[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 38 (Thursday, March 30, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Page S2596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            COMBAT METH ACT

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to include in the Record 
an additional comment regarding the Combat Meth Act, which was passed 
into law earlier this year as part of the USA-PATRIOT Reauthorization 
Act.
  While much has been said about the portions of this bill that address 
the national meth problem, I wish to highlight the commonsense approach 
this legislation provides for preventing the diversion of controlled 
substances.
  The Controlled Substances Act requires its registrants to ensure that 
controlled substances do not fall into the wrong hands in the places 
where they are manufactured, distributed, or sold. To this end, it has 
always been the Drug Enforcement Administration's goal to encourage 
such registrants to investigate fully the backgrounds of potential 
employees who might have access to such substances, specifically for 
drug-related criminal convictions.
  However, certain State and local privacy laws have had the potential 
to hamper this objective. These laws frustrate the purpose of the 
Controlled Substances Act and the objectives of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration by, among other things, purporting to prohibit 
registrants from asking questions relating to an applicant's experience 
with controlled substances, including whether they have been convicted 
of drug-related crimes. The real-world implication has been, in a word, 
nonsensical. In my own State of California, for example, there is a 
State law that provides that employers are not allowed to question a 
potential employee about certain drug-related criminal convictions that 
are older than 2 years. This prohibition also purports to cover 
employers who are registered under the Controlled Substances Act. If a 
registrant complied with this State law, it could mean that a 
responsible pharmacy could hire someone to work at the cash register 
who would be in a position to divert pharmaceutical products, and the 
employer would never have any clue about the applicant's past. This 
runs counter to the purpose of the Controlled Substances Act and 
undermines the DEA's efforts to prevent the unlawful diversion of 
controlled substances.
  The law we passed clarifies once and for all that registrants can and 
should fully vet applicants, including asking them about any and all 
drug-related criminal convictions--not as an infringement on someone's 
privacy but as a safeguard to ensure that people with access to 
controlled substances do not pose risks to the public welfare. This 
legislation makes clear that those on the frontlines of preventing 
controlled substance diversion have a crucial tool they need to do 
their job.

                          ____________________