[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25647-25660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1776. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, relating to 
responsibility for intermodal equipment compliance with commercial 
motor vehicle safety requirements, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Intermodal 
Equipment Safety and Responsibility Act of 2003. This bill is a 
companion bill to language originally brought to the floor of the House 
of Representatives by my good friend from South Carolina, 
Representative Henry Brown.
  Every day, literally hundreds of unsafe intermodal chassis carrying 
containers leave U.S. ports and travel on our public roads and 
highways, endangering not only the drivers of these vehicles but also 
the general public which shares the road with them. This bill will go a 
long way to ensure that only safe, roadworthy chassis are released for 
use and remove this often deadly threat to highway safety.
  This legislation places responsibility for equipment safety and 
compliance with Federal and State regulations squarely where it 
belongs--with those who own or control the equipment. Under current 
law, the brunt of responsibility for equipment safety and compliance is 
placed on port drivers. The trucking companies and commerical drivers 
that service the ports do not own chassis, but are obligated by 
terminal operators to use the chassis provided to transport intermodal 
containers to and from the ports. This bill would require equipment 
controllers to inspect and repair intermodal equipment to meet all 
safety regulations prior to offering it for interchange, and to certify 
and document that such inspections have been performed. In addition, it 
gives the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration the authority to 
enter a port facility to review the inspection process and assure 
compliance.
  This Act also requires that citations issued for violations related 
to the defective condition of an intermodal chassis that is not owned 
by that motor carrier or driver, will not affect the motor carrier's 
overall safety rating or the motor carrier's driving record.
  The objective of this legislation is simple: to ensure that equipment 
controllers perform regular maintenance on intermodal equipment and 
give truckers safe and roadworthy equipment in compliance with current

[[Page 25648]]

USDOT safety regulations. Professional truck drivers are not 
professional mechanics, nor should they be. Unfortunately, too many 
equipment controllers do not perform the required systematic inspection 
and maintenance, and truck drivers are expected to find not only 
visible defects, but also safety defects that are not visible.
  I am joined by the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Longshoreman's 
Association, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the 
American Trucking Association and the Truckload Carriers Association 
who all worked together diligently to reach a consensus of support for 
this legislation.
  The traveling American public deserves to be confident that the roads 
they share with truckers are safe. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1776

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Intermodal Equipment Safety 
     and Responsibility Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Promoting safety on United States highways is a 
     national priority. The Secretary of Transportation has 
     promulgated the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to 
     further this purpose. The systematic maintenance, repair, and 
     inspection of equipment traveling on public highways in 
     interstate commerce are an integral part of this safety 
     regime.
       (2) Intermodal transportation plays a significant role in 
     expanding the United States economy, which depends heavily 
     upon the ability to transport goods by various modes of 
     transportation.
       (3) Although motor carriers and their drivers often receive 
     trailers, chassis, containers, and other items of intermodal 
     equipment to be transported in interstate commerce, they do 
     not possess the requisite level of control or authority over 
     this intermodal equipment to perform the systematic 
     maintenance, repair, and inspection necessary to ensure 
     compliance with the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Regulations and to ensure the safety of United States 
     highways.
       (4) As a result of roadside inspections, motor carriers and 
     their drivers are cited and fined for violations of the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations attributable to 
     intermodal equipment that they do not have the opportunity to 
     systematically maintain. These violations negatively affect 
     the safety records of motor carriers.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to ensure that only those 
     parties that control intermodal equipment transported on 
     public highways in the United States (and thus have the 
     opportunity and authority to systematically maintain, repair, 
     and inspect the intermodal equipment) have legal 
     responsibility for the safety of that equipment as it travels 
     in interstate commerce.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 5901 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(9) `motor carrier' includes--
       ``(A) a motor private carrier, as defined in section 13102 
     of this title; and
       ``(B) an agent of a motor carrier.
       ``(10) `intermodal equipment'--
       ``(A) means equipment that is commonly used in the 
     intermodal transportation of freight over public highways as 
     an instrumentality of foreign or interstate commerce; and
       ``(B) includes a trailer, chassis, container, and any 
     device associated with a trailer, chassis, or container.
       ``(11) `equipment interchange agreement', with respect to 
     intermodal equipment, means a written document that--
       ``(A) is executed by a controller of the equipment, or its 
     agent, and a motor carrier; and
       ``(B) establishes the responsibilities and liabilities of 
     both parties as they relate to the interchange of the 
     equipment.
       ``(12) `controller', with respect to intermodal equipment, 
     means any party that has any legal right, title, or interest 
     in the equipment, except that a motor carrier--
       ``(A) is not a controller of the equipment solely because 
     it provides or arranges for any part of the intermodal 
     transportation of the equipment; and
       ``(B) may not be considered a controller of the equipment 
     if authority for systematic maintenance and repairs of the 
     equipment has not been delegated to the motor carrier.
       ``(13) `interchange', with respect to intermodal equipment, 
     means the act of providing the equipment to a motor carrier 
     for the purpose of transporting the equipment for loading or 
     unloading by any party or repositioning the equipment for the 
     benefit of the equipment controller, except that such term 
     does not mean the leasing of the equipment to a motor carrier 
     for use in the motor carrier's over-the-road freight hauling 
     operations.
       ``(14) `applicable safety regulations' means the 
     regulations applicable to controllers of intermodal equipment 
     under section 5909 of this title.''.

     SEC. 5. JURISDICTION OVER EQUIPMENT CONTROLLERS.

       Chapter 59 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5909. Jurisdiction over equipment controller

       ``The authority of the Secretary of Transportation to 
     prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety 
     under section 31136 of this title shall apply to controllers 
     of intermodal equipment that is interchanged or to be 
     interchanged.''.

     SEC. 6. EQUIPMENT CONTROLLER RESPONSIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 59 of title 49, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 5, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5910. Equipment inspection, repair, and maintenance

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of an 
     equipment interchange agreement, a controller of intermodal 
     equipment that is interchanged or to be interchanged--
       ``(1) shall be responsible and held liable for the 
     systematic inspection, maintenance, and repair of the 
     equipment;
       ``(2) shall, each time prior to offering a motor carrier 
     the equipment for interchange, inspect the equipment and 
     provide such maintenance on, and make such repairs to, the 
     equipment to ensure that such equipment complies with all 
     applicable safety regulations at all times; and
       ``(3) shall not offer intermodal equipment to a motor 
     carrier unless such equipment has been inspected and repaired 
     as necessary to comply with such regulations.
       ``(b) Reimbursement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the event that a repair of 
     interchanged intermodal equipment is necessary while in a 
     motor carrier's possession in order to comply with applicable 
     safety regulations, the controller of the equipment shall 
     promptly reimburse the motor carrier for the actual expenses 
     that are incurred by the motor carrier for the necessary 
     repair, together with compensation for any loss incurred by 
     the motor carrier by reason of delay in the transportation of 
     the equipment necessitated by the need for the repair.
       ``(2) Exception.--The controller of intermodal equipment 
     shall not be liable to provide reimbursement or compensation 
     for a repair to a motor carrier under paragraph (1) if the 
     motor carrier's negligence or willful misconduct caused the 
     condition requiring the repair.
       ``(c) Fines.--The Secretary may prescribe fines against 
     controllers of intermodal equipment for violations of this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 7. SAFETY COMPLIANCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 59 of title 49, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 6, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5911. Compliance with safety regulations

       ``(a) Liability of Equipment Controller.--Notwithstanding 
     any provision of an equipment interchange agreement, the 
     controller of intermodal equipment covered by such agreement 
     shall be liable for each violation of applicable safety 
     regulations that is attributable to such equipment and shall 
     pay any fine, penalty, and damages resulting from such 
     violation, except that the controller of such equipment shall 
     not be liable for any such violations that is proximately 
     caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of a motor 
     carrier that is not the controller of such equipment.
       ``(b) Limitation on Liability of Motor Carrier.--A motor 
     carrier who receives intermodal equipment through interchange 
     may not be held liable for a violation of applicable safety 
     regulations that is attributable to such equipment other than 
     under the circumstances and to the extent provided in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(c) Limitation on Effect.--No record or report of a 
     violation of applicable safety regulations attributable to 
     interchanged intermodal equipment, whether issued by a 
     Federal, State, or local law enforcement authority, shall 
     have any effect on a motor carrier's overall safety rating or 
     safety status measurement system score, as determined by the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or on a driving 
     record of a driver for the motor carrier unless such 
     violation was proximately caused by the negligence or willful 
     misconduct of the motor carrier or driver, respectively.
       ``(d) Procedure for Records Corrections.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall prescribe an expedited procedure to 
     correct records or reports of violations that under 
     subsection (c) should not have been adversely affected by a 
     violation of applicable safety regulations.''.

[[Page 25649]]

       (b) Time for Prescribing Records Correction Procedures.--
     The Secretary shall issue final regulations setting forth the 
     expedited procedures required by section 5910(d) of title 49, 
     United States Code, not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORITY TO INSPECT.

       Chapter 59 of title 49, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 7, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 5912. Authority to inspect

       ``(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation is 
     authorized to enter any facility of a controller of 
     intermodal equipment interchanged for use on a public highway 
     in order to inspect the equipment to determine whether the 
     equipment complies with the applicable regulations.
       ``(b) Inspection Program.--The Secretary shall establish 
     and implement with appropriate staffing an inspection and 
     audit program at facilities of controllers of intermodal 
     equipment in order to make determinations under subsection 
     (a). Inspection of equipment and maintenance records for such 
     equipment at such facility shall take place not less 
     frequently than once every 3 months.
       ``(c) Non-Complying Equipment.--Any intermodal equipment 
     that is determined under this section as failing to comply 
     with applicable safety regulations shall be placed out of 
     service and may not be used on a public highway until the 
     repairs necessary to bring such equipment into compliance 
     have been completed. Repairs of equipment placed out of 
     service shall be documented in the maintenance records for 
     such equipment.''.

     SEC. 9. PROHIBITION ON RETALIATION.

       Chapter 59 of title 49, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 8, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 5913. Penalties for retaliation

       ``(a) Retaliation Prohibited.--A controller of intermodal 
     equipment may not take any action to threaten, coerce, 
     discipline, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against a 
     motor carrier in response to a request made by the motor 
     carrier for maintenance or repair of equipment intended for 
     interchange in order to comply with the applicable safety 
     regulations.
       ``(b) Failure To Timely Provide Safe Equipment Deemed To Be 
     Retaliation.--Upon receiving a motor carrier's request for 
     maintenance or repair of intermodal equipment to be picked up 
     by the motor carrier in an interchange of equipment, the 
     controller of intermodal equipment shall be considered to 
     have retaliated against the motor carrier for the purposes of 
     this section if the controller of intermodal equipment fails 
     to provide the motor carrier with the equipment in a 
     condition compliant with the applicable safety regulations 
     within 60 minutes after the motor carrier arrives to pick up 
     the equipment at the place where the equipment is to be 
     picked up.
       ``(c) Penalty.--A controller of intermodal equipment that 
     violates subsection (a) shall be liable to the United States 
     Government for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each 
     violation.''.

     SEC. 10. DELEGATION OF MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY.

       Chapter 59 of title 49, United States Code, as amended by 
     section 9, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 5914. Maintenance responsibility

       ``A controller of intermodal equipment may not delegate its 
     responsibility to systematically maintain and repair 
     equipment intended for interchange to a motor carrier or 
     motor carrier agent in an equipment interchange agreement.''.

     SEC. 11. COMPATIBILITY OF STATE LAWS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 59 of title 49, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 10, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5915. Compatibility of State laws

       ``(a) Preemption Generally.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b) or as otherwise authorized by Federal law, a 
     law, regulation, order, or other requirement of a State or 
     political subdivision of a State, or of a tribal 
     organization, is preempted if compliance with such law, 
     regulation, order, or other requirement would preclude 
     compliance with a requirement imposed under this chapter.
       ``(b) Certain Rules Not Preempted.--A law, regulation, 
     order, or other requirement of a State or political 
     subdivision of a State, or of a tribal organization, shall 
     not be preempted under subsection (a) if such law, 
     regulation, order, or other requirement is more stringent 
     than, but otherwise compatible with, a requirement under this 
     chapter.
       ``(c) Tribal Organization Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `tribal organization' has the meaning given such term in 
     section (4)(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l)).''.

     SEC. 12. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISION.

       Section 5907 of title 49, United States Code, is repealed.

     SEC. 13, CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 5907; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

``5909. Jurisdiction over equipment controller.
``5910. Equipment inspection, repair, and maintenance.
``5911. Compliance with safety regulations.
``5912. Authority to inspect.
``5913. Penalties for retaliation.
``5914. Maintenance responsibility.
``5915. Compatibility of State laws.''.

     SEC. 14. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation, after 
     notice and opportunity for comment, shall issue regulations 
     implementing the provisions of this Act. The regulations 
     shall be issued as part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Regulations of the Department of Transportation. The 
     implementing regulations shall include--
       (1) a requirement to identify controllers of intermodal 
     equipment that is interchanged or intended for interchange in 
     intermodal transportation;
       (2) a requirement to match such equipment readily to its 
     controller through a unique identifying number;
       (3) a requirement to ensure that each controller of 
     intermodal equipment maintains a system of maintenance and 
     repair records for such equipment;
       (4) a requirement to evaluate the compliance of controllers 
     of intermodal equipment with the applicable Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Regulations;
       (5) a provision that prohibits controllers of intermodal 
     equipment that fail to attain satisfactory compliance with 
     such regulations from authorizing the placement of equipment 
     on public highways;
       (6) a requirement for the Secretary to consider the effect 
     that adequate maintenance facilities may have on safety 
     condition of equipment;
       (7) a process by which motor carriers and agents of motor 
     carriers may anonymously petition the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration to undertake an investigation of a 
     noncompliant controller of intermodal equipment;
       (8) administrative procedures to resolve disputes arising 
     under the regulations; and
       (9) the inspection and audit program required under section 
     5912(b) of title 49, United States Code, as added by section 
     8.
       (b) Time for Issuing Regulations.--The regulations required 
     under subsection (a) shall be developed pursuant to a 
     rulemaking proceeding initiated not later than 120 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and shall be issued not 
     later than one year after such date of enactment.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     definitions set forth in section 5901 of title 49, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 4, shall apply.

     SEC. 15. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration such sums as may be necessary 
     for the establishment and implementation of the inspection 
     program required under section 5912 of title 49, United 
     States Code, as added by section 8.

     SEC. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of this Act 
     and the amendments made by such sections shall take effect 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1778. A bill to authorize a land conveyance between the United 
State and the City of Craig, Alaska, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce along with my 
colleague, Senator Stevens, an important bill that will facilitate 
Forest Service land management on Prince of Wales Island and help 
community expansion and development. The City of Craig is the economic 
center of Prince of Wales Island, the third largest island in the 
country. The town contains the major retail shopping and service 
outlets on the island and island residents drive up to a hundred miles 
round trip to come to town for medical services and shopping. Craig 
also has the most active and largest commercial fishing harbor and 
fleet on the island.
  Due to land selection conflicts between the Forest Service and the 
State of Alaska in the 1960's, the city of Craig received no municipal 
entitlement land. This legislation will help alleviate some of the loss 
to the city from the lack of an entitlement.
  One of the Forest Service's main administrative facilities, the Craig 
Ranger District Station is located in Craig. The Craig Ranger has 
management authority over approximately one million acres on Prince of 
Wales Island. It is critical that the Forest Service has the tools it 
needs to provide good management for that part of the island. One of

[[Page 25650]]

these tools is the presence of some Federal land near the Craig Ranger 
Station. Right now, there is not any Forest Service land near the 
Ranger Station. In an unusual situation for Alaska, the Ranger Station 
is an in holding among private, state, and City owned land.
  This legislation would provide for a three way conveyance process 
which would result in three parcels of land now owned by the City being 
conveyed into the National Forest and an in holding owned by a private 
entity being acquired by the City.
  To use the vernacular, this is one of those situations people like to 
describe as ``win-win.'' Providing a recreational opportunity in the 
Forest at Craig benefits the public and the city of Craig would obtain 
land vital to its future community development plan.
  What our legislation does is authorize the Federal Government to 
accept conveyance of land from the City of Craig and authorize an 
appropriation for land acquisition. The funding would be used by the 
city of Craig to purchase the private land at Craig. In return the city 
would convey to the Federal Government up to 346 acres of land it now 
owns to the Tongass National Forest. This land is highly prized for 
local recreation and would provide the Craig Ranger District with a 
missing piece of its management scheme by providing a recreation site 
within short walking distance of the Ranger Station.
  Right now, visitors to the Forest come to the Craig Ranger Station to 
orient themselves to the Forest. One of the things they look for is 
onsite recreation in the Forest from the Ranger Station. But there is 
none. Because of the land conveyance status directly around Craig, 
there is no Forest land in that area.
  However, the city of Craig owns almost 350 acres of prime 
recreational land including a dedicated trail in the immediate vicinity 
from the Ranger Station. The Forest should own this land so that it can 
integrate the parcel into its land management plans.
  The property to be acquired by the city of Craig is a cannery site 
dating from the early 1900's which has not been used since the early 
1980's. It is prime land for the city to redevelop in order to improve 
its community management plan and to provide economic stimulus in 
Craig. The parcel includes both uplands and tidelands and could be used 
by Craig to develop a good port and harbor and to provide first class 
land for retail merchants and other community services.
  Senator Stevens and I strongly support the needs of Craig in 
developing its local economy.
  The entire island is in transition. In the early 1980's, the city and 
Prince of Wales Island were the center of a vibrant timber based 
economy that provided thousands of direct and indirect jobs to the 
Island. Much of that is now gone as a result of unfortunate Federal 
policies which have devastated the timber based economy on Prince of 
Wales Island and much of Southeastern Alaska.
  According to unemployment data published by the Alaska Department of 
Labor, unemployment rates in Craig's census area regularly exceed 20 
percent. Their annual rate of unemployment is typically more than twice 
the national average.
  We must help Craig in its transition to another economy. The city 
leaders are dynamic and visionary people who have provided real 
leadership on the island. They have worked hard to help maintain the 
remaining timber plant at Klawock to provide year round employment to 
city and Island residents. They have organized along with their 
neighbors, the Prince of Wales Community Advisory Council, an 
association of municipalities and Native and non Native communities to 
work as a team on island wide projects.
  Passage of this legislation is critical to the future of the city of 
Craig. It will provide a great management tool to the Forest Service 
and increase recreational opportunities for the local and visiting 
public.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in moving forward on this 
legislation. All of the conveyances in the legislation will be subject 
to appraisals as required by the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government will receive equal value in land from the city. The passage 
of this Act is good for the public and for the residents of Craig.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Cantwell, and Ms. 
        Stabenow):
  S. 1779. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for fairness in the provision of medicare services for Indians; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Medicare 
Indian Health Fairness Act of 2003 with Senators Inouye, Daschle, 
Murray, Dayton, Johnson, Cantwell, and Stabenow. This legislation would 
take a number of steps to improve the delivery of health care to Native 
Amerians through Medicare and the Indian Health Service, IHS, system.
  First and foremost, Indian Health Service and tribal hospitals and 
clinics, which provide health care to American Indians on or near 
reservations and to Alaska Natives, are currently unable to bill for 
all Medicare Part B services. In effect, the Indian Health Service is 
subsidizing the Medicare program because those services, which would 
otherwise be paid for by Medicare, are instead paid for by IHS, which 
is horribly underfunded.
  In 2000, IHS hospitals and clinics were made eligible to bill 
Medicare for certain Part B services for the first time, including 
services delivered by physicians and certain other practitioners, but 
those services were limited and denied payment for Part B items and 
services, such as the following: Durable medical equipment--this 
includes such items as wheelchairs, as well as blood testing strips and 
blood monitors for diabetes patients, which is a severe problem among 
Native Americans; home and some institutional dialysis supplies and 
equipment--since the prevalence of diabetes in American Indians--Alaska 
Natives is three times the rate in the general U.S. population, Indian 
people experience a high rate of renal disease, including end state 
renal disease; cancer screening; pap smears; glaucoma screening; clinic 
or hospital-based ambulance services; prosthetic devices; covered 
vaccines, including hepatitis B, pneumococcal and influenza 
chemotherapy drugs; and clinical laboratory services.
  This legislation would simply make these Indian health facilities and 
providers eligible for payment for all Part B Medicare-covered items 
and services to the same extent that any other provider would be 
eligible for payment.
  Furthermore, the bill assures that Native Americans should have the 
same access to Medicare services as any other American. If IHS 
providers are unable to bill for such Medicare services, IHS budget 
shortfalls may result in rationing and delays in treatment. For some, 
it means going out of the IHS system to get prompt service, as other 
providers are able to bill the Medicare program. Native Americans and 
IHS providers should not be subject to such barriers to care and 
payment. Nor should they be subject to such complexity, as they are 
only prohibited from billing and receiving payment for certain Part B 
services.
  There is absolutely no policy rationale for limiting the payment to 
IHS, tribal hospitals and clinics to only certain Medicare Part B 
services. I urge the Senate to end this unfortunate disparity.
  Fortunately, identical language has been included in S. 1, the 
Medicare prescription drug bull that passed the Senate earlier this 
month. I offered an amendment with Senator Daschle, amendment No. 973, 
on the Senate floor and was pleased that it was accepted by Chairman 
Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus accepted it as part of the manager's 
amendment prior to final passage of the bill.
  In addition to that important provision, the ``Medicare Indian Health 
Fairness Act'' includes another provision that was adopted as part of 
S. 1 as a Bingaman amendment during the Finance Committee mark-up. This 
provision requires Medicare providers to charge no more than Medicare 
rates for

[[Page 25651]]

inpatient hospital services provided to Indians who are eligible for 
contract health services from the Indian Health Service, tribally 
operated health programs, and urban Indian organizations.
  This allows IHS to maximize its purchase of contract health services, 
just as is done by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the 
Department of Defense. Since the contract health services, CHS, account 
is chronically underfunded, IHS and the tribes seriously ration and 
often exhaust those funds before the end of the fiscal year. In fiscal 
year 2001 alone, the Indian Health Service had insufficient funding to 
provide services for over 100,000 cases that met its medical priority 
criteria and denied 22,000 other cases of medically necessary care 
which did not meet IHS medical priorities. Therefore, this section of 
the bill would enable IHS and tribes to achieve greater economy for the 
provision of contract health services.
  The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector 
General's Cost-Saver Handbook has annually made this recommendation. As 
per its 2003 Red Book or cost-saver handbook reads:

       As a federal purchaser of inpatient health care from the 
     private sector, IHS should receive rates commensurate with 
     those received by other federal agencies that engage in 
     similar purchases [such as the VA and DOD].

  The Inspector General adds:

       If the favorable Medicare rates were legislatively 
     required, the dollars saved could be applied to the backlog 
     of patient services that cannot be accommodated in the 
     Contract Health Services program.

  And last, the legislation includes a section intended to bring a 
measure of consistency, rationality and efficiency to the Medicare 
payment rate for all clinics in the Indian Health Service-supported 
health care system. This language creates a uniform payment methodology 
that would be available to all IHS and tribal clinics and corrects the 
current situation where payment rates differ widely--based not on the 
nature of the services a clinic provides, but on whether the facility 
is operated by the IHS or operated by a tribe, and whether the clinic 
is considered provider-based or free-standing. Since all clinics 
provide primary patient care and arrange for secondary, tertiary and 
specialty care on a referral basis, there is no rational reason for the 
wide disparity in the Medicare payment methodologies for these 
facilities.
  The legislation would give all Indian clinics the ability to collect 
reimbursement from the same IHS-CMS all-inclusive rate. Application of 
the same all-inclusive rate to all clinics would have the added value 
of being efficient and economical to use at the clinic level and would 
apply the same payment method in Medicare, by which IHS-funded clinics 
are reimbursed, as they receive in Medicaid.
  This section of the bill was the only one not included in S. 1, but 
the rationale for it makes it an important component of this bill and 
something we hope to see passed into law as well.
  Although these provisions address a diversity of problems IHS 
providers and clinics have with respect to the Medicare program, they 
are critical and we should pass all of these provisions either as part 
of a conference agreement on S. 1, as part of the ``Indian Health Care 
Improvement Act,'' or on their merits through passage of this 
freestanding bill.
  I would like to thank Senators Inouye, Daschle, Murray, Dayton, 
Johnson, Cantwell, and Stabenow for being original cosponsors of this 
important legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1779

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Indian Health 
     Fairness Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL MEDICARE PART 
                   B SERVICES FURNISHED BY CERTAIN INDIAN 
                   HOSPITALS AND CLINICS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1880(e) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395qq(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``for services 
     described in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``for all items 
     and services for which payment may be made under such part'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after the 
     first day of the sixth month beginning after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON CHARGES FOR INPATIENT HOSPITAL CONTRACT 
                   HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED TO INDIANS BY MEDICARE 
                   PARTICIPATING HOSPITALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1866(a)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (R), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (S), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(T) in the case of hospitals which furnish inpatient 
     hospital services for which payment may be made under this 
     title, to be a participating provider of medical care--
       ``(i) under the contract health services program funded by 
     the Indian Health Service and operated by the Indian Health 
     Service, an Indian tribe, or tribal organization (as those 
     terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act), with respect to items and services that are 
     covered under such program and furnished to an individual 
     eligible for such items and services under such program; and
       ``(ii) under a program funded by the Indian Health Service 
     and operated by an urban Indian organization with respect to 
     the purchase of items and services for an eligible urban 
     Indian (as those terms are defined in such section 4), in 
     accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary 
     regarding admission practices, payment methodology, and rates 
     of payment (including the acceptance of no more than such 
     payment rate as payment in full for such items and 
     services).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply as of a date specified by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services (but in no case later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act) to medicare participation 
     agreements in effect (or entered into) on or after such date.

     SEC. 4. EQUAL PAYMENTS FOR CLINICS IN THE INDIAN HEALTH 
                   SERVICE SUPPORTED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 1880 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395qq) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     purposes of determining the rate of reimbursement for items 
     and services under this title, any outpatient or ambulatory 
     care clinic (whether freestanding or provider-based) operated 
     by the Indian Health Service, an Indian tribe, a tribal 
     organization, or an urban Indian organization (as those terms 
     are defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act), shall, upon the election of such clinic, be 
     reimbursed on the same basis as if such clinic were a 
     hospital outpatient department of the Indian Health 
     Service.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished on or after the 
     first day of the sixth month beginning after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. 
        Harkin):
  S. 1780. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify the 
definition of anabolic steroids and to provide for research and 
education activities relating to steroids and steroid precursors; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to introduce, along with my 
good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, the ``Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.'' Over 
the last several weeks, we have read front-page articles on the 
dangerous mix of sports and steroids, including a new ``designer'' 
steroid tetrahydrogestrinone, known as ``THG.'' Several premier 
athletes have allegedly tested positive for THG, and there is a Federal 
grand jury investigation into the alleged manufacture and distribution 
of this new substance. Our bill would make THG, and several other 
similar substances, subject to the Controlled Substances Act. Thus, 
these products would no longer be available over the counter. Absent a 
prescription from your doctor, you will not be able to buy them 
legally.

[[Page 25652]]

  First, a bit of background on how we got here. Thirteen years ago I 
held a number of hearings on the dangers associated with steroid use 
and introduced legislation to make steroids Schedule III substances. 
After my bill became law, a number of steroid users continued to buy 
and use steroids only now they were buying them through a developing 
illicit market. Others relied on new products being developed or 
rediscovered by scientists, products which may not violate the letter 
of the law, but certainly violate the spirit of the law.
  These substances, called steroid precursors or pro-steroids, are one 
step removed from the substances scheduled in the law: when ingested, 
they metabolize into testosterone or other illicit steroids. These are 
products which the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the group in 
charge of testing Olympic athletes for performance enhancing drugs, has 
called ``the functional equivalent of steroids.''
  In writing about the lack of testing for steroid precursor use in 
professional baseball, Barry Rozner of the Chicago Daily Herald 
described the close relationship between steroids and steroid 
precursors. He wrote:

       There's still no testing for andro (androstenedione) 
     because technically it's not a steroid. It's a steroid 
     precursor. Technically a cake mix isn't a cake but as soon as 
     you pour it in a bowl and stick it in the oven, it's a cake. 
     You put andro in the body, mix it with the body's chemicals 
     and let it bake, and it turns into a powerful steroid. If it 
     walks like a duck and talks like a duck, baseball calls it a 
     sparrow.

  The most well known of the steroid precursors is androstenedione 
often called ``andro.'' Most recently Hiram Cruz, a 2001 national judo 
champion, was suspended from competition for two years after testing 
positive for andro. And it is widely thought that some East German 
Olympic athletes used it in the 1970s and 1980s to improve their 
performance. But perhaps the substance gained the most notoriety when 
professional baseball player Mark McGuire admitted that he used it when 
he broke Roger Maris's single season record for home runs. After 
McGuire revealed that he had taken andro, sales of the product 
quadrupled.
  Andro increases both testosterone and estrogen levels in the body. 
According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association ``orally administered adrostenedione increases serum 
testosterone and estrogen levels in healthy men, particularly at higher 
doses.'' The study further notes that ``long-term administration could 
be hazardous, particularly in women or children.'' Another study showed 
that even a single 100 milligram dose of andro can yield unhealthy 
levels of testosterone in women and can increase estrogen levels by 80 
percent. Andro has also been associated with a decrease in HDL the 
``good'' cholesterol and elevated levels of estradiol which may 
increase women's risk of breast cancer.
  As I will discuss in greater detail later, in addition to the grave 
health effects associated with using andro and other steroid 
precursors, the physical effects can also be quite serious: women can 
develop masculine sex characteristics including changing of the sexual 
organs; men can develop feminine sex characteristics including breast 
development; and adolescent users can stunt their growth.
  The International Olympic Committee, the National Football League and 
the National Collegiate Athletics Association have banned andro and 
other steroid supplements. Other sports, particularly baseball, have 
been criticized for refusing to agree to test players for steroid 
precursors. I should note that Major League Baseball has endorsed the 
legislation I am introducing today. And at a hearing in the Senate 
Commerce Committee last year, Donald Fehr, the Executive Director of 
the Major League Baseball Players Association, said that ``it may well 
be time for the Federal Government to revisit whether steroid 
precursors should also be covered by Schedule III.'' I agree with him. 
Interestingly enough, so do the 79 percent of major league baseball 
players and nearly 86 percent of baseball fans who, according to 
surveys conducted by USA Today last year, support testing for steroids 
and performance-enhancing drugs.
  The USA Today survey also revealed that 80 percent of fans believe 
that steroid use is behind some of the major league records that have 
been broken recently. It is understandable, therefore, that some 
players may support testing to preserve the integrity of their records. 
As Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter has been quoted as saying:

       I don't have a problem with getting tested because I have 
     nothing to hide. Steroids are a big issue. If anything like a 
     home run or any injury happens, people say it's steroids. 
     That's not fair.

  In my view, it is time for Congress to act so that we can put an end 
to the charade that androstenedione and similar products are any 
different from the anabolic steroids that are controlled under current 
law.
  To be honest I would be less concerned about what professional 
athletes are doing to their bodies if their actions did not have such a 
profound effect on kids. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation 
revealed that nearly three-quarters of kids say that they look up to 
and want to emulate professional athletes. Sadly, more than half of 
those kids believe that their sports heroes use steroids and other 
performance enhancing drugs to win. That may be why adolescent anabolic 
steroid use is at its highest level in the past decade, with 1 million 
teens having used them.
  As Dr. Bernard Greisemer, a pediatrician and sports medicine 
specialist, testified before the Senate last year, many of these 
products are marketed to kids who want to be like their favorite sports 
hero. Dr. Greisemer said:

       [P]rofessional athletes are major role models for our young 
     athletes; in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the 
     food they eat, and the drugs and dietary supplements they 
     take. The millions of dollars that are spent by major 
     corporations in linking their products to a particular 
     athlete, team, or sporting event, counter any argument that 
     professional athletes are not affecting the lifestyles of our 
     young athletes. Use of and media exposure of the use of, 
     anabolic steroids in professional athletes also directly 
     affects the interest in, the perception of benefits of, and 
     the use of these substances.

  There are plenty of children and adults who believe that supplements 
will make them faster and stronger. That they'll have bigger muscles 
and be more like their favorite athlete. That they'll have a 
competitive advantage or have what it takes to win. In reality, they 
are jeopardizing their health. The ignorance of the consequences of 
using these substances is astounding. A study by Blue Cross/Blue Shield 
found that 70 percent of kids and half of parents surveyed were unable 
to identify even one negative side effect associated with performance-
enhancing drugs. And 80 percent of kids reported that their parents 
have never talked to them about the dangers of steroid use. Clearly 
there is quite a bit of education to be done about these very dangerous 
substances.
  Let me go through just a few of the side effects of steroid use. In 
both males and females it can lead to increased blood pressure, 
increased risk of heart attack and stroke, liver and cardiac 
dysfunction, increased libido, aggressiveness and appetite, and acne. 
For males, steroid use can lead to breast development, premature 
balding, testicular atrophy, decreased sperm count and prostate 
enlargement. Females can develop masculine sex characteristics 
including increased body hair, facial hair, deepening of the voice, 
male pattern baldness and changes to the sex organs. And among 
adolescent users, steroid precursor use can lead to stunted growth due 
to hardening of cartilage. Many of these side-effects are irreversible.
  Quite troubling to me is that some people are taking these substances 
unwittingly. It is not unusual for manufacturers of creatine or other 
performance enhancing substances to put andro or another precursor into 
their product to give them a competitive edge over a competitor's 
products.
  Clearly these substances are dangerous and they should not be widely 
available over the counter. That is why I am joining with Senator Hatch 
and Senator Grassley today to introduce the Anabolic Steroid Control 
Act of 2003.

[[Page 25653]]

  My bill does four things. First, it amends the Anabolic Steroid 
Control Act of 1990 by adding THG, androstenedione and their chemical 
cousins to the list of anabolic steroids controlled under the 
Controlled Substances Act and makes it easier for the DEA to add 
similar substances to that list in the future. This would prohibit 
people from obtaining these substances over the counter without a 
prescription in either their pure form or as an additive to another 
product.
  Second, it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review the 
Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids 
and consider increasing them. Currently, the maximum sentence for 
offenses involving anabolic steroids is only 33-41 months for first 
time offenders. And to receive the maximum sentence an offender would 
have to have between 40,000 and 60,000 units, which is defined as a 10 
cc vial or 50 tablets. That means that someone trafficking 300,000 
doses faces a maximum of three and a half year behind bars. That does 
not seem to be enough of a deterrent and I hope the Sentencing 
Commission will consider raising the guidelines for steroid 
trafficking.
  Third, the bill authorizes $15 million for the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services to award grants to public and non-profit entities to 
carry out science-based education programs in elementary and secondary 
schools to highlight the harmful effects of anabolic steroids. 
Preference will be given to programs based on the Athletes Training and 
Learning to Avoid Steroids program (ATLAS), the Athletes Targeting 
Healthy Exercise and Nutrition Alternatives (ATHENA) program, and other 
programs which the National Institute on Drug Abuse has determined to 
be effective. ATLAS, which is aimed at male student athletes, has been 
named as one of the Department of Education's Exemplary Programs and is 
one of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's 
Model Programs. ATHENA is ATLAS's companion program designed for female 
athletes.
  Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to include questions about steroid use in the National Survey on Drug 
Use and Health, an annual survey to measure the extent of alcohol, drug 
and tobacco use in the United States. The bill authorizes $1 million 
for this purpose.
  I'm proud to say that the bill has been endorsed by a wide range of 
medical, athletic and drug policy organizations including: American 
Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Pediatrics; American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College for Sports 
Medicine; American Council on Exercise; American Medical Association; 
Association of Tennis Professionals; Blue Cross Blue Shield 
Association; Boys and Girls Clubs; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of 
America; Consumer Healthcare Products Association; Council for 
Responsible Nutrition; The Endocrine Society; The Hormone Foundation; 
Little League; Major League Baseball; National Athletic Trainers 
Association; The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at 
Columbia University; National Collegiate Athletic Association; National 
Federation of State High Schools Association; National Football League; 
National High School Athletic Coaches Association; National Junior 
College Athletic Association; National Nutritional Foods Association; 
Pharmacists Planning Services, Inc.; United States Anti-Doping Agency; 
U.S. Olympic Committee; U.S. Biathlon Association; U.S. Soccer 
Federation; USA Cycling; USA Luge; USA Swimming; USA Track and Field 
and Utah Natural Products Alliance.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I hope that it 
will be enacted into law soon.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1780

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Anabolic Steroid Control Act 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 102 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (41)--
       (A) by realigning the margin so as to align with paragraph 
     (40);
       (B) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) The term `anabolic steroid' means any drug or 
     hormonal substance, chemically and pharmacologically related 
     to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, 
     corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone), and includes--
       ``(i) androstanediol--
       ``(I) 3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; and
       ``(II) 3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane;
       ``(ii) androstanedione (5a-androstan-3,17-dione);
       ``(iii) androstenediol--
       ``(I) 1-androstenediol (3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androst-1-ene);
       ``(II) 1-androstenediol (3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androst-1-
     ene);
       ``(III) 4-androstenediol (3b,17b-dihydroxy-androst-4-ene); 
     and
       ``(IV) 5-androstenediol (3b,17b-dihydroxy-androst-5-ene);
       ``(iv) androstenedione--
       ``(I) 1-androstenedione ([5a]-androst-1-en-3,17-dione);
       ``(II) 4-androstenedione (androst-4-en-3,17-dione); and
       ``(III) 5-androstenedione (androst-5-en-3,17-dione);
       ``(v) bolasterone (7a,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxyandrost-4-en-
     3-one);
       ``(vi) boldenone (17b-hydroxyandrost-1,4,-diene-3-one);
       ``(vii) calusterone (7b,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxyandrost-4-
     en-3-one);
       ``(viii) clostebol (4-chloro-17b-hydroxyandrost-4-en-3-
     one);
       ``(ix) dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (4-chloro-17b-
     hydroxy-17a-methyl-androst-1,4-dien-3-one);
       ``(x) 4-dihydrotestosterone (17b-hydroxy-androstan-3-one);
       ``(xi) drostanolone (17b-hydroxy-2a-methyl-5a-androstan-3-
     one);
       ``(xii) ethylestrenol (17a-ethyl-17b-hydroxyestr-4-ene);
       ``(xiii) fluoxymesterone (9-fluoro-17a-methyl-11b,17b-
     dihydroxyandrost-4-en-3-one);
       ``(xiv) formebolone (2-formyl-17a-methyl-11a,17b-
     dihydroxyandrost-1,4-dien-3-one);
       ``(xv) furazabol (17a-methyl-17b-hydroxyandrostano[2,3-c]-
     furazan);
       ``(xvi) 18a-homo-17b-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one (13b-ethyl-17b-
     hydroxygon-4-en-3-one);
       ``(xvii) 4-hydroxytestosterone (4,17b-dihydroxy-androst-4-
     en-3-one);
       ``(xviii) 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone (4,17b-dihydroxy-
     estr-4-en-3-one);
       ``(xix) mestanolone (17a-methyl-17b-hydroxy-5a-androstan-3-
     one);
       ``(xx) mesterolone (1a-methyl-17b-hydroxy-[5a]-androstan-3-
     one);
       ``(xxi) methandienone (17a-methyl-17b-hydroxyandrost-1,4-
     dien-3-one);
       ``(xxii) methandriol (17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxyandrost-5-
     ene);
       ``(xxiii) methenolone (1-methyl-17b-hydroxy-5a-androst-1-
     en-3-one);
       ``(xxiv) methyltestosterone (17a-methyl-17b-hydroxyandrost-
     4-en-3-one);
       ``(xxv) mibolerone (7a,17a-dimethyl-17b-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-
     one);
       ``(xxvi) nandrolone (17b-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one);
       ``(xxvii) norandrostenediol--
       ``(I) 19-nor-4-androstenediol (3b, 17b-dihydroxyestr-4-
     ene);
       ``(II) 19-nor-4-androstenediol (3a, 17b-dihydroxyestr-4-
     ene);
       ``(III) 19-nor-5-androstenediol (3b, 17b-dihydroxyestr-5-
     ene); and
       ``(IV) 19-nor-5-androstenediol (3a, 17b-dihydroxyestr-5-
     ene);
       ``(xxviii) norandrostenedione--
       ``(I) 19-nor-4-androstenedione (estr-4-en-3,17-dione); and
       ``(II) 19-nor-5-androstenedione (estr-5-en-3,17-dione;
       ``(xxix) norbolethone (18a-homo-17b-hydroxypregna-4-en-3-
     one);
       ``(xxx) norclostebol (4-chloro-17b-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one);
       ``(xxxi) norethandrolone (17a-ethyl-17b-hydroxyestr-4-en-3-
     one);
       ``(xxxii) oxandrolone (17a-methyl-17b-hydroxy-2-oxa-[5a]-
     androstan-3-one);
       ``(xxxiii) oxymesterone (17a-methyl-4,17b-dihydroxyandrost-
     4-en-3-one);
       ``(xxxiv) oxymetholone (17a-methyl-2-hydroxymethylene-17b-
     hydroxy-[5a]-androstan-3-one);
       ``(xxxv) stanozolol (17a-methyl-17b-hydroxy-[5a]-androst-2-
     eno[3,2-c]-pyrazole);
       ``(xxxvi) stenbolone (17b-hydroxy-2-methyl-[5a]-androst-1-
     en-3-one);
       ``(xxxvii) testolactone (13-hydroxy-3-oxo-13,17-
     secoandrosta-1,4-dien-17-oic acid lactone);
       ``(xxxviii) 1-testosterone (17b-Hydroxy-5a-androst-1-en-3-
     one);
       ``(xxxix) testosterone (17b-hydroxyandrost-4-en-3-one);
       ``(xl) tetrahydrogestrinone (13b,17a-diethyl-17b-
     hydroxygon-4,9,11-trien-3-one);
       ``(xli) trenbolone (17b-hydroxyestr-4,9,11-trien-3-one); 
     and

[[Page 25654]]

       ``(xlii) any salt, ester, or ether of a drug or substance 
     described in this paragraph; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Attorney 
     General may not schedule Androstenedione as a controlled 
     substance in accordance with this Act until the Attorney 
     General receives a finding from the Commissioner of Food and 
     Drugs relating to whether Androstenedione is lawfully 
     marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 321 et seq.).''; and
       (2) in paragraph (44), by inserting ``anabolic steroids,'' 
     after ``marihuana,''.
       (b) Authority and Criteria for Classification.--Section 
     201(g) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``substance from a 
     schedule if such substance'' and inserting ``drug which 
     contains a controlled substance from the application of 
     titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention 
     and Control Act (21 U.S.C. 802 et seq.) if such drug''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, a compound, mixture, or preparation which 
     contains any anabolic steroid, which is intended for 
     administration to a human being or an animal, and which, 
     because of its concentration, preparation, formulation or 
     delivery system, does not present any significant potential 
     for abuse.''.
       (c) Anabolic Steroids Control Act.--Section 1903 of the 
     Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (a) and (b), respectively.

     SEC. 3. SENTENCING COMMISSION GUIDELINES.

       The United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (1) review the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect 
     to offenses involving anabolic steroids;
       (2) consider amending the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     provide for increased penalties with respect to offenses 
     involving anabolic steroids in a manner that reflects the 
     seriousness of such offenses and the need to deter anabolic 
     steroid use; and
       (3) take such other action that the Commission considers 
     necessary to carry out this section.

     SEC. 4. PREVENTION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall award 
     grants to public and nonprofit private entities to enable 
     such entities to carry out science-based education programs 
     in elementary and secondary schools to highlight the harmful 
     effects of anabolic steroids.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) Application.--To be eligible for grants under 
     subsection (a), an entity shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       (2) Preference.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall give preference to applicants that intend 
     to use grant funds to carry out programs based on--
       (A) the Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids 
     program;
       (B) the Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise and Nutrition 
     Alternatives program; and
       (C) other programs determined to be effective by the 
     National Institute on Drug Abuse.
       (c) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under 
     subsection (a) shall be used primarily for education programs 
     that will directly communicate with teachers, principals, 
     coaches, as well as elementary and secondary school children 
     concerning the harmful effects of anabolic steroids.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $15,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall ensure that the National Survey on Drug Use and Health 
     includes questions concerning the use of anabolic steroids.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $1,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Biden and 
Senator Hatch as a co-sponsor of the Steroid Control Act of 2003. Our 
youth need to understand that while the short-term use of steroids may 
seem beneficial, the long-term effects on overall health can be 
extremely harmful or even fatal. Adults need to be more vigilant in 
ensuring young people are not able to obtain these dangerous 
substances. The Steroid Control Act is an important step in working 
toward that goal.
  According to the latest Monitoring the Future Survey, 2.5 percent of 
eighth graders, 3.5 percent of tenth graders and 4.0 percent of twelfth 
graders used steroids at least once during their lifetime. Teens in 
particular seem to believe the myth that steroid abuse, typically at 10 
to 100 times what might be prescribed by a doctor, is a quick way to 
gain muscle mass with little cost.
  But steroid abuse is associated with a range of physical and 
emotional problems. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, 
the dangers associated with steroid use include liver tumors and 
cancer, jaundice, high blood pressure and increases in cholesterol 
levels, kidney tumors, fluid retention, and severe acne. Adolescents in 
particular risk prematurely halting their growth because of early 
skeletal maturation and acceleration of puberty. The emotional problems 
associated with steroid use include dramatic mood swings, including 
manic symptoms that can lead to violence called ``roid'' rage, 
depression, paranoid jealousy, extreme irritability, delusions, and 
impaired judgment.
  This Bill makes clarifications to the Steroid Control Act passed in 
1990. It will make it easier to add steroid precursors such as 
androstenedione, THG, and other similar substances--many of which have 
been developed since the Steroid Control Act of 1990 passed in order to 
evade the law--to the list of Schedule III anabolic steroids. In 
addition, it adds a number of known steroid precursors to the anabolic 
steroid list, and removes the requirement that a substance be proven to 
promote muscle growth.
  The Steroid Control Act also directs the United States Sentencing 
Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes 
involving anabolic steroids. It provides an opportunity to conduct 
prevention programs for young students to educate them on the dangers 
of using steroids.
  I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting these important 
reforms.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Johnson, 
        Mr. Pryor, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
        McCain, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1781. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to promulgate regulations for the reimportation of 
prescription drugs, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmaceutical 
Market Access Act of 2003 in the Senate, along with my colleagues, 
Senators Snowe, Stabenow, Johnson, Pryor, Dayton, Leahy, Levin, 
Feingold, McCain, and Jeffords. This legislation is the Senate 
companion to H.R. 2427, which passed the House of Representatives by a 
wide, bipartisan 243-186 vote earlier this year.
  This bill would give Americans the benefit of the global market in 
purchasing FDA-approved medicines. Rather than paying the highest 
prices in the world for their prescription drugs, Americans, through 
their local pharmacist or drug wholesaler, should be able to access 
FDA-approved medicines from Canada and 24 other major industrialized 
countries. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that this 
legislation would save taxpayers $40.4 billion, including $4.5 billion 
in savings for the Federal Government.
  As my colleagues know, the conference committee on Medicare currently 
has before it House and Senate bills that include pharmaceutical market 
access provisions. My hope is that the Medicare conferees will include 
strong drug importation language that will give American consumers 
immediate relief from high drug prices. If not, however, I will fight 
to have this bill called up separately in the Senate at the earliest 
available opportunity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1782. A bill to provide duty-free treatment for certain tuna; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that 
is designed to eliminate tariffs on certain tuna products imported into 
the United

[[Page 25655]]

States from member nations of the Association of Southeast Asian 
Nations (ASEAN).
  ASEAN is a force for stability and development in Southeast Asia and 
pursuit of cooperative economic policies is critical to the 
relationship. The ASEAN nations include countries such as the 
Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia that are valuable trading 
partners and important friends and allies in the ongoing fight against 
world terrorism.
  Several of the ASEAN nations import processed tuna imported into the 
United States. This includes pouch tuna, which is a relatively new 
product that uses an innovative process to vacuum pack tuna into easy 
to use and environmentally friendly airtight pouches for commercial and 
retail sale. A few creative companies, including Jana Brands, Inc. of 
Natick, Massachusetts, pioneered pouch tuna in the United States.
  Tuna imported from the ASEAN nations is subject to higher tariffs 
upon entry into the United States. A provision was included in the 
Trade Act of 2002 that gives duty-free treatment to pouch but not 
canned tuna imported from the beneficiary countries of the Andean Trade 
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. I understand that the Andean Pact 
preferences are intended to increase production and trade with the 
United States in certain products and wean their economies away from 
any dependence on the production of crops used to make illegal drugs. I 
support the rationale behind the Andean Pact but it is also true that 
duty free treatment for pouch tuna imported from Andean countries puts 
pouch tuna imported from ASEAN member nations at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  To restore fair trade and to benefit U.S. consumers and workers, I am 
introducing the ``Fair Trade in Pouch Tuna Act of 2003''. This bill 
provides limited duty free treatment for tuna packed in airtight 
pouches imported from ASEAN nations that meet internationally 
recognized labor standards and environmental protections. The 
legislation requires that these imports come only from ASEAN nations 
that provide and enforce recognized worker rights and environmental 
protections.
  This legislation is just the first step. I look forward to working 
with the many parties that may be interested in this issue to craft a 
successful proposal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. 
        Allen):
  S. 1783. A bill to provide that transit pass transportation fringe 
benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees in the 
National Capital Region; to allow passenger carriers which are owned or 
leased by the Government to be used to transport Government employees 
between their place of employment and mass transit facilities, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal 
Employee Commuter Benefits Act of 2003, which is cosponsored by my 
colleagues Senators Mikulski, Warner, and Allen. This bill will 
guarantee transit benefits to all Federal employees in the National 
Capital Area and will remove a restriction that currently forbids 
Federal agencies from providing employee shuttles to and from transit 
stations. This measure is an important step forward in our efforts to 
encourage transit ridership and improve the quality of life for Federal 
employees in the Washington, D.C. region and throughout the nation.
  All across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll 
in terms of economic loss, environmental impact, and personal 
frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, in 2001 
Americans in 75 urban areas spent 3.6 billion hours stuck in traffic, 
with an estimated cost to the nation of $69.5 billion in lost time and 
wasted fuel. In response, Americans are turning to alternative 
transportation options in record numbers. The American Public 
Transportation Association estimates that Americans now take over 9 
billion trips on transit per year, the highest level in more than 40 
years.
  Transit benefit programs are playing a vital role in increasing 
transit ridership, which benefits both transit users and drivers. In 
1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century amended the 
tax code to allow financial incentives related to commuting costs for 
employers and employees. These transit benefits allowed employers to 
offer a tax-free financial incentive toward the costs of transit 
commuting, starting at $65 per month and raised in 2002 to $100 per 
month.
  Based upon the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency and 
the U.S. Department of Transportation, there are clear improvements to 
congestion, energy efficiency, and air quality from transit benefit 
programs. According to their findings, an employer with 1,000 employees 
that participates in a combination of transit benefits, carpool, and 
telecommuting programs can take credit for taking 175 cars off the 
road, saving 44,000 gallons of gasoline per year, and cutting global 
warming pollution by 420 tons per year on average.
  In April 2000, an Executive Order was signed requiring all executive 
branch agencies in the National Capital Region to offer transit 
benefits to their employees. As a result, Federal employees commuting 
to Washington, D.C. from Montgomery, Prince George's, and Frederick 
Counties, Maryland, several counties in Northern Virginia, and as far 
away as West Virginia, are encouraged to choose transit as their means 
to get to work.
  According to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and 
the U.S. Department of Transportation, by 2001 more than 110,000 
employees--approximately one-third of all Federal employees in the 
National Capital Region--joined the Federal transit benefit program 
created by the Executive Order. These program participants alone have 
eliminated an estimated 12,500 single-occupancy vehicles from 
Washington, D.C. area roads, helping to reduce congestion and improve 
air quality for our region.
  The Executive Order, however, is limited. It does not cover the more 
than 100,000 Federal employees in the legislative and judicial 
branches, and the dozens of independent Federal agencies located in the 
Washington, D.C. region. While many of these organizations provide 
transit benefits to their employees, the implementation and level of 
benefit is up to the discretion of individual offices. As such, many of 
these organizations provide limited benefits or do not provide any 
benefits at all. Guaranteed transit benefits would give these employees 
more choice in their commuting options and provide an additional 
incentive to move off our congested roadways and onto public transit.
  Of course, such incentives will be ineffective if employees lack 
access to transit services. In my own state of Maryland, the United 
States Food and Drug Administration planned to use its own resources to 
provide a shuttle service for its employees from its new White Oak 
facility to an area Metro station. When they investigated providing 
this service, FDA officials found that the current law does not allow 
Federal agencies to use their own vehicles to shuttle employees to mass 
transit stations.
  The potential impact of this restriction on regional congestion is 
not insignificant. By 2005, FDA estimates 1,700 employees will work at 
the new White Oak facility, and plans have been made to eventually 
house more than 7,000 FDA researchers and administrators at the new 
facility. The lack of access from FDA's new campus to a transit station 
represents a lost opportunity for reducing congestion, improving our 
environment and elevating the quality of life for employees.
  This type of lost opportunity occurs across the nation. Nationally, 
the Federal Government employs more than 2.6 million civilian workers 
at more than 3,000 Federal government office buildings. At Federal 
offices throughout the country, transit use is often limited as a 
commuting option due to lack of employee access to a transit station or 
a bus stop.
  The Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would address both of 
these issues faced by Federal employees. First, the bill would put into 
law

[[Page 25656]]

the Executive Order's requirement that transit pass benefits be made 
available to all qualified Federal employees in the National Capital 
Region. The bill also extends the requirement beyond executive branch 
agencies to include the legislative and judicial branches and 
independent agencies, providing guaranteed transit benefits to an 
additional 100,000 employees in the Washington, DC region.
  Second, the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act would remove the 
restriction that prohibits a Federal agency from operating a shuttle 
service to a public transit facility. With this legislation, any 
Federal agency, anywhere in the United States, can choose to provide a 
transit shuttle service for their employees. By providing access to 
commuting alternatives, Federal agencies will be able to provide a 
benefit to their employees that can make getting to work easier, more 
affordable, and more employee-friendly. It will also provide an 
opportunity to help reduce congestion and improve air quality across 
the Nation.
  Since 1982, the U.S. population has grown 20 percent, but the time 
spent by commuters in traffic has grown 236 percent. Each year, traffic 
congestion wastes nine billion gallons of fuel. By encouraging Federal 
employees to look to transit and by providing access to transit 
stations, we can help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and 
promote an improved quality of life.
  I am introducing the Federal Employee Commuter Benefits Act because 
of the opportunities it will give Federal agencies to support public 
transportation, both by providing employee access to transit facilities 
across the nation, and by providing transit benefits to Federal 
employees in the Washington, D.C. region. Both of these improvements 
will aid our efforts to fight congestion and pollution by encouraging 
the use of transportation alternatives. This legislation is strongly 
supported by Federal employees, transit providers, and local elected 
officials, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, along 
with their letters of support, be printed in the Record. I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the Federal Employee Commuter 
Benefits Act.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

         American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 
           12, AFL-CIO,
                               Washington, DC, September 25, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: The American Federation of 
     Government Employees (AFGE) Local 12 represents 4,000 
     employees at the U.S. Department of Labor in the Washington 
     D.C. metropolitan area.
       We appreciate very much all the work you have done on 
     behalf of Federal employees, in particular your work to 
     assist our local to have the monthly transit subsidy raised 
     to $100. Unfortunately, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao 
     continues to deny the $100 transit subsidy to the employees 
     represented by AFGE Local 12. This is why I am writing to you 
     today.
       We respectfully request that you sponsor and introduce in 
     the Senate a companion bill to H.R. 1151. The purpose of H.R. 
     1151 is ``To provide that transit pass transportation fringe 
     benefits be made available to all qualified Federal employees 
     in the National Capital Region; to allow passenger carriers 
     which are owned or leased by the Government to be used to 
     transport Government employees between their place of 
     employment and mass transit facilities, and for other 
     purposes.''
       H.R. 1151 was introduced by Congressman Jim Moran and is 
     co-sponsored by Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton, Albert 
     Wynn, Chris Van Hollen, Tom Davis, Steny Hoyer, and Frank 
     Wolf. It has been marked up in the Subcommittee on Civil 
     Service and Agency Organization of the Government Reform 
     Committee.
       Passage into law of this legislation would not only help 
     employees at the Department of Labor and employees at any 
     other Federal agency in this area where management has 
     decided, for whatever reason, not to offer the tax-free 
     maximum transit subsidy. It would also benefit the region 
     generally by giving more Federal employees the incentive to 
     use mass transit, thus helping to lesson traffic congestion 
     and air pollution.
       If you would like to discuss this further, please call me. 
     Thank you very much for your consideration of this serious 
     matter.
           Respectfully yours,
                                           Lawrence C. Drake, Jr.,
     President.
                                  ____

                                      Washington Metropolitan Area


                                            Transit Authority,

                                 Washington, DC, October 10, 2003.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am pleased to offer the Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) endorsement of 
     the legislation you are proposing concerning federal employee 
     commuter benefits. This legislation is very important in 
     supporting regional efforts to use every feasible technique 
     to reduce the severe traffic congestion in the National 
     Capital Region.
       The recently released Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 
     report on congestion cites the metropolitan Washington region 
     as the third most congested in the nation, despite intense 
     transit use by commuters in this area. The TTI report cites a 
     number of strategies that help to reduce congestion and the 
     cost of delay to the residents of the region. For the 
     Washington metropolitan area, the TTI report indicates that 
     transit services currently save the metropolitan area more 
     than $1 billion annually in delay costs and almost 42 percent 
     of current delay time. A report issued by the Surface 
     Transportation Policy Project (STPP) in 2002 noted that if 
     TTI calculated person trip delay rather than vehicle delay 
     and incorporated transit ridership into the equation, then 
     the Washington metropolitan area congestion ranking would 
     fall from 4th to 31st.
       The TTI report and the STPP analysis demonstrate the 
     positive affects of transit services on reducing traffic 
     congestion in the Washington metropolitan area. With our 
     assault on traffic congestion, it is essential that we 
     continue to grow transit ridership. It is essential that the 
     federal government as the region's largest employer, 
     employing more than 374,000 people in this area, give 
     employees every incentive to take transit. The tremendously 
     successful transit benefits program, known in this area as 
     Metrochek, is currently required to be offered to civilian 
     and military employees of the Executive Branch and 
     voluntarily provided by the U.S. House and Senate and several 
     independent agencies. Since the imposition of Executive Order 
     13150 on October 1, 2000, the number of federal employees 
     receiving transit benefits has increased 147 percent, from 
     57,000 to 141,000 and 47 percent of Metrorail's peak period 
     riders are federal employees--up from 35 percent in the mid 
     1980s.
       Your proposal will codify the federal employees transit 
     benefit and expand its eligibility to judicial, legislative 
     and independent agency employees in the National Capital 
     Region. While some of these agencies already participate in 
     the Metrochek program, this legislation ensures that 
     participation will be uniform across all three branches of 
     the federal government.
       WMATA also supports the proposal to authorize the 
     establishment of federal agency shuttles to and from mass 
     transit facilities. While many federal agencies throughout 
     the region are within walking distance of Metrorail stations, 
     and other transit facilities, some are not. This legislation 
     will make transit accessible to many federal workers for whom 
     transit is not currently a viable alternative because their 
     work site is not convenient to a Metro station.
       Many thanks for your leadership in proposing this 
     legislation. It is another example in a long list of 
     initiatives you have sponsored to promote public 
     transportation in the National Capital Region and the nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard A. White,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

         Maryland Department of Transportation, the Secretary's 
           Office,
                                    Hanover, MD, October 10, 2003.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, 309 Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: It has recently been brought to my 
     attention that you intend to introduce legislation to expand 
     and strengthen existing transit benefits available to federal 
     employees. My understanding is that the proposed bill would 
     accomplish the following: Codify the existing employee 
     transit benefit which is currently an Executive Order; extend 
     the eligibility of transit pass benefits to legislative, 
     judicial branch and independent agency employees in the 
     National Capital Region (estimated to be over 100,000 
     employees); and allow government vehicles to be used to 
     provide shuttle services between federal agency locations and 
     mass transit facilities.
       In the past Governor Ehrlich supported providing transit 
     benefits to federal employees. The Ehrlich Administration 
     continues its dedication to reducing congestion and aiding 
     the environment. According to the recently released Texas 
     Transportation Institute Study, the Washington area was 
     ranked third in congestion nationwide, this situation will 
     worsen unless serious measures are taken. Providing 
     additional access and an improved ability to utilize public 
     transportation is the type of sound policy that constitutes 
     the balanced and comprehensive transportation strategy that 
     is critically

[[Page 25657]]

     needed in the fight to relieve traffic congestion.
       In our view, your proposed bill deserves and receives our 
     support as it would expand coverage of a program that has 
     served the many Maryland citizens residing in the Washington 
     area who are employed by federal departments to those who 
     work for the remaining federal governmental entities. If I 
     may be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                               Robert L. Flanagan,
     Secretary.
                                  ____



                                     Virginia Railway Express,

                                 Alexandria, VA, October 22, 2003.
     Hon.Paul Sarbanes,
     Ranking Member Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
         Affairs,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to you to express my 
     support for your efforts to offer legislation that would 
     provide transit pass transportation fringe benefits to all 
     qualified Federal employees in the National Capital region. 
     As someone who has always been an advocate for the promotion 
     of public transportation and the mobility it affords the 
     citizenry, we are fortunate to have you as the Ranking Member 
     of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
     Affairs, which oversees mass transit programs.
       As you have witnessed, increased federal investment in 
     transit under TEA 21 has led to dramatic growth in public 
     transportation ridership, particularly in the National 
     Capital Region. The Virginia Railway Express is a prime 
     example of that growth, with ridership increasing by 18% each 
     year for the past three years, making us one of the fastest 
     growing commuter railroads in America. Nearly 69% of our 
     ridership is comprised of federal and/or military employees 
     working in the region.
       Currently, transit benefits are offered to a select core of 
     federal employees under Executive Order 13150. The benefit is 
     limited to the executive branch agencies with no requirement 
     for participation by the legislative and judicial branches. 
     Such legislation would codify transit benefits to all 
     eligible federal employees by broadening the scope of 
     participation to another 100,000 workers, thus providing 
     greater flexibility and mobility for the federal work force 
     in the region.
       Your legislation is significant not only because it affords 
     greater options to our federal workforce, but also because 
     the use of public transit is the only recourse to help 
     relieve the growing problem of traffic congestion in the 
     region. For instance, today VRE transports enough people to 
     remove one lane of traffic off of I-95 and I-66 during peak 
     rush hours in the morning and evening. Not only does it 
     reduce car emissions; thus improving air quality, but also 
     ensures that the federal and private workforce can get to 
     work in a timely fashion; thus saving millions of dollars for 
     employers. The passage of this legislation would only 
     increase these benefits to our region.
       In conclusion, let me again thank you for all the support 
     that you have given to public transportation over the years 
     and for authoring this much needed legislation. I hope that 
     with your direct involvement that we will be successful in 
     seeing this measure signed into law.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Dale Zehner,
     Acting Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____

                                    American Public Transportation


                                                  Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 2003.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the 1,500 member 
     organizations of the American Public Transportation 
     Association (APTA), I write to express strong support for 
     legislation you are proposing that would expand the use of 
     transit-related commuter tax benefits in the Washington, D.C. 
     region. This legislation will help promote the use of public 
     transportation and thereby support regional efforts to reduce 
     traffic congestion in the National Capital area. We note that 
     a recent report by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 
     cited the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area as the third 
     most congested in the nation.
       As we understand it, your legislation would codify language 
     currently in an executive order that requires federal 
     executive branch agencies to offer to their employees transit 
     benefits equal to employee commuting costs, up to $100 per 
     month. The legislation would also expand the eligibility of 
     these benefits to legislative and judicial branch employees 
     in the National Capital area.
       We believe that it is important that the federal government 
     support the use of public transportation in its efforts to 
     reduce congestion, minimize auto pollution, and make the best 
     use of existing public transportation facilities that are 
     built with a substantial federal investment. APTA has been a 
     long-time proponent of providing federal tax incentives that 
     promote public transportation at no less a level than those 
     provided for parking.
       We thank you for your leadership on this issue. If you have 
     questions, please have your staff contact Rob Healy of APTA's 
     Government Affairs staff at (202) 496-4811 or e-mail 
     [email protected]. We look forward to working with you to see 
     this important legislation enacted into law.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                William W. Millar,
     President.
                                  ____



                               Office of the County Executive,

                            Rockville, Maryland, October 13, 2003.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: Thank you for introducing companion 
     legislation to H.R. 1151, a bill to address federal employee 
     commuter benefits, including a critical transit provision for 
     a growing number of federal employees working for the Food 
     and Drug Administration (FDA) at White Oak. This measure will 
     directly benefit thousands of federal employees in the 
     region, and indirectly help Montgomery County at reducing 
     traffic congestion.
       It is both timely and critical that this legislation be 
     adopted now, given the increased challenges the Washington 
     metropolitan area faces as a result of its recent designation 
     as a severe air quality non-attainment area. As the region 
     struggles to find the appropriate combination of actions 
     necessary to bring air quality into conformity with healthier 
     standards, this legislation can play a pivotal role.
       Montgomery County has been a leader in encouraging 
     employers to provide transit benefits to their employees. 
     Through an intensive outreach program coupled with cost-
     sharing incentives, the County raises awareness among 
     employers of the value of such benefits to both employees and 
     the community. For employers considering these options for 
     inclusion in their benefits packages, the context in which 
     they operate is a critical factor in their decision.
       The federal government, as the largest single employer in 
     the region, plays a crucial role in setting that employment 
     benefits context. It is critical that the federal government 
     continue to provide transit benefits, and expand application 
     of these key benefits to the maximum number of employees 
     possible. By so doing, the federal government establishes the 
     standard against which many other employers in the region 
     measure their own benefits--a standard which has benefits for 
     the people of the Washington region which extend far beyond 
     those provided to the direct recipients.
       By encouraging ridership to support a robust transit system 
     throughout the region, federal transit benefits help provide 
     accessibility in our transportation system. This is 
     particularly true for the FDA consolidation at White Oak. It 
     is critical that federal employees at FDA-White Oak not only 
     be encouraged to use transit by providing extended transit 
     benefits, but be permitted to travel on federal vehicles from 
     their agency to our local system. Daily shuttle operations 
     between White Oak and the New Carrollton or Silver Spring 
     Metro stations will be a positive contribution toward 
     increasing the security and accessibility of this federal 
     facility, while also promoting transit ridership, and 
     addressing air quality objectives in the region.
       Again, thank you for your continued efforts to improve the 
     lives of thousands of Montgomery County residents. Please let 
     me know if I can do anything to help you in advancing this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Douglas M. Duncan,
     County Executive.
                                  ____

                                           Metropolitan Washington


                                       Council of Governments,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 2003.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the National Capital 
     Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) at the 
     Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, I would like 
     to applaud your introduction of new legislation to codify and 
     expand the existing federal executive branch employee transit 
     benefit in the National Capital Region and allow government 
     vehicles to be used to provide shuttle services between 
     federal agency locations and transit stations.
       It is TPB policy to support regional, state, and federal 
     programs which promote cost-effective strategies to reduce 
     traffic congestion and improve air quality, including 
     promoting the use of transit options and financial 
     incentives. One of the most pressing issues facing the TPB is 
     the contribution of vehicle emissions to the region's air 
     quality problems. Expanding the transit benefits to more 
     federal workers and providing shuttle links will encourage 
     more transit use, which will help reduce automobile vehicle-
     miles traveled and reduce vehicle emissions.
       In June of 2000, the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan 
     Washington Council of Governments (COG) adopted a resolution 
     to provide COG employees the same transit benefits that 
     federal executive branch employees receive as a result of 
     President Clinton's Executive Order of April 2000. It also

[[Page 25658]]

     strongly urged local governments and public agencies to adopt 
     or expand similar transit benefit programs. We have estimated 
     that 50,000 executive branch employees will use transit by 
     2005 as a result of the current transit benefits. Passage of 
     this legislation will encourage even more federal workers to 
     use transit and provide additional support to the region's 
     efforts to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality.
       We greatly appreciate your introduction of this 
     legislation. Your ongoing dedication to improving public 
     transit in the Washington region continues to benefit 
     families and organizations in our region.
           Sincerely,

                                                Peter Shapiro,

                                   Chair, National Capital Region,
                                    Transportation Planning Board.

                                S. 1783

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employee Commuter 
     Benefits Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSIT PASS TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Effective as of the first day of the next 
     fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, each covered agency shall implement a program under 
     which all qualified Federal employees serving in or under 
     such agency shall be offered transit pass transportation 
     fringe benefits, as described in subsection (b).
       (b) Benefits Described.--The benefits described in this 
     subsection are, as of any given date, the transit pass 
     transportation fringe benefits which, under section 2 of 
     Executive Order 13150, are then currently required to be 
     offered by Federal agencies in the National Capital Region.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``covered agency'' means any agency, to the 
     extent of its facilities in the National Capital Region;
       (2) the term ``agency'' means any agency (as defined by 
     7905(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code) not otherwise 
     covered by section 2 of Executive Order 13150, the United 
     States Postal Service, the Postal Rate Commission, and the 
     Smithsonian Institution;
       (3) the term ``National Capital Region'' includes the 
     District of Columbia and every county or other geographic 
     area covered by section 2 of Executive Order 13150;
       (4) the term ``Executive Order 13150'' refers to Executive 
     Order 13150 (5 U.S.C. 7905 note);
       (5) the term ``Federal agency'' is used in the same way as 
     under section 2 of Executive Order 13150; and
       (6) any determination as to whether or not one is a 
     ``qualified Federal employee'' shall be made applying the 
     same criteria as would apply under section 2 of Executive 
     Order 13150.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     considered to require that a covered agency--
       (1) terminate any program or benefits in existence on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, or postpone any plans to 
     implement (before the effective date referred to in 
     subsection (a)) any program or benefits permitted or required 
     under any other provision of law; or
       (2) discontinue (on or after the effective date referred to 
     in subsection (a)) any program or benefits referred to in 
     paragraph (1), so long as such program or benefits satisfy 
     the requirements of subsections (a) through (c).

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO USE GOVERNMENT VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT 
                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BETWEEN THEIR PLACE OF 
                   EMPLOYMENT AND MASS TRANSIT FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1344 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections 
     (h) and (i), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g)(1) A passenger carrier may be used to transport an 
     officer or employee of a Federal agency between the officer's 
     or employee's place of employment and a mass transit facility 
     (whether or not publicly owned) in accordance with succeeding 
     provisions of this subsection.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding section 1343, a Federal agency that 
     provides transportation services under this subsection 
     (including by passenger carrier) shall absorb the costs of 
     such services using any funds available to such agency, 
     whether by appropriation or otherwise.
       ``(3) In carrying out this subsection, a Federal agency 
     shall--
       ``(A) to the maximum extent practicable, use alternative 
     fuel vehicles to provide transportation services;
       ``(B) to the extent consistent with the purposes of this 
     subsection, provide transportation services in a manner that 
     does not result in additional gross income for Federal income 
     tax purposes; and
       ``(C) coordinate with other Federal agencies to share, and 
     otherwise avoid duplication of, transportation services 
     provided under this subsection.
       ``(4) For purposes of any determination under chapter 81 of 
     title 5, an individual shall not be considered to be in the 
     `performance of duty' by virtue of the fact that such 
     individual is receiving transportation services under this 
     subsection.
       ``(5)(A) The Administrator of General Services, after 
     consultation with the National Capital Planning Commission 
     and other appropriate agencies, shall prescribe any 
     regulations necessary to carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Transportation services under this subsection shall 
     be subject neither to the last sentence of subsection (d)(3) 
     nor to any regulations under the last sentence of subsection 
     (e)(1).
       ``(6) In this subsection, the term `passenger carrier' 
     means a passenger motor vehicle, aircraft, boat, ship, or 
     other similar means of transportation that is owned or leased 
     by the United States Government or the government of the 
     District of Columbia.''.
       (b) Funds for Maintenance, Repair, etc.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 1344 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the transportation of 
     an individual between such individual's place of employment 
     and a mass transit facility pursuant to subsection (g) is 
     transportation for an official purpose.
       (c) Coordination.--The authority to provide transportation 
     services under section 1344(g) of title 31, United States 
     Code (as amended by subsection (a)) shall be in addition to 
     any authority otherwise available to the agency involved.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Biden, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 1784. A bill to eliminate the safe-harbor exception for certain 
packaged pseudoephedrine products used in the manufacture of 
methamphetamine; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Methamphetamine Blister Pack Loophole Elimination Act of 2003,'' 
along with my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kohl, Biden, Kyl and 
Harkin.
  This is a simple bill, and directly follows recommendations made by 
the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in a 2002 study 
requested by Congress.
  All this legislation does is make it harder for meth dealers to get 
the precursor pseudoephedrine products necessary to make this illegal 
drug.
  Making it harder for meth dealers to make and obtain their drugs is 
something beneficial not just to California, but to the entire Nation.
  Once predominantly found in the American Southwest, methamphetamine's 
presence now stretches from coast to coast.
  I'm sorry to say that my home State of California has been referred 
to as the ``Colombia of meth production.'' In fact, our State is known 
as the ``source country'' for the drug, producing roughly 80 percent of 
the Nation's methamphetamine supply.
  According to the DEA, 1,847 clandestine meth labs were found in 
California in 2001 alone.
  In each of these meth labs across the country, those who make 
methamphetamine combine a number of precursor drugs, from red 
phosphorus, which is difficult to obtain, highly flammable and toxic, 
to pseudoephedrine, which can be found in common cold medicine in every 
supermarket, pharmacy, and convenience store in America.
  Recognizing the easy availability of pseudoephedrine, Congress has 
acted several times to make it more difficult for meth dealers to 
purchase it in bulk.
  First, we placed a 24-gram limit, which represented almost 1000 
pills. Then, just a few years ago, we reduced this threshold to just 9 
grams--still some 366 30-milligram pills. Anyone buying more than this 
amount of pseudoephedrine at one time would be required to give his or 
her name and address.
  As it turns out, this reporting requirement is considered too 
burdensome by most retail stores, so instead of keeping track of 
purchasers, most retailers simply limit single transaction sales of 
pseudoephedrine pills to less than 9 grams. This is an even more 
beneficial result than the reporting requirements. Such limits, which 
now often go as low as three or even two packages of cold medicine, 
make it much harder for meth manufacturers to get this precursor drug. 
Instead of simply going to the local WalMart or Costco and clearing the 
shelves of thousands of packages at once, they must now buy just a few 
packages at a time.

[[Page 25659]]

  But through all of this, there is one gaping loophole in the law, 
that allows any of this product packaged in so-called ``blister-packs'' 
to avoid these reporting requirements. Only loose pills in bottles face 
the 9-gram restrictions in the law.
  Blister packs are the most common form of packaging for cold 
medicine, as anyone who goes grocery shopping knows. Most people who 
buy pseudoephedrine will find it in blister packs, as will most meth 
dealers. As a result, the 9-gram limit in the law has become fairly 
useless--we limited the sales of pills, so meth dealers simply migrated 
to blister packs.
  This loophole in the law exists because of previous doubts, by some, 
that meth dealers would bother to use blister-packed products. These 
foil and plastic containers hold each pill individually, and as a 
result it is harder to gather the thousands of pills necessary to 
manufacture methamphetamine in bulk.
  Those of us from California have known for some time that blister 
packs are a problem, because California's Bureau of Narcotic 
Enforcement has been finding blister packs at meth lab sites for years.
  But to answer the doubts of those not lucky enough to come from my 
home state, we authorized DEA to do a study into this issue in 1999.
  Well, that study is back, and guess what--DEA has given us clear, 
incontrovertible evidence that these blister packs are making up an 
increasing percentage of the pseudoephedrine found at lab sites.
  In some instances, meth manufacturers use sophisticated, industrial 
``deblistering'' machines to quickly extract pills from blister packs.
  In others, I have been told, children are employed to sit in the meth 
lab and pop out thousands of pills, by hand, into nearby buckets.
  According to the report we requested from the DEA, which was released 
in March of 2002, blister packaged pseudoephedrine products seized at 
clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and other locations, such as 
dumpsites, have involved seizures of over a million tablets.
  The seizure of so many blister packaged pseudoephedrine products 
shows convincingly that blister packaging is not a deterrent to 
ordinary, over-the-counter pseudoephedrine use in clandestine 
methamphetamine laboratories.
  So clearly, what we argued in 1999, and in 1996, is true. Meth 
manufacturers are using blister packs, and something must be done to 
stop them as best we can.
  In order to address this problem, DEA recommended in its report that 
the blister pack loophole be closed, and that the current retail sales 
limit of 9 grams for bottled pseudoephedrine be extended to blister 
packed products as well.
  And that, is all that this bill would do.
  According to DEA, this is the single best thing we can do to help 
them in the fight against methamphetamine.
  This legislation will clear up confusion among retailers who may find 
it hard to train employees to limit the sales of certain cold medicine 
if sold in bottles, but not the same medicine in other packaging.
  This legislation will help DEA enforce the retail sales thresholds by 
making it harder for sellers to claim ignorance or confusion about the 
law.
  This legislation might make it less likely that meth dealers will 
employ young children to pop pills out of the blister packs, all within 
harms reach in meth labs around the country.
  This legislation will not negatively impact the ability of 
pharmaceutical manufacturers to make legitimate profits.
  This legislation will not be a burden on consumers, because the 9 
gram limit still represents 366 pills--30 packages of 12 pills, or 15 
packages of 24 pills, two of the most common amounts.
  It is hard for me to imagine that an average person--or even a large 
family--needs to buy more than 366 cold pills at one time. In fact, 
many stores throughout the country have already voluntarily limited 
pseudoephedrine sales to just a few packages at a time, and there has 
been little outcry from consumers unable to purchase more.
  This bill is not a panacea for the meth problem in the United 
States--far from it. I have been working on various parts of the meth 
problem for many years, and I know that this must be a multi-faceted 
approach--tougher penalties, money for training, enforcement and clean-
up, restrictions on precursor chemicals, tools for prosecutors, and so 
on.
  But to fail to enact this legislation is to make it far easier for 
meth dealers to continue to easily ply their trade.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this bill, join us in supporting it, 
and help us to pass it as soon as possible to assist the DEA in the 
very uphill battle against the illegal and pervasive manufacture and 
sale of methamphetamine.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1784

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Methamphetamine Blister Pack 
     Loophole Elimination Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) methamphetamine is a dangerous drug distributed 
     throughout the United States;
       (2) the manufacture, distribution, and use of 
     methamphetamine results in increased crime, damage to the 
     environment, hazardous waste that endangers the public, 
     expensive cleanup costs often borne by Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies, and broken families;
       (3) Congress has acted many times to limit the availability 
     of chemicals and equipment used in the manufacturing of 
     methamphetamine;
       (4) pseudoephedrine is 1 of the basic precursor chemicals 
     used in the manufacture of methamphetamine;
       (5) the United States Drug Enforcement Administration has 
     indicated that methamphetamine manufacturers often obtain 
     pseudoephedrine from retail and wholesale distributors, in 
     both bottles and ``blister packs'', and that the use of 
     pseudoephedrine tablets in blister packs is pervasive in the 
     illicit production of methamphetamine in both small and large 
     clandestine methamphetamine laboratories;
       (6) while current law establishes a retail sales limit of 9 
     grams for most pseudoephedrine products, including common 
     cold medicine, there is no such limit on the sale of blister-
     packed pseudoephedrine products;
       (7) the 9 gram limit on bottled pseudoephedrine allows an 
     individual to purchase approximately 366 thirty-milligram 
     tablets at 1 time, which is more than enough for a typical 
     consumer in 1 transaction;
       (8) the United States Drug Enforcement Administration 
     recommended in March 2002 that retail distribution of 
     pseudoephedrine tablets in blister packages should not be 
     exempt from the 9 gram retail sales limit; and
       (9) in recommending legislation to correct the current 
     disparity in the law between bottled and blister-packed 
     pseudoephedrine tablets, the United States Drug Enforcement 
     Administration stated that ``The removal of this difference 
     would significantly prevent illicit access to this 
     methamphetamine precursor and would be easier for both the 
     government and the industry to monitor and would increase 
     compliance by retailers''.

     SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF BLISTER PACK EXEMPTION.

       (a) Regulated Transaction.--Section 102(39)(A)(iv)(I)(aa) 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802(39)(A)(iv)(I)(aa)) is amended by striking ``(except 
     that'' and all that follows through ``1996)''.
       (b) Rule of Law.--To the extent that there exists a 
     conflict between the amendment made by subsection (a) and 
     section 401(d) of the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control 
     Act of 1996 (21 U.S.C. 802 note), the amendment shall 
     control.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein 
as a cosponsor of the Methamphetamine Blister Pack Loophool Elimination 
Act of 2003. This legislation will make it harder for meth cooks to get 
an essential ingredient needed to manufacture methamphetamine. 
Methamphetamine is a dangerous narcotic and is a serious challenge 
facing our country. The manufacture, distribution, and use of 
methamphetamine has a lasting and devastating personal effect on our 
Nation's families, communities, and our environment.
  According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, methamphetamine is 
a

[[Page 25660]]

highly addictive stimulant drug that strongly activates certain systems 
in the brain by releasing high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. 
Some of the short-term effects of using methamphetamine include: an 
accelerated heartbeat, elevated blood pressure, irritability, extreme 
nervousness, confusion, insomnia, aggression, tremors, convulsions, and 
hyperthermia, which can potentially result in death.
  In addition to the effects on the central nervous system and the 
cardiovascular system, the prolonged use of methamphetamine also has 
many psychological effects. Some of the symptoms resemble those of 
schizophrenia and are characterized by anger, panic, paranoia, auditory 
and visual hallucinations, and repetitive behavior patterns.
  Other long-term effects can result in kidney and lung disorders, 
brain damage, liver damage, blood clots, a deficient immune system and 
chronic depression.
  The threat of methamphetamine is different than that of most other 
illegal drugs as it can be easily manufactured from readily available 
chemicals and substances. The relative ease of manufacturing and its 
highly addictive potential has caused methamphetamine use to 
drastically increase throughout the nation. According to the 2002 
National Survey on Drug Abuse and Health 5.3 percent of the U.S. 
population--over 12 million people--reported trying methamphetamine at 
least once in their lifetime.
  This is an alarming figure. Given the serious ramifications 
surrounding the use of methamphetamine, we need to be vigilant, making 
sure that we are doing all that we can to curb this dangerous 
statistic.
  This bill makes specific clarifications to the Comprehensive 
Methamphetamine Act of 1996. While current law establishes a retail 
sales limit of 9 grams for most pseudoephedrine products, which is one 
of the basic precursor chemicals used in the manufacturing of 
methamphetamine, there is no such limit on the sale of ``blister-
packed'' pseudoephedrine products.
  The bill we are introducing today follows the recommendation of the 
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that retail distribution of 
pseudoephedrine tablets in blister packages should not be exempt from 
the 9-gram retail sales limit. This will make it more difficult for 
methamphetamine producers to obtain large quantities of the precursor 
chemical pseudoephedrine.
  As Senator Feinstein well knows, the two largest means of acquiring 
precursor chemicals for methamphetamine in California are by mail order 
and retail sales. This acquisition is made easier because the meth 
cooks are able to exploit the blister pack exemption provision in the 
current law. Removing this exemption will not halt meth production but 
it will make it more difficult for meth cooks to collect the key 
ingredients they need.
  This is not the only answer to this problem, but it is an important 
step. Law enforcement cannot fix the problem alone. Schools can't do it 
alone. The Federal Government can't do it alone. It is important that 
we each unite and lead local anti-drug initiatives in our respective 
neighborhoods and communities. I encourage my colleagues to join us in 
supporting these important reforms. We cannot let this attack on our 
Nation's citizens go unchecked.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S.J. Res. 20. A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress 
that the number of years during which the death tax under subtitle B of 
the Internal revenue Code of 1986 is repealed should be extended, 
pending the permanent repeal of the death tax; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Sense of the Senate 
resolution that states that Congress should add to the number of years 
that repeal of the death tax will last until we archive its permanent 
repeal.
  The death tax is an unfair, inefficient, economically unsound and, 
frankly, immoral tax that should not come back. I have introduced 
legislation, S. 13, to repeal it permanently in 2005. Unfortunately, 
under current law, it will only be repealed for 1 year, in 2010. The 
House of Representatives voted four times in the last 2 years to make 
repeal permanent, but because of Senate rules, we need 60 votes to do 
this.
  And so, I propose a resolution that expresses the sense of the Senate 
that we should add 1 or more years to the 1-year repeal that is on the 
books. We could do this by moving the repeal date forward, for example, 
to 2009 or 2008; or we could extend the repeal through 2011 or 2012. 
This would signal to the American people that we will not let this tax 
come back.
  I plan to follow up this resolution with a concerted effort next year 
to in fact add 1 or more years of repeal. We must end this tax on 
virtue, work, savings, job creation and the American dream, and we must 
end if forever. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this effort.

                          ____________________