[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11111-H11122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE METHAMPHETAMINE CONTROL ACT OF 1996
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3852) to prevent the illegal manufacturing and use of
methamphetamine, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3852
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I--IMPORTATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
Sec. 101. Support for international efforts to control drugs.
Sec. 102. Penalties for manufacture of listed chemicals outside the
United States with intent to import them into the United
States.
TITLE II--PROVISIONS TO CONTROL THE MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE
Sec. 201. Seizure and forfeiture of regulated chemicals.
Sec. 202. Study and report on measures to prevent sales of agents used
in methamphetamine production.
Sec. 203. Increased penalties for manufacture and possession of
equipment used to make controlled substances.
Sec. 204. Addition of iodine and hydrochloric gas to list II.
Sec. 205. Civil penalties for firms that supply precursor chemicals.
Sec. 206. Injunctive relief.
Sec. 207. Restitution for cleanup of clandestine laboratory sites.
Sec. 208. Record retention.
Sec. 209. Technical amendments.
Sec. 210. Withdrawal of regulations.
TITLE III--INCREASED PENALTIES FOR TRAFFICKING AND MANUFACTURE OF
METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSORS
Sec. 301. Trafficking in methamphetamine penalty increases.
Sec. 302. Penalty increases for trafficking in listed chemicals.
Sec. 303. Enhanced penalty for dangerous handling of controlled
substances: amendment of sentencing guidelines.
TITLE IV--LEGAL MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF PRECURSOR
CHEMICALS
Sec. 401. Diversion of certain precursor chemicals.
Sec. 402. Mail order restrictions.
TITLE V--EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
Sec. 501. Interagency methamphetamine task force.
Sec. 502. Public health monitoring.
Sec. 503. Public-private education program.
Sec. 504. Suspicious orders task force.
TITLE I--IMPORTATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
SEC. 101. SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL DRUGS.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, shall coordinate international drug enforcement
efforts to decrease the movement of methamphetamine and
methamphetamine precursors into the United States.
SEC. 102. PENALTIES FOR MANUFACTURE OF LISTED CHEMICALS
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WITH INTENT TO IMPORT
THEM INTO THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Unlawful Importation.--Section 1009(a) of the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
959(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by inserting ``or
listed chemical'' after ``schedule I or II''; and
(2) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``or chemical''
after ``substance''.
(b) Unlawful Manufacture or Distribution.--Paragraphs (1)
and (2) of section 1009(b) of the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 959(b)) are amended by
inserting ``or listed chemical'' after ``controlled
substance''.
(c) Penalties.--Section 1010(d) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(d)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the comma at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) manufactures, possesses with intent to distribute, or
distributes a listed chemical in violation of section 959 of
this title.''.
TITLE II--PROVISIONS TO CONTROL THE MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE
SEC. 201. SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF REGULATED CHEMICALS.
(a) Penalties for Simple Possession.--Section 404 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by adding after the first sentence the following: ``It
shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally
to possess any list I chemical obtained pursuant to or under
authority of a registration issued to that person under
section 303 of this title or section 1008 of title III if
that registration has been revoked or suspended, if that
registration has expired, or if the registrant has ceased to
do business in the manner contemplated by his
registration.''; and
(B) by striking ``drug or narcotic'' and inserting ``drug,
narcotic, or chemical'' each place it appears; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``drug or narcotic'' and
inserting ``drug, narcotic, or chemical''.
(b) Forfeitures.--Section 511(a) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (2) and (6), by inserting ``or listed
chemical'' after ``controlled substance'' each place it
appears; and
(2) in paragraph (9), by--
(A) inserting ``dispensed, acquired,'' after
``distributed,'' both places it appears; and
(B) striking ``a felony provision of''.
(c) Seizure.--Section 607 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1607) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``or listed
chemical'' after ``controlled substance''; and
(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) As used in this section, the terms `controlled
substance' and `listed chemical' have the meaning given such
terms in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802).''.
SEC. 202. STUDY AND REPORT ON MEASURES TO PREVENT SALES OF
AGENTS USED IN METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION.
(a) Study.--The Attorney General of the United States shall
conduct a study on possible measures to effectively prevent
the diversion of red phosphorous, iodine, hydrochloric gas,
and other agents for use in the production of
methamphetamine. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
Attorney General from taking any action the Attorney General
already is authorized to take with regard to the regulation
of listed chemicals under current law.
(b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 1998, the Attorney
General shall submit a report to the Congress of its findings
pursuant to the study conducted under subsection (a) on the
need for and advisability of preventive measures.
(c) Considerations.--In developing recommendations under
subsection (b), the Attorney General shall consider--
(1) the use of red phosphorous, iodine, hydrochloric gas,
and other agents in the illegal manufacture of
methamphetamine;
(2) the use of red phosphorous, iodine, hydrochloric gas,
and other agents for legal
[[Page H11112]]
purposes, and the impact any regulations may have on these
purposes; and
(3) comments and recommendations from law enforcement,
manufacturers of such chemicals, and the consumers of such
chemicals for legal purposes.
SEC. 203. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR MANUFACTURE AND POSSESSION
OF EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES.
(a) In General.--Section 403(d) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 843(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d) Any person'' and inserting ``(d)(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Any person who violates paragraph (6) or (7) of
subsection (a), if the controlled substance is
methamphetamine, shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of not more than 10 years, a fine under title 18, United
States Code, or both; except that if any person commits such
a violation after one or more prior convictions of that
person--
``(A) for a violation of paragraph (6) or (7) of subsection
(a);
``(B) for a felony under any other provision of this
subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter; or
``(C) under any other law of the United States or any State
relating to controlled substances or listed chemicals,
has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than 20 years, a fine under title
18, United States Code, or both.''.
(b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing
Commission shall amend the sentencing guidelines to ensure
that the manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of
section 403(d)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act, as added
by subsection (a), is adequately punished.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 403(d) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 843(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``of not more than $30,000'' and inserting
``under title 18, United States Code''; and
(2) by striking ``of not more than $60,000'' and inserting
``under title 18, United States Code''.
SEC. 204. ADDITION OF IODINE AND HYDROCHLORIC GAS TO LIST II.
(a) In General.--Section 102(35) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(35)) is amended by adding the
end the following:
``(I) Iodine.
``(J) Hydrochloric gas.''.
(b) Importation and Exportation Requirements.--(1) Iodine
shall not be subject to the requirements for listed chemicals
provided in section 1018 of the Controlled Substances Import
and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 971).
(2) Effect of Exception.--The exception made by paragraph
(1) shall not limit the authority of the Attorney General to
impose the requirements for listed chemicals provided in
section 1018 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export
Act (21 U.S.C. 971).
SEC. 205. CIVIL PENALTIES FOR FIRMS THAT SUPPLY PRECURSOR
CHEMICALS.
(a) Offenses.--Section 402(a) of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 842(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(11) to distribute a laboratory supply to a person who
uses, or attempts to use, that laboratory supply to
manufacture a controlled substance or a listed chemical, in
violation of this title or title III, with reckless disregard
for the illegal uses to which such a laboratory supply will
be put.
As used in paragraph (11), the term `laboratory supply' means
a listed chemical or any chemical, substance, or item on a
special surveillance list published by the Attorney General,
which contains chemicals, products, materials, or equipment
used in the manufacture of controlled substances and listed
chemicals. For purposes of paragraph (11), there is a
rebuttable presumption of reckless disregard at trial if the
Attorney General notifies a firm in writing that a laboratory
supply sold by the firm, or any other person or firm, has
been used by a customer, or distributed further by that
customer, for the unlawful production of controlled
substances or listed chemicals a firm distributes and 2 weeks
or more after the notification the notified firm distributes
a laboratory supply to the customer.''.
(b) Civil Penalty.--Section 402(c)(2) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 842(c)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(C) In addition to the penalties set forth elsewhere in
this title or title III, any business that violates paragraph
(11) of subsection (a) shall, with respect to the first such
violation, be subject to a civil penalty of not more than
$250,000, but shall not be subject to criminal penalties
under this section, and shall, for any succeeding violation,
be subject to a civil fine of not more than $250,000 or
double the last previously imposed penalty, whichever is
greater.''.
SEC. 206. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
(a) Ten-Year Injunction Major Offenses.--Section 401(f) of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(f)) is amended
by--
(1) inserting ``manufacture, exportation,'' after
``distribution,''; and
(2) striking ``regulated''.
(b) Ten-Year Injunction Other Offenses.--Section 403 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 843) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by--
(A) inserting ``manufacture, exportation,'' after
``distribution,''; and
(B) striking ``regulated''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Injunctions.--(1) In addition to any penalty provided
in this section, the Attorney General is authorized to
commence a civil action for appropriate declaratory or
injunctive relief relating to violations of this section or
section 402.
``(2) Any action under this subsection may be brought in
the district court of the United States for the district in
which the defendant is located or resides or is doing
business.
``(3) Any order or judgment issued by the court pursuant to
this subsection shall be tailored to restrain violations of
this section or section 402.
``(4) The court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the
hearing and determination of such an action. An action under
this subsection is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure except that, if an indictment has been returned
against the respondent, discovery is governed by the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.''.
SEC. 207. RESTITUTION FOR CLEANUP OF CLANDESTINE LABORATORY
SITES.
Section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
853) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(q) The court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of
an offense under this title or title III involving the
manufacture of methamphetamine, may--
``(1) order restitution as provided in sections 3612 and
3664 of title 18, United States Code;
``(2) order the defendant to reimburse the United States
for the costs incurred by the United States for the cleanup
associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine by the
defendant; and
``(3) order restitution to any person injured as a result
of the offense as provided in section 3663 of title 18,
United States Code.''.
SEC. 208. RECORD RETENTION.
Section 310(a)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 830(a)(1)) is amended by striking the dash after
``transaction'' and subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting
``for two years after the date of the transaction.''.
SEC. 209. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
802) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (34), by amending subparagraphs (P), (S),
and (U) to read as follows:
``(P) Isosafrole.
``(S) N-Methylephedrine.
``(U) Hydriodic acid.''; and
(2) in paragraph (35), by amending subparagraph (G) to read
as follows:
``(G) 2-Butanone (or Methyl Ethyl Ketone).''.
SEC. 210. WITHDRAWAL OF REGULATIONS.
The final rule concerning removal of exemption for certain
pseudoephedrine products marketed under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act published in the Federal Register on
August 7, 1996 (61 FR 40981-40993) is null and void and of no
force or effect.
TITLE III--INCREASED PENALTIES FOR TRAFFICKING AND MANUFACTURE OF
METHAMPHETAMINE AND PRECURSORS
SEC. 301. TRAFFICKING IN METHAMPHETAMINE PENALTY INCREASES.
(a) Controlled Substances Act.--
(1) Large amounts.--Section 401(b)(1)(A)(viii) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(viii)) is
amended by--
(A) striking ``100 grams or more of methamphetamine,'' and
inserting ``50 grams or more of methamphetamine,''; and
(B) striking ``1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine'' and
inserting ``500 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine''.
(2) Smaller amounts.--Section 401(b)(1)(B)(viii) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(viii)) is
amended by--
(A) striking ``10 grams or more of methamphetamine,'' and
inserting ``5 grams or more of methamphetamine,''; and
(B) striking ``100 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine'' and
inserting ``50 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine''.
(b) Import and Export Act.--
(1) Large amounts.--Section 1010(b)(1)(H) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(H)) is
amended by--
(A) striking ``100 grams or more of methamphetamine,'' and
inserting ``50 grams or more of methamphetamine,''; and
(B) striking ``1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine'' and
inserting ``500 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine''.
(2) Smaller amounts.--Section 1010(b)(2)(H) of the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
960(b)(2)(H)) is amended by--
(A) striking ``10 grams or more of methamphetamine,'' and
inserting ``5 grams or more of methamphetamine,''; and
[[Page H11113]]
(B) striking ``100 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine'' and
inserting ``50 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine''.
SEC. 302. PENALTY INCREASES FOR TRAFFICKING IN LISTED
CHEMICALS.
(a) Controlled Substances Act.--Section 401(d) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(d)) is amended by
striking the period and inserting the following: ``or, with
respect to a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of this
subsection involving a list I chemical, if the Government
proves the quantity of controlled substance that could
reasonably have been manufactured in a clandestine setting
using the quantity of list I chemicals possessed or
distributed, the penalty corresponding to the quantity of
controlled substance that could have been produced under
subsection (b).''.
(b) Controlled Substance Import and Export Act.--Section
1010(d) of the Controlled Substance Import and Export Act (21
U.S.C. 960(d)) is amended by striking the period and
inserting the following: ``, or, with respect to an
importation violation of paragraph (1) or (3) of this
subsection involving a list I chemical, if the Government
proves the quantity of controlled substance that could
reasonably have been manufactured in a clandestine setting
using the quantity of list I chemicals imported, the penalty
corresponding to the quantity of controlled substance that
could have been produced under title II.''.
(c) Determination of Quantity.--
(1) In general.--For the purposes of this section and the
amendments made by this section, the quantity of controlled
substance that could reasonably have been manufactured shall
be determined by using a table of manufacturing conversion
ratios for list I chemicals.
(2) Table.--The table shall be--
(A) established by the United States Sentencing Commission
based on scientific, law enforcement, and other data the
Sentencing Commission deems appropriate; and
(B) dispositive of this issue.
SEC. 303. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR DANGEROUS HANDLING OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES: AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING
GUIDELINES.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States
Sentencing Commission shall determine whether the Sentencing
Guidelines adequately punish an offense described in
subsection (b) and, if not, promulgate guidelines or amend
existing guidelines to provide an appropriate enhancement of
the punishment for a defendant convicted of that offense.
(b) Offense.--The offense referred to in subsection (a) is
a violation of section 401(d), 401(g)(1), 403(a)(6), or
403(a)(7) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(d),
841(g)(1), 843(a)(6), and 843(a)(7)), if in the commission of
the offense the defendant violated--
(1) subsection (d) or (e) of section 3008 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (relating to handling hazardous waste in a
manner inconsistent with Federal or applicable State law);
(2) section 103(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (relating to failure
to notify as to the release of a reportable quantity of a
hazardous substance into the environment);
(3) section 301(a), 307(d), 309(c)(2), 309(c)(3),
311(b)(3), or 311(b)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (relating to the unlawful discharge of pollutants
or hazardous substances, the operation of a source in
violation of a pretreatment standard, and the failure to
notify as to the release of a reportable quantity of a
hazardous substance into the water); or
(4) section 5124 of title 49, United States Code (relating
to violations of laws and regulations enforced by the
Department of Transportation with respect to the
transportation of hazardous material).
TITLE IV--LEGAL MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF PRECURSOR
CHEMICALS
SEC. 401. DIVERSION OF CERTAIN PRECURSOR CHEMICALS.
(a) In General.--Section 102(39) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(39)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(iv)(I)(aa), by striking ``as''
through the semicolon and inserting ``, pseudoephedrine or
its salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers, or
phenylpropanolamine or its salts, optical isomers, or salts
of optical isomers unless otherwise provided by regulation of
the Attorney General issued pursuant to section 204(e) of
this title;''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A)(iv)(II), by inserting ``,
pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine,'' after ``ephedrine''.
(b) Legitimate Retailers.--Section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (39)(A)(iv)(I)(aa), by inserting before
the semicolon the following: ``, except that any sale of
ordinary over-the-counter pseudoephedrine,
phenylpropanolamine, or combination ephedrine products by
retail distributors shall not be a regulated transaction
(except as provided in section 401(d) of the Comprehensive
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996)'';
(2) in paragraph (39)(A)(iv)(II), by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``, except that the threshold for
any sale of pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, or
combination ephedrine products by retail distributors or by
distributors required to submit reports by section 310(b)(3)
of this title shall be 24 grams of pseudoephedrine, 24 grams
of phenylpropanolamine, or 24 grams of ephedrine in a single
transaction'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (43) relating to felony drug
offense as paragraph (44); and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(45) The term `ordinary over-the-counter pseudoephedrine,
phenylpropanolamine, or combination ephedrine product' means
any product containing pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine,
or ephedrine (where the ephedrine is combined with
therapeutically significant quantities of another active
medicinal ingredient) that is--
``(A) regulated pursuant to this title; and
``(B)(i) except for liquids, sold in package sizes of not
more than 3.0 grams of pseudoephedrine base, 3.0 grams of
phenylpropanolamine base or 2.0 grams of ephedrine base, and
that is packaged in blister packs, each blister containing
not more than two dosage units, or where the use of blister
packs is technically infeasible, that is packaged in unit
dose packets or pouches; and
``(ii) for liquids, sold in package sizes of not more than
3.0 grams of pseudoephedrine base or 3.0 grams of
phenylpropanolamine base.
``(46)(A) The term `retail distributor' means a grocery
store, general merchandise store, drug store, or other entity
or person whose activities as a distributor relating to
pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, or combination
ephedrine products are limited almost exclusively to sales
for personal use, both in number of sales and volume of
sales, either directly to walk-in customers or in face-to-
face transactions by direct sales.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, sale for personal use
means the sale of below-threshold quantities in a single
transaction to an individual for legitimate medical use.
``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, entities are defined
by reference to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code, as follows:
``(i) A grocery store is an entity within SIC code 5411.
``(ii) A general merchandise store is an entity within SIC
codes 5300 through 5399 and 5499.
``(iii) A drug store is an entity within SIC code 5912.
``(47) The term `combination ephedrine product' means a
drug product containing ephedrine or its salts, optical
isomers, or salts of optical isomers and therapeutically
significant quantities of another active medicinal
ingredient.''.
(c) Reinstatement of Legal Drug Exemption.--Section 204 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 814) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Reinstatement of Exemption With Respect to Ephedrine,
Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine Drug Products.--
Pursuant to subsection (d)(1), the Attorney General shall by
regulation reinstate the exemption with respect to a
particular ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine
drug product if the Attorney General determines that the drug
product is manufactured and distributed in a manner that
prevents diversion. In making this determination the Attorney
General shall consider the factors listed in subsection
(d)(2). Any regulation issued pursuant to this subsection may
be amended or revoked based on the factors listed in
subsection (d)(4).''.
(d) Regulation of Retail Sales.--
(1) Pseudoephedrine.--
(A) Limit.--
(i) In general.--Not sooner than the effective date of this
section and subject to the requirements of clause (ii), the
Attorney General may establish by regulation a single-
transaction limit of 24 grams of pseudoephedrine base for
retail distributors. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the single-transaction threshold quantity for
pseudoephedrine-containing compounds may not be lowered
beyond that established in this paragraph.
(ii) Conditions.--In order to establish a single-
transaction limit of 24 grams of pseudoephedrine base, the
Attorney General shall determine, following notice, comment,
and an informal hearing that since the date of the enactment
of this Act there are a significant number of instances where
ordinary over-the-counter pseudoephedrine products as
established in paragraph (45) of section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802 (45)), as added by
this Act, sold by retail distributors as established in
paragraph (46) in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802(46)), are being widely used as a
significant source of precursor chemicals for illegal
manufacture of a controlled substance for distribution or
sale.
(B) Violation.--Any individual or business that violates
the thresholds established in this paragraph shall, with
respect to the first such violation, receive a warning letter
from the Attorney General and, if a business, the business
shall be required to conduct mandatory education of the sales
employees of the firm with regard to the legal sales of
pseudoephedrine. For a second violation occurring within 2
years of the first violation, the business or individual
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000.
For any subsequent violation occurring within 2 years of the
previous violation, the business or individual shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the amount of the
previous civil penalty plus $5,000.
[[Page H11114]]
(2) Phenylpropanolamine.--
(A) Limit.--
(i) In general.--Not sooner than the effective date of this
section and subject to the requirements of clause (ii), the
Attorney General may establish by regulation a single-
transaction limit of 24 grams of phenylpropanolamine base for
retail distributors. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the single-transaction threshold quantity for
phenylpropanolamine-containing compounds may not be lowered
beyond that established in this paragraph.
(ii) Conditions.--In order to establish a single-
transaction limit of 24 grams of phenylpropanolamine base,
the Attorney General shall determine, following notice,
comment, and an informal hearing, that since the date of the
enactment of this Act there are a significant number of
instances where ordinary over-the-counter phenylpropanolamine
products as established in paragraph (45) of section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(45)), as added
by this Act, sold by retail distributors as established in
paragraph (46) in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802(46)), are being widely used as a
significant source of precursor chemicals for illegal
manufacture of a controlled substance for distribution or
sale.
(B) Violation.--Any individual or business that violates
the thresholds established in this paragraph shall, with
respect to the first such violation, receive a warning letter
from the Attorney General and, if a business, the business
shall be required to conduct mandatory education of the sales
employees of the firm with regard to the legal sales of
pseudoephedrine. For a second violation occurring within 2
years of the first violation, the business or individual
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000.
For any subsequent violation occurring within 2 years of the
previous violation, the business or individual shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the amount of the
previous civil penalty plus $5,000.
(3) Combination ephedrine products.--
(A) Limit.--
(i) In general.--Not sooner than the effective date of this
section and subject to the requirements of clause (ii), the
Attorney General may establish by regulation a single-
transaction limit of 24 grams of ephedrine base for retail
distributors of combination ephedrine products.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the single-
transaction threshold quantity for combination ephedrine
products may not be lowered beyond that established in this
paragraph.
(ii) Conditions.--In order to establish a single-
transaction limit of 24 grams of ephedrine base, the Attorney
General shall determine, following notice, comment, and an
informal hearing, that since the date of the enactment of
this Act there are a significant number of instances where
ordinary over-the-counter combination ephredrine products as
established in paragraph (45) of section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(45)), as added by
this Act, sold by retail distributors as established in
paragraph (46) in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802(46)), are being widely used as a
significant source of precursor chemicals for illegal
manufacture of a controlled substance for distribution or
sale.
(B) Violation.--Any individual or business that violates
the thresholds established in this paragraph shall, with
respect to the first such violation, receive a warning letter
from the Attorney General and, if a business, the business
shall be required to conduct mandatory education of the sales
employees of the firm with regard to the legal sales of
combination ephedrine products. For a second violation
occurring within 2 years of the first violation, the business
or individual shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $5,000. For any subsequent violation occurring within 2
years of the previous violation, the business or individual
shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the amount
of the previous civil penalty plus $5,000.
(4) Significant number of instances.--(A) For purposes of
this subsection, isolated or infrequent use, or use in
insubstantial quantities, of ordinary over-the-counter
pseudoephedrine, over-the-counter phenylpropanolamine, or
over the counter combination ephedrine, and sold at the
retail level, for the illicit manufacture of a controlled
substance may not be used by the Attorney General as the
basis for establishing the conditions for establishing a
single transaction limit under this section.
(B) In making a determination under paragraph (1)(A)(ii),
paragraph (2)(A)(ii), or paragraph (3)(A)(ii), the Attorney
General shall consult with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services in order to consider the effects on public health
that would occur from the establishment of new single
transaction limits under this section.
(C) After making a determination under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii), paragraph (2)(A)(ii), or paragraph (3)(A)(ii),
the Attorney General shall transmit a report to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
and the Senate in which the Attorney General will provide the
factual basis for establishing the new single transaction
limits under this section.
(5) Definition of business.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``business'' means the entity that makes
the direct sale and does not include the parent company of a
business not involved in a direct sale regulated by this
subsection.
(6) Judicial review.--Any regulation promulgated by the
Attorney General under this section shall be subject to
judicial review pursuant to section 507 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 877).
(e) Effect on Thresholds.--Nothing in the amendments made
by subsection (b) or the provisions of subsection (d) shall
affect the authority of the Attorney General to modify
thresholds (including cumulative thresholds) for retail
distributors for products other than ordinary over-the-
counter pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, or combination
ephedrine products (as defined in section 102(45) of the
Controlled Substances Act, as added by this section) or for
non-retail distributors, importers, or exporters.
(f) Effective Date of This Section.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, this section shall not apply to
the sale of any pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, or
combination ephedrine product prior to 12 months after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 402. MAIL ORDER RESTRICTIONS.
Section 310(b) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
830(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Mail order reporting.--(A) Each regulated person who
engages in a transaction with a nonregulated person which--
``(i) involves ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or
phenylpropanolamine (including drug products containing these
chemicals); and
``(ii) uses or attempts to use the Postal Service or any
private or commercial carrier;
shall, on a monthly basis, submit a report of each such
transaction conducted during the previous month to the
Attorney General in such form, containing such data, and at
such times as the Attorney General shall establish by
regulation.
``(B) The data required for such reports shall include--
``(i) the name of the purchaser;
``(ii) the quantity and form of the ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine purchased; and
``(iii) the address to which such ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine was sent.''.
TITLE V--EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
SEC. 501. INTERAGENCY METHAMPHETAMINE TASK FORCE.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a
``Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force'' (referred to as
the ``interagency task force'') which shall consist of the
following members:
(1) The Attorney General, or a designee, who shall serve as
chair.
(2) 2 representatives selected by the Attorney General.
(3) The Secretary of Education or a designee.
(4) The Secretary of Health and Human Services or a
designee.
(5) 2 representatives of State and local law enforcement
and regulatory agencies, to be selected by the Attorney
General.
(6) 2 representatives selected by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
(7) 5 nongovernmental experts in drug abuse prevention and
treatment to be selected by the Attorney General.
(b) Responsibilities.--The interagency task force shall be
responsible for designing, implementing, and evaluating the
education and prevention and treatment practices and
strategies of the Federal Government with respect to
methamphetamine and other synthetic stimulants.
(c) Meetings.--The interagency task force shall meet at
least once every 6 months.
(d) Funding.--The administrative expenses of the
interagency task force shall be paid out of existing
Department of Justice appropriations.
(e) FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App. 2) shall apply to the interagency task force.
(f) Termination.--The interagency task force shall
terminate 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 502. PUBLIC HEALTH MONITORING.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop a
public health monitoring program to monitor methamphetamine
abuse in the United States. The program shall include the
collection and dissemination of data related to
methamphetamine abuse which can be used by public health
officials in policy development.
SEC. 503. PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Advisory Panel.--The Attorney General shall establish
an advisory panel consisting of an appropriate number of
representatives from Federal, State, and local law
enforcement and regulatory agencies with experience in
investigating and prosecuting illegal transactions of
precursor chemicals. The Attorney General shall convene the
panel as often as necessary to develop and coordinate
educational programs for wholesale and retail distributors of
precursor chemicals and supplies.
(b) Continuation of Current Efforts.--The Attorney General
shall continue to--
(1) maintain an active program of seminars and training to
educate wholesale and retail distributors of precursor
chemicals and supplies regarding the identification of
suspicious transactions and their responsibility to report
such transactions; and
(2) provide assistance to State and local law enforcement
and regulatory agencies to facilitate the establishment and
maintenance of educational programs for distributors of
precursor chemicals and supplies.
SEC. 504. SUSPICIOUS ORDERS TASK FORCE.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a
``Suspicious Orders Task
[[Page H11115]]
Force'' (the ``Task Force'') which shall consist of--
(1) appropriate personnel from the Drug Enforcement
Administration (the ``DEA'') and other Federal, State, and
local law enforcement and regulatory agencies with the
experience in investigating and prosecuting illegal
transactions of listed chemicals and supplies; and
(2) representatives from the chemical and pharmaceutical
industry, including representatives from the DEA/Distributor
Working Committee and the DEA/Pharmacy Working Committee.
(b) Responsibilities.--The Task Force shall be responsible
for developing proposals to define suspicious orders of
listed chemicals, and particularly to develop quantifiable
parameters which can be used by registrants in determining if
an order is a suspicious order which must be reported to DEA.
The quantifiable parameters to be addressed will include
frequency of orders, deviations from prior orders, and size
of orders. The Task Force shall also recommend provisions as
to what types of payment practices or unusual business
practices shall constitute prima facie suspicious orders. In
evaluating the proposals, the Task Force shall consider
effectiveness, cost and feasibility for industry and
Government, an other relevant factors.
(c) Meetings.--The Task Force shall meet at least two times
per year and at such other times as may be determined
necessary by the Task Force.
(d) Report.--The Task Force shall present a report to the
Attorney General on its proposals with regard to suspicious
orders and the electronic reporting of suspicious orders
within one year of the date of enactment of this Act. Copies
of the report shall be forwarded to the Committees of the
Senate and House of Representatives having jurisdiction over
the regulation of listed chemical and controlled substances.
(e) Funding.--The administrative expenses of the Task Force
shall be paid out of existing Department of Justice funds or
appropriations.
(f) FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App. 2) shall apply to the Task Force.
(g) Termination.--The Task Force shall terminate upon
presentation of its report to the Attorney General, or two
years after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is
sooner.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Lofgren] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
general leave
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 3852.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996
represents a major, bipartisan effort to respond to the national
methamphetamine crisis confronting our Nation today.
Back in October 1995, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing on the
rapidly growing problem of methamphetamine. The testimony given by
Federal and State law enforcement witnesses painted a grim picture of a
problem that is no longer regional, but national in scope, and
devastating some communities much like cocaine did in the 1980's.
The witnesses also testified about the unique problems associated
with meth. The profits involved in the meth trade are enormous; meth
causes longer highs than cocaine, with many users becoming chronic
abusers. Meth is processed in clandestine labs, often located in remote
areas, making them difficult to detect. Mexican traffickers, now the
major force in meth production and trafficking, have established
clandestine labs throughout the Southwest, and have saturated the
Western U.S. market with high-purity meth, leading to lower prices. The
1994 mathamphetamine-related murder of DEA agent Richard Fass is a
sober reminder of the violence associated with meth trafficking. In
short, methamphetamine represents a dangerous, time-consuming, and
expensive investigative challenge to law enforcement.
H.R. 3852 is the most comprehensive congressional effort ever mounted
to respond to the meth crisis. It was introduced by Representative
Heineman of the Crime Subcommittee, who cannot be with us today because
he is busy making a recovery from intestinal surgery. This bill is
nearly identical to S. 1965, introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman
Hatch and a large, bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators,
Biden, Daschle, and Feinstein. Representatives Riggs and Fazio, also
introduced bills almost identical to the one before us today.
On August 7, 1996, the DEA sought to respond to the problem of over-
the-counter-drugs being diverted to manufacture meth when it published
a final rule, to take effect on October 7, 1996. The rule would remove
the exemption for certain over-the-counter pseudoephedrine and
phenylpropanolamine, or PPA, products from the regulatory chemical
control provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.
H.R. 3852 achieves the same objectives as the DEA rule by providing
for the regulation of over-the-counter products when they are shown to
be diverted to make meth. Its five titles, taken together, are a tough,
smart, and balanced attack on the manufacturing and trafficking of
meth.
Title I calls on the Attorney General to coordinate international
drug enforcement efforts to interdict methamphetamine precursor
chemicals, and imposes tough penalties on those who manufacture
precursor chemicals outside the United States with the intent to import
them into the United States.
Title II permits the seizure and forfeiture of certain precursor
chemicals, and calls on the Attorney General to conduct a study and
report to Congress on measures to prevent the diversion of agents used
to produce meth. The title also increases the penalties for the
possession of equipment used to make controlled substances and requires
the Sentencing Commission to ensure that the manufacture of meth in
violation of this section is adequately punished. Importantly, title II
declares the DEA rule to be null and void. The DEA has agreed to this
provision because of the other improvements made to the bill which make
the rule unnecessary.
Title III increases the penalties for trafficking meth so as to make
them the same as those provided for trafficking crack cocaine, with 5
grams of meth triggering a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence and
50 grams triggering a 10-year mandatory minimum prison sentence.
Importantly, the Justice Department's National Methamphetamine Strategy
calls for the same sentence increase. The President even wrote to the
Speaker 10 days ago and criticized the House for not passing these
penalties. Let the record be clear: These increased penalties are being
blocked by a small handful of Democrat Members in the other body.
Unless a couple of Senators change their minds, the American people
will not enjoy the additional protection and deterrence provided by
tough mandatory prison sentences for trafficking meth, the penalties
even the President wants to see pass.
It's my hope that the President will pick up the phone and call those
Members of the other body opposed to these penalties, and ask them to
drop their opposition.
Title III also increases the penalties for trafficking in listed
precursor chemicals, and requires the Sentencing Commission to ensure
that the sentencing guidelines adequately punish violations of
environmental laws resulting from clandestine meth labs.
Title IV establishes a so-called ``safe harbor,'' which provides that
lawfully manufactured over-the-counter drug products that contain
pseudoephedrine and PPA are exempt from regulation unless the Attorney
General finds the need to control them because they're being diverted
in large quantities. Under this title, if the Attorney General
determines that ordinary, over-the-counter products containing
pseudoephedrine and PPA are being widely used as a significant source
of precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine, the
Attorney General may establish a single transaction limit of 24 grams.
Importantly, this bill requires the Attorney General to report to the
Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate any finding of diversion
before the single transaction limit is imposed. Under the bill, the DEA
can begin to collect evidence of diversion of over-the-counter products
upon the enactment of the act. Any delay in such data collection must
be avoided so as to ensure prompt action against diversion. Both the
DEA and the pharmaceutical industry have
[[Page H11116]]
worked long and hard with the Congress on this provision. I believe
this title strikes a careful balance between providing Federal law
enforcement the regulatory authority it needs to restrict diversion of
over-the-counter products, and ensuring that the millions of annual
consumers of cough and cold products have access to the products that
bring much-needed relief.
Finally, title V creates a methamphetamine interagency task force,
headed by the Attorney General, to design, implement, and evaluate
methamphetamine education, prevention, and treatment practices.
Mr. Speaker, this is a smart, tough bill. The gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Heineman] could not be with us today, but he should have
been proud, and I know he was, to introduce this bill.
The chief and his staffer are to be congratulated on their work on
this bill. We urge him a speedy recovery, and we urge, I certainly
urge, the adoption of this very fine bill he has crafted. It is a long
overdue bill, to give us some real teeth in the laws against this
horrible drug trafficking in the product known as methamphetamine; more
commonly known to the public as speed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a single Member of this Chamber who does
not detest the evil of illegal drugs. Parents bury children killed by
other children, locked into a deadly cycle of drugs and guns and gangs
and violence. Fathers and mothers abandon children because they are
driven mad by their addiction. Entire neighborhoods are laid waste.
Every single Member of this Congress wants to stop this national
sickness. So, we all support being tough on drug trafficking that is
killing our young, destroying families, and damaging society.
Most of us will support this bill. We will support it because we know
that methamphetimine is dangerous and growing fast in cities, suburbs,
and towns all across America. But, Mr. Speaker, there are some among us
who take principled exception to one feature of the bill, the
imposition of mandatory minimum penalties.
Some of them will speak against those penalties, and some of them may
even vote against the bill. I urge all of us to listen to their
position carefully and to resist the temptation to engage in cheap
theatrical politics, as if this principled opposition to mandatory
minimum penalties were evidence of some kind of softness of drugs.
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, those who will speak against mandatory
minimums will do so because they have seen firsthand the impact in
their own communities, and they believe that the impact of this bill is
futile as to mandatory minimums.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill,
but to listen respectfully to the views of those who object to one of
its features.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1800
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on behalf of my colleague, the
gentleman from North Carolina, Fred Heineman, who, unfortunately, is
not here because of intestinal surgery. Congressman Heineman has
dedicated the last 6 months to working on this issue. I really regret
that he cannot be here to speak on his own bill.
As all of us know, speed is a highly addictive, illegal drug which
may cause brain damage in long-term users. It can cause users to go
into deep depressions and violent rages. In fact, in Arizona, Phoenix
specifically, local police attribute a 40-percent increase in homicides
directly with an increase in methamphetamine production. As a former
police chief, let me assure my colleagues, Fred Heineman understands
the relationship between drugs and crime. It is time that Congress
addresses this issue in a real way.
One of the obstacles that law enforcement faces in dealing with
methamphetamine production is that two of our most common cold, flu,
and allergy drugs can be used to make speed. Congressman Heineman's
bill meets this challenge head-on. It protects consumers' rights to buy
cold and allergy medicine off the shelf, while at the same time
increasing the penalties for manufacture, sale, and distribution of
speed, making them equivalent to the penalties for crack cocaine.
Fred Heineman worked closely with the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the Clinton administration, and the pharmaceutical
manufacturers on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this has broad bipartisan support and I urge my
colleagues in Congressman Heineman's absence, support this bill, stop
the production of speed in this country, and save the future generation
of our children. With this legislation, we can do that.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], a member of the committee.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. We all
agree that we need to address the problem of methamphetamine
manufacture, sale, and use. The question is whether we address it in a
way that is clearly effective in reducing the problem or whether we
address it in a way that is calculated only to enhance our political
posture.
This bill relies on mandatory minimum penalties as the primary
vehicle for reducing the manufacture and use of methamphetamine. Yet
there is no evidence that such penalties will have any impact on
reducing drug use. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the 5-year mandatory minimum
for crack cocaine has not demonstrated any effect in switching drug
users from selling crack to powder cocaine, for which they can get
probation for 99 times more drugs.
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to look at the best way of reducing the
use of speed, all of the credible evidence indicates that drug
treatment is many times more effective and cheaper than mandatory
minimum sentences. The drug court program has indicated that the costs
of drug court is not only cheaper but more effective in reducing crime.
In fact, using rehabilitation rather than prisons, we found that
prisons cost five times more and result in much more crime.
A drug study in California showed that $7 was saved in prison costs
for every dollar put into drug rehabilitation. According to an impact
statement, Mr. Speaker, we are going to spend $100 million in
additional prison costs if we pass this bill.
Mr. Speaker, those opposing the bill want to return it to the
Committee on the Judiciary so that we can seriously address the best
way of reducing the use of methamphetamine rather than this last-minute
waste of the taxpayers' money.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would save money and reduce
crime by defeating this bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time. He and the gentleman from North Carolina have
pretty well given Members a good review of this proposed legislation.
Chief Heineman, as the gentleman from Florida said, is recuperating
from intestinal surgery. Mr. Speaker, he may have a hole in his
intestine but he has fire in his belly when it comes to diligent work
for law enforcement. He is a former New York cop, a street cop, a
former chief of police in Raleigh, the capital city of my State, and he
has worked diligently on this methamphetamine control act bill as well
as on the telemarketing fraud bill which we will discuss subsequently.
Meth, or speed, is highly addictive and can cause permanent brain
damage, as has already been indicated. Secret labs around the country
have begun to manufacture speed with chemicals that have legitimate
medical uses. Rogue chemists, Mr. Speaker, I am told, can easily
convert cold and flu medicines into meth. Representative Heineman's
bill strikes a balanced approach to combat this problem by, A,
increasing penalties for possession and trafficking of meth, while at
the same time establishing a safe harbor for ordinary over-the-counter
products containing the relevant chemicals.
It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I urge its passage.
[[Page H11117]]
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the committee.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
bill. There are a number of reasons that I could oppose it and do
oppose it, but I want to speak to two or three of those in this debate
since my time is limited.
First of all, we asked the Justice Department, as is our prerogative,
to give us a prison impact analysis of this bill. Their analysis
indicates that over the next 5 years, this bill will cost the taxpayers
over $268 million. This is money which, as the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Scott] has indicated, could be better spent on preventing drug use
rather than building more prison space and locking up more and more
people and still not addressing the underlying problem.
Second, my Republican colleagues know that this bill is going
nowhere. They are just playing politics with this issue. The Senate has
agreed to and passed a methamphetamine bill which does not contain
mandatory minimum penalties and they have stated that they will not
pass one that does have mandatory minimum sentences. We are too late to
conference a bill, so passing a different bill in the House than the
one that has passed in the Senate gets you, in the final analysis,
absolutely nothing, and that is exactly what my Republican colleagues
want. They do not want any bill. They just want to make political
points.
The third reason I oppose this bill is because they just absolutely
abandoned the process. We were in the middle in the Judiciary Committee
of marking up this bill. All of a sudden they took the bill from
committee, vaulted out on the floor, put it on the suspension calendar
and just absolutely disregarded the process that we should be going
through. We are rushing to judgment on something that is a serious,
serious issue, building another disparity in our sentencing mechanism
just like the one that we have between crack cocaine and powder
cocaine, ignoring the fact that prevention works better than prisons
and doing something shortsighted that is simply political.
Oppose this bill today.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond very briefly to the gentleman
from North Carolina. He and I have had a long-standing difference of
opinion, though I respect his opinion, over the question of these
minimum mandatory sentences in crack and powder and so forth. What we
are doing in this bill is very important with regard to minimum
mandatory. We are setting the same minimum mandatory tough standards
for methamphetamine that we have now for crack. A very small quantity
of meth is even more potent than crack. Speed can do even more damage.
A small quantity is all it takes, 5 grams, to do enormous damage to
somebody. Because it is so, so, so bad, we need to send a message of
deterrence out there. We need to take people off the streets who are
dealing in this quantity. It is not a lot but it is enough to mean that
anybody who has this amount on their person, just as is the case with
crack, is a dealer, is a trafficker, is not simply a user. That message
needs to be there. There is no other way you can send a message of
deterrence than with a minimum mandatory sentence, and I believe in
them for limited purposes. This is one of those purposes. That is why
it is in the bill.
As far as the process is concerned, we are here today because this is
the only way we can get this bill on up in a quick period of time and
consider it by the full House with what is left in this session of
Congress. We do not want to just accept the other body's bill. This is
our body doing our will.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the question I want to ask
of the gentleman is if we are sending a message, has the message worked
on crack cocaine? You have not deterred a thing with the failed
policies of building more prisons, and so all we are doing now is
spending $268 million more on prisons to send some other message that
has already failed. This is a failed policy that we are pursuing.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If I could reclaim my time, if your President would put
the resources necessary for interdiction of cocaine coming into this
country that are needed and to just say no to drugs and send that
message out to the kids, if we had been doing that these last 3 years,
we would have a lot better statistics on crack and cocaine and all of
the other drugs in this country.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is all our President,
just as Reagan was my President and Bush was my President. He is my
President, not your President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Cummings].
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the eradication of drug use and distribution in our
communities is one of my highest priorities. Illegal drug abuse has
created havoc on my congressional district of Balitmore and the entire
country. It has led to increased crime rates, untimely and unnecessary
deaths, gun violence, and skyrocketing health care costs.
Our communities are being hard hit, with no relief in sight. Our
precious resources are being depleted in this war against drugs. I
believe in drug prevention to thwart drug abuse and treatment to assist
struggling addicts. And I believe that we must prosecute drug dealers
to the fullest extent that the law will allow. However, I believe that
we must have parity in the penalties that we place on illegal drugs.
Mr. Speaker, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD and
heroin all ravage and devastate our communities. Their destruction is
undiscriminating. This body should be just as undiscriminating when
assessing penalties for their abuse. This body should not create drugs
of choice by calling for stiffer penalties on some illegal drugs and
not for others. The sale, distribution and use of all illegal
substances is abhorrent, and I too want to be tough on all illegal
drugs, but we must not continue to fill our prisons with poor persons
involved in less expensive substances like crack and methamphetamine
while the wealthy abusers dealing in more expensive drugs wreak havoc
on our communities.
This measure is not a solution to our drug epidemic. It is election
year politics at the expense of poor, undeserved communities. Mr.
Speaker, it is these kinds of unncesseary battles that prevent us from
winning the war on drugs.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. I would first like to thank my colleague, the gentleman
from North Carolina, Congressman Heineman, for his hard work and vision
on this piece of legislation. I think he is in our thoughts, in each
one of our thoughts, as he is on his way to a speedy recovery.
Mr. Speaker, there is an epidemic taking place across this country,
an epidemic that is casting a long, dark shadow over our land. The
epidemic that I am referring to is this dramatic increase that we are
seeing in the production, distribution, and consumption of
methamphetamines.
{time} 1815
This is not an east coast or west coast problem, it is not an urban
or rural problem, it is a national problem, and the statistics show an
alarming increase in the use of meth.
Overall, the United States has seen an 80-percent increase in drugs
under a President who would inhale if again he had the chance. In fact,
Mr. Speaker, in a national survey released today by the Parents'
Resource Institute for Drug Education, or PRIDE, as it is commonly
referred to, shows that teen drug use has hit the highest level in the
survey's 9-year history. An appalling one in five high school seniors
now uses illegal drugs on a weekly base. Almost 1 in 10 high school
seniors say they use illegal drugs every single day.
The methamphetamine epidemic has hit home, particularly in America's
heartland. The Nebraska State Patrol is seizing methamphetamine at
alarming rates. The amount seized has gone
[[Page H11118]]
from less than 1 pound in 1992 to more than 5 pounds in the first 9
months of 1996. In 1995 law enforcement officials found crank in nearly
six times the items than just 2 years earlier.
The number of Nebraska arrests by law enforcement officials jumped
from 23 in 1990 to 370 in 1995. Unfortunately, convictions have not
been on that same percentage increase because of slick criminal trial
lawyers getting them off on legal loopholes and technicalities. But
these are unconscionable statistics, statistics we can no longer afford
to ignore.
The ingredients used to make this drug are available in States like
Nebraska that have a strong agricultural base. Interstate 80 has long
been a drug pipeline for methamphetamine. This is a good legislation,
and I urge the committee for its passage.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], a member who has a long history
of fighting methamphetamines and an author of a companion bill, H.R.
3908.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the
gentlewoman from California, for her help on this bill and for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill before us,
H.R. 3852. The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 is the
product of many long hours of complex negotiations between industry
representatives, members of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
Department of Justice, and many Members of both the House and the
Senate.
Before I speak to the merits of this fine bipartisan legislation, I
want to thank a number of individuals: My Senator, Dianne Feinstein of
California; the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Hyde; Chairman Hatch;
the gentleman from Florida, Chairman McCollum; and the ranking member,
the gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer, for their work on this bill
and for their determination to see this bill passed before the
adjournment of the 104th Congress. Also I would like to thank my
colleagues and coauthor, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Heineman, for his work on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the legislation before the House
today. For many of us, both in the Congress and in the law enforcement
community, it represents the culmination of many years of hard work on
this issue.
I have been working on legislative solutions to the problems created
by methamphetamine since the 101st Congress, when I introduced the
Regulated Precursor Chemical Act of 1990. While we have enacted
antimeth legislation in almost every subsequent Congress, the illicit
manufacturers and sellers of this drug have remained a step ahead of
law enforcement and devised new ways to produce methamphetamine. In
addition, Mexican drug cartels are now involved in the importation of
many of the precursor chemicals used to manufacture meth. These cartels
present additional problems and burdens for law enforcement, requiring
a truly national approach to this problem's solution.
As a result, production and usage of methamphetamine in the United
States has grown at alarming proportions over the last several years.
According to the DEA, it has been the most prevalent clandestinely
produced drug in the United States since 1979. Unfortunately, much of
this production is centered in my home State of California and
throughout other Western and Southwestern States.
Methamphetamine has caused a dramatic escalation in the number of
overdoses, emergency hospital admissions, and drug shootings, from
America's largest western cities to our most rural areas. Crack is more
potent, more addictive, and much cheaper. It represents a tremendous
challenge. It is a public health and law enforcement crisis of truly
epidemic proportions, and we must respond to it now.
I believe this bill, H.R. 3852, offers the right solution to this
crisis. It includes tough enforcement provisions which increase the
penalties for production and trafficking of methamphetamine, enhanced
penalties for the possession and trafficking of precursor chemicals and
the equipment used to make meth, and more stringent reporting
requirements on the sale of products containing precursor chemicals.
The bill also contains provisions which will make a better
coordinated international effort, and strengthens provisions against
illegal important of meth.
Finally, this bill requires all levels of law enforcement, in
addition to public health officials, to stay ahead of the meth epidemic
by creating a national working group which would educate the public on
the dangers of meth production, trafficking, and abuse.
The story of our failure to foresee and prevent the crack cocaine
epidemic is one of the most significant public policy mistakes in our
recent history. We now face similar warnings with methamphetamine. We
are seeing the destruction of families all across America as a result
of the abuse of crack, and we must act now to stop it, for without
swift action, this sad history may repeat itself.
The Fazio-Heineman-McCollum legislation is the comprehensive tool
that we need to stay ahead of the meth epidemic and avoid the mistakes
made during the early stages of the crack cocaine epidemic. I urge all
my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation and vote for this
bill, giving the opportunity for it to be taken up for a final vote on
the morrow.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for his assistance in
making it possible to bring this bill to the floor.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of our committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time and thank her for her service on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
This is a difficult topic, primarily because all of us face the
rising tide of drug use, and I do not think this is now a time to
suggest who said, ``Just say no,'' who said, ``Just don't do it.'' All
of us who are parents and all of us who are members of our community
clearly want to be on the side of expressing to our teenagers, in
particular, the devastation of the impact of drug use.
H.R. 3852 has good intentions. Having just listened to an array of
leaders in my community at a drug hearing, I do realize that there is
cause for concern. But to a one, starting with the special agent of the
Drug Enforcement Agency in my community, the U.S. attorney, police
officers and, yes, those involved in prevention and treatment, they
emphasized more than mandatory sentencing that we need to now focus, if
you will, on treatment and prevention.
One of the concerns I have about this legislation is that it does not
address what we have been discussing with the U.S. Sentencing
Commission, a bipartisan commission that argued vigorously to change
the disparate sentencing between crack and cocaine. This was ignored by
the Republican Congress, for they wanted to leave and go home and beat
their respective chests to talk about how they are tough on drugs.
We have young people dying every day. They do not die because we lock
up people in jail. We realize that people must be incarcerated. They
are dying because we do not have a serious prevention program and
education program. We are not getting to the bottom question, of
getting those to not buy into slogans, but buy into a commitment to
save their lives by staying off drugs.
Methamphetamine is a dangerous drug. So is crack, so is cocaine, and
so is heroin. But there must be an opportunity to have our Federal
judges have discretion, to penalize those who are suppliers but yet to
have some sort of response to those who are addicted, and as well be
served by treatment.
I am also here to suggest that we have a major problem in dealing
with a real problem in our community, and that is the recognition of
the allegations made in the report in the San Jose Mercury newspaper in
California, that alleges that individuals associated with the
Nicaraguan contra rebel group sold cocaine to gangs in the south
central area of Los Angeles. These news articles indicate that the CIA
used the proceeds from these drug sales to purchase weapons for the
contras to overthrow the Sandinista Government in the 1980's.
These allegations need to be investigated. Several Members of this
House
[[Page H11119]]
have gone to the CIA Director requesting the CIA and the Justice
Department as well as this House investigate it. I think if we are
serious about drug prevention, we will get to the source of those drugs
in Los Angeles and other cities around the Nation and emphasize
prevention and treatment. That is the way we should go.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Waters], a respected member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
California for yielding me this time and for providing some leadership
on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, there has been an awful lot of discussion about drugs of
late. It is in the campaign now, with candidate Dole accusing President
Clinton of not paying attention, somehow blaming on him the fact that
there appears to be an increase in the use of drugs by teenagers.
We watch this political debate and we begin to watch legislating and
legislation come forward at this time that really does not do justice
to this issue. It should not be about politicking. It should not be
about trying to make the public believe that something important is
really happening as we look at the drug problem.
The fact of the matter is there has not been a war on drugs, and
there will never be a war on drugs as long as we do this kind of
legislating. We debated for hours about the disparity in crack cocaine
and powder cocaine sentening. We have mandatory sentencing, and the
prisons are filling up with young black and Latino males, for the most
part, got with one rock cocaine, small amounts of cocaine, thrown into
the Federal system in prison, prisons just running over.
Where are the big drug dealers? Where are the people who bring in the
huge amounts of cocaine? Where are the big time manufacturers of crack?
They are not really talked about. We do not really understand, or do we
not care perhaps, where and how this gets into the communities in the
first place.
If we really want to do something about drugs, we will stop this
penny ante legislating and we will do some real studying. We will get
to the bottom of where the precursors are, how do they get involved in
the manufacture of crack. We will get down to who the big guys are, so
we can really take it off the street.
This does not do this that. This is simply on of these little
piecemeal bills at election time, trying to make the public believe we
are doing something about drugs, and we are not.
I think we are better legislators than this. I think we are better
public policy makers than this. I think we should stop, we should
focus, take this out of the political arena, come back here in January,
and get together and really develop some public policy that is going to
help the children and the young people of this Nation.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made, and accurately
made, in the course of this debate. The gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt] pointed out that the committee process was truncated midway
and this bill brought directly to the floor, and that is the truth.
There have been comments made that prevention and treatment is the
most effective tool against drugs in America, and I think that it is
clear that is true. Our own Governor Wilson's administration released a
report last year showing that treatment and prevention efforts were
massively more successful in fighting drugs than just pure law
enforcement.
However, that does not mean that we should not pass this bill today,
and I highly recommend it.
I agree with the speakers who said that sentencing for crack and
powdered cocaine should be equalized. I agree with that. But that is
also not about this bill.
Unfortunately, speed and methamphetamine is an equal opportunity
drug. You will find it being manufactured in suburban and rural areas
all across California. It is a very dangerous drug, not only to the
users, but to neighborhoods. In my own district, I can recall just a
short while ago a lab bursting and exploding into flames, posing
threats not only from the scourge of drugs but also to firefighters and
police officers and neighbors from the conflagration that ensued.
{time} 1830
A lot of people in America do not realize that this bill deals very
severely with the precursor drugs that are used by those who would make
methamphetamines illegally for sale to the young and others in our
communities.
What is that? Well, I sometimes have allergies, especially in the
spring, and I must confess I take Sudafed and the generic equivalent
with some frequency when that happens, and I like to buy it in the
little bottle so I do not have to struggle with the little bubble caps.
After this bill is enacted into law we are all going to have to
struggle with the little bubble caps, because one of the things we are
going to do is to make it harder to buy the precursor chemicals so that
people cannot manufacture this drug.
That is going to involve some inconvenience for consumers across this
country, including myself, and I think it is a small price to pay in
order to take effective efforts against this drug.
As I said at the opening of this discussion, we have many principled
Members on our side who have spoken quite eloquently on the issue of
mandatory minimum sentencing. I know each one of these individuals
well. I know that perhaps even more than those of us who may not
represent areas that have been targeted for drug sales, they and their
constituents know the heavy price paid by those who are involved in
drugs and how terrible the dealing of drugs is.
I again respect that the issue over mandatory minimum sentences
really says nothing about their concern to fight drugs. I urge that we
pass this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with a lot of what the gentlewoman from
California just said. This is a bipartisan bill. There are a few
disagreements among some of the Members over the minimum mandatory
sentences in this bill and perhaps with some other features in it.
The bottom line though is we need to pass this legislation tonight.
We need to get it enacted into law, because methamphetamine, better
known as speed, is a really dangerous drug. It give you a higher and
longer high, they tell me, than crack cocaine does. It is commonly
found, it is pretty darn cheap, and it is manufactured synthetically
and manufactured with chemicals, we call them pseudoephedrine, which is
a big word, but basically is found in most of our cough and flu
medications in the drugstore, the grocery store, whatever.
It takes large quantities of this and normally and historically those
large quantities have been acquired through chemical plant sources from
abroad or elsewhere, and they have been done illegally and
surreptitiously, but more recently we have been seeing the folks in the
United States, and that is where this is made usually, are going to the
drugstore or going somewhere and buying very large quantities of off-
the-counter, over-the-counter I should say, off-the-shelf products, and
that is not good. We need to stop that.
This bill goes a long way toward stopping that, while still providing
access for every American to have their flu and cough medications found
in the so-called pseudoephedrine product line.
In addition to that, it takes care of being sure that we have the
right kind of sentencing in here. While some may disagree with it, and
I have heard somebody say this is penny-ante legislation and somebody
else say it is too expensive, I would suggest it is neither one. There
is nothing that would be too expensive, in my judgment, to stop the
kind of crisis we are getting in this particular drug.
We have already heard about the statistics that are so alarming about
our young people tonight, generally with drugs, in this Nation. We are
seeing this dramatic increase in the last couple of years in 12- to 17-
year-olds using drugs, period. Over the last 3 years I
[[Page H11120]]
think the figure is close to a 100-percent increase in drug usage among
teenagers of that age group in this Nation. And it is very, very high
with cocaine, 166 percent in 1 year, while it is also very, very high
with methamphetamine, which is becoming a choice drug over crack
cocaine, even more popular in some parts of the country than cocaine.
So tonight's bill is not a small, penny-ante bill. It is not too
expensive. It is just right. It is the formula to give our law
enforcement community the tools they need to try to stop the use of
methamphetamine and the production of methamphetamine, better known as
speed. If we can give them more tools, there is nothing in this bill
that would be too expensive.
Frankly, there is no money involved in this bill. It is a bill,
however, that does contain minimum mandatory sentences. Those minimum
mandatory sentences are very tough because small quantities, 5 grams,
just like with crack, are trafficking quantities of meth. It does not
take much to do the job, and I do not think anybody here should be
ashamed to vote for 5 years minimum mandatory sentence for somebody
caught with 5 grams of this stuff because they are trafficking in it.
They are causing hardship and death in some cases to our young people,
and they are the villains in this process.
We cannot lock everybody up, but we can certainly lock up the drug
traffickers. If somebody is the big, big, big drug dealer, we have the
death penalty for that. We have a lot harsher punishment for them. What
we need is the will to go carry out those laws and to come and do the
interdiction, the ``just say no'' education programs for young people,
the drug treatment and the work abroad, where that is necessary, in a
balanced war against drugs.
When need to come together as a Nation. This is a good step in the
right direction tonight. It is a bipartisan product. Democrats and
Republicans alike have worked on this bill, and it is a bill which the
President should sign.
I hope that when this gets over to the Senate, if President Clinton
will pick up that telephone and call those Senators who say that they
are going to try to block this bill from passing over there, and it
does not take very many of them in the other body to do that because
they have procedural problems at the end of a session, I hope he will
get on the phone and call those members of his own party who say they
are going to block it over these minimum mandatory sentences. I urge
him to do that tonight, and if he does it, we will have a bill. It will
get passed into law, and the Nation will be far better as a result of
that and we will have many better law enforcement tools.
Mr. Speaker, again I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, Sacramento County has been
increasingly troubled by the prevalence of the drug methamphetamine.
Last year, the Sacramento Sheriff's Department made 1,117 arrests for
methamphetamine charges, a number that greatly exceeded the amount of
arrests for cocaine, marijuana, and heroin combined. The Sheriff's
Department also discovered and dismantled seven methamphetamine labs, a
significant accomplishment but one that drained the county government
of approximately $40,000 of its valuable resources.
This year, the Sacramento Sheriff's Department conducted an
investigation that led to the arrest of four individuals and the
seizure of 80 pounds of methamphetamine, valued at $2.9 million.
Although law enforcement officials have made great progress, there is
much more work to be done.
I am proud to support the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act
of 1996, which takes a big step in addressing this very serious
problem. In light of the public health, safety, and law enforcement
challenges posed by methamphetamine in California and elsewhere in the
United States, this bill represents an effective means of attacking its
production, distribution and use. It is my hope that we will soon rid
Sacramento County and the rest of the country of the terrible
consequences of this dangerous drug.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3852. The
legislation increases penalties for trafficking and manufacturing
methamphetamine substances or other materials used to produce
methamphetamines. The bill also establishes an interagency task force
to design, implement, and evaluate methamphetamine education,
prevention, and treatment practices.
Section 207 also contains a provision which permits judges, as a
condition of sentencing, to require those convicted of running an
illegal methamphetamine lab to (1) pay for the costs of cleaning up any
toxic wastes, (2) reimburse the government for any costs it incurs in
cleaning up any toxic waste at the site, and (3) to pay restitution to
any person injured by a release of toxic substances at the site. Unlike
Superfund's system of strict, joint and several, and retroactive
liability, this is a ``polluter pays'' provision which makes sense--
someone who acts illegally should be held responsible for the costs to
clean up the mess that they made.
I support the legislation; however, I must point out that the bill
has not been fully considered by the committees of jurisdiction. H.R.
3852 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee
on Commerce. The Crime Subcommittee has considered the bill, but the
full Judiciary Committee has not; in addition, the Commerce Committee
has not considered this legislation. Given the limited time remaining
in this session of Congress, I will not object to this bill moving
forward. In doing so, however, the Committee on Commerce in no way is
yielding any of its jurisdiction on this and other similar matters.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to support H.R.
3852, the Methamphetamine Control Act. Methamphetamine is a powerful
drug that is relatively easy to manufacture. The use of this dangerous
drug is escalating rapidly due to its low cost and highly addictive
qualities.
Methamphetamine use is expanding into the Midwest. According to the
Nebraska State Patrol, in 1991, Nebraska had 25 arrests for possession
of methamphetamine or delivery. In 1995, there were 374 methamphetamine
arrests. This is a 350-percent increase. Communities along the I-80
corridor are the hardest hit. The severity of the problem in Nebraska
was highlighted last spring by the tragic death of a teenager in York,
NE, at his prom from an overdose of methamphetamine. It was a shock and
wake-up call to this prototypical county seat community of 7,500 and to
all of Nebraska.
The Methamphetamine Control Act increases penalties for trafficking
and manufacturing methamphetamine substances or other materials used to
produce methamphetamines. It appropriately establishes mandatory
minimum sentences for methamphetamine trafficking. For trafficking 5 to
49 grams of the drug there will be a 5-year minimum sentence. The bill
requires a 10-year minimum sentence for trafficking 50 or more grams.
These new penalties are crucial to efforts to decrease the availability
of this dangerous and proliferating drug.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill in the short time
left in this session of Congress. It must also be passed by the Senate
with these tough but appropriate sentencing provisions so that it can
be sent to the President for signature. The Nation must become serious
and effective in combating this very serious problem. This bill must
become law this year in order to do all we can to fight the use of this
dangerous drug.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This is a bipartisan bill designed
to attack the production, distribution, and use of methamphetamine in
the United States.
Methamphetamine poses a serious and growing public health concern in
this country, and requires immediate government attention. While
regulations recently promulgated by the Drug Enforcement Administration
provide a first step towards combating methamphetamine trafficking,
further action is needed to close loopholes in those regulations and
provide a more complete response to control methamphetamine in this
country.
H.R. 3852 would combat this drug scourge by giving the law
enforcement community the muscle it needs to fight trafficking in
methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals. To this end, the bill
restricts the importation of methamphetamine and precursor chemicals
into the United States; increases criminal penalties for
methamphetamine manufacturers and traffickers; cracks down on the
ability of rogue companies to sell bulk quantities of precursor
chemicals that are diverted to clandestine laboratories for the
manufacture of methamphetamine; and expands regulatory enforcement of
all precursor chemicals used to make methamphetamine, which, in turn,
will plug a loophole in current Drug Enforcement Administration
regulations that apply only to a narrow range of products that could
potentially be diverted to illegally manufacture methamphetamine.
Importantly, the Methamphetamine Control Act balances these critical
law enforcement objectives with the need to protect consumer access to
over-the-counter medicines.
Thus, while imposing measures to decrease the availability of
precursor chemicals, the legislation does not restrict the ability of
law-abiding citizens to use common remedies for colds and allergies.
Nor does the legislation subject sales of such legal products to
onerous record keeping requirements at the retail level.
[[Page H11121]]
Finally, the bill institutes a number of programs to improve and
expand existing education and research activities related to
methamphetamine and other drug abuse, and to monitor methamphetamine
abuse in the United States and improve reporting of suspicious
precursor chemical orders.
Mr. Speaker, I have received letters in support of the
Methamphetamine Control Act from law enforcement and health officials
across California. Among those who have contacted me are Jim Maready,
Sheriff-Coroner of Del Norte County, and James Tuso, Sheriff-Coroner of
Mendocino County. Both jurisdictions have experienced increases in
violence related to the trafficking and use of methamphetamine.
The tragic death of 14-year-old Raina Shirley in March of this year
as the result of methamphetamine furnished to her focused national
attention to the problem in Northern California.
As cosponsor of the original version of Methamphetamine Control Act,
I strongly endorse the measure before the House today. H.R. 3852
represents a comprehensive response to this spreading national menace.
It is my hope that Congress will move rapidly to enact the bill, and
help prevent future tragedies like the one that methamphetamine brought
to Raina Shirley and her family.
Mr. Speaker, I include the letters referenced earlier.
County of Del Norte,
Office of the Sheriff,
Crescent City, CA, September 18, 1996.
Re Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996.
Congressman Frank Riggs,
Longworth Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Congressman Riggs: I understand that the
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 bill is making its way
through Congress and came up for mark-up in committee last
Wednesday. Ideally, the fewer changes made to the bill, the
better. This will help facilitate passage through the Senate.
Methamphetamine at this stage in our society, even in small
rural counties, is in many cases to the young people of today
what marijuana was to the same age group in the '60's and
'70's.
The precursers used in the process of manufacturing
methamphetamine are readily available to those that wish to
manufacture the illegal drug. In addition, the new processes
used in the making of the drug is much less sophisticated,
thus novices can manufacture the drug in a very short period
of time.
I would urge any new sanctions that could be used in
fighting this invasive drug that is crippling many of our
young people. I am in constant contact with the young people
of our community through my office as Sheriff, coaching high
school football, D.A.R.E., and other civic involvements.
Please do not hesitate in contacting me if I can be of any
assistance.
Sincerely,
Jim Maready,
Sheriff-Coroner.
____
Office of the Sheriff-Coroner,
County of Mendocino,
Ukiah, CA, September 16, 1996.
Congressman Frank Riggs,
U.S. Congress,
Longworth Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Riggs: I am in receipt of Senator
Feinstein's correspondence in regards to the Methamphetamine
Control Act of 1996, and will be most honored to endorse this
proposed legislation and offer any assistance for it's
successful passage. In Mendocino County, methamphetamine
continues to be the drug of choice, and as such, presents a
most serious and dangerous problem for law enforcement and
community members.
Here in our county, the Mendocino County Major Crimes Task
Force has conducted 832 investigations involving
methamphetamine during Fiscal Years 1992-1993, 1993-1994,
1994-1995, and 1995-1996. From these investigations, 719
arrests were made and 58 clandestine laboratories were
seized.
Methamphetamine Investigations
Fiscal year:
1992-93...........................................................220
1993-94...........................................................245
1994-95...........................................................226
1995-96...........................................................141
________
Total...........................................................832
Of the total number of all narcotics investigations
conducted by the Mendocino County Major Crimes Task Force
during this time period (1357), 61% were directly related to
methamphetamine.
Methamphetamine Arrests
Fiscal year:
1992-93...........................................................176
1993-94...........................................................220
1994-95...........................................................199
1995-96...........................................................124
________
Total...........................................................719
Of the total number of all narcotics arrests made by our
Major Crimes Task Force during this time period (1174), 61%
were for offenses related to methamphetamine.
Methamphetamine Seized
Fiscal year 1992-93:
Cost.......................................................$1,003,000
Amount (grams)..............................................10,030.00
Fiscal year 1993-94:
Cost.........................................................$231,390
Amount (grams)...............................................2,313.90
Fiscal year 1994-95:
Cost.........................................................$545,283
Amount (grams)...............................................5,452.83
Fiscal year 1995-96:
Cost.........................................................$221,535
Amount (grams)...............................................2,408.00
Total:
Cost.......................................................$2,001,208
Amount (grams)..............................................20,204.73
Our Major Crimes Task Force reported witnessing an increase
in the number and sophistication of clandestine laboratories
in our county. Out-of-county methamphetamine laboratory
operators are paying lab-site brokers to secure areas to
manufacture methamphetamine. The property owners are paid a
fee to allow the process to occur. Once the cooking process
is complete, the clandestine laboratory is moved. Some of
these cooking processes yield up to 350 pounds of
methamphetamine.
Clandestine Laboratories
Fiscal year:
1992-93.............................................................6
1993-94............................................................12
1994-95............................................................19
1995-96............................................................21
________
Total............................................................58
Like other jurisdictions, Mendocino County has experienced
an increase in violence related to the use and trafficking of
methamphetamine. Our most heinous act of violence occurred on
August 23, 1993, when 21 year old Ronald Trever Harden shot
and killed his mother, father, sister and 16 month old niece
while under the influence of methamphetamine. He then took
his own life.
The tragic death of 14 year old Raina Bo Shirley in March
of this year as a result of the ingestion of methamphetamine
furnished to her brought national attention to our small
county due to the circumstances surrounding her disappearance
and death. As you know, the suspect is still being sought in
her death. In another tragedy, 17 year old Angel Ann Miller
died from methamphetamine toxicity after being furnished the
drug by a male friend, who has since been arrested for murder
as a result of her death.
Therefore, it is without hesitation that I offer my support
to your efforts in seeking legislation to further enhance our
ability to curb methamphetamine production. If necessary, we
can provide testimony to what we have encountered.
Sincerely,
James Tuso, Sheriff-Coroner.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Crime Subcommittee
Chairman Bill McCollum and his staff for all their assistance in
getting this vital legislation to the floor. I introduced H.R. 3852,
the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 because of the
growing scourge of meth. Senator Hatch introduced companion
legislation, S. 1965, which passed the Senate earlier this month.
Meth, commonly known as speed, is highly addictive and causes
permanent brain damage in long-term users. Meth has become a public
health crisis in California and the Southwest and is moving East. DEA
records indicate a 57-percent increase in meth lab seizures from
January to May of this year alone. In 1994, California experienced a
49-percent increase in meth-related emergency room admissions. In
Phoenix, police link a 40-percent increase in homicides directly to the
sudden rise in meth production. Meth produces a euphoric high, but also
produces deep depression and violent rages. In one particularly
gruesome incident, Eric Smith of Chandler, AZ, binged on meth for 24
hours and then beheaded his son and tossed his son's head from the
window of his van onto a busy highway.
Secret labs manufacture meth from chemicals with legitimate medical
uses. Two of the most common precursor drugs--ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine--are common ingredients in cold, cough, and flu
medications. More than 100 over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines
contain pseudoephedrine. These products are used by more than 90
million Americans and account for $1 billion a year in lawful sales.
However, rogue chemists can easily convert these cold and allergy
medicines containing pseudoephedrine into meth.
While I am committed to eliminating meth, I believe that we can do so
without forcing drug stores from removing cold and allergy medication
from their shelves because of overlyburdensome regulations. As written,
the DEA regulations apply new recordkeeping requirements to retailers,
forcing individual clerks to engage in complicated calculations
concerning base chemical quantities. Failure to comply or make correct
calculations can result in $30,000 in fines or incarceration. Instead
of complying with these criminal regulations, drug stores will simply
remove most cold and allergy medicines from the shelves. This will
dramatically affect the 90 million consumers who rely on this medicine.
My bill revokes these DEA regulations.
This is a nonpartisan issue. Ranking member Charles Schumer wrote DEA
Administrator Tom Constantine on February 28, 1996, to express the very
same concerns regarding DEA's proposed regulations that Congressmen Mel
Watt and Howard Coble and I
[[Page H11122]]
raised in a March 19, 1996, letter. In addition, I was pleased to work
closely with Congressman Vic Fazio from California who introduced
similar legislation. The administration is also on record as being
supportive of this bill. This is indicative of the bipartisan nature of
this legislation.
As a 38-year law enforcement veteran, I have seen epidemics of
heroin, LSD, cocaine, and crack infect our cities and communities. We
must take immediate and dramatic action to ensure that meth is
eradicated, while at the same time enabling consumers access to cold,
flu, and allergy medication. That is why I introduced H.R. 3852, which:
Increases penalties for possession and trafficking of
methamphetamine, making them equivalent to the penalties for crack-
cocaine
Increases penalties for illegal possession and trafficking of
precursor chemicals used for the manufacture of methamphetamine and
other controlled substances.
Reduces single transaction reporting requirements for all sales other
than ordinary over-the-counter pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine
containing products from 1 kg to 24 grams.
Creates a safe harbor for ordinary over-the-counter products
containing pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine to cover those
products packaged in package sizes of not greater than three grams of
pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine base and packaged in blister
packs. This will effectively combat shelf sweeping.
Establishes new reporting requirements for firms that sell
pseudoephedrine or phenylpropanolamine products via mail order.
Imposes tougher penalties on those who import meth or its precursor
chemicals with the intent to distribute them within the United States.
H.R. 3852 represents a common sense approach to a dangerous problem.
It fairly balances the concerns of consumers with those of law
enforcement so that meth can be eliminated. It is my sincere hope that
the President joins our antidrug initiative and signs H.R. 3852 into
law. I urge my colleagues to support this tough, bipartisan
legislation. Pass H.R. 3852!
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased that the House is
poised to pass my bill, H.R. 1499, the Telemarketing Fraud Punishment
and Prevention Act of 1996. H.R. 1499 protects senior citizens from a
sophisticated type of white collar criminal--telemarketing scam artists
who target vulnerable elderly citizens.
These crimes are among the most outrageous in society because
telemarketing scam artists prey on the most vulnerable--seniors who can
least afford to lose their limited savings. In fact, Members have
already spoken against telemarketing fraud once before, and many of my
colleagues thought that the job of getting tough on these kinds of
crimes was already completed. However, the job is only half done. The
1994 crime bill included important language cracking down on
telemarketing fraud. Today we will pass legislation which completes
what was begun in the 1994 crime bill, legislation that takes the tough
sentences included in the 1994 crime bill and makes certain that
telemarketing scam artists actually receive tougher penalties.
H.R. 1499 was approved unanimously by the Subcommittee on Crime
together with a technical amendment offered by Chairman Bill McCollum.
This legislation was developed in consultation with the Department of
Justice and staff of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. It is a
reasonable, bipartisan bill, and I want to thank my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle who have expressed their support for this
legislation.
Why is this legislation needed? Telemarketing fraud against seniors
is on the rise, but the average sentence for this kind of crime is only
18 months. The 1994 Crime bill directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission
to review the Federal sentencing guidelines and report back to Congress
on amendments to the guidelines that would ensure tough sentences for
telemarketing frauds. Unfortunately, when the Sentencing Commission
reported back to Congress in March of 1995, it concluded that no
enhancements for telemarketing fraud were needed.
This past April, the Subcommittee on Crime heard the tragic testimony
of senior citizens who lost their life savings to telemarketing scams.
One of my constituents, Mary Ann Downs from Raleigh lost over $74,000.
In Durham, NC, an elderly woman was victimized for $212,000. The FBI
estimates that U.S. consumers lose over $40 billion a year to
fraudulent telemarketers.
My legislation directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the
sentencing guidelines so that sentences for general telemarketing fraud
offenses are enhanced by 4 levels, and telemarketing fraud offenses
committed against seniors are enhanced by 8 levels.
According to staff of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a 4-level
enhancement for telemarketing frauds would equal roughly 11 months, or
a 60-percent increase from the average 18 months sentence currently
received. An 8-level increase would equal roughly an additional 25
months, or a 140-percent increase from the current average 18-month
sentence for these frauds. This still falls short of the full extent of
the 5 years and 10 years additional prison time envisioned by the 1994
Crime bill, but it is a critical step in combating telemarketing fraud.
The bill also includes a sentencing enhancement of 2 levels for
frauds committed by defendants in a foreign country. This is in
response to the fact that increasing numbers of telemarketers are
moving their operations to foreign jurisdictions in an attempt to evade
prosecution in the United States. In addition, H.R. 1499 provides for
criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of telemarketing scams.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1499, the Telemarketing Fraud
Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 and help protect their senior
constituents from telemarketing predators. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3852, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________