[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.
____________________