[House Report 109-299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Rept. 109-299
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 1
======================================================================
METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT
_______
November 16, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3889]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill H.R. 3889 to further regulate and punish illicit conduct
relating to methamphetamine, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendments................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 10
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 10
Hearings......................................................... 29
Committee Consideration.......................................... 30
Vote of the Committee............................................ 30
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 31
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 31
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 31
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 36
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 36
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 36
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 41
Markup Transcript................................................ 48
The Amendments
The amendments are as follows:
Strike titles II and III and insert the following (and
conform the table of contents accordingly):
TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
SEC. 201. INFORMATION ON FOREIGN CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTION; IMPORT
RESTRICTIONS REGARDING FAILURE OF DISTRIBUTORS TO
COOPERATE.
Section 1018 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export
Act (21 U.S.C. 971), as amended by section 105(a) of this Act,
is further amended by adding at the end the following
subsection:
``(g)(1) With respect to a regulated person importing
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine (referred to
in this section as an `importer'), a notice of importation
under subsection (a) or (b) shall include all information known
to the importer on the chain of distribution of such chemical
from the manufacturer to the importer.
``(2) For the purpose of preventing or responding to the
diversion of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine
for use in the illicit production of methamphetamine, the
Attorney General may, in the case of any person who is a
manufacturer or distributor of such chemical in the chain of
distribution referred to in paragraph (1) (which person is
referred to in this subsection as a `foreign-chain
distributor'), request that such distributor provide to the
Attorney General information known to the distributor on the
distribution of the chemical, including sales.
``(3) If the Attorney General determines that a foreign-chain
distributor is refusing to cooperate with the Attorney General
in obtaining the information referred to in paragraph (2), the
Attorney General may, in accordance with procedures that apply
under subsection (c), issue an order prohibiting the
importation of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or
phenylpropanolamine in any case in which such distributor is
part of the chain of distribution for such chemical. Not later
than 60 days prior to issuing the order, the Attorney General
shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to
issue the order. During such 60-day period, imports of the
chemical with respect to such distributor may not be restricted
under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE LARGEST EXPORTING AND IMPORTING
COUNTRIES OF CERTAIN PRECURSOR CHEMICALS.
(a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 489(a) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291h(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8)(A) A separate section that contains the
following:
``(i) An identification of the five countries
that exported the largest amount of
pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine (including the salts,
optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers of
such chemicals, and also including any products
or substances containing such chemicals) during
the preceding calendar year.
``(ii) An identification of the five
countries that imported the largest amount of
the chemicals described in clause (i) during
the preceding calendar year and have the
highest rate of diversion of such chemicals for
use in the illicit production of
methamphetamine (either in that country or in
another country).
``(iii) An economic analysis of the total
worldwide production of the chemicals described
in clause (i) as compared to the legitimate
demand for such chemicals worldwide.
``(B) The identification of countries that imported
the largest amount of chemicals under subparagraph
(A)(ii) shall be based on the following:
``(i) An economic analysis that estimates the
legitimate demand for such chemicals in such
countries as compared to the actual or
estimated amount of such chemicals that is
imported into such countries.
``(ii) The best available data and other
information regarding the production of
methamphetamine in such countries and the
diversion of such chemicals for use in the
production of methamphetamine.''.
(b) Annual Certification Procedures.--Section 490(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``major illicit
drug producing country or major drug-transit country''
and inserting ``major illicit drug producing country,
major drug-transit country, or country identified
pursuant to clause (i) or (ii) of section 489(a)(8)(A)
of this Act''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``(as
determined under subsection (h))'' the following: ``or
country identified pursuant to clause (i) or (ii) of
section 489(a)(8)(A) of this Act''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 706 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (22 U.S.C. 2291j-
1) is amended in paragraph (5) by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Nothing in this section shall affect the
requirements of section 490 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) with respect to countries
identified pursuant to section clause (i) or (ii) of
489(a)(8)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.''.
(d) Plan to Address Diversion of Precursor Chemicals.--In the
case of each country identified pursuant to clause (i) or (ii)
of section 489(a)(8)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(as added by subsection (a)) with respect to which the
President has not transmitted to Congress a certification under
section 490(b) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2291j(b)), the Secretary
of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, not
later than 180 days after the date on which the President
transmits the report required by section 489(a) of such Act (22
U.S.C. 2291h(a)), submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to
address the diversion of the chemicals described in section
489(a)(8)(A)(i) of such Act to the illicit production of
methamphetamine in such country or in another country,
including the establishment, expansion, and enhancement of
regulatory, law enforcement, and other investigative efforts to
prevent such diversion.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary of State to carry out this
section $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
SEC. 203. PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING OF METHAMPHETAMINE INTO THE UNITED
STATES FROM MEXICO.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of State, acting through the
Assistant Secretary of the Bureau for International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement Affairs, shall take such actions as are
necessary to prevent the smuggling of methamphetamine into the
United States from Mexico.
(b) Specific Actions.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) improve bilateral efforts at the United States-
Mexico border to prevent the smuggling of
methamphetamine into the United States from Mexico;
(2) seek to work with Mexican law enforcement
authorities to improve the ability of such authorities
to combat the production and trafficking of
methamphetamine, including by providing equipment and
technical assistance, as appropriate; and
(3) encourage the Government of Mexico to take
immediate action to reduce the diversion of
pseudoephedrine by drug trafficking organizations for
the production and trafficking of methamphetamine.
(c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the implementation of this section for the prior
year.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
TITLE III--ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION
AND TRAFFICKING
SEC. 301. POSSESSION OF SCHEDULED LISTED CHEMICAL WITH INTENT TO
MANUFACTURE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.
Section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841)
is amended by adding at the end the following subsection:
``(g) Except as authorized by this title, any person who
knowingly or intentionally possesses ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, or any of its salts,
optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers, with intent to
manufacture a controlled substance shall be fined in accordance
with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for any term
of years or life, or both.''.
SEC. 302. SMUGGLING METHAMPHETAMINE OR METHAMPHETAMINE PRECURSOR
CHEMICALS INTO THE UNITED STATES WHILE USING
FACILITATED ENTRY PROGRAMS.
(a) Enhanced Prison Sentence.--The sentence of imprisonment
imposed on a person convicted of an offense under the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et
seq.), involving methamphetamine or any listed chemical that is
defined in section 102(33) of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802(33), shall, if the offense is committed under the
circumstance described in subsection (b), be increased by a
consecutive term of imprisonment of not more than 15 years.
(b) Circumstances.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
circumstance described in this subsection is that the offense
described in subsection (a) was committed by a person who--
(1) was enrolled in, or who was acting on behalf of
any person or entity enrolled in, any dedicated
commuter lane, alternative or accelerated inspection
system, or other facilitated entry program administered
or approved by the Federal Government for use in
entering the United States; and
(2) committed the offense while entering the United
States, using such lane, system, or program.
(c) Permanent Ineligibility.--Any person whose term of
imprisonment is increased under subsection (a) shall be
permanently and irrevocably barred from being eligible for or
using any lane, system, or program described in subsection
(b)(1).
SEC. 303. MANUFACTURING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.
Subsection (b) of section 401 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)) is amended in paragraph (5) by inserting
``or manufacturing'' after ``cultivating''.
SEC. 304. INCREASED PUNISHMENT FOR METHAMPHETAMINE KINGPINS.
Section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Special Provision for Methamphetamine.--For the
purposes of subsection (b), in the case of continuing criminal
enterprise involving methamphetamine or its salts, isomers, or
salts of isomers, paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by
substituting `200' for `300', and paragraph (2)(B) shall be
applied by substituting `$5,000,000' for `$10 million dollars'.
''.
SEC. 305. NEW CHILD-PROTECTION CRIMINAL ENHANCEMENT.
(a) In General.--The Controlled Substances Act is amended by
inserting after section 419 (21 U.S.C. 860) the following:
``consecutive sentence for manufacturing or distributing, or possessing
with intent to manufacture or distribute, methamphetamine on premises
where children are present or reside
``Sec. 419a. Whoever violates section 401(a)(1) by
manufacturing or distributing, or possessing with intent to
manufacture or distribute, methamphetamine or its salts,
isomers or salts of isomers on premises in which an individual
who is under the age of 18 years is present or resides, shall,
in addition to any other sentence imposed, be imprisoned for a
period of any term of years but not more than 20 years, subject
to a fine, or both. ''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 419 the
following new item:
``Sec. 419a. Consecutive sentence for manufacturing or distributing, or
possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute,
methamphetamine on premises where children are present or
reside.''.
SEC. 306. AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN SENTENCING COURT REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
Section 994(w) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``, in a format approved and
required by the Commission,'' after ``submits
to the Commission'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting ``written'' before
``statement of reasons''; and
(ii) by inserting ``and which shall
be stated on the written statement of
reasons form issued by the Judicial
Conference and approved by the United
States Sentencing Commission'' after
``applicable guideline range''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``The information referred to in subparagraphs (A) through (F)
shall be submitted by the sentencing court in a format approved
and required by the Commission.''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``may assemble or
maintain in electronic form that include any'' and
inserting ``itself may assemble or maintain in
electronic form as a result of the''.
SEC. 307. SEMIANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, on a semiannual
basis, submit to the congressional committees and organizations
specified in subsection (b) reports that describe--
(1) the allocation of the resources of the Drug
Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for the investigation and prosecution of
alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act
involving methamphetamine; and
(2) the measures being taken to give priority in the
allocation of such resources to such violations
involving--
(A) persons alleged to have imported into the
United States substantial quantities of
methamphetamine, or ephedrine, pseudoephedrine,
or phenylpropanolamine or any of its salts,
optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers;
(B) persons alleged to have manufactured
methamphetamine; and
(C) circumstances in which the violations
have endangered children.
(b) Congressional Committees.--The congressional committees
and organizations referred to in subsection (a) are--
(1) in the House of Representatives, the Committee on
the Judiciary, the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and the Committee on Government Reform; and
(2) in the Senate, the Committee on the Judiciary,
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control.
Add at the end the following title (and conform the table of
contents accordingly):
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
SEC. 501. IMPROVEMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DRUG COURT GRANT
PROGRAM.
Section 2951 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797u) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) Mandatory Drug Testing and Mandatory Sanctions.--
``(1) Mandatory testing.--Grant amounts under this
part may be used for a drug court only if the drug
court has mandatory periodic testing as described in
subsection (a)(3)(A). The Attorney General shall, by
prescribing guidelines or regulations, specify
standards for the timing and manner of complying with
such requirements. The standards--
``(A) shall ensure that--
``(i) each participant is tested for
every controlled substance that the
participant has been known to abuse,
and for any other controlled substance
the Attorney General or the court may
require; and
``(ii) the testing is accurate and
practicable; and
``(B) may require approval of the drug
testing regime to ensure that adequate testing
occurs.
``(2) Mandatory sanctions.--The Attorney General
shall, by prescribing guidelines or regulations,
specify that grant amounts under this part may be used
for a drug court only if the drug court imposes
graduated sanctions that increase punitive measures,
therapeutic measures, or both whenever a participant
fails a drug test. Such sanctions and measures may
include, but are not limited to, one or more of the
following:
``(A) Incarceration.
``(B) Detoxification treatment.
``(C) Residential treatment.
``(D) Increased time in program.
``(E) Termination from the program.
``(F) Increased drug screening requirements.
``(G) Increased court appearances.
``(H) Increased counseling.
``(I) Increased supervision.
``(J) Electronic monitoring.
``(K) In-home restriction.
``(L) Community service.
``(M) Family counseling.
``(N) Anger management classes.''.
SEC. 502. GRANTS TO HOT SPOT AREAS TO REDUCE AVAILABILITY OF
METHAMPHETAMINE.
Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``PART II--CONFRONTING USE OF METHAMPHETAMINE
``SEC. 2996. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY AND
METHAMPHETAMINE MANUFACTURING, SALE, AND USE IN HOT
SPOTS.
``(a) Purpose and Program Authority.--
``(1) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this part to
assist States--
``(A) to carry out programs to address the
manufacture, sale, and use of methamphetamine
drugs; and
``(B) to improve the ability of State and
local government institutions of to carry out
such programs.
``(2) Grant authorization.--The Attorney General,
through the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Office
of Justice Programs may make grants to States to
address the manufacture, sale, and use of
methamphetamine to enhance public safety.
``(3) Grant projects to address methamphetamine
manufacture sale and use.--Grants made under subsection
(a) may be used for programs, projects, and other
activities to--
``(A) investigate, arrest and prosecute
individuals violating laws related to the use,
manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
``(B) reimburse the Drug Enforcement
Administration for expenses related to the
clean up of methamphetamine clandestine labs
and related environmental damage;
``(C) support State and local health
department and environmental agency services
deployed to address methamphetamine; and
``(D) procure equipment, technology, or
support systems, or pay for resources, if the
applicant for such a grant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Attorney General that
expenditures for such purposes would result in
the reduction in the use, sale, and manufacture
of methamphetamine.
``SEC. 2997. FUNDING.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $99,000,000 for each fiscal year 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010.''.
SEC. 503. GRANTS FOR PROGRAMS FOR DRUG-ENDANGERED CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
States for the purpose of carrying out programs to provide a
comprehensive response to aid children who are living in a home
in which methamphetamine or other controlled substances are
unlawfully manufactured, administered, or distributed.
(b) Certain Requirements.--The Attorney General shall ensure
that the procedures and services of programs carried out with
grants under subsection (a) include the following:
(1) Coordination among law enforcement agencies,
prosecutors, child protective services, and health
professionals.
(2) Removal of children from toxic or drug-
endangering environments.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 and
2007. Amounts appropriated under the preceding sentence shall
remain available until expended.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 3889, the ``Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act
of 2005,'' is crafted to respond to the alarming increase of
methamphetamine abuse across our country. Methamphetamine
presents a number of unique challenges as it has been found to
be produced on both the large and small scale--mostly as a
result of simple production process that involves ingredients
that are commonly available household chemicals. The harmful
effects of methamphetamine are well documented and present
extensive dangers that affect both the physical and mental
health of the user. In addition, the volatile chemical reaction
used to create methamphetamine can endanger not only the
producer, but anyone in the vicinity of the laboratory,
including children.
The various factors involved in the methamphetamine
epidemic require a multifaceted solution that addresses not
only the means by which the user acquires the drug, but also
the characteristics associated with its abuse. By maintaining a
better control of methamphetamine precursor chemicals,
addressing the environmental impact of methamphetamine
production, providing enhanced criminal penalties for
convictions involving methamphetamine, and authorizing the
appropriate funding to assist law enforcement agencies cope
with the costs of battling methamphetamine use--H.R. 3889
provides a comprehensive plan at the Federal level to stem the
national abuse of this drug.
Background and Need for the Legislation
What is methamphetamine
Methamphetamine, commonly referred to as ``meth'', is among
the most powerful and dangerous drugs available. Street
methamphetamine is referred to by many names, such as
``speed,'' ``meth,'' and ``chalk.'' \1\ First synthesized in
1919 in Japan, methamphetamine, a derivative of amphetamine, is
a powerful stimulant that affects the central nervous system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/methamphetamine.html
(last visited August 23, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How meth affects the human body
Methamphetamine, as an abused illegal substance, can be
smoked, snorted, orally ingested, and injected. Immediately
after smoking or intravenous injection, the methamphetamine
user experiences an intense sensation, called a ``rush'' or
``flash,'' that lasts only a few minutes and is both extremely
pleasurable and psychologically addictive. This ``rush'' is the
result of a release of high levels of dopamine into the section
of the brain that controls the feeling of pleasure. Smoking
meth produces a high that lasts 8-24 hours compared to a 20-30
minute high produced by smoking cocaine.\2\ Fifty percent of
meth remains in the body 12 hours after use compared to fifty
percent of cocaine remaining in the body after only 1 hour.\3\
Oral or intra-nasal use produces a euphoric high, but not the
rush brought on by smoking or injection. This type of ingestion
is common among lower intensity abusers, and serves as a
gateway to methamphetamine addiction. Oral ingestion takes
about 15 to 20 minutes for the user to feel the effects.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See http://www.methamphetamineaddiction.com/
methamphetamine_meth.html (last visited August 23, 2005).
\3\ Id.
\4\ See http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/
methamph/ (last visited August 23, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic use of methamphetamine can result in a tolerance
for the drug. Consequently, users may try to intensify the
desired effects by taking higher doses of the drug, taking it
more frequently, or changing their method of ingestion. Some
users, while refraining from eating and sleeping, will binge on
methamphetamine. During these binges, users will inject as much
as a gram of methamphetamine every 2 to 3 hours over several
days until they run out of the drug or are too dazed to
continue use. Meth produces feelings of euphoria, increases
energy, and reduces appetite. Thus, the drug is especially
alluring to those who need to stay alert on the job or at
school or who are trying to lose weight. Another reason for
meth's popularity is its ability to enhance a person's sex
drive, although chronic use eventually destroys it.\5\ After
the initial rush of intense feelings, users are prone to become
highly agitated and nervous, which can lead to violent
behaviors. Because the effects of meth are usually pleasurable
at first, many users wish to repeat the experience, which is
the beginning of a cycle of psychological addiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Poovey, B. ``Sex Appeal Part of Meth's Charm,'' Associated
Press, October 24, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health impacts of meth
The side effects most commonly associated with meth abuse
include convulsions, dangerously high body temperature, stroke,
cardiac arrhythmia, stomach cramps, and shaking.\6\
Methamphetamine releases high levels of the neurotransmitter
dopamine, which stimulates brain cells, enhancing mood and body
movement. It also appears to have a neurological effect,
damaging brain cells that contain dopamine as well as
serotonin, another neurotransmitter. Methamphetamine use,
therefore, increases energy and alertness and decreases
appetite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The central nervous system (CNS) damage that results from
taking even small amounts of methamphetamine include increased
wakefulness, increased physical activity, decreased appetite,
increased respiration, hyperthermia, and euphoria. Other
effects resulting from CNS damage include irritability,
insomnia, confusion, tremors, convulsions, anxiety, paranoia,
and aggressiveness.
Methamphetamine also causes increased heart rate and blood
pressure that can result in irreversible damage to blood
vessels in the brain, producing strokes. Over time,
methamphetamine appears to cause reduced levels of natural
dopamine production, which can result in symptoms like those of
Parkinson's disease. Other long term effects of methamphetamine
include respiratory problems, irregular heartbeat, and extreme
anorexia. If abused regularly its use can even result in
cardiovascular collapse and death.
Methamphetamine addiction
Tolerance to methamphetamine develops rapidly, causing
users to quickly escalate the doses used in order to experience
the high desired. Commonly, over a short period of time, users
will arrive to a level of addiction demanding several days of
long, sleepless binges. Binges can last for a week or more, and
end with sudden crashes with the user collapsing from
exhaustion, sleeping for as long as several days in a row.
After a binge the user returns to reality with an onslaught
of severe depression. In order to gain relief from the
depression, users desperately seek a new binge that will return
them to the euphoric, yet increasingly elusive and devastating,
meth high.
Psychological impact of methamphetamine
Regular methamphetamine abuse frequently leads to psychotic
behavior including intense paranoia, visual and auditory
hallucinations, and out-of-control rages that can result in
violent episodes. Users can display a number of psychotic
features, including paranoia that results in suicidal thoughts,
auditory hallucinations, mood disturbances, and delusions.
Addicted users at times develop sores on their bodies from
scratching at ``crank bugs,'' which describes the common
delusion that bugs are crawling under the skin. The shocking
results of this delusion to the user's appearance provides a
symbolic, poignant example of the overall, ravaging effects of
meth abuse as testified to by a former meth user from Pacific
Beach:
It's like selling your soul to the devil. When I was
high, I felt alive for the first time in my life. While
I was using, I thought nothing could touch me. I was
beautiful and perfect in my meth world. In the real
world, my body was rotting from the inside out.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See http//www.no2meth.org/dangers.html.
Once a cessation of methamphetamine use takes place,
several withdrawal symptoms commonly arise. These symptoms
include severe depression, anxiety, fatigue, paranoia,
aggression, and an intense craving for the drug. Psychotic
symptoms can sometimes persist for months or years after use
has ceased.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/
methamph/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practical consequences of meth abuse
Amidst the destructive cycle of binging and collapsing,
meth makes users more accident prone, more easily confused, and
significantly reduces their ability to work constructively and
safely. Consequently, users have difficulty finding and holding
jobs, they neglect and often abuse their children, and allow
their homes to fall into disrepair and filth. All these
consequences result from psychological methamphetamine
addiction.
``Methamphetamine suddenly becomes this thing in their life
that they can't do without,'' said Det. Cpl. Jake Grellner,
Franklin County, Missouri.\9\ ``They can do without the hamster
and the dog and the cat and the kids and the wife and the cars
and the house and the job. But they can't do without meth, and
they live each day to get enough stuff, to manufacture the next
batch, so they can get high again. . . . It's that addictive,
that bad.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Cold Meds: A Rural Drug Epidemic,'' CBS, March 2, 2005; See
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/01/60II/main677228.html (last
visited August 30, 2005).
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spread of the meth epidemic
The methamphetamine problem has grown at a dramatic rate,
and is now considered the most significant drug abuse problem
in the country. In a July 18, 2005 speech to district
attorneys, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned, ``In
terms of damage to children and to our society, meth is now the
most dangerous drug in America.''\11\ The impact of this
problem has hit local law enforcement and communities with
dramatic consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,
National District Attorneys Association meeting, Portland, Maine, July
18, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not easy to determine precisely how many Americans
use or have used meth. Two commonly used surveys of drug use
suggest that about one in twenty Americans has tried meth.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services
Results From the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health:
National Findings, more than 12 million people age 12 and
older, or 5.3 percent of the population, reported that they had
used methamphetamine at least once in their lifetime. Of those
surveyed 597,000 persons age 12 or older reported past month
use of methamphetamine. In 2002, estimates of annual
methamphetamine use by secondary school students ranged from
2.2 percent among 8th graders, to 3.9 percent among 10th
graders, to 3.6 percent among 12th graders.
However, it is unclear whether these surveys, which rely
entirely on voluntary reporting by individuals, are able to
reach and sample that segment of the population with the
highest meth use rates. Other data, such as the Arrestee Drug
Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) survey, suggest that meth use rates may
be much higher. In some Western cities, nearly one-third to
one-half of arrestees for any crime test positive for meth; for
example, in Honolulu, 40.3 percent of menjailed tested positive
for methamphetamine in 2003.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 2004,''
National Institute of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican super-lab production and trafficking
Beginning around 1994, Mexican drug trafficking
organizations operating out of Mexico and California began to
take control of the production and distribution of
methamphetamine from outlaw motorcycle gangs. The Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) estimates that the majority of the
U.S. methamphetamine production and distribution is controlled
by Mexican crime groups operating out of Mexico, California,
and the Southwestern United States. Outlaw motorcycle gangs
remain active in methamphetamine production, but do not produce
anywhere near the quantities now being distributed by the
Mexican organizations.
Methamphetamine production appears to have increased
sharply in Mexico since 2002. Due to the successes of the DEA
investigations between 2002 and 2003, U.S. importation of bulk
pseudoephedrine from Canada dramatically dropped and the U.S.
price of bulk pseudoephedrine more than doubled. These
enforcement successes at the Northern border have forced
traffickers to import pseudoephedrine from Hong Kong into
Mexico, increasing methamphetamine manufacturing and smuggling
of finished methamphetamine from Mexico into the U.S. across
the Southwest Border.
The dominant presence of these Mexican methamphetamine
trafficking groups can be partially attributed to their access
to chemicals and established distribution networks. These
trafficking groups are also often involved in the distribution
of other illicit drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.
Through the distribution of these illicit substances, over the
years these groups have established transportation and
distribution networks throughout the United States. The
exploitation of these existing distribution networks and the
production capability of their clandestine laboratories has
enabled the Mexican groups to establish a national dominance in
the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine.
These groups have established contacts with chemical
suppliers in Europe, Canada, Asia and the Far East, who provide
access to precursor chemicals, reagents and solvents. The
resulting availability of ton quantities of chemicals, such as
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, has permitted these groups to
establish and operate large-scale clandestine laboratories in
Mexico and California. These laboratories are capable of
producing unprecedented quantities of methamphetamine,
saturating the wholesale/retail markets throughout the United
States. Many of the ``super labs'' (laboratories capable of
producing 10 or more pounds of methamphetamine within a
production cycle) seized in the United States have been
associated with Mexican traffickers.
Increasing flow of meth from Mexico across southwest border
The recent DEA operations directed at illegal Canadian
importation were directed primarily against DEA licensed
chemical companies that provided precursors for illegal drug
production. These operations proved effective in cutting off
the supply of domestic origin pseudoephedrine to the large
Mexican controlled ``super labs.'' The DEA's first priority
concerning the outbreak of methamphetamine abuse is increased
enforcement efforts against Mexican methamphetamine
organizations that operate large-scale labs (``super labs'') in
Mexico, California, and the Southwestern United States. DEA
continues to target and seize these ``super labs.'' As a second
priority, the DEA is working with our partners around the globe
to target international methamphetamine traffickers,
particularly Mexican groups that produce the majority of
methamphetamine trafficked in the United States.
Four recent large seizures of pseudoephedrine illustrate
Mexican traffickers' ability to obtain large quantities of
precursor chemicals from international sources and to adapt to
changes in the availability of Canadian pseudoephedrine.
Between March 21 and April 25, 2003, in excess of 22 million
pseudoephedrine tablets were seized in Panama and Laredo,
Texas.\13\ The tablets were manufactured in Hong Kong and
destined for Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Testimony of Rogelio E. Guevara, Chief of Operations, Drug
Enforcement Administration, on July 18, 2003 at Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources hearing entitled:
``Facing the Methamphetamine Problem in America.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting on the exact number of methamphetamine
clandestine laboratories seized in Mexico is inconsistent.
Official Government of Mexico figures as reported in the
International Narcotics Control Strategic Report (INCSR)
reflect that 10 labs were destroyed in 2002, down from the 18
seized in 2001. In 2002, according to information provided by
Mexican authorities in Baja California, however, 53 labs were
seized in Baja alone and Mexico Interpol reports that 13 labs
were seized or destroyed.\14\ This discrepancy may reflect the
limited resources and lack of coordination in Mexico to
successfully attack the problem. In any case, the relatively
small number of clandestine laboratories seized belies the
large-scale production of methamphetamine that is believed to
occur in Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3889 contains enhanced criminal penalties against
persons trafficking large amounts of precursor chemicals, with
intent to manufacture meth. Individuals caught smuggling meth
or precursor chemicals through special ``fastpass'' lanes at
border crossings (like NEXUS or SENTRI) will face stiffer
penalties. The bill allows for the current penalties for
growing illegal drugs on Federal property to be applied in
cases when narcotics are being manufactured. H.R. 3889 also
makes it easier to apply enhanced penalties against the
``kingpins'', or ringleaders, of major meth trafficking
organizations by lowering triggering thresholds.
Meth: made in the USA
While a majority of the meth used in the United States
comes from large labs based in Mexico, small producers across
the country can churn out usable quantities of the drug. The
National Association of Counties recently published a survey
that shows that 60 percent of responding counties stated
methamphetamine was their largest drug problem; 67 percent
reportedincreases in meth related arrests. According to the
report, ``The illicit production of synthetic drugs is a problem that
the United States has suffered for years. In the past five years, the
use of synthetic drugs has climbed dramatically, a fact that lends
urgency to the effort to control them.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See ``National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan,'' Law Enforcement
and the Fight against Methamphetamine hearing before the Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Second Session,
Nov. 18, 2004. Serial No. 108-287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until the late 1980's, methamphetamine's popularity was
primarily confined to the west coast and southwest. By the
early 1990's, however, methamphetamine was gaining in
popularity, spreading west to east across the country, and
hitting rural areas particularly hard. Between 1992 and 1994,
the purity of meth on the street skyrocketed, from 46 percent
all the way up to 73 percent. At the same time, the number of
users entering rehabilitation for meth abuse doubled.\16\ Of
particular concern, methamphetamine use has been emerging in
suburban, small town, and rural settings previously thought to
be largely unaffected by illicit drug use; the drug is also
finding its way into populations not previously known to use
this drug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Suo, Steve, ``Lobbyists and Loopholes,'' The Oregonian,
October 4, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methamphetamine use is a particularly serious problem in
some rural areas, many of which lack the infrastructures
necessary to deal with a major drug problem. For example, many
rural jurisdictions do not have local treatment providers or
the expertise to respond to methamphetamine abusers. Similarly,
law enforcement officials in rural areas lack the training and
financial resources to deal with laboratory cleanup costs
associated with the methamphetamine manufacturing in their
communities.
The mid-1990's saw the development of two parallel currents
in methamphetamine production and trafficking. First,
neighborhood small toxic labs (STL's) were developed to
facilitate local production of methamphetamine by accessing
precursors in cold medicines. Neighborhood STL's have continued
to proliferate throughout the country, following the spread of
methamphetamine abuse eastward and creating epidemic crime,
environmental hazards, and social issues. Second, Mexican
criminal organizations, based in Mexico and California, began
to produce high-purity, low-cost methamphetamine in super labs
for distribution in cities on the West coast and Midwest with
Mexican populations.
Small toxic labs
Until the early 1990s, methamphetamine was made mostly in
clandestine labs run by drug traffickers in Mexico and
California; areas that are still the largest illegal U.S.
producers. Since then, however, authorities have discovered
increasing numbers of small-scale methamphetamine labs all over
the United States. These STL's are commonly located in rural,
suburban, or low-income areas spread throughout the U.S. The
meth problem is most prevalent in suburban and rural areas of
the Southwest and Midwest, but is slowly moving eastward,
reportedly having arrived in western parts of Virginia, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For example, according to one news report, ``In Virginia, the
number of lab seizures jumped from 8 in 1999 to 73 in 2004. In South
Carolina, they surged from 7 in 1999 to 154 in 2004. New York reported
just one in 1999 but 28 in 2004.'' Bivins, Larry and Brogan, Pamela,
``Meth Epidemic Advances on Northeast,'' Gannett News Service, August
18, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics show laboratory seizures are highest in the
Pacific Region (particularly in California, Washington, and
Oregon) and in Arizona, Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
Almost every state in the West Central Region is experiencing
increases in clandestine laboratory activity, and according to
State and local law enforcement, laboratory seizures are on the
rise in Texas and throughout the Southeast Region. Generally,
local production has followed the appearance of methamphetamine
within local drug user populations almost immediately, but
local production has not completely displaced outside sources.
There are thousands of STLs across the United States: more than
7,700 domestic small-scale labs with capacities under ten
pounds in 2001,\18\ and possibly as many as 16,000 labs in
2004.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/drug_traffickingp.html
(last visited August 31, 2005).
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efforts to estimate domestic production are severely
hampered by the lack of a universally accepted definition of a
clandestine laboratory and the lack of routine reporting of
laboratory seizures to the EPIC's National Clandestine
Laboratory Database. Information provided by State and local
law enforcement agencies suggests that total laboratory
seizures may be underreported.
The materials needed for a clandestine lab are available to
almost anyone. There are literally thousands of recipes and
easily accessible information about making meth available on
the Internet. In addition, with an investment of only a few
hundred dollars in over-the-counter medications and
commercially available household chemicals, thousands of
dollars worth of methamphetamine can be produced. According to
a country official from rural Ohio, ``Unlike heroin and
cocaine, which is produced in foreign countries, everything you
would need to make methamphetamine is available right here in
Clinton County. Within a half a mile of where we sit, we could
find everything we need to start a lab, make enough meth to get
high and enough to sell to make some money to make another
batch.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Testimony of Randy Riley, Clinton County Commissioner, on
August 23, 2005, at Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources hearing entitled: ``Law Enforcement and the Fight
Against Methamphetamine: Improving Federal, State, and Local Efforts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently mobile methamphetamine and hotel-based labs have
caught the attention of both the news media and law
enforcement. These have been seen as a public safety issue
because of the increased exposure of the general public to
hazardous chemicals, explosions and fires. Inaddition to these
serious issues there is also the likelihood of the ``cook'' being well
armed.
In Multnomah County, Oregon, for example, the costs of
property crimes, fires, incremental foster care, meth lab
clean-ups, and HIV/AIDS and hepatitis-C infection healthcare
costs totaled over $102.3 million in 2004. At $363 per
household, it was more than the average 2004 Multnomah County
income tax. This estimation excludes all substantial costs
incurred in treatment, education, law enforcement,
adjudication, and incarceration in response to meth abuse.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Whelan, Robert, and Boggess, Sam, ``The Multnomah County
Tax,'' ECONorthwest, April 23, 2005; See http://www.econw.com/pdf/
FINALMethTax.pdf (last visited August 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child abuse, neglect, and exposure to toxic waste
Methamphetamine manufacturing has added a new casualty to
its long list of victims caught in the morass of drug abuse. In
increasing numbers, children of methamphetamine producers have
become victimized by their parents' illegal manufacture and use
of this substance. These parents neglect their children's
development and place them in hazardous living conditions that
can cause serious health problems, even death. Law enforcement
officers have found it increasingly difficult to find safe
havens for these children left behind by their parents' arrest.
Beyond methamphetamine abuse by children ``reports of child
abuse or neglect related to crystal meth have risen
dramatically. These increases reflect our systemic response to
changing needs and issues, as the complexity of substance-
abusing families presents a national challenge, particularly in
the area of crystal-methamphetamine.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Statement of Freida S. Baker, MSW, Deputy Director, Family and
Children's Services, Alabama State Department of Human Resources, on
July 26, 2005, at Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources hearing entitled: ``Fighting Meth in America's
Heartland: Assessing the Impact on Local Law Enforcement and Child
Welfare Services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from the obvious inherent dangers associated with the
explosiveness of meth labs--chemical burns and exposure to
hazardous chemicals and deadly gases represent some of the more
insidious and overlooked injuries caused by living in a
methamphetamine lab environment. For example, authorities have
found babies crawling on carpets where toxic chemicals used to
make methamphetamine have spilled. They have seen children
cooking their own meals in the same microwave ovens that their
parents used to produce methamphetamine, and have discovered
chemicals used in methamphetamine production stored in open or
improperly sealed containers in areas where children played.
These chemicals emit hazardous fumes toxic enough to burn
lungs; damage the brain, kidneys, and liver; or even kill these
children. In a recent case, two boys received second-degree
chemical burns on their arms when they fell off their bikes
onto a patch of dirt in their backyard. Police officers
discovered that their parents had dumped leftover waste from
their methamphetamine production in the yard.
Unlike other forms of drug abuse, which tend to affect only
one member of a family, meth abuse most commonly occurs as a
family affair in which both parents are users. This places the
children of these parents at severe risk. According to a
Tennessee children's services official, meth abuse is ``the
worst form of child endangerment that I have ever seen. It's
what happens when methamphetamine takes over a family's life
and threatens to destroy everything--especially the children
who have the misfortune of living beneath the same roof as
their drug-addicted parents.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Statement of Betsy Dunn, Child Protection Services, Tennessee
Department of Children's Services, on July 26, 2005, at Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources hearing entitled:
``Fighting Meth in America's Heartland: Assessing the Impact on Local
Law Enforcement and Child Welfare Services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child abuse and neglect are tragically resulting from meth
abuse at a disturbingly high rate. Forty percent of all child
welfare officials from more than 300 counties in 13 states
report increased out of home placements because of meth in the
last year, and approximately 3,000 children were found during
meth lab seizures in 2003.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See ``The Meth Epidemic in America,'' National Association of
Counties, July 5, 2005; ``National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan,'' White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to one report, ``About 30-35 percent of meth labs
seized are in residences where children live. Children are at
an increased risk in a meth lab environment because of their
physiologic status (higher rates of growth, metabolism,
respiration, and development) and their behaviors (hand-to-
mouth behaviors and increased contact with their physical
environment). At least two reports have demonstrated that 35-70
percent of children removed from labs have a urine drug screen
that is positive for methamphetamine at the time of removal
from the home.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See http://www.mappsd.org/meth_child_abuse_wells.htm (last
visited September 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Meth plays a role in roughly half the serious child-abuse
cases in my 16-county region--720 of 1,469 active, long-term
cases. If that ratio applied statewide, Iowa would be
experiencing more than 6,000 meth-related child abuse cases per
year,'' according to Carol Gutchewsky, a regional supervisor of
Iowa social workers.\26\ This reality exponentially aggravates
the difficulties with attempting to reconcile neglected and
abused children with their parents. Since most child welfare
programs are tailored to dealing with individual abuse it is
becoming increasingly clear that new treatment and
reconciliation models need to be developed in response to meth.
``An infant's or a child's brain gets hijacked by the drug.''
\27\ From 1995 to 2002, methamphetamine related emergency room
visits involving patients age 6 to 17 increased 88 percent
(from 2,338 to 4,394).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Crary, David, ``Kids Suffer from Parent's Meth Addiction,''
Billings Gazette, March 28, 2005.
\27\ ``Meth's Toll on Midwest Kids,'' Associated Press, March 28,
2005; See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/28/health/
main683585.html (last visited August 30, 2005).
\28\ ``Amphetamine and Methamphetamine Emergency Department
Visits,'' The DAWN Report, July 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 503 of H.R. 3889 authorizes the appropriation of
$40 million in grant money over the next two years. These
grants will help fund programs that assist children who are
living in a home in which meth or other illegal narcotics are
manufactured, distributed, or used. Furthermore, H.R. 3889
increases the criminal penalties for those cooking or dealing
meth where children live or are present.
Environmental hazards
The proliferation of methamphetamine laboratories in the
United States poses a threat to the safety of citizens,
especially children, in areas near those laboratories and to
law enforcement personnel called upon to remove those
laboratories. According to EPIC, law enforcement agencies
seized almost 7,200 clandestine methamphetamine laboratories in
1999, although the DEA acknowledges that a significant number
of laboratory seizures are not reported to EPIC or Regional
Intelligence Sharing Systems.
The average methamphetamine laboratory produces 5 to 7
pounds of toxic waste for every pound of methamphetamine
produced. The cost of cleaning laboratory sites places a heavy
financial responsibility on law enforcement agencies and
governments at all levels. Law enforcement personnel are
required by Federal law to be trained and certified to
participate in a laboratory cleanup operation.
According to State and local law enforcement agencies, the
costs of remediating a methamphetamine laboratory ranges from
$2,500 for the smallest laboratories to over $250,000 for the
largest. While some remediation costs are borne by the DEA, the
expense of removing methamphetamine laboratories is prohibitive
for most law enforcement agencies, especially smaller, rural
departments with limited staffing, limited funds, and an
abundance of local laboratories.
Increasing laboratory seizures nationwide have depleted
available remediation funds; one department has reported that
it ``cannot afford to seize any more meth labs.'' \29\ These
labs are created safety hazards in a wide variety of locales:
in barns, garages and other outbuildings; back rooms of
businesses; apartments; hotel and motel rooms; storage
facilities; vacant buildings; trailer homes; residential homes;
residential sheds; and vehicles. Simply put, all that is needed
is any physical structure with a small, empty space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ National Drug Intelligence Center; National Drug Threat
Assessment 2001--The Domestic Perspective, October 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study by the National Jewish Medical and Research Center
in Denver, Colorado, measured the toxic fumes meth labs emit
and how they contaminate a building up to 24 hours after the
drug is manufactured. The Center found that ``detectable
airborne concentrations of meth and hydrochloric acid and
iodine, used to make the drug, remained inside the house for at
least 24 hours.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Willett, Anslee, ``Research finds meth in air 24 hours after
it's cooked,'' The Gazette, October 2, 2005; See in http://
www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1310916&secid=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic waste clean-up and remediation: a unique meth problem
There are two primary Federal agencies available to help
clean up a meth lab site: the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
(A) Clean-up by EPA
An individual, a local government, or a State or regional
entity, can notify EPA about a possible meth lab.\31\ The
Agency will study the site and its findings will help steer the
next actions to be taken. For example, under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Pub.
Law. No. 96-510, also known as CERCLA or Superfund), EPA can
respond directly when a pollutant or contaminant may present an
imminent or substantial danger to public health or welfare.
Most STL's do not rise to this level, however, and other
actions may be taken.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/nrs/nrsworks.htm;
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrcback.html (last visited August 31, 2005).
\32\ Federal Register, vol. 63, no. 32, February 18, 1998, pp.
8284-8291. See http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=651164320413+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve (last
visited August 31, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Clean-up by DEA
One of the options for local and state enforcement is to
contact the DEA. DEA has taken responsibility for cleaning meth
lab sites, without the need for an initial payment by State or
local governments. The average cost per site generally has been
decreasing, largely because of increasing clean-up efficiency
resulting from increasing levels of expertise. The numbers of
sites and dollar totals are shown in Table 2.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id.
TABLE 2.--UNITED STATES DEA METH LAB CLEAN-UPS AND COSTS, AS OF JUNE 17,
2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Calendar year Number of dollars Dollars per
sites spent site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.......................... 7,534 $21,720,000 $2,883
2003.......................... 8,837 16,950,000 1,918
2004.......................... 10,037 18,935,000 1,887
2005 1........................ 4,684 9,615,000 2,053
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 31,092 67,220,000 2,162
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 To date.
H.R. 3889 clarifies existing laws to hold a meth ``cook''
liable for the cleanup costs of a seized lab site. Furthermore,
an individual convicted of meth possession can be billed for
the cost of the cleanup of their residence, place of business,
or property if a lab is found on it. Thus, the law seeks to
place a larger portion of the cleanup costs associated with the
dismantling of a meth lab back onto the offenders rather than
have law enforcement and environmental agencies bear the total
amount, which for some small agencies has presented an
overwhelming financial burden.
Regulation of precursor chemicals at home and abroad
Without pseudoephedrine (or two other, similar chemicals,
namely ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine) neither small meth
lab cooks, nor Mexican drug traffickers, can manufacture this
deadly drug. Huge amounts of pseudoephedrine products are being
shipped all over the world, with little or no tracking or
control. Many nations are importing far more than they can
legitimately consume, meaning that the excess is probably being
diverted to meth production. Mexican imports of
pseudoephedrine, the primary meth precursor, have risen from
almost 100 tons in 2001 to nearly 224 tons in 2003. Mexican
authorities estimate their legitimate demand for
pseudoephedrine at only 70 tons per year.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. and the international community have failed to set
up an effective control system for pseudoephedrine and other
precursor chemical products. Unlike meth, pseudoephedrine
cannot be made clandestinely--it can only be manufactured in
large facilities using very sophisticated equipment. As a
groundbreaking report by The Oregonian newspaper recently
showed, only a few companies worldwide make the chemical, and
virtually all of the world's supply comes from three countries:
Germany, India, and China.\35\ As such, it would not be very
difficult for the U.S. and its allies to get better control of
the chemical and prevent its large-scale diversion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Suo, Steve, ``The Mexican Connection,'' The Oregonian, June 5,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Squeezing the balloon: why U.S. anti-meth strategy needs an
international component
Although many proposals for Federal anti-meth legislation
have focused primarily on the domestic production of the drug--
in particular by cutting down on the domestic supply of
precursors available for small meth labs--such measures will do
little, by themselves, to cut down on the supply of meth.
Merely tackling small clandestine labs is like squeezing a
balloon--the meth supply will expand elsewhere to meet the
demand. Mexican meth will more than replace the supply from
small labs, unless Congress addresses the problem in a
comprehensive way.
The recent experience of Oklahoma illustrates this problem.
Oklahoma passed one of the toughest laws regulating the
domestic retail sale of pseudoephedrine products, making it far
more difficult for meth cooks to obtain the precursor chemical.
Although the Oklahoma law apparently resulted in a significant
reduction in local clandestine labs, there has been a
corresponding increase in imported Mexican crystal meth to meet
the demand.\36\ In other words, while laws focusing on local
production are specifically vital to curtail the serious
problem of the clean-up of local production sites, all other
effects to the local community, including crime and child
abuse, continue to remain once Mexican methamphetamine replaces
local meth. As one U.S. Attorney in Georgia recently put it,
``The Mexico cartels will replace the meth supplied by local
labs with double the volume, double the purity, and double the
quality.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Suo, Steve, ``As Laws Dry Up Home Meth Labs, Mexican Cartels
Flood U.S. Market,'' The Oregonian, September 25, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation of precursor chemicals domestically
When Congress enacted the Federal Controlled Substances Act
(CSA), it specifically disavowed any intention to ``preempt''
State law. Hence, States are free to pass drug control laws
that differ from the CSA. As a practical matter, however, if
Federal law imposes tougher requirements than State law, the
Federal law will become the controlling standard (since
retailers and consumers must comply with both the Federal and
their State's law). Conversely, if a State adopts requirements
that are stronger than the Federal law, the state standard will
control--but only within that state.
Since 2004, a number of States have adopted very strict new
requirements for the retail sale and distribution of meth
precursor chemical products--i.e., those containing
pseudoephedrine and similar medicines. The most common of these
requirements include requiring these drugs to be placed behind
the counter, limiting the amount that can be purchasedin a
single transaction or over a specified period of time, requiring
customers to provide identification and a signature upon purchase, and
placing such drug products on the schedule of controlled substances,
thus effectively eliminating sales by non-pharmacy retail stores.
The first State to establish such restrictions was
Oklahoma, which, in 2004, enacted a new law designed to crack
down on the illegal production and abuse of methamphetamine in
the state. Under the new law, Oklahoma added drug products
containing pseudoephedrine--except for combination products in
liquid or gel form--to its list of Schedule V controlled
substances and imposed an array of new sales restrictions,
including the following: (1) such drug products may only be
sold behind the pharmacy counter by, or under the supervision
of, a licensed pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician;
(2) individuals who purchase such drug products must provide
photo identification and must sign a written log of the
transaction; and (3) in the absence of a prescription,
individuals may not purchase more than 9 grams of such products
within any thirty-day period.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 63 Okl. St. Sec. 2-212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple States have followed Oklahoma's lead. At least
twelve states have enacted laws that place sales restrictions
on cold medications, including Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oregon, South Dakota,
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and legislation has been
proposed in at least 20 other states.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Copeland, Larry, ``States Limiting Sales of Cold Remedies,''
USA Today, April 26, 2005, at 1A; Lois Romano, ``Cold-Medicine Curbs
Cited in Drug Effort''; ``Number of Okla. Meth Labs Drops Sharply,''
Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Oklahoma and other similar State laws have
shown an immediate impact on decreasing the production of
methamphetamine in local STL's, a disturbing trend has surfaced
in the response of Mexican traffickers.\39\ As the local
production and supply of meth by STL's has increasingly
declined, there has been a corresponding significant increase
in the importation of Mexican crystal methamphetamine to meet
the new demand.\40\ In other words, while laws focusing on
local production are vital to curtail certain devastating side
effects to the local community it must be acknowledged that
such laws are very limited in dealing with the overall, and in
particular the international methamphetamine problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Suo, Steve, ``As Laws Dry Up Home Meth Labs, Mexican Cartels
Flood U.S. Market,'' The Oregonian, September 25, 2005; See http://
www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/
1127559319271250.xml&coll=7.
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3889 authorizes domestic manufacturing and import
quotas on pseudoephedrine (PSE), ephedrine (EPH), and
phenylpropanolamine (PPA), to prevent oversupply from being
diverted to meth production. Regulation of the wholesale ``spot
market'' in PSE, EPH, and PPA, is created by requiring DEA to
approve any post-import changes in the distribution of the
chemicals. Information on the international ``chain of
distribution'' from foreign manufacturer to domestic importer
for these chemicals is also collected. Major foreign exporters
and importers of PSE, EPH, and PPA are held accountable if they
do not fully cooperate with the U.S. with respect to stopping
drug trafficking. In addition, up to $4 million for the State
Department to engage Mexico (the largest source of U.S. meth)
in cooperative anti-diversion and anti-meth trafficking efforts
is authorized.
Schedule V considerations
While many States have moved to designate Pseudoephedrine
and other meth precursor chemicals as Schedule V substances, to
do so at the Federal the government restricts the sale of
common OTC medicines to pharmacists and in some cases may force
people who require these medicines for legitimate use to seek a
prescription. By classifying pseudoephedrine and similar
methamphetamine precursor chemicals as schedule V controlled
substances, the government limits the nonprescription sale of
products that contain these chemicals to pharmacies alone.\41\
Schedule V classification effectively eliminates consumers'
ability to get medicines that contain pseudoephedrine and
similar precursor chemicals from their local convenience stores
or grocery stores, if none have a pharmacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 21 CFR 1306.26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, should the consumer need medicines containing
pseudoephedrine at unusual hours, their ability to get them
would rely on their access to a 24 hour pharmacy. In as many as
14 states, Federal classification of pseudoephedrine as a
schedule V substance would trigger ``by prescription only''
requirements.\42\ This would mean that a consumer would have to
have a prescription to purchase a pseudoephedrine containing
medicine. Medicines that were formerly available for as little
as $6, would now cost the consumer prohibitively more because
of the added cost of having to visit a doctor in order to
obtain a prescription. The increase will be absorbed in higher
medical insurance and Medicare costs due to an overall increase
in physician visits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Many States provide that when there is a Federal decision to
designate a new controlled substance, that substance automatically
becomes controlled under State law, at least pending further
legislation or administrative action in the State. Those states, in
turn, provide as a matter of their general laws that once a drug is
scheduled, it must be limited to prescription use, even when the FDA
has determined that the drug should be available over the counter. Some
States that could see these effects include: CA, CO, DE, HI, LA, MA, MT
NE, NY, ND, OR, PA, RI, VT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While making it harder for legitimate use consumers to
obtain pseudoephedrine medicines, schedule V classification of
this substance leaves gaping holes through which meth cooks
will be able to acquire necessary ingredients. Schedule V
classification of pseudoephedrine does not address the ``spot
market'' sales of scheduled chemicals. Continuedinattention to
the pseudoephedrine ``spot market'' problem, while at the same time
restricting the general public's access to pseudoephedrine, will create
a large scale illicit market for methamphetamine precursor chemicals.
The penalties for criminal diversion of DEA List 1 chemicals, the
current classification of pseudoephedrine, are more substantial than
the penalties of the diversion of schedule V. The effect of moving
pseudoephedrine to schedule V would be to effectively weaken the
current penalties and the effect of having the chemical listed under
both schemes creates unwieldy and confusing statutory regulation. The
import/export controls on List 1 chemicals are more comprehensive than
those on schedule V substances.
H.R. 3889 classifies all pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine products as ``schedule listed chemical''
(SLC) products in an effort to avoid the pitfalls of moving
precursor chemicals to the schedule system. The legislation
requires that any SLC substance be sold from behind the
counter, or from a locked cabinet in the store aisles.
Furthermore, all transactions in SLCs are to be recorded in a
log book, available to law enforcement and purchasers must show
I.D. and sign the log book. All sellers of SLCs must certify to
DEA that they will comply with all regulations, and that all
employees (other than pharmacists) handling the products have
undergone training. H.R. 3889 establishes a 3.6 gram per retail
transaction, per day limit on the amount of SLCs that may be
sold. The bill empowers the DEA to prevent any retailer
violating regulations from selling SLC products. All of these
provisions are similar to those provided to schedule V
substances, but avoid the over regulation the designation would
create.
Why gel caps and liquids should not be exempted
Although some states have exempted liquid cold medicines
(including ``gelcaps'') from tougher retail sales restrictions,
the Federal government should not do so. Contrary to the
expectations of State legislators, meth cooks can still make
meth from liquid formulations and gelcaps. The DEA has
researched this issue and determined that it is not
significantly harder to make meth from liquids and gelcaps. DEA
opposes creating an exemption. At least one meth lab using
liquids and gelcaps has been seized in Oregon, and DEA believes
that the only reason more such labs haven't been found is that
pills are still readily available. Furthermore, the viscus form
of meth that is created using liquid precursors burns at a
relatively cool temperature making it just as useable for meth
addicts who smoke the drug. When Congress created the ``blister
pack'' exemption in 1998, it believed that this would deter
meth cooks; that didn't happen. Congress should not create new
exemptions now that will have to be repealed later.
Special treatment for pharmacies
There is little reason to treat pharmacies differently from
non-pharmacy retailers with respect to precursors. Pharmacists
are trained to know how medicines will affect people, including
potential for addiction or abuse, interactions with other
drugs. Pharmacists are NOT specially trained to discern meth
cooks from non-meth cooks, nor are they specially trained in
how to prevent diversion of precursor chemicals to meth
production. While pharmacists do have potentially greater
familiarity with the concept of record-keeping for drugs in
general, a record-keeping system is uncomplicated for non-
pharmacists to understand and implement. A pharmacy-only
requirement, or law that gives pharmacies greater ability to
sell these products than non-pharmacies, does not produce any
significant law enforcement benefit--but it will needlessly
hurt small businesses such as grocery stores in small towns and
rural areas, that don't have an easily accessible pharmacy.
Precursor chemicals and internet sales
There is no evidence that legitimate online retailers (such
as DrugStore.com) are providing a conduit for diversion--these
sellers already limit the amount of a precursor chemical that
someone can purchase. Internet sales can be dealt with by
requiring verification of the purchaser's identity through
criteria to be established by the DEA. It is just as easy for
someone to shop multiple pharmacies to obtain PSE, as it is to
shop multiple websites to obtain the chemical.
Regulation of the importers of List 1 chemicals by the DEA
The Committee is aware that the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) has systematically denied direct customers
of importers (i.e. distributors) of List 1 chemicals the right
of judicial review as accorded importers under Sec. 971(c)(2).
This is clearly wrong and the DEA is obligated to provide
standing to these parties, particularly in light of a recent
holding by the U.S. Court of Appeals in PDK Laboratories, Inc.
v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
Section 971 of the Controlled Substances Act accords
parties the right to a hearing on the record in instances where
DEA issues an order terminating or suspending a shipment of
List 1 chemicals. Section 971(c)(2) states: ``a regulated
person to whom an order applies under paragraph (1) is entitled
to an agency hearing on the record in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act.'' The Committee is aware,
however, that in several cases DEA has refused to permit
distributors, who are direct customers of the importer, the
right to request such a hearing on the record to protest a
decision by DEA to terminate or suspend a shipment. DEA is
wrong in its approach and should allow the right to request a
hearing.
In PDK v. DEA, PDK Laboratories was a customer of an
importer whose economic interest was in buying ephedrine and
using it to manufacture pharmaceuticals. The importer's
interest was in selling the chemical to PDK. Although DEA's
suspension orders were directed to importers, Sec. 971(c)(1) of
the statute necessarily regulates the interests of both
importers and their domestic customers. If an importer cannot
ship a listed chemical, the domestic customer cannot receive
it. Therefore, PDK's interests were clearly within the zone of
interests Sec. 971(c)(1) regulates.
The Court was particularly critical of DEA's denial of
PDK's standing to request a hearing when it stated: Everyone
agrees that importers have a right to judicial review. Yet,
DEA's argument offers no rational distinction between
importers, who may seek judicial review, and domestic
customers, who DEA says cannot. In addition, the Deputy
Director's ruling in PDK's case would preclude it from buying
ephedrine from any importer. On his view, the suspension order
rests on what may happen to the finished products after they
leave PDK's facilities. No matter which importer sought to
supply PDK, a suspension order presumablywould issue. A ruling
against the validity of the orders in this case, far from being an
academic exercise, therefore has practical future consequences for PDK
even if Indace or Malladi [the Importers] cancel their deals.
The Court goes on to hold that:
In view of the interpretation of statutes applicable
to other agencies containing language identical to
Sec. 877, we hold that if PDK has Article III standing,
which no one doubts, and if its interests are
``arguably within the zone of interests''
Sec. 971(c)(1) regulates, which we believe they are,
PDK is a ``person aggrieved'' within Sec. 877's meaning
and is entitled to prosecute its case in court.
In light of this decision, the Committee directs DEA to
follow this Court's decision and provide direct customers of
importers standing to protect terminations and suspensions of
List 1 chemicals.
Federal legislative history of methamphetamine
The Control Substances Act (CSA) is a Federal statute that
establishes criminal and civil sanctions for the unlawful
possession, manufacturing, distribution, or importation of
controlled substances.\43\ The CSA was passed to facilitate the
legal distribution of controlled substances for legitimate
medical purposes while preventing their diversion for illegal
manufacture, distribution, and use. Over the years, however,
the scope of the CSA has expanded from controlling illegal
drugs to regulating the chemicals that are used as precursors
in the production of illegal drugs such as methamphetamine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of the legislative history of meth laws presents a
strong recurring theme of Congress reactively responding to the
current production methods of meth while drug traffickers
promptly adapting to new legislation by reorganizing and
refocusing their production methods, effectively avoiding the
new restrictions. The chronic problem in the fight against meth
has been the loopholes that have been left in each new piece of
regulatory legislation. It usually takes a year or two before
drug traffickers have been able to amend their production
methods to exploit the still available sources of precursor
chemicals allowed to persist via such loopholes.
Congress needs to cease reacting to the contemporary means
of production of meth and decisively take a comprehensive and
forward looking legislative approach to all potential uses of
chemical precursors. From past experience, such a strategy very
well may be able to strike a lethal blow to the production of
meth in STL's.
The 1993 Act
In 1993 Congress passed the Domestic Chemical Diversion
Control Act to further regulate ephedrine and pseudoephedrine
as precursor chemicals. After balancing competing interests,
legislators decided to regulate ephedrine in tablet form but to
leave pseudoephedrine tablets containing these precursors
unregulated. In striking this compromise the resulting
regulation of the precursor pseudoephedrine was less stringent.
Pseudoephedrine received less regulation and still is legally
marketed as a non-controlled ingredient in certain over-the-
counter (OTC) drug products, particularly cold medicines. This
is despite the fact that the CSA establishes criminal and civil
sanctions for the unlawful possession, manufacturing,
distribution, or importation of pseudoephedrine which is a
listed chemical regulated under the CSA.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Chemical Control,
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/chemical_control.html (last visited
August 24, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the CSA as amended by the 1993 Act made it
unlawful for an individual to possess a listed chemical such as
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine with intent
to engage in the unauthorized manufacture of a controlled
substance. This includes possessing or distributing a listed
chemical where that individual knows or should know that the
chemical will be used in the unauthorized manufacture of a
controlled substance.\45\ The 1993 legislation proved to be
initially effective, however drug traffickers quickly replied
with new methods of meth production. Since their previous
source, ephedrine in tablet form, was now being regulated, drug
traffickers adapted their production methods to be able to
efficiently utilize pseudoephedrine in pill or tablet form.
After a brief though dramatic drop in meth availability
following the 1993 Act, meth abuse and its concurrent
devastating secondary effects were once again quickly spreading
across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1996 Act
Once again, Congress sought to address the increasing
spread of meth with the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control
Act of 1996. This law mandated that all sellers of
pseudoephedrine tablets register with the DEA, maintain
identification information entries of customers, and actively
assist in enforcement by providing notice of potential illegal
activity. This law focused on five areas: (a) the importation
of methamphetamine and precursor chemicals; (b) controlling the
production of methamphetamine; (c) increased penalties for
trafficking and manufacturing of methamphetamine and its
precursors; (d) the legal production, distribution, and sale of
precursor chemicals; and (e) education and research concerning
methamphetamine.
National synthetic drugs action plan
The National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan (``the Action
Plan'') is the Federal government's response to the production,
trafficking, and abuse of Synthetic Drugs and Diverted
Pharmaceutical Products. It was produced by the Department of
Justice Criminal Division's Narcotic and Dangerous Drug
Section, in cooperation with the Drug Enforcement
Administrationand several other agencies.
The purpose of the Action Plan is to stream the various
strands of domestic and international efforts into a coherent
plan for attacking and disrupting illegal drugs. Such targeted
drugs including methamphetamine, amphetamine, MDMA, GHP, PCP,
and LSD, which are sometimes diverted from legitimate commerce,
such as ketamine and oxycodone, and the illegally imported
depressant flunitrazepam (trade name Rohipnol).
Because meth is the most widely used and clandestinely
produced synthetic drug in the United States, it receives the
most attention in the Action Plan. Although meth is
manufactured legitimately for medical purposes, the vast
majority of illegally trafficked methamphetamine is produced
illegally in laboratories both here and abroad; therefore, the
Action Plan provides the following list of recommendations:
Prevention:
Develop an Early Warning and Response System
(NDIC, DOJ, HHS, ONDCP)
Enhance Public Outreach Efforts Focusing on
Synthetic Drugs (SAMSHA, DOJ, ONDCP)
Improve Education and Training on
Pharmaceuticals
Develop Best Practices to Assist Drug-
Endangered Children
Research and Develop Targeted Prevention
Programs
Improve Data on Afflicted Geographic Areas
Examine the Use of Prescription Narcotics
Treatment:
Increase Treatment capacity
Research Treatment for Synthetic Drug Abuse
Develop Guidelines for Juvenile Drug Abuse
(NIDA, SAMHSA)
Develop Early Response Treatment Protocols
Study Options for Criminal Justice System
Treatment
Expand Dissemination of Treatment Best
Practices
Regulation of Chemicals and Drugs:
Supports stronger State controls on
precursor chemicals
Remove the Blister Pack Exemption
Regulate Chemical Spot Market
Determine Licit Chemical Needs
Enable Import controls on Bulk Ephedrine and
Pseudoephedrine
Limit Online Chemical sales
Strengthen Cooperation with Mexico
Enhance coordination and information
exchange with Canada
Strengthen the Multilateral Chemical Control
System
Exchange Information with Chemical Producing
Countries
Educate Store Employees
Encourage Voluntary Controls by retail
pharmacies and stores
Work with Manufacturers to reformulate
abused pharmaceutical products
Support State prescription monitoring
programs
Law Enforcement:
Target Pseudoephedrine and Iodine smuggling
to and from Mexico
Focus on Canadian synthetics and Chemical
smugglers
Investigate ties between Canadian and
Mexican Criminals
Investigate Asian and European sources of
synthetic drugs
Enhance meth profiling efforts
Review lab cleanup resources
Apply updated clandestine lab cleanup
guidelines
Increase prosecutor and LEA training
Make full use of charging and sentencing
options
Increase access to civil penalty case
experts
Prevent exploitation of mail services
Improve intelligence efforts related to
synthetic drugs
Brief overview of H.R. 3889 as amended by the Committee on the
Judiciary
The Committee on the Judiciary made a number of changes to
H.R. 3889, which now:
(a) reclassifies pseudoephedrine, PPA and ephedrine
as a schedule listed chemical;
(b) imposes a flat 3.6 gram single transaction or
daily multiple transaction limit on purchase of meth
precursors (pseudoephedrine, PPA, and ephedrine);
(c) restricts purchasers from obtaining more than 7.5
grams in a 30-day period;
(d) requires regulated sellers to store precursors
behind the counter, or in a locked storage box on the
store floor, and maintain a written log so that
purchasers have to show identification, state how much
they have purchased, and sign for the product;
(e) requires regulated sellers to submit a
certification that it will comply with these
requirements and train employees to ensure compliance;
(f) restrict Internet and mobile vendor sales of
precursors to these same limitations;
(g) authorizes new import, export, and manufacturing
regulations to help prevent diversion of
pseudoephedrine and similar meth precursor chemicals;
(h) requires reporting of the international
production and export of precursor chemicals, and holds
nations accountable for their cooperation (or lack
thereof) with United States drug enforcement;
(i) strengthens criminal penalties for
methamphetamine manufacturers and traffickers by:
(1) imposing higher penalties for possession
of precursors with intent to manufacture
methamphetamine;
(2) modifying existing kingpin statute to
increase use of kingpin tool against
international traffickers;
(3) enhancing the penalty for meth
manufacturers who do so in the presence of
children; and
(4) imposing an additional criminal penalty
on those who smuggle methamphetamine into the
United States using the fast-track lane between
Mexico and the United States;
(j) authorizes additional treatment program for
children endangered by methamphetamine traffickers;
(k) improves drug court program to require more
accountability and drug testing of participants; and
(l) authorizes the methamphetamine hot spot program
for law enforcement efforts to investigate meth
traffickers and clean up meth labs.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 3889 on September 27, 2005. Testimony was received from
four witnesses: the Honorable Mark Souder, Congressman from the
3rd District of Indiana; the Honorable Mark Kennedy,
Congressman from the 6th District of Minnesota; Mr. Joseph T.
Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement Operations,
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration; Dr. Barry M. Lester,
Professor of Psychiatry & Human Behavior and Pediatrics, Brown
University Medical School.
Committee Consideration
On November 3, 2005, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered favorably
reported the bill H.R. 3889 by a rollcall vote of 8 to 2, a
quorum being present. On November 9, 2005, the full Committee
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill
H.R. 3889 as amended by a recorded vote of 31 to 0, a quorum
being present.
Vote of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there
were the following recorded votes during the committee
consideration of H.R. 3889:
H.R. 3889 was favorably reported to the full House, as
amended, by a vote of 31 to 0.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde............................. X
Mr. Coble............................ X
Mr. Smith............................ X
Mr. Gallegly......................... X
Mr. Goodlatte........................ X
Mr. Chabot........................... X
Mr. Lungren.......................... X
Mr. Jenkins.......................... X
Mr. Cannon........................... X
Mr. Bachus........................... X
Mr. Inglis........................... X
Mr. Hostettler....................... X
Mr. Green............................ X
Mr. Keller........................... X
Mr. Issa............................. X
Mr. Flake............................ X
Mr. Pence............................
Mr. Forbes........................... X
Mr. King............................. X
Mr. Feeney........................... X
Mr. Franks...........................
Mr. Gohmert.......................... X
Mr. Conyers.......................... X
Mr. Berman...........................
Mr. Boucher..........................
Mr. Nadler...........................
Mr. Scott............................ X
Mr. Watt............................. X
Ms. Lofgren.......................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee...................... X
Ms. Waters........................... X
Mr. Meehan........................... X
Mr. Delahunt.........................
Mr. Wexler...........................
Mr. Weiner...........................
Mr. Schiff........................... X
Ms. Sanchez.......................... X
Mr. Van Hollen....................... X
Mrs. Wasserman Schultz............... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.......... X
----------------------------------
Total.......................... 31 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the H.R. 3889, the following estimate and comparison
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 15, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
completed the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3889, the Combat
Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz
(for federal costs), Melissa Merrell (for the impact on state
and local governments), and Fatimot Ladipo (for the impact on
the private sector).
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3889--Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005
Summary: H.R. 3889 would authorize appropriations totaling
$545 million over the 2006-2010 period to fund several programs
in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of State
that aim to combat the abuse of methamphetamine. In addition,
the bill would strengthen the regulation of pseudoephedrine,
ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine and would limit retail sales
of products that contain those substances. Assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 3889 would cost $377 million over the 2006-
2010 period. Enacting the bill also could affect direct
spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any effects would
not be significant for any year.
The bill would impose an intergovernmental mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by
preempting some state laws that regulate pharmaceutical sales.
In addition, the bill would impose an intergovernmental mandate
on some publicly owned pharmacies by requiring tighter controls
for selling and storing over-the-counter drugs containing
pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine. CBO
estimates that the costs, if any, for states, localities, and
publicly owned pharmacies to comply with those mandates would
be insignificant and well below the threshold established in
UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation).
H.R. 3889 also would impose private-sector mandates, as
defined in UMRA, on retail businesses and persons involved in
the sale and distribution of certain medications containing
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine. CBO
estimates that the aggregate direct costs of complying with
those mandates would fall below the annual threshold
established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123 million
in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 3889 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750
(administration of justice).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\
Spending Under Current Law for Programs Authorized by H.R. 3889:
Budget Authority \2\........................................ 53 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................................... 48 49 32 19 8 0
Proposed Changes:
DOJ Programs:
Authorization Level..................................... 0 119 119 99 99 99
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 26 62 81 93 105
Department of State Programs:
Authorization Level..................................... 0 5 5 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays....................................... 0 3 4 2 1 0
Total Changes:
Authorization Level................................. 0 124 124 99 99 99
Estimated Outlays................................... 0 29 66 83 94 105
Spending Under H.R. 3889:
Authorization Level \1\..................................... 53 124 124 99 99 99
Estimated Outlays........................................... 48 78 98 102 102 105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the amounts shown above, enacting H.R. 3889 also could affect direct spending and revenues,
but CBO estimates that any effects would not be significant in any year.
\2\ The 2005 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the programs authorized by H.R. 3889. A full-
year appropriation for fiscal year 2006 has not yet been enacted.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted by the end of calendar year 2005. CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 3889 would cost $377 million
over the 2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of the
authorized amounts. Enacting the bill could affect direct
spending and receipts, but we estimate that any effects would
not be significant in any year.
Spending subject to appropriation
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized
by the bill for the programs listed below will be appropriated
near the start of each fiscal year and that spending will
follow the historical spending patterns for those or similar
activities.
For DOJ, the bill would authorize the appropriation of:
$99 million for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010 for grants to states for programs to
reduce the manufacture, sale, and use of
methamphetamine; and
$20 million for each of fiscal years 2006
and 2007 for grants for programs to assist children
endangered by abuse of methamphetamine.
For the Department of State, H.R. 3889 would authorize the
appropriation of:
$4 million for each of fiscal years 2006 and
2007 to prevent the smuggling of methamphetamine from
Mexico to the United States; and
$1 million for each of fiscal years 2006 and
2007 for analysis of and reports on countries that
export and import the most pseudoephedrine, ephedrine,
and phenylpropanolamine and the cost of developing a
plan to prevent the diversion of those chemicals to
illegal uses.
In addition, H.R. 3889 would strengthen the regulation of
pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine and would
limit retail sales of products that contain those substances.
CBO estimates that any resulting increase in administrative or
investigative costs for the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) would not be significant.
Direct spending and revenues
Enacting H.R. 3889 could increase collections of civil and
criminal fines for violations of the bill's provisions relating
to methamphetamine production and trafficking as well as those
regarding the importation of precursor chemicals. CBO estimates
that anyadditional collections would not be significant because
of the relatively small number of additional cases likely to be
affected. Civil fines are recorded as revenues. Criminal fines are
recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and
subsequently spent without further appropriation.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 3889 would impose an intergovernmental mandate, as defined
in UMRA, by preempting state laws that place less-burdensome
requirements than those established in this bill on
pharmaceutical dispensers for selling and storing over-the-
counter drugs containing pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, or
phenylpropanolamine. In addition, the bill would impose an
intergovernmental mandate on publicly owned pharmacies by
requiring compliance with those sale and storage requirements.
Because the preemption would not require states to take any
action and because we expect that very few public pharmacies
would be affected by the new requirements, CBO estimates that
compliance costs would be insignificant and well below the
threshold established in UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted
annually for inflation).
State and local governments would benefit from grants that
would be authorized to establish statewide programs to monitor
the purchase of controlled substances used to produce
methamphetamines and from a variety of programs related to
substance abuse, education, and prevention. Any costs to those
entities would be incurred voluntarily as a condition of
receiving federal aid.
Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 3889 would
impose private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on retail
businesses and persons involved in the sale and distribution of
certain medications containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine or
phenylpropanolamine. The bill would reclassify those drugs,
which are found in many over-the-counter medications, as
``scheduled listed chemical products''--a new category of
chemicals under the Controlled Substances Act. The sale and
distribution of products containing those substances would be
regulated by the Controlled Substances Act, as amended by this
bill. Based on information from industry and government
sources, CBO estimates that the aggregate direct costs of
complying with those mandates would fall below the annual
threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123
million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation).
Retail businesses
The bill would impose private-sector mandates on retail
businesses and persons involved in the sale and distribution of
certain medications by restricting access to ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine products and imposing
per-transaction and monthly limits on the amount of such
products that can be sold per customer. Retail sellers would be
required to verify the identification of individuals purchasing
those products and maintain a written or electronic record of
each sales transaction for not fewer than two years. The bill
also would require sellers to submit to the Attorney General
certification that certain employees involved in the delivery
and direct sales of those products to consumers have undergone
specific training.
Under H.R. 3889, certain retail establishments would have
to move the location of pharmaceutical products containing
those substances behind the counter or store them in locked
cabinets, train employees to alert them to the new regulations,
and implement new sales and hiring practices. Retail businesses
might also reprogram software to signal or block transactions
exceeding the threshold, although this would not be explicitly
required. In addition, the bill would require sellers to take
reasonable measures to guard against hiring people who may
present a risk to the theft and diversion of scheduled listed
chemical products. Finally, the bill would require sellers who
ship (mail order or Internet sales) such medications to confirm
the identity of a purchaser prior to shipping in accordance
with procedures to be established by the Attorney General.
According to government and industry sources, at least 13
states have already enacted laws that place restrictions on
such medications and many large retailers have voluntarily
complied with the restrictions in this bill. In addition,
similar products that do not contain those substances are
readily available to be sold as an alternative or substitute.
According to those industry sources, the costs associated with
relocating a product, logging the sale, certification,
retraining, and implementing new sales and hiring practices
would be small. Therefore, CBO estimates that the direct cost
to comply with those mandates would be small relative to UMRA's
threshold for private-sector mandates.
Consumers
The bill would require individuals who purchase products
containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine
to provide photo identification and sign a written log of the
transaction. In addition, consumers would be limited to 7.5
grams of such medicines that could be purchased within any 30-
day period. CBO expects that the direct cost for individuals to
comply with the mandate would be minimal.
Importers and exporters
The bill also would impose a new mandate by expanding the
current reporting requirements for certain importers and
exporters of listed chemicals such as ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine. Currently, certain
importers and exporters (those that are not regular importers
or exporters as determined by the Department of Justice) must
file an initial advance notice with the department 15 days
before the shipment of such listed chemicals. Under the bill,
if an original planned sale of such chemicals falls through,
those importers and exporters must file a second advance notice
with the department identifying the new purchaser 15 days prior
to a new shipment. Finally, the bill would require importers to
file a report with federal regulators listing complete
information about the chain of distribution of imported
chemicals. Based on information from government sources, CBO
expects that the cost of complying with the mandate would be
small.
Previous CBO estimate: On September 15, 2005, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for S. 103, the Combat Meth Act of
2005, as reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on
July 28, 2005. The two bills contain different provisions and
the cost estimates reflect those differences. CBO estimated
that implementing S. 103 would cost about $90 million over the
2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts. Enacting that bill also could affect direct spending,
but we estimated that any net effects would not be significant
in any year.
Both bills would impose similar mandates on individuals and
persons involved in the sale and distribution of certain
medications containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine. S. 103 did
not contain any mandates on the sale or distribution of
phenylpropanolamine products or on importers or exporters. The
aggregate direct cost of complying with the mandates in each
bill would fall below the annual threshold established by UMRA
for private-sector mandates.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: DOJ--Mark Grabowicz;
Department of State--Sam Papenfuss; and Receipts--Emily
Schlect. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
Melissa Merrell. Impact on the Private Sector: Fatimot Ladipo
and Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
3889 is intended to further regulate and punish illicit conduct
relating to methamphetamine.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
The following section-by-section analysis describes the
bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.
TITLE I--DOMESTIC REGULATION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
Sec. 101. Regulated transactions in methamphetamine precursor chemical
products
This section repeals the Federal ``blister pack''
exemption, reduces the Federal per-transaction sales limit for
pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine products
from 9 grams to 3.6 grams, and clarifies current law to include
derivatives of each of these chemicals.
This section would preserve the incentive to keep cold
pills in blister packs, while subjecting them to the new sales
limit. If pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine
products are sold in pill form, they must be in blister packs
to be sold over the counter; otherwise, they must be in liquid
form. All forms of these products would now be subject to the
3.6 grams per transaction limit, without exception.
Subsections (b) and (c) make conforming amendments to the
current law, to accommodate the new sales restrictions.
Subsection (d) makes another technical correction to make it
clear that these sales limitations apply to drug combinations
containing derivatives of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, or
phenylpropanolamine.
Sec. 102. Authority to establish production quotas
This section extends the Attorney General's existing
authority to set production quotas for certain controlled
substances (see 21 U.S.C. Sec. 826) to pseudoephedrine,
ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. Currently, domestic
production of these chemicals is not very high, as most of our
supply is imported. If Congress adopts the import quotas
enacted by Section 104 of the bill, however, the Attorney
General would need to have corresponding authority within the
U.S. if domestic production were to increase. This section
would also allow manufacturers to apply for increases in their
production quotas (see 21 U.S.C. Sec. 826(e)).
Sec. 103. Penalties; authority for manufacturing; quota
This section would expand the existing penalty for illegal
production beyond established quotas (see 21 U.S.C.
Sec. 842(b)) to take into account the Attorney General's new
authority to set quotas for meth precursors.
Sec. 104. Restrictions on importation; authority to permit imports for
medical, scientific, or other legitimate purposes
This section would extend the Attorney General's existing
authority to set import quotas for controlled substances (see
21 U.S.C. Sec. 952) to pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine. This section contains provisions allowing
registered importers to apply for temporary or permanent
increases in a quota to meet legitimate needs, which would have
to be acted on within 60 days.
Sec. 105. Notice of importation or exportation; approval of sale or
transfer by importer or exporter
This section would address a loophole in the current
regulatory system for imports and exports of precursor
chemicals for methamphetamine and other synthetic drugs. Under
current law, an importer or exporter who wishes to import
pseudoephedrine or other precursor chemicals must either (1)
notify the Department of Justice 15 days in advance of the
import or export, or (2) be a regular importer or exporter
(i.e., a company that the Department has previously allowed to
import or export), and planning to sell the chemicals to a
regular customer (again, one that the Department has previously
permitted to take delivery). (See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 971(a) and
(b)).
A problem can arise, however, when the sale that the
importer or exporter originally planned on falls through. When
this happens, the importer or exporter must quickly find a new
buyer for the chemicals on what is called the ``spot market''--
a wholesale market. Sellers are often under pressure to find a
buyer in a short amount of time, meaning that they may be
tempted to entertain bids from companies without a strong
record of preventing diversion. More importantly, the
Department of Justice has no opportunity to review such
transactions in advance and suspend them if there is a danger
of diversion to illegal drug production.
This section would extend the current reporting
requirements--as well as the current exemption for regular
importers, exporters, and customers--to post-import or export
transactions. If an importer or exporter was required to file
an initial advance notice with the Department of Justice 15
days before the shipment of chemicals, and the originally
planned sale fell through, the importer or exporter would then
have to file a second advance notice with the Department
identifying the new proposed purchaser. The Department would
then have 15 days to review the new transaction and decide
whether it presents enough of a risk of diversion to warrant
suspension. As is the case under existing law, a suspension can
be appealed through an administrative process. (See 21 U.S.C.
Sec. 971(c)(2)).
If, however, an importer or exporter was exempted from
filing an initial advance noticebecause it qualifies as a
``regular'' importer or exporter under existing law, that importer or
exporter would not have to file the second advance notice, as long as
the new proposed purchaser also qualifies as a ``regular'' customer
under existing law. (Note that under current law, the Department does
receive a record of these transactions after the fact, see 21 U.S.C.
Sec. 971(b)(1)).
Sec. 106. Enforcement of restrictions on importation and of requirement
of notice of transfer
This section makes a conforming amendment to current law,
to extend existing penalties for illegal imports or exports to
the new regulatory requirements added by sections 104 and 105
of the bill.
TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
Sec. 201. Information on foreign chain of distribution; import
restrictions regarding failure of distributors to cooperate
This provision would further amend the reporting
requirements for importers of meth precursor chemicals, by
requiring them to file with Federal regulators complete
information about the chain of distribution of imported
chemicals (from the manufacturer to the shores of the U.S.).
This will help U.S. law enforcement agencies to better track
where meth precursors come from, and how they get to the U.S.
At present, very little information exists about the
international ``chain of distribution'' for these chemicals,
hindering effective controls.
Sec. 202. Requirements relating to the largest exporting and importing
countries of certain precursor chemicals
This provision would mandate a separate section of the
current State Department report on major drug producing and
transit countries (see 22 U.S.C. Sec. 2291h), identifying the
five largest exporters of major methamphetamine precursor
chemicals, and the five largest importers that also have the
highest rate of meth production or diversion of these chemicals
to the production of meth. If any of those countries were not
fully cooperating with U.S. law enforcement in implementing
their responsibilities under international drug control
treaties, there would be consequences for their eligibility for
U.S. aid, similar to those faced by the major drug trafficking
nations under current law.
There is an added provision clarifying the original intent
of this legislation, to apply the ``fully cooperates'' standard
(and not the lesser standard under another, separate provision
of law). This standard would only have to be applied with
respect to the listed countries' cooperation with respect to
meth precursor chemicals; cooperation with respect to other
drugs would continue to be evaluated under existing law.
The provision also includes an authorization of $1 million
for implementation.
Sec. 203. Prevention of smuggling of methamphetamine into the United
States from Mexico
This amendment would require the State Department's Bureau
for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)
to provide assistance to Mexico to prevent the production of
methamphetamine in that country, and to encourage Mexico to
stop the illegal diversion of meth precursor chemicals. The
amendment would authorize the use of $4 million of the $5
million recently approved by the House for these purposes.
TITLE III--ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR METHAMPHETAMINE PRODUCTION
AND TRAFFICKING
Sec. 301. Possession of schedule listed chemical with intent to
manufacture controlled substance
This section would create a new criminal provision for
possession with intent to manufacture a schedule listed
chemical and impose a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
This provision would increase the currently applicable
provision (21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(c), which imposes a maximum of 20
years imprisonment).
Sec. 302. Smuggling methamphetamine or methamphetamine precursor
chemicals into the United States while using facilitated entry
programs
Even as more meth is being smuggled across the border,
increased legitimate international traffic has forced the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to rely on
facilitated entry programs--so-called ``fastpass'' systems like
SENTRI (for passenger traffic on the Southwest border), FAST
(for commercial truck traffic), and NEXUS (for passenger
traffic on the Northern border). These systems allow pre-
screened individuals to use dedicated lanes at border
crossings, subject only to occasional searches to test
compliance with customs and immigration laws.
These programs can be a powerful tool for CBP to manage
heavy traffic at major border crossings, but they can also
create potential risks. If a drug trafficking organization were
to hire someone cleared for a ``fastpass'' system, it could
smuggle large amounts of drugs through only minimal security.
The problem is compounded by the fact that computerized
criminal background checks cannot be performed in Mexico,
meaning that our ability to screen Mexican citizens who apply
for a fastpass system is minimal at best.
This section would create an added deterrent for anyone to
misuse a facilitated entry program to smuggle methamphetamine
or its precursor chemicals. An additional penalty of up to 15
years imprisonment would be added to the punishment for the
base offense. If convicted, an individual would also be
permanently barred from using a fastpass system again.
Sec. 303. Manufacturing controlled substances on Federal property
This provision would clarify that current penalties for
cultivating illegal drugs on Federal property also apply to
manufacturing synthetic drugs (such as meth). Meth cooks have
frequently moved their operations to parks, national forests,
and other public lands, causing serious environmental damage.
This criminal penalty will help deter such destructive conduct.
Sec. 304. Increased punishment for methamphetamine kingpins
This provision would allow for easier application of the
enhanced penalties of the ``continuing criminal enterprise''
section of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 848).
That section (commonly referred to as the ``kingpin'' statute)
imposes life imprisonment on a leader of a drug trafficking
organization convicted of trafficking in very large quantities
of a drug, and receiving very large profits from that activity.
This new provision would reduce the threshold amount of meth
(from 300 to 200 times the threshold for base violations) and
profits from meth (from $10 million to $5 million), while still
applying the life imprisonment penalty only to true
``kingpins''--the ringleaders of meth trafficking
organizations.
Sec. 305. New child protection criminal enhancement
This provision would punish an offender who manufactures
methamphetamine at a location where a child resides or is
present, and would impose a consecutive sentence of 0 to 20
years.
Sec. 306. Amendments to certain sentencing court reporting requirements
This provision authorizes the United States Sentencing
Commission to establish a form to be used by United States
District Judges when imposing criminal sentences in order to
facilitate data gathering and reporting by the Sentencing
Commission.
Sec. 307. Semiannual reports to Congress
This section requires the Attorney General to submit a
report to Congress every six months outlining how it is
allocating certain resources to increase prosecution of large
meth traffickers, meth lab operators, and meth traffickers who
endanger children.
TITLE IV--ENHANCED ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE BY-
PRODUCTS
Sec. 401. Designation of by-products of methamphetamine laboratories as
hazardous materials and waste under Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act and Solid Waste Disposal Act
This provision would give additional authority to the
Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to enforce environmental regulations against meth
cooks who cause pollution with meth by-products. The DEA is
directed to submit a list of such by-products to the
Transportation Department and EPA, to help them implement this
section.
Sec. 402. Cleanup costs
This provision would clarify existing law imposing the
obligation of restitution for environmental cleanup costs on
persons involved in meth production and trafficking. The recent
decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in United
States v. Lachowski (405 F.3d 696) (8th Cir. 2005) has
undermined the ability of the Federal government to seek
cleanup costs from meth traffickers who are convicted only of
meth possession--even when the meth lab in question was on the
defendant's own property. This provision would also ensure that
any person convicted of a meth-related offense can be held
liable for clean-up costs for meth production that took place
on the defendant's own property, or in his or her place of
business or residence.
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Sec. 501. Improvements to Department of Justice Drug Court Grant
Program
This section revises the Drug Court program statute to
clarify the requirement for periodic testing, graduated
sanctions when an offender tests positive, and a list of
potential sanctions when a positive test occurs.
Sec. 502. Grants to hot spot areas to reduce availability of
methamphetamine
This section authorizes at $99 million for fiscal years
2006 to 2010 grants to State and local law enforcement agencies
to assist in the investigation of meth traffickers and to
reimburse the DEA for assistance in cleaning up meth labs.
Sec. 503. Grants for programs for drug-endangered children
This section authorizes grants to States to assist in
treatment of children who have been endangered by living at a
residence where methamphetamine has been manufactured or
distributed.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
Pursuant to the terms of the referral of the bill to the
Committee, the Committee adopted an amendment striking those
provisions which were referred to the Committee and inserting
new text.
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the provisions of the bill referred to the Committee, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
SECTION 1018 OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IMPORT AND EXPORT ACT
NOTIFICATION, SUSPENSION OF SHIPMENT, AND PENALTIES WITH RESPECT TO
IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION OF LISTED CHEMICALS
Sec. 1018. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) With respect to a regulated person importing
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine (referred to
in this section as an ``importer''), a notice of importation
under subsection (a) or (b) shall include all information known
to the importer on the chain of distribution of such chemical
from the manufacturer to the importer.
(2) For the purpose of preventing or responding to the
diversion of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine
for use in the illicit production of methamphetamine, the
Attorney General may, in the case of any person who is a
manufacturer or distributor of such chemical in the chain of
distribution referred to in paragraph (1) (which person is
referred to in this subsection as a ``foreign-chain
distributor''), request that such distributor provide to the
Attorney General information known to the distributor on the
distribution of the chemical, including sales.
(3) If the Attorney General determines that a foreign-chain
distributor is refusing to cooperate with the Attorney General
in obtaining the information referred to in paragraph (2), the
Attorney General may, in accordance with procedures that apply
under subsection (c), issue an order prohibiting the
importation of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or
phenylpropanolamine in any case in which such distributor is
part of the chain of distribution for such chemical. Not later
than 60 days prior to issuing the order, the Attorney General
shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to
issue the order. During such 60-day period, imports of the
chemical with respect to such distributor may not be restricted
under this paragraph.
* * * * * * *
----------
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961
PART I
* * * * * * *
Chapter 8--International Narcotics Control
* * * * * * *
SEC. 489. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.--Not
later than March 1 of each year, the President shall transmit
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, a report
containing the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(8)(A) A separate section that contains the
following:
(i) An identification of the five countries
that exported the largest amount of
pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and
phenylpropanolamine (including the salts,
optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers of
such chemicals, and also including any products
or substances containing such chemicals) during
the preceding calendar year.
(ii) An identification of the five countries
that imported the largest amount of the
chemicals described in clause (i) during the
preceding calendar year and have the highest
rate of diversion of such chemicals for use in
the illicit production of methamphetamine
(either in that country or in another country).
(iii) An economic analysis of the total
worldwide production of the chemicals described
in clause (i) as compared to the legitimate
demand for such chemicals worldwide.
(B) The identification of countries that imported the
largest amount of chemicals under subparagraph (A)(ii)
shall be based on the following:
(i) An economic analysis that estimates the
legitimate demand for such chemicals in such
countries as compared to the actual or
estimated amount of such chemicals that is
imported into such countries.
(ii) The best available data and other
information regarding the production of
methamphetamine in such countries and the
diversion of such chemicals for use in the
production of methamphetamine.
SEC. 490. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES.
(a) Withholding of Bilateral Assistance and Opposition to
Multilateral Development Assistance.--
(1) Bilateral assistance.--Fifty percent of the
United States assistance allocated each fiscal year in
the report required by section 653 for each [major
illicit drug producing country or major drug-transit
country] major illicit drug producing country, major
drug-transit country, or country identified pursuant to
clause (i) or (ii) of section 489(a)(8)(A) of this Act
shall be withheld from obligation and expenditure,
except as provided in subsection (b). This paragraph
shall not apply with respect to a country if the
President determines that its application to that
country would be contrary to the national interest of
the United States, except that any such determination
shall not take effect until at least 15 days after the
President submits written notification of that
determination to the appropriate congressional
committees in accordance with the procedures applicable
to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.
(2) Multilateral assistance.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive
Director of each multilateral development bank to vote,
on and after March 1 of each year, against any loan or
other utilization of the funds of their respective
institution to or for any major illicit drug producing
country or major drug-transit country (as determined
under subsection (h)) or country identified pursuant to
clause (i) or (ii) of section 489(a)(8)(A) of this Act,
except as provided in subsection (b). For purposes of
this paragraph, the term ``multilateral development
bank'' means the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, the International Development
Association, the Inter-American Development Bank, the
Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank,
and the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 706 OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR
2003
SEC. 706. INTERNATIONAL DRUG CONTROL CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES.
During any fiscal year, funds that would otherwise be
withheld from obligation or expenditure under section 490 of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be obligated or expended
beginning October 1 of such fiscal year provided that:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Application.--(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Nothing in this section shall affect the
requirements of section 490 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j) with respect to countries
identified pursuant to section clause (i) or (ii) of
489(a)(8)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
* * * * * * *
----------
COMPREHENSIVE DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1970
table of contents
title ii--control and enforcement
Part A--Short Title; Findings and Declaration; Definitions
Sec. 100. Short title.
* * * * * * *
Part D--Offenses and Penalties
Sec. 401. Prohibited acts A--penalties.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 419a. Consecutive sentence for manufacturing or distributing, or
possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute,
methamphetamine on premises where children are present or
reside.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
Part A--Short Title; Findings and Declaration; Definitions
short title
Sec. 100. This title may be cited as the ``Controlled
Substances Act''.
* * * * * * *
Part D--Offenses and Penalties
prohibited acts a--penalties
Sec. 401. (a) * * *
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 409, 418, 419, or
420 any person who violates subsection (a) of this section
shall be sentenced as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by
cultivating or manufacturing a controlled substance on Federal
property shall be imprisoned as provided in this subsection and
shall be fined any amount not to exceed--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Except as authorized by this title, any person who
knowingly or intentionally possesses ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, or any of its salts,
optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers, with intent to
manufacture a controlled substance shall be fined in accordance
with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for any term
of years or life, or both.
* * * * * * *
CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
Sec. 408. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(s) Special Provision for Methamphetamine.--For the purposes
of subsection (b), in the case of continuing criminal
enterprise involving methamphetamine or its salts, isomers, or
salts of isomers, paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by
substituting ``200'' for ``300'', and paragraph (2)(B) shall be
applied by substituting ``$5,000,000'' for ``$10 million
dollars''.
* * * * * * *
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE FOR MANUFACTURING OR DISTRIBUTING, OR POSSESSING
WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE OR DISTRIBUTE, METHAMPHETAMINE ON PREMISES
WHERE CHILDREN ARE PRESENT OR RESIDE
Sec. 419a. Whoever violates section 401(a)(1) by
manufacturing or distributing, or possessing with intent to
manufacture or distribute, methamphetamine or its salts,
isomers or salts of isomers on premises in which an individual
who is under the age of 18 years is present or resides, shall,
in addition to any other sentence imposed, be imprisoned for a
period of any term of years but not more than 20 years, subject
to a fine, or both.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 994 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 994. Duties of the Commission
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(w)(1) The Chief Judge of each district court shall ensure
that, within 30 days following entry of judgment in every
criminal case, the sentencing court submits to the Commission,
in a format approved and required by the Commission, a written
report of the sentence, the offense for which it is imposed,
the age, race, sex of the offender, and information regarding
factors made relevant by the guidelines. The report shall also
include--
(A) the judgment and commitment order;
(B) the written statement of reasons for the sentence
imposed (which shall include the reason for any
departure from the otherwise applicable guideline range
and which shall be stated on the written statement of
reasons form issued by the Judicial Conference and
approved by the United States Sentencing Commission);
* * * * * * *
The information referred to in subparagraphs (A) through (F)
shall be submitted by the sentencing court in a format approved
and required by the Commission.
* * * * * * *
(4) The Commission shall make available to the Attorney
General, upon request, such data files as the Commission [may
assemble or maintain in electronic form that include any]
itself may assemble or maintain in electronic form as a result
of the information submitted under paragraph (1). Such data
files shall be made available in electronic form and shall
include all data fields requested, including the identity of
the sentencing judge.
* * * * * * *
----------
OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968
TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
* * * * * * *
PART EE--DRUG COURTS
SEC. 2951. GRANT AUTHORITY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Mandatory Drug Testing and Mandatory Sanctions.--
(1) Mandatory testing.--Grant amounts under this part
may be used for a drug court only if the drug court has
mandatory periodic testing as described in subsection
(a)(3)(A). The Attorney General shall, by prescribing
guidelines or regulations, specify standards for the
timing and manner of complying with such requirements.
The standards--
(A) shall ensure that--
(i) each participant is tested for
every controlled substance that the
participant has been known to abuse,
and for any other controlled substance
the Attorney General or the court may
require; and
(ii) the testing is accurate and
practicable; and
(B) may require approval of the drug testing
regime to ensure that adequate testing occurs.
(2) Mandatory sanctions.--The Attorney General shall,
by prescribing guidelines or regulations, specify that
grant amounts under this part may be used for a drug
court only if the drug court imposes graduated
sanctions that increase punitive measures, therapeutic
measures, or both whenever a participant fails a drug
test. Such sanctions and measures may include, but are
not limited to, one or more of the following:
(A) Incarceration.
(B) Detoxification treatment.
(C) Residential treatment.
(D) Increased time in program.
(E) Termination from the program.
(F) Increased drug screening requirements.
(G) Increased court appearances.
(H) Increased counseling.
(I) Increased supervision.
(J) Electronic monitoring.
(K) In-home restriction.
(L) Community service.
(M) Family counseling.
(N) Anger management classes.
* * * * * * *
PART II--CONFRONTING USE OF METHAMPHETAMINE
SEC. 2996. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY AND
METHAMPHETAMINE MANUFACTURING, SALE, AND USE IN HOT
SPOTS.
(a) Purpose and Program Authority.--
(1) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this part to
assist States--
(A) to carry out programs to address the
manufacture, sale, and use of methamphetamine
drugs; and
(B) to improve the ability of State and local
government institutions of to carry out such
programs.
(2) Grant authorization.--The Attorney General,
through the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Office
of Justice Programs may make grants to States to
address the manufacture, sale, and use of
methamphetamine to enhance public safety.
(3) Grant projects to address methamphetamine
manufacture sale and use.--Grants made under subsection
(a) may be used for programs, projects, and other
activities to--
(A) investigate, arrest and prosecute
individuals violating laws related to the use,
manufacture, or sale of methamphetamine;
(B) reimburse the Drug Enforcement
Administration for expenses related to the
clean up of methamphetamine clandestine labs
and related environmental damage;
(C) support State and local health department
and environmental agency services deployed to
address methamphetamine; and
(D) procure equipment, technology, or support
systems, or pay for resources, if the applicant
for such a grant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Attorney General that
expenditures for such purposes would result in
the reduction in the use, sale, and manufacture
of methamphetamine.
SEC. 2997. FUNDING.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $99,000,000 for each fiscal year 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
and 2010.
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Coble, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security, for a motion.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports favorably H.R. 3889,
the ``Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act of 2005.'' On
September 27, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill and
reported it favorably on November 3, 2005. I move its passage.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The bill, H.R. 3889, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, to strike the last word.
Mr. Coble. I won't take the full 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
As I said, on September 27, 2005, the Subcommittee did
conduct a hearing and reported favorably this bill. The hearing
examined the problem of methamphetamine abuse in our country
and the need to address the problem. Meth abuse, as we all
know, is a true epidemic in our country with disastrous effects
on our respective communities, our environment, and
particularly our children.
I am told that the Chairman intends to offer a manager's
amendment which addresses a number of important issues related
to this problem, and I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman, on
your leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to
support this important bill, and yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding
the markup of H.R. 3889. I want to first thank you and the
Subcommittee Chairman for the substantial improvements that
have been made in the bill since it was first considered in
Subcommittee. While there are still provisions in the bill
which I do not support, such as a mandatory life sentence for
drug kingpins and mandatory testing requirements for the drug
program, however, in the case of the drug kingpin provision, I
recognize that now represents a significant improvement over
where it started in that the death penalty has been removed,
and lowering the financial threshold to 10 percent of the
amount currently in statute, that has been raised to 50
percent. The quantity threshold has been raised from one-third
of the current statutory amount to two-thirds of that amount.
Given that the kingpin provision only applies to principal
administrators, organizers, or leaders, current Sentencing
Guidelines would require a life sentence anyway. Although I
prefer that we do not have a mandatory life sentence, I agree
with the lowering threshold amounts to the levels now before us
because I agree, Mr. Chairman, that we should signal to the DEA
that Congress is not happy with the practice of concentrating
on the so-called low-hanging fruit of bit players and drug-
addicted dealers who are primarily working to supply their
habit. Those cases are best left to the States in demand
reduction approaches, such as drug treatment, which have been
shown to be many times more effective and less costly in
reducing drug use and prosecution and incarceration.
I want to see the DEA focus its resources on going after
real kingpins who are taking advantage of the local lab
seizures and closures to identify their next market and making
more drugs available than the local labs were producing.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that our staffs have been
looking at potential ways to assist or incentivize the DEA to
concentrate more in this area, and I think this is a worthwhile
approach.
On the drug court provision, I'm concerned that mandating
conditions will only result in more people failing the drug
court program. I realize the intent is to ensure participants
get early attention with his or her difficulties to avoid a
failure, but I fear it will not work out that way. Indications
I have from attending drug court graduation ceremonies and from
drug court professionals is that initial failures are an
expected part of the long haul in overcoming an addiction, so
it is not helpful to mandate results early on.
I hope that we'll move this bill forward so we can check
with the drug court professionals to be sure that this
provision does not hamper the success of participants. And
speaking of drug courts, Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that with
the news of the drug court program has been cut $25 million in
the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce appropriations bill.
Since it is not feasible or good public policy to address the
meth problem or other drug issues with prosecution and
incarceration alone, other effective approaches must be applied
as well. The drug court program has been an effective tool in
turning lives around and helping to stem the demand for illegal
drugs. Reports are that it is equally effective for meth
addiction as for other drug addictions, so we should be
increasing the funds and expanding the program.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, for purposes of getting it on
the table and discussing the prospects, I will offer amendments
to study the feasibility of establishing a Federal drug court
program and to increase authorization level for the drug court
program by $10 million, with the notion that we would--that it
would be for meth-addicted drug court participants. I hope we
would discuss these amendments as possible additions to the
bill by agreement between now and floor action.
Mr. Chairman, I continue--while I continue to have problems
with the bill as noted, under the circumstances it is a
worthwhile compromise on the bill we started with, and I'll
work with it to hope that we can continue to discuss and
possibly address the problems as the bill moves forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members'
opening statements will be placed in the record at this point.
Are there amendments? The Chair has an amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3889 offered by Chairman
Sensenbrenner. Strike Titles II and III, insert the following:
Title II----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection--would somebody
have the mikes turned on? Thank you.
Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read
and open for amendment at any point.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself for 5
minutes to discuss the amendment.
The manager's amendment to this bill reflects important
changes I have crafted on provisions within this Committee's
jurisdiction. I understand that the Committee on Energy and
Commerce has tentatively scheduled a markup on the provisions
within its jurisdiction for some time early next week. All of
the provisions represent a joint effort in consultation with
Members of this Committee, Rep. Souder, the Chairman of the
Meth Caucus and the Subcommittee on Drug Policy of the House
Committee on Government Reform, and Representative Barton, the
Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The manager's amendment contains key provisions in this
Committee's jurisdiction to combat the scourge of meth.
Specifically, it reforms existing laws relating to
international regulation of meth precursors; imposes needed
certification for Mexico, which has been the source of nearly
80 percent of the meth in this country; enhances criminal
penalties by targeting large meth kingpins and meth smugglers
along the Southwest border. The manager's amendment also
authorizes additional treatment programs for children
endangered by meth traffickers, improves drug court programs to
require more accountability in drug testing of participants,
and authorizes meth hot spot programs for law enforcement
efforts to investigate meth traffickers and clean up the labs.
As many of you know, the Senate has passed their own Combat
Meth Act as a part of the Commerce, State, and Justice
appropriation bill. While we came close to reaching a
substantive agreement, a final compromise was elusive. The
manager's amendment I am offering today reflects consensus on
issues within our Committee's jurisdiction.
Let me take a moment to highlight one important difference
we reached with the Senate in their Combat Meth Act. While we
are not marking up this part of the overall consensus package,
I believe it's important that the policies reached by the House
group which has been supported by the leadership, the Meth
Caucus, and Representatives Barton and Souder. The Senate bill
treats precursors as a Schedule V controlled substance, which
restricts the sale of common, over-the-counter medicines to
pharmacies, and in some cases may force people who require
these medicines for legitimate use to seek a prescription. By
classifying pseudoephedrine and similar meth precursor
chemicals as Schedule V controlled substances, the Government
would limit non-prescription sales of products that contain
these chemicals to pharmacies alone. Schedule V classification
effectively eliminates a consumer's ability to get medicines
that contain pseudoephedrine and other similar precursor
chemicals from their local convenience or grocery stores if
none have pharmacies.
Additionally, should the consumer need medicines containing
pseudoephedrine at unusual hours, they would be forced to rely
on a 24-hour pharmacy. In as many as 14 States, a
classification of pseudoephedrine as a Schedule V substance
would trigger by-prescription-only requirements. As a result,
medicines that were formerly available for as little as $6
would now cost the consumer prohibitively more because of the
added cost of having to visit a doctor in order to obtain a
prescription. The attendance increase in medical visits would
result in higher medical insurance and Medicare costs.
Finally, by moving pseudoephedrine to Schedule V would
effectively weaken current penalties for its illegal purchase.
As the matters that we are addressing today, let me point out
that some of the important provisions which provide law
enforcement with additional tools and resources needed to fight
this battle. The manager's amendment revises and expands
criminal penalties that target real criminals: Mexican
kingpins, small lab operators who rely on large quantities of
precursors, and meth operators who endanger our Nation's
children. Smart criminal policies require the DEA to further
concentrate its efforts on significant traffickers, not easy
statistics, and low-level meth traffickers.
The meth epidemic is a clear danger that Congress must
directly confront. Legislation to address this problem has been
thoroughly examined on a bipartisan basis by several Committees
of jurisdiction. The bipartisan Meth Caucus has conducted
several hearings on the issue and helped galvanize the
congressional response to the sweeping national tragedy.
Legislation to address the Nation's meth epidemic has been the
subject of extensive formal consideration. The scope of the
problem is clear, and the urgency of prompt action is
overwhelming. Our communities are suffering, and Congress must
provide law enforcement with the tools needed to protect
children and communities from this ugly epidemic.
I urge everyone on the Committee to support the manager's
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Are there any second degree amendments to the manager's
amendment?
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to
the--a second degree amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I'll reserve a point of order.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A point of order is reserved by the
gentleman from Texas. The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3889, offered by Mr. King of
Iowa. Strike sections 101 and 102. Insert before title I the
following----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this amendment
today to crack down on small meth labs. My amendment is modeled
on H.R. 3955, the ``Meth Lab Eradication Act,'' which I
introduced in September. Unfortunately, Iowa has been leading
the Nation with a high number of meth labs. We paid the costs
for our meth problem in human lives, children in foster care
suffering from meth addicts, broken families, crime in small
towns.
In response to the meth problem in Iowa, the Iowa
Legislature passed a law to restrict meth precursors. These
chemicals are essential ingredients for meth cooks. The Iowa
law caused meth labs to decline by 80 percent. It is an
effective law. My amendment adapts the Iowa law for the Federal
landscape. It does this: It puts meth precursors behind the
pharmacy counter where they are sold for a--by a pharmacist.
There's an exception for retailers. No prescription is required
unless the State law requires it. It requires a person to show
an ID and sign a log book, which is also in the underlying
bill. It allows an individual to buy up to 7.5 grams, or 7500
milligrams, or the precursor, the active ingredient, in 30
days. In the event that it's inconvenient to go to a pharmacy,
then people can buy up to 360 milligrams of liquid, liquid
capsule and liquid-filled gel. They can do this every 24 hours.
This is enough for 12 children's doses, 6 adult doses.
Retailers also ask for ID and keep a log book.
By giving pharmacists the responsibility to dispense meth
precursors without a prescription, then we know we are in good
hands. It's also too easy for a convenience store clerk to
accidentally or even knowingly break the law and sell large
amounts of precursors to meth cooks. Pharmacists are trained
and accountable for their practices. With their license on the
line, they will do their best.
My bill also allows the Attorney General to ask pharmacists
and retailers to report sales with characteristics that point
to smurfing--illegal use of other violations of this anti-meth
law.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the thought and work that has
gone into this underlying bill, your manager's amendment, but I
believe that there is a fatal flaw in the 3.6 grams that are
allowed, and those 3.6 grams will allow an individual to go out
and make 19 retail stops. There is not a check between retailer
to retailer. And in those 19 stops, they can pick up enough
meth precursor to produce an entire ounce of methamphetamines
which will last an average addict 90 days, and in the next 89
days, that meth addict then can go out and cook a 90-day supply
every day for 89 days and sell that. So one day's work out of
90 days for a meth lab cook, and he gets 89 days that he can
work for pure profit. And I think that's the hole and the flaw
in this, and I understand the challenge and the question to the
germaneness of this substitute amendment that I've offered here
this morning, and I want to announce that I will seek to get
this language into the bill, either in the Commerce Committee
or on the floor, because I think that we'll be back dealing
with this in another 2 to 3 years when we find out that where
Iowa has had an 80-percent reduction in our meth labs, that
means about 1,200 and some meth busts in that same period of
time a year ago, now it's down to around 240, 1,011 fewer meth
labs in Iowa, 455 fewer abused children, and about $2.4 million
in law enforcement costs for cleaning up meth labs that have
all been saved. And, by the way, the retail adjustment to this,
the parental adjustment to this, has been nil. I spoke last
night on the phone to the chief author of this bill in the Iowa
Legislature, whom I've worked with for 10 years, who told me
that even though they heard resistance from the retailers,
resistance from the drug companies, and resistance from the
parents until the bill was passed, once it was passed and we're
living under the law in Iowa, the adjustment has been so easy
that it has been pathetic.
So I will seek to accomplish this because I think it's the
right policy. We all want to put meth labs out of business in
America. We seek to do that here today. But I don't think we
get there. I will continue to work on that task, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues, and at this point I'd
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my substitute amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
Are there further second degree amendments? The gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk
that I'd ask unanimous consent to take up en bloc.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendments
will be considered en bloc. The clerk will report the two
amendments en bloc.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3889, offered by Mr. Scott of
Virginia. Add at the end the following: Section----
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent that the
amendments----
The Clerk. --Feasibility Study on Federal Drug Court----
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be considered as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
[The amendments follow:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, these two amendments--one studies
the feasibility of a Federal drug court and the other increases
the authorization for drug courts. Research has shown that drug
courts work, and they work for meth as well as other drugs. If
we're going to have Federal drug prosecutions, we ought to have
a Federal--access to a Federal drug court for meth. These drug
courts are cost-effective. They're less expensive and more
successful than just incarceration. In other words, if there's
no drug court, we will pay more and get an increase in drugs.
So we should at least study the feasibility of setting up drug
courts.
The other amendment just increases the funding for drug
courts with the understanding that the increase will go to meth
drug-addicted defendants. If we're serious about actually
reducing meth, we should put our money where our mouth is and
do something in a cost-effective manner. I'd hope it would be
the pleasure to adopt the two amendments.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Scott. I yield.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'll give you a commitment that on
both of these issues we'll work with you between now and the
floor. I think that in terms of doing the funding of this, it's
a little bit premature because we want to find out where the
money is, and as you know, that isn't in the jurisdiction of
our Committee.
Mr. Scott. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that
commitment, we will--I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the amendment and hope that we can increase the utilization of
these very effective crime-fighting initiatives.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
Are there further second degree amendments? The gentlewoman
from California, for what purpose do you seek recognition.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3889, offered by Ms. Waters of
California----
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Clerk. --Strike Section 305 in its entirety.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A point of order is reserved.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and Members,
this amendment that I'm offering may not be indicated correctly
in terms of the page number and the section number. I have my
staff checking on that. But this amendment is intended to
strike what I believe is that section in the managers'
amendment on page 11, go 1 through 16. That would include
sections 419(a). And the reason for this amendment, Mr.
Chairman and Members, is this--in this section of the bill, it
indicates that whoever violates Section 401 by manufacturing,
distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or
distribute methamphetamine or its salts, isomers or salts of
isomers on premises in which an individual who is under the age
of 18 is present or resides, shall, in addition to any other
sentence imposed, be imprisoned for any terms of years but not
more than 20 years, subject to a fine, or both.
I first want to say that I really do appreciate all of the
work that was done on this legislation, and I particularly
appreciate that the section about kingpins was changed, and it
helps to put the emphasis on kingpins. It lowers the amount of
money involved and perhaps the amount of drugs, and that's
okay. It's a bill that I think I could support, particularly as
it relates to kingpins and to mandatory minimum sentencing. But
what I'm worried about is this section.
This is a section that basically says if you are a single
parent, usually women, that somehow you're going to be
penalized more than a man because you have children in the
location where you are manufacturing or you intend to
manufacture or you have in your possession methamphetamine.
Now, the reason this bothers me is I find that many of the
women on drugs--this is crack cocaine and methamphetamine--get
started on these drugs because of their relationships with men
who oftentimes get them involved. And while we certainly don't
want to have women taking up the use of drugs and the
possession of drugs or the manufacture of drugs, we want to
rehabilitate these women. We want to get them out from under
drug use, and we want them to be parents to their children. We
don't simply want to lock them up and take the children, create
another burden on society for the care of the children for the
next 20 years. That's for the rest of their lives. We want to
get these women rehabilitated.
I don't want a woman who happens to have a mate who got her
started on drugs and may live in other locations doing the same
thing with other women being able to escape these penalties
while this woman who's stuck with the children--and in these
cases, it's the woman who usually is caring for the children--
is now under stiffer penalties and lessens the opportunity for
rehabilitation and takes the children for the rest of their
lives.
If you take these children and this woman is sentenced to
20 years, this means that they are taken at the age of 1 or 2
years old and they will never, ever be reconnected with the
parents again. The mother will never have the opportunity for
rehabilitation, and the man is free and out getting other women
involved with drugs.
So I would like to strike this section. Did my staff
correct the reference to the section in the amendment?
That would be page 10, line 18 through----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the
modifications suggested by the gentlewoman----
Ms. Waters. Page 11, line 16.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the modification
suggested by the gentlewoman from California is agreed to, and
the time of the gentlewoman has expired.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes in opposition to
the amendment. What the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California proposes to do is to strike the increased penalty
for manufacturing meth in the presence of children. It's called
the ``Children's Endangerment'' section. Manufacturing meth is
an incredibly dangerous process. There are explosions in meth
labs. People who are in and around meth labs have exposure to
toxic chemicals. And that's why the children's endangerment
section is in there. People who do this are exposing those who
are in the neighborhood and in the house to incredible dangers,
and there are dangers that are probably greater than the
manufacturing or refining of any other kind of illegal drugs.
The original bill that was introduced by Representative
Souder and myself contained a mandatory minimum penalty. I like
mandatory minimums. The gentleman from Virginia hates them. We
made a compromise, and instead of having a mandatory minimum
penalty, instead there is in this bill a consecutive sentence
for children's endangerment of up to 20 years. I think that's
an appropriate compromise. It ought to stay in the bill. We
shouldn't adopt the amendment that strikes the increased
penalties out, and I would hope that the amendment would be
rejected.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman? Will the Chairman yield?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, for the provision--for the
situation outlined in the amendment, are there presently in the
Sentencing Guidelines enhancements for that activity,
sentencing enhancements?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yes, there are. And reclaiming my
time further, what will happen is that the commission will
further increase the guidelines if the bill is passed in its
present form without the gentlewoman from California's
amendment.
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'm happy to yield.
Ms. Waters. As I read the amendment, it says ``by
manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with the intent to
manufacture or distribute.''
As you described the amendment, you described it in terms
of manufacturing methamphetamine. But this amendment says that,
in essence, if someone comes by your house and leaves a package
and that package of methamphetamines is on the premises where
there are children, that you could have enhanced sentencing
because of the intent to distribute, not simply manufacturing.
Is that the intent of the author?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentlewoman will read page
11, lines 5, 6, and 7 of the manager's amendment, it says
``manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to
manufacture.'' If you possess with intent to manufacture and
you're in the vicinity of children, then you're going to get
hit with a consecutive additional sentence of up to 20 years.
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I yield further.
Ms. Waters. Will you continue to read the sentence where it
says ``or''?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. ``Distribute methamphetamine or its
salts''----
Ms. Waters. ``Intent to distribute.'' That's what it says.
It says ``with intent to manufacture or intent to distribute.''
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, that's not in line 7. It is
``with intent to manufacture or distribute.'' The word
``intent'' is not in there the second time.
Ms. Waters. Well, but ``intent,'' sir, applies to
manufacture or distribute.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if it does apply to
manufacture or distribute and you're around kids, I think you
ought to be spending more time in the slammer. I guess you and
I disagree in this.
Ms. Waters. Well, I think we don't disagree on what you're
trying to do. What we probably disagree on, Mr. Chairman, is
that if it is believed that there is an intent to distribute,
not manufacture, and if it is a woman with children, that this
woman can have enhanced sentencing that would take the children
for 20 years and lock her up for 20 years.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, reclaiming my--reclaiming my
time, I don't see anything that zeros in on one gender or the
other. The criminal statute is gender neutral, as criminal
statutes ought to be. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield before he----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I have 6 seconds left.
Ms. Waters. --yields back his time?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I have 6 seconds left.
Ms. Waters. I'll take the 6 seconds. Mr. Chairman, you know
full well that the women are left with the children. It is
discriminatory.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the Chairman has
expired.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, during the 8 years I was
privileged to be Attorney General of the State of California
and was responsible for multiple anti-drug task forces, we ran
into the problem of meth production and meth distribution as no
other State did. One of my agents did a master's thesis on the
question of children's exposure to methamphetamine at these
sites and discovered that more--it was more often than not that
the children would, in fact, be physically affected by the
presence of methamphetamine and the products in the area.
Not once in those 8 years do I ever recall anybody saying
that there was disproportionate investigation or prosecution of
women versus men. All I recall is that we had children, both
male and female, who were affected. We adopted a slogan in our
department, which was ``Meth use equals child abuse.'' The
worst example of child abuse my agents ever saw were at the
hands of parents who were involved with methamphetamine. And
while you might talk about how their conduct was affected by
the fact that they were under the influence, the impact on the
children was devastating.
This particular section of the bill, in my judgment, is
perhaps the single most important section of this bill. Our
children ought to be a priority. And whether it's a mother, a
father, a male or female who has any jurisdiction over the
children, we ought to bring the full effects of the law against
them.
Methamphetamine not only destroys the people who are using
it, it destroys the people around it. And the most vulnerable
of those who are exposed to this are the children who don't ask
to be in these sites, and the suggestion that somehow this is a
gender question escapes me, frankly. We're talking about
protecting the children, giving them an additional level of
protection and taking out of action some people who already
have exposed children to unbelievable damage and danger. And I
would support the Chairman in opposing this amendment. There is
nothing more that we could do on behalf of the children than
support this section of this bill.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the
second degree amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Waters. Those in favor will say aye? Those
opposed, no?
The noes appear to have it. The noes have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for marking up this important
legislation----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman strike the last
word?
Mr. Goodlatte. I move to strike the last word. I'm sorry.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the Chairman.
Meth use and trafficking are serious problems that must be
stopped. Meth is now one of the most frequently investigated
drugs. In my district, investigators estimate that it accounts
for about 75 percent of drug cases in one of my counties and
believe that gang members have moved more than 9,000 grams of
the drug in the area during a 2-year period.
With increased penalties for offenders and coordination
with manufacturers and retailers, this legislation will go a
long way toward combatting this serious problem. I do, however,
have a concern about the effective date of provision for the
bill. The June 30, 2006, effective date may pose an undue
burden on some manufacturers and retailers who are acting in
good faith to reformulate some of their products and prepare
the marketplace for the changes we are implementing in this
bill. What they are doing is valuable to America's consumers,
the legitimate users of the end products that are used for cold
remedies and other purposes.
It's my understanding that an extension of the effective
day by 3 months would be sufficient for manufacturers and
retailers to prepare for these changes, and, Mr. Chairman, I
know the Committee is aware of this problem, and it's my hope
that the Committee would be willing to address this concern as
we move forward toward the floor and in our discussions with
the Senate on the legislation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments in the
second----
The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for what
purpose do you seek recognition?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Number 178, please.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3889, offered by Ms. Jackson
Lee of Texas. Add at the end the following new section:
Section--Reports on bills increasing or adding controlled
substances act Penalties----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm sorry. 178 is----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. This is 178.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me look at the number because----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We will act accordingly, Mr. Chairman. Let
me say to the colleagues that I have on occasion voted for
mandatory sentencing, and I have on occasion, on many
occasions, asked a question as to whether or not we need such
sentencing.
This amendment I think is a studied and thoughtful
amendment on this very issue, and it asks that the Attorney
General examine each public bill introduced into either House
of Congress and determine whether that bill adds or increases a
penalty for a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. If
the Attorney General determines it does, the Attorney General
shall report to Congress not later than 60 days after the bill
is introduced. The bill shall contain the following: how would
the enhanced sentencing affect the Federal prison population by
an estimated number; an estimated number of offenders that
would be prosecuted under any enhanced Sentencing Guidelines
that fall under the Controlled Substances Act; an estimated
financial impact statement which reflects the number of persons
that may be incarcerated and prosecuted as a result of the
sentencing enhancement; and an estimate of how much it will
cost to house each inmate under the enhanced guidelines that
fall under the Controlled Substances Act in each individual
Federal penitentiary.
I believe that methamphetamine use is an epidemic, and I
join my colleague in her analysis of the impact of mandatory
sentencing, in one instance the impact on, in her instance,
women who will be responsible for children.
This is an amendment that gives information as to impact of
mandatory sentencing. H.R. 3889 lowers the amount of
methamphetamine it takes to get a 10-year mandatory minimum
sentence from 50 grams to 5 grams, a sugar packet's worth. In
comparison, it takes 5,000 grams of pot or cocaine to receive a
10-year sentence. Poor people will get 10 years for 5 grams of
meth, while rich people will get 10 years unless they have
5,000 grams of powder cocaine. It lowers the amount of
methamphetamine it takes to get a 5-year mandatory minimum
sentence from 5 grams to 3 grams.
Yes, we want to stop this devastating problem, but we also
know that this problem is intertwined with poverty. We know
it's intertwined as well with addiction. So it's important, I
think, to have this study.
The DEA spokesperson who testified at the Subcommittee
hearing said that 5 grams of meth would be--would last a hard-
core meth addict about 3 to 4 days, meaning that a lot of meth
addicts are going to end up getting a decade in prison when
they really need to be treated. The trigger thresholds are so
low that low-level non-violent offenders who are currently
being prosecuted at the State level will be prosecuted at the
Federal level, wasting Federal resources and further expanding
the Federal prison system.
Living in the Southern District of Texas, I can tell you
that other legitimate cases are hard-pressed to get their day
in court in the Southern District, immigration cases and other
cases, because of the overload of drug cases. So I think this
amendment gives us the information necessary to contribute to
our thinking on mandatory sentencing, and, of course, we have
heard from our Judicial Conferences their concerns about the
overburdening mandatory sentencing. This information I believe
is extremely helpful.
Finally, the sentencing reform movement has made tremendous
gain at the State level in recent years. Support for Federal
reform is growing as well. Even conservatives like former
Attorney General Ed Meese are beginning to support reform. It
would be a major step backwards for both the sentencing reform
movement and the idea of making sure that we do penalize those
who deserve to be penalized and stop the methamphetamine
epidemic clash with each other. This amendment simply allows
the Attorney General to provide us with the information that I
think will be very helpful in our further deliberations. I ask
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman yield back?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd love to reserve my time, if I could.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. You can't.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself for 5
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
My colleagues, what ever happened to the concept of
separation of powers? This amendment throws that concept, which
has served our country so well, right into the trash can of
history. It's our job as elected representatives of the people
exercising legislative responsibility to determine what actions
are criminal and to prescribe the penalties for those actions.
It's not the job of the executive branch to do that. And it's
not the job of the executive branch to muddle up legislative
deliberations. If they want a report on something, they have
free speech and they're perfectly able to do it. But the way
this amendment is drafted is that it has the executive branch
weighing in on something that is exclusively a legislative
responsibility.
Now, if the gentlewoman from Texas wants to have the
Department of Justice end up spending their time doing lengthy
analyses that duplicate what we get from the Congressional
Budget Office, which we have to file before a bill is brought
up by rule, her amendment does that. I'd like to see the DOJ
use its resources to actually go out and catch people who are
making meth and to throw them in jail so that they aren't
poisoning anybody else, child or adult. And that's why this
amendment ought to go down.
The other thing is that this 60-day requirement can be used
by anybody that wants to slow down any piece of legislation
that amends the Controlled Substances Act or establishes a
penalty for violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
This bill was introduced with a lot of cosponsors on a
bipartisan basis on September 22. Today is November 9th. And if
her amendment were the law today, I can just see somebody
raising a point of order that this Committee can't consider the
bill because the 60 days for the AG to report has not expired.
We set our own schedule here. We shouldn't let the Attorney
General or any executive branch official set our schedule. The
amendment is a bad one and ought to be defeated, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. I'd like to make an observation.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Delahunt. Move to strike the last word.
I'd like to make an observation relative to the markup that
was conducted in Mr. Coble's Committee. I thought that it was a
very fruitful and beneficial and informative discussion about
mandatory sentences. And I intend to support this bill because
of the adjustments that have been made.
But I would encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to authorize or to
encourage the Chair of the Crime Subcommittee to conduct
hearings on the issue or the concept of mandatory sentencing so
we can lay things out and we as a legislative body reach our
own conclusions as to the efficacy of mandatory sentences and
its implications for the entire criminal justice system.
You know, we just have, I believe, approached it on an ad
hoc basis in proposals that come before the Committee in terms
of particular discrete legislative proposals as opposed to
stepping back, taking a look at the entire issue. And I would
hope that you, Mr. Chairman, would encourage all of us to bring
some folks in from the Sentencing Commission and from elsewhere
to take a whole look at the sentencing approach and what our
role ought to be.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms.
Wasserman-Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to
strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. And I'd like to yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished gentlelady, and
I know the work that she has done over the course of her time
in Congress and as well in the work that she did as a State
senator. I recall the great debate on the Terry Schiavo case
which clearly indicated that in many instances we breach the
lines of demarcation of the three branches of Government. I am
not here to advocate that breach, but it has certainly occurred
when we have found it to be convenient.
In this instance, let me say that I associate myself with
the words of Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Chairman. I hope we will have
hearings because I indicated to you I voted in some instances
of mandatory sentencing, but--and this--I think in an analysis
we will find that this is a thoughtful way of allowing some
reason to come into this discussion. And I would suggest that
the Attorney General could act expeditiously. I'd welcome an
amendment of suggesting a lower time frame than the 60 days.
But though this bill is bipartisan, it is bipartisan because we
are all in agreement about the epidemic proportions of
methamphetamine use. But we're certainly not in agreement, as
evidenced by a number of amendments, about the impact of the
mandatory sentencing.
I would suggest to my colleagues that this is an approach
that can better educate us, and you would probably have and I
feel that we would have the support of many of those,
conservatives and others, who have questioned the value of
mandatory sentencing, to take individuals who are obviously
addicted and to put them and incarcerate them, costing
thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars in the
Federal system with no treatment for no results. And these
individuals after 10 years mandatory are then returned to
society with no training, families have been dispersed and
devastated, and what results do we get?
And so I think that the effort here is to make a very
strong statement at methamphetamine use. Very strong statement.
But at the same time, to be able to argue the case that the
impact needs to be assessed. And there's nothing in the
amendment--excuse me, nothing in the legislation that assesses
the impact, the far-reaching impact.
And so I would hope my colleagues would support this
amendment, and I thank the distinguished gentlelady for
yielding this time to make the argument that this amendment
would add to this legislation and give reason to this
legislation and allow us to step back and ask the question: Do
we want to put the mother, the teenager, the addicted person in
the lines of incarceration for 10 years for the minimal use,
the same problem that we've had with crack cocaine and cocaine
just does not make sense, and we need some independent
assessment to give some idea of the impact that this would
have.
With that, I would also like to reserve her time, but I
will yield back to the distinguished gentlelady.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment in
the second degree offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The noes clearly have it. The noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does anybody else want to have a
turn?
Ms. Waters. No, just those with their hands up.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report her
amendment.
Ms. Waters. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3889, offered by Ms. Waters.
On page 11, line 12, strike ``20'' and insert ``5.''
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to my earlier
discussion about the enhanced sentencing for the presence of
children where there is the manufacture, possession, or intent
to distribute. I certainly agree with the gentleman from
California that we're all very, very concerned about children
and we want to do everything that we can to protect children,
and certainly children should not be in environments where
there are drugs of any kind.
Having said that, I spent many years as a social worker,
and I know the relationship between women and men and drugs. I
also understand very, very well that many of the women who end
up on drugs end up on drugs because they fall in love with a
man who's involved with drugs, either possessing, trafficking,
or manufacturing. And I also know that many of these are single
women, some of them are on welfare, but in all cases the women
were the ones who were in possession of the children. They are
the ones who rear, they're the ones who take care of, they're
the ones who have children in the homes.
Most of the men visit the homes. They're in and out of the
homes. If they talk a woman into using her home to manufacture
or simply to be a storage or to be a place where they can leave
drugs, you're right, those drugs are going to be in that house
where there are children. And under the bill that you have
before you, you would enhance the sentencing for that woman
under these conditions to 20 years while the man who's
responsible in most cases for the drugs will not have an
enhanced sentence, maybe not even have any sentence whatsoever.
And so recognizing and understanding what happens in the
real world, I do believe that this is discriminatory, that this
will impact women, that you will have mothers who will end up
in prison and children in the system, the foster care system,
for their entire lives. I don't think that's good public
policy. I think we should punish those who manufacture or sell
drugs, and I think the punishment should fit the crime. But we
should also be concerned about rehabilitation.
If there is a woman who has drugs in her home and there are
children, we should punish her, but we should want to
rehabilitate her because most of the time these women are
addicted also or they're on their way to addiction. We should
rehabilitate them. They should do some time, and they should
come back out. They should get their children, and they should
raise them. But to enhance the sentencing for 20 years and
place children in the system for the rest of their lives just
does not make good public policy sense.
So my amendment would strike 20 years and insert 5 years,
at least reduce the sentencing to something that makes good
sense that would punish for a substantial period of time but
would anticipate that this woman could have learned her lesson,
to be rehabilitated and reconnected with the children.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself for 5
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment is very similar to the previous amendment by
the gentlewoman from California. What it does do is it reduces
the judge's opportunity to sentence someone consecutively for
endangering children from an additional 20 years to an
additional 5 years.
Now, I guess this is a value judgment that the committee is
going to have to make. It's not a mandatory minimum penalty. So
what the gentlewoman from California's amendment is doing is
taking away the opportunity for a judge who presides over the
trial and sentences someone following the jury's conviction of
that person to 15 more years if the circumstances warrant.
I hear an awful lot about judicial discretion on the other
side of the aisle, and we ought to give judges responsibility
rather than requiring them to do something. What this amendment
does is it gives the judge less discretion when there is a
defendant who has committed a particularly egregious crime. And
I think the judge ought to have the additional discretion for
the additional 15 years.
And I'd just point out that Newsweek ran a cover story
about meth in its August 8th issue, and it talks about meth
labs exploding. And one of their articles says, ``I just felt
my''--or ``I felt my face just melting.''
Now, what this amendment does is if it's a child's face
that is just melting because they happen to be around a meth
lab when it exploded, then the person who endangered that child
has the potential of getting 15 years less in jail. They
shouldn't have that potential of 15 years less in jail. They
should have the potential of the additional 15 years in jail
that the amendment in the nature----
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'm happy to yield to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. I want to first deal with
your argument about judges' discretion. I do not take away
judges' discretion. The judge has the discretion in my
amendment between nothing and 5 years. What you're describing
is broadened discretion where the judge would have between 0
and 20 years. I do not take away discretion. That's number one.
Number two, of course----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'll reclaim my time. I just give
the judge more discretion.
Ms. Waters. Of course. Don't be funny, Mr. Chairman. We
know exactly what you're saying, and you know exactly what I'm
doing. I appreciate that. But if I may, if I could continue, if
you would yield to me----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Oh, I'm happy to yield to the
gentlewoman----
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
On the second point, of course, we do not want children in
any environment where their lives are endangered. We know that
we're all working to try and eliminate the manufacture of
methamphetamines, and we're trying to rehabilitate people.
We're trying to do good public policy that makes good sense.
If a house blows up, if people are harmed, or if there's a
death, there are all kinds of other additional penalties that
are operable at that point. You have the penalty for the
explosion. You have penalties for the death, on and on and on.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'll reclaim my time once again,
and then I'm going to yield back.
With all of these other penalties, the gentlewoman from
California could reduce those. What the gentlewoman from
California is reducing is the ability of the judge to impose a
consecutive sentence for somebody who's endangering children
and who has been convicted of endangering children. And why
does the gentlewoman from California want to reduce the ability
of the judge to sentence someone who has been convicted of
endangering children because they're operating a meth lab by 15
years? This is a value decision. I respect the gentlewoman from
California's attempt to reduce the ability of the judges to
impose a consecutive sentence. I just disagree with her and
think she's wrong, and that's why the amendment ought to be
rejected, and I----
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. --yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. I rush to the aid of the gentlelady from
California.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes to do that.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir.
First of all, before this discussion gets too far off
track, I want to thank you for the managers' amendment. I think
it's important and I think we all do.
But now we come to some closer questions here that require
a little bit more scrutiny, and I think it's very important
that we do have the discussion without reference to whether
this amendment is going to carry the day or whether it isn't,
because important things are being said that, unfortunately for
me, they may not have been said at earlier times when we were
having discussions about the criminal justice system.
So with that, I would yield to the gentlelady from
California to continue her discussion.
Ms. Waters. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that,
Mr. Conyers.
The Chairman said he just does not know why the gentlelady
from California would be concerned about this issue. And make
it clear, I'm not taking away judges' discretion. I'm giving
them discretion within a limited period of time from 0 to 5
years rather than up to 20 years. And I'm doing that because I
recognize that there should be punishment and that punishment
should fit the crime.
So, in addition to the sentencing that this woman would get
for being in possession of manufacturing, et cetera, we're
talking about putting--giving the judge the discretion to put
another 20 years on top of that. And let me tell you that many
judges will use the full discretion to put 20 years on top of
that.
It doesn't make good sense to have children in the criminal
justice--in the foster care system for 5, 10, 15, 20 years,
babies who may be, you know, in this situation. It overburdens
the criminal justice system. It places children in a situation
where they will not be with any parents for the entire
lifetime. And it is not good public policy. That is why I am
trying to help the men on this Committee understand how they
can help society, how they can help these mothers, how they can
do a better job of strengthening our ability to change people's
lives and to give children a chance.
I mean, all of those are concerns and issues that I have,
not theoretical, but because of my experience as a social
worker, working on these issues and understanding how these
women get into situations in the first place, and understanding
how most of them who get addicted want very much to be
rehabilitated and to get back with their children, even when
the children are taken. I think the discretion that I'm
outlining is sufficient.
I will yield to the gentleman from--were you trying to get
my attention?
Mr. Conyers. Who wants to be----
Ms. Waters. I'm sorry. I yield back to the gentleman from--
--
Mr. Conyers. Well, I can understand the gentlelady's
concern about this matter, and we all agree that the changes
that Chairman Sensenbrenner made take it out of the mandatory
category. But it still raises the objections based on the
analysis of the gentlelady from California.
I'm going to support Ms. Waters, and I think that this
discussion, and others like it, need to be gone into as we
continue along this re-examination of criminal justice issues
before the Committee.
I will return the unused time, Chairman Sensenbrenner.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the
last world.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. It is ironic that you mentioned this 15-year
period because it recalls a case where a woman was before me
for assisting her husband in cooking a meth lab. The husband
had fled. She was no assistance whatsoever in trying to
establish where her husband had gone, and she could have been.
And so I had indicated that sentences--she was blown away that
I was looking at a sentence that was 15 years more than she
ever anticipated. And I said we'd hold that open until--and
reset the hearing. In the meantime, she turned around and not
only helped establish where her husband had gone, she gave
positive information about a hit that had been placed on one of
our local drug enforcement agents. And as testimony later
indicated at the subsequent hearing, it saved his life because
she was so specific. She gave up enough individuals and enough
information that that extra 15-year threat she was looking at
really solved a lot of cases and saved a lot of people from
getting hooked on meth in the future from a Dallas contact that
had been found in East Texas.
So I sure like having that extra 15 years in there for the
judge as a minimum. It just can encourage people to help law
enforcement in ways that even law enforcement never dreamed.
I yield back----
Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. Gohmert. I yielded back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the second degree amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters. Those
in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The noes appear to have it. The noes have it; the
amendment's not agreed to.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the
gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I believe I have an amendment at the desk.
It's 179.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report amendment
179.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3889, offered by Ms. Jackson
Lee of Texas. At the end of the bill----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished Chairman. I
think as we have indicated, we all committed singularly to the
understanding that methamphetamine is an epidemic, and I have--
associate myself with the arguments that my colleague and
friend from California has made previously. My amendment
recognizes that women get caught up in this devastation and
impact negatively on unborn children and dependent children.
And so my amendment specifically would like to help address the
question of methamphetamine use among pregnant women and women
with dependent children who come in contact with the criminal
justice system. More specifically, my amendment would authorize
the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, to make grants to agencies in charge
of drug abuse, criminal justice, and child welfare so that they
can work together, in a coordinated way, to treat pregnant
women, pregnant offenders or offenders with dependent children
who get caught up in the web of methamphetamine and help moms
and kids stay together as a family.
In fact, we have a system of law enforcement in our
community--and some of my colleagues may have a similar
structure--the constable system, where we have constables who
are in close contact with individuals who are engaged in this
kind of devastating behavior, socially unfit behavior and
criminal behavior. These agencies would be in line to receive
assistance from these grants.
We know that methamphetamine tears apart our Nation's
families like few other drugs. The data is there. Law
enforcement officials bust up meth labs across the country and
find children sitting in squalor, inches away from the toxic
chemicals that can burn or maim, leaving families both
literally and figuratively and forever scarred.
This amendment----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd be happy to yield to the distinguished
gentleman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding. I think the gentlewoman has a good idea. I think this
amendment needs to be further refined, particularly so we can
get it into a final product on this subject. And if the
gentlewoman will withdraw the amendment, I'll be happy to work
with her as the process progresses in getting this bill enacted
into law.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very
important step that I would be very happy to accept because I
believe that in the midst of what we're trying to do, we have a
number of victims. It also speaks to the amendment that I had
before, and maybe I can convince the Chairman forthright with
other aspects of my earlier amendment. But I thank the Chairman
very much, and I would ask unanimous consent to be able to
withdraw this amendment, to be able to work with the Chairman
to make sure that this language is included in the legislation
to help many of our agencies and the victims caught up in this
devastation.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
Are there further second degree amendments to the manager's
amendment offered by----
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. I have an amendment that's not at the desk,
but I'd move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes to strike the last word.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really applaud the efforts to try to rein in this
terrible epidemic of methamphetamine. I've seen firsthand the
devastating effects it has on individuals and families, and
that's why I'm so proud that we're making this effort.
At the same time, I am concerned and I have an amendment
that would raise the 3.6 grams back to 9 grams under the bill.
I have been informed that would be held as not being germane,
so I'm not offering it at this time. But I just would like to
express--and I really appreciate the opportunity to express--
I'm concerned with people like some of us who have been born
with--my youngest daughter--sinus problems that Sudafed,
pseudoephedrine, has been found to help. And you get a 12-hour
dose, 120 milligrams. You buy a package like I did the other
day. It's 20 tablets, 120 grams each, that would--actually, if
my daughter and I both were needing them at the same time with
a bad cold, that would hold us for 5 days. By raising it, it
would make it easier for us law-abiding folks to be able to get
that.
I'm concerned we're moving toward a day when medicines like
this, like the best cold remedy on the market that's contained
in most of the effective cold remedies, is not going to be as
readily available. I was trying to find actual numbers and was
told by somebody that's supposed to know yesterday there are 40
to 45 million purchases of cold remedies that contain
pseudoephedrine every week. And I would like to encourage the
Federal Government to work--the FDA to work with drug
manufacturers to develop new drugs that will work and not be
tempting to meth addicts so that we can both come out win-win.
I'm also sorry to see the effect that this has on law-
abiding people in that pseudoephedrine is generic, can be
produced generically. You can buy it so cheaply now as a
generic, and I am concerned we could end up moving to a day
like when the Democrats were in the majority and this horrible
thing called freon was outlawed just before the patent expired,
and it was going to become generic and people could get it a
lot cheaper, and then we went to something not nearly as
effective or efficient, and so there were more profits made. I
don't mind people making profits, but, you know, I like having
generic drugs that we can purchase.
I am also worried that this--in a way, it punishes law-
abiding citizens rather than the meth cookers by forcing them
to go through a more arduous process to purchase
pseudoephedrine for those that need it every day for non-
criminal purposes. And I would just urge the Chairman to take
that into consideration. I understand it may go to a conference
if passed, and take that into consideration for those of us
that are law-abiding. Whether it's our guns or our
pseudoephedrine, we just don't like to go register with
anybody.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments? If
there are none, the question is on the manager's amendment
offered by the Chair. All in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it; the manager's
amendment is adopted.
A reporting quorum is present. The question occurs on the
motion to report the bill H.R. 3889 favorably as amended. All
in favor say aye? Opposed, no?
The ayes appear to have it.
Mr. Watt. rollcall.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall is demanded by the
gentleman from North Carolina. Those in favor of reporting the
bill favorably will, as your names are called, answer aye,
those opposed no, and the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, aye. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye. Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus?
Mr. Bachus. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Inglis?
Mr. Inglis. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Inglis, aye. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. King?
Mr. King. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert?
Mr. Gohmert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye. Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen?
Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz?
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members in the chamber who wish to
cast or change their votes? The gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Green.
Mr. Green. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
Flake.
Mr. Flake. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Flake, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa.
Mr. Issa. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Issa, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further--the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan.
Mr. Meehan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members in the chamber who
wish to cast or change their votes? If not, the clerk will
report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 31 ayes and zero noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment to report the
bill favorably as amended is agreed to.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be
reported favorably to the House in the form of a single
amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the
amendments adopted here today. Without objection, the staff is
directed to make any technical and conforming changes. And
without objection, all Members will be given 2 days as provided
by House rules in which to submit additional, dissenting,
supplemental, or minority views.
For what purpose does the gentleman from--the gentlewoman
from Texas seek recognition? For what purpose does the----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may strike
the last word and speak out of order for introductions.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 1
minute.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This Committee has worked very hard on issues of homeland
security, and I'm just delighted that we have two first
responders who were on the front lines in Hurricane Katrina--
Hurricane Katrina somewhat and Hurricane Rita, because they're
from Texas. That is Captain Gilbert Bennett of the Houston Fire
Department, who's with us today, and Constable Mae Walker,
Precinct 7. These are our first responders on the front line of
Hurricane Rita, and I'm just delighted of their presence.
[Applause.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. On behalf of the Committee, the
Chair would like to welcome our two guests and thank them for
their service.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Intervening business.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. This concludes the business for
which this markup was called. The Chair thanks everybody for
dealing with these matters expeditiously, and without
objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]