[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15] [House] [Page 21894] [From the U.S. 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 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 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. ____________________