[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 72 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5565-S5568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, 
Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 1276. A bill to establish a grant program to facilitate the 
creation of methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook systems, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan 
Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2007. I am pleased to have 
the support and cosponsorship of Senator Grassley for this important 
legislation, and I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy 
and Ranking Member Specter to advance the bill through the judiciary 
Committee and to secure its enactment into law.
  The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act will take the next step 
toward wiping out the domestic production of methamphetamine, or 
``meth.'' The bill will make it easier to use electronic logbook 
systems in order to monitor sales of meth precursor drugs and notify 
enforcement agencies when individuals illegally stockpile these 
precursors by traveling from pharmacy to pharmacy.
  This legislation is endorsed by the National Alliance of State Drug 
Enforcement Agencies, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' 
Coalition, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National 
Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the 
National Troopers Coalition, the National District Attorneys 
Association, the National Association of Counties, and the Community 
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. I also want to commend and thank 
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and her staff for their 
assistance in preparing this legislation.
  For years, the manufacture and use of methamphetamine have plagued 
communities in Illinois and throughout the Nation. Meth is unique among 
illegal drugs in that its harms stem not only from its distribution and 
use, but also from the clandestine manufacturing labs that meth 
``cooks'' use to make meth. These labs pose serious dangers to those 
who live nearby and to the surrounding environment. Law enforcement 
agencies in Illinois and elsewhere are forced to devote a significant 
percentage of their time to locating, busting, and cleaning up meth 
labs.
  The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, ``Combat Meth Act,'' enacted 
in 2006, took several important steps to reduce domestic meth 
manufacturing. These steps included limiting the amount of meth 
precursor drug products that a purchaser can buy, such as 
pseudoephedrine, and requiring pharmacies to keep written or electronic 
logbooks recording each precursor purchase. The Combat Meth Act has led 
to a drop in the number of meth labs discovered in many States.
  However, domestic meth cooks have begun adapting to the Combat Meth 
Act. They have figured out how to circumvent the act's restrictions by 
``smurfing,'' or purchasing illegal amounts of meth precursor drugs by 
traveling to multiple pharmacies that keep written logbooks and buying 
legal quantities at each one. According to Illinois law enforcement 
authorities, smurfing now accounts for at least 90 percent of the 
pseudoephedrine used to make meth in Illinois.
  The next step in combating domestic meth production is to promote the 
use of effective electronic logbook systems. Law enforcement experts 
agree that if pharmacies maintain electronic logbook information and 
share that information with appropriate law enforcement and regulatory 
agencies, this information can be used to prevent the sale of meth 
precursor drugs in excess of legal limits, and to identify and 
prosecute ``smurfs'' and meth cooks.
  This legislation, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act, 
facilitates and encourages the use of meth precursor electronic logbook 
systems in several ways.
  First, the bill revises the technical logbook requirements in the 
Combat Meth Act. While the Combat Meth Act provides for the use of 
electronic logbook systems, several of the act's requirements are not 
tailored for logbooks kept in electronic form. For example, under the 
act, a prospective purchaser must ``enter[] into the logbook his or her 
name, address, and the date and time of the sale.'' This requirement is 
unwieldy for retailers who use electronic logbook systems, because many 
purchasers cannot type quickly or accurately. The Methamphetamine 
Production Prevention Act would permit retailers' employees to type the 
name and address of a purchaser into an electronic logbook system, and 
would allow retailers to use software programs that automatically 
record the date and time of each sale. Under the bill, a retail 
employee would have to ensure that the name the employee types into the 
system matches the name on the ID that the purchaser is currently 
required to present.
  Also, the Combat Meth Act requires purchasers to sign a logbook at 
the time of sale, regardless of whether the seller uses a paper or 
electronic logbook. Collecting and retaining electronic signatures 
requires a large amount of computer memory, and the transmission of 
these electronic signature files to law enforcement agencies does not 
provide a significant law enforcement benefit. Sellers who use 
electronic logbook systems should be given the option of collecting 
signatures on paper, as long as those signatures are stored for the 
requisite 2-year retention period, and as long as the signatures are 
clearly linked to the electronically-captured sale information.
  The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act would permit a seller 
who uses an electronic logbook to collect purchaser signatures through 
any of three different methods: (1) having the purchaser sign an 
electronic signature device; (2) having the purchaser sigh a bound 
paper book in which the signature is placed adjacent to a unique 
identifier number, or a printed sticker that clearly links the 
signature to the purchaser's logbook information; or (3) having the 
purchaser sign a document that the seller prints out at the time of 
sale that displays the required logbook information and contains a 
signature line. These options ensure that each purchaser's signature 
will be collected, but they give sellers flexibility in developing 
cost-effective electronic logbook systems.
  The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act would also create a 
small but important Federal grant program to help States plan, create 
or enhance electronic logbook systems. Several States, including 
Oklahoma, Arkansas, West Virginia and Kentucky, have already begun 
developing electronic logbook systems, and many other States 
are considering them. The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act 
authorizes $3 million in grants

[[Page S5566]]

to States and localities, with grants capped at a maximum of $300,000. 
The bill imposes a 25-percent State matching requirement, to ensure 
that States have, invested in their logbook systems and have a stake in 
ensuring the successful operation of these systems.

  Instead of mandating how States design their electronic logbook 
systems, the bill provides incentives for States to design effective 
logbook systems. Because meth smurfs frequently travel across State 
lines to stockpile meth precursors, State efforts to develop electronic 
logbook systems will be more successful if those efforts are 
coordinated with the activities of other states. The bill would 
therefore give priority to grant applicants whose logbook systems are 
developed in consultation with a working group of key Federal, State 
and private stakeholders spearheaded by the National Alliance for Model 
State Drug Laws. This working group will advise States on best 
practices in developing logbook systems and will help States develop 
logbook systems that are compatible and interoperable with other 
systems across the country.
  The bill also gives a grantmaking preference to applicants whose 
logbook systems are statewide, are capable of sharing information in 
real time, and are designed to share information across jurisdictional 
boundaries. At the same time, the bill preserves the privacy safeguards 
currently established under the Combat Meth Act and State law. To 
promote accountability, the bill requires the Attorney General to 
provide an annual report to Congress that evaluates the grant program 
and its effectiveness in curtailing meth production.
  The Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act does not mandate the 
use of electronic logbook systems, nor does it mandate the features 
that an electronic logbook system must possess. The bill respects the 
fact that States have enacted various types of anti-meth restrictions 
above the Federal Combat Meth Act baseline, and that pharmacies and 
retailers in different States have different capabilities with regard 
to electronic tracking. At the same time, we want to encourage States 
to coordinate their development of methamphetamine precursor electronic 
logbook systems so that smurfs will not be able to supply their meth 
labs by hopping across State lines. Our bill aims to strike a balance 
by coordinating the various State efforts, while still allowing States 
the flexibility to innovate and to respond to their specific State 
needs.
  There are many actions besides promoting electronic logbook systems 
that we must take to address the scourge of methamphetamine. For 
example, we must provide for the prevention and treatment of meth use, 
and we must also prevent the illegal distribution of meth and its 
precursors over the Internet and from other countries. However, law 
enforcement experts agree that electronic logbook systems are an 
important tool in our effort to combat meth, particularly domestic meth 
labs. We can, and should, do more to help make these logbook systems 
work.
  By facilitating and encouraging the use of electronic logbook 
systems, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act will help wipe 
out domestic meth labs and the environmental and social harms they 
cause. The bill will also help free up law enforcement resources from 
meth lab busts and cleanup, allowing our law enforcement agencies to 
focus on other crime prevention and enforcement efforts. The production 
of methamphetamine has plagued our communities for far too long, and 
this legislation takes a critical step to stop it. I urge the Senate to 
pass this important bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1276

       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 ``Methamphetamine Production 
     Prevention Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the manufacture, distribution and use of 
     methamphetamine have inflicted damages on individuals, 
     families, communities, businesses, the economy, and the 
     environment throughout the United States;
       (2) methamphetamine is unique among illicit drugs in that 
     the harms relating to methamphetamine stem not only from its 
     distribution and use, but also from the manufacture of the 
     drug by ``cooks'' in clandestine labs throughout the United 
     States;
       (3) Federal and State restrictions limiting the sale of 
     legal drug products that contain methamphetamine precursors 
     have reduced the number and size of domestic methamphetamine 
     labs;
       (4) domestic methamphetamine cooks have managed to 
     circumvent restrictions on the sale of methamphetamine 
     precursors by ``smurfing'', or purchasing impermissibly large 
     cumulative amounts of precursor products by traveling from 
     retailer to retailer and buying permissible quantities at 
     each retailer;
       (5) although Federal and State laws require retailers of 
     methamphetamine precursor products to keep written or 
     electronic logbooks recording sales of precursor products, 
     retailers are not always required to transmit this logbook 
     information to appropriate law enforcement and regulatory 
     agencies, except upon request;
       (6) when retailers' logbook information regarding sales of 
     methamphetamine precursor products is kept in a database in 
     an electronic format and transmitted between retailers and 
     appropriate law enforcement and regulatory agencies, such 
     information can be used to further reduce the number of 
     domestic methamphetamine labs by preventing the sale of 
     methamphetamine precursors in excess of legal limits, and by 
     identifying and prosecuting ``smurfs'' and others involved in 
     methamphetamine manufacturing;
       (7) States and local governments are already beginning to 
     develop such electronic logbook database systems, but they 
     are hindered by a lack of resources;
       (8) efforts by States and local governments to develop such 
     electronic logbook database systems may also be hindered by 
     logbook recordkeeping requirements contained in section 
     310(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 830(e)) 
     that are tailored to written logbooks and not to electronic 
     logbooks; and
       (9) providing resources to States and localities and making 
     technical corrections to the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic 
     Act of 2005 will allow more rapid and widespread development 
     of such electronic logbook systems, thereby reducing the 
     domestic manufacture of methamphetamine and its associated 
     harms.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``local'' means a county, city, town, 
     township, parish, village, or other general purpose political 
     subdivision of a State;
       (2) the term ``methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook 
     system'' means a system by which a regulated seller 
     electronically records and transmits to an electronic 
     database accessible to appropriate law enforcement and 
     regulatory agencies information regarding the sale of a 
     scheduled listed chemical product that is required to be 
     maintained under section 310(e) of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 830(e)) (as amended by this Act), State law 
     governing the distribution of a scheduled listed chemical 
     product, or any other Federal, State, or local law;
       (3) the terms ``regulated seller'' and ``scheduled listed 
     chemical product'' have the meanings given such terms in 
     section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802); 
     and
       (4) the term ``State''--
       (A) means a State of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of 
     the United States; and
       (B) includes an ``Indian tribe'', as that term is defined 
     in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List 
     Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR EFFECTIVE METHAMPHETAMINE PRECURSOR 
                   ELECTRONIC LOGBOOK SYSTEMS.

       Section 310(e)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 830(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking ``a written or 
     electronic list'' and inserting ``a written list or an 
     electronic list that complies with subparagraph (H)''; and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Electronic logbooks.--
       ``(i) In general.--A logbook maintained in electronic form 
     shall include, for each sale to which the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A)(iii) applies, the name of any product sold, 
     the quantity of that product sold, the name and address of 
     each purchaser, the date and time of the sale, and any other 
     information required by State or local law.
       ``(ii) Sellers.--In complying with the requirements of 
     clause (i), a regulated seller may--

       ``(I) ask a prospective purchaser for the name and address, 
     and enter such information into the electronic logbook, and 
     if the seller enters the name and address of the prospective 
     purchaser into the electronic logbook, the seller shall 
     determine that the name entered into the electronic logbook 
     corresponds to the name provided on the identification 
     presented by the purchaser under subparagraph (A)(iv)(I)(aa); 
     and
       ``(II) use a software program that automatically and 
     accurately records the date and time of each sale.

       ``(iii) Purchasers.--A prospective purchaser in a sale to 
     which the requirement of

[[Page S5567]]

     subparagraph (A)(iii) applies that is being documented in an 
     electronic logbook shall provide a signature in at least 1 of 
     the following ways:

       ``(I) Signing a device presented by the seller that 
     captures signatures in an electronic format.
       ``(II) Signing a bound paper book.
       ``(III) Signing a printed document that corresponds to the 
     electronically-captured logbook information for such 
     purchaser.

       ``(iv) Electronic signatures.--

       ``(I) Device.--Any device used under clause (iii)(I) 
     shall--

       ``(aa) preserve each signature in a manner that clearly 
     links that signature to the other electronically-captured 
     logbook information relating to the prospective purchaser 
     providing that signature; and
       ``(bb) display information that complies with subparagraph 
     (A)(v).

       ``(II) Document retention.--A regulated seller that uses a 
     device under clause (iii)(I) to capture signatures shall 
     maintain each such signature for not less than 2 years after 
     the date on which that signature is captured.

       ``(v) Paper books.--

       ``(I) In general.--Any bound paper book used under clause 
     (iii)(II) shall--

       ``(aa) ensure that the signature of the prospective 
     purchaser is adjacent to a unique identifier number or a 
     printed sticker that clearly links that signature to the 
     electronically-captured logbook information relating to that 
     prospective purchaser; and
       ``(bb) display information that complies with subparagraph 
     (A)(v).

       ``(II) Document retention.--A regulated seller that uses 
     bound paper books under clause (iii)(II) shall maintain any 
     entry in such books for not less than 2 years after the date 
     on which that entry is made.

       ``(vi) Printed documents.--

       ``(I) In general.--Any printed document used under clause 
     (iii)(III) shall--

       ``(aa) be printed by the seller at the time of the sale 
     that document relates to;
       ``(bb) display information that complies with subparagraph 
     (A)(v);
       ``(cc) for the relevant sale, list the name of each product 
     sold, the quantity sold, the name and address of the 
     purchaser, and the date and time of the sale;
       ``(dd) contain a clearly identified signature line for a 
     purchaser to sign; and
       ``(ee) include a notice that the signer has read the 
     printed information and agrees that it is accurate.

       ``(II) Document retention.--

       ``(aa) In general.--A regulated seller that uses printed 
     documents under clause (iii)(III) shall maintain each such 
     document for not less than 2 years after the date on which 
     that document is signed.
       ``(bb) Secure storage.--Each signed document shall be 
     inserted into a binder or other secure means of document 
     storage immediately after the purchaser signs the 
     document.''.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR METHAMPHETAMINE PRECURSOR ELECTRONIC 
                   LOGBOOK SYSTEMS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Attorney General of the United 
     States, through the Office of Justice Programs of the 
     Department of Justice, may make grants, in accordance with 
     such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to 
     State and local governments to plan, develop, implement, or 
     enhance methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook systems.
       (b) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A grant under this section may be used to 
     enable a methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook system 
     to--
       (A) indicate to a regulated seller, upon the entry of 
     information regarding a prospective purchaser into the 
     methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook system, whether 
     that prospective purchaser has been determined by appropriate 
     law enforcement or regulatory agencies to be eligible, 
     ineligible, or potentially ineligible to purchase a scheduled 
     listed chemical product under Federal, State, or local law; 
     and
       (B) provide contact information for a prospective purchaser 
     to use if the prospective purchaser wishes to question a 
     determination by appropriate law enforcement or regulatory 
     agencies that the prospective purchaser is ineligible or 
     potentially ineligible to purchase a scheduled listed 
     chemical product.
       (2) Access to information.--Any methamphetamine precursor 
     electronic logbook system planned, developed, implemented, or 
     enhanced with a grant under this section shall prohibit 
     accessing, using, or sharing information entered into that 
     system for any purpose other than to--
       (A) ensure compliance with this Act, section 310(e) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 830(e)) (as amended by 
     this Act), State law governing the distribution of any 
     scheduled listed chemical product, or other applicable 
     Federal, State, or local law; or
       (B) facilitate a product recall to protect public safety.
       (c) Grant Requirements.--
       (1) Maximum amount.--The Attorney General shall not award a 
     grant under this section in an amount that exceeds $300,000.
       (2) Duration.--The period of a grant made under this 
     section shall not exceed 3 years.
       (3) Matching requirement.--Not less than 25 percent of the 
     cost of a project for which a grant is made under this 
     section shall be provided by non-Federal sources.
       (4) Preference for grants.--In awarding grants under this 
     section, the Attorney General shall give priority to any 
     grant application involving a proposed or ongoing 
     methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook system that is--
       (A) statewide in scope;
       (B) capable of real-time capture and transmission of 
     logbook information to appropriate law enforcement and 
     regulatory agencies;
       (C) designed in a manner that will facilitate the exchange 
     of logbook information between appropriate law enforcement 
     and regulatory agencies across jurisdictional boundaries, 
     including State boundaries; and
       (D) developed and operated, to the extent feasible, in 
     consultation and ongoing coordination with the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration, the Office of Justice Programs, 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the non-profit 
     corporation described in section 1105 of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (21 
     U.S.C. 1701 note), other Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement and regulatory agencies, as appropriate, and 
     regulated sellers.
       (5) Annual report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each 
     calendar year in which funds from a grant received under this 
     section are expended, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report to Congress containing--
       (i) a summary of the activities carried out with grant 
     funds during that year;
       (ii) an assessment of the effectiveness of the activities 
     described in clause (i) on the planning, development, 
     implementation or enhancement of methamphetamine precursor 
     electronic logbook systems;
       (iii) an assessment of the effect of the activities 
     described in clause (i) on curtailing the manufacturing of 
     methamphetamine in the United States and the harms associated 
     with such manufacturing; and
       (iv) a strategic plan for the year following the year of 
     that report.
       (B) Additional information.--The Attorney General may 
     require the recipient of a grant under this section to 
     provide information relevant to preparing any report under 
     subparagraph (A) in a report that grant recipient is required 
     to submit to the Office of Justice Programs of the Department 
     of Justice.

     SEC. 6. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which grant funds under section 5 are first distributed, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     study and submit to Congress a report regarding the 
     effectiveness of methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook 
     systems that receive funding under that section.
       (b) Contents.--The report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) a summary of the activities carried out with grant 
     funds during the previous year;
       (2) an assessment of the effectiveness of the activities 
     described in paragraph (1) on the planning, development, 
     implementation or enhancement of methamphetamine precursor 
     electronic logbook systems in the United States;
       (3) an assessment of the extent to which proposed or 
     operational methamphetamine precursor electronic logbook 
     systems in the United States, including those that receive 
     funding under section 5, are--
       (A) statewide in scope;
       (B) capable of real-time capture and transmission of 
     logbook information to appropriate law enforcement and 
     regulatory agencies;
       (C) designed in a manner that will facilitate the exchange 
     of logbook information between appropriate law enforcement 
     and regulatory agencies across jurisdictional boundaries, 
     including State boundaries; and
       (D) developed and operated, to the extent feasible, upon 
     consultation with and in ongoing coordination with the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration, the Office of Justice Programs, 
     the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the non-profit 
     corporation described in section 1105 of the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (21 
     U.S.C. 1701 note), other Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement and regulatory agencies, as appropriate, and 
     regulated sellers;
       (4) an assessment of the effect of methamphetamine 
     precursor electronic logbook systems, including those that 
     receive funding under this Act, on curtailing the 
     manufacturing of methamphetamine in the United States and 
     reducing its associated harms;
       (5) recommendations for further curtailing the domestic 
     manufacturing of methamphetamine and reducing its associated 
     harms; and
       (6) such other information as the Comptroller General 
     determines appropriate.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act--
       (1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year 
     thereafter.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Durbin, in introducing the Methamphetamine Production 
Prevention Act of 2007. Together we offer this important legislation in 
an effort to strengthen existing law by providing some necessary 
changes and updates.
  During my time in the Senate, I have come to the floor many times to 
speak about methamphetamine and how it has destroyed individuals, 
families, and

[[Page S5568]]

communities across the country. The Midwest was hit especially hard by 
meth and the impacts of this drug were devastating to rural areas. As 
opposed to other illegal drugs, meth is often times home cooked and 
made in rural areas using ingredients that are largely available over 
the counter. I am proud to say that Congress has taken action to attack 
this problem head on by working to cut off access to these over the 
counter products that form the basis of the drug.
  Legislation such as the Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005, Combat 
Meth Act of 2005, which was included into the USA Patriot Act 
Reauthorization in 2005 immediately impacted the production of home 
cooked meth. Just a week ago when I joined with Senator Feinstein in 
introducing two other separate bills, the Saving Kids from Dangerous 
Drugs Act and the Drug Endangered Children Act, I noted that because of 
the efforts of Congress in passing the Combat Meth Act, the number of 
clandestine meth lab seizures has dropped across the country.
  The Combat Meth Act was a tremendous step in the right direction 
limiting access to psuedoephedrine, PSE, the main ingredient in 
methamphetamine. The Combat Meth Act required this product to be 
removed from store shelves and placed behind the counter at pharmacies 
across the country. It also limited the number of products containing 
PSE a person could buy at once. Further, it required a logbook system 
be kept by pharmacies containing information regarding the individuals 
that purchased products containing PSE.
  Despite these successes, ever determined meth cooks and users have 
learned how to game this system and continue to produce home grown 
meth.
  The preferred method of these meth cooks is to ``smurf'' between 
different pharmacies for PSE products. Smurfing occurs when a person 
visits a number of different locations buying the legal maximum amount 
of PSE product at each site. The result is an amount of PSE sufficient 
to produce home cooked meth. Smurfing occurs because the Combat Meth 
Act only required that retailers keep a logbook which could be kept on 
paper or electronically. It did not require interoperability or 
electronic transmission of data. As a result, these unscrupulous 
individuals have learned that if they provide false information or 
visit multiple stores, tracking and arresting these individuals is more 
difficult and time consuming for law enforcement. This is especially 
true in metropolitan communities that share a common border, one such 
example is the Quad Cities on the Iowa/Illinois border.

  Recently, the Quad City Times highlighted the successes of the Combat 
Meth Act in an article titled, The Next Step in Meth War. This article 
detailed the efforts of a Scott County Deputy and his dedication in 
fighting the meth war. One noteworthy portion of this article raised a 
question about the lengths that were required for this deputy to do his 
job in combating mom and pop meth labs. The article stated, ``Now we're 
stuck with this image of a detective in each Iowa county sorting 
through thousands of paper forms.'' It read further, ``He must call 
county to county to find out if those purchasing the limit in Scott 
County might be doing so elsewhere as well.'' This statement gets right 
to the heart of our bill. We can't effectively combat meth if we don't 
close the smurfing loophole.
  To address this loophole, Senator Durbin and I have introduced the 
Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2007. This legislation 
would revise the technical requirements of the Combat Meth Act to allow 
for electronic logbook systems. The bill would also create a Federal 
grant program for states looking to create or enhance existing 
electronic logbook systems. Finally, this bill would prioritize these 
Federal grants to states that design and implement the most effective 
systems for sharing information via an electronic logbook system.
  This legislation will take a big step forward in closing this 
loophole that home grown meth cooks abuse. Additionally, it does so 
without creating burdensome mandates upon states to meet requirements. 
This bill facilitates innovation and growth by offering financial 
assistance to states looking to create an electronic logbook system. By 
avoiding mandates, this legislation seeks to promote innovation and 
growth of electronic logbook systems.
  This bill has broad support from the law enforcement community and 
has been endorsed by the National Sheriffs' Association, the National 
Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, National Alliance of State 
Drug Enforcement Agencies, the National Criminal Justice Association, 
the National Troopers Coalition, the National District Attorneys 
Association, the National Association of Counties, and the Community 
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America among others.
  As you can see, this legislation has a broad base of support. Working 
together, state and local governments can use this legislation and 
grant program to create interoperable networks that will reduce the 
illegal smurfing of PSE products and lead us to the goal of ending 
domestic production of meth. I urge my colleagues, join us in support 
of this important legislation and pass the Methamphetamine Production 
Prevention Act of 2007 and help wipe out domestic production of meth.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned 
article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Quad-City Times]

                       The Next Step in Meth War

       Scott County Deputy Robert Jackson figures he searched 
     through 12,000 cold medicine receipts to find three possible 
     meth-making offenders. Needles have better odds in haystacks.
       His diligent work has nailed at least three alleged meth 
     makers who tried to skirt Iowa law restricting purchase of 
     pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in making the recreational 
     poison.
       When Iowa lawmakers began talking about toughening meth 
     laws in 2005, we were among those cautious about what that 
     would mean to the privacy and convenience of the 99.9 percent 
     of Iowans who bought cold medicine for their colds. But the 
     scourge that is meth convinced us the intrusion was minor and 
     the impact could be major. We joined those supporting the 
     bill, which became law.
       Jackson's success in tracking down offenders affirms the 
     intent was correct. ``When I first started doing it, I'd find 
     12 offenders at a time,'' Jackson says of his paper-trail 
     detective work. Meth makers, indeed, were driving from store 
     to store to buy enough of the key ingredient to make enough 
     meth to sell.
       Now he says the pickings are slimmer. And, he says, the 
     county's biggest pharmacies are talking among themselves, 
     inquiring about people who are trying to buck the limit of 
     7,500 milligrams of pseudoephedrine per month. That's 
     eliminated the high volume meth makers.
       What's left, Jackson surmises, are personal meth-using 
     addicts who cook smaller amounts for themselves and a little 
     to deal. Jackson warns that meth use still rages, fueled by 
     drugs shipped from southern states. But the dangerous labs, 
     set up in hotels, cars, even public parks, have diminished 
     considerably, thanks to laws restricting access to 
     ingredients.
       Now we're stuck with this image of a detective in each Iowa 
     county sorting through thousands of paper forms. Although the 
     record-keeping is required, Jackson must get a court order to 
     view the records. He must call county to county to find out 
     if those purchasing the limit in Scott County might be doing 
     so elsewhere as well.
       We're wondering if a central registry of some sort might 
     help enforcement statewide, alerting authorities to 
     individuals making purchases in multiple counties. Compiling 
     the information electronically at the site of purchase 
     certainly would add costs and require careful planning to 
     assure privacy for the 99 percent of law-abiding 
     psuedoephedrine buyers. But it would trim significant 
     enforcement cost by eliminating the hours that officers like 
     Det. Jackson spend combing paper records. And it would detect 
     meth-makers skirting the law by spreading out their purchases 
     over several counties.

                                 ______