[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19750-19751]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            REDUCING AMERICA'S VULNERABILITY TO ECSTASY ACT

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in June I introduced S. 2633, the Reducing 
America's Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, also known as the RAVE Act. 
Since that time there has been a great deal of misinformation 
circulating about this legislation. I rise today to correct the record. 
Simply stated, my bill provides technical corrections to an existing 
statute, one which has been on the books for 16 years and is well 
established.
  Critics of my bill have asserted that if the legislation were to 
become law ``there would be no way that someone could hold a concert 
and not be liable'' and that the bill ``holds the owners and the 
promoters responsible for the actions of the patrons.'' That is simply 
untrue. We know that there will always be certain people who will bring 
drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge 
or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of 
activity that my bill would address. The purpose of my legislation is 
not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, 
performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities, and other venues 
because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting 
this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such 
cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not 
only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event 
for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a 
high bar.
  I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are 
decent, law-abiding people who are going to discourage drug use, or any 
other illegal activity, at their venues. But there are a few promoters 
out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their 
events. Some of these folks actually distribute drugs themselves or 
have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at 
their events, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional 
flyers, tell their security to ignore drug use or sales, or send 
patients who need medical attention because of a drug overdose to a 
hospital across town so people won't link emergency room visits with 
their club. What they are doing is illegal under current law. My bill 
would not change that fact. Let me be clear. Neither current law nor my 
bill seeks to punish a promoter for the behavior of their patrons. As I 
mentioned, the underlying crack house statute has been on the books 
since 1986, and I am unaware of this statute ever being used to 
prosecute a legitimate business.
  The RAVE Act simply amends the current crack house statute in two 
minor ways. First, it clarifies that Congress intended for the law to 
apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to single-
event activities, such as a party where the promoter sponsors the event 
with the purpose of distributing Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. After 
all, a drug dealer can be arrested and prosecuted for selling one bag 
of drugs, and the government need not show that the dealer is selling 
day after day, or to multiple sellers. Likewise, the bill clarifies 
that a one-time event where the promoter knowingly distributes Ecstasy 
over the course of an evening, for example, violates the statute the 
same as a crack house which is in operation over a period of time. 
Second, the bill makes the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor 
venues, such as where a rogue rave promoter uses a field to hold a rave 
for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Those are the 
only changes the bill makes to the crack house statute. It does not 
give the Federal Government sweeping new powers as the detractors have 
asserted.
  Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a 
disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health 
of their patrons including providing water or air-conditioned rooms, 
making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, et cetera. That 
is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the 
findings, which is the only place in the bill where these items are 
mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for 
selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, 
or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these 
things is not enough to signify that an event is ``for the purpose of'' 
drug use.
  The reason that I introduced the RAVE Act was not to ban dancing, 
kill the ``rave scene'' or silence electronic music, all things of 
which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of 
testimony I heard at a number of hearings about the problems identified 
at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply 
to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or 
distribution. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as 
they are so often advertised, as places for people to come dance in a 
safe, drug-free environment, then they have nothing to fear from this 
law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or 
expression--it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect 
kids.
  I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record about what my 
legislation does and does not do. I hope that all of my colleagues will 
join me in supporting this bill.

[[Page 19751]]



                          ____________________