PROPOSAL FOR METH SENTENCES DRAWS FIRE

Mandatory Terms - Some House Democrats Oppose Adding Prison Time,
Saying That Approach Is Ineffective

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday sharply criticized a bill
designed to curb the availability of methamphetamine in the United
States, singling out a provision that would impose tougher prison
sentences for trafficking.

At a hearing in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, the
Democratic lawmakers said incarcerating drug dealers for longer terms
has failed to stop drug addiction over the past two decades, while
ruining lives in poor communities.

"Whether it's crack or meth, we've got a drug problem in America, and
it's not going to be solved with mandatory minimum sentencing," said
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

The opposition is unlikely to derail House Resolution 3889, which
enjoys the support of House Republican leaders and the bipartisan
Congressional Meth Caucus. The chairman of the crime subcommittee,
Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., is a co-sponsor, and spokesman Ed McDonald
said Coble hopes to schedule a vote soon.

Still, Tuesday's hearing made clear that any vote in committee or on
the floor likely would be far from unanimous. Supporters had hoped to
design a meth bill free of controversial elements that would slow its progress.

The hitching point in the bill is an expansion of the types of meth
cases in which defendants could receive 10- and 20-year mandatory
minimum sentences. For example, current law imposes a 10-year
sentence for trafficking in 50 grams of meth. Under the bill,
possession with intent to sell 5 grams of meth would draw a 10-year
term. Five grams is about 50 doses of meth.

Most of the bill deals with increased international regulation of
companies that buy and sell pseudoephedrine, the main meth
ingredient. Little of that language came under attack at the hearing.
And an industry association, the Food Marketing Institute, submitted
a statement in support of the bill, praising international controls
on pseudoephedrine.

Waters also made clear that she did not have a problem with precursor
control or curtailing meth production in Mexico.

"Come in here and talk to me about (Mexico's president) Vicente Fox
and what you're going to do with them and trade if they don't do
something about the transporting of stuff across the border from the
superlabs in Mexico," Waters said.

"But just to talk about young people who use this meth to get high
going to penitentiaries, that's not doing anything to make me believe
it's going to be helpful."

Democrats, who are in the minority in Congress, used the hearing to
fire pointed questions about mandatory minimums at sponsors of the
bill and an official from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Historically, there has been a racial component to discussions of
sentences for drug crimes. African American lawmakers have long
criticized the disparate impact on black communities created in the
1980s when Congress enacted longer sentences for small amounts of
crack cocaine.

Members of the crime panel on Tuesday said that longer prison terms
were an equally ineffective way to deal with meth, whose users are
overwhelmingly white.

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., the committee's top Democrat, said Congress
has repeatedly tried the punitive approach with meth and other drugs
- -- and failed.

"Meanwhile, the epidemic has grown exponentially," Scott said.

Scott, an attorney, reserved his closest cross-examination for Joseph
T. Rannazzisi, deputy chief of enforcement operations for the DEA.

After a relentless series of questions, Scott concluded, "You did not
reduce the incidence of crack use by having a draconian five-year
mandatory-minimum sentence, did you?

"Putting it that way," Rannazzisi said, "I guess not."

Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., said punishment should be balanced by
additional money to treat addictions.

"There's no reference in the legislation about treatment," Delahunt
said. "You've got to attack this on the demand side."

Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., a sponsor of the bill, defended the
tougher criminal penalties by saying Congress must send a "send a
strong signal" to drug traffickers.

"We've been sending messages," Delahunt responded. "I think there
should be now conclusive evidence that just simply enhancing
penalties is in no way going to reducing the trafficking in a
particular controlled substance."

Apart from the criminal sentencing, 19 of the bill's 24 pages deal
with greatly expanding controls over the pseudoephedrine trade
internationally. It would require the State Department to estimate
legitimate demand for cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine
worldwide, and compare that figure with actual production. Top
importers who fail to control diversion to the meth trade could lose
U.S. aid dollars.

It also would set quotas on imports to the United States based on
medical need and allow the DEA to examine the sales records of the
world's nine major manufacturers of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in
India, Germany, China and the Czech Republic.

Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., who is the lead sponsor of the measures,
said some supporters wanted even more stringent penalties but that
these had been removed to build bipartisan backing. Sponsors now
include Democrats such as Reps. Darlene Hooley, D-Ore., and Brian
Baird, D-Wash.

Souder said he had little doubt the legislation would survive.

"We have overwhelming support," said Souder.