Effective Prosecution of Possession of Biological Toxins and Agents Act of 2019

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 744) to amend section 175b of title 18, United States Code, to correct a scrivener's error.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 744, the Effective Prosecution of Possession of Biological Toxins and Agents Act of 2019, a bill that would correct an error that has unintentionally resulted in an incomplete list of biological toxins and agents prohibited under current law.

This legislation will help ensure the safety of our citizens and the security of our Nation. S. 744, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent earlier this year, is identical to H.R. 1986, which the House Committee on the Judiciary recently approved by voice vote last month.

In 1990, Congress imposed criminal penalties with respect to the development, production, stockpiling, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agents, toxins, or delivery systems intended for use as a weapon.

Thereafter, Congress in 2001, added section 175b to title 18 of the U.S. Code, criminalizing the possession by unregistered individuals or restricted persons of certain biological agents, termed ``select agents,'' as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. A person found guilty under section 175b can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

As originally enacted and thereafter in subsequent amendments thereto, section 175b referred to specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations that listed various biological agents and toxins.

That provision was last amended in 2004, but subsequently, the Department of Health and Human Services reformatted some sections of the Code of Federal Regulations and inadvertently rendered the references in section 175b incomplete.

For example, one of the select agents inadvertently eliminated from the list of prohibited substances is ricin, a poison found in castor beans. Ricin is inexpensive, easy to make, and highly toxic.

This result, the consequence of a drafting error, is clearly not what Congress intended. Unfortunately, there have already been real-life consequences for this error.

Last September, for instance, the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, dismissed the indictment of William Christopher Gibbs, a self-avowed white supremacist who was charged with the unregistered possession of ricin. In dismissing the Gibbs indictment, the court stated it:

Appreciates the potential dangers associated with

individuals possessing potentially hazardous agents and

toxins without permission to do so. Equally, though, the

Court takes very seriously the principle that citizens ought

to have fair and clear warning of the conduct for which they

can be held criminal responsible. It falls to Congress to

write criminal laws, or to amend them if they yield unfair or

unwanted results. The role of the courts, on the other hand,

is limited to fairly reading and applying the laws Congress

writes; not to change them.

As we consider S. 744 today, it is important to recognize and commend the sponsor of the House companion bill, the gentleman from Texas and our Judiciary Committee colleague, Representative John Ratcliffe; and Judiciary Ranking Member Doug Collins; as well as the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Kathleen Rice; and the gentleman from Texas, Representative Will Hurd, for their bipartisan efforts to address this critical problem.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, without question, Congress should do everything within its power to ensure the safety of all Americans. Clearly, the possession and distribution of ricin is dangerous and should be included among the various biological toxins prohibited under current law, as Congress had intended.

S. 744 corrects this technical error and addresses the serious consequences presented by this oversight. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 744, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of S. 744 the ``Effective Prosecution of Biological Toxins and Agents,'' which amends 18 U.S.C. 175b to prohibit the possession, transport, or sale of biological agents and toxins by individuals.

S. 744 also prohibits the transport, possession, or shipment of any biological agent or toxin in interstate or foreign commerce.

Biological agents and toxins disseminate disease-causing organisms or toxins to harm or kill humans, animals or plants.

In addition to strategic or tactical military applications, biological weapons can be used to infect livestock or agricultural produce to cause food shortages and economic loss, create environmental catastrophes, and introduce pandemics.

Biological agents can also be deployed in missiles, bombs, hand grenades, and rockets to deliver death and destruction.

Mr. Speaker, there have also been documented efforts to develop delivery devices for assassinations or sabotage operations, including a variety of sprays, brushes, and injection systems as well as means for contaminating food and clothing.

It should concern us all that recent technological advances increase the likelihood that these weapons could be acquired or produced by non- state actors, including terrorist organizations and mentally unstable individuals.

This is a major threat to our national security as well as the safety of all American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 744.

In doing so we provide an added measure of security for our homeland by prohibiting the creation and proliferation of biological weapons as well as the sale of such weapons.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 1986 because it fixes a technical, but very important, error that occurred in the Code, and the gentlewoman from California, again, has done a wonderful job of explaining this.

She brought up an interesting case. She brought up the case out of the Northern Circuit of Georgia which is actually my circuit, and the judge in that case is actually a judge named Rick Story. And Rick Story is one of the best jurists we have in this country. His comment here is really, I think, telling for us that many times in Congress we need to take heed of when he says: ``It falls to Congress to write criminal laws or to amend them if they yield unfair or unwanted results.'' And that is exactly what we are doing here today.

This needs to be added. It was a scrivener's error and a mistake that it was not there, and it needs to be corrected.

And with that, again, the gentlewoman from California has been a great help on this, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), and others for their work on this legislation.

As we go forward, I think this has been a good process. I am glad to see it coming to fruition, and I yield back the balance of my time.