Senate Floor: REDUCING AMERICA'S VULNERABILITY TO ECSTASY ACT

Mr. President, in June I introduced S. 2633, the Reducing America's Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, also known as the RAVE Act. Since that time there has been a great deal of misinformation circulating about this legislation. I rise today to correct the record. Simply stated, my bill provides technical corrections to an existing statute, one which has been on the books for 16 years and is well established.

Critics of my bill have asserted that if the legislation were to become law "there would be no way that someone could hold a concert and not be liable" and that the bill "holds the owners and the promoters responsible for the actions of the patrons." That is simply untrue. We know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill would address. The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities, and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar.

I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are decent, law-abiding people who are going to discourage drug use, or any other illegal activity, at their venues. But there are a few promoters out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their events. Some of these folks actually distribute drugs themselves or have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at their events, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional flyers, tell their security to ignore drug use or sales, or send patients who need medical attention because of a drug overdose to a hospital across town so people won't link emergency room visits with their club. What they are doing is illegal under current law. My bill would not change that fact. Let me be clear. Neither current law nor my bill seeks to punish a promoter for the behavior of their patrons. As I mentioned, the underlying crack house statute has been on the books since 1986, and I am unaware of this statute ever being used to prosecute a legitimate business.

The RAVE Act simply amends the current crack house statute in two minor ways. First, it clarifies that Congress intended for the law to apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to single- event activities, such as a party where the promoter sponsors the event with the purpose of distributing Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. After all, a drug dealer can be arrested and prosecuted for selling one bag of drugs, and the government need not show that the dealer is selling day after day, or to multiple sellers. Likewise, the bill clarifies that a one-time event where the promoter knowingly distributes Ecstasy over the course of an evening, for example, violates the statute the same as a crack house which is in operation over a period of time. Second, the bill makes the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor venues, such as where a rogue rave promoter uses a field to hold a rave for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Those are the only changes the bill makes to the crack house statute. It does not give the Federal Government sweeping new powers as the detractors have asserted.

Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health of their patrons including providing water or air-conditioned rooms, making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, et cetera. That is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the findings which is the only place in the bill where these items are mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these things is not enough to signify that an event is "for the purpose of" drug use.

The reason that I introduced the RAVE Act was not to ban dancing, kill the "RAVE scene" or silence electronic music, all things of which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of testimony I heard at a number of hearings about the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised, as places for people to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment, then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression -- it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids.

I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record about what my legislation does and does not do. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.