19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–324 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

DRUG TRAFFICKING SAFE HARBOR ELIMINATION ACT 

OF 2011 

DECEMBER 12, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 313] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 313) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that 

persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United States to 

possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United 

States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet 

drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States, 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 Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 8 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 8 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 8 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 10 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 10 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 10 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 11 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 12 

The Amendment 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 

2011’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO CLARIFY CONSPIRACIES 

CONDUCTED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES MAY BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED IN 

THE UNITED STATES. 

Section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 846) is amended by— 

(1) inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Any’’; and 

(2) inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more persons, or 

aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this title, other than a violation of section 404(a), if committed 

within the United States, shall be subject to the same penalties that would apply 

to such conduct if it were to occur within the United States.’’. 

Purpose and Summary 

H.R. 313 gives extraterritorial application to the Federal drug 

conspiracy statute. The legislation clarifies that those persons who 

conspire within the United States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct 

within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the 

United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States. 

The crime of simple possession of a controlled substance is excluded from application of the legislation. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

This bill closes a loophole in the Controlled Substances Act and 

clarifies Congress’ intent that the drug trafficking conspiracy statute be given extraterritorial application. Drug traffickers are currently allowed to conspire with impunity in the United States and 

evade criminal prosecution when their goal is to traffic drugs outside of the United States. 

A Federal criminal case demonstrates how the loophole is being 

exploited. In 1998, two individuals conspired with members of a 

large Colombian drug trafficking organization which included a 

Saudi Arabian prince. The goal of the conspiracy was to traffic 

2,000 kilograms of cocaine, worth over $100 million, from South 

America to Europe. Several meetings among the co-conspirators occurred in Miami, Florida and elsewhere around the world. Specifically, while in Miami, they planned in detail to purchase the cocaine in Colombia and ship it to Europe for distribution. Ultimately, the prince used his royal jet under diplomatic cover to 

transport the cocaine from Venezuela to Paris, France. Although 

part of the cocaine was seized by law enforcement authorities in 

France and Spain, about 1,000 kilograms of cocaine were distributed and sold in the Netherlands, Italy and elsewhere in Europe. 

In 2005, two of the conspirators were convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy in Federal district court in Florida and each 

sentenced to about 24 years in prison. However, in 2007 the U.S. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

1 United States v. Lopez-Vanegas, 493 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated their convictions.1 The court reasoned that there is no violation of Federal law 

when, absent Congressional intent to the contrary, the object of the 

conspiracy is to possess and distribute controlled substances outside of the United States even though meetings and negotiations in 

furtherance of the crime occurred on U.S. soil. 

Crime is usually territorial. It is a matter of law enforcement 

specific to the place where the crime occurs. However, drug trafficking is inherently global in nature, now more than ever. Two 

other provisions of the Controlled Substances Act are explicitly 

extraterritorial: 21 U.S.C. § 959 (foreign manufacture of drugs for 

U.S. importation) and § 960a (narco-terrorism). In addition, 18 

U.S.C. § 1956, the primary anti-money laundering statute used in 

drug trafficking cases, is extraterritorial. The Federal Maritime 

Drug Law Enforcement Act was enacted in response to the increasing use of vessels, submersibles and semi-submersibles to traffic 

drugs around the world. In passing that law, Congress stated ‘‘that 

trafficking in controlled substances aboard vessels is a serious 

international problem and is universally condemned. Moreover, 

such trafficking presents a specific threat to the security and societal well-being of the United States.’’ 

There are hundreds of Federal laws which are expressly 

extraterritorial. Extradition treaties among countries around the 

world are often used to effectuate the extraterritorial laws of nations. The United States has taken the lead in worldwide narcotics 

control over the past several decades. Now is not the time for the 

U.S. to provide a safe haven for drug traffickers to plot their illicit, 

international operations. 

The United States is a signatory to two leading international 

drug treaties: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and 

the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The first treaty 

has been extremely influential in standardizing national drug control laws. The Controlled Substances Act was intended to fulfill our 

treaty obligations. As of January 2005, this treaty had 180 parties. 

The second treaty was designed to control psychotropic drugs which 

were not within the scope of the first treaty. This treaty, supplemented by subsequent treaty signed in 1988, includes provisions to 

end international drug trafficking, associated money laundering 

and other drug-related crimes. 

The Committee adopted an amendment to expressly exclude the 

crime of simple possession of a controlled substance from the 

extraterritorial application of the drug conspiracy statute. Consideration has been given to situations where one or more persons in 

the United States may discuss the simple possession or personal 

use of drugs outside of the United States with individuals in or outside of the United States. The intent to criminalize conspiracies to 

traffic drugs both in and outside of the United States should not 

extend to conspiracies limited to the simple possession of personal 

use quantities when there is no concurrent intent to distribute or 

re-sell those drugs. 

Opponents argue that the new conspiracy provision should only 

apply to cases in which the conduct at issue violates not just U.S. 

law but the laws of the countries in which the drug trafficking ocVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:33 Dec 13, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR324P1.XXX HR324P1

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

2See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1091 (genocide), ch. 113B (terrorism), ch. 113C (torture), ch. 118 (war 

crimes), § 2442 (recruitment or use of child soldiers). 3See 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq. 

curs. The Lopez-Vanegas case illustrates the difficulty this requirement would present to the government. The 2,000 kilograms of cocaine originated in Colombia. It was transported to Venezuela and 

Saudi Arabia before arriving in Paris. Then, part of the cocaine 

was transported to Spain. The rest of it was sold in Italy, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. The members of this drug trafficking conspiracy met in Miami, Florida, Aruba, Spain and Saudi 

Arabia. The proceeds of the sale of the cocaine were laundered 

through Switzerland. 

Under this requirement, the government would have been required to prove that the conduct alleged in the conspiracy was 

criminal in more than ten countries around the world. Despite 

some creative legal interpretation by our colleagues on the other 

side of the aisle, the government would not meet this burden simply by proving illegality in one country. A simple plain meaning interpretation of the amendment offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia 

leaves no doubt that the government would be required to prove illegality in every country in which any drug trafficking conduct occurred. 

As noted above, Congress has enacted numerous extraterritorial 

statutes and in most of those instances, has done so without regard 

for the legality of the conduct in the foreign country or countries 

in which it occurs.2 Interpretation and application of foreign law or 

mutual criminality is currently and more appropriately addressed 

in the extradition process. 

Opponents also assert that H.R. 313 should not apply to distribution offenses. There are essentially two types of Federal offenses relating to the possession of illegal drugs: simple possession and possession with intent to distribute. Simple possession includes the 

control or ownership of amounts to be used by one individual. Possession with intent to distribute encompasses the re-sale of drugs 

to others as well as the cultivation, manufacture, and importation 

of drugs. Although distribution offenses carry lower penalties than 

Federal drug trafficking offenses,3 they still involve the sale of 

large quantities of illegal drugs—quantities that well exceed those 

that would constitute simple possession under Federal law. 

A carve-out of possession with intent to distribute offenses would 

exempt significant drug distributors from the reach of the drug 

conspiracy statute and afford them continuing safe harbor protections that this bill intends to eliminate. 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 313. 

Committee Consideration 

On October 6, 2011, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 313 favorably reported with an amendment, by 

a recorded vote of 20–7, a quorum being present. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

313. 

1. An amendment by Mr. Scott to limit coverage of the bill to 

conduct which is a criminal offense in the place where it occurs. 

Failed 11 to 13. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ............................................................. X 

Mr. Coble .................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Goodlatte ...........................................................................

Mr. Lungren .............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence .................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ................................................................................

Mr. King ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert .............................................................................

Mr. Jordan ................................................................................

Mr. Poe ....................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Griffin ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Marino ...............................................................................

Mr. Gowdy ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Ross .................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Quayle ...............................................................................

Mr. Amodei .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .......................................... X 

Mr. Berman .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Nadler ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren ..............................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................... X 

Ms. Waters ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Johnson ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quigley ..............................................................................

Ms. Chu ...................................................................................

Mr. Deutch ............................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................................................................

[Vacant] ...................................................................................

Total ....................................................................... 11 13 

2. An amendment by Mr. Scott to limit coverage of the bill to the 

most serious of drug crimes. Failed 11 to 12. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ............................................................. X 

Mr. Coble .................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Goodlatte ...........................................................................

Mr. Lungren .............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ...................................................................................

Mr. Pence .................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ................................................................................

Mr. King ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert .............................................................................

Mr. Jordan ................................................................................

Mr. Poe ....................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Griffin ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Marino ...............................................................................

Mr. Gowdy ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Ross .................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Quayle ...............................................................................

Mr. Amodei .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .......................................... X 

Mr. Berman ..............................................................................

Mr. Nadler ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren ..............................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................... X 

Ms. Waters ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Johnson ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quigley ..............................................................................

Ms. Chu ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch ............................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................................................................

[Vacant] ...................................................................................

Total ....................................................................... 11 12 

3. An amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee to require corroborating 

evidence in order to convict someone of a drug offense. Failed 9 to 

17. 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ............................................................. X 

Mr. Coble .................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Goodlatte ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................... X 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

ROLLCALL NO. 3—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Issa ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence .................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ................................................................................ X 

Mr. King ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert .............................................................................

Mr. Jordan ................................................................................

Mr. Poe ....................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz .............................................................................

Mr. Griffin ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Marino ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Ross .................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Quayle ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .......................................... X 

Mr. Berman ..............................................................................

Mr. Nadler ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren ..............................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................... X 

Ms. Waters ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen ................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quigley ..............................................................................

Ms. Chu ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch ............................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................................................................

[Vacant] ...................................................................................

Total ....................................................................... 9 17 

4. Motion to report H.R. 313 favorably, as amended. Passed 20 

to 7. 

ROLLCALL NO. 4 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ............................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ............................................................. X 

Mr. Coble .................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Goodlatte ........................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .............................................................................

Mr. Chabot ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence .................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ................................................................................ X 

Mr. King ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert .............................................................................

Mr. Jordan ................................................................................

Mr. Poe ....................................................................................


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Chaffetz .............................................................................

Mr. Griffin ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Marino ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Ross .................................................................................. X 

Ms. Adams ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Quayle ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Amodei .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .......................................... X 

Mr. Berman .............................................................................. X 

Mr. Nadler ................................................................................ X 

Mr. Scott .................................................................................. X 

Mr. Watt ................................................................................... X 

Ms. Lofgren ..............................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................... X 

Ms. Waters ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen ................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Pierluisi ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Quigley ..............................................................................

Ms. Chu ................................................................................... X 

Mr. Deutch ............................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́ nchez ............................................................................

[Vacant] ...................................................................................

Total ....................................................................... 20 7 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises 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 bill, H.R. 313, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, December 8, 2011. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, CHAIRMAN, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SMITH: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared 

the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 313, the ‘‘Drug Trafficking Safe 

Harbor Elimination Act of 2011.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 313—Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011. 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 

October 6, 2011 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 313 would have no significant costs to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill could 

affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any effects would be insignificant for each year. 

H.R. 313 would prohibit U.S. entities from assisting, supporting, 

or engaging in conspiracy with entities engaged in activities outside the United States that would violate the Controlled Substances Act if carried out within the United States. Under current 

law, it is legal to assist or invest in a manufacturing company with 

operations outside the United States that produces chemicals that 

are on the U.S. Controlled Substance list. Thus, the government 

might be able to pursue new cases under the bill that it otherwise 

would not be able to prosecute. CBO expects that H.R. 313 would 

apply to a relatively small number of new cases, however, so any 

increase in costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison 

operations would not be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 313 could be 

subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later 

spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct spending would not be significant because of the small number of cases 

likely to be affected. 

To the extent that public and private entities, including public 

and private pension funds, would be prohibited from investing in 

or aiding those companies, the legislation would constitute an 

intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as defined in the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The cost of the mandate 

is uncertain because it would depend on what activities are determined to constitute assistance, support, or conspiracy under the 

legislation, and those terms may be interpreted narrowly or broadly. Moreover, if investments are prohibited, the cost of complying 

with the mandate would depend on the difference in returns on the 

investments that would be prohibited and on alternative investments. CBO does not have data to make those determinations. 

Therefore, CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate costs of 

the intergovernmental or private-sector mandates would exceed the 

annual thresholds established in UMRA ($71 million for intergovernmental mandates and $142 million for private-sector mandates 

in 2011, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz (for 

Federal costs), Melissa Merrell (for the State and local impact), and 

Marin Randall (for the impact on the private sector). The estimate 

was approved by Theresa Gullo, 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. 313, gives 

extraterritorial application to the Federal drug conspiracy statute 

for drug trafficking crimes under Title 21, United States Code, but 

not the crime of simple possession of a controlled substance. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 313 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1: Short Title. 

Section 1 provides that the short title of H.R. 313 is the ‘‘Drug 

Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011.’’ 

Sec. 2: Amendments to the Controlled Substances Act To Clarify 

Conspiracies Conducted Within the United States may be 

Criminally Prosecuted in the United States. 

Section 2 gives extraterritorial application to the Federal drug 

conspiracy statute. The Section clarifies that those persons who 

conspire within the United States to possess with intent to distribute or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United 

States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet 

drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States. Section 2 also excludes the crime of 

simple possession of a controlled substance from the extraterritorial application of the drug conspiracy statute. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT 

TITLE II—CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

PART D—OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

* * * * * * * 

ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY

SEC. 406. (a) Any person who attempts or conspires to commit 

any offense defined in this title shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which 

was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. 

(b) Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more 

persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where 

such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place 

outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this 

title, other than a violation of section 404(a), if committed within 

the United States, shall be subject to the same penalties that would 

apply to such conduct if it were to occur within the United States. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

1 Codified at Chapter 13 of 21 U.S. Code. 

2 493 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Dissenting Views 

INTRODUCTION

H.R. 313 has the potential to greatly expand our Nation’s drug 

laws and the harsh penalties associated with them. It would criminalize conspiracies that take place in the United States relating to 

drug activity that occurs entirely in another country, regardless of 

that country’s law or the scope of the activity. This bill would also 

subject more people to mandatory minimum sentences and it would 

further extend our Nation’s failed policy on drugs. 

For these reasons, and those stated below, we urge our colleagues to oppose this legislation and respectfully dissent. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

H.R. 313 would amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)1 to 

provide that persons located in the United States who enter into 

a conspiracy within the United States to engage in drug trafficking 

abroad, or who aid and abet drug trafficking abroad, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States. 

H.R. 313 was introduced at least partly in response to the 2007 

decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. 

Lopez-Vanegas.2 In that case, the defendants were charged with 

and convicted of a conspiracy to transport large amounts of cocaine 

from Venezuela to France. The prosecution’s charges were based on 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (unlawful distribution of controlled substances) 

and 846 (conspiracy to violate the CSA). The defendants appealed 

their conviction on the basis that the object of the conspiracy—the 

possession and distribution on foreign soil—is not a violation of section 841 because the statute does not expressly provide for liability 

for possession or distribution that occurs completely outside the 

United States. The Court of Appeals agreed and overturned the 

convictions, reasoning that Congress had not stated its intent to 

reach discussions held in the United States in furtherance of a conspiracy to possess controlled substances outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to distribute those 

controlled substances outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the 

United States. 

For the reasons discussed below, however, H.R. 313 is an overbroad response the Lopez-Vanegas case and an unwarranted extension of Federal criminal law. 

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 313

I. THE BILL’S FOCUS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF

INTERNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING

If Congress is to extend Federal criminal law to conspiracies occurring solely in the United States to engage in drug transactions 

taking place abroad, it should focus only on the highest level of 

drug trafficking, such as the large quantities of cocaine trafficked 

in the Lopez-Vanegas case. Local law enforcement is more than capable of investigating and prosecuting low-level drug sellers, while 

Federal law enforcement has the unique ability to dismantle soVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:33 Dec 13, 2011 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR324P1.XXX HR324P1

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

3http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2011/08/spokecannabis070811. 

htm; Bankier, Ariela. Israeli Government Approves Guidelines for Medical Marijuana, 

Haaretz.com. Haaretz Newspaper, Aug. 8 2011., available at http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-government-approves-guidelines-for-medical-marijuana-1.377416. 4http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/index-eng.php. 

5The conspiracy provision under the CSA subjects conspirators to the same penalties as those 

prescribed for the offense. 21 U.S.C § 846. The CSA provides a number of mandatory minimum 

penalties, such as sentences of 5 years imprisonment for distribution or possession with intent 

to distribute one gram of LSD, 100 marijuana plants, 28 grams of crack cocaine, 500 grams of 

powder cocaine, 100 grams of heroin, five grams of pure methamphetamine, 50 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, ten grams of PCP, and 100 grams of a PCP mixture. Ten-year sentences 

Continued 

phisticated drug trafficking networks which cross international 

boundaries and which should be the focus of Federal law. While the 

Committee adopted an amendment offered by the bill’s sponsor, 

Chairman Lamar Smith, to exclude conspiracies solely involving 

simple possession of controlled substances from the bill, this 

amendment did not adequately limit the broad coverage of the bill. 

An amendment offered by Congressman Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott 

(D–VA) to limit the bill’s coverage to conspiracies to engage in conduct which under the Federal drug laws would be punishable by 

imprisonment of greater than 20 years failed by a vote of 11 to 12. 

Without this change, the scope of the bill is too broad. 

II. FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO CONSPIR- ACIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO ENGAGE IN DRUG TRANSACTIONS

THAT ARE LEGAL ABROAD

Another significant concern with H.R. 313 is that it would allow 

Federal prosecution of conspiracies that take place in the United 

States to engage in drug distribution that, in some cases, may not 

even be illegal in the country in which the distribution takes place. 

Drug laws around the world are not all the same. There are some 

drug transactions which are illegal under the laws of the United 

States but are not criminally prohibited in some other countries. 

For instance, activities such as the use, production, and distribution of marijuana for medical use are legal in various countries, including Israel 3 and Canada.4 Israelis, Canadians and other citizens 

involved in medical marijuana programs in their country could face 

Federal prosecution if they visited the United States but stayed in 

contact with their coworkers abroad. 

To correct this problem, Congressman Scott offered an amendment that would have limited the bill’s application to conspiracies 

to engage in drug activity abroad that would actually be a criminal 

offense in the place in which that conduct occurs. This narrow 

amendment to the bill is necessary to prevent the unwarranted use 

of Federal investigative, prosecutorial, and prison resources in situations in which it would be permissible under foreign law for someone to engage in certain drug activity in other countries but illegal 

for them, because of this bill, to make arrangements for that legal 

activity in the United States. The amendment failed by a vote of 

11 to 13. 

III. H.R. 313 WOULD CONTINUE THE UNJUST PROLIFERATION OF

MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES

The broad scope of this bill means that even more individuals 

will be subjected to mandatory minimum sentences under the 

CSA.5 Mandatory minimum penalties are already a major concern 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

are mandatory for ten grams of LSD, 1000 marijuana plants, 280 grams of crack cocaine, five 

kilos of powder cocaine, one kilo of heroin, 50 grams of pure methamphetamine, 500 grams of 

a methamphetamine mixture, 100 grams of PCP, and one kilo of a PCP mixture. 6Statement of Michael Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of 

Virginia, Public Hearing Before the United States Sentencing Commission, ‘‘The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: 25 Years Later,’’ New York, New York, July 9, 2009, available at http:// 

www.fd.org/pdfllib/Statement%20of%20Michael%20Nachmanoff%20USSC%20Regional%20 

Hearing%207.9.09.pdf. 7 21 U.S.C. § 846. 

with respect to sentencing fairness and the wise use of financial resources, but they would be particularly troublesome with respect to 

actions which have almost no nexus to the United States. 

Mandatory minimums for low-level offenders waste considerable 

tax dollars in terms of prison spending and law enforcement 

prioritization. In 2008, 21,023 people were sentenced to 31,239 

counts of conviction carrying mandatory minimum sentences at an 

average cost of $28,000 per person per year. Mandatory minimums 

cause other unintended, but very real, consequences beyond the 

daily and personal injustice of subjecting many defendants to sentences that are too long. 

One major consequence is that mandatory minimums contribute 

to over-incarceration. As Federal Public Defender Michael Nachmanoff testified before the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 2009: 

[t]he Federal prison population is currently at 206,786 inmates, a nearly five-fold increase since mandatory minimums and mandatory guidelines became law. The major 

cause of the prison population explosion is the increase in 

sentence length for drug trafficking, from 23 months before 

the guidelines to 73 months in 2001. About 75% of this increase was due to mandatory minimums, and 25% was due 

to guideline increases above mandatory minimum levels. 

Today, the average sentence length for drug trafficking is 

even higher than in 2001, at 83.2 months.6

Federal prison beds should be prioritized for offenders who have 

higher level roles in drug trafficking organizations. This is another 

reason that limiting the scope of this bill to quantities that carry 

sentences of more than 20 years would help ensure that low-level 

individuals will not be swept into the over-burdened criminal justice system, ensuring that Federal law enforcement and prosecutors can focus on major traffickers. 

IV. CONGRESS SHOULD REFRAIN FROM UNWARRANTED EXTENSIONS OF

CONSPIRACY LAWS

Conspiracy laws are particularly susceptible to abuse, and convicting someone based on discussions about activity that may be 

criminal has very serious ramifications. As discussed above, H.R. 

313 is even more problematic because it is not limited to high-level 

drug trafficking and the object of the conspiracies covered by the 

bill may, in some cases, not even be illegal in the countries in 

which the transactions take place. Federal drug laws provide extreme punishment, and under the drug conspiracy law, someone 

may be subject to the same penalty for a conspiracy as the underlying offense, which could include lengthy mandatory minimum 

sentences.7

In response to these concerns, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson 

Lee (D–TX) offered an amendment that would have prevented the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

8 Nate Blakeslee, Color of Justice: An Undercover Drug Bust Opens Old Wounds in Tulia, 

Texas, THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE, July 28, 2000, available at http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/ 

2000–07–28/78058/print/. 

use of the bill’s conspiracy provision to convict someone for drug offenses unless the conviction is supported by evidence other than 

the eyewitness testimony of a law enforcement officer or individual 

acting on behalf of a law enforcement officer (i.e, confidential informant). Her amendment also responds in part to the case in 

Tulia, Texas, in which more than 40 mostly African American citizens were falsely arrested, and some convicted, of drug crimes, 

based on the fabrications of a part-time, undercover officer, who 

worked on temporary assignments for small police departments.8

The amendment, however, failed by a vote of 9 to 17. 

Americans are best protected from abuse when a greater degree 

of evidence in conspiracy cases is required. Unfortunately, H.R. 313 

fails to achieve this goal. As a result, the bill is an unwarranted 

extension of Federal laws which are already overbroad. 

CONCLUSION

While Congress has an interest in combating major, international drug trafficking, H.R. 313 is not the solution. The scope 

of this bill is an excessive response to the Lopez-Vanegas case, 

which involved large-scale cocaine shipments. Federal drug conspiracy laws are already subject to abuse and impose extreme penalties. H.R. 313, however, exacerbates current law by criminalizing 

arrangements made in the United States for drug transactions that 

take place completely outside this country, some of which may not 

even be illegal in the countries where they occur. 

For the forgoing reasons, we respectfully dissent. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

STEVE COHEN. 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING