secretary of HHS would be required to conduct a 
     demonstration project, beginning no later than January 1, 
     1997, which would study the feasibility of covering patient 
     costs for beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in 
     certain approved clinical trials. Eligibility for coverage 
     would be dependent on approval of the trial design by one of 
     several high quality peer-review organizations, including the 
     National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug 
     Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs. No later than January 1, 2001, the 
     Secretary would be required to report to the Congress 
     concerning any incremental costs of such coverage and the 
     advisability of covering other diagnoses under the same 
     circumstances. The demonstration project would sunset on June 
     30, 2001.
       Supported by:
       National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship; Candlelighters 
     Childhood Cancer Foundation; Cancer Care, Inc.; National 
     Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations (NABCO); US TOO 
     International Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization; 
     American Cancer Society; American Society of Clinical 
     Oncology; American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology; 
     Association of American Cancer Institutes; Association of 
     Community Cancer Centers; Cancer Research Foundation of 
     America; North American Brain Tumor Coalition; Leukemia 
     Society of America; National Breast Cancer Coalition; 
     National Childhood Cancer Foundation; National Coalition for 
     Cancer Research; Oncology Nursing Society; Prostate Cancer 
     Support-group Network; and Society of Surgical Oncology.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 1964. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage under part B of the Medicare Program of medical 
nutrition therapy services of registered dietitians and nutrition 
professionals; to the Committee on Finance.


               The Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 1996

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce the Medical Nutrition 
Therapy Act of 1996 on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague 
from South Carolina, Senator Hollings.
  This legislation is similar to a bill, H.R. 2247, that was introduced 
last year in the House by Representative Jose Serrano. It provides for 
coverage under part B of the Medicare Program of medical nutrition 
therapy services which are furnished by or under the supervision of a 
registered dietitian or nutrition professional.
  Mr. President, at a time when the Medicare system is under increasing 
scrutiny and the Congress and administration are debating how to ensure 
the long-term stability of the program, I believe that the legislation 
I am introducing should be an integral part of those debates.
  Medical nutrition therapy is the assessment of patient nutritional 
status followed by therapy, ranging from diet modification to 
administration of specialized nutrition therapies such as intravenous 
or tube feedings. It has proven to be a medically necessary and cost-
effective way of treating and controlling many diseases and medical 
conditions, including AIDS, cancer, kidney disease, diabetes, and 
severe burns. The treatment of all of these conditions and numerous 
others saves health care costs by speeding recovery and reducing the 
incidence of complications. This in turn results in fewer 
hospitalizations, shorter hospital stays, and reduced drug, surgery, 
and treatment needs.
  An analysis of nearly 2,400 case studies submitted by members of 
American Dietetic Association members showed that on average more than 
$8,000 per patient can be saved with the intervention of medical 
nutrition therapy. The July 1995 issue of the American Journal of 
Medicine highlighted a study that found that the use of a diabetes 
team, led by an endocrinologist working with a nurse diabetes educator 
and dietitian, resulted in a 56-percent reduction in length of hospital 
stays among patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of diabetes 
compared with patients treated by an internist alone. Currently, 
hospital care of diabetic patients costs an estimated $65 billion a 
year. The potential 5-day reduction in hospitalization found by this 
study translates into billions of dollars per year in potential health 
care savings and that is only the savings related to diabetes 
treatment. The true saving resulting from the increased use of medical 
nutrition therapy in other illnesses is substantial and that is why I 
am here today to offer this legislation.
  Mr. President, no consistent policy or approach exists for covering 
the costs for medical nutrition therapy. In inpatient settings, 
dietitians' services are often folded into hospital room and board 
charges and are not reimbursed while equipment and prescribed medical 
nutritional products are often, but not always, treated in the same 
manner. In outpatient settings, coverage is inconsistent for both 
dietitians' services and other nutrition therapies. Medicare and some 
Medicaid programs cover physician-prescribed medical nutrition 
therapies as part of a home care therapy benefit. However, professional 
dietitian services are not covered as a reimbursable expense.
  I believe that we need to change this and the legislation I am 
offering today will achieve that. I also believe that as the relevant 
studies are developed it will be clearly shown that coverage of medical 
nutrition therapy of reducing health care expenditures and should be an 
integral part of any long-term solution to the solvency of the Medicare 
Program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Specter, Mr. Wyden, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        D'Amato, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Reid and Mr. Ashcroft):

  S. 1965. A bill to prevent the illegal manufacturing and use of 
methamphetamine; ordered held at the desk.


         THE COMPREHENSIVE METHAMPHETAMINE CONTROL ACT OF 1996

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1965, a 
bipartisan bill to combat the methamphetamine epidemic, a serious and 
growing public health problem which poses a special threat to our 
Nation's youth who are abusing the drug in record numbers.
  According to the latest information from the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, 50 percent of the methamphetamine consumed in the 
United States is illegally imported. The other 50 percent is 
manufactured illegally in the United States in clandestine labs. 
Accordingly, any national strategy to combat methamphetamine must 
target both the source of import and these clandestine labs.
  Methamphetamine presents a unique problem in the fight against 
illegal drugs. It is not grown, but is manufactured from other 
chemicals, virtually all of which are legally used for other purposes.
  Clandestine methamphetamine laboratories manufacture methamphetamine 
from chemicals with legitimate medical uses. Two of the most common 
precursor drugs--ephedrine and pseudoephedrine--are common ingredients 
in cold and cough preparations. Other precursor chemicals include 
iodine, often used in iodized salt; red phosphorous, often used in the 
production of matches; and hydrochloric acid, used for a variety of 
chemical purposes.
  In addition, methamphetamine distribution has become a major target 
of opportunity for sophisticated drug trafficking rings, including 
vicious, poly-drug organizations in Mexico who have beaten well-trodden 
paths into the United States. Willing European suppliers provide them 
with tons of ephedrine, the precursor drug used to manufacture the 
illegal meth.

[[Page S8016]]

  These Mexican methamphetamine traffickers are organized--and they do 
not hesitate to use extreme violence. They showed their true colors 
when they murdered DEA special agent Richard Fass in Glendale, AZ, in 
June 1994--just 1 day before he was to be transferred to a new 
assignment.
  Any legislative solution to the meth crisis must, by necessity, 
balance the need to stem this illegal tide of methamphetamine into the 
United States against the need to ensure access to precursor chemicals 
which have legitimate medical uses and upon which millions of Americans 
rely.
  Mr. President, methamphetamine has wreaked havoc across America, 
especially on communities in the Southwest. And, unfortunately, it is 
spreading east. It has entered the intermountain west, especially Utah, 
and is beginning to be seen throughout the rest of the country as well.
  An indication of the magnitude of this problem is the fact that 
methamphetamine emergency room cases are up 256 percent over the 1991 
levels, according to the latest information from the Drug Abuse Warning 
Network.
  In 1994, the last year that data were available, there were 17,400 
methamphetamine-related emergency visits. In California, 
methamphetamine seizures are up 518 percent over the 1991 level.
  In Utah, we had 56 lab seizures in 1995, up from 13 in 1994. From 
January through June of this year we have already had 37 lab seizures. 
Utah has ranked in the top three States in the number of 
methamphetamine lab seizures for the past 2 years, an alarming trend.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Utah has 
experienced the second greatest increase in methamphetamine-related 
admissions in the entire country--a 133-percent increase in admissions 
between 1992 and 1993.
  But statistics don't tell the whole story. This crisis is more than 
numbers, it involves real people suffering real problems. Let me show 
you examples of the people behind those numbers.
  One of these people is Russell Ray Thompson. After a long day of 
drinking alcohol and injecting methamphetamine, Thompson shot an 
unarmed female friend six times with a rifle, leaving her two orphaned 
children to live with their grandparents.
  Another is Connie Richens, from Vernal, UT. As Ms. Richens was 
preparing to meet her husband at a bowling alley, two men forced 
themselves into her apartment and slashed her throat four times. Uinta 
County sheriff's deputies found powdered methamphetamine a few feet 
from her dead body.
  Methamphetamine is a killer. It kills those who abuse it, as well as 
innocent bystanders. It is the latest outrage perpetrated on American 
society by those who deal in drugs. We must put a stop to this terrible 
problem.
  At this point, I would like to summarize the major provisions in S. 
1965.
  The first title contains measures to stop the importation of 
methamphetamine and precursor chemicals into the United States. We have 
included a long-arm provision, which imposes a maximum 10-year penalty 
on the manufacture outside the United States of a list I chemical--
which is a chemical that is used to manufacture a controlled 
substance--with intent to import it into this country.
  The second title contains several provisions to control the 
manufacture of methamphetamine in clandestine labs. It includes an 
important provision to permit the seizure and forfeiture of list I 
chemicals that are involved in illegal trafficking. Another provision 
increases penalties for the manufacture and possession of equipment 
used to make controlled substances. These provisions will not only 
impact the manufacture of methamphetamine, but other drugs illegally 
manufactured as well.
  After a great deal of work with the Department of Justice, Senator 
Biden, and the DEA, I have also included a provision that will allow 
the Attorney General to commence a civil action for appropriate relief 
to shut down the production and sale of listed chemicals by individuals 
or companies that knowingly sell precursor agents for the purpose of 
the illegal manufacture of a controlled substance.
  I believe that these provisions are important, as they give law 
enforcement additional authority to stop the flow of these precursor 
substances that are diverted for the manufacture of illegal controlled 
substances and to shut down clandestine labs. This bill gives the law 
enforcement community the muscle it needs to fight trafficking in 
methamphetamine and its precursor drugs.
  In addition to the provisions I have already outlined, the third 
title increases penalties for trafficking in methamphetamine and list I 
precursor chemicals, enhances penalties for the dangerous handling of 
controlled substances, allows the Government to seek restitution for 
the clean up of the clandestine laboratory sites from those who created 
the contamination, and allows for the seizure of the modes of 
transportation of illegal methamphetamine and list I chemicals.
  In developing these provisions, we were cognizant of the fact that 
the DEA and the administration have stated that one important way to 
stop meth abuse is to increase the penalties for illegal importation of 
precursor chemicals. This will reduce the number of domestic, 
clandestine methamphetamine labs which, in turn, will decrease the 
availability of this dangerous drug, improve the safety of our 
neighborhoods, and eliminate a source of environmental damage.

  It is an unfortunate consequence of enhanced domestic penalties that 
some of the domestic labs may relocate to Central and South America. It 
is my hope that the provisions in this bill requiring additional 
coordination between the United States and these countries will allow 
for the development of an international strategy that will combat this 
problem too.
  In particular, fighting this problem effectively is going to require 
improved cooperation from Mexico. I believe that Congress stands ready 
to support the administration in international efforts to stem the flow 
of drugs into the United States.
  The fourth title cracks down hard on the ability of rogue companies 
to sell large amounts of precursor chemicals that are diverted to 
clandestine labs. Provisions in this title limit the package size that 
precursor drugs may be sold in at the retail level, and require the 
product to be packaged in blister packs when technically feasible.
  Mr. President, this title contains carefully drafted provisions that 
balance the need to crack down on precursor chemicals against the need 
to maintain the availability of drugs such as pseudoephedrine for 
legitimate purposes. I recognize the need to take measures to decrease 
the availability of the precursor list I chemicals for diversion to 
clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. However, in so doing, we must 
not restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to use common remedies 
for colds and allergies, or subject sales of such legal products to 
onerous recordkeeping at the retail level.
  It is no secret that I have been critical of the DEA's proposed 
regulations in this area. The provisions included in S. 1965, I 
believe, will achieve our common goal without the negative side effects 
of the proposed regulations.
  In fact, I believe that our provisions with regard to the sale of the 
precursor chemicals pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine go much 
farther in preventing the diversion of these products while maintaining 
their access for legitimate uses. In this bill we lower the single 
transaction threshold for pseudoephedrine--containing products from 
1,000 grams to 24 grams. Our bill also allows the Attorney General to 
lower this single--transaction limit further, as necessary to prevent 
the diversion of products to meth labs. That provision was inserted to 
meet the concerns of Senator Feinstein and others who believe that 
retail sales are a significant source of precursor drugs for 
clandestine labs.
  Some of my colleagues may have seen an article this morning in USA 
Today, which leaves one with the impression that retail cough and cold 
preparations are a significant source of precursor drugs. I have spent 
a great deal of time studying this issue, consulting extensively with 
the DEA and State and local law enforcement officials in Utah. I remain 
unconvinced that legitimate products purchased at the retail level are 
a significant source of precursor drugs for the manufacture of 
methamphetamine. Nevertheless, I

[[Page S8017]]

have included several provisions in this title that will limit the 
potential diversion of legitimate products at the retail level to 
methamphetamine labs.
  When this legislation is enacted, I will continue to monitor this 
situation very closely. If the data show that retail products 
containing pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine are contributing to 
the methamphetamine problems, I pledge to revisit this issue next 
Congress.
  In addition, we have strict reporting and recordkeeping provisions 
for those companies that sell ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and 
phenylpropanolamine by mail. These provisions - which go far beyond 
what DEA has proposed to date--will shut down loopholes in current law 
that allow these products to get to the meth labs.
  This bill gets tough on those who divert legitimate products to 
clandestine methamphetamine labs. I would have it no other way.
  In anticipation of questions regarding this provision, I want to 
underscore that the bill does not apply to dietary supplement products 
in any way.
  Finally, an important title of our legislation improves and expands 
existing education and research activities related to methamphetamine 
and other drug abuse. This approach, I feel, is key to the success of a 
comprehensive drug control policy. Increased emphasis on research, 
prevention, and treatment go hand in hand with efforts to reduce 
supply.
  Consequently, our bill creates a methamphetamine interagency working 
group to design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive 
methamphetamine education and prevention program. It requires public 
health monitoring programs to monitor methamphetamine abuse in the 
United States.
  In addition, the legislation calls for a methamphetamine national 
advisory panel to develop a program to educate distributors of 
precursor chemicals and supplies to decrease the likelihood of 
diversion of these products to clandestine laboratories, and creates a 
suspicious orders task force to improve the reporting of suspicious 
orders and sales of list I chemicals.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to make clear that the legislation 
we introduce today represents a consensus position based on literally 
hundreds of hours of consultations with representatives of Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement, as well as substance abuse prevention 
and treatment experts and representatives of manufacturers of 
legitimate products containing the precursor chemicals.
  In particular, I want to recognize the input from the Drug 
Enforcement Agency and Department of Justice, who have been 
instrumental in the development of a bill that we all can support.
  I want to thank Senator Biden for his leadership role in developing 
this bill and for his willingness to move forward in a bipartisan way 
so that we can take steps toward addressing this important public 
health problem this session.
  In addition, I want to recognize the significant contributions of 
Senator Wyden, who early on indicated his interest in working with me 
to develop a bipartisan bill, and Senators Specter, DeWine, Ashcroft, 
and Harkin.
  Finally, I must also recognize the efforts of Senators Feinstein, 
Grassley, and Kyl. They have contributed significant time and energy to 
bringing this issue before Congress and are strong advocates for 
legislation to deal with this problem.
  The bill that my colleagues and I rise to introduce today represents 
a bipartisan, comprehensive response to control the methamphetamine 
abuse problem in our country. We still have a few issues to work out as 
this bill moves forward, but I am confident that we can quickly address 
any remaining areas of concern, so that we can pass this bill this 
session.
  Methamphetamine abuse is a growing threat to the public health of 
this country. I hope that the Senate can move quickly to pass this bill 
so we can enact a comprehensive program to stop this problem in its 
tracks.
  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. 1965

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

    TITLE I--IMPORTATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSOR CHEMICALS

Sec. 101. Support for international efforts to control drugs.
Sec. 102. Penalties for manufacture of listed chemicals outside the 
              United States with intent to import them into the United 
              States.

   TITLE II--PROVISIONS TO CONTROL THE MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE

Sec. 201. Seizure and forfeiture of regulated chemicals.
Sec. 202. Study and report on measures to prevent sales of agents used 
              in methamphetamine production.
Sec. 203. Increased penalties for manufacture and possession of 
              equipment used to make controlled substances.
Sec. 204. Addition of iodine and hydrochloric gas to list II.
Sec. 205. Civil penalties for firms that supply precursor chemicals.
Sec. 206. Injunctive relief.
Sec. 207. Restitution for cleanup of clandestine laboratory sites.
Sec. 208. Record retention.
Sec. 209. Technical amendments.

   TITLE III--INCREASED PENALTIES FOR TRAFFICKING AND MANUFACTURE OF 
                     METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSORS

Sec. 301. Trafficking in methamphetamine penalty increases.
Sec. 302. Penalty increases for trafficking in listed chemicals.
Sec. 303. Enhanced penalty for dangerous handling of controlled 
              substances: amendment of sentencing guidelines.

   TITLE IV--LEGAL MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF PRECURSOR 
                               CHEMICALS

Sec. 401. Diversion of certain precursor chemicals.
Sec. 402. Mail order restrictions.

                    TITLE V--EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

Sec. 501. Interagency methamphetamine task force.
Sec. 502. Public health monitoring.
Sec. 503. Public-private education program.
Sec. 504. Suspicious orders task force.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Methamphetamine is a very dangerous and harmful drug. 
     It is highly addictive and is associated with permanent brain 
     damage in long-term users.
       (2) The abuse of methamphetamine has increased dramatically 
     since 1990. This increased use has led to devastating effects 
     on individuals and the community, including--
       (A) a dramatic increase in deaths associated with 
     methamphetamine ingestion;
       (B) an increase in the number of violent crimes associated 
     with methamphetamine ingestion; and
       (C) an increase in criminal activity associated with the 
     illegal importation of methamphetamine and precursor 
     compounds to support the growing appetite for this drug in 
     the United States.
       (3) Illegal methamphetamine manufacture and abuse presents 
     an imminent public health threat that warrants aggressive law 
     enforcement action, increased research on methamphetamine and 
     other substance abuse, increased coordinated efforts to 
     prevent methamphetamine abuse, and increased monitoring of 
     the public health threat methamphetamine presents to the 
     communities of the United States.
    TITLE I--IMPORTATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSOR CHEMICALS

     SEC. 101. SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL DRUGS.

       The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, shall coordinate international drug enforcement 
     efforts to decrease the movement of methamphetamine and 
     methamphetamine precursors into the United States.

     SEC. 102. PENALTIES FOR MANUFACTURE OF LISTED CHEMICALS 
                   OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WITH INTENT TO IMPORT 
                   THEM INTO THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Unlawful Importation.--Section 1009(a) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     959(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by inserting ``or 
     listed chemical'' after ``schedule I or II''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``or chemical'' 
     after ``substance''.
       (b) Unlawful Manufacture or Distribution.--Paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of section 1009(b) of the Controlled Substances 
     Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 959(b)) are amended by 
     inserting ``or listed chemical'' after ``controlled 
     substance''.
       (c) Penalties.--Section 1010(d) of the Controlled 
     Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(d)) is 
     amended--

[[Page S8018]]

       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) manufactures, possesses with intent to distribute, or 
     distributes a listed chemical in violation of section 959 of 
     this title.''.
   TITLE II--PROVISIONS TO CONTROL THE MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE

     SEC. 201. SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF REGULATED CHEMICALS.

       (a) Penalties for Simple Possession.--Section 404 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by adding after the first sentence the following: ``It 
     shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally 
     to possess any list I chemical obtained pursuant to or under 
     authority of a registration issued to that person under 
     section 303 of this title or section 1008 of title III if 
     that registration has been revoked or suspended, if that 
     registration has expired, or if the registrant has ceased to 
     do business in the manner contemplated by his 
     registration.''; and
       (B) by striking ``drug or narcotic'' and inserting ``drug, 
     narcotic, or chemical'' each place it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``drug or narcotic'' and 
     inserting ``drug, narcotic, or chemical''.
       (b) Forfeitures.--Section 511(a) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (2) and (6), by inserting ``or listed 
     chemical'' after ``controlled substance'' each place it 
     appears; and
       (2) in paragraph (9), by--
       (A) inserting ``dispensed, acquired,'' after 
     ``distributed,'' both places it appears; and
       (B) striking ``a felony provision of''.
       (c) Seizure.--Section 607 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1607) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``or listed 
     chemical'' after ``controlled substance''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) As used in this section, the terms `controlled 
     substance' and `listed chemical' have the meaning given such 
     terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802).''.

     SEC. 202. STUDY AND REPORT ON MEASURES TO PREVENT SALES OF 
                   AGENTS USED IN METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION.

       (a) Study.--The Attorney General of the United States shall 
     conduct a study on possible measures to effectively prevent 
     the diversion of red phosphorous, iodine, hydrochloric gas, 
     and other agents for use in the production of 
     methamphetamine. Nothing in this section shall preclude the 
     Attorney General from taking any action the Attorney General 
     already is authorized to take with regard to the regulation 
     of listed chemicals under current law.
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 1998, the Attorney 
     General shall submit a report to the Congress of its findings 
     pursuant to the study conducted under subsection (a) on the 
     need for and advisability of preventive measures.
       (c) Considerations.--In developing recommendations under 
     subsection (b), the Attorney General shall consider--
       (1) the use of red phosphorous, iodine, hydrochloric gas, 
     and other agents in the illegal manufacture of 
     methamphetamine;
       (2) the use of red phosphorous, iodine, hydrochloric gas, 
     and other agents for legitimate, legal purposes, and the 
     impact any regulations may have on these legitimate purposes; 
     and
       (3) comments and recommendations from law enforcement, 
     manufacturers of such chemicals, and the consumers of such 
     chemicals for legitimate, legal purposes.

     SEC. 203. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR MANUFACTURE AND POSSESSION 
                   OF EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE CONTROLLED 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--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:
       ``(2) Any person who, with the intent to manufacture or 
     facilitate to manufacture methamphetamine, violates paragraph 
     (6) or (7) of subsection (a), shall be sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment of not more than 10 years, a fine of not more 
     than $30,000, or both; except that if any person commits such 
     a violation after one or more prior convictions of that 
     person--
       ``(A) for a violation of paragraph (6) or (7) of subsection 
     (a);
       ``(B) for a felony under any other provision of this 
     subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter; or
       ``(C) under any other law of the United States or any State 
     relating to controlled substances or listed chemicals,

     has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment of not more than 20 years, a fine of not more 
     than $60,000, or both.''.
       (b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall amend the sentencing guidelines to ensure 
     that the manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 
     section 403(d)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act, as added 
     by subsection (a), is treated as a significant violation.

     SEC. 204. ADDITION OF IODINE AND HYDROCHLORIC GAS TO LIST II.

       (a) In General.--Section 102(35) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(35)) is amended by adding the 
     end the following:
       ``(I) Iodine.
       ``(J) Hydrochloric gas.''.
       (b) Importation Requirements.--Iodine shall not be subject 
     to the requirements for listed chemicals provided in section 
     1018 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 971).
       (2) Effect of Exception.--The exception made by paragraph 
     (1) shall not limit the authority of the Attorney General to 
     impose the requirements for listed chemicals provided in 
     section 1018 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 971).

     SEC. 205. CIVIL PENALTIES FOR FIRMS THAT SUPPLY PRECURSOR 
                   CHEMICALS.

       (a) Offenses.--Section 402(a) of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 842(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (9), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) to distribute a laboratory supply to a person who 
     uses, or attempts to use, that laboratory supply to 
     manufacture a controlled substance or a listed chemical, in 
     violation of this title or title III, with reckless disregard 
     for the illegal uses to which such a laboratory supply will 
     be put.

     As used in paragraph (11), the term `laboratory supply' means 
     a listed chemical or any chemical, substance, or item, on a 
     special surveillance list published by the Attorney General, 
     which contains chemicals, products, materials, or equipment 
     used in the manufacture of controlled substances and listed 
     chemicals. For purposes of paragraph (11), there is a 
     rebuttable presumption of reckless disregard at trial if a 
     firm distributes or continues to distribute a laboratory 
     supply to a customer where the Attorney General has 
     previously notified, at least two weeks before the 
     transaction(s), the firm that a laboratory supply sold by the 
     firm, or any other person or firm, has been used by that 
     customer, or distributed further by that customer, for the 
     unlawful production of controlled substances or listed 
     chemicals.''
       (b) Civil Penalty.--Section 402(c)(2) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 842(c)(2)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(C) In addition to the penalties set forth elsewhere in 
     this title or title III, any business that violates paragraph 
     (11) of subsection (a) shall, with respect to the first such 
     violation, be subject to a civil penalty of not more than 
     $250,000, but shall not be subject to criminal penalties 
     under this section, and shall, for any succeeding violation, 
     be subject to a civil fine of not more than $250,000 or 
     double the last previously imposed penalty, whichever is 
     greater.''.

     SEC. 206. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

       (a) Ten-Year Injunction Major Offenses.--Section 401(f) of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(f)) is amended 
     by--
       (1) inserting ``manufacture, exportation,'' after 
     ``distribution,''; and
       (2) striking ``regulated''.
       (b) Ten-Year Injunction Other Offenses.--Section 403 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 843) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by--
       (A) inserting ``manufacture, exportation,'' after 
     ``distribution,''; and
       (B) striking ``regulated''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Injunctions.--(1) In addition to any penalty provided 
     in this section, the Attorney General is authorized to 
     commence a civil action for appropriate declaratory or 
     injunctive relief relating to violations of this section or 
     section 402.
       ``(2) Any action under this subsection may be brought in 
     the district court of the United States for the district in 
     which the defendant is located or resides or is doing 
     business.
       ``(3) Any order or judgment issued by the court pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be tailored to restrain violations of 
     this section or section 402.
       ``(4) The court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the 
     hearing and determination of such an action. An action under 
     this subsection is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure except that, if an indictment has been returned 
     against the respondent, discovery is governed by the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure.''.

     SEC. 207. RESTITUTION FOR CLEANUP OF CLANDESTINE LABORATORY 
                   SITES.

       Section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     853) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) The court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of 
     an offense under this title or title III involving the 
     manufacture of methamphetamine, may--
       ``(1) order restitution as provided in sections 3612 and 
     3664 of title 18, United States Code;
       ``(2) order the defendant to reimburse the United States 
     for the costs incurred by the United States for the cleanup 
     associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine by the 
     defendant; and
       ``(3) order restitution to any person injured as a result 
     of the offense as provided in section 3663 of title 18, 
     United States Code.''.

     SEC. 208. RECORD RETENTION.

       Section 310(a)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 830(a)(1)) is amended

[[Page S8019]]

     by striking the dash after ``transaction'' and subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) and inserting ``for two years after the date of 
     the transaction.''.

     SEC. 209. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (34), by amending subparagraphs (P), (S), 
     and (U) to read as follows:
       ``(P) Iso safrole.
       ``(S) N-Methylephedrine.
       ``(U) Hydriodic acid.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (35), by amending subparagraph (G) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(G) 2-Butanone (or Methyl Ethyl Ketone).''.
   TITLE III--INCREASED PENALTIES FOR TRAFFICKING AND MANUFACTURE OF 
                     METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSORS

     SEC. 301. TRAFFICKING IN METHAMPHETAMINE PENALTY INCREASES.

       (a) Controlled Substances Act.--
       (1) Large amounts.--Section 401(b)(1)(A)(viii) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(viii)) is 
     amended by--
       (A) striking ``100 grams or more of methamphetamine,'' and 
     inserting ``50 grams or more of methamphetamine,''; and
       (B) striking ``1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance 
     containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine'' and 
     inserting ``500 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
     containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine''.
       (2) Smaller amounts.--Section 401(b)(1)(B)(viii) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(viii)) is 
     amended by--
       (A) striking ``10 grams or more of methamphetamine,'' and 
     inserting ``5 grams or more of methamphetamine,''; and
       (B) striking ``100 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
     containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine'' and 
     inserting ``50 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
     containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine''.
       (b) Import and Export Act.--
       (1) Large amounts.--Section 1010(b)(1)(H) of the Controlled 
     Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(H)) is 
     amended by--
       (A) striking ``100 grams or more of methamphetamine,'' and 
     inserting ``50 grams or more of methamphetamine,''; and
       (B) striking ``1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance 
     containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine'' and 
     inserting ``500 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
     containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine''.
       (2) Smaller amounts.--Section 1010(b)(2)(H) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     960(b)(2)(H)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``10 grams or more of methamphetamine,'' and 
     inserting ``5 grams or more of methamphetamine,''; and
       (B) striking ``100 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
     containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine'' and 
     inserting ``50 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
     containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine''.

     SEC. 302. PENALTY INCREASES FOR TRAFFICKING IN LISTED 
                   CHEMICALS.

       (a) Controlled Substances Act.--Section 401(d) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(d)) is amended by 
     striking the period and inserting the following: ``or, with 
     respect to a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of this 
     subsection involving a list I chemical, if the government 
     proves the quantity of controlled substance that could 
     reasonably have been manufactured in a clandestine setting 
     using the quantity of list I chemicals possessed or 
     distributed, the penalty corresponding to the quantity of 
     controlled substance that could have been produced under 
     subsection (b).''.
       (b) Controlled Substance Import and Export Act.--Section 
     1010(d) of the Controlled Substance Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 960(d)) is amended by striking the period and 
     inserting the following: ``, or, with respect to an 
     importation violation of paragraph (1) or (3) of this 
     subsection involving a list I chemical, if the government 
     proves the quantity of controlled substance that could 
     reasonably have been manufactured in a clandestine setting 
     using the quantity of list I chemicals imported, the penalty 
     corresponding to the quantity of controlled substance that 
     could have been produced under title II.''.
       (c) Determination of Quantity.--
       (1) In general.--For the purposes of this section and the 
     amendments made by this section, the quantity of controlled 
     substance that could reasonably have been provided shall be 
     determined by using a table of manufacturing conversion 
     ratios for list I chemicals.
       (2) Table.--The table shall be--
       (1) established by the United States Sentencing Commission 
     based on scientific, law enforcement, and other data the 
     Sentencing Commission deems appropriate; and
       (2) dispositive of this issue.

     SEC. 303. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR DANGEROUS HANDLING OF 
                   CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES: AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING 
                   GUIDELINES.

       (a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section 
     994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall determine whether the Sentencing 
     Guidelines adequately punish the offenses described in 
     subsection (b) and, if not, promulgate guidelines or amend 
     existing guidelines to provide an appropriate enhancement of 
     the punishment for a defendant convicted of such an offense.
       (b) Offense.--The offense referred to in subsection (a) is 
     a violation of section 401(d), 401(g)(1), 403(a)(6), or 
     403(a)(7) of The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(d), 
     841(g)(1), 843(a)(6), and 843(a)(7)), in cases in which in 
     the commission of the offense the defendant violated--
       (1) subsection (d) or (e) of section 3008 of the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act (relating to handling hazardous waste in a 
     manner inconsistent with Federal or applicable State law);
       (2) section 103(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act (relating to failure 
     to notify as to the release of a reportable quantity of a 
     hazardous substance into the environment);
       (3) section 301(a), 307(d), 309(c)(2), 309(c)(3), 
     311(b)(3), or 311(b)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (relating to the unlawful discharge of pollutants 
     or hazardous substances, the operation of a source in 
     violation of a pretreatment standard, and the failure to 
     notify as to the release of a reportable quantity of a 
     hazardous substance into the water); or
       (4) section 5124 of title 49, United States Code (relating 
     to violations of laws and regulations enforced by the 
     Department of Transportation with respect to the 
     transportation of hazardous material).
   TITLE IV--LEGAL MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF PRECURSOR 
                               CHEMICALS

     SEC. 401. DIVERSION OF CERTAIN PRECURSOR CHEMICALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 102(39) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(39)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(iv)(I)(aa), by striking ``as'' 
     through the semicolon and inserting ``, pseudoephedrine or 
     its salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers, or 
     phenylpropanolamine or its salts, optical isomers, or salts 
     of optical isomers unless otherwise provided by regulation of 
     the Attorney General issued pursuant to section 204(e) of 
     this title;''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A)(iv)(II), by inserting ``, 
     pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine,'' after ``ephedrine''.
       (b) Legitimate Retailers.--Section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (39)(A)(iv)(I)(aa), by adding before the 
     semicolon the following: ``, except that any sale of ordinary 
     over-the-counter pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine 
     products by retail distributors shall not be a regulated 
     transaction (except as provided in section 401(d) of the 
     Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996)'';
       (2) in paragraph (39)(A)(iv)(II), by adding before the 
     semicolon the following: ``, except that any sale of products 
     containing pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine, other than 
     ordinary over-the-counter pseudoephedrine or 
     phenylpropanolamine products, by retail distributors shall 
     not be a regulated transaction if the distributor's sales are 
     limited to less than the threshold quantity of 24 grams of 
     pseudoephedrine or 24 grams of phenylpropanolamine in each 
     single transaction'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (43) relating to felony drug 
     abuse as paragraph (44); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(45) The term `ordinary over-the-counter pseudoephedrine 
     or phenylpropanolamine product' means any product containing 
     pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine that is--
       ``(A) regulated pursuant to this title; and
       ``(B)(i) except for liquids, sold in package sizes of not 
     more than 3.0 grams of pseudoephedrine base or 3.0 grams of 
     phenylpropanolamine base, and that is packaged in blister 
     packs, each blister containing not more than two dosage 
     units, or where the use of blister packs is technically 
     infeasible, that is packaged in unit dose packets or pouches; 
     and
       ``(ii) for liquids, sold in package sizes of not more than 
     3.0 grams of pseudoephedrine base or 3.0 grams of 
     phenylpropanolamine base.
       ``(46)(A) The term `retail distributor' means--
       ``(i) with respect to an entity that is a grocery store, 
     general merchandise store, or drug store, a distributor whose 
     activities relating to pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine 
     products are limited almost exclusively to sales, both in 
     number of sales and volume of sales, directly to walk-in 
     customers; and
       ``(ii) with respect to any other entity, a distributor 
     whose activities relating to ordinary over-the-counter 
     pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine products are limited 
     primarily to sales directly to walk-in customers for personal 
     use.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, sale for personal use 
     means the sale of below-threshold quantities in a single 
     transaction to an individual for legitimate medical use.
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, entities are defined 
     by reference to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 
     code, as follows:
       ``(i) A grocery store is an entity within SIC code 5411.
       ``(ii) A general merchandise store is an entity within SIC 
     codes 5300 through 5399 and 5499.
       ``(iii) A drug store is an entity within SIC code 5912.''.

[[Page S8020]]

       (c) Reinstatement of Legal Drug Exemption.--Section 204 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 814) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Reinstatement of Exemption With Respect to Ephedrine, 
     Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine Drug Products.--The 
     Attorney General shall by regulation reinstate the exemption 
     with respect to a particular ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or 
     phenylpropanolamine drug product if the Attorney General 
     determines that the drug product is manufactured and 
     distributed in a manner that prevents diversion. In making 
     this determination the Attorney General shall consider the 
     factors listed in subsection (d)(2). Any regulation issued 
     pursuant to this subsection may be amended or revoked based 
     on the factors listed in subsection (d)(4).''.
       (d) Regulation of Retail Sales.--
       (1) Pseudoephedrine.--
       (A) Limit.--
       (i) In general.--Not sooner than the effective date of this 
     section and subject to the requirements of clause (ii), the 
     Attorney General may establish by regulation a single-
     transaction limit of 24 grams of pseudoephedrine base for 
     retail distributors. Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the single-transaction threshold quantity for 
     pseudoephedrine-containing compounds may not be lowered 
     beyond that established in this paragraph.
       (ii) Conditions.--In order to establish a single-
     transaction limit of 24 grams of pseudoephedrine base, the 
     Attorney General shall establish, following notice, comment, 
     and an informal hearing that since the effective date of this 
     section there are a significant number of instances where 
     ordinary over-the-counter pseudoephedrine products as 
     established in paragraph (45) of section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802 (45)), as added by 
     this Act, sold by retail distributors as established in 
     paragraph (46) in section 102 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 802(46)), are being used as a significant 
     source of precursor chemicals for illegal manufacture of a 
     controlled substance in bulk.
       (B) Violation.--Any individual or business that violates 
     the thresholds established in this paragraph shall, with 
     respect to the first such violation, receive a warning letter 
     from the Attorney General and, if a business, the business 
     shall be required to conduct mandatory education of the sales 
     employees of the firm with regard to the legal sales of 
     pseudoephedrine. For a second violation occurring within 2 
     years of the first violation, the business or individual 
     shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000. 
     For any subsequent violation occurring within 2 years of the 
     previous violation, the business or individual shall be 
     subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the amount of the 
     previous civil penalty plus $5,000.
       (2) Phenylpropanolamine.--
       (A) Limit.--
       (i) In general.--Not sooner than the effective date of this 
     section and subject to the requirements of clause (ii), the 
     Attorney General may establish by regulation a single-
     transaction limit of 24 grams of phenylpropanolamine base for 
     retail distributors. Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the single-transaction threshold quantity for 
     phenylpropanolamine-containing compounds may not be lowered 
     beyond that established in this paragraph.
       (ii) Conditions.--In order to establish a single-
     transaction limit of 24 grams of phenylpropanolamine base, 
     the Attorney General shall establish, following notice, 
     comment, and an informal hearing, that since the effective 
     date of this section there are a significant number of 
     instances where ordinary over-the-counter phenylpropanolamine 
     products as established in paragraph (45) of section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(45)), as added 
     by this Act, sold by retail distributors as established in 
     paragraph (46) in section 102 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 802(46)), are being used as a significant 
     source of precursor chemicals for illegal manufacture of a 
     controlled substance in bulk.
       (B) Violation.--Any individual or business that violates 
     the thresholds established in this paragraph shall, with 
     respect to the first such violation, receive a warning letter 
     from the Attorney General and, if a business, the business 
     shall be required to conduct mandatory education of the sales 
     employees of the firm with regard to the legal sales of 
     pseudoephedrine. For a second violation occurring within 2 
     years of the first violation, the business or individual 
     shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000. 
     For any subsequent violation occurring within 2 years of the 
     previous violation, the business or individual shall be 
     subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the amount of the 
     previous civil penalty plus $5,000.
       (3) Definition of business.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``business'' means the entity that makes 
     the direct sale and does not include the parent company of a 
     business not involved in a direct sale regulated by this 
     subsection.
       (4) Judicial review.--Any regulation promulgated by the 
     Attorney General under this section shall be subject to 
     judicial review pursuant to section 507 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 877).
       (e) Effect on Thresholds.--Nothing in the amendments made 
     by subsection (b) or the provisions of subsection (d) shall 
     affect the authority of the Attorney General to modify 
     thresholds (including cumulative thresholds) for retail 
     distributors for products other than ordinary over-the-
     counter pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine products (as 
     defined in section 102(45) of the Controlled Substances Act, 
     as added by this section) or for non-retail distributors, 
     importers, or exporters.
       (f) Effective Date of This Section.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, this section shall not apply to 
     the sale of any over-the-counter pseudoephedrine or 
     phenylpropanolamine product initially introduced into 
     interstate commerce prior to 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 402. MAIL ORDER RESTRICTIONS.

       Section 310(b) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     830(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Mail order reporting.--(A) Each regulated person who 
     engages in a transaction with a nonregulated person which--
       ``(i) involves ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or 
     phenylpropanolamine (including drug products containing these 
     chemicals); and
       ``(ii) uses or attempts to use the Postal Service or any 
     private or commercial carrier;

     shall, on a monthly basis, submit a report of each such 
     transaction conducted during the previous month to the 
     Attorney General in such form, containing such data, and at 
     such times as the Attorney General shall establish by 
     regulation.
       ``(B) The data required for such reports shall include--
       ``(i) the name of the purchaser;
       ``(ii) the quantity and form of the ephedrine, 
     pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine purchased; and
       ``(iii) the address to which such ephedrine, 
     pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine was sent.''.
                    TITLE V--EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

     SEC. 501. INTERAGENCY METHAMPHETAMINE TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a 
     ``Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force'' (referred to as 
     the ``interagency task force'') which shall consist of the 
     following members:
       (1) The Attorney General, or a designee, who shall serve as 
     chair.
       (2) 2 representatives selected by the Attorney General.
       (3) The Secretary of Education or a designee.
       (4) The Secretary of Health and Human Services or a 
     designee.
       (5) 2 representatives of State and local law enforcement 
     and regulatory agencies, to be selected by the Attorney 
     General.
       (6) 2 representatives selected by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (7) 5 nongovernmental experts in drug abuse prevention and 
     treatment to be selected by the Attorney General.
       (b) Responsibilities.--The interagency task force shall be 
     responsible for designing, implementing, and evaluating the 
     education and prevention and treatment practices and 
     strategies of the Federal Government with respect to 
     methamphetamine and other synthetic stimulants.
       (c) Meetings.--The interagency task force shall meet at 
     least once every 6 months.
       (d) Funding.--The administrative expenses of the 
     interagency task force shall be paid out of existing 
     Department of Justice appropriations.
       (e) FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App. 2) shall apply to the interagency task force.
       (f) Termination.--The interagency task force shall 
     terminate 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 502. PUBLIC HEALTH MONITORING.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop a 
     public health monitoring program to monitor methamphetamine 
     abuse in the United States. The program shall include the 
     collection and dissemination of data related to 
     methamphetamine abuse which can be used by public health 
     officials in policy development.

     SEC. 503. PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Advisory Panel.--The Attorney General shall establish 
     an advisory panel consisting of an appropriate number of 
     representatives from Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement and regulatory agencies with experience in 
     investigating and prosecuting illegal transactions of 
     precursor chemicals. The Attorney General shall convene the 
     panel as often as necessary to develop and coordinate 
     educational programs for wholesale and retail distributors of 
     precursor chemicals and supplies.
       (b) Continuation of Current Efforts.--The Attorney General 
     shall continue to--
       (1) maintain an active program of seminars and training to 
     educate wholesale and retail distributors of precursor 
     chemicals and supplies regarding the identification of 
     suspicious transactions and their responsibility to report 
     such transactions; and
       (2) provide assistance to State and local law enforcement 
     and regulatory agencies to facilitate the establishment and 
     maintenance of educational programs for distributors of 
     precursor chemicals and supplies.

     SEC. 504. SUSPICIOUS ORDERS TASK FORCE.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     ``Suspicious Orders Task Force'' (the ``Task Force'') which 
     shall consist of--
       (1) appropriate personnel from the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration (the ``DEA'') and other Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement and regulatory agencies with the

[[Page S8021]]

     experience in investigating and prosecuting illegal 
     transactions of listed chemicals and supplies; and
       (2) representatives from the chemical and pharmaceutical 
     industry.
       (b) Responsibilities.--The Task Force shall be responsible 
     for developing proposals to define suspicious orders of 
     listed chemicals, and particularly to develop quantifiable 
     parameters which can be used by registrants in determining if 
     an order is a suspicious order which must be reported to DEA. 
     The quantifiable parameters to be addressed will include 
     frequency of orders, deviations from prior orders, and size 
     of orders. The Task Force shall also recommend provisions as 
     to what types of payment practices or unusual business 
     practices shall constitute prima facie suspicious orders. In 
     evaluating the proposals, the Task Force shall consider 
     effectiveness, cost and feasibility for industry and 
     government, an other relevant factors.
       (c) Meetings.--The Task Force shall meet at least two times 
     per year and at such other times as may be determined 
     necessary by the Task Force.
       (d) Report.--The Task Force shall present a report to the 
     Attorney General on its proposals with regard to suspicious 
     orders and the electronic reporting of suspicious orders 
     within one year of the date of enactment of this Act. Copies 
     of the report shall be forwarded to the Committees of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives having jurisdiction over 
     the regulation of listed chemical and controlled substances.
       (e) Funding.--The administrative expenses of the Task Force 
     shall be paid out of existing Department of Justice funds.
       (f) FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App. 2) shall apply to the Task Force.
       (g) Termination.--The Task Force shall terminate upon 
     presentation of its report to the Attorney General, or two 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is 
     sooner.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the story of our failure to foresee--and 
prevent--the crack cocaine epidemic is one of the most significant 
public policy mistakes in modern history. Although warning signs of an 
outbreak flared over several years, few took action until it was too 
late.
  We now face similar warning signs with another drug--methamphetamine. 
Without swift action now, history may repeat itself.
  So today, Senator Hatch and I, along with Senators Feinstein, 
Specter, Harkin, Wyden, D'Amato, and DeWine are introducing legislation 
to address this new emerging drug epidemic before it is too late.
  Within the past few years the production and use of methamphetamine 
have risen dramatically. Newspaper and media reports over the past few 
months have highlighted these increases. I have been tracking this 
development and pushing legislation to increase Federal penalties and 
strengthen Federal laws against methamphetamine production, 
trafficking, and use since 1990.
  And what I and others have found is alarming: From 1991 to 1994 
methamphetamine-related emergency room episodes increased 256 percent--
the increase from 1993 to 1994 alone was 75 percent--with more than 
17,000 people overdosing and being brought to the emergency room 
because of methamphetamine. A survey of high school seniors, which only 
measures the use of ``ice''--a fraction of the methamphetamine market--
found that in 1995 86,000 12th graders had used ``ice'' in the past 
year, 39,000 had used it in the past month, and 3,600 reported using 
``ice'' daily. This same survey found that only 54 percent of high 
school seniors perceived great risk in trying ``ice''--down from 62 
percent in 1990. And 27 percent of these children said it would be easy 
for them to get ``ice'' if they wanted it.
  The cause for concern over a methamphetamine epidemic is further 
fueled by drug-related violence--again something we saw during the 
crack era--that we can expect to flourish with methamphetamine as well. 
Putting the problem in perspective, drug experts claim that ``ice 
surpasses PCP in inducing violent behavior.''
  In addition to the violence--both random and irrational--associated 
with methamphetamine users, there is also the enormous problem of 
violence among methamphetamine traffickers and the environmental and 
life-threatening conditions endemic in the clandestine labs where 
methamphetamine is produced.
  The bill we are now introducing addresses all of the dangers of 
methamphetamine and takes bold actions to stop this potential epidemic 
in its tracks. The Hatch-Biden methamphetamine enforcement bill will 
take six major steps toward cracking down on methamphetamine 
production, trafficking, and use, particularly use by the most 
vulnerable population threatened by this drug--our young people.
  First and foremost, we increase penalties for possessing and 
trafficking in methamphetamine.
  Second, we crack down on methamphetamine producers and traffickers by 
increasing the penalties for the illicit possession and trafficking of 
the precursor chemicals and equipment used to manufacture 
methamphetamine.
  Third, we increase the reporting requirements and restrictions on the 
legitimate sales of products containing these precursor chemicals in 
order to prevent their diversion, and we impose even greater 
requirements on all firms which sell these products by mail. This 
includes the use of civil penalties and injunctions to stop legitimate 
firms from recklessly providing precursor chemicals to methamphetamine 
manufacturers.
  Fourth, we address the international nature of methamphetamine 
manufacture and trafficking by coordinating international enforcement 
efforts and strengthening provisions against the illegal importation of 
methamphetamine and precursor chemicals.
  Fifth, we ensure that methamphetamine manufacturers who endanger the 
life on any individual or endanger the environment while making 
methamphetamine will receive enhanced prison sentences.
  Finally, we require Federal, State and local law enforcement and 
public health officials to stay ahead of any potential growth in the 
methamphetamine epidemic by creating national working groups on the 
protecting the public from the dangers of methamphetamine production, 
trafficking, and abuse.
  The Hatch-Biden bill addresses all of the needs with a fair balance 
between the needs of manufacturers and consumers of legitimate products 
which contain methamphetamine precursor chemicals and the need to 
protect the public by instituting harsh penalties for any and all 
methamphetamine-related activities.
  This legislation is the crucial, comprehensive tool we need to stay 
ahead of the methamphetamine epidemic and to avoid the mistakes made 
during the early stages of the crack-cocaine explosion.
  I want to thank Senator Hatch and my other colleagues who share my 
desire to move now on the problem of methamphetamine. I also want to 
thank the Clinton administration, which also was determined to act now 
on this issue and worked with us in developing several of the 
provisions in this bill.
  I urge all my colleagues to join us in protecting our children and 
our society from the devastations of methamphetamine by supporting this 
vital legislation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator 
Hatch, Senator Biden, and others to introduce the Comprehensive 
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996.
  Methamphetamine is one of the most insidious drugs to hit the streets 
in decades. In a few short years in Oregon, methamphetamine has become 
the second most frequently detected drug in workplace drug testing and 
in motor vehicle driver drug checks. This drug has become not only a 
scourge on Oregon's streets, increasing crime and creating toxic 
environmental hazards in the labs where it is produced, but has 
repercussions throughout the social services system as well. Foster 
care caseloads have increased because of the meth epidemic, and drug 
treatment centers are struggling with rising numbers of people needing 
help to escape the effects of this highly addictive and damaging drug.
  According to Sheriff Robert Kennedy, who serves the State in Jackson 
County in southwestern Oregon, methamphetamine arrests in his county 
have increased 1,100 percent in the past 5 years. This drug has become 
an urban and rural problem, and is being abused across the economic and 
social spectrum. Statewide, the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement 
Association and others have joined together to fight the public safety 
and health problems associated with methamphetamine.
  From the problems associated with cleaning up labs, to stopping the 
influx

[[Page S8022]]

of Mexican-manufactured methamphetamine from coming into Oregon, law 
enforcement officials across the State have told me that meth is 
quickly becoming a major problem demanding high priority.
  That is why I am pleased today to join in the effort to help the 
country's law enforcement officers fight the methamphetamine epidemic. 
The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act takes on the battle 
against the drug on a number of fronts.
  To combat the precursor drugs manufactured across the border in 
Mexico, this legislation includes a long-arm provision that allows the 
United States to prosecute people who manufacture methamphetamine 
precursor chemicals, with an intent to import them into our country.
  Here at home, the bill significantly increases penalties for illegal 
trafficking in methamphetamine. Penalties for methamphetamine 
trafficking have been too low for too long. This bill will make drug 
dealers think twice by making penalties for dealing methamphetamine 
comparable to those for crack cocaine.
  The legislation also cracks down on trafficking in the precursor 
chemicals used to produce methamphetamine, increasing penalties and 
allowing law enforcement increased flexibility to obtain injunctions to 
stop the production and sale of precursor chemicals when an individual 
or company knowingly sells these chemicals to methamphetamine dealers.
  Finally, the act addresses the problem that many methamphetamine 
producers use legal, over-the-counter drugs, containing precursor 
chemicals, to manufacture methamphetamine. The bill will confront this 
in a direct way by limiting bulk quantities of these drugs that can be 
sold over the counter and, at the same time, creating a safe harbor for 
retailers so smaller quantities of the drugs can be sold to consumers 
who need unimpeded access to these helpful and commonly used products.
  According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, every 4 hours, an illicit 
lab can produce a quarter pound of methamphetamine that sells for 
$2,000. These labs can be set up anywhere--in cars, hotel rooms, and 
abandoned buildings. Their byproducts pollute the area of the lab with 
carcinogenic toxins and, often times, these dangerous chemicals are 
dumped by the side of the road, in waterways or in other public areas.
  It is time for Congress to join in the fight against this drug that 
pollutes our communities, drives crime and violence, and floods our 
social services systems. I am pleased to join in this effort, and I 
commend my colleagues for their bipartisan efforts and hard work in 
crafting this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in February, Iowa was featured on the 
front page of the New York Times--but it wasn't the kind of publicity I 
want to see our State receive. The article highlighted a problem that 
is exploding around Iowa--the growing use of the drug methamphetamine, 
commonly known as meth or crank.
  There's no doubt that meth has invaded our State with a fury. The 
statistics tell the tragic story. More than 35 percent of new 
incarcerations in Iowa involve meth. Federal methamphetamine 
investigations have doubled and meth arrests have more than tripled 
over the past 2 years. The Division of Iowa Narcotics Enforcement has 
reported a nearly 400-percent increase in meth seizures in a 1-year 
period. And in our largest city of Des Moines, meth seizures increased 
more than 4,000 percent.
  The number of labs producing meth has also increased dramatically. 
And many of the traffickers are illegal aliens from Mexico, presenting 
additional problems and burdens on law enforcement. This is especially 
challenging because Iowa currently has no Immigration and 
Naturalization Service office.
  Meth is now termed Iowa's ``drug of choice.'' And unfortunately, its 
spread has left no part of our State untouched.
  In a word, meth is poison. It destroys lives, families, and 
communities. The experts describe methamphetamine as a synthetic 
central nervous system stimulant--the strongest and most intense of the 
amphetamine group. A leading Iowa doctor referred to meth as the most 
malignant, addictive drug known to mankind.
  Meth is a killer. It causes brain, heart, liver, and kidney damage. 
It breaks down the immune system and often leads to paranoid psychosis, 
violent behavior, and death.
  The narcotic is primarily used by young male adults. But experts have 
found that a growing number of women and teens are now turning to meth.
  A majority of Iowa law enforcement officials responding to a recent 
Governor's Alliance on Substance Abuse Survey ranked meth as the No. 
1 problematic drug in their area.

  The legislation we are introducing today will help States like Iowa 
fight back. The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Enforcement Act of 1996 
cracks down on the use and manufacture of methamphetamine by increasing 
the sentencing scheme to be comparable to crack cocaine. It also goes 
after the precursor chemicals and equipment used to manufacture 
methamphetamine as well as companies who intentionally sell chemicals 
for manufacture of meth. The bill also includes public health 
monitoring and a task force and advisory panel for public education.
  This legislation will complement another initiative I have been 
working on. I have spent a lot of time with local, State, and Federal 
law enforcement officials in Iowa who tell me that they simply don't 
have the resources necessary to adequately tackle this skyrocketing new 
challenge. That's why I am working hard to increase the arsenal in 
Iowa's fight against meth and to help our law enforcement on the 
frontlines.
  Several years ago, Congress created the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area initiative to provide added resources to highly 
affected areas. The program has proven useful, but it has been limited 
to urban areas such as Miami and Philadelphia.
  I believe that it's time to apply this model to help Iowa and 
surrounding Midwestern States to combat the large methamphetamine 
trafficking networks, curtail sale and distribution of the narcotic and 
reduce related violence. This would open the door for the hiring of 
additional field investigators, chemists, prosecutors and other law 
enforcement personnel specifically targeted to the methamphetamine 
problem.
  I recently wrote to National Drug Control Policy Director, Gen. Barry 
McCaffrey, outlining just such a plan. Because of the urgent need I 
proposed a $7 million increase in resources to begin such an 
initiative. I will continue to work with Director McCaffrey and my 
colleagues on the appropriations committee to make this a reality.
  People in Iowa have worked hard to cultivate a good quality of life. 
They have worked hard to make their communities a place to raise a 
family, a safe place, a decent place, but drug dealers are planting the 
seeds of destruction and are wreaking havoc on small towns and rural 
communities all over America.
  We must win back our communities and we must fight back. It's a 
question of priorities and the determination to defend our homes from a 
threat that is right down the street, not halfway around the world.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
introducing a bill that will combat a plague on our citizens and 
communities: methamphetamine.
  Methamphetamine is an addictive synthetic drug, used by an increasing 
number of students and young professionals. Methamphetamine abuse is 
now the fourth cause of emergency room visits in this country. Clearly, 
an epidemic has arisen in the United States.
  In the early 1990's, emergency room episodes caused by 
methamphetamine use rose 350 percent, while deaths nearly tripled, 
according to the DEA.
  While methamphetamine use has increased dramatically in the Southwest 
and Midwest regions of this country, officials have recognized a trend 
showing that the methamphetamine trade is moving eastward. The whole 
country is at risk.
  The growing methamphetamine trade demands immediate and tough action, 
especially against the traffickers that are selling this poison to our 
children. This bill is a sound response to the emerging epidemic.

[[Page S8023]]

  As methamphetamine abuse has experienced a massive growth, the purity 
of the drug has increased to the highest potency in 12 years. And not 
only has the methamphetamine itself changed in the past few years, but 
so has the traffickers. Mexico-based criminal organizations have mostly 
replaced the outlaw motorcycle gangs who had monopolized the 
methamphetamine production and distribution.
  These Mexican drug traffickers are self-sufficient in all aspects of 
the methamphetamine production and trade. They are able to purchase the 
precursor drugs internationally, produce the drug, and transport the 
methamphetamine across the border into the U.S. It differs from the 
cocaine trade in that the Mexican criminal groups can operate this 
trade without sharing profits with the Colombian cartels.
  According to a Justice report, the seizure of methamphetamine from 
Mexico to the U.S. rose dramatically from 6.5 kilograms in 1992 to 306 
kilograms in 1993 to a whopping 653 kilograms in 1995. That is an 
increase of 1,000 percent in just 3 years.
  In response to the sudden and dramatic increase in the trafficking of 
methamphetamine across the southern border, this bill will impose 
penalties of up to 10 years for the manufacturing of precursor drugs 
with the intent of importing it into this country.
  The salient points of this bill include: One, enhanced penalties for 
the manufacture and possession of the equipment used to make the 
controlled substances; two, seizure and forfeiture of trafficking in 
precursor chemicals; and three, provides the Attorney General with the 
authority to shut down the production and sale of the precursor 
chemicals if the individual or company knowingly sell the precursor in 
order to produce methamphetamine.
  Most importantly, the penalties associated with trafficking 
methamphetamine will be raised to make it comparable with crack 
cocaine. A 5-year mandatory minimum will be imposed for every 5 grams 
trafficked and 10 years to life for a conviction involving the 
trafficking of 50 grams.
  The statistics do not reveal the effects the drug has on the addicts 
who use it. The effects are appalling. The methamphetamine user will 
experience an irritable and paranoid effect and then begin the downward 
spiral of a crippling depression. As with any drug addict, the family 
suffers tremendously through the entire occurrence.
  But it is not only those close to the methamphetamine user who bears 
the burden. An article in the magazine Police Chief last March 
describes the perspective of law enforcement that encounters the 
altered behavior of the addict. ``Simply put, when methamphetamine 
production and abuse become prevalent in any geographic area, the 
ancillary criminal behavior in that area will grow as well.''
  It is clear that this epidemic must be addressed here and now. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill and urge its immediate passage.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, methamphetamine is, if not the most dangerous 
drug in America today, one of the fastest spreading. In Western States, 
meth is already the crack epidemic of the 1990's.
  Meth is cheap, easy to manufacture, and readily available. The drug 
is a synthetic compound that stimulates the central nervous system and 
causes psychosis, paranoid delusions, and acts of violence.
  The drug is most prevalent in four Western cities--Phoenix, Los 
Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. The damage the drug has caused 
in Arizona is startling. Phoenix police attribute meth use as a factor 
in the 40 percent jump in homicides in 1994. Meth-related deaths in 
Phoenix have soared from 11 in 1991 to 122 in 1994. According to the 
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 1 in 17 Arizona high school 
students reported using meth in the last 30 days. The drug is also 
behind the headlines of several horrific crimes that have occurred in 
the State.
  Arizona has taken action, and a methamphetamine bill offered by State 
Representative Paul Mortenson, passed the legislature in Phoenix and 
was signed into law by Governor Symington this April. The bill 
increases the penalties for those who produce and sell the drug, and 
criminalizes the possession of equipment or chemicals used in the 
manufacture of dangerous drugs.
  Appropriately, the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, is 
addressing the methamphetamine explosion. I would particularly like to 
point out the fine work of Senator Feinstein on this issue. Senator 
Feinstein introduced the predecessor to this bill, and last month 
successfully amended a defense bill to stop the Federal Government from 
inadvertently selling to illicit manufacturers the chemicals used to 
make meth.
  The Methamphetamine Control Act accomplishes much. The bill:
  Increases the penalties for the trafficking and manufacture of 
methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals. The new penalties put the 
penalties for meth on the same level with crack;
  Increases the penalties for the illegal manufacture and possession of 
equipment used to manufacture meth;
  Requires those convicted of offenses relating to methamphetamine to 
provide restitution to the United States for the costs incurred by the 
United States for the cleanup associated with the manufacture of 
methamphetamine;
  Regulates the sale of over-the-counter drugs that contain the 
precursor chemicals for methamphetamine if the sale exceeds a 
substantial threshold quantity; and
  Establishes a Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force to develop 
strategies to fight the use of this drug.
  The devastating effects of meth are seen every day in our jails, our 
emergency rooms, and our morgues. We must do everything we can to 
withstand this tide of poison. America can't afford another epidemic 
like crack, which destroyed countless individuals, families, and 
communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. Campbell (for himself, Mr. Chafee and Ms. Moseley-Braun):
  S. 1966. A bill to extend the legislative authority for the Black 
Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation to establish a commemorative 
work; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


       THE BLACK REVOLUTIONARY WAR PATRIOTS MEMORIAL ACT OF 1996

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my distinguished 
colleagues, Senator Chafee and Senator Moseley-Braun, today I introduce 
legislation that seeks to extend the legislative authority for the 
construction of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial and for 
the Foundation raising funds to construct the memorial.
  Mr. President, in 1986, the Congress enacted and President Reagan 
signed into law legislation establishing a Black Revolutionary War 
Patriots Memorial, a memorial to honor the more than 5,000 African-
Americans who fought for this country during the Revolutionary War. In 
order to appropriately recognize the bravery and sacrifice of these 
honorable and distinguished patriots, Public Law 99-558 sought to 
establish a suitable memorial, a monument which will be located on the 
Mall here in Washington, DC. When complete, the memorial will be the 
first monument on the Mall to be dedicated solely to the 
accomplishments of African-Americans.
  The centerpiece of P.L. 99-558 was the establishment of the Black 
Revolutionary War Patriots Foundation, as a not-for-profit organization 
whose sole charter is to raise the necessary funding for the costs 
associated with constructing the memorial.
  When enacted, the foundation was authorized to operate for a period 
of 10 years, no more. While the foundation has raised a substantial 
amount of funding, it remains short of its $9.5 million goal. This 
legislation would provide for a 2-year extension of the legislative 
authority for the establishment of the memorial, providing the 
foundation with valuable time to complete its fundraising.
  I have a couple of reasons for wishing to see this extension approved 
by Congress. First, this memorial serves a noble purpose, honoring the 
service and patriotism of individuals long deserving of this praise. 
Second, the sculptor who has been commissioned to design this memorial 
is a Coloradan named Ed Dwight. Mr. Dwight, the first African-American 
astronaut, is an accomplished artist residing in Denver. His work is 
known across the world, and I would like to see his design for the

[[Page S8024]]

Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial become a reality and be 
situated near several of this country's most distinguished monuments.
  Mr. President, I believe Congress has demonstrated its commitment to 
the establishment of the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial by 
authorizing its construction almost 10 years ago. In addition, my 
distinguished colleagues, Senator John Chafee and Representative Nancy 
Johnson, have also introduced legislation which will raise funds for 
construction costs through the minting and issuing of a commemorative 
coin honoring these patriots. To date, 376 Members have signed on as 
cosponsors to these measures, myself included.
  It is my hope this legislation will receive the full, expeditious 
support of the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
  S. 1968. A bill to reorder United States budget priorities with 
respect to United States assistance to foreign countries and 
international organizations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                   THE FOREIGN AID REFORM ACT OF 1996

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Foreign Aid 
Reform Act of 1996. I would like to offer just a few brief remarks 
about this legislation and its three component parts.
  First, it bars foreign aid to countries that vote against the United 
States more often than not in recorded votes at the United Nations.
  Second, this legislation creates a point of order to require the 
Congress to enact domestic appropriations bills before it considers 
foreign aid bills.
  Third, this bill prohibits foreign aid to be distributed by agencies 
that are essentially domestic, and it defines domestic agencies as 
those not primarily responsible for foreign affairs or national 
security.
  Mr. President, 64 percent of American foreign aid recipients voted 
against the United States more often than not in the 1995 session of 
the United Nations. India, for example, received $157 million of 
American taxpayers' money last year--it is the fifth largest recipient 
of American aid--and, yet, it voted against the United States in 83 
percent of their U.N. votes. India ties Cuba and exceeds Iran in its 
record of opposition to American diplomatic goals.
  In fact, the nations that voted against us a majority of the time at 
the United Nations received a total of $3.1 billion in foreign aid in 
1996. I find it incredible that we gave $3 billion to nations that 
refused to offer some consistent support to our diplomatic initiatives.
  The United States sent troops to Haiti to restore President Aristide 
and sent $123 million in financial aid. The aid continues, but, Mr. 
President, Haiti voted against the United States 60 percent of the 
time.
  President Clinton engineered a $40 billion bailout for Mexico, and, 
yet, Mexico voted against us 58 percent of the time in the United 
Nations.
  United Nations votes are based on a range of considerations. However, 
foreign aid is sold to the American people as a program to defend 
American interests, to promote our interests, and to assist our 
friends, but it is clear that support for our diplomatic efforts is not 
a popular response to our generous distribution of aid.
  The second provision of this bill, Mr. President, subjects the 
foreign operations appropriations bill to a point of order that 
requires the Congress to complete domestic appropriations prior to 
consideration of the foreign assistance budget.
  The foreign operations bill for fiscal year 1996 became law on 
February 12 of this year, but four domestic spending bills remained 
unfinished for another 10 weeks. In fact, foreign operations is 
probably going to be among the first three appropriations bills that we 
consider during the current budget process.
  The American people will have every right to be upset if part of the 
Government shuts down, and benefit and payroll checks are not 
delivered, but the foreign aid checks flow freely. The constitutional 
charge of the Congress is to attend to the Federal business of the 
American people. The American people worked to earn this money, and we 
should attend to their business first, not to foreign aid.
  This bill also takes domestic agencies out of the foreign aid 
business. I will illustrate the need for this provision with some 
rather remarkable examples of waste in just one Agency, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, although I am confident that it exists 
at numerous others.
  The EPA was one of the few domestic agencies to receive a real 
increase in its 1996 budget. After receiving an increase in its budget, 
however, it awarded 106 grants worth a total of $28 million to foreign 
countries between 1993 and 1995.
  The foreign assistance budget sent $600,000 to Communist China, but, 
Mr. President, the EPA sent $1,200,000 to Communist China. The EPA, in 
effect, tripled their infusion of American aid. This aid went to a 
country that voted against us 79 percent of the time in the United 
Nations and with which we recorded a $34 billion trade deficit.
  The EPA awarded a $20,000 grant to the Chinese Ministry of Public 
Security. Of course, the Ministry of Public Security is not an 
environmental agency, but a national police force that issued shoot to 
kill orders during the pro-democracy rallies of 1989. The grant was 
designed for ``halon management and maintenance training,'' which, Mr. 
President, turns out to be upkeep of fire extinguishers. The taxpayers 
are responsible for this program, Mr. President, because the Clean Air 
Act obligates the American people to assist developing nations. In my 
opinion, however, a nation that builds and maintains nuclear weapons 
should be able to maintain their fire extinguisher without the hard-
earned American taxpayers' money.

  The EPA sent $175,000 to China to build a clearinghouse in Peking for 
information about Chinese coal mining issues. The American taxpayer 
will be delighted to know that they bought the Chinese a $25,000 
computer and spent $4,500 to air condition the clearinghouse office.
  These are not isolated incidents. It goes on: $350,000 for a 
refrigeration project, $160,000 for an energy efficiency center, and 
$125,000 to assist in the construction of an environmental industrial 
park. This is to a country that boasts a $34 billion trade surplus.
  China is not the only foreign nation to receive EPA grants. Nigeria, 
which voted against us 69 percent of the time at the United Nations, 
earns billions of dollars each year in oil exports, but the EPA sent 
them $410,000 to study gas emissions.
  Oman, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, received a 
$100,000 grant. Oman, indeed, voted against us 65 percent of the time 
in the United Nations. I find it impossible to imagine that this 
Persian Gulf monarchy could not afford $100,000 for an environmental 
study of its own environmental issues.
  The list continues. The Swedish National Board for Industrial and 
Technical Development received $50,000 to study efficient lighting. It 
appalls me that our money--American taxpayers' money--is going to 
Sweden, one of the most technically advanced countries in the world, to 
study efficient lights.
  The EPA sent $50,000 to a university in Austria to help host a 
conference in an Israeli beach resort town on indoor air quality. The 
EPA also sent $50,000 to the Clean Air Society of Australia and New 
Zealand, two of the nations with the cleanest air in the world, and 
$140,000 to a university in Denmark.
  Mr. President, these are not Third World nations, and I certainly do 
not believe the American people need to fund conferences and research 
in countries that can easily afford these efforts.
  The grants that I describe were all funded with Environmental 
Protection Agency discretionary money. As you know, the EPA is very 
vocal about its budget. The EPA claims the environment will suffer if 
its budget is scrutinized, but, clearly, millions of dollars are 
squandered.
  I think that these grants reflect a profound lack of appreciation for 
the hard work that the American people perform to pay their taxes. If 
the Federal Government can find no better use of the taxpayers' money 
than these wasteful grants, then Washington should return it to the 
American people.
  The American people do not carry their lunch buckets to work in order 
to send their dollars to the security forces that order soldiers to 
shoot students in China. The American people do not

[[Page S8025]]

labor in order to send Austrian professors to beach resorts. The 
American people do not labor to help the Sultan of Oman develop a list 
of emissions from his bountiful oil wells. Unfortunately, however, that 
is the case. It is an outrageous waste of American tax dollars. I hope 
my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring the Foreign Aid Reform Act 
of 1996.
       By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Bradley, Mrs. Kassebaum, 
     Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Bingaham, Mr. Chafee and Mr. 
     Wyden):

  S. 1969. A bill to establish a Commission on Retirement Income 
Policy; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


         THE COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT INCOME POLICY ACT OF 1996

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the ``Commission on 
Retirement Income Policy Act of 1996'' with my colleagues Bill Bradley, 
Bill Cohen, Bob Kerrey, Nancy Kassebaum, Jeff Bingaman, John Chafee, 
and Ron Wyden. As you can see, this is a bi-partisan effort by many of 
the members of the Senate/House Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Retirement 
Income Security. This bill is a companion to a bill introduced in the 
House on March 13, 1996, by Nancy Johnson and Earl Pomeroy HR 3077.
  The objective of the Steering Committee, which is co-chaired by 
Senator Bradley, Representative Nancy Johnson and Earl Pomeroy, in its 
first year of operation has been to engage Members of Congress and 
experts in the private sector in a national dialog concerning this 
country's retirement income policies. Over the past 9 months, the 
Steering Committee has hosted a series of luncheons for members and 
staff to discuss retirement savings issues. During that time, we heard 
from a variety of experts who represent a cross-section of views and 
interest in the retirement policy field.
  Although, generally I am not a great fan of Commissions, I believe 
after this past year of informal meetings with Members and private 
sector experts that it is imperative that we as a Nation go back to 
basics regarding all of the components that make up retirement income. 
I am referring to the three-legged-stool approach which was so nicely 
illustrated at our first luncheon on November 9, 1995, by Deborah 
Briceland-Betts, Executive Director, Older Women's League. The three-
legged-stool which represents our national retirement savings is 
collapsing. The problem is that not only is one leg shaky instead all 
three legs, employer pension benefit plans, Social Security and 
individual savings, are wobbly.
  The private pension system simply does not cover a majority of 
workers. Those employees fortunate enough to have coverage will find 
their pension plans will not provide them with sufficient retirement 
income to meet their expected needs. The Social Security program which 
is now over 60 years old, is heading for a collapse under the weight of 
the baby boom generation. Personal savings have been in a downward 
spiral for years, Americans have become used to personal deficit 
spending.
  Financial planners, actuaries, pension consultants, and economists 
have begun to warn the public and policy makers that, if current trends 
continue, the retirement income of future retirees will fall far short 
of their anticipated needs. Yet, more pressing issues, such as health 
care costs and coverage, cuts in government spending, and other 
domestic concerns, have made if difficult for the message to get 
through to the American public. By the time individuals start to plan 
for retirement income needs they often become overwhelmed. Faced with 
falling wages and competing savings demands for college for the kids or 
providing for long-term health care needs for aging parents, many baby 
boomer sense they are in a deep financial hole from the start.
  If we continue to ignore this looming retirement crisis and wait 
until the baby boomers begin to retire, it will be too late. Future 
retirees must save throughout their earnings lifetimes and we as a 
society must find the way to shore up the Social Security and private 
pension systems by determining how the two systems can work as a team 
to meet this Nation's goal of adequate retirement income for all 
Americans.
  I would like to take a few minutes to outline the bill. First, the 
Commission will review trends in retirement savings in the United 
States, and will evaluate existing federal incentives and programs 
designed to encourage and protect such savings. In developing 
recommendations, the bill requires the Commission to consider the 
amounts of retirement income that future retirees will need (including 
amounts needed to pay for medical and long-term care), the various 
sources of retirement income which are available to individuals, the 
needs of retirement plan sponsors for simplicity and reasonable cost, 
and the recent shift away from defined benefit plans toward defined 
contribution plans. The Commission will gather information through a 
series of public hearings and through receipt of testimony and evidence 
from a wide variety of witnesses.
  This Commission must report to Congress and the President within 1 
year after being established. It will recommend concrete steps to 
ensure that future retirees have adequate retirement income. While the 
Commission will consider savings generally, it will focus on private 
savings vehicles and will not make recommendations regarding an 
overhaul of the Social Security Program, rather it will look to ways 
the private and public programs can work together. The Commission's 
recommendations will address the role that traditional pension plan 
coverage should play in reaching retirement income goals, as well as 
the role to be played by other retirement savings tools such as 401(k)s 
and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). The bill requires that any 
recommendations for new federal incentives or programs to encourage 
retirement savings also identify the funds necessary to finance these 
initiatives.
  Finally, the only change that we have made from the House bill is the 
compliment of the Commission. Our Senate version has put greater 
emphasis on having private sector representation. The Commission will 
have 16 members, four appointed by the President, of which at least two 
must be from private life. Three members each, appointed by both the 
Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, of which at least two must 
be from private life. Three members each, appointed by both the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader the House of 
Representatives, of which at least two must be from private life.
  Mr. President in closing, I along with Senator Bradley, would also 
like to acknowledge with special gratitude, the American Society of 
Pension Actuaries for their letter of endorsement, which we would like 
inserted in the Record, for this bill we are introducing today in the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Society of Pension Actuaries, Actuaries, 
           Consultants, Administrators and Other Benefits 
           Professionals,
                                     Arlington, VA, July 11, 1996.
     Hon. Jim Jeffords,
     513 Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Jeffords: The purpose of the American Society 
     of Pension Actuaries is to educate pension actuaries, 
     consultants, and administrators and other benefits 
     professionals and to preserve and enhance the private pension 
     system as part of the development of a cohesive and coherent 
     national retirement income policy.
       ASPA supports the establishment of a commission on 
     retirement income policy. We are very excited that you and 
     Senator Bradley plan to introduce legislation in the Senate 
     as a companion bill to HR 3077. When Representatives Nancy 
     Johnson and Earl Pomeroy introduced HR 3077, a bipartisan 
     call for the creation of a special commission to examine the 
     scope of our nation's growing retirement savings crisis and 
     recommend policies to help improve the economic security of 
     retired workers, ASPA applauded the initiative shown by this 
     session of Congress to safeguard our nation's economic 
     future.
       Because of the looming retirement income crisis that will 
     occur with the convergence of the Social Security trust 
     fund's potential exhaustion and the World War II ``baby 
     boomers'' reaching retirement age, ASPA created a National 
     Retirement Income Policy Committee to study these alarming 
     issues and suggest potential solutions. Without a thriving 
     private pension system, ASPA's NRIP Committee believes there 
     will be insufficient resources to provide adequate retirement 
     income for future generations.
       ASPA's NRIP Committee devoted two years to preparing six 
     in-depth research papers on this topic. The National 
     Retirement

[[Page S8026]]

     Income Policy Research Papers, published in 1994, present an 
     integrated plan for avoiding a retirement income crisis and 
     develop constructive solutions to: (a) stimulate interest and 
     debate over retirement income policy issues; (2) make 
     specific policy recommendations on what ``retirement 
     savings'' for Americans should encompass; and (3) call for 
     the creation of a commission on retirement income policy as 
     described in HR 3077.
       Enclosed are the ASPA NRIP papers Executive Summary and 
     Research Papers which are: Income Replacement in Retirement, 
     Social Security, Working Beyond Retirement Age, Personal 
     Savings, Targets for Personal Savings, and Private Plans.
       We believe you will find these papers to be highly 
     creative, quite stimulating and helpful in understanding the 
     urgent need for legislation such as HR 3077 and the creation 
     of a retirement income commission.
           Sincerely,
                                               Chester J. Salkind,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today, Senator Jim Jeffords and I are 
introducing a bill to create a special national commission to study 
retirement issues and recommend specific policies to improve the 
economic security of retired Americans. Millions of Americans are not 
saving nearly enough through pension plans or in their own personal 
savings accounts to provide for their retirements, and they cannot rely 
upon the Social Security system to provide a comfortable life for them. 
A crisis is brewing--and we will only be able to prevent it if we focus 
on solving our retirement savings problems now. That is what this 
commission is for, to start that process comprehensively and in 
earnest.
  The aging of our population is a principal contributor to the 
impending retirement crisis. Baby boomers are turning 50 this year, 1 
every 7 seconds. The economic implications of this demographic shift 
are tremendous. By 2030, 20 percent of our population will be retired, 
compared to 12 percent today. There will also be a lot fewer workers in 
our economy to support a lot more retirees. In the 1940's, there were 
42 workers for every retiree. Today, there are 4.8 workers supporting 
each retiree. In 2030, there will be only 2.8.
  Not only can we expect a lot more retirees, we can expect that they 
will be retired for a lot longer, with increasingly high expenses. 
Persons working today can expect to live about 25 percent of their 
adult lives in retirement, compared to 7 percent in 1940, because life 
spans are lengthening considerably. Enjoying a longer life is a miracle 
of science and good health management, but it is also very expensive. 
We will need to support ourselves for more years of retirement, and we 
will face dramatically rising health care costs, which 
disproportionately consume the incomes of retired persons, particularly 
as individuals live longer.
  Meanwhile, the Social Security system is expected to completely 
exhaust its resources by 2029. Yet 60 percent of all retirees (over the 
age of 65) rely on Social Security for at least 70 percent of their 
total retirement income.
  Unless we are hoping to support ourselves on the backs of our 
children or are willing to accept impoverishment and destitution in our 
retirements, we as individuals and as a nation need to be sure we are 
saving enough now to support ourselves in the future. But the fact is 
we are not. Despite the initiation of savings incentives such as 
favorable tax treatment for Individual Retirement Accounts and frequent 
warnings about the need to save, the U.S. savings rate remains among 
the lowest in the developed world. We should be saving more in our own 
personal accounts than our parents did since we are anticipating longer 
and more expensive retirements--but we are putting aside less.

  Moreover, far too many Americans will be unable to rely on an 
adequate pension income to supplement their meager savings. Nearly half 
of all full-time workers are not currently covered by an employer-based 
retirement plan. Although two-thirds of middle-aged employees are 
expected to receive some type of employer pension benefit upon 
retirement, the amount of these benefits may not be adequate to offer 
them security. The one-third who are not expected to receive pension 
benefits will be even less secure, forced to continue to work into 
their last years or become a burden on their families or whatever 
social safety net remains.
  Concerns about inadequate pension incomes are heightened by recent 
trends such as the movement away from traditional pension plans toward 
plans which give employees more responsibility for starting, 
maintaining, and investing their own retirement savings accounts. Our 
national public policy needs to understand the implications of this 
evolution and develop effective methods to educate and encourage 
Americans to make responsible investments for their retirements. We 
need to figure out how to encourage more employers to offer good 
pension plans. We need to know what prevents or deters Americans from 
participating in those plans. And we need to assess what government 
policy can do to encourage people to save more.
  The changing nature of our economic world and the workplace 
complicate these tasks. Old solutions may not be effective in today's 
environment of downsizing, outsourcing, and international competition. 
The availability, size, and security of pensions tighten as various 
industries are squeezed by global competition. Compounding the problem 
is the fact that workers anticipate changing jobs much more often in 
the past, so that many will leave each workplace before they have had a 
chance to accumulate a decent pension. Women may feel the pain of this 
problem even more acutely, because more women work part-time or in 
industries with poorer pension benefits, and because women more often 
enter and leave the workforce in order to care for children or elderly 
parents. We need a new approach to retirement policy that surmounts the 
insecurity implicit in our changing economic environment and delivers 
increased availability, security, and portability of decent pensions.
  We also need to recognize how other social changes play a role in 
reducing the opportunity for saving. For instance, the tendency of 
parents to have children later in life means a shorter period of time 
between when the parents become empty-nesters and when they retire. As 
a result, baby boomers and other generations will have less time in 
which to save for their retirement. This problem is further exacerbated 
by dramatic increases in college education expenses.
  While we are making some positive steps toward improving retirement 
security through our efforts to save the social security and health 
care systems, simplify pension laws, and provide increased savings 
incentives, our efforts are piecemeal. Unfortunately, the magnitude of 
the retirement crisis that is descending upon us is too awesome to be 
approached piecemeal. We need to understand how the elements of 
retirement income--private savings, employer-provided pensions, and 
social security--fit together to provide security, as well as how they 
do not. Then, in a comprehensive fashion, we need to consider what 
public policies might strengthen these various elements and provide 
true retirement security for all Americans.
  The Retirement Income Policy Commission which Senator Jeffords and I 
propose will be charged with this critical assignment. Sixteen experts 
from both the public and private sectors--chosen in a bi-partisan 
fashion by the House, Senate, and President--will sit on the panel 
voluntarily, without pay. Together, they will begin to explore the 
dimensions of our savings problem, understand its causes, and recommend 
better government policies to promote retirement security. Within one 
year of beginning their investigations, they will report their findings 
to the President and Congress, and the Commission will be dissolved.
  It would be easy to look the other way as the retirement crisis 
quietly descends upon us, but our responsibilities to our parents, our 
children, and ourselves demand that we do not. Taken alone, the aging 
of the baby boom generation gives urgency to this matter; when these 
demographics are coupled with our low savings rates, inadequate 
pensions, potentially debilitated social security system, and current 
economic and social trends, they harken a disaster. I urge my 
colleagues to support this modest first step toward averting that 
disaster.
  I am pleased that distinguished Senators from both sides of the 
aisle--Nancy Kassebaum, Bob Kerrey, John Chafee, Jeff Bingaman, Bill 
Cohen, and Ron Wyden--are original co-sponsors of the legislation which 
Senator

[[Page S8027]]

Jeffords and I are introducing today. I am also pleased that 
endorsements of this bill or the very similar House companion bill have 
been made by the American Society of Pension Actuaries, the American 
Council of Life Insurance, the American Association of Engineering 
Societies, the National Defined Contribution Council, the Society for 
Human Resource Management, the American Institute of Chemical 
Engineers, and AT&T. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of 
endorsement be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           American Council of Life Insurance,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 1996.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Earl: On behalf of the member companies of the 
     American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI), I want to applaud 
     you for introducing H.R. 3077, the ``Commission on Retirement 
     Income Policy Act of 1996''. Our members strongly support 
     this legislation, which will establish a commission to review 
     and study trends in retirement savings and Federal incentives 
     that encourage and protect such savings.
       As you may know, the life insurance industry manages more 
     than one-third of the assets held in private pension plans 
     today which represents $750 billion in pension assets. With 
     such a large commitment to the retirement security of 
     millions of Americans, our industry is vitally concerned with 
     issues affecting the continued viability and expansion of our 
     retirement system.
       Demographic, economic, social and political factors will 
     continue to play a significant role in the financial security 
     of future retirees. The ``coming of age'' of the baby boom 
     generation, the shift in business to smaller service 
     companies, the increasing prevalence of two income families 
     and the financial uncertainties underlying the current 
     structure of Social Security will necessitate a reassessment 
     of our current approaches to retirement income savings. A 
     rational national retirement income policy must be developed, 
     communicated and supported so that resources can be allocated 
     most efficiently, ensuring that each American can have a 
     financially secure retirement.
       It is imperative to promote a framework in which Americans 
     can enjoy a dignified and financially secure retirement. We 
     believe your legislation can help develop that framework. 
     Accordingly, we applaud the leadership role you have 
     undertaken on this important issue and we would encourage 
     your colleagues to co-sponsor the bill. Please do not 
     hesitate to call on the ACLI for support to help enact the 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
                                                                    ____

                                           American Association of


                                        Engineering Societies,

                                    Washington DC, April 26, 1996.
     Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Abercrombie: I am writing on behalf of 
     the American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) to 
     request that your consider co-sponsoring H.R. 3077, which 
     provides for the establishment of the Commission on 
     Retirement Income Policy. The bill was introduced by 
     Representative Earl Pomeroy and Representative Nancy Johnson. 
     A summary of the bill's provisions is attached.
       AAES is a multidisciplinary organization of 28 engineering 
     and scientific societies whose more than 800,000 members are 
     dedicated to advancing the knowledge, understanding, and 
     practice of engineering in the public interest. The AAES 
     December 1994 Statement on Retirement Income Policy called 
     for a commission on retirement income policy.
       AAES is committed to improving opportunities for engineers 
     and other workers to earn retirement income that will enable 
     them to remain economically secure at the conclusion of their 
     working lives. As the 21st century approaches, demographic 
     and economic changes are imposing severe strains on the 
     nation's retirement income delivery system. For most workers, 
     including engineers, career-long employment with one company 
     is a thing of the past. Members of the U.S. work force now 
     experience periodic unemployment, frequent job changes, and 
     increasing reliance on part-time, temporary, or contract 
     employment, which affect their current livelihood, and their 
     future retirement income security.
       AAES believes that the Commission on Retirement Income 
     Policy would give national focus to this crucial issue and 
     would contribute to a fiscally responsible effort to resolve 
     retirement security problems.
       We hope you will co-sponsor and work for active 
     consideration of H.R. 3077. Thank you very much for your 
     attention and interest.
           Sincerely,
                                                     E.L. Cussler,
     1996 AAES Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                                  National Defined


                                         Contribution Council,

                                         Denver, CO, May 13, 1996.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pomeroy: On behalf of the National Defined 
     Contribution Council (``NDCC''), I am writing to applaud your 
     leadership on retirement savings issues and support your 
     efforts to establish a commission on retirement income 
     policy.
       The NDCC fully supports H.R. 3077, ``The Commission on 
     Retirement Income Policy Act of 1996'' and looks forward to 
     working with you and other members of Congress on its 
     passage.
       The NDCC is a national organization dedicated to the 
     promotion and protection of the defined contribution 
     industry. It has been organized specifically for plan service 
     providers and focuses on public policy analysis, legislative 
     advocacy and educating the public on the need for retirement 
     savings.
       The NDCC commends you on your recent proposal to create a 
     commission charged with studying policies to help improve 
     Americans' economic security during retirement. Please feel 
     free to call on us in this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                               Mary Rudie Barneby,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Society for Human


                                         Resources Management,

                                                     July 3, 1996.
     Hon. Nancy Johnson,
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Johnson and Pomeroy: On behalf of the 
     Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, I am writing to 
     enthusiastically endorse H.R. 3077, The Commission on 
     Retirement Income Policy Act of 1996. SHRM is the leading 
     voice of the human resource profession, representing the 
     interests of more than 70,000 professional and student 
     members from around the world.
       Today most individuals are able to retire comfortably. On 
     average, workers retire earlier and live longer than in the 
     past. However, a number of trends in the economy and 
     workplace suggest that it will become increasingly difficult 
     for American workers to meet their needs for adequate 
     retirement income. The U.S. population is aging rapidly and 
     the elderly live longer. The retirement of the baby boom 
     generation will impose severe pressure on Social Security, 
     Medicare and Medicaid. It is clear that a coordinated 
     strategy is needed.
       That is why H.R. 3077 is so critical. The establishment of 
     the Commission on Retirement Income Policy would give 
     Congress access to the research and recommendations of 
     experts so that America can meet the challenges ahead. This 
     bipartisan legislation should be cosponsored and actively 
     supported by all members of Congress.
       Thank you for introducing this key legislation. SHRM looks 
     forward to working with you to see H.R. 3077 considered and 
     passed in 1996.
           Sincerely,
                                           Michael R. Losey, SPHR,
     President & CEO.
                                                                    ____



                                                         AT&T,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pomeroy: As you are aware, AT&T has a 
     strong interest in its employees and the manner in which they 
     are, or will be, provided for in retirement. Because of our 
     interest in these matters, we were extremely pleased to see 
     the legislation which you and Congresswoman Nancy Johnson 
     have introduced in the House (H.R. 3077). It is our 
     understanding that the legislation, if passed, would 
     establish a commission for the purpose of studying how to 
     best deal with the future retirement needs of this country. 
     The commission, in turn, would issue its findings and 
     recommendations to both the President and Congress by the end 
     of 1997.
       AT&T believes that proper planning for the financial needs 
     of retirement and the safeguarding of the retirement savings 
     of U.S. workers is extremely important, and strongly supports 
     your and Rep. Johnson's efforts in introducing and moving 
     H.R. 3077 forward. We urge your House colleagues to co-
     sponsor this important legislation and to work with us to 
     achieve its swift passage.
           Sincerely,

                                          Thomas R. Berkelman,

                                                         Director,
     Federal Government Affairs.

                          ____________________