[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 30919-30930]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DETERMINED AND FULL ENGAGEMENT AGAINST THE THREAT OF METHAMPHETAMINE OR 
                        DEFEAT METH ACT OF 1999

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 260, S. 
486.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 486) to provide for the punishment of 
     methamphetamine laboratory operators, provide additional 
     resources to combat methamphetamine production, trafficking, 
     and abuse in the United States, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an 
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 
thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Methamphetamine Anti-
     Proliferation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ENHANCED PUNISHMENT OF AMPHETAMINE LABORATORY 
                   OPERATORS.

       (a) Amendment to Federal Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant 
     to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United 
     States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall 
     amend the Federal sentencing guidelines in accordance with 
     this section with respect to any offense relating to the 
     manufacture, importation, exportation, or trafficking in 
     amphetamine (including an attempt or conspiracy to do any of 
     the foregoing) in violation of--
       (1) the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.);
       (2) the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 951 et seq.); or
       (3) the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1901 et seq.).
       (b) General Requirement.--In carrying out this section, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall, with respect to 
     each offense described in subsection (a) relating to 
     amphetamine--
       (1) review and amend its guidelines to provide for 
     increased penalties such that those penalties are comparable 
     to the base offense level for methamphetamine; and
       (2) take any other action the Commission considers 
     necessary to carry out this subsection.

[[Page 30920]]

       (c) Additional Requirements.--In carrying out this section, 
     the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that the 
     sentencing guidelines for offenders convicted of offenses 
     described in subsection (a) reflect the heinous nature of 
     such offenses, the need for aggressive law enforcement action 
     to fight such offenses, and the extreme dangers associated 
     with unlawful activity involving amphetamines, including--
       (1) the rapidly growing incidence of amphetamine abuse and 
     the threat to public safety that such abuse poses;
       (2) the high risk of amphetamine addiction;
       (3) the increased risk of violence associated with 
     amphetamine trafficking and abuse; and
       (4) the recent increase in the illegal importation of 
     amphetamine and precursor chemicals.
       (d) Emergency Authority to Sentencing Commission.--The 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
     amendments pursuant to this section as soon as practicable 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act in accordance 
     with the procedure set forth in section 21(a) of the 
     Sentencing Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-182), as though the 
     authority under that Act had not expired.

     SEC. 3. ADVERTISEMENTS FOR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA AND SCHEDULE I 
                   CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

       (a) Drug Paraphernalia.--Section 422 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 863) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``, directly or 
     indirectly advertise for sale,'' after ``sell''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) In this section, the term `directly or indirectly 
     advertise for sale' includes the use of any communication 
     facility (as that term is defined in section 403(b)) to 
     initiate the posting, publicizing, transmitting, publishing, 
     linking to, broadcasting, or other advertising of any matter 
     (including a telephone number or electronic or mail address) 
     knowing that such matter has the purpose of seeking or 
     offering, or is designed to be used, to receive, buy, 
     distribute, or otherwise facilitate a transaction in.''.
       (b) Schedule I Controlled Substances.--Section 403(c) of 
     such Act (21 U.S.C. 843(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``, or to directly or indirectly advertise for 
     sale (as that term is defined in section 422(g)) any Schedule 
     I controlled substance''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``term 
     `advertisement' '' and inserting ``term `written 
     advertisement' ''.

     SEC. 4. MANDATORY RESTITUTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONTROLLED 
                   SUBSTANCES ACT AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IMPORT 
                   AND EXPORT ACT RELATING TO AMPHETAMINE AND 
                   METHAMPHETAMINE.

       (a) Mandatory Restitution.--Section 413(q) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(q)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``may'' and inserting ``shall'';
       (2) by inserting ``amphetamine or'' before 
     ``methamphetamine'' each place it appears; and
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``, the State or local government 
     concerned, or both the United States and the State or local 
     government concerned'' after ``United States'' the first 
     place it appears; and
       (B) by inserting ``or the State or local government 
     concerned, as the case may be,'' after ``United States'' the 
     second place it appears.
       (b) Deposit of Amounts in Department of Justice Assets 
     Forfeiture Fund.--Section 524(c)(4) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) all amounts collected--
       ``(i) by the United States pursuant to a reimbursement 
     order under paragraph (2) of section 413(q) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(q)); and
       ``(ii) pursuant to a restitution order under paragraph (1) 
     or (3) of section 413(q) of the Controlled Substances Act for 
     injuries to the United States.''.

     SEC. 5. CRIMINAL PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN 
                   INFORMATION RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE OF 
                   CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--Part I of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after chapter 21 the following new 
     chapter:

                  ``CHAPTER 22--CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

``Sec.
``421. Distribution of information relating to manufacture of 
              controlled substances.

     ``Sec. 421. Distribution of information relating to 
       manufacture of controlled substances

       ``(a) Prohibition on Distribution of Information Relating 
     to Manufacture of Controlled Substances.--
       ``(1) Controlled substance defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `controlled substance' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802(6)).
       ``(2) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
       ``(A) to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a 
     controlled substance, or to distribute by any means 
     information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the 
     manufacture or use of a controlled substance, with the intent 
     that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, 
     or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal 
     crime; or
       ``(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture 
     of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person, by 
     any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, 
     the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, knowing 
     that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, 
     or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that 
     constitutes a Federal crime.
       ``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a) 
     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 
     years, or both.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 21 
     the following new item:

``22. Controlled Substances..................................421''.....

     SEC. 6. NOTICE; CLARIFICATION.

       (a) Notice of Issuance.--Section 3103a of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``With respect to any issuance under this 
     section or any other provision of law (including section 3117 
     and any rule), any notice required, or that may be required, 
     to be given may be delayed pursuant to the standards, terms, 
     and conditions set forth in section 2705, unless otherwise 
     expressly provided by statute.''.
       (b) Clarification.--(1) Section 2(e) of Public Law 95-78 
     (91 Stat. 320) is amended by adding at the end the following:
     ``Subdivision (d) of such rule, as in effect on this date, is 
     amended by inserting `tangible' before `property' each place 
     it occurs.''.
       (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. TRAINING FOR DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION AND 
                   STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL 
                   RELATING TO CLANDESTINE LABORATORIES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration shall carry out the programs described in 
     subsection (b) with respect to the law enforcement personnel 
     of States and localities determined by the Administrator to 
     have significant levels of methamphetamine-related or 
     amphetamine-related crime or projected by the Administrator 
     to have the potential for such levels of crime in the future.
       (2) Duration.--The duration of any program under that 
     subsection may not exceed 3 years.
       (b) Covered Programs.--The programs described in this 
     subsection are as follows:
       (1) Advanced mobile clandestine laboratory training 
     teams.--A program of advanced mobile clandestine laboratory 
     training teams, which shall provide information and training 
     to State and local law enforcement personnel in techniques 
     utilized in conducting undercover investigations and 
     conspiracy cases, and other information designed to assist in 
     the investigation of the illegal manufacturing and 
     trafficking of amphetamine and methamphetamine.
       (2) Basic clandestine laboratory certification training.--A 
     program of basic clandestine laboratory certification 
     training, which shall provide information and training--
       (A) to Drug Enforcement Administration personnel and State 
     and local law enforcement personnel for purposes of enabling 
     such personnel to meet any certification requirements under 
     law with respect to the handling of wastes created by illegal 
     amphetamine and methamphetamine laboratories; and
       (B) to State and local law enforcement personnel for 
     purposes of enabling such personnel to provide the 
     information and training covered by subparagraph (A) to other 
     State and local law enforcement personnel.
       (3) Clandestine laboratory recertification and awareness 
     training.--A program of clandestine laboratory 
     recertification and awareness training, which shall provide 
     information and training to State and local law enforcement 
     personnel for purposes of enabling such personnel to provide 
     recertification and awareness training relating to 
     clandestine laboratories to additional State and local law 
     enforcement personnel.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 
     2002 amounts as follows:
       (1) $1,500,000 to carry out the program described in 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (2) $3,000,000 to carry out the program described in 
     subsection (b)(2).
       (3) $1,000,000 to carry out the program described in 
     subsection (b)(3).

     SEC. 8. COMBATTING METHAMPHETAMINE AND AMPHETAMINE IN HIGH 
                   INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of National Drug Control 
     Policy shall use amounts available under this section to 
     combat the trafficking of methamphetamine and amphetamine in 
     areas designated by the Director as high intensity drug 
     trafficking areas.
       (2) Activities.--In meeting the requirement in paragraph 
     (1), the Director shall provide funds for--
       (A) employing additional Federal law enforcement personnel, 
     or facilitating the employment of additional State and local 
     law enforcement personnel, including agents, investigators, 
     prosecutors, laboratory technicians, chemists, investigative 
     assistants, and drug-prevention specialists; and

[[Page 30921]]

       (B) such other activities as the Director considers 
     appropriate.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2004.
       (c) Apportionment of Funds.--
       (1) Factors in apportionment.--The Director shall apportion 
     amounts appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in subsection (b) for 
     activities under subsection (a) among and within areas 
     designated by the Director as high intensity drug trafficking 
     areas based on the following factors:
       (A) The number of methamphetamine manufacturing facilities 
     and amphetamine manufacturing facilities discovered by 
     Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials in the 
     previous fiscal year.
       (B) The number of methamphetamine prosecutions and 
     amphetamine prosecutions in Federal, State, or local courts 
     in the previous fiscal year.
       (C) The number of methamphetamine arrests and amphetamine 
     arrests by Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials 
     in the previous fiscal year.
       (D) The amounts of methamphetamine, amphetamine, or listed 
     chemicals (as that term is defined in section 102(33) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(33)) seized by 
     Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials in the 
     previous fiscal year.
       (E) Intelligence and predictive data from the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration and the Department of Health and 
     Human Services showing patterns and trends in abuse, 
     trafficking, and transportation in methamphetamine, 
     amphetamine, and listed chemicals (as that term is so 
     defined).
       (2) Certification.--Before the Director apportions any 
     funds under this subsection to a high intensity drug 
     trafficking area, the Director shall certify that the law 
     enforcement entities responsible for clandestine 
     methamphetamine and amphetamine laboratory seizures in that 
     area are providing laboratory seizure data to the national 
     clandestine laboratory database at the El Paso Intelligence 
     Center.
       (d) Limitation on Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 
     percent of the amount appropriated in a fiscal year pursuant 
     to the authorization of appropriations for that fiscal year 
     in subsection (b) may be available in that fiscal year for 
     administrative costs associated with activities under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 9. COMBATING AMPHETAMINE AND METHAMPHETAMINE 
                   MANUFACTURING AND TRAFFICKING.

       (a) Activities.--In order to combat the illegal 
     manufacturing and trafficking in amphetamine and 
     methamphetamine, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration may--
       (1) assist State and local law enforcement in small and 
     mid-sized communities in all phases of investigations related 
     to such manufacturing and trafficking, including assistance 
     with foreign-language interpretation;
       (2) staff additional regional enforcement and mobile 
     enforcement teams related to such manufacturing and 
     trafficking;
       (3) establish additional resident offices and posts of duty 
     to assist State and local law enforcement in rural areas in 
     combating such manufacturing and trafficking;
       (4) provide the Special Operations Division of the 
     Administration with additional agents and staff to collect, 
     evaluate, interpret, and disseminate critical intelligence 
     targeting the command and control operations of major 
     amphetamine and methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking 
     organizations; and
       (5) carry out such other activities as the Administrator 
     considers appropriate.
       (b) Additional Positions and Personnel.--In carrying out 
     activities under subsection (a), the Administrator may 
     establish in the Administration not more than 50 full-time 
     positions, including not more than 31 special-agent 
     positions, and may appoint personnel to such positions.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for the Drug Enforcement Administration 
     for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1999, $6,500,000 for 
     purposes of carrying out the activities authorized by 
     subsection (a) and employing personnel in positions 
     established under subsection (b).

     SEC. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH ILLEGAL 
                   MANUFACTURE OF AMPHETAMINE AND METHAMPHETAMINE.

       (a) Use of Amounts or Department of Justice Assets 
     Forfeiture Fund.--Section 524(c)(1)(E) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i) for'' before ``disbursements'';
       (2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) for payment for--
       ``(I) costs incurred by or on behalf of the Department of 
     Justice in connection with the removal, for purposes of 
     Federal forfeiture and disposition, of any hazardous 
     substance or pollutant or contaminant associated with the 
     illegal manufacture of amphetamine or methamphetamine; and
       ``(II) costs incurred by or on behalf of a State or local 
     government in connection with such removal in any case in 
     which such State or local government has assisted in a 
     Federal prosecution relating to amphetamine or 
     methamphetamine, to the extent such costs exceed equitable 
     sharing payments made to such State or local government in 
     such case;''.
       (b) Grants Under Drug Control and System Improvement Grant 
     Program.--Section 501(b)(3) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``and to remove any hazardous 
     substance or pollutant or contaminant associated with the 
     illegal manufacture of amphetamine or methamphetamine''.
       (c) Amounts Supplement and Not Supplant.--
       (1) Assets forfeiture fund.--Any amounts made available 
     from the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund in a 
     fiscal year by reason of the amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall supplement, and not supplant, any other amounts made 
     available to the Department of Justice in such fiscal year 
     from other sources for payment of costs described in section 
     524(c)(1)(E)(ii) of title 28, United States Code, as so 
     amended.
       (2) Grant program.--Any amounts made available in a fiscal 
     year under the grant program under section 501(b)(3) of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 for the 
     removal of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants 
     associated with the illegal manufacture of amphetamine or 
     methamphetamine by reason of the amendment made by subsection 
     (b) shall supplement, and not supplant, any other amounts 
     made available in such fiscal year from other sources for 
     such removal.

     SEC. 11. ANTIDRUG MESSAGES ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTERNET 
                   WEBSITES.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the head of each department, agency, and 
     establishment of the Federal Government shall, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy, place antidrug messages on appropriate 
     Internet websites controlled by such department, agency, or 
     establishment which messages shall, where appropriate, 
     contain an electronic hyperlink to the Internet website, if 
     any, of the Office.

     SEC. 12. MAIL ORDER REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 310(b)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 830(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so 
     redesignated, the following new subparagraph (A):
       ``(A) As used in this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `drug product' means an active ingredient in 
     dosage form that has been approved or otherwise may be 
     lawfully marketed under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for 
     distribution in the United States.
       ``(ii) The term `valid prescription' means a prescription 
     which is issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an 
     individual practitioner licensed by law to administer and 
     prescribe the drugs concerned and acting in the usual course 
     of the practitioner's professional practice.'';
       (3) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``or who engages in an export transaction'' after 
     ``nonregulated person''; and
       (4) adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Except as provided in subparagraph (E), the following 
     distributions to a nonregulated person, and the following 
     export transactions, shall not be subject to the reporting 
     requirement in subparagraph (B):
       ``(i) Distributions of sample packages of drug products 
     when such packages contain not more than 2 solid dosage units 
     or the equivalent of 2 dosage units in liquid form, not to 
     exceed 10 milliliters of liquid per package, and not more 
     than one package is distributed to an individual or 
     residential address in any 30-day period.
       ``(ii) Distributions of drug products by retail 
     distributors that may not include face-to-face transactions 
     to the extent that such distributions are consistent with the 
     activities authorized for a retail distributor as specified 
     in section 102(46).
       ``(iii) Distributions of drug products to a resident of a 
     long term care facility (as that term is defined in 
     regulations prescribed by the Attorney General) or 
     distributions of drug products to a long term care facility 
     for dispensing to or for use by a resident of that facility.
       ``(iv) Distributions of drug products pursuant to a valid 
     prescription.
       ``(v) Exports which have been reported to the Attorney 
     General pursuant to section 1004 or 1018 or which are subject 
     to a waiver granted under section 1018(e)(2).
       ``(vi) Any quantity, method, or type of distribution or any 
     quantity, method, or type of distribution of a specific 
     listed chemical (including specific formulations or drug 
     products) or of a group of listed chemicals (including 
     specific formulations or drug products) which the Attorney 
     General has excluded by regulation from such reporting 
     requirement on the basis that such reporting is not necessary 
     for the enforcement of this title or title III.
       ``(E) The Attorney General may revoke any or all of the 
     exemptions listed in subparagraph (D) for an individual 
     regulated person if he finds that drug products distributed 
     by the regulated person are being used in violation of this 
     title or title III. The regulated person shall be notified of 
     the revocation, which will be effective upon receipt by the 
     person of such notice, as provided in section 1018(c)(1), and 
     shall have the right to an expedited hearing as provided in 
     section 1018(c)(2).''.

[[Page 30922]]



     SEC. 13. THEFT AND TRANSPORTATION OF ANHYDROUS AMMONIA FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF ILLICIT PRODUCTION OF CONTROLLED 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--Part D of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:


                          ``anhydrous ammonia

       ``Sec. 423 (a) It is unlawful for any person--
       ``(1) to steal anhydrous ammonia, or
       ``(2) to transport stolen anhydrous ammonia across State 
     lines,
     knowing, intending, or having reasonable cause to believe 
     that such anhydrous ammonia will be used to manufacture a 
     controlled substance in violation of this part.
       ``(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be 
     imprisoned or fined, or both, in accordance with section 
     403(d) as if such violation were a violation of a provision 
     of section 403.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for that Act 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     421 the following new items:

``Sec. 422. Drug paraphernalia.
``Sec. 423. Anhydrous ammonia.''.

       (c) Assistance for Certain Research.--
       (1) Agreement.--The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration shall seek to enter into an agreement with 
     Iowa State University in order to permit the University to 
     continue and expand its current research into the development 
     of inert agents that, when added to anhydrous ammonia, 
     eliminate the usefulness of anhydrous ammonia as an 
     ingredient in the production of methamphetamine.
       (2) Reimbursable provision of funds.--The agreement under 
     paragraph (1) may provide for the provision to Iowa State 
     University, on a reimbursable basis, of $500,000 for purposes 
     the activities specified in that paragraph.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration for fiscal year 2000, $500,000 for purposes of 
     carrying out the agreement under this subsection.

     SEC. 14. REPORT ON METHAMPHETAMINE CONSUMPTION IN RURAL 
                   AREAS, SUBURBAN AREAS, SMALL CITIES, MIDSIZE 
                   CITIES, AND LARGE CITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall submit to the designated committees of Congress on an 
     annual basis a report on the problems caused by 
     methamphetamine consumption in rural areas, suburban areas, 
     small cities, midsize cities, and large cities.
       (b) Concerns Addressed.--Each report submitted under this 
     section shall include an analysis of--
       (1) the manner in which methamphetamine consumption in 
     rural areas differs from methamphetamine consumption in areas 
     with larger populations, and the means by which to accurately 
     measure those differences;
       (2) the incidence of methamphetamine abuse in rural areas 
     and the treatment resources available to deal with 
     methamphetamine addiction in those areas;
       (3) any relationship between methamphetamine consumption in 
     rural areas and a lack of substance abuse treatment in those 
     areas; and
       (4) any relationship between geographic differences in the 
     availability of substance abuse treatment and the geographic 
     distribution of the methamphetamine abuse problem in the 
     United States.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``designated committees of Congress'' means 
     the following:
       (A) The Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of 
     the Senate.
       (B) The Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (2) The term ``large city'' means any city that is not a 
     small city or a midsize city.
       (3) The term ``midsize city'' means a city with a 
     population under 250,000 and over 20,000.
       (4) The term ``rural area'' means a county or parish with a 
     population under 50,000.
       (5) The term ``small city'' means a city with a population 
     under 20,000.

     SEC. 15. EXPANSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE ABUSE PREVENTION 
                   EFFORTS.

       (a) Expansion of Efforts.--Section 515 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-21) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(e)(1) The Administrator may make grants to and enter 
     into contracts and cooperative agreements with public and 
     nonprofit private entities to enable such entities--
       ``(A) to carry out school-based programs concerning the 
     dangers of abuse of and addiction to methamphetamine and 
     other illicit drugs, using methods that are effective and 
     science-based, including initiatives that give students the 
     responsibility to create their own anti-drug abuse education 
     programs for their schools; and
       ``(B) to carry out community-based abuse and addiction 
     prevention programs relating to methamphetamine and other 
     illicit drugs that are effective and science-based.
       ``(2) Amounts made available under a grant, contract or 
     cooperative agreement under paragraph (1) shall be used for 
     planning, establishing, or administering prevention programs 
     relating to methamphetamine and other illicit drugs in 
     accordance with paragraph (3).
       ``(3)(A) Amounts provided under this subsection may be 
     used--
       ``(i) to carry out school-based programs that are focused 
     on those districts with high or increasing rates of 
     methamphetamine abuse and addiction and targeted at 
     populations which are most at risk to start abuse of 
     methamphetamine and other illicit drugs;
       ``(ii) to carry out community-based prevention programs 
     that are focused on those populations within the community 
     that are most at-risk for abuse of and addiction to 
     methamphetamine and other illicit drugs;
       ``(iii) to assist local government entities to conduct 
     appropriate prevention activities relating to methamphetamine 
     and other illicit drugs;
       ``(iv) to train and educate State and local law enforcement 
     officials, prevention and education officials, members of 
     community anti-drug coalitions and parents on the signs of 
     abuse of and addiction to methamphetamine and other illicit 
     drugs, and the options for treatment and prevention;
       ``(v) for planning, administration, and educational 
     activities related to the prevention of abuse of and 
     addiction to methamphetamine and other illicit drugs;
       ``(vi) for the monitoring and evaluation of prevention 
     activities relating to methamphetamine and other illicit 
     drugs, and reporting and disseminating resulting information 
     to the public; and
       ``(vii) for targeted pilot programs with evaluation 
     components to encourage innovation and experimentation with 
     new methodologies.
       ``(B) The Administrator shall give priority in making 
     grants under this subsection to rural and urban areas that 
     are experiencing a high rate or rapid increases in 
     methamphetamine abuse and addiction.
       ``(4)(A) Not less than $500,000 of the amount available in 
     each fiscal year to carry out this subsection shall be made 
     available to the Administrator, acting in consultation with 
     other Federal agencies, to support and conduct periodic 
     analyses and evaluations of effective prevention programs for 
     abuse of and addiction to methamphetamine and other illicit 
     drugs and the development of appropriate strategies for 
     disseminating information about and implementing these 
     programs.
       ``(B) The Administrator shall submit to the committees of 
     Congress referred to in subparagraph (C) an annual report 
     with the results of the analyses and evaluation under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) The committees of Congress referred to in this 
     subparagraph are the following:
       ``(i) The Committees on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the Senate.
       ``(ii) The Committees on Commerce, the Judiciary, and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations for Expansion of Abuse 
     Prevention Efforts and Practitioner Registration 
     Requirements.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out section 515(e) of the Public Health Service Act (as 
     added by subsection (a)) and section 303(g)(2) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (as added by section 18(a) of this 
     Act), $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.

     SEC. 16. EXPANSION OF METHAMPHETAMINE RESEARCH.

       Section 464N of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     285o-2) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Methamphetamine Research.--
       ``(1) Grants or cooperative agreements.--The Director of 
     the Institute may make grants or enter into cooperative 
     agreements to expand the current and on-going 
     interdisciplinary research and clinical trials with treatment 
     centers of the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials 
     Network relating to methamphetamine abuse and addiction and 
     other biomedical, behavioral, and social issues related to 
     methamphetamine abuse and addiction.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Amounts made available under a grant 
     or cooperative agreement under paragraph (1) for 
     methamphetamine abuse and addiction may be used for research 
     and clinical trials relating to--
       ``(A) the effects of methamphetamine abuse on the human 
     body, including the brain;
       ``(B) the addictive nature of methamphetamine and how such 
     effects differ with respect to different individuals;
       ``(C) the connection between methamphetamine abuse and 
     mental health;
       ``(D) the identification and evaluation of the most 
     effective methods of prevention of methamphetamine abuse and 
     addiction;
       ``(E) the identification and development of the most 
     effective methods of treatment of methamphetamine addiction, 
     including pharmacological treatments;
       ``(F) risk factors for methamphetamine abuse;
       ``(G) effects of methamphetamine abuse and addiction on 
     pregnant women and their fetuses;
       ``(H) cultural, social, behavioral, neurological and 
     psychological reasons that individuals abuse methamphetamine, 
     or refrain from abusing methamphetamine.
       ``(3) Research results.--The Director shall promptly 
     disseminate research results under this subsection to 
     Federal, State and local entities involved in combating 
     methamphetamine abuse and addiction.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(A) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out paragraph (1), such sums as 
     may be necessary for each fiscal year.
       ``(B) Supplement not supplant.--Amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in 
     subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year shall supplement and not 
     supplant any other amounts appropriated in such fiscal year 
     for research on methamphetamine abuse and addiction.''.

[[Page 30923]]



     SEC. 17. STUDY OF METHAMPHETAMINE TREATMENT.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall, in consultation with the Institute of 
     Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, conduct a study 
     on the development of medications for the treatment of 
     addiction to amphetamine and methamphetamine.
       (2) Report.--Not later than nine months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives a report on the results of the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Health 
     and Human Services for fiscal year 2000 such sums as may be 
     necessary to meet the requirements of subsection (a).

     SEC. 18. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PRACTITIONERS WHO 
                   DISPENSE CERTAIN NARCOTIC DRUGS FOR MAINTENANCE 
                   TREATMENT OR DETOXIFICATION TREATMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 303(g) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(A) security'' and 
     inserting ``(i) security'', and by striking ``(B) the 
     maintenance'' and inserting ``(ii) the maintenance'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively;
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)'';
       (4) by striking ``Practitioners who dispense'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     practitioners who dispense''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (D) and (G), the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) are waived in the case of the 
     prescribing or dispensing, by a practitioner, of narcotic 
     drugs in schedule IV or V or combinations of such drugs if 
     the practitioner meets the conditions specified in 
     subparagraph (B) and the narcotic drugs or combinations of 
     such drugs meet the conditions specified in subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the conditions 
     specified in this subparagraph with respect to a practitioner 
     are that, before prescribing of dispensing narcotic drugs in 
     schedule IV or V, or combinations of such drugs, to patients 
     for maintenance or detoxification treatment, the practitioner 
     submit to the Secretary a notification of the intent of the 
     practitioner to begin dispensing the drugs or combinations 
     for such purpose, and that the notification contain the 
     following certifications by the practitioner:
       ``(i) The practitioner is a physician licensed under State 
     law, and the practitioner has demonstrable training or 
     experience and the ability to treat and manage opiate-
     dependent patients.
       ``(ii) With respect to patients to whom the practitioner 
     will provide such drugs or combinations of drugs, the 
     practitioner has the demonstrated capacity to refer the 
     patients for appropriate counseling and other appropriate 
     ancillary services.
       ``(iii) In any case in which the practitioner is not in a 
     group practice, the total number of such patients of the 
     practitioner at any one time will not exceed the applicable 
     number. For purposes of this clause, the applicable number is 
     20, except that the Secretary may by regulation change such 
     total number.
       ``(iv) In any case in which the practitioner is in a group 
     practice, the total number of such patients of the group 
     practice at any one time will not exceed the applicable 
     number. For purposes of this clause, the applicable number is 
     20, except that the Secretary may by regulation change such 
     total number, and the Secretary for such purposes may by 
     regulation establish different categories on the basis of the 
     number of practitioners in a group practice and establish for 
     the various categories different numerical limitations on the 
     number of such patients that the group practice may have.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the conditions 
     specified in this subparagraph with respect to narcotic drugs 
     in schedule IV or V or combinations of such drugs are as 
     follows:
       ``(i) The drugs or combinations of drugs have, under the 
     Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or section 351 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, been approved for use in 
     maintenance or detoxification treatment.
       ``(ii) The drugs or combinations of drugs have not been the 
     subject of an adverse determination. For purposes of this 
     clause, an adverse determination is a determination published 
     in the Federal Register and made by the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the Attorney General, that the use of the 
     drugs or combinations of drugs for maintenance or 
     detoxification treatment requires additional standards 
     respecting the qualifications of practitioners to provide 
     such treatment, or requires standards respecting the 
     quantities of the drugs that may be provided for unsupervised 
     use.
       ``(D)(i) A waiver under subparagraph (A) with respect to a 
     practitioner is not in effect unless (in addition to 
     conditions under subparagraphs (B) and (C)) the following 
     conditions are met:
       ``(I) The notification under subparagraph (B) is in writing 
     and states the name of the practitioner.
       ``(II) The notification identifies the registration issued 
     for the practitioner pursuant to subsection (f).
       ``(III) If the practitioner is a member of a group 
     practice, the notification states the names of the other 
     practitioners in the practice and identifies the 
     registrations issued for the other practitioners pursuant to 
     subsection (f).
       ``(IV) A period of 45 days has elapsed after the date on 
     which the notification was submitted, and during such period 
     the practitioner does not receive from the Secretary a 
     written notice that one or more of the conditions specified 
     in subparagraph (B), subparagraph (C), or this subparagraph, 
     have not been met.
       ``(ii) The Secretary shall provide to the Attorney General 
     such information contained in notifications under 
     subparagraph (B) as the Attorney General may request.
       ``(E) If in violation of subparagraph (A) a practitioner 
     dispenses narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V or combinations 
     of such drugs for maintenance treatment or detoxification 
     treatment, the Attorney General may, for purposes of section 
     304(a)(4), consider the practitioner to have committed an act 
     that renders the registration of the practitioner pursuant to 
     subsection (f) to be inconsistent with the public interest.
       ``(F) In this paragraph, the term `group practice' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1877(h)(4) of the Social 
     Security Act.
       ``(G)(i) This paragraph takes effect on the date of 
     enactment of the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 
     1999, and remains in effect thereafter except as provided in 
     clause (iii) (relating to a decision by the Secretary or the 
     Attorney General that this paragraph should not remain in 
     effect).
       ``(ii) For the purposes relating to clause (iii), the 
     Secretary and the Attorney General shall, during the 3-year 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of the 
     Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999, make 
     determinations in accordance with the following:
       ``(I)(aa) The Secretary shall--
       ``(aaa) make a determination of whether treatments provided 
     under waivers under subparagraph (A) have been effective 
     forms of maintenance treatment and detoxification treatment 
     in clinical settings;
       ``(bbb) make a determination regarding whether such waivers 
     have significantly increased (relative to the beginning of 
     such period) the availability of maintenance treatment and 
     detoxification treatment; and
       ``(ccc) make a determination regarding whether such waivers 
     have adverse consequences for the public health.
       ``(bb) In making determinations under this subclause, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(aa) may collect data from the practitioners for whom 
     waivers under subparagraph (A) are in effect;
       ``(bb) shall issue appropriate guidelines or regulations 
     (in accordance with procedures for substantive rules under 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code) specifying the 
     scope of the data that will be required to be provided under 
     this subclause and the means through which the data will be 
     collected;
       ``(cc) shall, with respect to collecting such data, comply 
     with applicable provisions of chapter 6 of title 5, United 
     States Code (relating to a regulatory flexibility analysis), 
     and of chapter 8 of such title (relating to congressional 
     review of agency rulemaking); and
       ``(dd) shall make a determination regarding whether such 
     waivers have adverse consequences for the public health.
       ``(II) The Attorney General shall--
       ``(aa) make a determination of the extent to which there 
     have been violations of the numerical limitations established 
     under subparagraph (B) for the number of individuals to whom 
     a practitioner may provide treatment; and
       ``(bb) make a determination regarding whether waivers under 
     subparagraph (A) have increased (relative to the beginning of 
     such period) the extent to which narcotic drugs in schedule 
     IV or V or combinations of such drugs are being dispensed or 
     possessed in violation of this Act.
       ``(iii) If, before the expiration of the period specified 
     in clause (ii), the Secretary or the Attorney General 
     publishes in the Federal Register a decision, made on the 
     basis of determinations under such clause, that this 
     paragraph should not remain in effect, this paragraph ceases 
     to be in effect 60 days after the date on which the decision 
     is so published. The Secretary shall, in making any such 
     decision, consult with the Attorney General, and shall, in 
     publishing the decision in the Federal Register, include any 
     comments received from the Attorney General for inclusion in 
     the publication. The Attorney General shall, in making any 
     such decision, consult with the Secretary, and shall, in 
     publishing the decision in the Federal Register, include any 
     comments received from the Secretary for inclusion in the 
     publication.
       ``(H) During the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act 1999, 
     a State may not preclude a practitioner from dispensing 
     narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V, or combinations of such 
     drugs, to patients for maintenance or detoxification 
     treatment in accordance with this paragraph, or the other 
     amendments made by section 22 of that Act, unless, before the 
     expiration of that 3-year period, the State enacts a law 
     prohibiting a practitioner from dispensing such drugs or 
     combination of drugs.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 304 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
     (5), by striking ``section 303(g)'' each place the term 
     appears and inserting ``section 303(g)(1)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 303(g)'' and 
     inserting ``section 303(g)(1)''.

[[Page 30924]]



     SEC. 19. ENHANCED PUNISHMENT OF METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORY 
                   OPERATORS.

       (a) Federal Sentencing Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to its authority under section 
     994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines in accordance with paragraph (2) with respect to 
     any offense relating to the manufacture, attempt to 
     manufacture, or conspiracy to manufacture amphetamine or 
     methamphetamine in violation of--
       (A) the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.);
       (B) the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 951 et seq.); or
       (C) the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1901 et seq.).
       (2) Requirements.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (A) if the offense created a substantial risk of harm to 
     human life (other than a life described in subparagraph (B)) 
     or the environment, increase the base offense level for the 
     offense--
       (i) by not less than 3 offense levels above the applicable 
     level in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) if the resulting base offense level after an increase 
     under clause (i) would be less than level 27, to not less 
     than level 27; or
       (B) if the offense created a substantial risk of harm to 
     the life of a minor or incompetent, increase the base offense 
     level for the offense--
       (i) by not less than 6 offense levels above the applicable 
     level in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) if the resulting base offense level after an increase 
     under clause (i) would be less than level 30, to not less 
     than level 30.
       (3) Emergency authority to sentencing commission.--The 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
     amendments pursuant to this subsection as soon as practicable 
     after the date of enactment of this Act in accordance with 
     the procedure set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing 
     Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-182), as though the authority 
     under that Act had not expired.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made pursuant to this 
     section shall apply with respect to any offense occurring on 
     or after the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 20. METHAMPHETAMINE PARAPHERNALIA.

       Section 422(d) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     863(d)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 
     inserting ``methamphetamine,'' after ``PCP,''.


                           Amendment No. 2794

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there is a substitute amendment at the 
desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2794.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2794) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my fellow Senators 
for unanimously supporting the passage of S. 486, the Methamphetamine 
Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999. This bill, introduced by Senator 
Ashcroft and amended in committee to include provisions from bills that 
I and Senator Grassley had introduced, passed by acclamation in the 
Judiciary Committee earlier this year and represents a significant 
bipartisan effort to combat the scourge of methamphetamine. With this 
bill we are arming our communities with responsible, innovative 
enforcement tools designed to curb the manufacturing and trafficking of 
this most destructive drug.
  I want to take a moment to highlight some of the provisions in this 
bill that will assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in 
their efforts against drug traffickers:
  (1) The bill bolsters the DEA's ability to combat the manufacturing 
and trafficking of methamphetamine by authorizing the creation of 
satellite offices and the hiring of additional agents to assist State 
and local law enforcement officials. More than any other illicit drug, 
methamphetamine manufacturers and traffickers operate in small towns 
and rural areas. And, unfortunately, rural law enforcement agencies 
often are overwhelmed and in dire need of the DEA's expertise in 
conducting methamphetamine investigations.
  (2) The bill will assist State and local officials in handling the 
dangerous toxic waste left behind by methamphetamine labs.
  (3) Another section of the bill will help prevent the manufacture of 
methamphetamine by prohibiting the dissemination of drug ``recipes'' on 
the Internet.
  (4) The bill amends the Federal antidrug paraphernalia statute to 
clarify that the ban includes Internet advertising for the sale of 
controlled substances and drug paraphernalia.
  (5) To counter the dangers that manufacturing drugs like 
methamphetamine inflict on human life and on the environment, the bill 
imposes stiffer penalties on manufacturers of all illegal drugs when 
their actions create a substantial risk of harm to human life or to the 
environment.
  (6) The bill also works to keep all drugs away from children and to 
punish severely those who prey on our children, especially while at 
school away from their parents. The bill does this by increasing the 
penalties for distributing illegal drugs to minors and for distributing 
illegal drugs near schools and other locations frequented by juveniles.
  (7) Finally, the bill increases penalties for manufacturing and 
trafficking the drug amphetamine, a lesser-known, but no-less dangerous 
drug than methamphetamine. Other than for a slight difference in 
potency, amphetamine is manufactured, sold, and used in the same manner 
as methamphetamine. Moreover, amphetamine labs pose the same dangers as 
methamphetamine labs. Not surprisingly, every law enforcement officer 
with whom I have spoken agreed that the penalties for amphetamine 
should be the same as those for methamphetamine. For these reasons, the 
bill equalizes the punishment for manufacturing and trafficking the two 
drugs.
  In addition to these law enforcement tools, the bill establishes and 
funds prevention measures and a creative new treatment program for 
helping those trapped in drug addiction. Specifically, it contains 
provisions from S. 324, the ``Drug Addiction Treatment Act,'' which I 
and my good friend Senator Levin introduced earlier this session. These 
provisions undoubtedly will usher in a new generation of drug 
treatments. Senators Levin, Biden, and Moynihan, as well as my 
colleague in the House, Chairman Bliley, and experts at the Departments 
of Justice and Health and Human Services, deserve special thanks for 
their bipartisan efforts in developing this new treatment paradigm. 
While we know that vigorous law enforcement is the key to defeating 
those who manufacture and sell drugs, we must also embrace proven 
prevention and treatment programs that hold out the promise of turning 
Americans away from drug use.
  Mr. President, as I stated on the floor just last week, the 
timeliness of this bill cannot be overstated. According to a report 
prepared by the Community Epidemiology Work Group, which is part of the 
National Institute on Drug Abuse, methamphetamine abuse levels ``remain 
high . . . and there is strong evidence to suggest this drug will 
continue to be a problem in west coast areas and to spread to other 
areas of the United States.'' This threat is real and immediate, and 
the numbers are telling. According to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration the number of labs cleaned up by the Administration has 
almost doubled each year since 1995. Last year, more than 5,500 
amphetamine and methamphetamine labs were seized by DEA and State and 
local law enforcement officials, and millions of dollars were spent on 
cleaning up the pollutants and toxins created and left behind by 
operators of these labs. In Utah alone, there were 266 lab seizures 
last year, a number which elevated Utah to the unenviable position of 
being ranked third in the nation for highest per capita clandestine lab 
seizures.
  Mr. President, this bill furnishes the means for our ongoing battle 
against those who manufacture and sell illicit drugs. Perhaps even more 
important, this bill underscores our unwavering commitment to win this 
battle. Let

[[Page 30925]]

there be no misunderstanding; we will not throw up our hands and 
surrender our streets to those who sell misery and destruction. For the 
sake of our children and grandchildren, we will defeat this plague. I 
again thank my colleagues for joining with me in this effort.
  Mr. LEAHY. The manufacture and distribution of methamphetamines and 
amphetamines is an increasingly serious problem, and this bill would 
provide significant additional resources for both law enforcement and 
treatment. It was unfortunate that the majority has played politics 
with this important issue and strained the strong bipartisan support 
for this bill by including its provisions in a larger, controversial 
amendment to S. 625, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, which amendment 
was approved by a vote of 50-49 on November 10, 1999. I strongly 
opposed that amendment, which significantly increased the use of 
mandatory minimum penalties for powder cocaine offenses and unwisely 
diminished local control of schools.
  That amendment to the bankruptcy bill mandated a 10-year mandatory 
minimum sentence for crimes involving 500 grams or more of powder 
cocaine, instead of the current 5 kilogram threshold. It also 
instituted a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for crimes involving 50 
grams or more of powder cocaine, instead of the current 500-gram 
threshold. I oppose mandatory minimums both because they are 
extraordinarily costly for taxpayers and because they are 
counterproductive to our law enforcement efforts. The Justice 
Department estimated that the amendment's powder cocaine provision 
would cost more than $10 billion over the next 30 years simply to build 
11,000 more prison beds. Moreover, the use of mandatory minimums for 
smaller and smaller quantities of drugs gives federal prosecutors 
further incentive to prosecute lower-level drug offenders, further 
distorting the balance between state and federal law enforcement 
responsibilities. It simply makes no sense--except perhaps as a matter 
of politics--to federal our Nation's drug laws to such an extreme 
extent.
  In addition, that amendment provided the wrongheaded approach to the 
necessary task of rectifying the disparity between sentences for powder 
and crack cocaine. Under current law, the quantity threshold to trigger 
mandatory minimum penalties for crack offenders is 100 times more 
severe than for powder cocaine offenders. Under this amendment the 
quantity threshold to trigger mandatory minimums for crack offenders 
would still be 10 times more severe, and the amendment would do nothing 
to mitigate the unnecessary federalization and extreme penalties that 
the criminal justice system imposes for lower-level crack offenses.
  Finally, that amendment contained education provisions that would 
take funding and control away from local school authorities. First, it 
dictates that local school boards adopt certain specific policies on 
illegal drug use by students, including mandatory reporting of students 
to law enforcement and mandatory expulsion for at least one year of 
students who possess illegal drugs on school property. Second, it 
authorizes the use of public funds to pay tuition for any private 
schools, including parochial schools, for students who were injured by 
violent criminal offenses on public school grounds. This provision 
raises serious constitutional and policy questions, and should not have 
been slipped into an end-of-session amendment to a bankruptcy bill.
  Because of the extreme reservations that I and many of my colleagues 
from both sides of the aisle expressed about that amendment to the 
bankruptcy bill, I pressed for the original methamphetamine bill to be 
considered as a separate matter. I am pleased that we have an 
opportunity to consider and pass this legislation without the poison 
pills that the Republican leadership inserted.
  I continue to have some reservations about this bill. For example, I 
disapprove of its order to the Sentencing Commission to increase 
penalties for certain amphetamine and methamphetamine crimes by a 
specific number of base offense levels. I oppose such specific 
directives for some of the same reasons that I oppose mandatory 
minimums--they subvert the considered sentencing process that Congress 
wanted when it established the Sentencing Commission.
  But the good in this bill outweighs the bad. In addition to creating 
tougher penalties for those who manufacture and distribute amphetamines 
as illicit drugs, this bill allocates additional funding to assist 
local law enforcement, allows for the hiring of new DEA agents, and 
increases research, training and prevention efforts. This is a good and 
comprehensive approach to America's growing amphetamine problem.
  We significantly improved this bill during committee considerations. 
As the comprehensive substitute for the original bill was being 
drafted, I had three primary reservations: First, earlier versions of 
the bill imposed numerous mandatory minimums. As I stated earlier, I 
continue to believe that mandatory minimums are generally an 
inappropriate tool in our critically important national fight against 
drugs. Simply imposing or increasing mandatory minimums subverts the 
more considered process Congress set up in the Sentencing Commission. 
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines already provide a comprehensive 
mechanism to equalize sentences among persons convicted of the same or 
similar crime, while allowing judges the discretion they need to give 
appropriate weight to individual circumstances.
  The Sentencing Commission goes through an extraordinary process to 
set sentence levels. For example, pursuant to our 1996 
antimethamphetamine law, the Sentencing Commission increased meth 
penalties after careful analysis of recent sentencing data, a study of 
the offenses, and information from the DEA on trafficking levels, 
dosage unit size, price and drug quantity. Increasing mandatory 
minimums takes sentencing discretion away from judges. We closely 
examine judges' backgrounds before they are confirmed and should let 
them do their jobs.
  Mandatory minimums also impose significant economic and social costs. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the annual cost of 
housing a federal inmate ranges from $16,745 per year for minimum 
security inmates to $23,286 per year for inmates in high security 
facilities. It is critical that we take steps that will effectively 
deter crime, but we should not ignore the costs of the one size fits 
all approach of mandatory minimums. We also cannot ignore the policy 
implications of the boom in our prison population. In 1970, the total 
population in the federal prison system was 20,686 prisoners, of whom 
16.3 percent were drug offenders. By 1997, the federal prison 
population had grown to almost 91,000 sentenced prisoners, 
approximately 60 percent of whom were sentenced for drug offenses. The 
cost of supporting this expanded federal criminal justice system is 
staggering. We ignore at our peril the findings of RAND's comprehensive 
1997 report on mandatory minimum drug sentences: ``Mandatory minimums 
are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing 
cocaine consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.''
  This is why I have repeatedly expressed my concerns about creating 
new mandatory minimum penalties, including as recently as last October, 
when another antimethamphetamine bill was before the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Second, earlier drafts of this bill would have contravened the 
Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Richardson versus U.S. I, along with 
some other members of the Committee, believed that it would be 
inappropriate to take such a step without first holding a hearing and 
giving thorough consideration to such a change in the law. The Chairman 
of the Committee, Senator Hatch, was sensitive to this concern and I 
thank him for agreeing to remove that provision from this legislation.
  Third, an earlier version of the bill contained a provision that 
would have created a rebuttable presumption that may have violated the 
Constitution's Due Process Clause. Again, I believed that we needed to 
seriously consider

[[Page 30926]]

and debate such a provision before voting on it. And again, the 
Chairman was sensitive to the concerns of some of us on the Committee 
and agreed to remove that provision.
  By reaching an accord on each of those issues, I was able to join as 
a cosponsor of this bill. I support it strongly, and I look forward to 
seeing it become law.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to express 
my support for the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999, of 
which I am proud to be a cosponsor. This bipartisan measure is a 
crucial step in the battle against the spread of Methamphetamine, also 
known as ``Meth.'' It sets forward a comprehensive approach including 
targeted enforcement through increased resources, training and 
penalties, expansion of prevention and intervention programs, 
environmental cleanup, and research.
  The Meth problem is growing rapidly--not only across the country 
westward, but also in my home state: our Wisconsin State Crime 
Laboratory has tripled the number of Meth examinations since 1996, with 
prosecutions doubling from previous years; thefts of the precursor 
chemical Anhydrous Ammonia from farmers and retailers are becoming 
routine; and more Meth producers are emptying out shelves of ``blister 
packs''--packages of Sudafed and other cold remedies which are legal 
products used as precursor chemicals and sold in our markets and retail 
stores. Just last week, law enforcement officers in Fox Valley, 
Wisconsin reported their first seizure of a Meth lab, evidencing Meth's 
quick spread across the state.
  In fact, Wisconsin has become a source of one of the most toxic of 
Meth recipes--known to its Western producers as the ``Nazi variety''--
which causes the most aggressive behavior. This is largely due to the 
availability of Anhydrous Ammonia, which accelerates users to a fast 
and violent high. At the same time, the environmental dangers 
associated with this chemical pose a serious threat to our law 
enforcement officers and our communities.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill includes several provisions 
from the Rural Methamphetamine Use Response Act of 1999, introduced by 
Senator Grassley and me earlier this year. In particular, the 
underlying bill authorizes $6.5 million for additional Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) agents in rural areas and $5.5 million for DEA 
training designed to combat ``meth'' production. In addition, it 
criminalizes the transport and sale of Anhydrous Ammonia. These 
provisions will be of great assistance to rural states like Wisconsin, 
adding to the ongoing efforts of state and local law enforcement and 
building on the $1 million in funding I helped secure through the 
Appropriations process for a Meth ``Task Force'' in Western Wisconsin.
  As Meth continues its devastation throughout the Midwest, it is time 
to confront this raging menace at multiple levels and with cooperative 
strength. This bipartisan legislation is an important step in that 
direction.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for 
passing, S. 486, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999. 
I'm proud to say this comprehensive anti-methamphetamine bill was built 
upon the DEFEAT Meth legislation that I introduced earlier this year. 
This reflects a tremendous amount of bi-partisan work by the members of 
the judiciary committee.
  And the reason for the level of bipartisan effort in crafting this 
bill was the recognition by all involved that it is needed desperately 
to combat one of the fastest growing threats to American society: the 
explosive problem of methamphetamine.
  With its roots on the West coast, this epidemic has now exploded in 
middle America. Meth in the 1990s is what cocaine was in the 1980s and 
heroin was in the 1970s. It is currently the largest drug threat we 
face in my home state of Missouri. Unfortunately, it may be coming soon 
to a city or town near you.
  If you wanted to design a drug to have the worst possible effect on 
your community, you'd make methamphetamine. It is highly addictive, 
highly destructive, cheap, and easy to manufacture.
  To give you an idea of the scope of the problem, in 1992, law 
enforcement seized 2 clandestine Meth labs in my state of Missouri. By 
1994, there were 14 seizures. In 1998, they seized 679 labs. Based on 
the figures collected so far this year, that number will jump again 
this year to over 800 labs.
  And with this growth have come all of the problems. As meth abuse has 
increased, domestic abuse, child abuse, burglaries and meth related 
murders have also increased proportionately. From 1992 to 1998 meth-
related emergency room incidents increased 63 percent.
  What is more unacceptable is that meth is ensnaring our children. In 
1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth was double the 1992 
level. In recent conversations I have had with local law enforcement 
officers in Missouri, they estimated that as many as 10% of high school 
students know the receipe for meth. In fact, one need only log on to 
the Internet to find scores of web sites giving detailed instructions 
to set up you own meth lab. This is unacceptable.
  Despite the appropriation of over $35 million dollars in the past two 
appropriation cycles for the Drug Enforcement Administration to train 
local law enforcement in the interdiction and clean-up of 
methamphetamine labs, the meth problem continues to grow.
  And that is why I am so pleased S. 486, the Methamphetamine Anti-
Proliferation Act of 1999 passed the Senate. This bill provides the 
necessary weapons to fight the growing meth problem in this country, 
including the authorization of $9.5 million for DEA programs to train 
State and local law enforcement in techniques used in meth 
investigations, $5.5 million for the hiring of new agents to assist 
State and local law enforcement in small and mid-sized communities, $15 
million for school and community-based meth abuse and addiction 
prevention programs, $10 million for treatment of meth addicts, and $15 
million to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to combat 
trafficking of meth in designated HIDTA's (High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas) which have had great success in Missouri and the 
Midwest.
  This bill also amends the Sentencing Guidelines by increasing the 
mandatory minimum sentences for manufacturing meth and significantly 
increases mandatory minimum sentences if the offense created a risk of 
harm to the life of a minor or incompetent. Furthermore, the bill 
includes meth paraphernalia in the federal list of illegal 
paraphernalia.
  But focusing on reducing supply through interdiction and punishment 
is not enough. The bill also authorizes substantial resources for 
education and prevention targeted specifically at the problem of meth. 
Local law enforcement in Missouri tells me that 10% of high school 
students know the recipe for meth. I want to ensure that 100% of them 
know that meth is a recipe for disaster.
  Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have faced many 
other challenges in the past and we can face this one as well. In fact, 
the history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing 
people's highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All its takes is 
that we marshal our will and channel the great indomitable American 
spirit. Through legislative efforts like this bill we will meet this 
new meth challenge and defeat it.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, three years ago I joined with my 
distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the 
``Hatch-Biden Methamphetamine Control Act'' to address the growing 
threat of methamphetamine use in our country before it was too late.
  Our failure to foresee and prevent the crack cocaine epidemic is one 
of the most significant public policy mistakes in recent history. We 
were determined not to repeat that mistake with methamphetamine.
  That 1996 Act provided crucial tools that we needed to stay ahead of 
the methamphetamine epidemic--increased

[[Page 30927]]

penalties for possessing and trafficking in methamphetamine and the 
precursor chemicals and equipment used to manufacture the drug; tighter 
reporting requirements and restrictions on the legitimate sales of 
products containing precursor chemicals to prevent their diversion; 
increased reporting requirements for firms that sell those products by 
mail; and enhanced prison sentences for meth manufacturers who endanger 
the life of any individual or endanger the environment while making 
this drug. We also created a national working group of law enforcement 
and public health officials to monitor any growth in the 
methamphetamine epidemic.
  I have no doubt that our 1996 legislation slowed this epidemic 
significantly. But we are up against a powerful and highly addictive 
drug.
  The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999--which I have 
cosponsored--builds on the 1996 Act. First and foremost, it closes the 
``amphetamine loophole'' in current law by making the penalties for 
manufacturing, distribution, importing and exporting amphetamine the 
same as those for meth. After all, the two drugs differ by only one 
chemical and are sold interchangeably on the street. If users can't 
tell the difference between the two substances, there is no reason why 
the penalties should be different.
  The amendment also addresses the growing problem of meth labs by 
establishing penalties for manufacturing the drug with an enhanced 
penalty for those who would put a child's life at risk in the process. 
We provide the Drug Enforcement Administration with much needed funding 
to clean up clandestine labs after they are seized as well as to train 
state local law enforcement officers to handle the hazardous wastes 
produced in the meth labs and certify them to train their colleagues.
  Methamphetamine is made from an array of hazardous substances--
battery acid, lye, ammonia gas, hydrochloric acid, just to name a few--
that produce toxic fumes and often lead to fires or explosions when 
mixed. I am revealing nothing by naming some of these chemical 
ingredients. Anyone with access to the Internet can download a detailed 
meth recipe with a few simple keystrokes. Our legislation would make 
such postings illegal.
  We provide money for the Drug Enforcement Administration to clean up 
these toxic sites and certify state and local officials to handle the 
hazardous byproducts at the lab sites. We provide funds for additional 
law enforcement personnel--including agents, investigators, 
prosecutors, lab technicians, chemists, investigative assistants and 
drug prevention specialists in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
where meth is a problem.
  We also provide funds for new agents to assist State and local law 
enforcement in small- and mid-sized communities in all phases of drug 
investigations and assist state and local law enforcement in rural 
areas.
  Further, the legislation provides much needed money for prevention, 
treatment and research, including clinical trials. It asks the 
Institute of Medicine to issue a report on the status of 
pharmacotherapies for treatment of amphetamine and methamphetamine 
addiction.
  I understand that the scientists at the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse are making headway in isolating amino acids and developing 
medications to deal with meth overdose and addiction.
  We also have a provision that would allow certain doctors to dispense 
Schedule III, IV and V drugs from their offices to treat addiction. I 
am glad to see this provision included. Ten years ago, I asked the 
question: ``If drug abuse is an epidemic, are we doing enough to find a 
medical `cure'?'' Unfortunately that question is still with us. But 
today we also have another question: ``Are we doing enough to get the 
`cures' we have to those who need them?'' We have an enormous 
``treatment gap'' in this country. Less than half of the estimated 4.4 
to 5.3 million people who need drug treatment are receiving it. 
Licensing qualified doctors to prescribe certain pharmacotherapies from 
their offices is a significant step toward bridging the treatment gap.
  Also to that end, this bill authorizes $10 million for treatment of 
methamphetamine addiction.
  The bill also tightens the restrictions on direct and indirect 
advertising of illegal drug paraphernalia and Schedule I drugs. Under 
this legislation, it would be illegal for on-line magazines and other 
websites to post advertisements for such illegal material or provide 
``links'' to websites that do. We crafted this language carefully so 
that we restrict the sale of drug paraphernalia without restricting the 
First Amendment.
  All in all, I believe that this is a comprehensive bill that attacks 
the methamphetamine and amphetamine problem from every angle.
  Today the Senate also passed the ``Date Rape Drug Control Act of 
1999,'' a very important piece of legislation which will place the most 
stringent controls on GHB, a drug which is being used with increasing 
frequency to commit rape. I commend Senator Abraham for his efforts to 
get this bill passed and I thank him for acknowledging my efforts as 
well.
  For nearly five years now, I have been working to raise awareness 
about date rape drugs including rohypnol and ketamine.
  In 1996, I first introduced legislation to schedule these drugs under 
the Controlled Substances Act. This was not a step I took lightly 
because there is a regulatory procedure in place for scheduling 
controlled substances. But my view was that the regulatory process 
would take years to do what needed to be done in months, forfeiting 
valuable time in the fight to stop these drugs from being used to 
commit heinous crimes.
  Federal scheduling is important for three simple reasons. First, 
federal scheduling triggers increased state drug law penalties. This is 
because state law penalties are linked to the level at which a drug 
appears on the federal controlled substance schedule. Since more than 
95 percent of all drug cases are prosecuted at the state level, not by 
the federal government, federal scheduling is vitally important.
  Second, federal scheduling triggers tough federal penalties.
  And third, scheduling has proven to work. In 1984, I worked to 
reschedule Quaaludes from Schedule II to Schedule I, Congress passed 
the law and the Quaalude epidemic was greatly reduced. Again in 1990, I 
worked to re-classify steroids as a Schedule III substance, Congress 
passed the law and again a drug epidemic that had been on the rise was 
reversed.
  Progress on scheduling date rape drugs has been slow. This past 
August--four years after I first called for stricter regulations--the 
Drug Enforcement Administration finally classified ketamine as a 
Schedule III drug.
  Rohypnol has yet to be classified as a Schedule I drug, though we 
have passed legislation that stipulates that it is subject to federal 
penalties. Far from perfect, but it is a small step in the right 
direction.
  In 1996, we passed legislation to crack down on those who commit 
violent crimes--including rape--by giving the victim a controlled 
substance without that person's knowledge.
  As a result of that legislation, this cowardly act is punishable by 
up to 20 years in prison.
  And today the Senate passed legislation that recognizes that GHB is a 
significant public safety hazard and will result in the drug being 
designated as a Schedule I substance. At the same time, the legislation 
recognizes that there is a public health interest here. GHB is 
currently being studied as a treatment for narcolepsy and this bill 
goes to great lengths to ensure that this research can continue without 
undue burdens.
  Further, the ``Date Rape Drug Control Act'' requires the Attorney 
General to assist in the development of forensic tests to help law 
enforcement detect GHB and related substances and develop training 
materials on date rape drugs for police officers. The bill also calls 
for a national awareness campaign to warn people about the danger of 
these drugs.
  Recently, these date rape drugs have been used in my State of 
Delaware. Several women at ``The Big Kahuna,''

[[Page 30928]]

the largest nightclub in Wilmington have had drugs slipped into their 
drinks.
  This is a serious problem and we must take bold steps, like passing 
the measure we passed today, to establish strict penalties for this 
cowardly crime.
  I am pleased that the Senate has passed both of these important 
pieces of legislation today and I hope to see them enacted into law.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate has now approved a long-time 
crusade of mine--that of speeding the development and delivery of anti-
addition medications that block the craving for illicit addictive 
substances. This is one way in which we can fight and win the war on 
drugs--by blocking the craving for illegal substances. The proposal, 
which has now passed the Senate as embodied in S. 324, the Drug 
Addiction Treatment Act, which I introduced in January of this year 
along with Senator Hatch, Senator Moynihan and Senator Biden, will 
achieve this goal.
  Mr. President, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee as Sec. 18 of the Methamphetamine Anti-
Proliferation Act of 1999, enables qualified physicians to prescribe 
schedule IV and V anti-addiction medications in their offices, under 
certain strict conditions. There are a number of reasons why this 
legislation is necessary. The Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, 
requires separate DEA registrations for physicians who want to use 
approved narcotics in drug abuse treatment and separate approvals of 
registrants by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
and by state agencies. The result has been a treatment system 
consisting primarily of large clinics, preventing physicians from 
treating patients in an office setting or in rural areas or small 
towns, thereby denying treatment to thousands in need of it. 
Additionally, experts say that many heroin addicts who want treatment 
are often deterred because of the stigma that is associated with such 
clinics.
  The medications Buprenorphine and Buprenorphone/naloxone combination 
have proven to be effective blockers of craving for heroin. Dr. Alan 
Leshner, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 
substantiates this finding in the ``many NIDA funded studies [that] 
support the effectiveness, safety and efficacy of Buprenorphine and 
buprenorphine combined with naloxone for the treatment of opiate 
dependence.''
  The intent of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act, S. 324, is to make it 
possible for medications like Buprenorphine, because of the 
unlikelihood of diversion or abuse, to be used effectively to block the 
craving for heroin. To do this, the medication must be made available 
in physician offices and there must be safeguards that such 
availability is not abused. The protections in the legislation against 
such abuse are as follows: Physicians may not treat more than 20 
patients in an office setting unless the Secretary adjusts this number; 
the Secretary, as appropriate, may add to these conditions and allow 
the Attorney General to terminate a physician's DEA registration if 
these conditions are violated; and the program may be discontinued 
within three years after the date of enactment, if the Secretary and 
Attorney General determine that this new type of decentralized 
treatment has not proven to be an effective form of treatment.
  States may opt out of the provision. Also, nothing in the waiver 
policy is intended to change the rules pertaining to methadone clinics 
or other facilities or practitioners that conduct drug treatment 
services under the dual registration system imposed by current law. In 
crafting the waiver provisions of this legislation, we consulted with 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the Federal 
Drug Administration, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
  The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), in collaboration with a 
private pharmaceutical company developed Buprenorphine for the 
treatment of heroin addiction. Because of the reluctance of the 
pharmaceutical industry to become involved in developing anti-addiction 
medications, NIDA has played an active role in supporting research at 
every step of the drug development process. NIDA's Medications 
Development Division has been working to accelerate the identification, 
evaluation, development, and approval of new medications to treat drug 
addiction, which I call anti-addiction drugs. Through this process, 
NIDA has been able to bring a number of effective medications into drug 
treatment. In the case of Buprenorphine products, NIDA has supported 
research for many years which indicates that the medication is 
effective in blocking the craving for heroin.
  Mr. President, the crisis of illegal drug use continues to cost 
society both in human toll and in the loss of billions of dollars each 
year. Consider the startling and compelling findings of the January 
1995 Institute of Medicine Report, which estimates the cost to society 
for drug abuse and dependence treatment at $66.9 billion in 1990 alone, 
and estimated the cost of drug-related crime at $46 billion that same 
year. A 1995 report of the Office of National Drug Control Policy tells 
us that users of illegal drugs spent $48.7 billion on the purchase of 
illicit substances to feed their addiction.
  Recent findings of the Monitoring the Future Program, headed by Dr. 
Lloyd Johnson of the University of Michigan, indicates that heroin use 
among American teens doubled between 1991 and 1998, and represents a 
clear and present danger for a significant number of American young 
people. Dr. Johnson attributes this to a ``sharp increase in use . . . 
resulting from adoption of non-injectable modes of administration--
smoking and snorting, in particular.'' Dr. Johnson goes on to say that 
``the very high purity of heroin on the street has made these new 
developments possible and that unfortunately, a number of those users 
will become dependent on heroin and will switch over to injection, 
which is a more efficient way to derive the equivalent high''
  The President of the Michigan Public Health Association, Dr. 
Stephanie Meyers Schim, has spoken out eloquently about the ``great 
problems'' of substance abuse. In her recent letter in support of S. 
324, she says: Substance abuse affects health care costs, mortality, 
workers' compensation claims, reduced productivity, crime, suicide, 
domestic violence, child abuse, and increases costs associated with 
extra law enforcement, motor vehicle crashes, crime, and lost 
productivity. Dr. Schim goes on to say, ``Buprenorphine will allow drug 
addicted individuals to maximize everyday life activities, and 
participate more fully in work day and family activities while seeking 
the needed treatment and counseling to become drug free''.
  Dr. James H. Wood, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of 
Michigan Medical School recently wrote: ``One of the most important 
aspects of your bill is the use of Buprenorphine by well-trained 
physicians to treat narcotic addiction from their offices, which has 
the potential to attract and treat effectively sizable populations of 
currently untreated addicts . . . a major byproduct of this increased 
treatment, of course, will be reduction in the demand for illicit 
narcotics in the U.S.''
  Dr. Thomas Kosten, President of the American Academy of Addiction 
Psychiatry echoed these sentiments in recent testimony on The Drug 
Addiction Treatment Act before the House Commerce Committee on Health 
and Environment, and I quote: ``. . . I would like to support the 
availability of Buprenorphine for office based practice. Addiction is a 
brain disease and office-based practice is primarily needed for 
effective treatment of Buprenorphine.''
  The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), and the College on 
Problems of Drug Dependence which is the nation's longest standing 
organization of scientists addressing drug dependence and drug abuse, 
have stated that the availability of Buprenorphine in physicians' 
offices adds a needed expansion of current treatment for heroin 
addiction. ASAM also cautioned

[[Page 30929]]

that Buprenorphine will have limited utility if it is tied to the 
regulatory structure for current treatments of heroin addiction.
  There are other compelling reasons why we must expedite the delivery 
of anti-addiction medications. Of the juveniles who land behind bars in 
state institutions, more than 60 percent of them reported using drugs 
once a week or more, and over 40 percent reported being under the 
influence of drugs while committing crimes, according to a report from 
the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Drug-related incarcerations are up 
and we are building more jails and prisons to accommodate them--more 
than 1000 have been built over the past 20 years. According to the July 
14, 1999 Office of National Drug Control Policy Update, and I quote: 
``Drug-related arrests are up from 1.1 million arrests in 1988 to 1.6 
million arrests in 1997--steady increases every year since 1991.''
  These sentiments were also expressed during a May 9, 1997 Drug Forum 
on Anti-addiction Research, which I convened along with Senator 
Moynihan, Senator Bob Kerrey and other members of the Senate. Forum 
participants, including distinguished experts such as Dr. Herbert 
Kleber and Dr. Donald Landry of Columbia University, Dr. Charles 
Schuster of Wayne State University and Dr. James Woods of the 
University of Michigan, made it crystal clear that time is of the 
essence--we must act expeditiously on new treatment discoveries that 
block the craving for illicit addictive substances.
  Mr. President, I received a very supportive letter from HHS Secretary 
Donna Shalala: ``I am especially encouraged by the results of published 
clinical studies of Buprenorphine. Buprenorphine is a partial mu opiate 
receptor agonist, in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act, with 
unique properties which differentiate it from full agonists such as 
methadone or LAAM. The pharmacology of the combination tablet 
consisting of Buprenorphine and naloxone results in . . . low value and 
low desirability for diversion on the street. Published clinical 
studies suggest that it has very limited euphorigenic affects, and has 
the ability to percipitate withdrawal in individuals who are highly 
dependent upon other opioids. Thus, Buprenorphine and Buprenorphine/
naloxone products are expected to have low diversion potential. 
Buprenorphine and Buprenorphine naloxone products are expected to reach 
new groups of opiate addicts--for example, those who do not have access 
to methadone programs, those who are reluctant to enter methadone 
treatment programs, and those who are unsuited to them (this would 
include for example, those in their first year of opiates addiction or 
those addicted to lower doses of opiates). Buprenorphine and 
Buprenorphine/naloxone products should increase the amount of treatment 
capacity available and expand the range of treatment options that can 
be used by physicians. Secretary Shalala went on to say, 
``Buprenorphine and Buprenorphine/Naloxone would not replace methadone. 
Methadone and LAAM clinics would remain an important part of the 
treatment continuum.''
  Mr. President, a companion bill has been introduced and reported out 
of Committee in the House. It is my hope that full House will act as 
expeditiously as the Senate on this important legislation.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 3 years ago I joined with my distinguished 
friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Hatch-Biden 
Methamphetamine Control Act to address the growing threat of 
methamphetamine use in our country before it was too late. Our failure 
to foresee and prevent the crack cocaine epidemic is one of the most 
significant public policy mistakes in recent history. We were 
determined not to repeat that mistake with methamphetamine.
  That 1996 act provided crucial tools that we needed to stay ahead of 
the methamphetamine epidemic--increased penalties for possessing and 
trafficking in methamphetamine and the precursor chemicals and 
equipment used to manufacture the drug; tighter reporting requirements 
and restrictions on the legitimate sales of products containing 
precursor chemicals to prevent their diversion; increased reporting 
requirements for firms that sell those products by mail; and enhanced 
prison sentences for meth manufacturers who endanger the life of any 
individual or endanger the environment while making this drug. We also 
created a national working group of law enforcement and public health 
officials to monitor any growth in the methamphetamine epidemic.
  I have no doubt that our 1996 legislation slowed this epidemic 
significantly. But we are up against a powerful and highly addictive 
drug. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999--which I have 
cosponsored--builds on the 1996 act. First and foremost, it closes the 
``amphetamine loophole'' in current law by making the penalties for 
manufacturing, distribution, importing and exporting amphetamine the 
same as those for meth. After all, the two drugs differ by only one 
chemical and are sold interchangeably on the street. If users can't 
tell the difference between the two substances, there is no reason why 
the penalties should be different.
  The bill also addresses the growing problem of meth labs by 
establishing penalties for manufacturing the drug with an enhanced 
penalty for those who would put a child's life at risk in the process. 
We provide the Drug Enforcement Administration with much needed funding 
to clean up clandestine labs after they are seized as well as to train 
state and local law enforcement officers to handle the hazardous wastes 
produced in the meth labs and certify them to train their colleagues. 
Methamphetamine is made from an array of hazardous substances--battery 
acid, lye, ammonia gas, hydrochloric acid, just to name a few--that 
produce toxic fumes and often lead to fires or explosions when mixed. I 
am revealing nothing by naming some of these chemical ingredients. 
Anyone with access to the Internet can download a detailed meth recipe 
with a few simple keystrokes. Our legislation would make such postings 
illegal.
  We provide money for the Drug Enforcement Administration to clean up 
these toxic sites and certify state and local officials to handle the 
hazardous byproducts at the lab sites. We provide funds for additional 
law enforcement personnel--including agents, investigators, 
prosecutors, lab technicians, chemists, investigative assistants and 
drug prevention specialists in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
where meth is a problem. We also provide funds for new agents to assist 
State and local law enforcement in small- and mid-sized communities in 
all phases of drug investigations and assist state and local law 
enforcement in rural areas. Further, the legislation provides much 
needed money for prevention, treatment and research, including clinical 
trials. It asks the Institute of Medicine to issue a report on the 
status of pharmacotherapies for treatment of amphetamine and 
methamphetamine addiction. I understand that the scientists at the 
National Institute on Drug Abuse are making headway in isolating amino 
acids and developing medications to deal with meth overdose and 
addiction.
  We also have a provision that would allow certain doctors to dispense 
Schedule III, IV and V drugs from their offices to treat addiction. I 
am glad to see this provision included. Ten years ago, I asked the 
question: ``If drug abuse is an epidemic, are we doing enough to find a 
medical `cure'?'' Unfortunately that question is still with us. But 
today we also have another question: ``Are we doing enough to get the 
`cures' we have to those who need them?'' We have an enormous 
``treatment gap'' in this country. Less than half of the estimated 4.4 
to 5.3 million people who need drug treatment are receiving it. 
Licensing qualified doctors to prescribe certain pharmacotherapies from 
their offices is a significant step toward bridging the treatment gap. 
Also to that end, this bill authorizes $10 million for treatment of 
methamphetamine addiction.
  The bill also tightens the restrictions on direct and indirect 
advertising of illegal drug paraphernalia and Schedule

[[Page 30930]]

I drugs. Under this legislation, it would be illegal for on-line 
magazines and other websites to post advertisements for such illegal 
material or provide ``links'' to websites that do. We crafted this 
language carefully so that we restrict the sale of drug paraphernalia 
without restricting the first amendment. All in all, I believe that 
this is a comprehensive bill that attacks the methamphetamine and 
amphetamine problem from every angle. Today the Senate also passed the 
``Date Rape Drug Control Act of 1999,'' a very important piece of 
legislation which will place the most stringent controls on GHB, a drug 
which is being used with increasing frequency to commit rape. I commend 
Senator Abraham for his efforts to get this bill passed and I thank him 
for acknowledging my efforts as well.
  For nearly 5 years now, I have been working to raise awareness about 
date rape drugs including rohypnol and ketamine. In 1996, I first 
introduced legislation to schedule these drugs under the Controlled 
Substances Act. This was not a step I took lightly because there is a 
regulatory procedure in place for scheduling controlled substances. But 
my view was that the regulatory process would take years to do what 
needed to be done in months, forfeiting valuable time in the fight to 
stop these drugs from being used to commit heinous crimes. Federal 
scheduling is important for three simple reasons. First, Federal 
scheduling triggers increased state drug law penalties. This is because 
state law penalties are linked to the level at which a drug appears on 
the Federal controlled substance schedule. Since more than 95 per cent 
of all drug cases are prosecuted at the state level, not by the Federal 
government, federal scheduling is vitally important.
  Second, Federal scheduling triggers tough federal penalties.
  And third, scheduling has proven to work. In 1984, I worked to 
reschedule Quaaludes from Schedule II to Schedule I, Congress passed 
the law and the Quaalude epidemic was greatly reduced. Again in 1990, I 
worked to reclassify steroids as a Schedule III substance, Congress 
passed the law and again a drug epidemic that had been on the rise was 
reversed.
  Progress on scheduling date rape drugs has been slow. This past 
August--4 years after I first called for stricter regulations--the Drug 
Enforcement Administration finally classified ketamine as a Schedule 
III drug. Rohypnol has yet to be classified as a Schedule I drug, 
though we have passed legislation that stipulates that it is subject to 
federal penalties. Far from perfect, but it is a small step in the 
right direction.
  In 1996, we passed legislation to crack down on those who commit 
violent crimes--including rape--by giving the victim a controlled 
substance without that person's knowledge. As a result of that 
legislation, this cowardly act is punishable by up to 20 years in 
prison. And today the Senate passed legislation that recognizes that 
GHB is a significant public safety hazard and will result in the drug 
being designated as a Schedule I substance. At the same time, the 
legislation recognizes that there is a public health interest here. GHB 
is currently being studied as a treatment for narcolepsy and this bill 
goes to great lengths to ensure that this research can continue without 
undue burdens.
  Further, the Date Rape Drug Control Act requires the Attorney General 
to assist in the development of forensic tests to help law enforcement 
detect GHB and related substances and develop training materials on 
date rape drugs for police officers. The bill also calls for a national 
awareness campaign to warn people about the danger of these drugs. 
Recently, these date rape drugs have been used in my State of Delaware. 
Several women at ``The Big Kahuna,'' the largest nightclub in 
Wilmington have had drugs slipped into their drinks. This is a serious 
problem and we must take bold steps, like passing the measure we passed 
today, to establish strict penalties for this cowardly crime. I am 
pleased that the Senate has passed both of these important pieces of 
legislation today and I hope to see them enacted into law.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senate for 
unanimously passing the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 (S. 324), 
as Title II, Subsection B, of the DEFEAT Meth Act of 1999 (S. 486). The 
Senate's action today marks a milestone in the treatment of opiate 
dependence. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act increases access to new 
medications, such as buprenorphine, to treat opiate addiction. I thank 
my colleagues Senator Levin (whose long-term vision inspired this 
legislation), Senator Hatch, and Senator Biden for their leadership and 
dedication in developing this Act, and I look forward to seeing the 
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 become law.
  Determining how to deal with the problem of addiction is not a new 
topic. Just over a decade ago when we passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
1988, I was assigned by our then-Leader Robert Byrd, with Sam Nunn, to 
co-chair a working group to develop a proposal for drug control 
legislation. We worked together with a similar Republican task force. 
We agreed, at least for a while, to divide funding under our bill 
between demand reduction activities (60 percent) and supply reduction 
activities (40 percent). And we created the Director of National Drug 
Control Policy (section 1002); next, ``There shall be in the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy a Deputy Director for Demand Reduction and 
a Deputy Director for Supply Reduction.''
  We put demand first. To think that you can ever end the problem by 
interdicting the supply of drugs, well, it's an illusion. There's no 
possibility.
  I have been intimately involved with trying to eradicate the supply 
of drugs into this country. It fell upon me, as a member of the Nixon 
Cabinet, to negotiate shutting down the heroin traffic that went from 
central Turkey to Marseilles to New York--``the French Connection''--
but we knew the minute that happened, another route would spring up. 
That was a given. The success was short-lived. What we needed was 
demand reduction, a focus on the user. And we still do.
  Demand reduction requires science and it requires doctors. I see the 
science continues to develop, and The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 
1999 will allow doctors and patients to make use of it.
  Congress and the public continue to fixate on supply interdiction and 
harsher sentences (without treatment) as the ``solution'' to our drug 
problems, and adamantly refuse to acknowledge what various experts now 
know and are telling us: that addiction is a chronic, relapsing 
disease; that is, the brain undergoes molecular, cellular, and 
physiological changes which may not be reversible.
  What we are talking about is not simply a law enforcement problem, to 
cut the supply; it is a public health problem, and we need to treat it 
as such. We need to stop filling our jails under the misguided notion 
that such actions will stop the problem of drug addiction. The Drug 
Addiction Treatment Act of 1999 is a step in the right direction.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be read a 
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 486), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________