Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

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.]