Sheila Jackson Lee: “Again, let me indicate that I appreciate the gentleman's concern. I am concerned that simply a negligence standard would…”

“Again, let me indicate that I appreciate the gentleman's concern. I am concerned that simply a negligence standard would be the standard for judging a defendant under this particular amendment: should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhaling, injection, or any other immediate means. That is not an appropriate standard that would attach criminal liability and particularly severe consequences such as a mandatory minimum. Again, I am holding up one of the reports from the Sentencing Commission, and I would make the argument that it is thorough in its review, and our colleagues can be comforted by the fact that, again, the Sentencing Commission will continue its work and it will continue to address some of the concerns of my friend from Texas. I would hope that we would allow that process to proceed. I think it would be very concerning to all of us if we had a negligence standard. I believe the courts will address the fact based upon the defendant and the facts that we have in place. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and oppose the underlying bill Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Amendment 13, proposed by Mr. Thornberry. The amendment adds a list of factors that may be considered when proving whether a particular substance was intended for human consumption.…”