[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2029-S2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Bond, and Mr. 
        Enzi):
  S. 486. A bill to provide for the punishment of methamphetamine 
laboratory operators, provide additional resources to combat 
methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse in the United 
States, and for other purposes, to be Committee on the Judiciary.


  determined and full engagement against the threat of meth (``defeat 
                              meth'') act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we live in a time of unparalleled 
prosperity. The stock market continually hits new highs, while 
unemployment and gasoline plunge to record lows. This prosperity brings 
many blessings, chief among them material comfort. But sometimes 
prosperity can mask problems as well as solve them. As Francis Bacon 
said, ``Prosperity is not without many fears and distastes; and 
adversity is not without comforts and hopes.'' Prosperity can breed 
apathy and complacency, weakening a society's ability to respond to the 
challenges facing it. And as for adversity, it is only when people 
realize the true extent of their challenges that they can overcome 
them.
  One of the greatest challenges we face is drugs, especially the 
recent rise in the production and use of methamphetamines. Despite the 
continued challenge drugs present, we have not heard enough about this 
problem recently. This administration has chosen not to make it a 
priority. A few years ago, Democrat Representative Charles Rangel 
lamented this administration's inaction on the drug war: ``I've been in 
Congress over two decades, and I have never, never, never found any 
administration that's been so silent on this great challenge to the 
American people.'' Former Drug Czar William Bennett agrees, having 
testified before our colleagues in the House of Representatives that: 
``The Clinton Administration has been AWOL in the war on drugs.'' We 
have gone from an era of ``just say no'' to an era of ``I didn't 
inhale,'' and the numbers concerning youth drug use show that these 
contrasting messages make a difference.
  While the financial numbers continue to move in the right direction, 
the numbers concerning youth direction have gone in the wrong 
direction. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who had tried 
illegal drugs was a shocking 54%--133% of the level in 1992. This 
figure, which had decreased during the 1980s, increased in the 1990s. 
Similarly, in 1998, the reported illicit drug use by 12th graders in 
the last 30 days was more than 177% of the level seven years earlier.
  What is particularly alarming is the drastic increase in the use of 
heavy drugs by teenagers. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who 
used cocaine in the last 30 days was 178% of the level in 1992. 
Moreover, the percentage of heroin use was 250% of the 1992 level. The 
plain facts are that drug use among our nation's youth is far too 
common and becoming more so. Our nation appears to be sliding backward 
from the strides we made in the 1980s.
  The increases in drug use among our children are alarming. Our 
children are our greatest asset and they are at great risk from drugs. 
They are the most vulnerable members of our society. And, more than any 
other group, young people face the highest risk of being lost to drugs 
forever.
  The more than half of the nation's high school seniors who have 
already tried drugs run much greater risks of future drug use than 
their peers. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 
those who do not try drugs by their mid-twenties are unlikely ever to 
use drugs. Protecting our children from drugs is the best way to stop 
adults from using drugs.
  The challenge before us--protecting our children from drugs--becomes 
ever more difficult in a society plagued by divorce, single-parent 
households, diffuse communities, and the never-ending beat of ``live 
for today'' messages coming from our culture. Every one of these 
factors makes it harder to impart the right messages to the next 
generation and to keep our children off drugs.
  Protecting our children from drugs is more difficult than ever. In 
the last few years, a new enemy has emerged to join the other, more 
familiar, threats of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. That new threat is 
methamphetamine or ``meth,'' a dangerous, addictive substance that is 
ruining lives and weakening communities across this great land. Meth is 
to the 1990s what cocaine was to the 1980s and heroin was to the 1970s. 
And the problem is growing exponentially, in both Missouri and the 
nation at large. In 1992, DEA agents seized 2 clandestine meth labs in 
the State of Missouri. By 1994, there were 14 seizures. That was 
serious enough. However, in 1997, they seized 421 labs.
  Meth ensnares our children, endangers us all, and causes users to 
commit other crimes. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used 
meth was double the 1992 level. Meth-related emergency room incidents 
are up 63 percent over that same period. The National Institute of 
Justice released a report just a couple of months ago that showed meth 
use among adult arrestees and detainees has risen to alarming levels 
across the country.

  Meth is one of the most serious drug problems in our nation--and, in 
states like Missouri--it remains the most serious problem. Just ask the 
McClelland family in Kansas City. Their 11-year-old daughter was 
bludgeoned to death by a family friend who was high on meth. Her 
murderer admitted to beating her in the head repeatedly with a claw 
hammer after she resisted his sexual advances.
  This is not an isolated incident. Meth kills. Law enforcement 
officers in Missouri refer to it as a triple threat. It can kill the 
user; it can make the user kill and, in many cases, even its production 
can kill.
  Meth labs have been called toxic time bombs because volatile 
chemicals are mixed in the manufacturing process. There have been 
dozens of lab explosions. There are also numerous cases of meth abusers 
booby-trapping their abandoned labs, resulting in serious injuries to 
law enforcement agents. Even when not booby trapped, abandoned labs are 
like toxic waste dumps. Clean up is both dangerous and expensive.
  Meth production poses a unique challenge to law enforcement because 
of the difficulties in effective interdiction. Although some meth comes 
in the United States from Mexico, much of it is home produced from 
readily-available materials. It can be manufactured in clandestine labs 
and even in the kitchen of a moving RV--a literal moving target for law 
enforcement. Meth also can be manufactured in batches large or small. 
Law enforcement officials in Missouri have told me that as we have 
poured more resources into the fight against meth, some meth cooks have 
resorted to smaller and smaller batches to reduce the chances of 
detection. Other law enforcement officers report meth operations that 
contract out the various steps in the manufacturing process to 
different sites to reduce the chances of detection.
  Meth also has some unique attributes which appeal to users. Smoking 
meth produces a high that lasts 8 to 24 hours. Cocaine, in contrast, 
produces a high that lasts for 20 to 30 minutes. Meth appeals not only 
to those looking for an extended high. It appeals to vanity as well. 
Meth suppresses appetite and is enticing to young adults trying to lose 
weight.
  While meth is different from other drugs in some ways--more 
dangerous, more difficult to police--at its core, it is the same as 
other narcotics in that it imposes costs. According to Bill Bennett, 
the use of drugs ``makes every other social problem much worse.''
  Meth contributes to a host of societal ills--violence, unemployment, 
homelessness, family breakup. I have heard too many stories of 
neglected children all but abandoned in a home turned into a meth lab. 
There are enough threats to our children that we do not need meth 
adding to our burden.

[[Page S2030]]

  I want to fight the scourge of meth because of the violence it 
causes. I want to fight meth because of the costs it imposes, on 
society and on families, on taxpayers and on communities. But there is 
another factor that motivates my opposition to meth: I want to fight 
meth because its use and production is wrong. And too few people are 
willing to stand up these days and call drugs wrong.
  This laissez faire attitude leads to too much permissiveness on the 
subject of drugs. And permissiveness on drugs imposes terrible moral 
and psychic costs on America's youth.
  In fact, much of our current predicament stems for the permissive 
attitudes that emerged from the 1960s. The decay of enforcement that 
began in the 1960s helped to cause the problems of the succeeding 
decades.
  Make no mistake. Enforcement is an extremely effective tool in 
diminishing drug use. During the 1960s and 1970s, the period coinciding 
with the dawn of this country's second great drug crisis, incarceration 
rates plummeted from 90 per 1,000 arrests in 1960 to only 19 per 1,000 
arrests by 1980. Laws are what protects society from anarchy. And when 
we choose not to enforce our laws, our laws lose their effectiveness, 
and the bulwark against anarchy withers.
  While our society too often tends towards laxness, we also have a 
history of responding to challenges. America has never faced a problem 
that has proven too great for us to meet or too big for us to tackle. 
The meth challenge, while daunting, is no exception. If we make a 
determined and full engagement in our war against meth, we will win. We 
will defeat meth.
  In my four years in the United States Senate, I have fought the 
growth of meth trafficking. In the last Congress, I introduced the 
``Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act'' to provide more severe 
penalties for manufacturing, trafficking, or importing meth. That 
legislation, which was signed into law last fall, increases prison 
terms for meth possession to a 10-year minimum for possession of 50 
grams of meth or more, and a 5-year minimum for 5 grams or more. That 
law also made more meth crimes eligible for the death penalty in 
situations in which a murder is committed in conjunction with the meth 
offense. In light of the triple threat nature of meth, the availability 
of the death penalty is particularly relevant and appropriate.
  In order to protect residents of public housing, I worked with my 
colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to place a ``one strike and your 
out,'' lifetime ban from public housing premises for individuals who 
manufacture or produce methamphetamine.
  I also worked to set up a regional High-Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Area (or HIDTA) that covers Missouri. More recently, I organized a 
bipartisan effort by the Missouri congressional delegation that led to 
increased funding for anti-meth initiatives, including resources for 
law enforcement and lab cleanup. These steps are all important. When I 
talked with representatives of Missouri law enforcement earlier this 
week, they underscored that these programs are having a positive effect 
in the fight against meth. But winning the battle against meth once and 
for all will take continued hard work and effort.

  Mr. President, today I rise to take the next step in the fight 
against meth, the Determined and Full Engagement Against the Threat of 
Meth Act, or the ``DeFEAT Meth Act'' for short.
  My anti-methamphetamine legislation will have five main components.
  First, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to adjust its 
guidelines to increase penalties for meth crimes. In the last Congress 
we were able to raise the mandatory minimum sentences for meth 
trafficking crimes involving over 5 grams. This provision complements 
last year's legislation by increasing penalties for meth crimes that do 
not come under the mandatory minimums, and adding a special sentencing 
enhancement for meth crimes that endanger human life. This provision 
completes the process of imposing appropriate and severe penalties on 
those who wish to tear apart the very fabric of our society by 
distributing meth.
  Second, my legislation will provide law enforcement officers with 
more resources for combating meth. Specifically, it is time to 
authorize more funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration's meth 
initiative. This funding is essential. In order to stop the spread of 
meth, the DEA needs to hire more agents, and provide additional 
training for state and local law enforcement officers. These agents 
will participate in the DEA's comprehensive plan for targeting and 
investigating meth trafficking, production and abuse. The DEA also 
needs to provide additional support for local law enforcement. When law 
enforcement busts a meth lab, they are taking over the equivalent of a 
toxic waste dump. The serious and unique problems cleanup problems 
created by meth demand a serious and unique response.
  Third, we need to educate our children about the dangers of meth. 
While DEA interdiction is vital, we also need to educate parents, 
teachers, and children--who may not yet be familiar with the dangers of 
meth--about the size of the threat. We should authorize new funding for 
programs to educate parents and teachers of the dangers of 
methamphetamine. Missouri law enforcement officers estimate that as 
many as 10% of high-school students know the recipe for meth. We must 
make sure that 100% of them know that meth is a recipe for disaster.
  Fourth, we need to recognize that, more than any other narcotic, meth 
can be made all too easily, in home grown laboratories, with readily-
available chemicals. To counteract this problem, we must ensure that 
the list of banned precursor chemicals used to make meth is kept up to 
date. It seems that when a precursor chemical is added to the list, 
meth cooks figure out how to manufacture meth with a new unlisted 
chemical. We must remain vigilant in the battle against meth. After 
consulting with people on the front line--in the crime labs in 
Missouri--we have proposed adding two new precursor chemicals: red 
phosphorous and sodium dichromate.
  Finally, the bill amends the federal drug paraphernalia statute to 
cover meth. The current law covers paraphernalia used to ingest a 
number of specific drugs including marijuana and cocaine. It does not 
cover meth. There is no basis for this differential treatment, and the 
bill adds meth to the statute.
  This comprehensive plan is an essential step in the war against meth. 
While no plan will not stop the spread of meth overnight, we must 
continue the long process of stopping this onslaught. Defeating meth 
will be a struggle that takes place in schools, in communities, in 
churches, within families. We must teach the next generation the danger 
of drugs and give them alternatives to the easy short term answers that 
drugs provide.
  Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have overcome other 
challenges in the past and we can conquer this one as well. In fact, 
the history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing 
people's highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All we need to 
succeed is to marshal our will and channel the great indomitable 
American spirit. The experience of the past few years demonstrates that 
you cannot win the war on drugs with a half-hearted effort. However, 
experience also shows that we can win if we commit to a determined and 
full engagement against the threat of drugs. This bill provides full 
engagement. With it, we will meet the meth challenge and we will defeat 
it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 486

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Determined and Full 
     Engagement Against the Threat of Methamphetamine'' or 
     ``Defeat Meth'' Act of 1999.

     SEC. 2. ENHANCED PUNISHMENT OF METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORY 
                   OPERATORS.

       (a) Federal Sentencing Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to its authority under section 
     994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing 
     guidelines in accordance with paragraph (2) with respect to 
     any offense relating to the manufacture, attempt to 
     manufacture, or conspiracy to manufacture amphetamine or 
     methamphetamine in violation of--

[[Page S2031]]

       (A) the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.);
       (B) the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 951 et seq.); or
       (C) the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1901 et seq.).
       (2) Requirements.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall, with respect to 
     each offense described in paragraph (1)--
       (A) increase the base offense level for the offense--
       (i) by not less than 3 offense levels above the applicable 
     level in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) if the resulting base offense level after an increase 
     under clause (i) would be less than level 27, to not less 
     than level 27; or
       (B) if the offense created a substantial risk of danger to 
     the health and safety of another person (including any 
     Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer lawfully 
     present at the location of the offense), increase the base 
     offense level for the offense--
       (i) by not less than 6 offense levels above the applicable 
     level in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (ii) if the resulting base offense level after an increase 
     under clause (i) would be less than level 30, to not less 
     than level 30.
       (3) Emergency authority to sentencing commission.--The 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
     amendments pursuant to this subsection as soon as practicable 
     after the date of enactment of this Act in accordance with 
     the procedure set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing 
     Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-182), as though the authority 
     under that Act had not expired.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made pursuant to this 
     section shall apply with respect to any offense occurring on 
     or after the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED RESOURCES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Authorization of DEA Funds To Combat 
     Methamphetamines.--
       (1) Purpose.--From amounts made available to carry out this 
     subsection, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration shall implement a comprehensive approach for 
     targeting and investigating methamphetamine production, 
     trafficking, and abuse to combat the trafficking of 
     methamphetamine in areas designated by the Director of 
     National Drug Control Policy as high intensity drug 
     trafficking areas, which approach shall include--
       (A) training local law enforcement agents in the detection 
     and destruction of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, 
     and the prosecution of any offense relating to the 
     manufacture, attempt to manufacture, or conspiracy to 
     manufacture methamphetamine in violation of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled 
     Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), the 
     Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1901 et 
     seq.), or applicable State law;
       (B) investigating and assisting in the prosecution of 
     methamphetamine traffickers, establishing a national 
     clandestine laboratory computer database, reducing the 
     availability of precursor chemicals being diverted to 
     clandestine laboratories in the United States and abroad, and 
     cleaning up the hazardous waste generated by seized 
     clandestine laboratories; and
       (C) allocating agents to States with the highest rates of 
     clandestine laboratory closures during the most recent 5 
     fiscal years.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
       (A) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2004.
       (b) High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts made available to carry out 
     this subsection, the Director of National Drug Control Policy 
     shall combat the trafficking of methamphetamine in areas 
     designated by the Director of National Drug Control Policy as 
     high intensity drug trafficking areas, including the hiring 
     of new laboratory technicians in rural communities.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
       (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2004.
       (c) Expanding Methamphetamine Abuse Prevention Efforts.--
       (1) Prevention programs and activities.--
       (A) In general.--From amounts made available to carry out 
     this subsection, the Director of National Drug Control Policy 
     shall--
       (i) carry out community-based prevention programs that are 
     focused on those populations within the community that are 
     most at-risk for methamphetamine abuse and addiction;
       (ii) assist local government entities to conduct 
     appropriate methamphetamine prevention activities;
       (iii) train and educate State and local law enforcement 
     officials on the signs of methamphetamine abuse and addiction 
     and the options for treatment and prevention;
       (iv) carry out planning, administration, and educational 
     activities related to the prevention of methamphetamine abuse 
     and addiction;
       (v) monitor and evaluate methamphetamine prevention 
     activities, and report and disseminate resulting information 
     to the public; and
       (vi) carry out targeted pilot programs with evaluation 
     components to encourage innovation and experimentation with 
     new methodologies.
       (B) Priority.--In carrying out this paragraph, the Director 
     of National Drug Control Policy shall give priority to 
     assisting rural and urban areas that are experiencing a high 
     rate or rapid increases in methamphetamine abuse and 
     addiction.
       (C) Analyses and evaluation.--
       (i) In general.--Of the amount made available to carry out 
     this subsection in each fiscal year, not less than $500,000 
     shall be used by the Director of National Drug Control 
     Policy, in consultation with the heads of other departments 
     and agencies of the Federal Government--

       (I) to support and conduct periodic analyses and 
     evaluations of effective prevention programs for 
     methamphetamine abuse and addiction; and
       (II) for the development of appropriate strategies for 
     disseminating information about and implementing those 
     programs.

       (ii) Annual reports.--The Director shall annually submit to 
     Congress a report on results of the analyses and evaluations 
     under clause (i) during the preceding 12-month period.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
       (A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (B) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2001 through 2004.

     SEC. 4. PRECURSOR CHEMICALS.

       Section 102(35) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802(35)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or immediate precursor,'' after 
     ``chemical)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(K) Red phosphorous.
       ``(L) Sodium dichromate.''.

     SEC. 5. METHAMPHETAMINE PARAPHERNALIA.

       Section 422(d) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     863(d)) is amended by inserting ``methamphetamines,'' after 
     ``PCP,''.
                                 ______