Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S13141)
October 23, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
October 23, 2003
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S13139-13141)
October 23, 2003
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S13141)
October 23, 2003
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about S. 1780 on the floor
RFBJRB
RJD
MC
PSS+17
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about S. 1780 on the floor
Mr. President, it is our intention to move next to the amendment of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka; and, after that, to the amendment of Senator Cantwell. However, Senator Specter from…
Mr. President, it is our intention to move next to the amendment of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka; and, after that, to the amendment of Senator Cantwell. However, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania has an amendment which he wishes to propose. The time will not be long and he has another time commitment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be recognized before we proceed in the manner that I have outlined.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, it would be my intention on this side to accept this amendment.
I assumed we would go to the amendment from the Senator from Washington.
I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside.
Mr. President, quick housekeeping.
Amendment No. 2088
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go back to the Akaka amendment.
I call for a vote on the Akaka amendment.
I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2087
Mr. President, I move that we go back to the Cantwell amendment.
Mr. President, I am not familiar with this issue, but I have asked members of the Energy Committee about it, and they have indicated opposition to the Cantwell amendment. There are some members of that committee who are on their way here. In the meantime, I will share with my colleagues the contents of a memorandum with respect to the Cantwell amendment that has been provided to Senator Domenici.
In this memorandum, the following objections are raised.
First:
FERC has and is using its authority to stop fraud and
manipulation. . . .
FERC has demonstrated that it will use the full extent of
its authority to assure honest, fair wholesale electricity
markets.
FERC has taken a number of initiatives which are listed in the memo and which I will share with Members if the appropriate members of the Energy Committee do not arrive.
The second objection to the Cantwell amendment is that it is too vague. It is suggested that:
It is written in such general terms that it will lead to
greater uncertainty. A general ban on manipulation will not
help companies determine what conduct amounts to manipulation
and what conduct is appropriate behavior in a competitive
market. . . . [A] blanket prohibition on ``manipulation,''
without defining the elements of what constitutes
manipulation . . . could have a chilling effect on the market
without meaningfully adding to the protections already
available to electricity customers under existing law.
The third objection is that:
The Cantwell Amendment could lead to duplication and
confusion among the agencies.
The enabling statutes of the Commodity and Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) and the Securities Exchange Commission
(SEC) already contain broad prohibitions against conduct that
is intended to manipulate markets. Adding such another broad
general prohibition to the Federal Power Act would only lead
to unnecessary duplication and potential conflict between
various enforcement agencies.
In addition, the Federal Power Act already prohibits
wholesale electricity prices that are not ``just and
reasonable.'' Therefore, FERC has the authority to
investigate electricity prices and to require refunds if
prices are not ``just or reasonable'' or modify contracts if
it is in the public interest to do so.
The House and Senate Energy bills both would enhance FERC's
existing refund authority and increase civil and criminal
penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act.
The memo makes the point that this issue has been addressed in the Energy bill, and that is the place for it to be done.
The next objection raised is:
The number of Federal investigations and prosecutions by a
broad array of agencies demonstrates there is no need for the
Cantwell Amendment.
Federal agencies have been and continue to be active in
investigating criminal offenses in the energy industry.
These agencies as listed in the memorandum include the President's Corporate Fraud Task Force, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the United States Postal Service, and numerous U.S. Attorney's offices across the country.
Through ``cooperative enforcement,'' these agencies have
focused on investigations of possible round trip trading,
false reporting and fraud and manipulation by energy
companies and their affiliates, employees and agents. There
have been a number of arrests, settlements and continued
investigations and prosecutions reported based on these
agencies' efforts.
And the argument is made that:
The Cantwell Amendment will not improve or change these
actions.
Then reference is made to:
The Domenici Electricity Amendment effectively deals with
market manipulation.
This is the amendment that is part of the Energy bill that is now in conference. The memo outlines all the reasons why that particular amendment is sufficient.
As I say, I am waiting for a member of the Energy Committee to come make these arguments with perhaps a little more background than I have. I would like to move to a vote on this amendment, so I ask, before I would suggest the absence of a quorum, if the Senator from Washington would agree to a vote, let us say, at 4:20. Would that be a sufficient period of time for the Senator?
The Senator is suggesting we vote right now? I am willing. I am anxious to move as much time as possible. If the Senator is ready, if there is no one else who wants to speak on this issue----
I see the Senator from Nevada is on the floor, and he may wish to speak.
I would ask, then, following the remarks of the Senator from Nevada, if no other Senator has come wishing to speak, we proceed directly to the vote.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another unanimous consent request?
I would propound a unanimous consent request that the vote occur at 4:30.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I would be happy to vote on the Cantwell amendment immediately and then go on to other business connected to the bill.
Mr. President, I understand there are several Senators who have amendments they would like to offer. Senator Dayton has one. Senator Bingaman has one. We have not yet had an opportunity to go through the Bingaman amendment which came to us relatively recently. So I would prefer to go to Senator Dayton to give us a little more time to examine the Bingaman amendment, but that could be the decision of the minority. I prefer to go to Senator Dayton's amendment next if that is agreeable.
Mr. President, I ask Senator Dayton if he would give us some indication of how long he thinks he will take on his amendment and see if we cannot enter into a time agreement so that we can know when we might be able to vote.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then that we vote on the Dayton amendment at 5:15.
I ask the Senator if he would withhold for just a moment. We are trying to pull a few things together. But I am more than happy to have the time appropriately spent other than in a quorum call.
If the Senator will withhold for just a few moments, I will be in a position to respond.
Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee is anxious to come over to develop the issue of the budget point of order for emergency designation with respect to the amendment offered by Senator Dayton. As he has indicated, it is $6.3 billion, and there is no offset in the bill. Our bill is $1 billion below last year's fiscal year 302(b) allocation, and therefore this is obviously a very significant number.
Until the Senator from Oklahoma, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has an opportunity to be here to review this matter with us, I would be willing to allow the Senator from New Mexico to begin the description of his amendment because I understand he would like to get that done. He has a timeframe tonight. And we could view the possibility of voting on both amendments at some point when the debate on both amendments has subsided rather than keeping the time tied up in a quorum call.
With recognition of the pressures the Senator from New Mexico is under, I would like to perhaps move ahead on both of those amendments on a double track situation.
All right. There is objection. Therefore, I do not pursue that. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois this might be a good time to hear from him.
Madam President, I see no other Senators wishing to speak on this matter. The chairman of the Budget Committee has not presented himself. But speaking on his behalf, I will raise a budget point of order about the emergency designation.
Utah is at the bull's eye of the drought. We have more drought problems in Utah perhaps than any other State, and it is with some reluctance that I raise this point of order. But this is $6.3 billion, and there is no offset for it.
I think if it is of value, it is of sufficient value that it is worthwhile to have a supermajority to support going $6.3 billion into an emergency. I think an emergency designation for this much money is something for which this procedure is designed.
Therefore, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation contained in the pending amendment, that it violates section 502 of the concurrent budget resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, and therefore is not in order.
Madam President, the amendment is still pending. It is now $6.3 billion for which there is no offset. Therefore, I believe we should vote the amendment down. We have already said this was the last vote today, but if the Senator wants a vote, I suppose there could be one. This is now $6.3 billion for which there is no offset with the emergency designation stricken.
Under those circumstances, Madam President, I raise the point of order that this is in violation of the Budget Act since there is no emergency designation and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Madam President, we now have a group of amendments which have been offered by a number of Senators and examined by a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, all of which have been agreed to and cleared. I would like to send them to the desk, asking for a voice vote on each one. In every case, the amendment is in behalf of myself and Senator Kohl--I apologize, Madam President, there are other Senators involved. It is just the first amendment that is in behalf of myself and Senator Kohl.
Amendment No. 2091
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Madam President, due to increased projections of unemployment which result in higher participation and food inflation, it is necessary that we increase the Food Stamp Program by $2.2 billion, and this amendment will enable all qualified applicants to participate in this mandatory program. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Durbin and ask for its immediate consideration.
Madam President, this amendment will ensure that USDA funding is not used to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco products. This provision was inadvertently left out of the subcommittee bill. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, this technical amendment clarifies the statutory authority for special assistance to the nuclear affected islands. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Murkowski, Stevens, Inouye, and Akaka, and ask for its immediate consideration.
Madam President, this amendment will prohibit the food stamp benefit for participants in Alaska and Hawaii from decreasing in the fiscal year 2004. The amendment has been cleared by the Agriculture Committee, and I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Snowe and Dorgan and ask for its immediate consideration.
Madam President, this amendment would expand the boundaries of the Arrostook Empowerment Zone in the State of Maine and the Griggs-Steele Empowerment Zone in the State of North Dakota to encompass the remaining area of the respective counties not currently included in the empowerment zone designation. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Levin and ask for its immediate consideration.
Madam President, this amendment prohibits APHIS from requiring affected States to match emergency funding provided by the Federal Government. Many States are currently experiencing their own fiscal problems and may not have sufficient funds to provide a match. If a State is unable to provide matching funds, Federal funds would not be released to address the emergency situation under this proposed rule. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inhofe and ask for its immediate consideration.
This amendment would allow three communities in the State of Oklahoma to be eligible for the Rural Community Advancement Program. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, the amendment would allow rural communities with a population of less than 20,000 people to be eligible for broadband grants and loans. This amendment has been cleared by the Senate Agriculture Committee. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Inouye and ask for its immediate consideration.
The amendment allows the Secretary of Agriculture to designate any portion of Honolulu County as a rural area for purposes of programs under the rural development mission area. I ask for a voice vote.
I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.
The amendment would allow the Government National Mortgage Association, Ginnie Mae, to join other financial institutions in participating in the Multifamily Housing Guarantee Program. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kohl and ask for its immediate consideration.
This amendment would allow a small town which does not have sufficient internal resources to utilize an outside not-for-profit party to perform the service for which the grant was made. For instance, if a community received a grant for a childcare facility, the community could contract with a third party to provide the childcare.
I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Brownback and ask for its immediate consideration.
This amendment adds four flood control structures in Kansas to the list of projects which may receive financial and technical assistance through the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
This amendment adds the State of Utah to the list of States in which a processing worker demonstration pilot project is to be initiated. I ask for a voice vote.
This amendment directs the Secretary to move forward with the implementation of the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program authorized in the 2002 farm bill. I ask for a voice vote.
Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Grassley and Dorgan and ask for its immediate consideration.
Madam President, in recognition that this is the last one of this stack, I ask for a voice vote.
I would be happy to yield.
Mr. President, I say to the Senator and to all Senators that I was prepared to go on further tonight but I have been informed that no amendments will be offered tonight. Therefore, no more debate and certainly no more votes. I would be happy to welcome the amendment from the Senator when he is prepared to offer it. It is certainly my intention to go forward tomorrow. I hope the decision not to offer any amendments tonight will be lifted by tomorrow and that we will have amendments before us and therefore items to debate and vote on.
Mr. President, I say to the Senator, if he wanted to offer that amendment tonight and debate it tonight, certainly that would be very much in order. It has been made very clear there will be no further votes tonight.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Craig.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the desk on behalf of Senator Durbin.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Schumer.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Miller.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Frist and Daschle.
Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2090.
Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
This language has been cleared by both sides.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for bringing this issue to my attention. It is evident that the funding used for Maine's Cooperative Beaver Management Program has been used wisely. I expect APHIS to continue its cooperative wildlife agreements with the funding provided by the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture appropriations bill, and I will work in conference to see that these funds continue to be available for the State of Maine.
Improving Emergency Communications Systems
Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Mississippi bringing these changes to my attention and will work with him to incorporate them in the statement of managers.
Yes, I will work with the House of Representatives during conference negotiations to ensure that the $800,000 is provided to address animal fighting.
I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and I agree our intention was to maintain increased funding for studies and evaluations.
rus telemedicine language
Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Mississippi bringing this language to my attention and will work with him to incorporate it in the statement of the managers.
I understand the Senator's interest in this important survey. The Senator is correct that the committee intends that the Department maintain this important work. We will continue to work with the Senator in this area as this bill moves forward.
I would be pleased.
That is correct.
How does the Senator from Georgia wish to proceed since $268,000 has been designated in this bill for the Alliance for Food Protection project?
I thank the Senator from Georgia for his explanation, and I will be happy to work with him during conference to address his concerns.
That is my understanding as well.
I was not.
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.''…
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.
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.
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.
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.''…
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.
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.
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.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. I ask the chairman if this is an appropriate time for me to make a 10- or 15-minute statement relative to an…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
I ask the chairman if this is an appropriate time for me to make a 10- or 15-minute statement relative to an amendment which you have accepted on the FDA and dietary supplements.
I thank the Chair and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
I thank the Chair of the committee and the ranking member, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, for agreeing to an amendment which will be offered here in a moment as part of a managers' amendment, to my understanding. This is an amendment with which I tried to construct a deal, facing what I consider to be an extremely serious situation.
We now have a body of law in America relative to products which are sold for human consumption, and there are different laws and standards for different products. The ordinary American walking into a pharmacy or drugstore or health food store or nutrition store may not know that, depending on which product you take off the shelf, there is a different standard of care, a different legal requirement.
I would like to spend a moment to discuss the differences.
If you were to go into your local pharmacy and have a prescription filled--which many of us have--this is what you know. This prescription drug has been tested for three things before it was sold to you. First, that it is safe, that you can consume it without injuring yourself; second, that it is efficacious, meaning it will do what it is supposed to do; and, third, it has been packaged and manufactured in a fashion so when they say it is 200 milligrams, it is in fact 200 milligrams. You know that. The Food and Drug Administration has required clinical tests to make sure it is safe--efficacious--and packaged in a fashion as it is represented. With that assurance, your doctor prescribes it and you take the medicine.
Now you walk down from the pharmacy counter in the drugstore and you decide to pick up some cough syrup such as this. You have bought this cough syrup. The question is: What standard of care, what body of law governed the manufacture of this over-the-counter drug, in this case, Robitussin DM, which was previously a prescription drug. It went through the same test for safety and efficacy to determine whether or not it met those tests and could be sold. Then it reached a point where a medical decision was made that you no longer needed a prescription and the component parts of this drug meet the same test of safety and efficacy and it is packaged in such a fashion that you know what you are buying.
I might also add for both the prescription drug and the over-the- counter drugs, which I have just described, if something happens--if you take this prescription, for example, and have a bad health result or this over-the-counter drug with a bad health report and you report it to the company or to your doctor, it is expected and required that adverse event, as it is known, will be reported to the Food and Drug Administration. They keep track of those. If they find out what they thought was a safe drug turns out to have a bad reaction, they will pull it from the market. The same is true with an over-the-counter drug. You know the standard of care for both prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs.
We have other things which you will find in that same drugstore. One of them would be ordinary vitamin pills, the kind I took this morning. What are the standards for these vitamins--vitamin C or ordinary multivitamins? Unfortunately, the standards are much different. In this case, they are basically being manufactured and sold without the same clinical tests. No one has tested them for safety, for efficacy. Frankly, the standards for many are questionable as to even how they are packaged and sold to the public. But the belief is most of these naturally occurring minerals and vitamins and this type of supplement are generally good for your health. Those who believe in them take them for a variety of conditions. It is believed they cause no great harm; in fact, that they may have real health benefits.
We passed a law about 9 years ago which established a standard for something we call dietary supplements which are also for sale in the same drugstore with prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and vitamins. These dietary supplements might be one such as this, natural herbal formula to promote energy and diet. What kind of standard of testing went into this product? The answer is none. There was no testing in advance required by law that what is included in this bottle is safe for human consumption or in fact even helps you when it comes to your energy or diet, and few, if any, standards about whether or not when they say this is 200 grams of one thing or another, in fact, are included. When you buy a dietary supplement, frankly, there are no standards of testing and care before the product is put on the shelf for the consumers.
I tell you this by way of background because that is why this amendment is important. When we passed the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act, we said we were dealing with natural supplements like vitamin C and garlic, multivitamins and the like. What has happened over the past 8 or 9 years is we have gone way beyond the basic vitamins. We now find a witches brew of a variety of different dietary supplements way beyond vitamins and minerals that are being sold under the same law with no testing standards, with no establishment of their safety or efficacy, no standards as to how they are packaged, and no requirement that they report adverse events to the FDA. As you walk into the drugstore and fill your prescription and walk past the counters, the American consumer has no idea that at end of the counter, the standard of protection and care changes depending on what you are buying.
That is why I am offering an amendment to this bill which earmarks $250,000 for the Food and Drug Administration to examine one particular compound being sold in dietary supplements. The compound is ephedrine. Ephedrine is a naturally occurring chemical that one finds similar to the synthetic chemical ephedra. Ephedrine is very closely monitored by FDA in
both prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs. But when it is sold in these types of dietary supplements, it isn't tested for safety, it isn't tested for efficacy, and it isn't tested in terms of how much is included in the bottle, and certainly no requirement for adverse events to be reported to the FDA.
Sadly, this product I have in my hand, known as Yellow Jackets, is sold as an extreme energizer, an herbal dietary supplement containing ephedrine. The reason I have kept this bottle is because 30 miles from my hometown in Springfield, IL, just last year a young man who was a high school senior and a football player in preparation for a football game decided he needed a shot of energy, a boost of strength to go out and play for his team. He went into a local gas station and bought these Yellow Jacket energizers and washed them down with Mountain Dew, which is heavy in caffeine, had a heart attack, and died. Ephedra products, as a consequence, have been under suspicion for a long time.
The sad reality is the United States is almost last in the world when it comes to dealing with ephedra products. You may not know it, but almost 2 years ago Canada banned ephedra products for sale in their country. They said it is too dangerous. Over a year ago, the American Medical Association said to the Food and Drug Administration, take these ephedra products off the shelf; they are dangerous. After 30 service men and women had serious adverse health effects, we have removed all ephedra products from military commissaries across the United States. The National Football League, the NCAA, the National Basketball Association, and major league baseball have banned the use of these products. You can't use them if you want to compete in Olympic competition. Yet kids in junior high and high school can walk into a gas station and still buy this in most States, with the exception of Illinois, and I believe New York and California have joined suit in banning ephedra products.
Over a year ago, I wrote to Secretary Tommy Thompson of Health and Human Services and said you have to do something. If Canada believes they are dangerous, if we think they are dangerous for service men and women, if the American Medical Association says they are dangerous, and if major sports have banned them, why in the world do we allow them to be sold in America?
What happened in the meantime is the Government did absolutely nothing--issued a press release and did nothing to take these products off the shelf.
What happened was a lot of the victims and their families went into courtrooms. A lot of people are critical of people filing lawsuits. This is a clear example where that was the only place to turn to protect innocent families and victims across America. Because of the class action lawsuits that were filed, we have now determined there were over 16,500 adverse events reports related to ephedra products that had been accumulated by all the companies that were selling them. Now they had to turn them over and disclose them.
Within those 16,500 adverse events there were events including seizures, strokes, and 155 deaths. I think, frankly, we all know what is at stake here. We realize major drugstores see liability if they continue to sell products like these Yellow Jackets and they will take them off the shelf. Walgreen's, CVS, Eckerd, Rite Aid, and Wal-Mart, representing 17,300 stores nationwide, have pulled these ephedra- containing dietary supplements from shelves. GNC, the largest specialty retailer of nutritional supplements in the country, with 5,300 stores nationwide, stopped selling ephedra products in June.
One of the largest sellers of ephedra products, Metabolite--I am sure you have heard that name--sold ephedra compounds and was sued right and left because of these compounds. They said at one point they didn't have any adverse event reports. After they were pressed in a lawsuit they turned over thousands of examples of people who had bad health events because they took Metabolite's ephedra products.
Metabalife is now advertising what they are selling is ``Ephedra free.'' Despite all this having taken place, our Government has done nothing, absolutely nothing. I have written over and over again to Secretary Thompson. I have met with Dr. McClellan, the doctor in charge of the Food and Drug Administration, and asked: When are you going to start protecting Americans? We have a clinical trial in America today. We are selling Ephedra to innocent people and seeing if they have a seizure or heart attack.
Secretary Thompson, in April, said he was concerned about Ephedra and had taken more and stronger actions to address public health issues raised by Ephedra alkaloid than in the previous decade.
That was his letter to me in April. Since Secretary Thompson wrote that letter to me, another 38 reports of death related to Ephedra have been accumulated, bringing the total to 155.
A representative of the FDA spoke in front of the Senate Commerce Committee last week and said the Agency is in the process of analyzing 30,000 comments they have received in response to the reopening of the 1997 proposed rule on Ephedra and they are reviewing scientific evidence. Of course, delay means death, delay means injury, and delay is evidence that the Food and Drug Administration is not meeting its obligation under the law to protect American families from dangerous products.
We had a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee before Senator McCain last week. A case was made very clearly that it is time to change the law. But first, get Ephedra off the shelves. That is why I introduced this amendment, put $250,000 in the FDA, earmarked to deal with Ephedra, to get an answer, get a conclusion and get it off the shelf as quickly as possible.
When that is done, we will have made progress. But we need to do more. The makers of dietary supplements such as this one must be required by law to report to the Food and Drug Administration if people are dying from their products. That is not too much to ask in this society. Those who say that, because I am going after a deadly product like yellow jackets, that my real war is against vitamin C just do not understand the reality. The reality is vitamin C can help. Vitamin C is not going to kill you.
This product killed a 16-year-old high school football player in Lincoln, IL. It has been attributed to the death of a Major League baseball player of the Baltimore Orioles.
I asked the committee to earmark this money. I am glad the chairman has accepted. I hope that finally this will push Health and Human Services into doing the right thing and banning this dangerous substance.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment and I send it to the desk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. I ask unanimous consent that Senators…
Mr. President, I call up my amendment and I send it to the desk.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman, Hollings, Jeffords, Dorgan, and Feingold be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
Mr. President, I appreciate the time to discuss this issue.
Some colleagues may wonder why we are talking about energy legislation and market manipulation on the Agriculture appropriations bill. As my colleague from California pointed out in the previous amendment on derivatives legislation and market manipulation prevention, this was part of an agreement that the Western Senators worked out when we were discussing the Energy bill prior to our August recess. The fact that we were willing to move off that debate on a variety of amendments was because we had a commitment for a chance to have further discussion on important issues that impacted the economies of Western States.
That was the agreement made at that time, and today is the moment in which Senator Feinstein and I both have our opportunities to discuss what we consider very important legislation and to get the Congress on the record and make sure the Senate takes a stand against market manipulation.
Many Members know a lot has happened since the time of discussion of these issues about the energy crisis and what we should do. But we should be clear about the sequencing of things that the United States now knows and understands. The Senate knows and understands that Enron has admitted market manipulation. They have executives who have said, yes, these contracts were manipulated and prices were faulty.
We have a report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so thick it is hard for me to hold in one hand that goes through a variety of issues in relation to market manipulation in which FERC found there was not only manipulation, but a demonstration for the need of explicit prohibitions on this kind of harmful and fraudulent market behavior.
That is exactly what this amendment tries to address. The amendment I have offered, and Senator Bingaman and others have offered, says something very basic and simple that probably many Americans, and I guarantee many Washingtonians, assumed would
already be in a Federal statute such as the Federal Power Act. The amendment simply says that manipulation or manipulated contracts under the Federal Power Act cannot be just and reasonable.
Some of my colleagues may have remembered an earlier amendment where we prescribed some solutions. This amendment has been compromised and offers no specific remedies to the legislation but is specific in saying that market manipulation, in fact, is not something that can be just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act and it is not the kind of activity that the Commission should consider as lawful activity.
Most of my colleagues would say that manipulation and fraud surely has no place in the Federal Power Act; sanctioning those activities is somehow legal. But the absence of that prohibition in the Federal Power Act is leaving some doubt in people's minds that, in fact, manipulation is unlawful.
I bring that up because Washingtonians--as Ohio, Indiana, Nevada, California, Utah--have been suffering from high energy costs related to these manipulations of Enron contracts. Not only will they be stuck with paying those Enron contracts over a long period of time, but my State, the State of Washington, had utilities as much as a 50-percent rate increase because of Enron's contracts, and we will be stuck with those contracts over 5 years.
While Ken Lay remains uncharged, or at least not paying any dues for the crime he perpetrated, and he keeps the millions of dollars of money that he has gotten from Enron, my ratepayers in Washington State for the next 5 years will end up paying the high prices of those manipulated contracts. Not only will we end up paying the high prices of those manipulated contracts, but the utilities in my State and other States--Nevada, California, Oregon, some of the other Midwest States I mentioned--have tried to basically deal with Enron. They have been basically sued by the company. So not only is my ratepayer stuck with paying those high utility bills, they are actually trying to fight the legal battle against Enron, which is turning around and suing them.
My amendment does something very simple today. It basically says in the Federal Power Act that for the prospective issue of making sure it is clear to people throughout the country that the Senate does not tolerate market manipulation.
I have to say we have done great work on this issue as it relates to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and as it relates to making sure that accounting practices have been changed. But nowhere have we been specific in saying that market manipulation is an unlawful practice and cannot be just and reasonable under the Power Act. That is simply what we are trying to say today.
Why is that needed? I have a letter I circulated to my colleagues from one of the newest nominees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a Republican nominee who spent many hours in the legislative branch working under Energy Secretary Abraham and spent time in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to whom I posed this question as a nominee before FERC because I wanted to understand where FERC nominees were going in the future.
Mr. Kelliher responded exactly where I think the input needs to be to the Senate. He said:
I agree with much of what you have said. I agree that the
markets subject to manipulation cannot operate properly and
there is an urgent need to proscribe manipulation of
electricity markets.
He further states:
You have correctly noted that there is no express
prohibition of market manipulation in the Federal Power Act
and have proposed legislation to establish that prohibition.
This is a critical point. The Federal Regulatory Commission
only has the tools Congress chooses to give it, and Congress
has never given the Commission express authority to prohibit
market manipulation. I believe the time has come for Congress
to take that step.
That is an exact quote from a letter by the FERC nominee Joseph Kelliher from the administration saying, ``You want me to be a FERC commissioner? I am telling you exactly what I think about the FERC rules. And I am telling you we need the language that is in this amendment.''
I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I think the Kelliher letter and the report we have seen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on price manipulation in western markets is the evidence we need. We have all admitted this manipulation has taken place. What is not clear to the American public is if we plan to do anything about it or if we plan to prohibit it in the future.
I think we need to be clear. The language I have offered in this amendment, as I said, is very simple and straightforward. It is that way because we want to make sure the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not misinterpret the intent of Congress, that Congress needs to say manipulating prices cannot be just and reasonable or in the public interest, and their job is to basically protect electric ratepayers from these kinds of manipulation.
I am not going to continue to take up the time of my colleagues who have heard about this amendment and have had an opportunity to review it. I urge them, as part of our further understanding of where the Energy bill is, that it is being set aside. This is the opportunity before us to make sure we
take a stand against market manipulation and we need to make it clear to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which seems to be unclear about what authority they currently have, and to make it explicit that market manipulation cannot be tolerated.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I have not taken up a significant amount of time because I think Members have been educated on this issue, so I would suggest we just go ahead and vote on the issue and move ahead.
Mr. President, I am sure there are Members who, if they had the time, would come and speak, but I think to make this process move as smoothly as possible, I see no need to continue to wait for Members of the Energy Committee to show up. If Members are here who want to speak on behalf of the amendment, one way or another----
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Show 8 more
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…
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 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.
Mr. President, I thank the managers, Chairman Bennett and Senator Kohl, for agreeing to the amendment that Senators Harkin, Durbin and I offer today. The purpose of our amendment is simple. The Food…
Mr. President, I thank the managers, Chairman Bennett and Senator Kohl, for agreeing to the amendment that Senators Harkin, Durbin and I offer today.
The purpose of our amendment is simple. The Food and Drug Administration has advised us that, in fiscal year 2004, it will spend $10.4 million to regulate dietary supplements. The Hatch-Harkin-Durbin amendment would increase those activities by 10 percent, or $1 million.
Let me explain why this amendment is necessary. First, I will explain the pertinent law that the FDA administers.
There is no question that tens of millions of Americans rely daily on safe dietary supplements to maintain and improve their healthy lifestyles. The popularity of these products and the concern over their regulation are what led to enactment of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA, in 1994, a bill that Senator Harkin and I were proud to author with now-Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson. DSHEA is a strong law that properly implemented will protect the interests of consumers. But, as with any law, it has to be implemented for it to work.
Enactment of DSHEA followed literally decades of Food and Drug Administration animosity toward dietary supplement products. This animosity and the lack of a clear regulatory structure for supplements were clearly demonstrated prior to passage of DSHEA. That is why two- thirds of the Senate cosponsored our bill. That is why a majority of the House cosponsored the bill. And that is why it passed so overwhelmingly.
The basic structure of DSHEA allowed all products marketed as dietary supplements when the bill was enacted to stay on the market unless the FDA could show safety problems with a particular product or line of products--this is the so-called ``grandfather'' provision; manufacturers must notify the FDA before any new ingredients are marketed. At the same time, we provided the FDA with the full range of enforcement mechanisms to act against unsafe or misbranded supplements, including seizure, injunction, civil monetary penalties and even criminal penalties.
When Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman expressed lingering concerns that an unsafe product might be marketed and FDA would not have adequate authority to act against it, we added a new tool-- imminent hazard--so that the Secretary could take immediate action against a product that he believed poses an imminent hazard to public health. I might add, the definition as to what constitutes an ``imminent hazard'' is entirely up to the Department of Health and Human Services, so this is a very broad authority.
Even so, there are some who believe that dietary supplements should not be marketed in the United States without a preclearance similar to that for pharmaceuticals. We who drafted and passed DSHEA along with millions of Americans were persuaded that was not necessary.
First, most supplements cannot be patented, so there is little incentive for manufacturers to undergo the expensive and time-consuming FDA approval process.
Second, many supplements have been used safely for literally centuries, if not millennia, so it is not necessary to subject them to the approval process. That was why even the most liberal members felt comfortable with the grandfather structure.
Finally, we added a provision so that FDA would have the time to examine any ingredient not previously marketed and the evidence of its safety before that product actually reached the stores.
When we drafted DSHEA, ensuring the safety of products was at the forefront of our efforts. The law gives the FDA abundant tools to remove products that are unsafe from the market. It includes a safety standard that was carefully crafted with Senator Kennedy and Representatives Dingell and Waxman, the chairs of FDA-related panels in 1994.
There is no excuse for a supplement manufacturer to market products that are unsafe or inaccurately labeled or that make outlandish claims. Unfortunately, a small number of irresponsible supplement companies are taking advantage of consumers. I contend that the law is adequate to deal with them if FDA implements and enforces it. So, we come to the purpose of our amendment.
In the nine-plus years since DSHEA was enacted, there has been too much talk that the law handcuffs FDA and too little effort to apply the law.
It is impossible for this law to protect consumers if it is not enforced.
I am not here to criticize the FDA or throw barbs. Frankly, the FDA under Commissioner Mark McClellan has done more to enforce DSHEA than the previous administration had. I credit Commissioner McClellan for his commitment to implement the law fully. I truly believe he wants to make this law work. Congress must support him.
That is why I have joined with Senator Harkin to introduce the DSHEA Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2003, S. 1538. And that is why we are offering this amendment today, which we consider to be a down payment on S. 1538.
Yes, there is a small number of products that do raise serious concerns. Ephedra is one. As I have done for many years, I urge the FDA to act definitively on this issue based on the best available science, not politics. If the agency deems that ephedra poses a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury when used as labeled, than the agency can and must move to take the product off the market. This has gone on for too long. That is the reason I am happy to cosponsor the companion amendment offered by Senator Durbin.
Earlier this year, the FDA advised me it had received 3,000 comments and 12,000 letters in response to the agency's proposed rule-making on ephedra.
This has obviously placed a burden on this tiny agency, which needs funding to complete the job it has undertaken.
Indeed, as this example shows, the fight for resources is a huge challenge for FDA. The FDA simply does not have the staff or money it needs to do the job. In short, the agency is woefully underfunded, especially when it comes to dietary supplement regulation. That is the only reason I can see that the safety standard we enacted has never been invoked. That has to be the reason that it has taken almost a decade to promulgate the good manufacturing practice standards that can help guarantee the safety, the purity, and the accurate labeling of products. And that must be the reason that a product like androstenedione, which I believe is not even a dietary supplement, continues to be marketed in this country.
I have been very concerned about the safety of steroid precursor products like andro--and especially when they fall into the hands of our youth.
That is why I have joined with Senator Biden, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley to cosponsor the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, S. 1780, that will add andro and other steroid precursors, as well as THG, to the list of controlled substances. I intend for the Judiciary Committee to make adoption of S. 1780 a priority, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both S. 1780 and S. 1538.
We have a very solid dietary supplement law that can deal with problems that arise. But, the FDA must use that law for it to be effective, and Congress must support the agency in that effort.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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 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.
Madam President, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on an issue important not only to my State but also to other States in my country as it continues to plague agricultural producers…
Madam President, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on an issue important not only to my State but also to other States in my country as it continues to plague agricultural producers all over the United States. I thank Senator Dayton, my colleague from Minnesota, for offering this amendment and for his continuing good work on this important issue.
Last year at this time this Chamber had a prolonged debate on whether to provide much needed emergency drought assistance to those hurt by continuing record drought. Some argued that there should be no assistance; others argued that, unlike with every other national disaster, assistance for drought victims should be funded through offsets. Some even argued we could always come back to take care of these victims at a later date.
Still some argued that a drought is no less devastating than a hurricane or flood for those who are affected and it should be treated as we would treat other natural disasters, by providing full assistance, treat it as an emergency, which, in fact, it is.
It took a while to get any help to our agricultural producers. Despite the plague of bankruptcies and the anticipated loss of thousands of family farms across the country, we could not get drought assistance passed until last spring, nearly 2 years after the worst of the drought had begun. That assistance came at a cost.
It covered less than half of the damage the USDA estimated had been caused by the drought, and it was paid for out of elements of the new farm
bill, robbing Paul to pay Paul. To survive, our farmers would have to sacrifice their future for their present.
Despite all that, despite waiting months for Congress to act, despite getting what assistance was offered at the expense of the farm bill, even now, more than 7 months after the passage of that inadequate bill, many of those hurt are just beginning to receive emergency payments. Some have received nothing while the least fortunate went bankrupt during the wait.
The drought package passed last spring offered a little over $3 billion for drought losses, half the estimated $6 billion in actual damages. By October 1, $1.85 billion had been distributed, just over a quarter of actual damages through 2002. Nebraska, which alone had $1.2 billion in damages, has received only $138 million in crop disaster payments, barely 10 cents on the $1 of what it lost. As of September 15, the sugar beet program had not even been implemented, leaving those producers with nothing.
Still, the drought continues. That is why I am here today. And still, because that drought continues, our farmers and ranchers need help.
I am here today to remind those who settle for less that we still need to do more. This map reflects the current drought impact in the United States. The red and brown areas are those areas that have been labeled as a drought area by the U.S. Drought Monitor at the University of Nebraska. The red areas within the regions have been declared as drought areas by the State or Federal Government. The brown areas have not been declared. As I said, they are considered to be declared drought areas by the U.S. Drought Monitor. The green areas are recovering from drought but could be impacted by recurring or lingering conditions. The yellow areas are under drought watch.
This map is for the time period of September 5 through October 2 of this year, less than 60 days ago. We can see this drought continues.
As is clear from this map, 16 States have seen at least half of their counties declared drought disasters and another 5 have some declared drought area and 2 additional States are considered drought States by the U.S. Drought Monitor but not all declared drought regions. All told, 23 States at the present time have at least some drought regions as labeled by the U.S. Drought Monitor. Another six States have some areas under drought watch.
This map makes it very clear, and it should be clear for everyone to see, the drought has not ended. It remains a national problem and has taken another planting season, another growing season, and another harvest. We need to provide more assistance for our farmers and our ranchers. We need to do more to mitigate the effects of this drought.
Finally, we need to take seriously the fact that a drought is no less devastating to those afflicted than of any other natural disaster.
The unfortunate thing on a comparison basis, some natural disasters are immediate or nearly immediate. This natural disaster takes time to develop. In this case, it is continuing.
If some believe this drought is not as damaging as other natural disasters, I invite them to visit Nebraska and the other States, visit farmers and ranchers who are selling their lands, selling their herds or those who have already sold their land and herds. I invite them to tour our rural communities to see how damaging this drought has been to small businesses, Main Street America, small communities that comprise those Main Streets that are connected to the land and the economic activity that it produces. I invite them to talk to the Governor of Nebraska who a few days ago asked the Department of Agriculture to declare our entire State a disaster area because of drought damages.
I tried a number of measures to focus some attention on the plight of our agricultural producers. I even tried to name the drought, Drought David, thinking that would give it some sort of focus, just as we name hurricanes. I even brought drought ribbons that some of my colleagues were good enough to wear a year ago because they understood the national impact of this drought as well as the impact on their particular States. I worked with leaders in this area such as Senators Daschle, Harkin, Baucus, Dayton, and Johnson, who also pushed for comprehensive drought assistance. But still it has not been enough. We need to do more. With economic conditions being what they are, we cannot risk losing more family farms, we cannot risk losing rural businesses, and we cannot risk agricultural bankruptcies and foreclosures.
This issue has not been resolved--not through the rains these counties and States need, and not through the paltry assistance provided by the Federal Government. We need to do more.
So today I rise in support of Senator Dayton's amendment to provide more support for our family farmers. In fact, I considered offering an amendment myself on this very issue. And that, again, shows the breadth of the disaster. Such States as Nebraska and Minnesota, and everything in between, and all around, are still in dire trouble. Our Nation is at economic risk.
If we dislike importing 50 to 60 percent of our oil for our energy needs, let me assure you, we will hate importing our food if it ever gets to the point that we lose agriculture as we have it today.
So we must act. We must act now or it will be too late for tens of thousands of more family farms and the rural way of life.
I thank you, Madam President. I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor.
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…
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.
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 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.
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…
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 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.
Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2673, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004, that…
Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2673, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004, that will help protect the health of the American public. This amendment would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from utilizing funds under this Act to approve downed animals for human consumption. I thank Senators Levin, Cantwell, and Lieberman for cosponsoring this amendment.
Downed animals are livestock such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway for the spread of disease.
I commend USDA and livestock organizations for their efforts to address the issue of downed animals. However, I am deeply concerned about diseases such as BSE, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, more commonly known as mad cow disease, that pose a serious risk to the United States cattle industry and human health. A food inspection study conducted in Germany in 2001 found that BSE is present in a higher percentage of downed livestock than in the general cattle population. USDA stated that downed animals are one of the most significant potential pathways that have not been addressed in previous efforts to reduce risks from BSE. Stronger legislation is needed to ensure that these animals do not enter our food chain. My amendment prevents downed animals from being approved for consumption at our dinner tables.
On January 21st of this year, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) proposed rules in the Federal Register asking for comments on reducing the risks of BSE from downed and dead livestock. In the proposed rules, USDA acknowledges that downed animals serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE. Currently, before slaughter, USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) diverts downer livestock that exhibit clinical signs associated with BSE or other types of diseases until further tests may be taken. However, this does not mean that downed livestock cannot be processed for human consumption. If downer cattle presented for slaughter pass both the pre- and post- inspection process, meat and meat by-products from such cattle can be used for human consumption. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. This was demonstrated by the surveillance of a similar inspection process in Europe, showing that the process is inadequate for detecting BSE. Consequently, BSE-infected cattle can be approved for human and animal consumption.
Although USDA increased the number of cattle tested for BSE from 5,200 during the year 2001 to 19,990 in the year 2002, this still represents less than one percent of the industry that is tested. Of the 5,200 cattle tested for BSE in fiscal year 2001, approximately 87 percent of the animals targeted for testing were downed. Today, USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately 10 percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. It is interesting to note, however, that Japan currently tests each of its 1.3 million beef cattle slaughtered annually for BSE. While I am not asking the industry and Federal Government to test every slaughtered cow, I am asking the Federal Government to address and reduce the real risks associated with BSE and similar diseases in the U.S.
Some individuals fear that my amendment would place an excessive financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE this year shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated that the Canadian beef industry lost over $1 billion as a result of the discovery of BSE and more than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain.
We must protect our livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. My amendment reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to our food supply. USDA only tests a small sample of downed animals for diseases. This is not enough. My amendment ensures downed animals will not be used for human consumption. It also requires higher standards for food safety and protects human health from diseases and the livestock industry from economic distress.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
I ask my amendment be set aside momentarily and we return to it at a future time.
Show 11 more
Mr. President, responding to the distinguished manager of the bill, I myself will take less than 10 minutes. It is my understanding there may be one or two other Senators who wish to speak on this…
Mr. President, responding to the distinguished manager of the bill, I myself will take less than 10 minutes. It is my understanding there may be one or two other Senators who wish to speak on this matter. I do not have their requests before me.
It is my understanding then that I have the floor to proceed but there is no further agreement thereafter; is that correct?
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, this summer farmers in my State of Minnesota suffered one of the worst droughts in the State's history. Throughout the critical months of July and August, Minnesota received no rain whatsoever. Those cloudless blue skies with lots of warm sunshine which are considered good summer weather become deadly when it becomes relentless. Ninety-five percent of Minnesota's crop acres suffered some loss as a result, and 62 of our 87 counties were declared by the Secretary of Agriculture to be disaster area counties. Yields, moisture content, and overall quality of crops were all adversely affected by this drought.
To add misery to injury, insect infestation attacked thousands of soybean acres in southern Minnesota, further destroying plants, lowering yields, and forcing already hard-pressed growers to spend $10,000, $20,000, or even more to spray their fields in order to fight off total devastation.
In total, Minnesota farmers lost more than $1.1 billion in expected crop revenues. That is over 30 percent of our State's total crop revenue.
Yet, tragically, another disaster afflicts those unfortunate farmers and thousands of other farmers who suffered similar losses in other States this year. That disaster is that there is no disaster aid funding in the current farm law which was enacted last year. The Senate bill that we passed here provided disaster aid. The House bill did not. The conference report, regrettably, took the House and the administration's position, with the result that if you are hurt by low prices, you are helped under the current law, but if you are devastated, you are on your own and receive no assistance whatsoever.
My amendment provides assistance when disaster does strike. It does so by starting with the formula that was used in last year's disaster aid bill; from losses exceeding 35 percent of total value, farmers received disaster aid payments equal to 65 percent of the losses above the 35 percent threshold. It is a survival payment. It is not a break- even and certainly not a profit payment.
My amendment also adds a lower reimbursement for losses between 25 percent and 35 percent of value. Formerly, those losses would have received no assistance whatsoever. This formula pays 40 percent of those losses between 20 percent and 35 percent of total value.
The amendment also covers unreimbursed losses during the 2001 and 2002 seasons. As my colleagues will recall, farmers who suffered disasters in both of those years were allowed to receive payments from losses in only one of them. In other words, disaster aid is Sophie's choice. This amendment would compensate those farmers for their losses in the second year.
My amendment as written covered program crop losses and specialty crop losses throughout the country. However, I have also added, at the request of other Members, losses suffered during the year, which means the amendment now covers losses of shrimp in Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, and other losses which occurred in the States of Michigan, Florida, and California, as well as other national specialty crops.
The total cost of my amendment, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, is approximately $6.3 billion. Because it is, in my view, an emergency expenditure, I do not believe it requires, under the Budget Act, an offset, and I am not providing one.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Madam President, with due respect to the Senator from Utah, it seems to me that if we are going to measure whether something is an emergency by the extent of the emergency, we are misperceiving those situations.
I regret that the cost of this measure is estimated to be $6.3 billion, but that is a function of the extent of the disaster which has occurred nationwide. If disaster aid is not itself considered to be an emergency, frankly, I don't know what possibly could be under the Budget Act.
So, Madam President, I move to waive the budget point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.
Madam President, I will agree to a voice vote if the Senator from Utah concurs.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in offering an amendment that will expand the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire county,…
Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, in offering an amendment that will expand the borders of the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone to include the entire county, so that the benefits of empowerment zone designation can be fully realized throughout the northernmost county in Maine.
The Department of Agriculture's Empowerment Zone program addresses a comprehensive range of community challenges, including many that have traditionally received little Federal assistance, reflecting the fact that rural problems do not come in standardized packages but can vary widely from one place to another. The Empowerment Zone Program represents a long-term partnership between the Federal Government and rural communities--10 years in most cases--so that communities have enough time to implement projects to build the capacity to sustain their development beyond the term of the partnership. An Empowerment Zone designation gives designated regions potential access to millions of dollars in Federal grants for social services and community redevelopment as well as tax and regulatory relief over a ten-year period.
Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Yet, despite the impressive character and work ethic of its citizens, the County has fallen on hard times. The 2000 Census indicated a 15 percent loss in population since 1990. Loring Air Force Base, which was closed in 1994, also caused an immediate out-migration of 8,500 people and a further out-migration of families and businesses that depended on Loring for their customer base.
Unfair trade practices have also struck a blow to the County's economy. Aroostook shares more border miles with Canada than most northern states. It is bordered for approximately 280 miles to the west, north and east by Canada. Canadian farmers and businesses have been extremely competitive in Aroostook's traditional business markets; as a result, Aroostook's farmers have experienced a loss in sales which has caused additional job loss, and still more people migrating from Aroostook County. Aroostook's economic situation has been further worsened by the strong value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar and the restrictive personal exemption duty limits that Canada imposes on its citizens when they make shopping trips to U.S. businesses on the border.
In response to these developments, the Northern Maine Development Commission and other economic development organizations, the private business sector, and community leaders in Aroostook County have joined forces to stabilize, diversify, and grow the area's economy. The designation of Aroostook as an Empowerment Zone has been a vital element of this ongoing effort to enhance both the present and the future economic prosperity of the county.
There is, however, a restriction in the law governing empowerment zones that prevents this tremendous program from benefitting all of the small rural communities in Aroostook. Currently, the law limits the Aroostook empowerment zone to 1,000 square miles, despite the fact that Aroostook covers some 6,672 square miles and only has a population of approximately 72,000 people. Including all of the county in the empowerment zone will guarantee that parts of the county will not be left behind as economic prosperity returns to the area. It does little good to have a company move from one community to another within the County simply to take advantage of empowerment zone benefits.
America's greatest success can only be achieved when everyone has the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a strong economy. It is only fair that all of Aroostook County's population be given the opportunity to fully benefit from the Empowerment Zone Program.
Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairman of this subcommittee, my good friend from Utah is…
Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairman of this subcommittee, my good friend from Utah is no doubt aware of the important role that wildlife services provided by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have in managing and protecting wildlife. I am pleased that the subcommittee maintained funding for these operations as many States, including my own, depend on the cooperative efforts of the Federal Government to meet the growing demands for wildlife services. Given the need for beaver management in my State, I would ask the Chairman to work to have APHIS continue providing cooperative beaver management services in Maine.
The State's Cooperative Beaver Management Program (CBMP) was established in 1995 by Maine Wildlife Services as a cooperative effort between State, Federal, and local governments to provide services to landholders, the Maine Department of Transportation, towns and municipalities who are experiencing problems caused by beavers. With the cost-share agreement between the State and APHIS, CBMP has been able to mitigate beaver related property, road, water, and environmental damage.
A reduction in cost share assistance to Maine would have a severe impact on many of the State's public resources and roadways. Beaver- flooded roadways endanger the driving public while beaver-flooded sewer and septic systems create a health hazard as well as incur significant repair expenses. In addition to helping avoid costly repairs to our public infrastructure, cost-share assistance to the CBMP can reduce damage to private logging roads that are important to the forest products based local economies. It reduces environmental damage, such as erosion, sedimentation, and habitat degradation, caused by road wash-outs.
The State of Maine reports that the CBMP provides significant benefits to the public in a very effective way. For example, in fiscal year 2002 CBMP activities prevented the loss of, or damage to, $1.3 million in resources. For the driving public, the benefits are particularly significant. The program saved $500,000 in roadway repair costs by alleviating flooded roads and rights-of way along the interstate and other State maintained highways. Comparing the cost of the program to the value of resources saved gives a cost-benefit ratio of 1 to 10. In other words, for every dollar spent, ten dollars were saved over the long-term.
Ever since the creation of the CBMP in 1995, funding has remained level. Under this agreement Maine has received $75,000 annually. In recent years, however, demand for CBMP services has outstripped program funding thereby limiting the State's ability to prevent property damage and threats to human health and safety. Additionally, the State is concerned that highway safety is being compromised because of flooding caused by beaver dams.
I recognize that the subcommittee has worked to maintain APHIS wildlife services in the face of budget limitations. I appreciate the chairman's effort to continue this program and thank the chairman for considering options to address the unique beaver management needs in Maine.
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…
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 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.
Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Dayton for offering this amendment to secure emergency agricultural disaster assistance for our drought stricken agricultural producers. I worked the past…
Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Dayton for offering this amendment to secure emergency agricultural disaster assistance for our drought stricken agricultural producers.
I worked the past 2 years to pass meaningful disaster assistance. For 2 years, I worked to attach a disaster assistance package onto every piece of legislation I could. It passed twice in the Senate--once with 70 votes. Unfortunately, the House and the administration failed to see the necessity of disaster assistance for our Nation's agricultural producers.
A disaster package was eventually signed into law, but this package was a mere ghost of the original disaster package and did little to help those who were hurt the most by drought. Producers in my State of Montana experienced devastating drought in 2001 and 2002, but the package that was signed into law only provided relief for one of those years. I don't know many businessmen who would stay in business after 2 years of more than 35 percent losses.
Our Nation's agricultural producers are still hurting. I can count on one hand how many days it has rained in Billings, MT since June. The lack of moisture in my State combined with consecutive days of 100-plus temperatures during the summer exasperated the multiyear drought conditions.
The effects of the drought have gone beyond our farmers and ranchers. Businesses are closing their doors, employees are being laid off, and main streets are literally drying up.
When drought hits, it affects everyone in the area. In Geraldine, MT, which is located in Choteau County--right in the heart of the drought-- students who qualify for free and reduced meals increased from 47 percent to 64 percent over the past year. This signals a dramatic fall in income for this area. Farmers who grow food for a living are asking for help to feed their families.
As a Nation, we provide emergency assistance when a hurricane smashes into the East Coast, when a tornado rips through the Midwest, or when a flood destroys southern communities. We step in and help our neighbors who are in need and offsets are not required. There is no reason that a double standard should apply to drought.
The agricultural producers in Montana hung on to strings of hope last year as we were fighting for disaster assistance for drought. After witnessing the atrocity of a package that passed, many of them were forced to sell their farms, their livelihood, their way of life. It was heartbreaking. Many people are still hanging on by their fingertips though and that is why I support this amendment. We need to save these producers--the people who wake up at the crack of dawn every day to ensure that our Nation has a safe, abundant, and inexpensive food supply.
This is about providing relief for the small businessmen and women who raise our food and experienced a natural disaster.
I urge my colleagues to do what is right and what is fair and to vote for this amendment.
Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, Senator Bennett, for his…
Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, Senator Bennett, for his outstanding work on the fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
I would also like to take the opportunity to clarify three provisions that it contains. Upon reviewing the bill I wish to bring to your attention three changes I hope can be incorporated in the statement of managers. First, I request that two separate projects, described as Old Canton Road and Watkins Drive in the current bill, be combined to
I thank the Chairman for his assistance in clarifying these issues and for his leadership as we complete work on this bill.
animal fighting
Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, Senator Bennett, for his outstanding work on the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
Upon review of the bill, I request that the following language be included in the statement of the managers:
The conferees are aware of and encourage the Secretary to
support the utilization of remote telemedicine services
capable of transmitting medical information in both real-time
and stored scenarios for diagnosis, medical monitoring and
emergency purposes. Furthermore, the conferees recognize the
need for integration and interoperability of real-time remote
mobile medical technology with other devices, systems and
services which together offer increased capabilities,
functionality, and levels of care.
I would ask that the Chairman work to incorporate this language in the bill.
I thank the Chairman for his assistance with this language and for his leadership as we complete work on this bill.
national agriculture statistics service potato pricing survey
Mr. President, it is my understanding that the provisions in the Agriculture appropriations bill before the Senate would in no way affect the proposed reorganization of the Natural Resources Conservation Service's field laboratory structure. Does the Senator from Utah agree with that interpretation?
Is the Senator aware that the Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, an NRCS facility in Jackson, MS, is unique among NRCS facilities in that it is a ``virtual institute'' which draws on staff from all across the country to develop innovative habitat management recommendations for landowners?
Would the Senator agree that relocating this Institute, given its unique organization and the dispersion of its staff, would not yield significant savings or efficiency?
I wonder if the Senator from Utah will yield for a question. I am not certain exactly what the status of the bill is. I know we have been working on it all day. My understanding is that we have had…
I wonder if the Senator from Utah will yield for a question.
I am not certain exactly what the status of the bill is. I know we have been working on it all day. My understanding is that we have had the last vote of the day so that may suggest that other amendments will not be offered, or certainly not voted on. I did want to inquire of the Senator from Utah about his plans for this bill.
I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that deals with the importation of live cattle from Canada. As my colleagues know, last week the Secretary of Agriculture took some action to put Canada on a minimum risk category. This is a country within the last 6 or 8 months that has had one case of mad cow disease. I am very concerned about that, and I want to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment dealing with the importation of live cattle from Canada and my concerns about that.
I would certainly be available to do that in the morning or at a time appropriate. I wanted to inquire what the Senator anticipates may happen on this legislation this evening.
Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further for an inquiry.
I have worked with the Senator from Utah as a ranking member when he chaired the subcommittee. He is easy to work with and I know we will be able to work with the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Wisconsin on this issue.
Especially in the last week or so, I have been immensely concerned about this issue of the importation of live cattle from Canada, only because the circumstances of live cattle coming across borders from a country in which there has been a case of mad cow disease is a very difficult situation. We want to be very careful about our country's beef herd and the potential devastation to that herd were we to have an outbreak or a case of mad cow disease.
We belong to an organization called the Office of International Des Epizooties, which establishes the guidelines that our country and others follow with respect to animal health. I want to talk about that at some length and then offer the sense-of-the-Senate resolution because I think all of us ought to be very concerned about when and how we decide to take action with respect to the import of live cattle from Canada.
Finally, I might say I regret Canada has suffered this problem. It is a devastating problem for them to have had a mad cow case, but we ought to be very concerned and very careful about our beef herd in this country, and my amendment will address that subject.
I thank the Senator from Utah for his courtesy.
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…
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.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is designed to eliminate tariffs on certain tuna products imported into the United States from member nations of the Association of Southeast Asian…
Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is designed to eliminate tariffs on certain tuna products imported into the United 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.
Mr. President, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 added new a new provision of the Rural Electrification Act giving the Rural Utilities Service, (RUS), Administrator the authority to…
Mr. President, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 added new a new provision of the Rural Electrification Act giving the Rural Utilities Service, (RUS), Administrator the authority to make loans ``to expand or improve 911 access and integrated emergency communications systems in rural areas.''
This new provision was in response to the pressing need in rural America to upgrade and improve the ability to communicate in times of individual and mass emergencies.
In the wake of 9/11 there is no higher telecommunications priority than to ensure that communications systems work best when they are needed most.
Senator Clinton and I proposed the emergency communications provision in the Agriculture Appropriations bill to give life to that new section of the Rural Electrification Act.
The Rural Utilities Service, through its talented staff of engineers, operations specialists can play an important role in ensuring that emergency responders can communicate in rural and remote areas.
The Burns-Clinton provision in this appropriations bill would not increase or decrease spending, but would give the administrator of the RUS the flexibility to use funding from several sources within the agency to give emergency communications projects in rural areas the high priority they deserve. It also gives the RUS Administrator a source of loan funds which compliment the grant funds available for emergency communications systems in the Community Facilities program.
That is correct. At any given time, there are authorities which are oversubscribed and others which are undersubscribed. This provision gives the Administrator flexibility to use underutilized funds for this high priority purpose.
As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Committee, I will seek Conference report language to clarify that funding would be available to current and prospective RUS borrowers and that a wide range of projects be eligible for funding including 911 upgrades, broad emergency communications initiatives, statewide emergency communications projects which include rural areas and projects that provide a dual public safety and commercial uses.
The emergency communications amendment will help ensure that rural America does not fall on the wrong side of a public safety divide.
NRCS Clarifications
Mr. President, today Senator Frist and I are offering an amendment to authorize a new program that we call the Sun Grant Initiative. The Sun Grant Initiative--or SGI--is an effort to provide an…
Mr. President, today Senator Frist and I are offering an amendment to authorize a new program that we call the Sun Grant Initiative. The Sun Grant Initiative--or SGI--is an effort to provide an innovative approach to creating new biobased products and markets for farmers, thereby enhancing the environment and developing new industries in our Nation's rural communities.
The SGI would establish five Sun Grant Centers across the Nation to stimulate needed research and development projects, while providing leadership and coordination for a regional competitive grant program that will address national research issues and educational needs at the regional and local levels. This new program will provide a much-needed bridge between our Government's current national research efforts and the State-based research education networks of the Land-Grant universities. The SGI will forge a new partnership between the national leadership and energy expertise of the
Federal Government and the agricultural and rural community development expertise of the Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Cooperative Extension System.
The United States has steadily increased its reliance on imported oil. Alternative sources of energy and industrial chemicals must be developed as soon as possible. The Sun Grant Initiative will stimulate the production of bioenergy resources to complement and augment petroleum energy resources, while helping to reduce our dependence on imported oil and constrain energy costs for American industries and consumers.
Additionally, American farmers need new products and viable market alternatives. Sun Grant research, development and education programs will stimulate the development bioenergy and bioproducts on American farms, creating an opportunity for an additional, significant source of income to farmers. The SGI will encourage new biobased industries and new capital investments, stimulating the economies of these rural communities.
I want to thank Senator Frist, Chairman Bennett, and Senators Kohl, Cochran, Harkin and Smith for their support of this innovative and exciting effort to build a biobased economy that can assist our Nation in so many ways.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1780 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1780
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 23, 2003
Mr. Biden (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
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.
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
``(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.
<all>