[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5596-5600]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1630
               TRANSNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (S. 32) to provide the Department of Justice with additional tools 
to target extraterritorial drug trafficking activity, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 S. 32

       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 ``Transnational Drug 
     Trafficking Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE OR DISTRIBUTION FOR PURPOSES 
                   OF UNLAWFUL IMPORTATIONS.

       Section 1009 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 959) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``It shall'' and all 
     that follows and inserting the following: ``It shall be 
     unlawful for any person to manufacture or distribute a 
     controlled substance in schedule I or II or flunitrazepam or 
     a listed chemical intending, knowing, or having reasonable 
     cause to believe that such substance or chemical will be 
     unlawfully imported into the United States or into waters 
     within a distance of 12 miles of the coast of the United 
     States.
       ``(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or 
     distribute a listed chemical--
       ``(1) intending or knowing that the listed chemical will be 
     used to manufacture a controlled substance; and
       ``(2) intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to 
     believe that the controlled substance will be unlawfully 
     imported into the United States.''.

     SEC. 3. TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES.

       Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 2318(b)(2), by striking ``section 2320(e)'' 
     and inserting ``section 2320(f)''; and
       (2) in section 2320--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4) traffics in a drug and knowingly uses a counterfeit 
     mark on or in connection with such drug,'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(3), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``counterfeit drug'' and 
     inserting ``drug that uses a counterfeit mark on or in 
     connection with the drug''; and
       (C) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (6) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(6) the term `drug' means a drug, as defined in section 
     201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     321).''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 32, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  International drug traffickers are profiting off the misery of 
American citizens, including our children. In recent years, our Nation 
has experienced an epidemic of opioid abuse. A significant part of that 
epidemic involves the trafficking of illicit heroin across our borders 
and into our communities and homes. Every Member in this Chamber today 
has a heartbreaking story about a constituent or a constituent's child 
who has been lost to this scourge.

[[Page 5597]]

  The irony, Mr. Speaker, is that international drug traffickers know 
our drug trafficking laws as well as, if not better than, most 
Americans do. They know that if they simply employ a middleman to take 
the drugs from them and transport them into the U.S., it makes it much 
harder, if not impossible, for U.S. law enforcement to prosecute them 
under those drug trafficking laws.
  Why is it more difficult, you might ask. Because under current law 
the government must prove that a trafficker knew the drugs were headed 
for the United States. Drug trafficking organizations in Colombia, 
Peru, Ecuador, and other Central and South American source nations sell 
their illicit products to Mexican traffickers who, in turn, traffic the 
drugs into the United States.
  This makes it difficult, under current law, for Federal prosecutors 
to make cases against such source nation manufacturers, wholesale 
distributors, brokers, and transporters since direct evidence of their 
intent that the drugs are bound for the United States is difficult, if 
not impossible, to develop.
  The result is that source nation malefactors who produce and 
distribute illegal narcotics escape prosecution under U.S. law because 
they feign ignorance of the drug's ultimate destination. This has 
happened with increasing regularity over the past several years, and it 
is Congress' responsibility to address this problem.
  S. 32, the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015, is identical 
to H.R. 3380, legislation that was introduced by my Committee on the 
Judiciary colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and 
the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).
  This bill makes crucial changes to our Federal drug laws to give law 
enforcement additional tools to combat extraterritorial drug 
trafficking. It does this by amending the Controlled Substances Import 
and Export Act to stipulate that, when a narcotics trafficker or 
manufacturer has a ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the illegal 
narcotics he produces or traffics will be sent into the U.S., the U.S. 
may prosecute him. This amendment will permit Federal prosecutors to 
pursue extraterritorial drug traffickers who are not directly smuggling 
drugs into the United States but who facilitate it.
  S. 32 also amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to 
address the increasingly prevalent problem of trafficking in listed 
chemicals, which are chemicals regulated by the DEA because they are 
used in the manufacture of controlled substances. During a recent codel 
to South and Central America, several of my colleagues and I heard 
firsthand how drug trafficking organizations have relied upon shadowy 
chemical suppliers in the manufacture of methamphetamine, heroin, 
cocaine, and other dangerous narcotics. S. 32 would enable Federal 
prosecutors to reach chemical traffickers who knowingly facilitate and 
benefit from the illicit production and smuggling of listed chemicals.
  Both of these amendments will allow Federal law enforcement to go 
after not the lowly drug mules moving drugs into the United States, but 
the criminals who facilitate at a high level, within the source nation, 
the trafficking of narcotics and precursor chemicals into the United 
States. As one law enforcement official has said to me, it is better to 
fight this battle there than here.
  In addition to these important reforms, S. 32 also amends the 
criminal counterfeit law to include an intent requirement for 
trafficking in counterfeit drugs. I am pleased the House is taking up 
this important bill, which the Senate has already passed unanimously, 
so that it can move expeditiously to the President's desk.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2016.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing to notify you that 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action on S. 
     32, Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015, so that it 
     may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for 
     consideration.
       This is done with the understanding that the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interests over this and 
     similar legislation are in no way altered. In addition, the 
     Committee reserves the right to seek conferees on S. 32 and 
     requests your support when such a request is made.
       I would appreciate your response confirming this 
     understanding and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters 
     on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the bill on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2016.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for your letter regarding S. 
     32, the ``Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015,'' for 
     which the Committee on Energy and Commerce received an 
     additional referral.
       I am most appreciative of your decision to forego formal 
     consideration of S. 32 so that it may proceed to the House 
     floor. I acknowledge that although you are waiving formal 
     consideration of the bill, the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the 
     subject matter contained in those provisions of the bill that 
     fall within your Rule X jurisdiction. In addition, I would 
     support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees on any House-Senate conference involving 
     this legislation.
       Finally, I am pleased to include this letter and your 
     letter in the Congressional Record during floor consideration 
     of S. 32.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like, first, for everyone to know that we here in the 
Congress are working to address the current heroin epidemic. We know 
that illegal drugs continue to present a public health crisis that 
impacts individuals and families in communities across the United 
States. S. 32 attempts to address the illegal importation of the drugs 
coming into the United States by amending section 959 of the Controlled 
Substances Act.
  We have a bit of a problem here, but no one has worked on this longer 
or harder than Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. It is in that spirit that I 
yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for capturing what we in the Committee on the Judiciary have 
been doing over the last couple months. We have been working in a very 
effective, bipartisan manner to deal with the whole scheme, if you 
will, of criminal justice reform. We have been extensively involved in 
what has become a major epidemic across this Nation.
  I listened to a number of legislative initiatives, one dealing with a 
veteran who died from a drug overdose that was just debated here on the 
floor of the House. As I was flying in today, we knew there was an 
incident in my district where a motorcyclist was killed by a driver, a 
young woman who was under the influence of opioids. We know that this 
Transnational Drug Trafficking Act is an important act, and we want to 
continue in our bipartisan effort.
  It is important for me to note a concern that I do not believe the 
sponsors intended, but which I believe must be addressed. This bill is 
intended to help us do more to combat the importation of illegal drugs 
into our country, but it could also subject more people to mandatory 
minimum sentencing, an unfortunate feature of our criminal justice 
system that we must address.
  The United States has been suffering from the damaging effects of 
illicit drug trafficking for decades. The majority of the drugs 
wreaking havoc in the United States originate in foreign countries, 
moving from one country to the next under the direction of powerful and 
wealthy drug kingpins. I think all of my adult life, Mr. Speaker, we 
have heard the words ``drug kingpins''--you cannot live in urban 
America without hearing about them; you cannot live in Texas without 
hearing

[[Page 5598]]

about them--many of whom never see or touch the drugs or enter the 
boundaries of this country themselves.
  Foreign drug kingpins in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru are leading 
producers of cocaine imported into the United States. These kingpins 
lead operations which sell to traffickers in Mexico, who receive the 
drugs from Central America, South America, or Mexico and then smuggle 
the drugs into the United States.
  Certainly, drugs come from all over. The Obama administration 
reported instances of Afghan drug trafficking working with West African 
drug trafficking organizations to smuggle heroin into the United 
States. It is around the world.
  I support the idea that these drug kingpins are dangerous, but S. 32 
is intended to help Federal prosecutors successfully prosecute foreign 
drug traffickers whose criminal activity outside the U.S. threatens the 
health, safety, and security of Americans at home.
  Section 959 makes it a crime to manufacture or distribute controlled 
substances or certain chemicals used to make controlled substances 
intended or knowing that the substance or chemical will ultimately be 
brought illegally into the U.S. or within 12 miles of the coast of the 
U.S. In recent years, Federal prosecutors reported difficulties 
enforcing this statute in some instances.
  Some drug traffickers are aware of the methods used to charge and 
then extradite foreign criminals into the U.S. for prosecution. Drug 
traffickers simply avoid any discussion of the destination of the drug 
shipments. S. 32 would amend section 959, making it easier for 
prosecutors to obtain a conviction against drug traffickers who operate 
in other countries. That is certainly an important mission.
  I am troubled, however, that lowering the intent requirement in the 
statute without limiting its use to leaders and organizers would expose 
even low-level offenders to mandatory minimum sentences. We are working 
now to stop that tide so that we can restore the criminal justice 
system to be just and fair. This would happen, depending on the 
quantity of drugs involved.
  Historically, mandatory minimums created in the late 1980s to target 
kingpins have been largely applied to low-level, nonviolent offenders. 
Mandatory minimums have led to unwarranted and unfair sentences and 
overincarceration. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I am engaged with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the problem of 
mandatory minimum sentencing. I am concerned that S. 32 may make 
matters worse.
  In the Committee on the Judiciary, Ranking Member Conyers proposed a 
very thoughtful amendment to H.R. 3380, the House companion to this 
bill, to specify that the reduced intent standard would only apply to 
leaders and organizers of foreign drug trafficking organizations. The 
amendment would have made certain that the substantial resources, time, 
and money necessary to extradite foreign criminals will be expended 
only on those individuals whose prosecution would disrupt the chain, 
the pipeline, or dismantle drug trafficking networks. If this bill was 
amended as recommended, it would be a useful tool to help target 
leaders of transnational organized crime from Africa to Afghanistan, to 
South and Central America and beyond, networks in the U.S. and abroad, 
priorities and objective detail in the President's strategy to combat 
transnational organized crime.
  In a climate in Congress when we are working on a bipartisan basis to 
make our criminal justice system more just and effective and to reduce 
mandatory minimums, the best course is for us to limit the scope of 
this bill to high-level drug traffickers--a simple fix. While we do not 
have the opportunity to amend this bill today, I ask that my colleagues 
vote against it so that we may continue to work to address this 
concern, which would not undermine the goals of the bill.
  S. 32 also corrects an error in section 2320 of title 18, the statute 
that governs trafficking in counterfeit goods and services. In order to 
prove the offense of trafficking in drugs with counterfeit marks, there 
must be proof that the accused knowingly used a counterfeit mark on or 
in connection with a trafficked drug. I support those changes.
  The underlying change and spirit of the bill is a positive one. We 
are working here together. This scourge is something we must attack.
  May I simply say, Mr. Speaker, I commend the sponsors of this bill 
for their desire to improve our ability to pursue, convict, and 
ultimately imprison top-level drug traffickers who have plagued our 
Nation for decades and beyond. Although I believe this bill still 
requires a simple change to address the unintended issue impacting 
mandatory minimum sentencing, I look forward to us working in the 
manner in which we can work, and I look forward to this concluding in a 
positive way.
  Mr. Speaker. Although I support the goals of the Transnational Drug 
Trafficking Act, I must note a concern that I do not believe the 
sponsors intended but which I believe must be addressed.
  This bill is intended to help us do more to combat the importation of 
illegal drugs into our country.
  But, it could also subject more people to mandatory minimum 
sentencing--an unfortunate feature of our criminal justice system that 
we must address.
  The United States has been suffering from the damaging effects of 
illicit drug trafficking for decades.
  The majority of the drugs wreaking havoc in the U.S. originate in 
foreign countries, moving from one country to the next, under the 
direction of powerful and wealthy drug kingpins--many of whom never see 
or touch the drugs or enter the boundaries of this country themselves.
  Foreign drug kingpins in Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru are the leading 
producers of cocaine imported into the U.S.
  These kingpins lead operations which sell to traffickers in Mexico, 
who receive the drugs in Central America, South America, or Mexico and, 
then, smuggle the drugs into the U.S.
  In 2011 the Obama Administration reported instances of Afghan drug 
trafficking operations working with West African drug trafficking 
organizations to smuggle heroin into the U.S.
  I support enhanced efforts to combat international drug trafficking.
  S. 32 is intended to help federal prosecutors successfully prosecute 
foreign drug traffickers whose criminal activity outside of the U.S. 
threatens the health, safety, and security of Americans at home.
  At present, Section 959 of Title 21 targets criminal conduct 
committed outside of the United States.
  Section 959 makes it a crime to manufacture or distribute controlled 
substances or certain chemicals used to make controlled substances, 
intending or knowing that the substance or chemical will ultimately be 
brought illegally into the U.S. or within 12 miles of the coast of the 
U.S.
  In recent years, federal prosecutors have reported difficulties 
enforcing this statute in some circumstances.
  Since drug traffickers are aware of the methods used to charge and, 
then, extradite foreign criminals into the U.S. for prosecution, drug 
traffickers simply avoid any discussion of the destination of their 
drug shipments.
  This tactic leaves prosecutors with no direct evidence that the 
traffickers know the ultimate destination of their drugs or the drugs 
produced using their chemicals.
  S. 32 would amend Section 959, making it easier for prosecutors to 
obtain a conviction against drug traffickers who operate in other 
countries.
  Prosecutors would no longer be required to prove the accused intended 
or actually knew the drugs or chemicals would be brought illegally into 
the U.S.
  S. 32 would reduce the level of intent necessary to prove the 
accused's guilt, requiring prosecutors to only prove that there was 
reasonable cause for the accused to believe the drugs or chemicals used 
to make the drugs would be brought illegally into the U.S.
  I am troubled, however, that lowering the intent requirement in the 
statute, without limiting its use to leaders and organizers would 
expose even low-level offenders to mandatory minimum sentences, 
depending on the quantity of drugs involved.
  Historically, mandatory minimums created in the late 80's to target 
kingpins have been largely applied to low-level, non-violent offenders.
  Mandatory minimums have led to unwarranted and unfair sentences and 
over-incarceration.

[[Page 5599]]

  As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, I am engaged with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the problem of 
mandatory minimum sentencing.
  I am concerned that S. 32 may make matters worse.
  In the Judiciary Committee markup, Ranking Member Conyers proposed an 
amendment to H.R. 3380, the House companion to this bill, to specify 
that the reduced intent standard would only apply to leaders and 
organizers of foreign drug trafficking organizations.
  The amendment would have made certain that the substantial resources, 
time, and money necessary to extradite foreign criminals would be 
expended only on those individuals whose prosecution would disrupt or 
dismantle drug trafficking networks.
  If this bill was amended as recommended, it would be a useful tool to 
help target leaders of transnational organized crime networks in the 
U.S. and abroad--priorities and objectives detailed in the President's 
Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime.
  In a climate in Congress when we are working on a bipartisan basis to 
make our criminal justice system more just and effective and to reduce 
mandatory minimums, the best course is for us to limit the scope of 
this bill to high-level drug traffickers.
  While we do not have the opportunity to amend this bill today, I ask 
that my colleagues vote against it so that we may continue to work to 
address this concern, which would not undermine the goals of the bill.
  S. 32 also corrects an error in Section 2320 of Title 18, the statute 
that governs trafficking in counterfeit goods and services. In order to 
prove the offense of trafficking in drugs with counterfeit marks, there 
must be proof that the accused knowingly used a counterfeit mark on or 
in connection with a trafficked drug, and I support this change.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I commend the sponsors of this bill for 
their desire to improve our ability to pursue, convict, and, 
ultimately, imprison top-level drug traffickers, although I believe the 
bill still requires a change to address the unintended issue impacting 
mandatory minimum sentencing.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chief sponsor of the 
House companion legislation to the bill before the House at this time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and for 
his leadership in committee and today on this important bipartisan 
piece of legislation.
  I also would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Pierluisi, for 
his stalwart support and work on this bipartisan bill.
  The chairman of the Judiciary Committee is correct in recognizing 
that Federal law often fails to keep up with lawbreakers. As a former 
U.S. attorney, I am acutely aware of the ways criminal organizations 
adapt their practices to skirt Federal law and harm American citizens. 
This bill directly responds to one scenario that has played out time 
and again in our Federal courts.
  I would like to start by making a key point about the purpose of this 
bill and the type of organizations it targets. Our focus through this 
bill is the leaders of sophisticated, often multinational drug-
trafficking organizations with expansive networks of distribution 
internationally.
  This includes source nation manufacturers primarily in South and 
Central America. They are a significant source, if not the largest 
source, of deadly drugs on the streets and in homes across America. It 
also includes the leaders of large ``middleman'' wholesale trafficking 
and distribution organizations.
  I want to stress that the bill does not target petty dealers or low-
level smugglers in the final chain to the narcotics' final destination. 
Instead, the focus is on higher levels of the drug-trafficking chain 
beyond our borders. These are the decisionmakers who have twisted our 
law for their own profit.
  Federal law requires prosecutors to prove that defendant 
manufacturers and traffickers knew the narcotics were destined for the 
U.S. Under their direction, drugs are manufactured and packaged for 
illegal wholesale distribution in these countries outside of the U.S. 
In many instances, the final destination is the United States. But 
these individuals can hide their knowledge or insert additional 
middlemen to potentially evade prosecution.
  One recent case in the D.C. Federal district court perfectly depicts 
this problem. On trial were two Guatemalan nationals, leaders of an 
organization that received tons of cocaine over 13 years from 
manufacturers in Colombia and Venezuela. They built runways and 
warehouses to store and receive such massive quantities of narcotics. 
They then distributed the drugs to additional middlemen in Mexico.
  It was known that these drugs reached the U.S. But the defendants 
claimed that, once they passed them on, they had no knowledge of its 
ultimate destination. At trial, this was their only defense. Currently, 
the law allows them to claim ignorance and simply put the blame on 
those who do their bidding.
  My district and many of my colleagues' districts face a growing 
heroin epidemic. Our efforts this week to counter this crisis are 
crucial to stopping it.
  My final point. This bill is about dismantling international drug-
trafficking organizations. It is about bringing to justice the source 
nation manufacturers and middlemen wholesalers behind the flow of 
deadly narcotics across our borders, nothing else.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill so we can make that happen 
today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we must stop the flow of illegal 
drugs coming into the United States from foreign countries.
  I want to commend our colleagues who have worked with Ms. Jackson Lee 
on this, and I want to commend the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 
Goodlatte, as well for dealing with this very important subject.
  Mr. Speaker, we must avoid subjecting more people to mandatory 
minimum sentences. As a matter of principle, I oppose mandatory minimum 
sentences because they are unjust and unwise.
  The flaws in mandatory minimum sentencing have led to extraordinary 
injustices, prison overcrowding, and excessive cost to taxpayers. They 
have been shown to have a disparate impact on minorities.
  While I am committed to combating the importation of illegal drugs in 
this country, I must oppose the expansion of mandatory minimum 
sentences, which is what S. 32 would do.
  In the Judiciary Committee markup, I offered an amendment to limit 
the scope of the changes that would be made by this bill to the leaders 
or organizers of the drug organizations, in other words, the real 
kingpins.
  Whether or not it is the intent of this bill to target low-level 
offenders, too often it is precisely these individuals who are easier 
to arrest, easier to convict, and subject to mandatory penalties.
  Now, while I understand that we are today considering a Senate-passed 
bill, I maintain that we should take the time to address this issue. 
This bill's expansion of those convicted under the statute should be 
limited to kingpins, those to whom mandatory minimum penalties were 
originally intended to apply in the first place.
  So, accordingly, I sincerely ask my colleagues to vote against this 
bill so that we may address this concern.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, without question, illegal drugs imported 
into the United States have harmed our citizens and our communities in 
innumerable ways. It is critical that appropriate steps be taken to 
address this problem.
  Although S. 32 is a well-intentioned effort to do so, I believe that 
this bill should be amended to address a concern related to mandatory 
minimum sentencing. On this basis, I oppose the bill in its current 
form.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and the ranking subcommittee member 
of the Judiciary Committee from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, in supporting 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 5600]]


  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 32, 
the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015. While I support the 
underlying goal of combating drug trafficking, existing federal 
criminal laws already prohibit and punish this conduct. This bill 
however weakens existing mens rea standards, and therefore could lead 
to the application of mandatory minimums to action which the defendant 
did not know was illegal.
  This bill therefore is a perfect example of four of the most common 
problems in crime policy.
  First, it is a textbook example of overcriminalization, namely the 
careless creation and addition of federal crimes without reviewing if 
that conduct is already sufficiently prohibited and can be prosecuted 
under existing federal criminal laws. Existing federal laws prohibit 
importation and exportation of controlled substances, possession with 
intent to distribute such substances, or attempt or conspiracy to do so 
and therefore already prohibit the very conduct S. 32 was drafted to 
reach.
  Our federal code contains over 5,000 offenses carrying criminal 
penalties, but a precise count eludes not only the Congressional 
research service but also the Department of Justice, the agency charged 
with prosecuting those offenses. The House Judiciary Committee's bi-
partisan Overcriminalization Task Force, upon which I served as Ranking 
Member, found that our Congressional appetite to add new federal 
offenses to demonstrate that we were ``tough on crime,'' instead of 
relying on existing state or federal statutes, was a significant 
driver. If we are serious about cleaning up our federal code, it starts 
with ensuring that the first question we ask when introducing, marking 
up, or voting on a bill is whether that bill is necessary. There is no 
such evidence in the record that the Department of Justice has been 
unable to investigate or prosecute these such cases under existing law, 
nor is there any evidence that the present punishment for violation of 
these laws is insufficient.
  Second, the mens rea standard in S. 32 is weaker than the criminal 
intent standards of existing federal drug statutes carrying mandatory 
minimums. This means that the government can convict based on a lower 
standard of proof. Again, the need for a robust mens rea standard is a 
key Constitutional requirement that ensures that citizens are not 
deprived of their liberty, absent a showing that they were aware that 
their conduct was prohibited and they intended to engage in that 
unlawful conduct. In the wake of discussions about the importance of 
mens rea in protecting defendants who act with innocent intent and/or 
no notice of the illegality of their conduct, it is disappointing to 
see a step in the wrong direction that makes it easier for the 
government to convict them based upon a weaker standard.
  Third, applying S. 32 would lead to unintended consequences due to 
this weaker mens rea standard. Specifically, not only does S. 32 
criminalize ``intending'' or ``knowing'' that one of the prohibited 
chemicals will be used to manufacture a controlled substance, but also 
``having reasonable cause to believe that the controlled substance will 
be unlawfully imported into the United States.''
  Many legitimate industrial chemicals, such as anhydrous ammonia found 
in fertilizer or ephedrine found in sinus medication, and natural 
substances, such as the alkaloid fluid extracted from the bulbs of 
poppy plants, can also be used to process and synthesize some illicitly 
produced drugs.
  Thus, the problem S. 32 presents is that it may sweep too broadly. 
For example, a fertilizer manufacturer or pharmaceutical company or 
florist in Europe could be criminally liable and subject to a mandatory 
minimum penalty. That is because under S. 32's rubric, any 
manufacturer, importer, or distributor of any substance that some 
illicit chemist seeks to turn into an existing, or as-of-yet-developed, 
controlled substance would be vulnerable to federal criminal charges. 
The problem is that S. 32's ``reasonable cause to believe'' benchmark 
is intellectually bankrupt''--is it ``reasonable cause to believe that 
the entity they are shipping it to has requested it for illicit 
purposes'' or merely ``reasonable cause to believe that these are the 
types of chemicals that could be turned into illicit drugs?''
  Lastly, this bill expands the universe of conduct to which a 
mandatory minimum applies. Research and evidence in the past few 
decades has demonstrated that mandatory minimums are ineffective 
deterrents, waste the taxpayers' money, force judges to impose 
irrational sentences, and discriminate against minorities, particularly 
with regards to drug offenses. Unfortunately, there are too many 
mandatory minimums in the federal code. If we expect to do anything 
about that problem, the first step has to be to stop passing new ones. 
The mandatory minimums in the code today did not get there all at 
once--they got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill, 
which on balance might have been a good idea. Therefore, the only way 
to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that 
contain mandatory minimums. Giving lip service to the suggestion that 
you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum had not been in a 
bill, then voting for it anyway, just creates another mandatory minimum 
and guarantees that those who support mandatory minimums will include 
them in the next crime bill. And more mandatory minimums will be 
created and the failed war on drugs will continue.
  If our goal is to ensure that we prosecute transnational drug 
traffickers, let us provide adequate funding to local, state, and 
federal law enforcement agencies to do so under multiple federal 
statutes that already achieve that goal, without raising these 
problematic implementation and fairness concerns.
  In summary, while I support the underlying goal of S. 32, I have 
grave concerns about its redundancy, its erosion of the mens reas 
standard commonly used in these offenses, its broad sweep and its use 
of mandatory minimums. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on S. 
32.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, S. 32.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________