Political Quotes

“Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 4 proposed by the gentleman from Texas. The amendment adds a list of factors that may be considered when proving whether a particular substance was intended for human consumption. I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, because criminal liability could result from one of the factors being proven merely under a negligent standard. Only whether the defendant should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhaling, ingestion, or any other immediate means, it is not an appropriate standard to which we should attach criminal liability, particularly severe consequences such as mandatory minimums. Now, I have indicated that we have an action by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that took place on April 2018. We have a detailed analysis of the range of analogues, synthetic analogues, including K2, spice, and other fentanyl analogues, but not limited to. Therefore, we have a marker. We have a standard to save lives. And what we should be emphasizing, again, is treatment. Second, this amendment actually makes it easier to trigger mandatory minimums. For instance, a defendant could be subjected to a 20-year mandatory minimum in instances where serious bodily harm injury results. I am opposed to amendment 4 because defendants could be subjected to such mandatory minimums relying, in part, on proof that they should have known a substance was intended for human consumption. Now, let me be very clear.…”