[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 125 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H9535-H9537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   DRUG DEALER LIABILITY ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1042) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide 
civil liability for illegal manufacturers and distributors of 
controlled substances for the harm caused by the use of those 
controlled substances.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1042

       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 ``Drug Dealer Liability Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DRUG DEALER LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Part E of the Controlled Substances Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 521. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DRUG DEALER 
                   LIABILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     any person who manufactures or distributes a controlled 
     substance in a felony violation of this title or title III 
     shall be liable in a civil action to any party harmed, 
     directly or indirectly, by the use of that controlled 
     substance.
       ``(b) Exception.--An individual user of a controlled 
     substance may not bring or maintain an action under this 
     section unless the individual personally discloses to 
     narcotics enforcement authorities all of the information 
     known to the individual regarding all that individual's 
     sources of illegal controlled substances.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for the 
     Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 
     is amended by inserting after the time relating to section 
     520 the following new item:

``Sec. 521. Federal cause of action for drug dealer liability.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1042.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1042, the Drug Dealer 
Liability Act.
  I am pleased to act on this legislation because it will give law 
enforcement authorities and the American public another tool in our 
efforts to reduce the use of illegal drugs.
  We have all known for some time, Mr. Speaker, that the costs of drug 
abuse in the United States are certainly quite high. In addition to the 
terrible impact drugs have on users, experts estimate that our country 
loses close to $100 billion a year to drug-related illnesses, lost 
productivity and crime. In many cases, these costs are being absorbed 
by American families and those who are victimized by the drug trade. 
The bill of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) would help change 
that.
  Under H.R. 1042, drug dealers would begin paying from their own 
pocketbooks for the damage that they level on our society. This 
legislation would allow victims of the drug trade to recover civil 
money damages from individuals who have sold or manufactured illegal 
drugs.
  Parents, drug-addicted babies, and employers will now have an 
expanded ability to punish drug dealers and put these criminals out of 
business.
  This type of law is already on the book in 12 States and would be 
extended to the other 38 under this bill.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) for authoring this legislation. By passing this bill, we are 
sending a message to America's drug dealers: Dealing drugs does not 
pay. If they are an aspiring drug dealer and believe that they can make 
a lot of money off of selling drugs, think again. Under this proposal, 
they will be at great risk of going bankrupt.
  I urge support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Drug Dealer Liability Act; 
and I commend its author, my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham).
  H.R. 1042 would subject individuals who participate in illegal drug 
activity

[[Page H9536]]

to civil liability. The civil justice system is an important deterrent 
to unlawful activity and an effective avenue for compensating 
individuals and organizations harmed by illegal activity.
  No illegal activity inflicts more harm than the illegal drug trade. 
Illegal drugs fuel crime, siphon public and private dollars into 
prevention and treatment programs. They undercut productive lives. They 
undermine entire communities. They kill our children.

                              {time}  1545

  The criminal justice system is giving the drug problem its primary 
attention. Its counterpart, the civil justice system, should be brought 
into the fight.
  Individuals who engage in the drug trade should know that they will 
be held financially liable for the harm they cause. Manufacturers and 
distributors of these drugs should bear the costs associated with their 
illegal activity, including the costs of medical treatment or drug 
rehabilitation. Taxpayers currently bear most of that burden. That is 
not the way it should be.
  This legislation gives us another weapon in the war against drugs. I 
am pleased to support it.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the sponsor of H.R. 1042, 
the Drug Dealer Liability Act, to urge your strong support for this 
important legislation. This is not the first time we have addressed 
this issue. You may recall the House voted overwhelmingly to add the 
very provisions included in this legislation to the Juvenile Justice 
Bill in 1999.
  Unfortunately, juvenile crime is a growing trend across the nation. 
For years, the rural states thought themselves immune from the serious 
juvenile crime and drug problems on America's coasts and in the big 
cities. However, this is no longer the case.
  In fact, nowhere is the juvenile crime problem growing faster than in 
America's heartland. This is, of course, directly related to the 
incredible growth in drug use. According to the U.S. Department of 
Justice's latest statistics, juvenile drug arrests across the nation 
have more than doubled since 1988. My home state of Iowa is 
experiencing an unprecedented influx of methamphetamine. In calendar 
year 1999, there were over 300 federal methamphetamine lab seizures in 
the State of Iowa. State law enforcement personnel seized an additional 
500 labs during that same time.
  Clearly, our children are the most innocent and vulnerable of those 
affected by illegal drug use. The very nature of drug abuse makes this 
an epidemic that has severe monetary costs as well, creating 
significant financial challenges for parents, law enforcement and human 
services providers. For many of the juvenile addicts, who are 
increasingly female, the only hope is extensive medical and 
psychological treatment, physical therapy, or special education.
  All of these potential remedies are expensive. In fact, recent 
figures estimate the annual cost of substance in the United States to 
be nearly $100 billion. Juveniles, through their parents or through 
court appointed guardians, should be able to recover damages from those 
in the community who have entered and participated in the sale of the 
types of illegal drugs that have caused their injuries.
  The legislation I am offering today would provide a civil remedy for 
people harmed by drugs--whether it be the actual user, the family of a 
user or even the hospital that provides treatment--to hold drug dealers 
accountable for selling this poison that is tearing apart the fabric of 
our society. There are drug pushers in all of our congressional 
districts who profit from this culture of death, pain and dependency 
that must be taken to task. Many of them elude the authorities by 
getting off on technicalities or through their position as affluent 
persons in the community. However, that should not make them immune 
from paying for the destruction they cause.
  This legislation would empower victims to take action like the Utah 
housewife who sued her husband's drug dealer ``friend'' of six years 
under that State's drug dealer liability law. Her husband actually 
shared a vacation cabin with the dealer until, after years of abuse, 
her husband lost his job and ruined the family. Other states, such as 
California, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, 
Hawaii, South Dakota and Oklahoma, and just October 1, Maryland have 
enacted similar laws.
  The first lawsuit brought under a state drug dealer liability law was 
brought by Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services on behalf of a 
drug-addicted baby and its siblings. The suit resulted in a judgment of 
$1 million in favor of the baby. The City of Detroit joined in on the 
suit and received a judgment for more than $7 million to provide drug 
treatment for inmates in the city's jails.
  This legislation, while not as comprehensive as those state laws--
which incorporate a broad reaching liability--does provide a simple 
tool to empower victims. In fact, this legislation is perfectly suited 
to go after the ``white collar'' drug dealers who's clientele includes 
their professional ``friends'', and who are less likely to be the 
subject of a criminal investigation. As we all know, parents who abuse 
drugs are more likely to have children that abuse drugs as well.
  It is my hope the prospect of substantial monetary loss made possible 
my legislation would also act as a deterrent to entering the narcotics 
market. Dealers pushing their poison on our children and other family 
members may think again when they consider that they could lose 
everything even without a criminal conviction. In addition, this 
legislation would establish an incentive for users to identify and seek 
payment for their own drug treatment from those dealers who have sold 
drugs to the user in the past. While this legislation is not meant to 
be a ``silver bullet'', it is another tool to combat and deter drug 
abuse and trafficking.
  Current law allows for a producer of a product that injures a 
consumer to be held liable for injuries resulting from the use of that 
product. However, most states do not provide for compensation from 
persons who cause injury by intentionally distributing illegal drugs. 
The Latham Drug Dealer Liability Act fills the gap to make drug dealers 
liable--under civil law--for the injuries to the victims of drugs.
  Finally, I hope that I will be able to work with Chairman McCollum 
and the ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, on a more comprehensive liability 
measure in the future.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1042, 
the Drug Dealer Liability Act, and give the victims of illegal drugs an 
opportunity to hold the dealers of this poison accountable under 
criminal and civil law.

                  The Latham Drug Dealer Liability Act

       According to a joint study by the Center for Substance 
     Abuse Treatment and the University of Maryland, drug abuse 
     cost the United States $98 billion in 1992. The majority of 
     the costs were due to drug-related illnesses, lost 
     productivity, crime and premature death. It's time drug 
     dealers started paying for these costs.
       The Latham amendment would be most effective in instances 
     where a dealer has gotten off in criminal court on a 
     technicality. A plaintiff would only need to provide that 
     there is a preponderance of evidence that a defendant was the 
     dealer in a civil case, unlike the much stricter standard in 
     criminal court. The success of this strategy is well 
     demonstrated by the civil case brought against O.J. Simpson 
     by the family of victim Ron Goldman.
       The amendment could also prove effective against 
     professionals dealing to their ``friends'' who they share a 
     professional relationship with, such as lawyers, 
     stockbrokers, and other high-income users. People who think 
     our nation's drug problem exists only in the cities and among 
     the poor are way off the mark. The problem is everywhere, as 
     much in small towns in Iowa as it is in America's big cities.
       The Latham amendment would even be useful in cases where 
     the dealer has already been convicted. According to a U.S. 
     Supreme Court ruling in June of 1999 (U.S. v. Bajakajian), 
     certain seizures by the government may be ruled 
     unconstitutionally disproportional under the Eight 
     Amendment's excessive fines clause. This could mean that a 
     convicted drug dealer or manufacturer may maintain a portion 
     of their assets and/or property after a government seizure or 
     forfeiture. As an excessive fine is defined in U.S. v. 
     Bakajian, the case sets a Constitutional precedent in this 
     area for the first time. It certainly opens up the excessive 
     fines clause of the Eighth Amendment up for what could be 
     construed as a stricter application.
                                  ____

       Basically, the legislation provides a civil vehicle for 
     punishment of drug dealers and for recovery of damages for 
     those injured (directly or indirectly) as a result of an 
     individual's use of a controlled substance.
       The parameters of the legislation are intentionally broad 
     to allow as many injured individuals to benefit while 
     creating an increased window of liability for the drug 
     dealer. Therefore, not only would the individual who used the 
     drugs be able to bring about a suit, but so would their 
     parents, employer (for losses resulting from the employee's 
     drug use), health care providers, and even governmental 
     entities. In fact, a suit could be filed on behalf of a drug 
     baby (in utero liability) or by that child once they reach 
     the age of 18.


                  states who have passed similar laws

       Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Utah, Illinois, California, 
     Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, South Dakota, 
     and Maryland.


                 examples of settlements in state cases

       First lawsuit under the act (July 21, 1995) resulted in a 
     judgment of $1 million in favor of a drug baby, as well as 
     more than $7 million to the City of Detroit for drug 
     treatment expenses for inmates in the city's jails. The suit 
     was filed by attorneys from Wayne County Neighborhood Legal 
     Services on behalf of the drug baby and its siblings.
       A case was settled in Utah in which the wife of a drug 
     abuser brought a case against

[[Page H9537]]

     her husband's dealer of six years under the Utah DDLA law.


                        making it a federal case

       This legislation, intended to extend the drug dealer 
     liability to the Federal level, would establish a vehicle for 
     persons in the 38 states that have not enacted a similar law 
     (and to those in the twelve states listed above if the 
     Federal law is preferable). However, the amendment would only 
     allow an individual who used drugs to recover damages if they 
     worked with authorities to provide information on all of that 
     individual's narcotics sources.
       The Latham amendment is different from the Drug Dealer 
     Liability Act laws in these states in that it only extends 
     liability to persons who are found to have knowingly provided 
     or manufactured the drugs that harmed the individual or party 
     filing the suit. The state laws are based on a broad market 
     liability standard that holds dealers liable based on the 
     premise that a dealer is involved in the illegal drug trade 
     in a particular area and so is directly or indirectly 
     involved in the promotion of the illegal drugs that harmed 
     the plaintiff.
       The Latham amendment fills a void in two ways: (1) it 
     provides compensation for the victims of crime, and (2) it 
     holds the drug dealers accountable that escape criminal 
     punishment--whether it be as a result of getting off on a 
     technicality or because a person may deal to a ``behind the 
     scenes'' white collar crowd as opposed to the more 
     conspicuous street gangs. Those ``high dollar'' dealers are 
     less likely to be apprehended by law enforcement--why should 
     they get off scot-free? Like the wife in Utah, more family 
     members may be willing to take matters into their own hands 
     and go after those who deal this poison to our children and 
     other loved ones.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1042.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________