[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE SACKLER ACT AND OTHER POLICIES
TO PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
THE SACKLER FAMILY'S ROLE
IN THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 8, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-853 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Russ Anello, Staff Director
Miles Lichtman, Senior Health Policy Advisor
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 8, 2021..................................... 1
Witnesses
Alexis Pleus, Founder and Executive Director, Truth Pharm
Oral Statement............................................... 5
The Honorable Maura Healey, Attorney General, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
Oral Statement............................................... 7
The Honorable Jim Carroll, Former Director, White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy
Oral Statement............................................... 9
The Honorable Lawrence Wasden, Attorney General, State of Idaho
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Patrick Radden Keefe, author, ``Empire of Pain: The Secret
History of the Sackler Dynasty''
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
No additional documents were entered into the record for this
hearing.
THE SACKLER ACT AND OTHER POLICIES
TO PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
THE SACKLER FAMILY'S ROLE
IN THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC
----------
Tuesday, June 8, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn Office Building, and on Zoom; Hon. Carolyn
Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney [presiding], Norton,
Lynch, Cooper, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Tlaib, Porter,
Bush, Davis, Welch, Johnson, Sarbanes, Speier, Kelly,
DeSaulnier, Pressley, Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Grothman, Cloud,
Gibbs, Keller, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner, Fallon, Clyde,
and Franklin.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
The chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today, the Committee on Oversight and Reform will hold its
second hearing to examine how the Sackler family caused
America's opioid epidemic, one of the deadliest public health
crises in our Nation's history. We will hear how they
researched it, how they planned it, how they manufactured it,
how they sold it, how they marketed it, and, ultimately, how
they profited billions from the sale of OxyContin. And we will
hear also of the pain and suffering of the people who became
addicted to it.
Last December, after being threatened with subpoenas, David
Sackler and Kathe Sackler testified before this committee about
how their family pushed Purdue Pharma executives to flood the
market with the dangerous painkiller, OxyContin, and deceived
the public about its addictive potential. During the hearing,
Kathe Sackler, who previously served as vice president of the
company and on its board of directors, refused to apologize for
her family's central role in causing the opioid epidemic. When
I asked her whether she would apologize for the role she played
in the opioid epidemic, she said, and I quote, ``There is
nothing I can find that I would have done differently.'' Over
the past 2 decades, nearly a half a million people in the
United States have died as a result of the opioid epidemic, yet
there is not a single thing that the Sacklers would have done
differently? It is shocking and appalling, and it shows why we
desperately need accountability for the Sacklers' deadly,
outrageous conduct. COVID-19 has claimed 597,000 American
lives, so the opioid epidemic is nearly as deadly as the worst
pandemic in modern history, and there is no vaccine for opioid
addiction.
Since the committee's December hearing, even more
information has come to light concerning the Sacklers' deadly
disregard for human life. Much of this information has been
brought forward by Patrick Radden Keefe, whose recently
published book, ``Empire of Pain'', reveals disturbing new
details of the Sacklers' stewardship and leadership at Purdue
Pharma and the opioid epidemic. In his book, Mr. Keefe provides
a horrifying account of how the Sacklers disregarded reports of
OxyContin's misuse as the opioid crisis ignited, pushed
executives to sell more and more and more of the dangerous
prescription painkiller as the crisis raged, and heartlessly
blaming those experiencing addiction in order to protect
OxyContin and its profits. Mr. Keefe's book also raises serious
questions about how our Federal regulatory agencies fell short
in their mission to keep Americans safe, and how a lack of
proper guardrails between government and industry fueled this
deadly public health crisis. It is a privilege to have Mr.
Keefe with us today.
Since Purdue brought OxyContin to market in 1996, the
company has generated more than $35 billion in revenue from its
sales. During that same period, the Sackler family withdrew
more than $10 billion from the company. I am outraged that the
Sackler family and Purdue Pharma have profited off of the
suffering of so many families and communities, and instead of
accepting responsibility for the harms that they have caused,
the Sacklers are seeking to use a loophole in our bankruptcy
system to evade accountability.
In March, I introduced the SACKLER Act with Congressman
DeSaulnier. The SACKLER Act would ensure that bad actors who
have not filed for bankruptcy, but are hiding behind their
companies that have filed for bankruptcy, like the Sacklers, to
make sure that they are not prohibited from using the
bankruptcy process to obtain legal release from government
lawsuits brought against them. The Sacklers can't have it both
ways. For years, they have falsely claimed that the family is
not involved with Purdue's reckless marketing and dishonest
marketing of the addiction prospects of OxyContin, but at the
same time, they are trying to evade accountability by obtaining
legal releases for themselves through the Purdue bankruptcy.
What is worse, they are actually going to retain their
ownership of their foreign opioid manufacturers for several
years, and they are contributing the $4.2 billion they are
giving to the settlement by selling more opioids overseas. It
is deeply disappointing that the Department of Justice has been
complicit in devising this plan to let the Sacklers off the
hook, and I will be writing Attorney General Merrick Garland to
ask him to reconsider DOJ's position. The plan is a slap in the
face to the millions of people who have been directly harmed by
their actions.
The SACKLER Act is commonsense reform that has been co-
sponsored by 50 Members of Congress, has been endorsed by
dozens of patient treatment and corporate accountability
organizations, and is supported by both Democratic and
Republican state attorney generals. I would like to insert the
list of groups that have endorsed the bill into the record and
also editorial boards that have endorsed the SACKLER Act.
Chairwoman Maloney. The Boston Globe said that Congress
needs to pass this bill to ``ensure that state attorneys
general never again have to rely on the individual judges to
guard against this misuse of bankruptcy courts.'' And the
Scranton Times Tribune wrote, and I quote, ``People harmed by
others' wayward misconduct should not be precluded from
compensation through inappropriate use of bankruptcy
protections. Congress should pass the bill.'' It is imperative
that Congress act swiftly to prevent the Sacklers and other bad
actors like them from manipulating the bankruptcy system to
evade accountability for their actions. The Sacklers have
gotten away with a slap on the wrist before. They have done it
before, and it didn't deter them. They went right back into
selling even more potent, dangerous versions of OxyContin, so
we need real accountability this time, not just another slap on
the wrist. Usually when you kill someone, you go to jail. When
you read all the documents, they killed almost half a million
people.
Before I turn to the ranking member, I would like to
recognize the distinguished gentleman from California and a
leader in this committee's efforts to hold the Sacklers and
Purdue Pharma accountable, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier. You are
now recognized. Congressman DeSaulnier?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I really want
to thank you for your comments, your passion, your partnership
with myself, and everyone else involved. I also want to
recognize our dear friend, your predecessor, Elijah Cummings,
who was so passionate and determined to provide leadership on
this issue. And, again, I just really want to thank you for
your comments.
Back in December, we held a hearing on the Sackler family's
role in the opioid crisis and had family members come and
testify in front of this committee. The family's greed and the
devastation they have caused cannot be overstated. Since the
release of OxyContin in 1996, the Sackler family has withdrawn
more than $10 billion from Purdue Pharma, a privately held
company that they own. While the Sackler family was earning
billions, 500,000 Americans lost their lives to opioids. Five
hundred thousand American families still suffer with no pain
relief for their loss, all from opioid overdoses from 1999 to
2019. According to the CDC, opioid abuse in America costs us
almost $80 billion a year, but the Sacklers, in their tentative
settlement agreement with the Department of Justice, are
willing to spend only two percent of their net worth--$212
million--$212 million hundred once--for what the CDC says now
is costing American taxpayers and the American economy almost
$80 billion a year. The United States has four percent of the
world's population, but over the last 20 years, has grown to
consume 80 percent of the opioids.
Our focus has to be on justice and accountability. The
Sackler family is trying to use legal loopholes to avoid
accountability for their actions. I am so proud to be leading
on the SACKLER Act with Chairwoman Maloney, which would prevent
the Sackler family from receiving immunity against government
lawsuits through Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy. I am really proud
of our witnesses today, the attorney generals, the advocates,
and Mr. Keefe, representing dozens of journalists, a real
statement of why we need independent, accountable journalism in
this country. Across this country, many books and articles have
been written to shed light on this crisis. Holding the Sackler
family accountable to the fullest extent of the law would
provide some measure of justice, but it will never bring back
the hundreds of thousands of lives cut short by this epidemic.
Today's hearing is a bright spot in a dark saga of the opioid
epidemic.
I want to thank, again, our witnesses for being in the
front lines of exposing the greed behind the opioid epidemic
and for fighting to enact change to make sure this never
happens again. Thank you all so much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. I now
recognize the distinguished ranking member from the great state
of Kentucky, Mr. Comer. Kentucky was one of the states hardest
hit by the opioid crisis, and it is my hope we can work
together against the opioid crisis. Mr. Comer, you are now
recognized for as much time as you would like for your opening
statement.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. We are here today
having another hearing, the second in six months, on Purdue
Pharma and the Sackler family. This hearing, however, is a
little different than the one we had in December. That is
because this airing is the first meeting of the committee book
club. That is right. The committee's star witness today,
Patrick Keefe, recently wrote a book on the Sackler family that
was released just weeks ago. In fact, just minutes after the
Democrats announced this hearing, Mr. Keefe blasted out the
hearing announcement on his Twitter page and used the
opportunity to talk about his book.
His book currently ranks on Amazon as No. 1 in the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry category, No. 1 in
the white collar/true crime accounts category, but only No. 2
in the biographies of business leaders category. Mr. Keefe
donated thousands of dollars exclusively to Democrats-and
Stacey Abrams-linked groups in the last election cycle, so
perhaps this is the Democrats' way of paying him back by
helping him reach No. 1 in that third book category. Mr. Keefe
is a reporter for The New Yorker and formerly of the New York
Times. If there is a better way to show the cozy relationship
between Democrats and the media other than having him here at
this hearing to promote his own book, I don't know what it is.
Mr. Keefe can't really add anything to today's hearing. We
already know the Sackler family played an enormous role in our
country's tragic opioid epidemic. There could be no doubt about
that. But there has been and continues to be a legal reckoning
for Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family. Their many victims
are having their day in court. In fact, as we speak, there is a
landmark bankruptcy proceeding which will hopefully provide
some financial restitution to hundreds of municipalities across
the country.
Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers undoubtedly must be held to
account for their contribution to the growing opioid epidemic,
but this hearing is not doing that. In fact, this hearing just
appears to be helping political allies. Instead, at this point,
we should be focused on other aspects of the opioid epidemic.
We have a growing number of illicit opioids streaming across
our southern border. My Republican colleagues and I have sent
three letters to Chairwoman Maloney asking her to hold a
hearing on the Biden border crisis. We have not yet had one.
The longer the chairwoman waits to hold a hearing on the border
crisis, the more Americans are dying due to the illicit
fentanyl coming across the border, and the economic shutdown
during the COVID pandemic has prevented opioid abuse disorder
patients from being able to access care. Without access to
care, patients are isolated and at a significantly higher risk
of relapsing.
This hearing misses the point. It is so focused on the
Sackler family that it forgets the ongoing epidemic affecting
millions of Americans each day. I urge the chairwoman to hold a
hearing on the border crisis to stop the illicit trafficking of
fentanyl and to reopen our country so that patients can access
the care they need. Our witness today, former Office of
National Drug Control Policy head, Jim Carroll, knows full well
about the illicit trafficking of fentanyl across our border. He
can speak at length about combating opioids, what works and
what doesn't, because he is the only witness here who actually
has experience doing that. If we really want to better
understand the opioid epidemic, listening to Mr. Carroll is a
good place for us to start.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. I would now
like to introduce our witnesses. Our very first witness today
is Alexis Pleus. She is the founder and executive director of
Truth Pharm. Then we will hear from the Honorable Maura Healey,
who is the attorney general of Massachusetts. Next, we will
hear from the Honorable Jim Carroll, who is the former director
of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Next, we will hear from the Honorable Lawrence Wasden, who is
the attorney general of Idaho. Finally, we will hear from
Patrick Radden Keefe, who is a staff writer at The New Yorker
and is the author of the recent book, ``Empire of Pain: The
Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty.''
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them all in.
Please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statements will be part of
the record.
With that, Ms. Pleus, you are now recognized for your
testimony. Ms. Pleus?
STATEMENT OF ALEXIS PLEUS, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
TRUTH PHARM
Ms. Pleus. Good afternoon. First, I want to thank
Chairwoman Maloney for the invitation to testify. I am sitting
here today with the immense responsibility of representing the
pain of millions of grieving family members. The only comfort
that I have is that you also bear an incredible responsibility
to find some way to work toward correcting this injustice.
I raised three sons in the country outside of a tiny
village in upstate New York where the high school's graduating
class is about 60 students. My boys grew up climbing trees,
building forts, riding four-wheelers, playing sports, and
having dinner at the table as a family. In 2002, my oldest son,
Jeff, injured his knee in the first football game of his junior
year. The doctor explained Jeff would miss the entire rest of
his season, and if he wanted to wrestle that year, he would
need to undergo major surgery, extensive physical therapy, and
it would be very important to control his pain levels, which he
would do by taking OxyContin every four hours. Jeff did
everything the doctors told him to do, and he did wrestle that
year. He even made it to the state championships. He was such a
determined kid.
When he finished college, he got his own apartment, he had
a job, he paid his own bills, and he stayed close to his
family. In 2011, I got a call saying Jeff had been arrested. I
met with the public defender, insisting Jeff must be innocent.
He doesn't steal, he's a good kid, he has a job, and this
doesn't make sense. A lot of things that heroin addicts do
don't make sense, he replied. When I met with Jeff, through
choking sobs, he said it was true. He had struggled with
addiction in silence for seven years ever since that high
school prescription. August 2014, Jeff was 22 months into
recovery. I had stopped worrying. I worked on an assignment at
Fort Meade, and I received a call from my son, Jason, telling
me that Jeff had died of an overdose. My vivacious, caring,
larger-than-life, family loving Jeff was gone, and our family
would never be whole again.
I threw my grief into researching the overdose epidemic. I
learned there were countless families with stories like ours:
young people getting hooked on pills either through
prescriptions or recreation and then moving on to heroin when
they could no longer afford the pills, stories of stints in and
out of jail and a gross lack of effective treatment, and
grieving parents laden with guilt and pain.
Six months after losing Jeff, I founded Truth Pharm in
2015, the same year the Sacklers hit the Forbes list of the
richest Americans. Truth Pharm's name shows our intent to raise
awareness of the pharmaceutical industry's role in the overdose
epidemic and a commitment that we would always tell the truth.
Truth. In the six years since starting Truth Pharm, another
396,000 lives have been lost to an overdose nationwide.
[Photos shown.]
Ms. Pleus. My younger two sons have lost six classmates.
Our county has lost 303 people, including a girl who was only
13 years old. Truth Pharm has lost three of our volunteers to a
fatal overdose: Renee, David, and Calvin. Calvin was just 25
and graduated with my youngest son, and I attended his memorial
service just one week ago today. In that six years, my close
friends and our organization's volunteers--Marcia, Michelle,
Danielle, Diane, Corky, Shelly, Lori, Betsy, Ralph, Kathy, and
Teresa--have all lost a child. Katie, Alicia, and Jess have
each lost a brother, and LaToya lost her mom. At this point I
have developed a crippling fear of phone calls.
Each year, we memorialize lives lost to substance use
through an event, the Trail of Truth, where hundreds of
community members collectively grieve. And despite all experts
saying addiction is a medical condition, countless individuals
have wound up behind bars for the smallest quantity of drugs.
Seventy percent of the people we memorialize have been impacted
by incarceration. The War on Drugs has caused massive human
loss and decimated communities of color. Gene, a black man from
our town, was sentenced to six years behind bars for having
four baggies of heroin in his pocket for personal use. This
past weekend, we held a rally for a 22-year-old boy who died
from medical neglect in jail. His original charge was criminal
possession seven, the lowest possible drug charge.
In 2012, 259 million prescriptions were written for
opioids, more than enough to give every American adult their
own bottle of pills, but we have seen no intent to sell, no
drug distribution, and no incarceration for the heads of that
drug empire. Somehow they are free from the effects of the drug
war. They walk away unscathed, even as they amass wealth at the
expense of lowering life expectancy for all adults in the
United States, at the expense of taking my vibrant son from me,
at the expense of hundreds of thousands of other families
facing the same excruciating loss, even at the expense of
creating a generation of children who will grow up without
parents. Those of us who have lost loved ones will not even get
a settlement to pay for the funerals of our children.
While Jeff can't be returned to me nor any of the other
lives lost, what we can do is close the loophole that is
allowing the Sacklers and others to profit from the death and
destruction they have caused, and that is my sole request to
you today. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you. Attorney General
Healey, you are now recognized for your testimony. Attorney
General?
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MAURA HEALEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Healey. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and
members of the committee, thank you for holding this important
hearing. It is heartbreaking to listen to the words of Ms.
Pleus and think about what her family and so many families
across this country have gone through, and that is why we are
here today.
From the day I became attorney general, I have heard story
after story of people's lives torn apart by opioid, of people
who spent years overcoming substance use disorder, of people
who didn't make it, and of people who have lost the ones they
love. Over and over, the people closest to this crisis have
said what must be done. They want a commitment to treatment and
prevention, they want the whole truth exposed, and they want
the perpetrators to be held accountable. That is why my team
investigated the Sackler family members who control Purdue
Pharma. That is why Massachusetts was the first state to sue
the Sackler family, and it is why I have rejected the Sacklers'
repeated attempts to cover up, to conceal, to buy off their
misconduct, avoid accountability, and walk away as
billionaires, richer today than they were yesterday. It is why
I am working with others in law enforcement across this
country, including my good friend, Attorney General Wasden of
Idaho, to work to deliver the compensation, the transparency,
and accountability the public deserves. As a prosecutor, I can
tell you that in every case, a just resolution is based on the
facts, and the facts guide our work on this case. I believe
they can inform the work of this committee as well.
So what do we know? We know from the beginning that the
approval of OxyContin was tainted with criminal intent. Those
aren't my words. Those are the exact words of the Department of
Justice career prosecutors: ``criminal intent.'' Purdue got
OxyContin approved by corrupting the FDA review. We know that
as soon as OxyContin was launched, the Sacklers directed Purdue
to mislead doctors about it. Purdue was convicted of a felony
because its executives decided to exploit a misconception that
OxyContin was much weaker than it is. Purdue tried to keep that
secret, but we know that Richard Sackler personally approved
that crime. We know that the Sacklers knew their drugs were
killing people. When Richard Sackler read a report of 59 deaths
in one state, he wrote, ``This is not too bad. It could've been
far worse.''
We know that the Sacklers decided to blame and stigmatize
the people who became addicted to their drugs. Richard wrote,
``We must hammer on the abusers in every way possible. They are
the culprits in the problem. They are reckless criminals.'' We
know that the Sacklers micromanaged Purdue. Richard was so
involved in pushing Purdue's opioids, that staff wrote emails
begging him to back off. We know that the Sacklers met face-to-
face with McKinsey and approved an illegal campaign to
turbocharge OxyContin sales as the opioid crisis raged. We know
that the Sacklers' illegal conduct caused people to suffer and
die. When we sued the Sacklers, we traced death certificates to
hundreds of Purdue patients killed by overdoses in
Massachusetts. Now evidence from hundreds of thousands of
medical records across the country proves we were right. Purdue
injured and killed so many people that it will be remembered as
one of the worst corporations in history.
We know that the Sacklers were driven by greed. David
Sackler wrote, ``We're rich? For how long? Until which suits
get through to the family?'' So the Sacklers took billions of
dollars from Purdue and then put the company into bankruptcy.
They took so much money that Purdue is now bankrupt. They have
little to pay for the damage they caused. Under the Purdue and
Sackler bankruptcy plan, states, cities, and counties in the
Nation will receive only $1.3 billion over the next five years.
That may sound like a lot. It is a pittance, far too little to
address the urgent need. Meanwhile, the Sacklers are sitting on
a fortune of over $11 billion from the sales of OxyContin. The
Sacklers are still hiding the truth. The public deserves to
know what the Sacklers did. Last year, we questioned Richard
and 15 other key witnesses in our case under oath, but they
want to keep that testimony secret until they get away with it.
I want to conclude by thanking every member of this
committee. Your work can be a turning point toward justice. I
applaud you all. I applaud Chairwoman Maloney and
Representative DeSaulnier for introducing the SACKLER Act. We
need commonsense legislation to prevent billionaires who aren't
bankrupt from abusing the Bankruptcy Code to avoid
accountability. We need justice for Alexis and families all
across this country. I hope every member of this committee will
work together to see these important reforms enacted into law.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Carroll, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JIM CARROLL, FORMER DIRECTOR, WHITE
HOUSE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Mr. Carroll. [Inaudible.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Could your pull your mic forward and
make sure the red light is on because we are having trouble
hearing you.
Mr. Carroll. I apologize.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Carroll. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for inviting me
back in front of this committee and allowing me to testify.
Today's hearing is about looking back at what happened and
appropriately holding responsible those who committed horrible
and wrongful acts. It is important that we do that, but it is
also important as we look back, that we focus in on what is
happening today, what is happening now. The coronavirus
pandemic of the last 15 months has resulted in the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of people. Thankfully, we are now
recovering and America is healing. We now need to turn our
collective focus to the ongoing and worsening crisis of
addiction and the resulting fatal overdoses that have killed
what might be 100,000 people during the same time period of
COVID-19. Again, the work of this committee is so vital.
While COVID-19 has directly caused deaths, it has also
caused so many deaths from overdoses. Depression, despair,
isolation, and financial ruin have caused thousands of people
to, first, try dangerous drugs, and then thousands more who
were in recovery to relapse and begin using again. I am
grateful that the committee has called this hearing to discuss
some of the causes as well as some of the solutions that are
needed so that there are not more parents coming before
Congress to plead for action and so more of our children don't
die.
We know that overprescribing of opioids was one of the
causes of opioid addiction. I know this firsthand. As I have
told the committee previously, that one of my family members
was the victim of overprescribing. My family member has chosen
not to go public, but I will never forget the feeling of panic
when my wife called me at work, told me what was happening and
to come home immediately. Because my family member was over the
age of 21 at the time, we had no idea there was even a problem,
but that day, we were able to get our family member, first,
into detox, and, thankfully, now successfully into recovery.
But too many parents do not have such a ``successful story'' to
tell.
Today, this committee is properly discussing the role of
prescription opioids and assigning responsibility, but we must
acknowledge that addiction in our country is nothing new, and
the problem is growing at a frightening rate. We need to act
immediately as addiction will continue to kill, regardless of
any action that we are taking. My immediate concern is what we
should be doing right now to save the lives of the
approximately two dozen people that will die of an overdose
during this hearing.
In the last four years, opioid prescriptions have been
reduced by about one-third, and we now have lots of ways and
places where people can bring in their unused prescriptions.
The Drug Enforcement Administration is removing tons of
medication through their take-back programs, but private
industry is now stepping up and taking a big role in fighting
the overdose crisis, a role that Congress should take note of
and support. In my current role, I am working with a company,
DisposeRx, a private company who is making take-home pouches
that allow people to dispose of unused, unwanted medications,
and in an environmentally friendly way, in their home. There's
companies, such as Opioid Clinical Management, who've developed
technology and algorithms to identify situations of over
prescription and get them help immediately. These companies and
others are all working toward one goal: to save lives. They
deserve congressional support.
As part of our country's efforts to fight the overdose
crisis, there are other things that we must do. We must support
research into new pharmaceuticals that don't have the same
addictive qualities while still relieving pain. There are
companies that are doing this, and those must be supported. We
need to make sure that treatment is available for the millions
of people who have an active and ongoing addiction. We need bed
space available, we need sound medical practices, and we need
to continue to fund additional and new research for people
suffering from addiction.
For those in recovery, they need our prayers, they need our
love, they need our support, but they also need jobs. They need
financial security. The need to feel like they are wanted and
loved, and stigma is still too much a part of their lives. We
need to work on prevention. Research has shown that 90 percent
of adults with the disease of addiction started using illicit
substances before the age of 18. I am proud to say that I am a
senior advisor to Students Against Destructive Decisions, one
of the country's largest prevention programs, reaching several
hundred thousand kids a year. But finally, we also need to
recognize that the overwhelming and vast majority of drugs that
are killing Americans today are being brought into our country
illegally. The drug that is causing most of the deaths in our
country today is fentanyl and its synthetic analogues. This
drug, 10 times more potent than heroin, is flooding into our
country.
The most recent statistics from Customs and Border
Protection show that in the three months of February, March,
and April of this year, CBP seized 176,000 pounds of illicit
drugs coming into our country, which is 20 percent higher than
at the same three-month period in 2020. During this Fiscal Year
alone, CBP has seized more fentanyl than they did in the
entirety of 2020. All we have to do is look at the rising death
rates, especially with the vast majority of these deaths being
caused by fentanyl today, to show that we are not interdicting
a greater percent of drugs. There's just simply more drugs
coming in today. So as we discuss assigning appropriate
responsibility to opioid manufacturers, let's continue to make
sure that we are helping people today.
And I do want to recognize this is my first time appearing
in front of the committee since the passing of Chairman
Cummings, and it is great to see his compassion and his work
being carried on in a bipartisan fashion today. So thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Attorney General Wasden, you
are now recognized for your testimony. Attorney General?
STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE WASDEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL,STATE OF
IDAHO
Mr. Wasden. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Representative
Comer, and members of the committee. Thank you for holding this
important hearing. I am grateful for the chance to share my
perspective as the chief legal officer of the state of Idaho.
It is also a pleasure to once again work with my colleague and
friend, Attorney General Maura Healey, on this important issue.
Idaho has not been spared the effects of the opioid crisis.
Between 1999 and 2017, Idaho's opioid-related death rate nearly
tripled. In 2015 alone, approximately 1.3 million opioid
prescriptions were written in Idaho. That is nearly one
prescription for every man, woman, and child in our state.
Beginning in the 1990's, Purdue and the Sackler family executed
one of the deadliest marketing campaigns in history.
Tragically, this campaign resulted in a dramatic rise in opioid
abuse, addiction, overdose, and death. The Sackler family bears
substantial responsibility for the opioid crisis ravaging our
country. My team has worked shoulder-to-shoulder with
prosecutors from across the country to investigate the
companies and individuals who contributed to the opioid crisis.
The people of Idaho count on me to enforce the law.
I sued Purdue and eight members of the Sackler family in
Idaho state court for violating Idaho law, but for the past two
years, my team has been fighting Purdue and the Sacklers in the
Federal Bankruptcy Court in New York. The Sacklers are using
Purdue's corporate bankruptcy as a tactic to hide behind and
protect themselves from personal liability and accountability.
They have kept my case away from an Idaho judge and an Idaho
jury, and now they are planning to use the Bankruptcy Court to
give themselves permanent immunity, even against civil law
enforcement claims by attorneys general.
As Idaho's chief legal officer, I believe that the law
should be enforced fairly and squarely against people who
deceive the public about addictive drugs. For more than a
decade, I served on the board of directors of the American
Legacy Foundation, the nonprofit created in the wake of the
national tobacco settlement in 1998, to educate youth and
adults on the dangers of smoking. I saw how tobacco companies
damaged our communities and how much it takes to address those
injuries. The tobacco companies, however, were not allowed to
abuse the bankruptcy system in the way the Sacklers are. The
tobacco companies had to face trials, or actually declare
bankruptcy themselves, or agree to settlements that each state
attorney general could support. That settlement has ultimately
led to a decades-long decline in smoking.
I am grateful for the bipartisan work of the House
Oversight Committee on the SACKLER Act. Now I hope that you
will take the next step and enact the legislation that has been
introduced to ensure that the Sacklers and other bad actors
cannot use our bankruptcy system to evade accountability. The
policy embodied in the SACKLER Act is sound. Non-debtors who
have not filed for bankruptcy should not be allowed to use
another party's bankruptcy to shield themselves and escape from
the government's legal claims against them. The Sacklers are
not bankrupt. They are billionaires. The Bankruptcy Code could
not have intended to benefit them, and efforts to use it for
that purpose should be stopped.
The SACKLER Act builds on a foundation established by many
Federal courts. In the Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho, the
Court of Appeals does not permit a bankruptcy court to release
claims against people who have not filed for bankruptcy.
Likewise, the official position of the United States Department
of Justice is that the nonconsensual release of government
claims against non-debtors is never lawful. Because some
bankruptcy courts have released some claims against non-
debtors, there is a split in this area of law, a circumstance
in which it is right for Congress to provide a uniform national
standard as provided in the United States Constitution, Article
I, Section 8, which provides for uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcies throughout the United States.
As you heard during the December hearing, ensuring
appropriate accountability for misconduct that contributed to
the opioid crisis is not a partisan issue. It matters to
Republicans and Democrats. It matters to every American. It
certainly matters to me and to my state. For these reasons, I
hope the legislation to stop the Sacklers' abuse of the
bankruptcy system will receive bipartisan support and be
enacted into law. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Thank you for your excellent testimony. Before I recognize Mr.
Keefe, let me briefly respond to my very good friend, my
colleague, ranking member, Mr. Comer. I am disturbed by,
really, your statements about Mr. Keefe. It is undisputed,
absolutely undisputed, that the Sackler family's actions led to
the opioid crisis that we have read over and over again, killed
nearly half million people here in our great country. We just
heard from Mrs. Pleus the awful story about the loss of her
beloved son, yet this family has never been held accountable.
Journalists who shine a light on this breathtaking conduct
should be applauded, not denigrated. And rather than mocking
journalists, I hope my Republican colleagues will join with
Democrats in trying to end the opioid epidemic in our country,
provide proper treatment, and hold those accountable who are
responsible for the death of half a million people.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chairman, may I respond?
Chairwoman Maloney. With that, I recognize Mr. Keefe.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, may I respond to that?
Chairwoman Maloney. You are now recognized for your
testimony.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, may I respond to that?
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Keefe is now recognized.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Keefe is now recognized.
Mr. Comer. Point of order, Madam Chair. Point of order.
Chairwoman Maloney. For what purpose does the gentleman
have a point of order?
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, I just want to respond your
statement. The Republicans do care. We have had a hearing. We
have all, in bipartisan fashion, condemned the Sackler family.
We want to hold the Sackler family accountable. They are being
held accountable in court.
Chairwoman Maloney. Will you co-sponsor the bill that will
hold them accountable?
Mr. Comer. My statement----
Chairwoman Maloney. Will you co-sponsor the bill?
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Maloney. Are you just----
Mr. Comer. The problem that the Democrats have is you are
intervening in court cases. We hope these attorneys general
prevail in the court cases. We hope the families of the victims
prevail in the court cases. I fear you are doing more damage
than good by interfering in these ongoing court cases. They are
finally being held accountable. We want them to be held
accountable. And the point I made about Mr. Keefe is, you know,
he has published a book and profiting from the book. We want
this problem stopped. We want to secure the border. The drug
problem is----
Mr. Johnson. Madam Chair, the gentleman----
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Not to have border security----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Is not setting forth a point of
order, and I would object to his----
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
Regular order. The committee will come to order. The gentleman
has been recognized. I now recognize Mr. Keefe.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK RADDEN KEEFE, AUTHOR, ``EMPIRE OF PAIN:
THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE SACKLER DYNASTY''
Mr. Keefe. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member
Comer, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for
inviting me to participate. My name is Patrick Radden Keefe.
I'm a journalist with The New Yorker magazine, though I'm
speaking here today in my personal capacity. I've been
investigating the Sacklers and their company since 2017. In
April, I published a book which tells the story of how the
family profited from the opioid crisis. It is an honor to share
some of my findings with you here today.
Fourteen years ago, in 2007, in a hearing much like this,
Arlen Specter, the late Republican senator from Pennsylvania,
made a remark that I often think about. Purdue had recently
pled guilty to Federal charges of misbranding OxyContin. Three
executives pled to misdemeanors, taking the fall for the
Sacklers. As one of their top lawyers, Stuart Baker, said at
the time, ``The priority was to protect the family at all
costs.'' Nobody went to jail, the company paid a $600 million
fine, and Arlen Specter remarked that, to him, this did not
seem like justice. The Sacklers were making billions pushing
Oxy. Would a speeding ticket be enough to change their
behavior? Specter worried that a fine, even a big one, is
simply an expensive license for criminal misconduct.
The Sacklers were intimately involved in the rollout of
OxyContin. Richard Sackler said in an email that he dedicated
his life to it. Kathe Sackler claimed in a deposition that she
came up with the idea for the drug. When people started to
overdose, another company or another family might've changed
course after learning that the product they sold was killing
people. Not the Sacklers. They continued to push for more
aggressive marketing and to promote false claims about how the
drug wasn't addictive. They blamed and demonized the very
victims who were getting hooked on their product. Richard
Sackler once described these people as the ``scum of the
earth.''
After the guilty plea, Purdue told the story about how it
had changed, but the truth is the Sacklers didn't see any
reason to do things differently. It turns out Arlen Specter was
more right than he knew. At the end of last year, Purdue pled
guilty to new Federal charges relating to the aggressive
promotion of opioids. The company acknowledged criminal
misconduct stretching back 10 years. So this is a company that
has pled guilty to felonies, not once, but twice. If this was
some small-time crook selling heroin out of his car, that'd be
two strikes, a mandatory minimum, but not for the Sacklers.
Once again, it was the company that pled guilty, and the family
was protected.
And this is where it gets really interesting because
between those two guilty pleas, all these lawsuits started to
converge around Purdue. Every state in the union is suing the
company. Half the states have filed suit against the Sacklers
themselves. But all the while, in the background, quietly, the
family was pulling money out of the business, $100 million
here, $100 million there. So the company is committing crimes,
and the family is still very much calling the shots at the
company. And while these crimes are being carried out, the
family is siphoning money out of the business. The Sacklers
ultimately took more than $10 billion out of Purdue. They knew
a day of reckoning was coming, and they wanted to be ready when
it came.
So in 2019, when the family had effectively looted its own
company, the Sacklers said, too bad all those lawsuits. The
company's got no money left. When Purdue filed Chapter 11, all
that litigation was suspended so that the business could be
restructured and countless creditors could fight over the
scraps. Now, the Sacklers have not declared bankruptcy. They
still have all those billions they took out of the company, but
they want to use an exotic feature of the bankruptcy process to
escape personal liability. What they're hoping is that this one
bankruptcy judge in New York, who was handpicked by Purdue,
will grant them sweeping immunity from any and all civil
lawsuits related to the crisis, and they're ready to sacrifice
the company to do it to protect the family at all costs. And
this bankruptcy judge has indicated that he is inclined to
overrule the intentions of the chief law enforcement officers
of two dozen states and give the Sacklers permanent immunity,
despite the fact--I want to emphasis this because it is so
ludicrous--that the Sacklers themselves have not declared
bankruptcy. If this happens, it will be a colossal miscarriage
of justice.
In considering whether to close this loophole or to protect
the family, I would urge each of you to think about your own
districts, your own constituents, the communities across this
country that have been ravaged by opioids, the ordinary people
who have paid such a high price, even as the Sacklers enriched
themselves to the tune of billions. However this matter is
settled, most victims are not going to get paid. Whatever
financial offers the Sacklers make will be totally
incommensurate with the $2-billion-plus cost of the crisis.
Trillion, excuse me. What victims can and do expect is some
measure of justice, and to take that away from them would be a
terrible thing. This is happening in real time this summer. The
Sacklers are poised to get away with it.
As your previous hearing demonstrated, this is actually an
area of bipartisan consensus. There is not a lot of
disagreement here about who the bad guys are. But if the
Sacklers are allowed to pervert the Bankruptcy Code and shield
themselves from liability, they are going to ride off into the
sunset. What they're asking for and what they're poised to get
is one final expensive license for criminal misconduct. So,
please, think about the vast number of American families whose
lives have been upended, and then this one billionaire family
that is looking to game the system and get away with it once
and for all, and ask yourselves, whose side am I on? Thank you.
I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I
now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar. You are
now recognized for five minutes. Mr. Gosar, you are now
recognized.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairwoman. Today, we are again
discussing the role the Sackler family played in fueling the
opioid crisis in America. Numerous legal filings and
investigative reports have come out highlighting how the
Sackler family and Purdue Pharma created incentives to
overprescribed drugs, like OxyContin, while simultaneously
downplaying the addictive qualities of these drugs. Purdue
Pharma first introduced OxyContin in 1996 and aggressively grew
its sales from these criminal business practices, and, as
results, since 1999, there have been more than 400,000 overdose
deaths.
In my state of Arizona, between just June 2017 to June
2021, 9,556 suspected opioid deaths, as well as 70,226
suspected opiate overdoses, were reported. These numbers are
staggering and explain why Arizona declared a state of
emergency in 2017. Since 2017, every day, more than two
Arizonans die from opioid overdose, and at least two babies are
born suffering from opiate withdrawal. Even worse, preliminary
information shows a 36-percent spike in overdose deaths in
Arizona for just the first eight months of last year when
people were stuck at home, isolated, cutoff from economic
opportunity, and from medical assistance and treatment needed
to battle addiction. Across the Nation, COVID lockdowns
resulted in 42.1 percent more overdose-related cardiac arrests.
Many of these overdoses resulted from pills and drugs laced
with fentanyl. Some of these laced pills even purported to be
OxyContin or oxycodone.
This is a crisis, as we are referring to it, and it is one
of the many crises we are facing today as a Nation. The
majority claims to be in the business of solving this crisis,
all the while ignoring other crises which are contributing to
the opioid epidemic and other events harming Americans and
their communities. Democrats wanted to defund law enforcement,
let cartel members out of prison and into our communities, and
refuse to address the border crisis. Democrats have no clear
view of any crisis facing our Nation, and the answers they have
provided, in the rare cases that they do, in fact, either miss
the mark or are done so in an inappropriate manner.
As I have said numerous times before this committee, good
process makes good policy and makes good politics. Holding a
hearing on a crisis which we already held hearings on in the
past while numerous other crises are ignored by this committee,
on a bill which is not even in the jurisdiction of this
committee, intervening in a legal case before it is settled,
does not follow this equation. Americans need help now, not in
a few months from now, if this bill even passes in time apply
to the case. While I want to hold the Sacklers accountable just
as much as the majority, people in my state continue to
struggle, and I think we would be better served figuring out
how to meet their needs today.
Mr. Wasden, as an attorney general of a western state, you
are fully aware of the impacts of the opioid crisis on our
communities, and also observe directly the flow of illicit
products, like fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, over the
border into our communities, an issue which is greatly
exacerbated by the crisis along our southern border. Mr.
Wasden, what actions are you taking to prosecute and stem the
flow of synthetic opioids and other drugs in your state?
Mr. Wasden. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. Could you repeat the
question? I didn't hear it accurately.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. What actions are you taking to prosecute
and stem the flow of synthetic opioids and other drugs into
your state?
Mr. Wasden. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Congressman, we have
prosecutions that occur in every county in our state. We have
task forces that are in the process of working with all of
those matters. Fentanyl is a tremendous problem. However, in
this instance, what we are talking about is the responsibility
for opioids, other opioids, and what Purdue Pharma did, and we
are working together with our law enforcement partners across
the state in task forces to arrest importation of drugs into
our state.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Carroll, what can Congress and CBP do to
target this issue at the source by preventing the trafficking
of drugs over the border? Mr. Carroll?
Mr. Carroll. Yes. The men and women of law enforcement,
especially at our southern border, are working hard every day.
I mean, the patch on their shoulder says that they are trying
to protect our border and what is coming in. There is some
remarkable technology that is being developed. When I was the
director, we had a Fentanyl Detection Challenge to try to
develop technology that would also be able to find fentanyl,
but the bottom line is we need to know what is coming into our
country. We need to know what are in the bags, the cars, the
trucks. Whatever is coming in, we need to be able to inspect.
We need to think of these drugs and think about the children
that we have lost, and recognize that we must stop it in order
for treatment and prevention to take hold.
Mr. Gosar. Now, is it true that the Trump Administration,
which you served, saw the first annual decrease in overdose in
30 years? Is that true?
Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gosar. Now, even as these policies were implemented,
ongoing lockdowns at the state and city level burdened so many
who struggle with addiction. Do you think that reopening states
and restoring access to in-person medical treatment would bring
more immediate help to Americans who have struggled during
COVID?
Mr. Carroll. There is no question that the isolation that
these people felt, especially during the beginning stages of
COVID, contributed to the overdoses, contributed to their
deaths. Some of the treatment centers were not able to get
funding initially. We worked with Congress to fix what we
believe to be inadvertent omission, and I thank this committee
for taking a role in that to make sure that we could get
treatment centers to at least keep their doors open. You know,
so many people need that connection when they are in recovery,
and when they are isolated, when they are stuck at home,
especially in so many of our communities that are rural and
they have no access to treatment, that, you know, has certainly
been one of the driving forces of, you know, the recent
overdose.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. I yield back to you,
Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. I now
recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
In 2007, political appointees at the Department of Justice
defied the recommendations of career prosecutors and refused to
indict three Purdue executives on felony charges. Instead, DOD
settled with Purdue, and the three executives pleaded guilty to
misdemeanors. After this slap on the wrist and paying a fine,
the Sackler family and executives at Purdue went straight back
to flooding communities with more higher-density OxyContin
right away. The committee has received a recorded statement
from Mr. Rick Mountcastle, the career prosecutor who led the
four-year Federal investigation into Purdue's lies about
OxyContin's addictive potential. I would like to play his
statement, please.
[Video shown.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. AG Healey, we just heard how
the Purdue company used their influence over the justice system
to shield themselves from accountability. AG Healey, what kind
of precedent is set when we let corporations and their highest-
ranking executives get off with a slap on the wrist? AG Healey?
Ms. Healey. Thank you. It's a terrible precedent, and I
want to be clear. The reason that I am here today and that
General Wasden are here today, we've spent a lot of time. You
know, we've got our strike forces. We're doing fentanyl, heroin
takedowns day in and day out in our state and our region. We're
going to continue to work hard on that.
But we're also here because we're trying to seek justice
for the wrongdoing perpetrated by the Sacklers and Purdue
Pharma. And right now, what we're telling members of this
committee is that there is a loophole right now that prevents
us from obtaining the very accountability that you want us to
obtain for families in your districts and around the country.
The Sacklers, whose actions with Purdue instigated a crisis
that has claimed more lives than World War I, World War II,
Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf Wars combined, now want to abuse
the bankruptcy process to escape liability. Their efforts--and
I want to be really clear because state AGs and DOJ are aligned
on this. The Sacklers are seeking to use a loophole that will
block us in law enforcement from being able to pursue our
claims and vindicate those claims in court.
We appreciate the committee's efforts and really hope this
legislation passes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Yields back. Mr. Keefe, let me turn to
you. The Sackler family reaped billions of dollars from the
suffering of American families, yet they seem to always escape
accountability. From your perspective, are the Sacklers poised
to get away with it again?
Your mic. Mic?
Mr. Keefe. Thank you. I do think that absent some surprise
or some way to close this loophole that it does appear to be
the case that they will get away with it in the sense that they
will put up a share of their own fortune but keep vastly more.
What they have proposed to pay in order to resolve all these
cases in a final settlement is something just north of $4
billion. But they have an $11 billion fortune, and they're
proposing to pay that out over nine years. And so it's actually
a situation in which they will not even have to dip into their
principal on their fortune to do that.
They will--having paid this money, they will end up richer
than they are today and acknowledge no wrongdoing. So I do
think, yes, contrary to the suggestion earlier that victims are
having their day in court, I would actually say that it's quite
the opposite.
I mean, I don't know whether any of the Representatives
have dialed into the hearings in the bankruptcy process over
the last year or two. I suspect perhaps not. I have, and I
would say victims are not getting their day in court. In fact,
in instances in which victims have tried to intervene in that
process directly and just be heard, just tell their stories
about what they've lost, they have been shut out of the
process.
And so I do think that it seems very, very likely that if
this loophole is used, a loophole, which, as AG Wasden said, is
illegal in some parts of the country, it will absolutely be the
case that they will get away with it.
Chairwoman Maloney. During our December hearing, David and
Kathe Sackler tried to deflect blame for the opioid epidemic in
different directions, including the FDA, but they neglected to
mention their family's critical role in influencing the FDA's
approval of OxyContin, which misled the public on the dangers
of this drug.
How did FDA's original approval for OxyContin mislead the
public about the addictive potential? How did it happen?
Mr. Keefe. Yes, I think the excuse, ``Oh, the FDA said it
was OK,'' really--you know, you should be as persuaded as that,
you know, as you are convinced that the FDA did a good job in
the first instance.
A few quick points that seem worth considering. The first
is that a gentleman named Curtis Wright, who was the chief
examiner at FDA in charge of approving not just OxyContin for
sale to U.S. consumers but also the marketing of the drug,
about a year after he left the FDA went to work for Purdue
Pharma at three times his Government salary. Richard Sackler
was personally involved in conversations about when and how
Curtis Wright should come and work at the company, having
approved the drug.
When Curtis Wright was at the agency, Purdue sent some of
its executives to camp out in a motel in Maryland and work
closely with him, helping him write his reviews of their
studies of the drug. So it's essentially like you go and you
help the teacher grade your paper. They were working that
closely, really hand-in-glove.
There was a line in the original package insert for the
drug that said OxyContin has this particular continuous release
system, which is believed to reduce the abuse liability of the
drug. A great marketing line because it says it's potentially
safer than other drugs that might be out there on the market.
To this day, nobody can say who wrote that line. The
company has said, oh, it was Curtis Wright and the FDA. The FDA
says, oh, it was the company. That, to me, is a level of
closeness, of hand-in-glove cooperation between the regulatory
agency and the company that is dismaying and dangerous for U.S.
consumers.
Chairwoman Maloney. My time has expired. I recognize the
gentlelady from North Carolina. Ms. Foxx, you are now
recognized.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
My questions are for Mr. Carroll. We are here today to hold
accountable those who fuel the opioid epidemic. This is a
laudable goal. We need to see it through and hold all involved
accountable and work to stop the flow of illicit substances
into this country.
This begins with securing our porous Southern border. I
urge this committee, as Republicans on this committee have done
three separate times, to hold a hearing on securing the border
and to hold this administration accountable for stopping the
flow of illicit drugs and opioids into our Nation.
Mr. Carroll, would you agree that stopping the illicit
trafficking of fentanyl against our Southern border is arguably
the most important thing we can do to limit opioid overdose
deaths?
Mr. Carroll. Thank you for the question.
Right now, certainly the vast majority of deaths are being
caused by drugs brought into this country at the Southwest
border, and so we have to immediately secure it. When I was
acting in the capacity as the Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Police and responsible for both the
interdiction of drugs, but also reducing--or increasing the
prevention and increasing the treatment, I was often asked the
question, OK, there's three lines of effort, which one do you
prioritize?
And much like all the members of this committee and my
witnesses, you can't focus on just one thing. You don't have
that luxury. You have to do all three. You have to do all three
simultaneously, and you have to do them all well.
Stopping the flow of drugs coming into our country is
paramount. So is prevention, and so is increasing access for
those who are suffering. Certainly, you know, the drugs that
are killing us today are the drugs that are being brought in by
the cartels.
Ms. Foxx. So what should Congress be doing to stop the
trafficking of illicit drugs across the Southern border?
Mr. Carroll. We should allow the men and women of law
enforcement--God bless them--to allow them to do their job and
make sure that we know exactly what is being brought into the
country, know exactly through all the different conveyances.
We were able to put a huge dent in the amount of fentanyl
being mailed to the United States from China. That has all now
shifted to Mexico, both the production, the transportation. And
so we have to recognize that is a key barrier. It's hard to
control addiction. We can control the border.
Ms. Foxx. Well, thank you. Many with opioid abuse disorder
have been unable to access medication-assisted treatment due to
COVID-19 shutdowns. As a result, they have turned to fentanyl
and synthetic opioids, which are more dangerous than other
opioids. These illicit substances are coming from China, as you
indicate, and being smuggled across our Southern border in
enormous quantities.
From your experience as the Director of ONDCP, what must be
done to stop enabling these traffickers? Although you have
indicated that, do you want to add anything to what you have
already said?
Mr. Carroll. I guess what I would add is that we should
look at these cartels and look at the havoc that's going on
right now. And I would urge Congress to consider designating
these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. I mean,
they're the ones who are wreaking havoc right now.
And you know, as we look at what is causing--you know, were
they to be bringing in a dirty bomb into our country, we would
say this is a weapon of mass destruction, and we have to stop
it right now. We should think of these illicit drugs, we should
think of fentanyl as a drug of mass destruction, and I urge
Congress to continue to work with the office. I think my old
office is doing a great job of trying to continue to bring a
whole of government approach to make sure that we can stop the
fentanyl, we can get people into treatment, and God bless,
hopefully, there are fewer and fewer Jeffs who are facing that
situation.
Ms. Foxx. If we don't address the crisis at the Southern
border, will we be able to stem the tide of opioid abuse in
this country? Why or why not?
Mr. Carroll. We have to be able to control the amount of
drugs that are coming into this country. That is a key issue.
Many of the people who are suffering from an addiction don't
realize that they're taking fentanyl. They're not seeking it.
It is coming in in a form where they think its heroin. They
think its OxyContin, as we've talked about before. It's coming
in a pill form.
And so we have to be able to stop it for the sake of those
people who are suffering so that they aren't taking something
that they think is something that their body can tolerate. And
when it's fentanyl and 10 times more powerful, you know, they
pass away. They don't have a chance with fentanyl.
Ms. Foxx. Would you agree that President Biden's failure to
address the crisis at the border is exacerbating the opioid
epidemic?
Mr. Carroll. You know, I really don't want to get into
politics, but we know we have to control the Southern border. I
encourage everyone, everyone should visit the Southwest border
and see what's really happening so that we can get a handle on
the drugs that are being brought in by the same cartels that
are smuggling people. They're looking to make money in any way
possible.
Ms. Foxx. Well, thank you, Mr. Carroll. And Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Ms. Pleus. May I address this question as well?
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. The
gentlelady yields back, and the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia, Ms. Norton, is now recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this important
hearing.
I am interested in how vulnerable populations were
particularly targeted. Mr. Keefe that is how your book helped
me, because it was useful in helping me to understand that this
has been a decade-long strategy resulting in the opioid crisis.
Even more appalling is how the--along with the Purdue
executives, that the Purdue executives systematically targeted
vulnerable populations to make a profit. So these are the
populations that Congress often focuses on because they are
most vulnerable.
Millions of seniors, for example, rely on Medicare Part D
to cover the cost of their prescription drugs. Now we received
an internal Purdue document that the company targeted--and here
I am quoting--``patients over the age of 65 as more Medicare
Part D coverage is achieved.'' That is more seniors get on to
that coverage.
One Purdue supervisor actually coached their sales
representatives, according to a document I have before me, that
talked about a ``geriatric strategy,'' keep the focus on
geriatric patients. So, Mr. Keefe, can you tell us what you
know about this so-called geriatric strategy and Purdue's
efforts to target seniors in particular?
Mr. Keefe. Thank you for that question.
I should say I'm not familiar with that particular
document, but it doesn't surprise me. I mean, this is a company
that had a very strong profit motive from the beginning that
was looking to--in the words of one company official--sell,
sell, sell OxyContin. And so what that meant was when they were
looking at particular communities to target, particular doctors
to target with their marketing, the idea was where do you have
people who may have chronic pain, who may have injuries they
have sustained on the job, who may be out of work, who have
health issues that would require this kind of remedy?
I should say OxyContin, I think it can have important
therapeutic benefits. I certainly wouldn't advocate pulling it
from the shelves. The issue for me is if you sell a product,
you should be honest with consumers about what it is that that
product does, what they can expect from it.
And we see, if we look back in the internal documents that
have come out through litigation, discussions inside the
company, including discussions that had members of the Sackler
family in them at very, very senior levels in which, for
instance, they said we've done focus groups with doctors, and
doctors seem to believe that oxycodone--the main active
ingredient in OxyContin--is weaker than morphine when, in fact,
it's about twice as strong. Let's not do anything to let the
doctors realize they've got that wrong.
And that's in black and white you see that discussion
happening at very, very high levels of this company. So this is
what's concerning for me is that when you have a company in
that kind of explicit way, with Richard Sackler in on those
conversations saying we are selling a very powerful product,
and we are going to allow doctors to persist in a
misunderstanding about what that product might do to patients,
I think is extremely disturbing. And when you couple that with
the phenomenon you're describing, which is aiming for
communities where they think they'll make particular inroads, I
think you get the kind of devastating results that we've seen
over the last few decades.
Ms. Norton. And I want to continue focusing on vulnerable,
particularly vulnerable groups. And here is another one,
military service members. I have seen a document that doctors
wrote more than 3 million prescriptions to their patients for
narcotic pain pills, a 400 percent increase from the number
prescribed eight years earlier.
This is a question for Attorney General Healey. A 2009 book
entitled ``Exit Wounds: A Survival Guide to Pain Management for
Returning Veterans and Their Families.'' Thousands of these
copies, Attorney General Healey, of deceptive publications like
``Exit Wounds'' were actually distributed, I understand, in
Massachusetts alone. Why did the Sacklers and Purdue target
service members and veterans in particular?
Ms. Healey. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
And this is why we do the work. I mean, this was a company
and a family that were looking for opportunities to exploit.
They went after seniors. They went after veterans. Veterans,
particularly those who've been serving, succumb to injury, were
often likely targets to receive pain medication.
And Purdue and Sackler family members, they lied to doctors
about the addictive nature of the pills, and they did
everything they could to target and to make sure that as many
people as possible were prescribed OxyContin at as high a dose
as possible for as long as possible. So this was just a very
vulnerable, ripe, rich target.
People who are dealing with post-traumatic stress, who are
dealing with brain injury, who are dealing with service-related
wounds and injuries, go to a doctor, go to the VA, look for
assistance, and then are prescribed. Again, through a
calculated, concerted, really despicable effort on the part of
Purdue and the Sackler family to target through misleading
literature and marketing materials these very individuals. And
again, we're going to go after and continue to go after the
drug enforcement and the drug trafficking issue. We also need
to put resources toward treatment and prevention and education.
But we also are trying to hold those accountable, which is
our job as law enforcement, to hold those accountable who need
to be held accountable. And this is why this legislation is
important because how are we going to get the money for
treatment? How are we going to get the money to care for our
veterans and our service members who've been so wronged?
For people like Ms. Pleus and her family who are so wronged
and for the many families out there who have whether it's
parents or seniors, or a son or daughter who served in the
military, or a young person who has been prescribed an opioid
for a sports injury and is now addicted, how are we going to
get them the relief without the money? And the money is with
the Sacklers family right now, and they are trying to, par for
the course--which has been their playbook all along--keep that
money for themselves.
They've drained all the money out of Purdue. And again,
what they are proposing in this bankruptcy plan, unless there
is a change--unless there is a change--is they would get to end
up, for all the wrong they have wrought and the damage they've
done, they would allow themselves to be richer tomorrow with
this plan.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized. Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Thanks for calling on me. Thanks for having
the hearing.
I would like to thank Ms. Pleus for being here today. I
think what you have gone through is horrible, but I think all
we can do to educate the public on the horrors of OxyContin are
for the better, and it is very frustrating that a family has
gotten so wealthy doing something that is so wrong.
As far as my questions are going to start off with Mr.
Carroll. I recently toured the Drug Enforcement Administration
in Milwaukee. We were told the most recent year--and it is not
the calendar year or the fiscal year, just a rolling 12-month
year--we are up to 90,000 deaths on overdose of illegal drugs.
Is that true, do you think?
Mr. Carroll. That's what I've heard publicly reported as
well, that we're at about a 90,000 fatal overdose rate.
Mr. Grothman. Really high. And at least--I was told we had
540 last year in Milwaukee County alone, and at least the
officer I talked to felt that it is possible that either the
drug or the ingredients for the drug, all 540, could have come
cross the Mexican border. Is that your experience?
Mr. Carroll. I think it's overwhelmingly what's happening
is that there really is no domestic production of illicit
fentanyl taking place in the U.S. at all. The law enforcement
here in the U.S. have been good to make sure that hasn't
occurred.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, so 540 in Milwaukee County alone, that
is kind of amazing.
I am going to ask you, I always kind of wondered what would
happen as marijuana became legalized in the country. And while
I am not for legalization, I felt that maybe a benefit is we
would have less gangs. You know, as things became legalized,
you would have less of a black market, less gang problems.
I talked to the Border Patrol agency and I talked to DEA.
They have both felt, and I want to get your opinion, that the
opposite is what happened. As marijuana became no longer
profitable to bring across the Southern border, as I understand
it--because the quality of marijuana grown in the United States
is superior--the drug gangs, who have to make their money
somewhere, are increasing the amount of fentanyl and other
stronger drugs coming across the border.
Is that your experience or not, if you could comment on
that?
Mr. Carroll. It's certainly true that fentanyl has
skyrocketed in terms of being brought into this country. The
other thing that's really concerning is the stimulants, the
methamphetamine and cocaine that are being brought in higher
and higher numbers also across the border. For people that have
an opioid addiction, there are medication-assisted treatment
drugs that can help them through this. But for methamphetamine,
there really is not a direct----
Mr. Grothman. I guess the question I am saying, do you
believe one of the reasons the gangs are increasing the amount
of fentanyl and other stronger drugs across the border is
because there is no longer money to be made bringing marijuana
across the border.
Mr. Carroll. I think they'll make money any way that they
can, and they don't care about the consequences. I think they
can make more money on fentanyl because it's easier to produce.
It doesn't take as long. You can get higher quantities in, and
they don't care about smuggling in children or other people.
They'll do anything they can to make a buck, and they don't
care about the repercussions.
And marijuana is still being brought into the country, but
it does appear that it's not as much.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Now I am going to ask you another
question, and if either Ms. Healey or Mr. Wasden want to jump
in, that is OK, too. Something was brought to my attention last
week which just stunned me.
Traditionally, one of the ways you bring drug dealers--you
get them in line with the law is you find out that they sold
drugs when somebody dies. I think most states, maybe all states
by now have the equivalent of a Len Bias law. It has been
brought to my attention that the city of Milwaukee and a suburb
of Milwaukee--very liberal suburb, no coincidence--have
recently stopped criminally investigating drug overdoses.
So, in other words, we--and I am told by other law
enforcement that is frequently the way we catch people, right?
They sell the drugs. We look at their phone record. You work
your way back up, and you wind up putting very bad people in
prison.
Is this--I assume as part of this Black Lives Matter, we
don't want to use the police too much. We don't want to put
people in prison sort of thing. But is this becoming a common
thing around the country where local law enforcement no longer
investigates drug overdoses, and they just treat it like they
found somebody who died of a heart attack? And could you
comment on that new way to police or way to not police?
Mr. Carroll. Maybe I'll defer to some of the other
witnesses, to the attorney generals that probably have a better
sense of what's happening in their jurisdictions, and then I'm
happy to talk about some of the death-resulting cases.
Ms. Healey. Congressman, I'm very happy to answer from
Massachusetts and understand that in this region of the
country, the opioid/heroin/fentanyl pipeline really runs
through New England--New York, Massachusetts, Maine, and New
Hampshire. And so we work very closely with one another
regionally.
I will tell you that my office alone has arrested over 500
people in connection with the trafficking of heroin and
fentanyl. So we are not letting up. As I say, in 2016, I formed
a fentanyl strike force. We work closely with other state AGs
offices, FBI, DOJ, DEA, and the like, Postal Service. We're
going to continue to do that. That's important to do.
Mr. Grothman. I want to make sure, and I am sorry, Madam
Chair, is do you see in Massachusetts any of this new thing
where we do not criminally investigate drug overdoses?
Ms. Healey. You know, I think that what we see is really an
array of approaches, which I think is important. Look, my
office charged a doctor with manslaughter, criminal charge of
manslaughter for----
Mr. Grothman. You are not answering my question. It is kind
of an important question. Do you see in Massachusetts this
trend toward not criminally investigating drug overdoses?
Ms. Healey. No. In fact, every unattended death must be
investigated by the local district attorney. That work
continues. In addition to an investigation and enforcement and
prosecution of drug trafficking, we, of course, advocate for
more resources for treatment and certainly are advocating for
more resources for the kind of work we need to do to interdict
drugs that are being trafficked in our area.
So we're going to continue to fight this all fronts,
including what we're doing today, which is asking for your
help, coming before our Congress to ask for your help for the
sake of our families who need the relief, and not to allow
these billionaires to abuse the bankruptcy code and system by
means that they're attempting to do through this New York
court.
And I say that as a state AG. And some of us may--some may
look down on us states for the work that we do. We're not the
Feds, but we're state AGs just trying to do our jobs and pursue
justice. And right now, we've got a Federal bankruptcy court
and a party there that's trying to use Federal court to stymie
and block the efforts of state law enforcement, just trying to
seek justice and right the wrongs that have been done.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Pleus. Congressman, I would love to answer that
question as well, if I may?
Chairwoman Maloney. Pardon? Who's speaking?
Ms. Pleus. May I answer the question as well?
Chairwoman Maloney. Briefly, briefly.
Ms. Pleus. OK, thank you.
When I lost my son, I spoke to a narcotics officer who
explained to me that when we criminalize people who have sold
the drugs that people die from, more people die. Because then
people are afraid to stay with the person or call 911 or get
the people help because they're so afraid that they will have
homicide charges against them, so that they leave people alone,
and more people die.
Anytime we prosecute someone for homicide for dealing, what
we're doing is actually working against the Good Samaritan
laws, which are very important in this country to actually save
lives.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. Your time
has expired.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the
witnesses for their willingness to help the committee with this
work. I especially want to thank my friend and colleague,
Attorney General Maura Healy from Massachusetts, thank her for
her testimony today and also for all the great work that she
continues to do here in the Commonwealth and throughout New
England.
At the outset, I just want to point out the glaring
inconsistency of my Republican colleagues' newfound trust in
the courts. I heard repeatedly on this call that my Republican
colleagues want to just let their constituents whose loved ones
were killed, right, were murdered basically by this company,
let them--let them go to bankruptcy court.
That is quite in contrast with your approach regarding the
previous election, where right now in a half dozen states you
are trying to overturn the court decisions in those cases. So
you are trying extrajudicial methods to overturn court
decisions in state court on the same ballots when you were
elected on. You are trying to overturn those ballots and that
whole process. So I have to view with great skepticism your
stated newfound trust in the courts.
Second, as someone who has actually practiced as an
attorney in bankruptcy court, your constituents, all our
constituents, whether they are grieving families from
Massachusetts or Kentucky or Arizona or Wisconsin, those
families will, based on bankruptcy law and the priority of
secured creditors, those people who lost loved ones, they won't
recover. They won't recover, and the Sacklers will. They will
keep their money.
So that is the result that you are endorsing, and I know
you want to talk about anything but the subject of this
hearing. And that is shameful because this is something we
should be together on.
Mr. Comer. Would the gentleman yield to a question? This is
Congressman Comer. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. I
listened to all the stuff that I totally object to, but I let
my colleagues go on. Regardless of the veracity of their
statements, I just sat back.
But so I have a long history with this issue. Back in 2005,
2005, I actually filed legislation to ban OxyContin because
Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family had lied to the public.
They actually had--one of their first ads--this goes back to
2005. One of their first ads, get this, was a couple of guys in
a rowboat fishing and one guy complaining about his arthritis,
and then the ad recommending OxyContin. You know, it was just
totally egregious in what they were doing here.
Meanwhile, in my district, bodies were piling up. I had to
found a residential facility for children, for adolescents,
because at that point, we had not had--we were collocating
children in adult facilities. So I had to dig deep, and I still
have a waiting list to get into my residential facility for
children because they go from OxyContin to heroin.
So I do want to go back to the testimony that was referred
to by Mr. Keefe, but I want to ask Attorney General Healey. So
there is a clear email in Item 3 on the record right now that
it demonstrates that there was communications, direction
communications between Richard Sackler and his soon-to-be CEO
Mr. Friedman. And Mr. Friedman writes, ``We are well aware of
the view held by physicians that oxycodone is weaker than
morphine.'' Actually, we know it is twice, twice as powerful as
morphine.
Attorney General, was that view accurate? Was that
portrayal accurate, and why would they not denounce or dispute
that assertion publicly that physicians were relying upon?
Ms. Healey. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely false.
Absolutely wrong. And absolutely in keeping with the Sacklers'
and Purdue's continued deceptions, misrepresentations at the
expense of so many lives across this country.
It's good to see you, and I thank you for all the work
you've done on behalf of families in Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Attorney General. And Madam Chair, my
time has expired. I yield back.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, is now recognized for
five minutes. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
holding this hearing so we can give this issue the attention it
deserves.
For decades, drug overdose deaths have remained at an
unacceptable level across the United States. Tragically, the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has only amplified this problem,
causing a 46 percent increase in overdose-related cardiac
arrests in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Rural
districts like the one I represent are also struggling in the
wake of shutdowns as the Nation contends with a dramatic 42
percent spike in overdoses.
When access to medical assistance, social support networks,
and counseling services are inhibited, as has been the case
during the pandemic, patients suffering from opioid addiction
often turn to other sources. This is directly evidenced by a 50
percent increase in fentanyl use, with most of the fentanyl
entering the country illegally through the Southern border.
Since October 2020, nearly 247 pounds of the illegal drug
has been seized at just three border crossings. If this
committee is serious about addressing the opioid epidemic, then
I urge Chairwoman Maloney to heed the committee Republicans'
repeated calls for a hearing on the worsening Southern border
crisis.
Mr. Carroll, could you please speak to how continued
inaction regarding the border crisis affects the illegal
fentanyl trade?
Mr. Carroll. Without the ability to know what's coming into
our country, everything is coming in, and so much of it we know
is deadly. You know, obviously, there is a lot of other issues
that need to be addressed by Congress, and I'll let you all
work on the immigration issues. But what we can't do is ignore
these dangerous, lethal drugs that are coming in. They're
flowing in. All we have to do is look at the number of
Americans that are dying every day to know that we do not have
a handle on the drugs that are being brought into our country.
And so, as I said, if we want to be able to stop this, we
need to work on prevention. We need to work on treatment. We
need to work on alternative pain medications. But we need to
stop these drugs that are coming in. I mean, that's how we're
going to save lives is doing all of those things and working
together.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. And also is there anything you can
speak to what China's role might be in the fentanyl trade?
Mr. Carroll. Sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Keller. Is there anything that you can speak to about
China's role in the fentanyl trade?
Mr. Carroll. Yes, China is playing a huge role, and there
is no doubt about that. What we're seeing are Mexican drug
cartel members being caught in China learning how to make it,
and conversely, what we're seeing are Chinese nationals in
Mexico not only doing the teaching, but also facilitating the
flow of money, the illegal money flows that are--you know,
they're making millions, if not billions, of dollars on this
every year as well.
And so the Chinese are absolutely complicit in this, and
that's one of the countries--that's what we targeted in working
with the administration, working with Congress. And as I said,
it went now to virtually zero of fentanyl coming in directly
from China to the U.S., and it's now all moved essentially--
it's almost all moved through Mexico.
Mr. Keller. Yes, if the administration were to take a firm,
decisive stance on the Southern border, what signals would that
send to China, producing the raw materials used to fabricate
fentanyl?
Mr. Carroll. What we're--we know that they're facilitating
it. Some of the precursor drugs that are used to make fentanyl
have been seized in Mexico by the ton, literally the ton, to be
able to make fentanyl and as well as some of the
methamphetamine that's being trafficked now into the U.S.
We need to make this a vital part of any conversation,
whether its trade or any other issue in terms of financial aid,
is to make sure that these countries are doing their part. And
I truly believe that one of the ways that we could aid these
countries is through enforcement mechanisms, such as declaring
these cartels a foreign terrorist organization, which will
allow greater resources to be brought against them.
And you know, as I said, if we stop and think about the
number of Americans that are dying, if we declared fentanyl a
weapon of mass destruction and we brought all the Government
resources together for certain trafficking methods and things
like that, think of the ability to be able to stop this, so we
can get more kids into treatment, that we could do more on
prevention efforts, so that we could attack this holistically
working together without partisan politics.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate that. I don't have time
for my last question, but I thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper, is now recognized.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your
holding this hearing, and I also look forward to us having a
hearing on fentanyl.
I think our main job today is two things. One, to make sure
that every penny can get to the victims. And two, to make sure
that this never happens again.
On the first question, I have already called the Sackler
family the most evil family in America. That is true. I have
also been delighted to cosponsor what I call the Anti-SACKLER
Act because that will help recover more money for the victims.
But on the never again part, we are going to have to do more
than reform the bankruptcy laws, and that will be not enough,
and it is certainly not enough to begin recovering the lives
lost.
I don't think some of my colleagues across the aisle have
understood the significance of this hearing because with the
Sackler family, what we had here in America was a drug cartel
operating within our own borders, within our own borders
protected by U.S. law. That is something that an El Chapo or a
Medellin cartel could only dream of.
Now, how did this happen? I think the first step was we had
to realize these were prescription drugs that had to be
approved, and we have had some testimony on that. Whether it
was Curtis Wright at the FDA corrupted by the outside company
or whether it was a letter to the editor of the New England
Journal of Medicine that was passed off as a peer-reviewed
study when all it was, was a letter to the editor. That is not
scientific evidence.
Then the drugs had to be marketed. And this thing, the
fifth vital sign doctrine began spreading wildly in medicine,
but now most of our hospitals have realized how abusive this
was, and they have curtailed OxyContin and pain medication drug
prescribing by as much as half or more because it was
unnecessary. They know now that doctors were handing out these
drugs like candy.
The drugs had to be prescribed. I found a book back in 2016
by the head of addiction at Stanford, Anna Lembke. The title of
the book is ``Drug Dealer M.D.: How Doctors were Duped, How
Patients Got Hooked, and Why It's So Hard to Stop.'' She
detailed a lot of this way before Mr. Keefe.
Fourth, the drug should have been monitored. In Mr. Keefe's
testimony, he cites the Arlen Specter hearing, a Republican
from Pennsylvania, who was onto this early. Not as early as
Steve Lynch, but back in 2007. And what was the congressional
followup? Very little.
And there were other signs. PBMs, pharmacy benefit managers
knew which pharmacies were getting more drugs per pharmacy than
it would take to feed the entire state. Most jurisdictions of
the country knew that millions of doses, excess doses were
coming to particular pharmacies just to be handed out
illegally. There were other warning signs, and we probably need
campaign finance reform in this area more than any other one.
Another step, the fifth step is the drug dealers really
should have been prosecuted. Isn't it interesting that only the
U.S. attorney in southeast Virginia was able to get the $600
million takedown of Purdue? And as we now learned from
testimony, they tried to take them down from main Justice, and
that was nothing more than a traffic ticket for the Sackler
family, a $600 million judgment.
But in many ways, I think the sixth issue is the ultimate
issue. Should companies that are operating as criminal
enterprises be able to hide their wrongdoing? For a long time,
CEOs would claim, oh, I didn't know the company didn't pay
their taxes. And we in Congress, we have forced CEOs to sign
the tax returns of their companies so they cannot deny
responsibility.
But we are not holding the big shots accountable, as was
proven by this southeast Virginia lack of prosecution. But also
we are rarely, if ever, holding the owners accountable,
particularly when they act as the de facto CEOs. Richard
Sackler was all over this company. Company executives were
begging him not to enter into so much.
It is a clear-cut case, and that is why I have called the
Sackler family the most evil family in America. They knew what
they were doing, and they called the victims of their drug
dealing, what, ``the scum of the earth.''
So there is a lot of wrongdoing here. We almost need a
Sackler bipartisan commission to make sure this never happens
again in our country because this is the ultimate wrong. To
have a cartel operating within our own borders, it is beyond
wrong. And yet I think that we are still not quite getting to
the core of this because this is a deep crime against America,
and it looks like so far, unless we intervene with the Anti-
SACKLER Act, the Sackler family is about to get away with it.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well said. The gentleman's time has
expired. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is now
recognized for five minutes. Mr. Clyde?
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for hosting this
hearing.
However, I must say that I am dismayed with your decision
to use this committee to highlight a bill, and your own bill at
that, that doesn't fall in this committee's jurisdiction and to
promote a book, especially from someone who has so heavily
donated to the Democratic Party.
To reinforce Ranking Member Comer's remarks, I think it is
inappropriate to use a congressional committee as a book club
to promote a recently released book. The Judiciary Committee
has sole purview, and rightfully so, as your bill, the SACKLER
Act, alters the rights of non-debtors in certain bankruptcy
procedures.
I want justice for the citizens of Georgia, just like my
Democratic lawmakers want justice for those that reside in
their respective home states. And while I seriously question
the Sackler family's decisions and conduct over their years, as
well as their role in fueling the opioid epidemic, I have
serious concerns about the majority's decision to target a
specific family, to target private citizens, all while Purdue
Pharma's bankruptcy negotiation is still being ironed out. Such
actions are questionable judgment to say the least.
That said, putting the Sackler family and its alleged
wrongdoings aside, today's hearing is nothing more than a
textbook example of the Government targeting private citizens,
and it should be gravely concerning to all of us. If the
chairwoman were serious about her bill, she would have held a
joint hearing with Judiciary. Moreover, if she were serious
about stopping the opioid epidemic, she would be holding a
hearing on the border crisis that is refueling the opioid
crisis and bringing more of these dangerous drugs into our
communities.
When I was at the border in April, a sharp Customs and
Border Protection agent had just caught a smuggler, trying to
smuggle thousands of pills of fentanyl hidden inside a hollowed
out section of a wooden table. This is the real problem our
country currently faces. Millions of pills flooding across our
Southern border.
Three times we have asked our chairwoman via letter to hold
a hearing on the black market opioids being smuggled across the
Southern border. Three times we have been ignored, and our
requests have fallen on deaf ears as the border crisis rages
on.
But here we are, wasting lawmakers' district work time
period with a bill this committee doesn't even have
jurisdiction over, when this committee should be conducting
oversight of the administration's failed border policies. Just
one other----
Mr. Comer. Unmute yourself.
Chairwoman Maloney. We can't hear you, Mr. Clyde. Have you
muted yourself?
Mr. Clyde. Can you hear me now?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Clyde. Just one other glaring example of a failed Biden
policy is the thousands of unaccompanied children streaming
across the border in the hands of human smugglers. Surely the
Biden administration has made our Federal Government the last
link in the chain of human smuggling of children. This is
shameful.
And the Coyotes know that when those children come across,
Border Patrol assets are diverted to rescue those children,
leaving fewer assets and a thinner line of defense against the
smuggling of these lethal drugs. The opioid epidemic has
plagued too many families across my district and led to
countless deaths in Georgia. I know that to be the case because
while the opioid-involved overdose deaths decreased across my
home state of Georgia from 2017 to 2019, the trend line in the
Northeast Public Health District, which covers 13 of the 20
counties in my district, doesn't mirror the state's overall
downward trend for the same period, but rather shows up like a
sine wave type struggle to curtail the epidemic.
And the Northeast Public Health District shows opioid-
related overdose deaths steadily increasing over the 2017 to
2019 time period.
To Mr. Carroll, this question for you, sir. I mentioned
illicit opioids in my remarks, and I am curious to know your
thoughts on whether the current crisis at the border is
jeopardizing strides made in reducing opioid-related deaths
across the country?
Mr. Carroll. You know, the purpose of the hearing, the
title of the hearing is holding people responsible for their
actions, such as the Sackler family and the Purdue family. If I
may, Ms. Pleus just slipped me a note that talked about that,
about holding appropriate people responsible. But you're right.
We have to hold responsible not only those folks within the
United States that are going through litigation, we have to
hold these cartels responsible for the drugs that they're
bringing in.
And if the attention of the men and women in law
enforcement who are trying to protect our country are having--
and humanely so and appropriately so being diverted to provide
for the main care of individuals, that means these cartels are
taking advantage of it. What we were seeing is the cartels,
they're very good, they're very dynamic, and they're able to
take advantage of a situation like this and suddenly flood one
area of the border with illegal--people coming across the
border illegally.
And then as CBP is rightfully making sure for their well-
being and treating them, in another part a mile down the road,
this fentanyl and everything else is coming in, and that's
what's causing the deaths that are happening. And so we have
isolation. We have the depression. We have the financial ruin.
And then we have the more drugs coming in. And this is
intolerable.
And so we have to hold everyone responsible for their part
of this role, and that's why this hearing is good.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you very much, Mr. Carroll. I appreciate
that.
Thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Raskin, is now recognized.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to start by saying that a corporation that
exploits drug trafficking is not a corporation that deserves
our sympathy, as Mr. Clyde suggests, but it is a cartel. And a
family that exploits drug trafficking and the addictive
qualities of its product is not one that should elicit the
sympathy of the U.S. Congress. It is an organized crime family
that is exploiting its power in order to take advantage of
other people.
Attorney General Healey, tell us why it is not a fraudulent
bankruptcy or a fraudulent conveyance for the Sacklers just to
transfer $10 billion or more out of their corporation into
their pockets and then have the company declare bankruptcy? Why
isn't that a fraudulent action?
Ms. Healey. Congressman, thank you for the question.
We agree. We think it was wrong. We think that shouldn't
have happened, and it's also why we continue to pursue what we
can pursue and fight for our victims in this bankruptcy court.
I mean, we're the ones now--we haven't--we haven't had much
success against the Sacklers. We've survived motions to
dismiss. But the decks have been stacked against us throughout
this process, and that's why we're before Congress today,
looking for relief.
Mr. Raskin. Well, let me ask you about that. Can you
explain how the bankruptcy court can essentially provide
sweeping immunity from all civil lawsuits to a non-debtor? That
is, to someone who has not declared bankruptcy, who is not the
subject of the bankruptcy proceeding, but simply say we are
going to immunize you from any civil proceedings.
Why doesn't that violate the due process rights of people
who might have legitimate claims against those people who are
able to sneak into bankruptcy court and get umbrella coverage
by a bankruptcy judge?
Mr. Clyde. Madam Chairwoman, point of order.
Ms. Healey. May I respond?
Mr. DeSaulnier. [Presiding.] Hold on just a moment.
Ms. Healey. Or shall I respond?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Yes, go ahead and respond.
Mr. Clyde. Madam Chairwoman, point of order.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Sir, you have not been recognized. The
chairwoman stepped out for just a second. This is Congressman
DeSaulnier. She has asked me to fill in. I am going to let the
AG finish her comment.
Mr. Clyde. OK. Well, then I would like to address that I
was addressed by name by Congressman Raskin.
Mr. DeSaulnier. OK, just a minute, please.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. No, I am just getting started with what
you had to say, Mr. Clyde, on my time. And I would like my----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Raskin is recognized.
Mr. Raskin. I wonder if the attorney general could answer
that question, which is how the bankruptcy court can allow a
release from liability and debt of a non-debtor, someone who is
not a subject of the proceeding?
Ms. Healey. Congressman, in our view, they shouldn't be
allowed to. And Department of Justice agrees with us, as do 24
of my colleagues. I mean, the role of bankruptcy--and I'm no
bankruptcy expert, but I'll give it a shot. As an attorney
general, we've been in this realm many times.
The role of the bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy code is
you're trying to maximize value. So there may be instances
where you allow people to pay in who are not actually debtors,
who are not actually in bankruptcy. That may--that may redound
to the benefit.
That said, the one thing that I don't think Congress
contemplated in writing the bankruptcy code was for it to be
allowed to be abused and contorted and as a loophole and a way
out and a way to buy immunity if you're non-bankrupt
billionaires who did really, really, bad, bad things, criminal
things at the exploitation and expense of so many lives.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that. This is an outrageous
loophole made up by a bunch of judges, which apparently, the
Department of Justice has gone along with in different
political guises. But if people have legitimate legal claims
against the Sackler family and against Purdue, I don't
understand how a bankruptcy judge can immunize private
individuals who are not part of the bankruptcy proceeding from
being sued. And I would hope that every member of this
committee who really cares about people who have been injured
by the outrageous actions of the Sacklers would get behind this
act, this bill that we put together to try to overthrow this
completely irrational and unjust loophole.
There is a new culture of impunity and immunity in America,
and we just heard some of it from one of our colleagues. You
can lie about OxyContin and drive hundreds of thousands of
people into death and despair and their families. You can loot
the corporation of $10 billion. You can pay a small symbolic
fee by getting lawyers to fix it for you, and you can waltz off
with the other billionaires.
Just like you can smash the windows of the U.S. Capitol,
you can trash the place, you can threaten the Vice President of
the United States. You can threaten to assassinate the Speaker
of the House, and we have colleagues who don't even want to
have a bipartisan commission split right down the middle--half
Republicans, half Democrats--to investigate this assault on us.
This is the culture of impunity that our colleagues are
bringing us today, and we are seeing the devastation and the
wreckage and the wasteland of communities across the country
suffering from the effects of the Sacklers, suffering from the
effects of the misconduct of their corporation.
And so we need to pass this legislation to close this made-
up loophole, which is allowing them to get away with pocketing
billions of dollars while the people of America suffer.
I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. Before I go to Mr.
Fallon, Mr. Clyde, do you want to state your point of order?
Mr. Clyde. Yes. I believe that Mr. Raskin said that I said
that I was sympathetic to the Sacklers. I was not. I did not
say that. I----
Mr. Raskin. You said they were being targeted. You said one
family was being unfairly targeted. That sounded like it----
Mr. Biggs. Point of order. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Biggs, just a second. Everybody take a
deep breath.
Mr. Raskin, let us let Mr. Clyde finish, and then I will
give you a moment. Thank you.
Mr. Clyde. I don't--that was not my--I did not say
``unfairly targeted.'' You know, I did not say that. Those were
not my words.
Mr. DeSaulnier. OK, thank you. Mr. Raskin, anything
briefly?
Mr. Raskin. That is fine. If he thinks they were fairly
targeted, then we are on the same side of this, and I apologize
to Mr. Clyde if there was any other suggestion. I
misinterpreted what he said. It sounded like he was saying they
were being unfairly targeted. But he is saying they are being
fairly targeted. So we are together.
I yield back.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr.
Clyde.
We will now go to Mr. Fallon for five minutes.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
The Biden border crisis--well, first of all, let me start
with this. I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for the
Sacklers or Purdue, and they should be held accountable and
face justice. And if this is about protecting Americans, as it
seems to be, apparently we had a committee hearing before we
were sworn in, and so now we are having a second. So I would
call on the chair to have a hearing forthwith on the Biden
border crisis. Now, why?
If you look at illegal border crossings over the last five
years--well, I guess 4 1/2 years, in Fiscal Year 2017, it was
527,000. Then it was 683,000. Then there was a jump of 1.14
million. Then it went right back down to 646,000, which is
still alarmingly high.
But this calendar year, it is--or I should say the last,
yes, the four months of this year, it is 871,000, which is a
rate of 2.6 million, which is 234 percent higher than the worst
month under the Trump administration. And it is 495 percent
higher than his lowest one. And if you compare year over year,
April 2020 to April 2021, it was a 1,000 percent increase in
illegal crossings.
Now what does that have to do with the opioid crisis in
America? Some of the witnesses, one of the witnesses touched on
it, and some of our colleagues have touched on it.
When Border Patrol is distracted because of all these
illegal border crossings, particularly with unaccompanied
minors, that gives the drug cartels the opportunity because
about half of our Border Patrol is focused on the illegal
migrants. And then the drug cartels, some of the most evil
people on the planet, get to sneak their product in and smuggle
it in much easier.
And when we visited the border approximately six weeks ago,
DEA gave us an extensive and comprehensive briefing on the
illicit drug trade. And seizures have exploded with cocaine and
methamphetamine, but actually has gone down for one drug,
heroin. You have to ask yourself why.
Well, it is because fentanyl has exploded, and fentanyl is
replacing heroin. Fentanyl is far more dangerous, too. It is
cheaper. It is easier to transport. And it is far more
powerful, 50 percent times more powerful than heroin and 100
times more powerful than morphine. As I said, it is more
potent, there is higher profit margins, and it is easier to
transport.
You look at the deaths in the United States due to
synthetic opioids, it is approximately--it is a little over
45,000 deaths. So I would beg, beseech, plead, and on my knees
request that the chair hold a hearing on the crisis at the
border because an open border is an immoral border, and people
are dying south and north of the border when we won't secure
it.
We have de facto allowed the Mexican drug cartels to
control our southern frontier, and it is entirely unacceptable.
And I am glad some attorney generals are on this--in this
hybrid hearing because Mr. Biden has made every state a border
state.
I yield back.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Fallon. The chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for five
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I think we are hearing, as we just heard from our
colleague from Texas, an attempt to distract from a main topic.
A half million Americans are dead because of an opioid crisis,
one of whom--and these are people.
Ms. Pleus, you lost a son. Any reaction to the distraction
from our Republican colleagues, who apparently want to talk
about anything but the opioid crisis and the responsibility of
the Sackler family in creating it?
Ms. Pleus. I can't thank you enough for the opportunity to
address this. Thank you so much.
I'm not sure if the members are aware that the United
States has the highest overdose fatality rate in the entire
world. We lose 186 people per million. That was as of 2015.
That's in contrast to Portugal, which loses only six people per
year--only six people per million in Portugal.
It's stunning to me that this committee has an opportunity
to hold the greatest family cartel in the history of the United
States and possibly the world responsible for what they've
done, and yet here you are distracting from your opportunity by
focusing on the Southern border, which is a waste of time,
money, and resources.
The other countries who have lower overdose fatality rates
do not have walls built around their country. You are missing
an opportunity to hold the Sacklers responsible. As AG Healey
said, this will set a terrible precedent that any corporate
protected family in the United States can profit from killing
Americans in the future if you let them get away with this now.
You're focused on a drug war that's a failure. In Portugal,
they have decriminalized substance use, and they only lose six
people per million. And again, compared to the United States,
we lose 186 people per million each year. We are doing it
wrong, and you are focusing on the wrong thing.
We are here for the SACKLER Act today, and I am disgusted
that the committee members cannot focus on that.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Connolly. Well, thank you, Ms. Pleus. And I would just
amend your statement--some committee members.
Ms. Pleus. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Mr. Connolly. Because when you are in counsel with the
subject, change the subject.
Ms. Healey, welcome. And I think--I give you greetings from
my sister back in Massachusetts.
Ms. Healey. It's good to be with you.
Mr. Connolly. Are you there?
Ms. Healey. I sure am, and it's good to be with you.
Mr. Connolly. Good. Rosemary Connolly says hello.
Ms. Healey. Well, you give her my regards as well.
Mr. Connolly. I will. I will.
Let me ask you a question. Mr. Sackler, David Sackler
testified before us, and he said, like the rest of Purdue's
board, I relied on Purdue's management to keep on top of the
medical science and ensure the company was complying with all
laws and regulations. In other words, I really--I wasn't
directly involved.
But Exhibit 7 in your testimony includes a 2012 email from
Purdue's VP of sales and marketing to the CEO that reads,
``Anything you can do to reduce the direct contact of Richard
Sackler into the organization is appreciated.'' That would
suggest that they were consciously trying to show distance
between the Sackler family and the management of the
organization, when, in fact, the opposite was true. The
Sacklers were directly involved in the management of the
company. Would you comment?
Ms. Healey. Well, thank you for that.
And it's one of any number of emails and memos that our
investigation turned up that shows just how directly involved
Sackler family members were with both coming up with a scheme
and then implementing and overseeing the scheme, to the point
where Richard Sackler had to be told to back off because he
wanted to go out there for ride-alongs and visit places, you
know, as people, the sales reps were trying to sell the drug.
So, I mean, our investigation is replete with similar
emails. It's really shameful. It is really heartbreaking. And I
understand the feelings and the emotion and the indignation of
Ms. Pleus and families across this country, but that's who
we're dealing with.
And that's why as attorney general, I bring cases based on
the facts, and the facts are clear here. The Sackler family
members are responsible. They were the perpetrators. I've heard
many members of this committee acknowledge that. As
perpetrators, they need to be held accountable. And what we are
saying to you is that absent this legislation and this revision
to the code, there's not going to be accountability.
And I'm not even asking for a liability finding against the
Sacklers. What I'm asking for simply as a matter of due process
and, frankly, it is separation of powers, give deference to the
states. Allow us to proceed and bring justice and have our case
heard and have a trial. That's all we're asking for, and let
the chips fall where they may.
But don't give the Sackler family another way out and
continue the decades-long cycle of allowing this family to
escape justice and accountability. Families across this country
deserve more from all of us in government.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. My time
has expired.
Mr. Comer. Mr. Connolly, will you yield to a question? Mr.
Chairman, will Mr. Connolly yield to a question?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Connolly's time--Mr. Connolly's time is
up, Mr. Comer.
Next up is Mr. Sessions. I recognize the gentleman from
Texas for five minutes.
[No response.]
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Sessions, are you there? I understand
you have had some technical difficulties.
[No response.]
Mr. DeSaulnier. We will come back to Mr. Sessions and go to
Congressman Biggs for five minutes. Thank you, Representative
Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Congressman DeSaulnier. Appreciate
that.
This has been a very interesting hearing. I actually think
we have rare comity across the aisle in that we understand the
danger--each of us understands the danger of opioid addiction,
and we want those who are responsible to be held accountable.
I hope, however, that the legislation proposed, should it
pass, doesn't hinder the necessity of accountability of the
individuals who are to blame. I wondered, like one of the
previous--my colleague from Maryland did, about fraudulent
conveyance statutes, taking money out of the corporation. I
think that is an interesting legal question.
Democrats, however, claimed that anything else we've talked
about is a distraction, but this hearing doesn't further the
bill along in the process. That is a fact. It doesn't because
H.R. 2096 was assigned to a different committee. The bill is
within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.
That would have been a more appropriate venue, and the
myriad of interesting questions that arise would be more
properly addressed in that committee. Additionally, if this
bill is to proceed, it will have to be through the Judiciary
Committee, not this one.
One more item that I think is unique in my legislative
tenure--and that includes working in multiple international
institutions, in a state legislative body, and in the
Congress--and that is the tacit inclusion of an additional
witness presented by the chair in the form of a video
testimony, which was, de facto, a witness.
With that, now I want to turn to the damage of opioids and
what they do to this country. I agree with the chair when she
said earlier it was her desire to ``end the opioid epidemic in
our country.'' Many states have enacted legislation that have
resulted in a reduction of opioid prescriptions by more than a
third.
Arizona made changes like many other states. I have met
with individuals who have used OxyContin with close medical
regulation. They have avoided addiction. But I have also met
with those who became addicted and then overcame their
addiction, and those who have not been able to overcome the
addiction.
But our border is porous, and our agents are overwhelmed
with processing illegal border crossers. In the meantime,
cartels that smuggle humans and drugs across the border into
the U.S. strategically ship drugs across the Southern border.
It has been reported that Customs and Border Protection seized
more fentanyl in the first half of 2021 than it had in any of
the three years prior.
From October of last year to April of this year, more than
6,494 pounds of fentanyl has been caught at the border. The
fentanyl was seized, that represents a 2,000-pound increase
from previous years.
It has also been reported that New Mexico law enforcement
officers are seizing extraordinarily high levels of fentanyl.
In fact, in Las Cruces, which is Dona Ana County, their task
force captured nearly 3,200 fentanyl pills between January and
most of April. So that was almost a 3,000 percent increase, and
that doesn't include the copious amounts that we are not able
to interdict.
Some officials have estimated that we only stop about 10 to
15 percent of the opioids coming across the Southern border. I
implore the chair to hold a hearing on that critical opioid
problem in the United States. If you really want to stop the
opioid crisis, I think that would be helpful.
So my questions are for our attorney generals, Mr. Wasden
or Ms. Healey. No. 1, and this is to gain information that
simply wasn't in the packet. In the October 2020 DOJ
settlement, Purdue agreed to plead guilty to three felonies
related to marketing and distribution of OxyContin and pay
$8.34 billion in fines.
Due to Purdue's bankruptcy, DOJ will only collect $225
million and will waive the remaining fees. This waiver allows
the bulk of Purdue's remaining funds to go to states, counties,
and tribes that have accused Purdue of sparking the opioid
crisis in their respective localities.
My question for the two AGs is this. How much money will
Purdue be paying out to states, counties, and tribes due to
Purdue's crimes? Do we know? Either one. Mr. Wasden? Ms.
Healey?
Ms. Healey. Well, under the--thank you, Congressman.
Under the proposed plan, Purdue would be paying out $1.3
billion over a matter of 10 years, total, to everyone--five
years, I should say.
Mr. Biggs. What is the distribution of that going to look
like?
Ms. Healey. Well, you're right. I mean, there are a lot of
people who are looking for money who have been harmed. Cities,
tribes, states, individual plaintiffs. And that's why being
able to go after and get relief from the Sacklers is so
important.
I want to be clear about fraudulent conveyance. You raised
that. That is an important claim, and that's one of the many
civil claims that the Sackler family is seeking release from
through the bankruptcy court. So this is the only game in town
right now. This is it.
This bankruptcy proceeding will decide whether or not the
Sacklers are going to have to pay up for their wrongdoing.
There's no do-over. And so I just want to mention that because
it has come up, and it is certainly a legal theory. It's one
that many AGs have already asserted, and the claim is before
the bankruptcy court.
But this is exactly the problem if the bankruptcy code is
going to be used to contort the process and allow the Sacklers
to get off, which is essentially----
Mr. Biggs. Well put.
Ms. Healey [continuing]. I think ending up richer after
doing such wrong is----
Mr. Biggs. Just reclaiming my time quickly.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Biggs, your time has expired.
Mr. Biggs. OK, thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I will allow the attorney general from
Idaho to succinctly address your question, if that is OK?
Mr. Wasden. Thank you very much.
The answer is we don't know what the distribution will be
because that has not been resolved at this point. So, and I
would echo the comments from my friend and colleague General
Healey.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Michigan,
Representative Tlaib, for five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you for
holding this really important hearing.
Because I think it is hard, I think, for many colleagues to
understand that we are talking about drug dealers here. They
may have suits, they may be white, and they may have money, but
they are still drug dealers. And that is exactly what they did.
They are using our system right now to get away from thousands
and thousands of families within all of our districts that were
impacted by their drug pushing.
And so I want to talk about that because I think that is
really important. It is not immigrants or China that are drug
dealing here. It is these kinds of families that are profiting
off of that. And how come we are not equally maybe committed to
addressing that I think is really problematic here.
That is the focus of this committee hearing, and I think it
is really important because you are just allowing more
opportunities for the folks that you are supposedly trying to
protect to get harmed by these folks.
The members of the Purdue's board of directors, their own
board of directors, the Sackler family approved the company's
marketing campaigns, right? And I remember David Sackler
actually came before our committee, and I asked him about one
high-value prescriber that was contacted by sales
representatives at least 290 times between 2010 and 2018. That
is more than three times a month for eight years, right?
And so Purdue's sales executives referred to this
prescriber, you know, OK, Dr. Whatever--``Candyman,'' you all.
That was the name of the prescriber. They were by no means the
only one. He may have the nickname ``Candyman,'' but that is
who the Sackler family was pushing the drugs through.
And as part of the one campaign, the campaign that they
were pushing for, I think they called it--and this is important
for my colleagues to understand this. They called it the
``turbocharged sales.'' You hear that? It is called
turbocharged sales. They can call it whatever they want.
But they literally used it to push out the drugs into our
neighborhoods and through pharmacies. And then at one point,
the representatives were required by Purdue, sales
representatives were required to target what they call ``high-
value prescribers'' like Candyman at least 24 times a year, to
get them to ``commit to writing more OxyContin prescriptions.''
So, Attorney General Healey, I can sense your frustration.
I am an attorney myself, and I am someone that I really want to
put the bad guys and whoever it is behind--you have to focus on
those that really profit off of the pain to really get to the
chronic, I think, targeting of communities like mine. And that
is exactly--they targeted communities that were vulnerable,
that were already struggling with maybe poverty and some other
issues, as you probably know.
And it is so unbelievable to me that they continue to be
able to walk away with no harms, no sense of accountability.
And so I want to hear from you, when you look at these kinds of
cases and you see the drug pushing happening, I mean, what are
things that we can be doing right now to push up against that?
Because again it is our residents that are directly impacted by
it.
Ms. Healey. Well, I thank you for your comment. And I'll
just note that opioid overdoses and deaths are up nationally
and up among communities of color.
In Massachusetts, where I am, there was a 69 percent
increase in opioid deaths among black men last year alone. It
is heartbreaking, and it's just yet another effect of this
crisis.
I also want to be really clear. There's been a lot of
discussion about China. There's been a lot of discussion about
Mexico. There's been a lot of discussion about synthetics being
made elsewhere brought here. Where did they learn that from?
They learned that from the Sackler family.
Ms. Tlaib. And Ms. Healey----
Ms. Healey. It's manufactured in the labs. So what I think
is important here in terms of what we need to do going forward,
we need treatment big time. We need way more services for
substance use disorder and behavioral health. We need it to be
culturally competent. We need to meet people where they are.
We need to do the work that we're doing around education
and prevention. I strongly believe in that. While we continue
to hold those accountable who need to be held accountable. I've
gone after doctors, pharmacists, pharmacy chains, and
manufacturers and distributors, right? You've got to--you've
got to sort of cover it all, but I think we need to recognize
the humanity in this and be----
Ms. Tlaib. Well, Ms. Healey, we have to recognize there is
two--it seems like everybody is for justice and accountability
unless it is somebody that looks like the Sackler family. I
want to be honest here. I am really frustrated from hearing
colleagues--it is not immigrants or China we are talking about
here. We are talking about people right here in the United
States, using our own systems and court systems to get away
with hurting and killing our neighbors.
And we are doing nothing about it. We are literally turning
our heads and pretending like these private citizens, poor
babies, they didn't do it. They have a sales campaign
targeting. They might not have been on a street corner, you
all, but they definitely have easier access into our
pharmacies, into our homes, and we are turning our backs and
saying it is OK. They are private citizens, and they are going
to go through the court process.
Well, guess what? It is set up in a different way to treat
somebody like the Sackler family versus some of our residents
that unjustly get targeted. And so I just--you can hear my
pain, but it is a long hearing of hearing people defending a
family that hurt our neighbors, our residents. And this is
generational trauma that they are continuing.
And Chairman, I will yield, but it is so important to
understand families will be impacted for generations to come,
generations, because we looked away.
And so, with that, I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] The gentleman from Kansas,
Mr. LaTurner, is recognized for five minutes. The gentleman
from Kansas, Mr. LaTurner.
Mr. LaTurner. Madam Chairwoman, over the past 20 years, we
have seen a dramatic and frightening increase in the number of
drug overdose deaths due to opioid-related----
Chairwoman Maloney. Could you speak up a little bit? Pull
the mic closer to you. OK, thank you.
Mr. LaTurner. Yes, ma'am. Can you hear me now? Madam Chair?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes. Yes.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you.
Over the past 20 years, we have seen a dramatic and
frightening increase in the number of drug overdose deaths due
to opioid-related substances, including prescription opioids.
In 2000, we had roughly 10,000 drug overdose deaths involving
any form of opioids. Last year, that number had increased to
around 50,000.
However, prior to 2020 and the devastating impact of COVID,
especially the consequences of the shutdown, progress was being
made in the war against drug overdose deaths generally. So let
me be very clear. While I believe it is critical for Congress
to hold companies like Purdue Pharma responsible for any role
they may have had in the misuse and abuse of prescription
opioids, I believe it is equally important to look at the
significant progress that was made during the Trump
administration and for Congress to urge the Biden
administration to buildupon those accomplishments.
HHS and DOJ both need to look at the opioid-related
policies enacted during the last four years that are working
and build and grow upon them. And not simply abandon them just
because they were enacted by President Trump. The reality is
that opioid-related deaths have been on a steady incline for
the past two decades, with drug overdose deaths becoming the
most common accidental cause of death in America.
But it didn't become a top national priority until 2017
when President Trump declared the opioid crisis a nationwide
public health emergency, and HHS released a five-point strategy
to defeat the opioid crisis. That five-point strategy, which
included better treatment and prevention, better data and
research, and better access to overdose-reversing drugs and
pain management, resulted in significant progress in all five
areas of focus.
Some of those accomplishments included reducing the total
amount of opioid prescriptions in America by nearly one-third;
increasing the number of Americans receiving medication-
assisted treatment by nearly 40 percent; greatly expanding the
access of overdose-reversing drugs, including naloxone, which
experienced a 500 percent increase approving Medicaid
demonstrations in the majority of states, which improved access
to opioid use disorder treatment; and HHS awarding a record $9
billion in state grants to expand access to prevention,
treatment, and recovery.
The end result of these efforts and accomplishments were
undeniable. More Americans seeking and receiving treatment for
their dependency upon drugs, less opioids being prescribed, and
the first recorded annual drop in drug overdose deaths in
America in almost three decades.
Unfortunately, many of these gains were diminished or even
reversed due to the COVID and more specifically to the
Government shutdown response to the pandemic. Between the fall
of 2019 and 2020, America experienced the highest number of
overdose deaths ever on record, which represented a 23 percent
increase in deaths from the previous year. And opioids
accounted for nearly three-fourths of those deaths.
The largest increase in deaths occurred during the spring
of 2020 during the heart of the pandemic and when many states
had completely shut down, throwing tens of millions of
Americans out of work and into a full-blown crisis of financial
and mental survival. The opioid crisis is one that we must take
seriously and do all we can to solve this problem. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to this end.
Mr. Carroll, in 2018, President Trump signed both the
Comprehensive Abuse and Recovery Act, the 21st Century Cures
Act, and the Substance Abuse Disorder Prevention That Promotes
Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act,
also known as the SUPPORT Act. What was the impact of these
three bills? Please expand and give us your perspective on
this.
Mr. Carroll. What it really did was bring the entire
Government, including Congress, together on a unified approach
to try to make sure that we were doing all the key things to
save lives. The only metric I believe that really matters is
the number of Americans dying. That's the only way we can
really judge if we're making a success. And so by bringing
together both budget as well as policy, we were able to make a
substantial difference.
You know, one thing I do want to talk about, if its OK, one
of your colleagues, a member a few minutes ago talked about
prevention. And I do want to say the importance of prevention.
And when schools were closed, that's the primary place where so
much prevention education was taking place and recognized that
it's not just teachers and adults educating students, it's
teaching students to be able to work with their peers to be
able to stand up against whether it's illicit drug use or even
sharing a pharmaceutical product that they were properly
prescribed.
And what we know is that for every dollar spent on
prevention, there is a financial return on investment of what
they guess would be $15. And of course, that doesn't account
for there's no financial dollar figure you can put on a loss of
life. And so as these unjust enrichments are being stripped
away from companies, and appropriately so, I really hope the
Congress will look at the efforts to make sure that all of
these issues are addressed properly of prevention, treatment,
and additional research.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Carroll.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentlelady from Missouri, Ms. Bush, is now recognized for five
minutes. Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. St. Louis, and I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for
convening this all-important hearing, and to the ranking
member.
For St. Louis, this hearing could not be more urgent. This
is a crisis that has touched so many in my district, but its
devastation has disproportionately been borne by black
families. Missouri is second only to West Virginia in the rate
of opioid-related overdose deaths for black people.
In Missouri, black men are more than three times as likely
to die from an opioid overdose than white men, and black women,
seven--we are seven times more likely to die than white women.
Nearly 60 percent of all drug overdoses in the state occur in
St. Louis, and this is a crisis that has only worsened during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
For decades, this public crisis--public health crisis has
been treated as a policing and incarceration crisis. People
with substance and opioid use disorders have been criminalized.
They have been locked up and cutoff from services and from
treatment, and I have watched that myself. I am not telling a
story that I have heard.
The ongoing and racist war on drugs has been waged on black
and brown families like those in my district, all the while
allowing people like the Sacklers to evade accountability.
There should be no doubt that what the Sackler family has done
is absolutely criminal. They are the chief architects of this
crisis.
They knew how addictive these medications were, and rather
than prioritizing the health and the well-being of others, they
prioritized and enriched themselves, profiting off the pain and
suffering of other people. Thousands of lives have been lost
and devastated because of a crisis that they helped to fuel.
Ms. Pleus, thank you for sharing your story. I can only
imagine how difficult it is to share your family's
heartbreaking story and journey in such a public way,
triggering the trauma of losing your son. Your strength and
your resilience is something that no mother should ever have to
carry. But you being here today is a testament to the families
who have been harmed by this crisis, awaiting answers and
demanding the accountability.
You mentioned to us that your son's 35th birthday is
tomorrow, and I would like to honor his memory. So briefly, if
you can, can you tell us what Jeff was like before his battle
with opioids, and then how the substance use changed him? Just
briefly.
Ms. Pleus. Thank you so much. Yes, and I couldn't think of
a better way to honor his birthday than being here today.
Jeff was a really amazing kid. He was known in high school
as standing up for the underdog, and so he always had a flock
of people around him and was very protective and caring of
other people. He was outgoing, charismatic, just bigger than
life, like he would fill an entire space even if there were
other people around. He just took up the space with his
charismatic ways.
And addiction changed him in so many ways. And as I
mentioned, he was in and out of jail. One of the things that I
would like to mention is Jeff's shortest stay in jail was
longer than his longest stay in treatment. Despite having
excellent insurance and despite our family advocating for him
to get treatment and him wanting treatment, he could not get
it.
You are exactly right. We are continuing to criminalize
addiction in this country. The drug war is alive and well, and
I would love if--I would love to address the racism and some of
the issues that you brought up as well, but I just wanted to
thank you first for the opportunity to talk about Jeff.
Ms. Bush. Absolutely. And I have more for you because as a
nurse, a community health nurse, where most of my patients were
uninsured or underinsured, many of them transient or unhoused,
I have seen firsthand how addiction harms our communities and
not that those are the only people that are hit, but the
targeting that happened in those communities is unbelievable.
And like so many others, Jeff was prescribed OxyContin
after an injury. He was told to take the drug every four hours.
I have seen it. I have been the one giving it because a doctor
ordered it. Every four hours regardless of the pain. Don't let
the pain get out of control. Take the medication. And he
followed his doctor's instructions.
Do you believe that Purdue and the Sacklers are responsible
for your son's death?
Ms. Pleus. I do because that's where it all started. You
know, over the course of the past 6 1/2 years after losing
Jeff, I have questioned what might have saved him, what I could
have done differently, what we all could have done differently.
And the only thing that I know to come back to is if he hadn't
gotten addicted in the first place, I know he would be here
today.
Every other solution is a maybe. Maybe he would have
survived. Maybe treatment would have helped. Maybe if he hadn't
been incarcerated, he would have survived. But the fact that he
was prescribed that medication. The doctors did not educate us
on the risks of that prescription is what started it all.
Ms. Bush. And I am very sorry for your loss. Thank you for
sharing that because for far too long, too many all over our
country, far too many in my local district and beyond have gone
without--without adequate insurance, without access to
treatment and services, without trust that our system will not
further criminalize them and lock them up.
Far too often, those people are black and brown, and it is
imperative that we hold the Sacklers accountable, but it is
also imperative that we build systems that support black and
brown people, systems that prioritize the needs of communities
over the greed of corporations and just letting them get off
like so many people that I have heard today. It is absolutely
sad. We need systems that save lives. That is what our
communities deserve.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. The
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is now recognized for five
minutes. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And let me thank you
for calling this very important hearing.
We have heard a great deal today about committee
jurisdiction, what we ought to be discussing, what we ought to
be talking about, and why aren't we doing this. Let me just
tell you, Madam Chairman, as one member of this committee, your
leadership has been absolutely outstanding. I think you have
chosen the work for us to do. We have had the opportunity to
deal with some of the most pernicious issues that face our
country.
So, thank you.
I represent a large, inner-city, urban, poverty-stricken
area. And when we talk about opiate use or the impact, last
year, I had eight people to overdose on one block in a two-day
period, eight individuals. So I can't think of anything that
would be more important for us to be engaged in.
And what we have heard from the Sacklers, it is the most
arrogant, cruel, and inhumane responses that I have ever heard
individuals engaged in an activity come forth with.
Mr. Keefe, you have spent years documenting how the
Sacklers have flooded American communities with OxyContin and
misled patients on the dangers of the addictive pain killers.
From your perspective, do you think that the Sacklers have been
held accountable for these actions, and what more can we really
do to deal with this vicious, vicious attempt and even without
attempting to dismantle our communities by flooding them with
these terrible, terrible instruments?
Mr. Keefe. Thank you very much, sir, for that question.
I think it might be helpful, given the direction in which
this hearing has gone, sort of two directions in which it's
gone, to make clear that when we talk about the opioid crisis,
we're talking about a hugely complex public health crisis that
has unfolded over the course of 25 years. No lone actor gets
you to half a million people dead. There are a lot of drivers
in this issue, and it's a very urgent issue today.
And I would agree with some of those who have made the
argument in terms of the actual source of overdoses and deaths
today that it is largely at this point a heroin and fentanyl
issue. Having said that, AG Healey talked about the drivers of
this and demand. And it was my sense that today what we would
be talking about is how did we get here?
And I believe that that's an important conversation for us
to have in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening
again. So were the Sacklers alone in helping cause this crisis?
No. It really takes a village to get to half a million dead.
There are a lot of bad actors in this story.
However, the Sacklers, OxyContin, Purdue were, in the words
of one former employee from the company, the tip of the spear.
There was a very conscious effort in the 1990's to change the
way strong opioids were prescribed. We know that a lot of
people who today end up addicted to heroin and fentanyl had an
on-ramp, which was prescription opioids that many, many people
transition from one drug to another. I'll give you a statistic
that should illustrate this.
In 2010, Purdue Pharma reformulated OxyContin to make the
pills harder to crush, harder to abuse. And after that
happened, sales nationwide of 80-milligram OxyContin pills--the
biggest pills on the market--plummeted by 25 percent. Now on
the one hand, that seems like good for them. They reformulated
the pill. They've made it harder to abuse.
On the other hand, what that tells you is there was a huge
market of people who were addicted to this drug, many of whom
then transitioned to black market alternatives. So I think it's
important for us to be clear not just about the risks that we
face today, but about how we got here.
Mr. Davis. Thank you for your staying power. My time has
ended.
But Madam Chairman, again, thank you for your leadership.
You are our champion, and let us keep it moving.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
And the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, is now recognized
for five minutes. Mr. Welch?
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. And I do agree with my
colleague Congressman Davis.
A couple of things, No. 1, I just want to say that I really
appreciated the comments of my colleagues Rashida Tlaib and Jim
Cooper, who expressed, I think, the outrage all of us feel
about this. And I want to thank Congresswoman Bush for her
empathy for Ms. Pleus. I think all of us feel that, and I want
to thank her for coming and talking so wonderfully about her
beloved son.
I want to ask a couple of questions to the attorney
generals. It is really heartening to me to see our frontline
top law enforcement officers, one a Republican and one a
Democrat, taking such an active role in protecting consumers
and fighting for justice when at the Federal level we were
asleep at the switch for too long.
So a question I will ask each of you, starting with
Attorney General Wasden, this bankruptcy settlement, where a
couple of dozen attorneys generals from around the country and
the league have opposed it, is there any precedent for a family
as wealthy as the Sacklers, as culpable as the Sacklers, whose
company has admitted to criminal liability, who paid a traffic
fine, as Congressman Cooper put it, $600 million, having the
benefit of bankruptcy protection without the burden of filing
for bankruptcy?
I would like you to address that, and then I would ask
Attorney General Healey to do that as well.
Mr. Wasden. Thank you very much for the question.
What I can tell you is from my perspective here in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that would not be allowed. The
discharge of liabilities for a non-bankrupt would not be
allowed. That actually is part of the issue is that the
Constitution requires a uniform law on bankruptcy throughout
the country, and the law currently is not uniform. This was
forum shopping by Purdue and by the Sacklers in order to take
advantage of this disuniform provision of bankruptcy law that
allows a non-bankrupt to be discharged.
And so I am not aware of precedent that would say that this
goes on, but I will tell you that could not occur here. We
believe that in Idaho, we should be able to go forward with our
lawsuits. We're being prevented by this disunified bankruptcy
provision.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. And thank you for your work.
Attorney General Healey, could you comment?
Ms. Healey. Thank you. And I agree with everything my
terrific friend and colleague General Wasden just said.
I will add that it would be unprecedented. Never before
have we seen a family get relief in this way, through
bankruptcy court. And so not only do we have something that is
so unprecedented in terms of the extent of greed and the
efforts of a wealthy family to just buy power and buy immunity
and escape liability, I mean, for a crisis that has been
unprecedented.
This would--in fact, to answer your question, Congressman,
this would be first of its kind, absent action like the SACKLER
Act, which would keep that from happening.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
And just a last comment, the chair and the ranking member,
Mr. Comer, I know just share a horror what has happened to so
many of our citizens. And I believe all of us would detest the
notion that a wrongdoer would be able to escape free. So my
hope is that despite other differences that many of us have on
this committee, we may be able to get behind the efforts of
these two outstanding attorneys general, one a Republican and
one a Democrat.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for five
minutes. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Pleus, my deepest condolences to you and your family
for the loss of your dear son Jeff, and I thank you for your
courage in coming to testify today.
Mr. Keene, the Sackler family founded, controls, and
actually owns the corporation known as Purdue Pharma. Correct?
Mr. Keefe. Yes. They own it indirectly, I believe, through
a series of trusts. But, yes.
Mr. Johnson. And Dr. Richard Sackler, a member of the
family that controls Purdue Pharma, controls the patent on
OxyContin. Correct?
Mr. Keefe. I couldn't say whether he does personally. He
was not the inventor of OxyContin, but it was employees
certainly of Dr. Richard Sackler who were, I believe, the named
inventors of the drug. So the company controls that.
Mr. Johnson. And he controls the company. Now, so Attorney
General Healey, the Sackler family, and especially Dr. Richard
Sackler, misrepresented the addictive qualities of OxyContin to
physicians and then pushed those same physicians to
overprescribe OxyContin to unwitting patients wracked by
chronic pain. Correct?
Ms. Healey. That's correct.
Mr. Johnson. The actions of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler
family are blamed justly for fueling the U.S. opioid crisis.
Isn't that correct?
Ms. Healey. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. And since 1999, almost half a million people
have died from opioid overdoses in this country. Isn't that
correct?
Ms. Healey. Sadly, yes.
Mr. Johnson. And Mr. Keefe, is it true that in 2018 Dr.
Richard Sackler, the same doctor whose family owns Purdue
Pharma, the company behind the notorious pain killer OxyContin,
was granted a patent for a drug that is used to wean addicts
off of OxyContin? Isn't that correct?
Mr. Keefe. He was one of the people named on the patent I
believe you are referring to, yes.
Mr. Johnson. So the same family, and Dr. Richard Sackler in
particular, who are largely responsible for creating the opioid
epidemic are now poised to rake in billions of dollars for a
new drug that they say will wean people off of OxyContin.
Correct?
Mr. Keefe. It's not clear to me that Purdue has necessarily
moved forward with that as a particular product in mind----
Mr. Johnson. But they potentially--potentially are going to
make a ton of money off of the death and destruction that they
caused.
Attorney General Wasden, Purdue Pharma, which the Sacklers
control, took in $35 billion in revenue and claims that it is
threatened with insolvency and has now filed for bankruptcy
protection. Correct?
Mr. Wasden. That is my understanding. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. And that same multibillionaire family, the
Sacklers, who control Purdue Pharma, used Purdue Pharma to
shield their personal assets from those seeking to hold them
accountable for their immoral and illegal misconduct. Correct?
Mr. Wasden. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. And it is a known fact that the Sackler family
has drained Purdue Pharma of at least $10 billion, putting that
money into their personal accounts. Correct?
Mr. Wasden. That is my understanding. It's in the $10
billion range, yes.
Mr. Johnson. And now the Sacklers are using Purdue Pharma's
bankruptcy to prevent the victims of their drug dealing from
holding them personally accountable for the death and
destruction that they perpetrated. Is that right?
Mr. Wasden. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Johnson. So, Attorney General Healey, how would a
common sense reform like the SACKLER Act ensure that the
Sackler family is finally held responsible for its role in
fueling the opioid epidemic?
Ms. Healey. Thank you, Congressman.
I think what's important here is for the committee to know
that we are not asking you to find or judge the Sackler family
liable. What we're asking for you is to allow us as state AGs
to have our day in court.
Because absent action through the SACKLER Act, a bankruptcy
judge will be allowed to wipe free all claims, civil claims
against the Sackler family. They will be able to go along with
the deal that we think is a lousy deal that the Sackler family
wants the court to endorse a deal that would leave them richer
than it does today.
So that's what we're asking for is this positive
correction.
Mr. Johnson. Passage of the SACKLER Act would actually
accomplish that objective. Correct?
Ms. Healey. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. OK, and with that, Madam Chair, my time has
expired, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for raising so many important
points.
The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, is recognized for
as much time as he may consume.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
And let me be very clear. Every Republican on this
committee wants to hold the Sackler family accountable. Every
Republican on this committee has stated today and in the
previous committee hearing that the Sacklers are bad actors.
Purdue Pharma should be held accountable, and the Sackler
family should be held accountable. Every one of us agree with
that.
I have been sitting here trying to understand the purpose
of this committee hearing today. I have listened to many
Democrat members on this committee chastise Republicans and
imply that they didn't want to hold anyone accountable. We want
to hold everyone accountable.
And I have heard many Democrats say that we need to pass
the SACKLER bill that you referenced countless times today. So
I have looked that bill up. That bill has been assigned to the
Judiciary Committee, not the Oversight Committee.
So my question is since--to the Democrats, since you all
are in power, you have complete power. You have the presidency.
You have the House. And by virtue of the Vice President, you
have the Senate. If you want to pass the SACKLER Act, bring it
up for a vote.
Why are you yelling at Republicans? We agree that the
Sackler family should be held accountable. I come from a
banking background. I understand the bankruptcy laws. I am
detested by the bankruptcy laws. I see people like the Sacklers
get out of debt all the time.
I am all about changing the bankruptcy laws. I would work
with any Democrat on that. We want to work with legislation to
hold the Sackler family accountable, but that is not what we
are doing here today.
And it is troubling listening to a witness that bring in
that we have sympathy for the family. I represent Kentucky. I
represent Appalachia. I understand. I know people personally. I
have relatives. I know a lot of people have lost their lives
and their families have been torn apart because of opioids. And
I--no one is more interested in holding people accountable than
I am.
But this committee hearing is just show. This is just show.
If you want to bring the bill up, bring it up. But it is not
this committee. So if the Democrats are trying to create a
narrative here, that is fake news because the Republicans
support holding the Sackler family accountable.
What we have stated in this committee hearing that you have
tried to take out of context is that we have a crisis on the
Southern border. We are talking about the drug problem today
when as we speak, people are crossing that border with illegal
drugs, and the Biden administration is doing nothing about it.
Even worse, the Democrats on the Oversight Committee are doing
nothing about it.
We have had so many committee hearings since this border
crisis has escalated. We have heard from so many across America
in law enforcement that are pleading for help on the border
because the drugs, the fentanyl is crossing the border every
day.
We have asked this committee for anything pertaining to a
committee hearing. We have asked three times, requested three
different times, every single member of this committee, to hold
a hearing on the Biden border crisis. We are having a hearing
today, and we agree with you. We agree the Sackler family is
terrible. They should be held accountable. But you have the
ability to do that, not the minority.
So instead of arguing with Republicans, I think you need to
argue with Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, and you need to argue with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker
of the House, or Steny Hoyer, the majority leader, who controls
the flow of legislation. Not the Republicans on the Oversight
Committee because we agree with you. We just want to be
productive.
We want to hold people together. We want to do something
about the drug problem. And to do something about the drug
problem that is to get the border under control, which you all
refuse to do, and I think part of the reason is what people
like Tlaib and Representative Bush have said and imply that
that is some kind of racist act to secure the border. That is
not a racist act.
If you want to get the drug problem under control, one
thing you could do is take the border crisis seriously, and the
fact that the President and Vice President haven't even set
foot on the border, that says a lot. So I am going to turn the
question to the one witness here today who is fighting and has
fought the war on drugs on the border, and that is Mr. Carroll.
Good to have you back, Mr. Carroll.
Mr. Carroll. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Comer. You know, we have heard from many Democrats on
this committee about defunding the police. Negative comments
after negative comments by Tlaib, by Bush, on law enforcement.
I wonder, have the Democrat efforts to defund the police led to
less resources at the border and more illicit fentanyl crossing
the border, in your opinion?
Mr. Carroll. I think when you talk to almost any, if not
all, law enforcement officers today, they're the first ones to
pound the table and say the last thing that we want to do is
incarcerate someone with an addiction. The police are usually
the first ones able to respond to the scene of an overdose, and
they're all carrying naloxone, and they all have the ability to
reverse an overdose on the scene. And thankfully, there is even
more powerful reversal drugs that are being developed because
the fentanyl is so out there.
So we need to defend the police, not defund the police.
There's a lot of national organizations for police that are
teaching de-escalation techniques to make sure that law
enforcement have the best techniques and the ability to make
sure that a situation is not getting worse, that they're
keeping it under control.
And certainly, as we've been saying, we have essentially a
narco state in Mexico, and I would respectfully argue that
probably more than the terrorists, the drug cartels of Mexico
control the government more so than some of the elected leaders
down there. And so, as we assign responsibility to
pharmaceutical companies in the U.S., we want to make sure that
law enforcement who are trying to do the right thing that they
want to be there and help individuals, that they have our
support as well.
Certainly everyone is--can benefit from training. I think
the police are the first one to say that, and so we want to
make sure that they have all the tools necessary, not only de-
escalation but also the intelligence to be able to do this.
I also hope the committee, the committee should be being
briefed later this month from the White House on heroin
production in Mexico. And as you get those numbers, I think
that will be very telling in terms of the shift from heroin to
fentanyl as well as we're trying to attack the synthetic drugs.
And so thank you for allowing me to address that issue.
Mr. Comer. One last question, Madam Chair, if I may, to Mr.
Carroll, and that is, Mr. Carroll, you have been in my
district. You have seen--we have talked to drug task force
people. We know that crystal meth is being manufactured in
Mexico and crossing the border. We know fentanyl is coming from
China through Mexico across the border. Now you mentioned
heroin in Mexico across the border.
I wonder, in your opinion as a law enforcement official, do
you believe that if either Joe Biden or the border crisis czar
Kamala Harris went down to the border and had a press
conference with law enforcement standing behind them or the
military standing behind them and said we are going to get
tough on this border. We are going to secure the border, and if
you cross this border, you are going to be held accountable in
the worst possible way. Do you, sir, think that that would make
a difference in all of the drugs that are crossing this border
right now?
Mr. Carroll. It's absolutely one of the things that we need
to do, among the others that we've talked about today. It is
one of the things that we need to do to be able to save lives
and reduce the tragic rise of overdoses that we've seen since
the advent of COVID.
You can't imagine the border until you've been down there.
I've been down there maybe a dozen times by air. Multiple
times, you know, on four-wheelers, and it's a very difficult
situation. We just need to know what is coming into our
country.
You all can decide who is coming in. We just need to know
what is coming in and make sure that it's not the drugs that
are killing our children.
Mr. Comer. Well, I will wrap up with this, Madam Chair. The
Republicans on the committee, my opinion, every one of us have
been to the border at least one time. I challenge the Democrats
to go to the border to see the problem on the border with the
illicit drugs and the human trafficking that is happening every
day on the border.
And I will say this. We will work with any Democrat on this
committee to hold the Sackler family accountable. We agree with
that. So don't create a narrative that we don't. We do agree
with that. We have already said that. We will continue to say
that.
But let us go a step further and let us do something about
this crisis on the border. Let us have a hearing on that, and
let us get serious about that and try to hold people
accountable for all the drugs crossing the border that are
affecting our population every single day.
Madam Chair, thank you. And I----
Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Comer. I will yield. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr. Comer, thank you very much for your
enlightening comments there.
My quick question is this. Are we hearing you to say that
you would support the SACKLER Act?
Mr. Comer. I haven't read the SACKLER Act. This is a
committee hearing. This isn't a markup. The committee was
assigned to Judiciary. If it was assigned to Oversight, I would
have already looked over it. But we will look over it and see
what is in the bill.
But I think that what needs to happen is you need to have a
markup and a hearing on the bill, and that has got to happen in
the Judiciary Committee, I assume. You are on the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, indeed. I would love to be able to take
your endorsement of the bill with me----
Mr. Comer. I am not endorsing it until I read it.
Mr. Raskin. I got it.
Mr. Comer. I have to read the bill first, but we want to
hold the Sackler family accountable.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Mr. Comer. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Time has expired. We have given the
bill to your staff.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Madam Chair.
I just want to point out that this hearing isn't only about
addressing the SACKLER Act, which has been introduced. It is
trying to offer some measure of justice. This is a public
hearing. It is important for us to let the victims of this
opioid crisis know that Members of Congress are paying
attention to this, that we are listening to them, that we want
to get justice for them. So that this committee hearing serves
a number of different, but very important purposes, and I want
to thank you for convening it.
I am going to come back and talk a little bit about the
prescription, that the marketing to physicians in particular
and how that drove the opioid crisis. In 2017, the President
and the CEO of Purdue Pharma, Dr. Landau, wrote the following
notes regarding the crisis, the opioid crisis.
``There are too many prescriptions being written, too high
a dose, for too long for conditions that often don't require
them by doctors who lack the requisite training in how to use
them appropriately.'' That pretty encapsulates the problem
right there.
Attorney General Wasden, did Dr. Landau's notes summarize
the factors, in your opinion, that created and fueled America's
opioid epidemic?
Mr. Wasden. Yes, in a short word. The marketing campaign
created by Purdue Pharma was intended to deceive doctors, have
longer prescriptions, higher doses of prescriptions. The answer
to the concept of addiction was well, it's really their fault.
They're the bad people. It was intended clearly too just
sustain long-term demand for their product and, therefore,
enrich them. That was the process.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Mr. Keefe, let me turn to you, and this can be just yes or
no answers. Let me just say thank you to you for your good
work, for bringing this to light, assembling it in one place so
the public and so we can understand better exactly what
happened with the Sackler family driving this crisis.
Did the Sackler family, in their capacity as board members
and executives, order Purdue to hire hundreds more sales
representatives?
Mr. Keefe. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Were they involved in directing those sales
representatives to target the highest volume prescribers of
OxyContin?
Mr. Keefe. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Did they participate in Purdue's efforts to
push the highest-strength dosage of OxyContin?
Mr. Keefe. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. As board members and executives, the Sackler
family also approved OxyContin's marketing materials and
incentive structures for sales reps. Attorney General Healey,
Purdue's sales reps were incentivized through their
compensation structure, were they not? And can you tell me how
that compensation structure basically gave them all the wrong
incentives when it came to treating patients properly?
Ms. Healey. Yes. The answer to that is absolutely they were
incentivized. They were incentivized to visit as many offices
as possible, talk to as many doctors as possible. Talk to them
and give them misleading, inaccurate information, including
representations that were specifically aimed at getting doctors
to prescribe more opioids to more people at higher doses for
longer periods of time.
And the way the Sacklers--the way the Sacklers incentivized
that was through compensation.
Mr. Sarbanes. According to internal documents obtained by
the committee and by Attorney General Healey, the Sacklers, as
board members and executives, rewarded employees for selling
more prescription opioids at higher strengths, as you just
described.
Mr. Keefe, as board members and executives, did the
Sacklers push dangerous sales tactics, yes or no?
Mr. Keefe. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Would you agree that the purpose of these
sales tactics was for the Sacklers and Purdue to maximize their
profits?
Mr. Keefe. Absolutely.
Mr. Sarbanes. So, basically, we have an opioid epidemic of
epic and tragic proportions across the country. And it is
relatively unusual that you would be able to trace so much of
that back to one place, to one point source. We talk about
point source and non-point source pollution. In this instance,
we can trace back to one source, one family, the Sackler
family, responsibility for fueling this opioid epidemic across
the country.
There has to be justice in this case. That is what we are
seeking with the SACKLER Act. I want to thank the sponsors of
that. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for this hearing and
again an opportunity to bring some measure of justice for what
families have suffered, and I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I just want to say I would appreciate if one
broad brush wasn't put on Democrats. We are definitely not
monolithic. I don't agree with defunding the police. I think
there should be some reallocation of funds, and a lot of police
in my area think that also, for therapists, social workers, and
things like that. So please don't say we all are saying that.
And also we can talk about the border, but if there wasn't
the appetite for drugs, it wouldn't matter what was brought
across the border. And the appetite was started in many
different ways, as our witness talked about her son.
During our December hearing, David Sackler told the
committee, and I quote, ``I have no problem with transparency
with everything that is relevant to Purdue as it relates to the
Sacklers, none at all.''
Mr. Keefe, you have done extensive research into the
Sacklers and the multibillion dollar empire they built through
the sale of OxyContin. Have the Sacklers been transparent with
the public about their involvement in the day-to-day operations
of Purdue Pharma?
Mr. Keefe. Thank you for the question.
No, and in my experience, they've been the opposite of
transparent. I think part of the way that we got here is that
there was a decades-long campaign to suppress the truth, both
about the company and what it was doing and about the family's
active role in guiding the company during some of the most
critical decisionmaking periods in this story.
Ms. Kelly. The Sackler family has repeatedly and
intentionally avoided public accountability and has fought hard
to keep any information from reaching the public. I would like
to ask you about a few of these instances, Mr. Keefe.
In 2004, the West Virginia attorney general sued Purdue and
charged the company with deceptive marketing. Did this case
ever go to trial with public testimony?
Mr. Keefe. No, it did not. There have been many cases
initiated, and to date, none of them have gone to trial
because----
Ms. Kelly. Mr. Keefe? OK.
Mr. Keefe. No, it did not.
Ms. Kelly. OK. In 2007, Purdue was sued by the attorney
general of Kentucky for misleading claims about OxyContin's
addictive potential. Did that case go to trial?
Mr. Keefe. The Kentucky case did not. It was settled.
Ms. Kelly. And Dr. Richard Sackler was deposed as part of
that lawsuit. During this deposition, he was asked about the
illegal marketing of OxyContin and what his family knew about
it. That deposition was sealed by the court. Correct?
Mr. Keefe. That's correct. The family and the company went
to great lengths to keep that deposition sealed and secret.
Ms. Kelly. And then, in 2016, a news outlet staff filed a
motion asking a judge to unseal Dr. Sackler's deposition. In
granting the motion, the judge stated, ``The court sees no
higher value than the public, via the media, having access to
these discovery materials and that the public can see the facts
for themselves.''
So the Sackler family appealed this decision, a decision
that promoted transparency into your family's actions. Isn't
that right?
Mr. Keefe. That's correct. Yes, I think as a general rule,
the truth has not been their friend. Transparency has not been
something that has been particularly beneficial to them.
Ms. Kelly. Has litigation against the Sackler family gone
to trial at any time?
Mr. Keefe. No.
Ms. Kelly. And then, Attorney General Healey, why is it so
problematic that the Sacklers have been able to obscure
transparency into their role in managing Purdue?
Ms. Healey. Congresswoman, because I don't think you get
justice without transparency. You don't get accountability
without knowing what's going on and then holding those who did
the wrong accountable. And that's what happened here, and it's
happened because they're an incredibly wealthy family that's
been able to buy off lobbyists and lawyers and PR campaigns and
now is trying to buy relief by offering up something in a
bankruptcy proceeding in a totally unprecedented way.
Ms. Kelly. And it is such a shame because for thousands of
families shattered by these drugs and addiction, there is no
backroom deal to bring back their loved ones, and we deserve
better.
Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. The
gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you again
for this hearing and your partnership and your tenacity. And it
is all about justice.
And I really want to thank the witnesses, all of you, for
your passion and tenacity and your compassion. And like Mr.
Lynch and others, I have got a long history in this as it was
brought to me by parents of constituents when I was in the
state senate here in California who had lost children
tragically because of the Sackler family's greed and avarice.
And for me, quite frankly, I can't--they are a family of
sociopaths. They will use anything they can do to avoid
responsibility for the horror that they have put upon this
country, and it is a horror that if we allow it to continue and
we don't pass this act--and ask my colleagues across the
aisle--I think I have a reputation for being open, I am happy
to work with you. Let us do what is in front of us and hold
these people accountable and stop this horrible, horrible
culture.
Again, Madam Chair, thanks. And as we discuss points to
bring the Sackler family to justice, I can't help but continue
to reflect on the devastation wrought by their crisis. Nearly
500,000 American deaths from 1999 to today, 1,000 emergency
room visits every day, and a total economic burden, as I have
said before, according to the CDC, $78.5 billion, almost $80
billion every year.
More deaths than the entire Vietnam War, and a family that
has withdrawn over $10 billion from their privately held
company at the center of this crisis. The greed and the lack of
remorse from the family highlight the need for further
personal, personal accountability if we are going to stop this
kind of thing.
Two weeks ago, a Federal judge allowed a restructuring plan
that would grant legal immunity to members of the Sackler
family to move forward for a final vote. While this action does
not yet release the Sacklers from lawsuits--the plan needs to
be confirmed first--it underscores why this bill,
Representative Maloney and my bill, the SACKLER Act, must be
passed immediately.
Attorney General Wasden, thank you so much for your
actions. You stated in your written testimony that by exploring
the bankruptcy, the Sacklers have ``kept my case away from an
Idaho judge and an Idaho jury.'' If Purdue Pharma's plan is
confirmed, how would that impact your ability to bring the
Sacklers to accountability?
Mr. Wasden. Thank you very much.
The answer is I would not be able to bring the action. We
would--it would gut our ability to hold them accountable.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
In our December hearing, David Sackler stated, and I quote,
``It is my belief that the bankruptcy process offers the best
and most transparent and most equitable way to address the
opioid epidemic.''
Attorney General Healey, you were the first public official
to sue members of the family for wrongdoing, and you have been
a really great leader--thank you--in pushing back against
injustices by the Sacklers and the bankruptcy proceeding. Do
you agree with David Sackler's description of the bankruptcy
process as transparent and equitable?
Ms. Healey. It's the best deal for David Sackler and
members of the Sackler family. It's not the best deal for
families.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Attorney
General. As a native of Massachusetts, I am proud of you. And I
can understand you, which I cannot always understand Mr. Lynch.
A few circuit courts do not permit courts to release claims
against those who have not filed for bankruptcy themselves. But
the Sackler family secured a judge who was sympathetic to their
legal arguments, and now he has advanced a plan to grant them
immunity that would not be accepted in other courts.
Attorney General Healey, what message does it send if
Congress continues to let this loophole exist?
Ms. Healey. It sends a horrible message. It sends a message
that if you're the perpetrator, if you're the architect, if
you're the orchestrator, if you're the implementer, and you
have boatloads of money, you're going to get away with whatever
you want to get away with, no matter how many people were
harmed, no matter how many people died.
And so I just find it absolutely untenable that we would
allow this to happen, and it's why we really call upon Congress
to act. There's one opportunity to get this right and bring
justice for families across districts and across states in this
country, and the time is coming up really short, given the
state of the bankruptcy proceeding. That's just the way it is.
Mr. DeSaulnier. AG Healey, you have said that this
bankruptcy is an example of bankruptcy for billionaires. Could
you just explore a little bit more about Purdue's bankruptcy
process and their strategy?
Ms. Healey. Well, their strategy has been to game the
system to their advantage, which has been the Sackler MO from
the very beginning. So Purdue, which they put into bankruptcy
by siphoning off billions and billions of dollars of OxyContin
profits and revenues over the years, so they put the company
into bankruptcy. Company goes into bankruptcy, and then they,
themselves, as billionaires, to the tune of tens of billions
that the company has recovered that have now gone to the
Sacklers, they then run to bankruptcy court.
And I think you don't have to be a lawyer to know that
bankruptcy court is for people who are supposed to be bankrupt,
corporations who are supposed to be bankrupt. It's a way the
system builds in a mechanism for us to go forward. Instead,
incredibly, but maybe not so incredibly because the Sacklers
know no end in terms of looking after themselves, go to court
and say, hey, court, give us the relief. We're going to throw a
little bit of money your way and give us relief and release all
our claims. And deny states like mine the opportunity to
proceed in state court, to have a trial, to be heard, and to
let a judge and jury decide and assess accountability.
That's what they've done, and it's very unfortunate. And
I'm sorry that we're before you having to take your time with
this matter. But we know. I've heard all of you say how
important it is to districts and to families in your districts.
But the fact of the matter is the Sacklers are not going to be
held accountable in the way that they should, absent action,
corrective action by Congress.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from California, Ms.
Speier, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Let me just say to Ranking Member Comer, I, too, do not
support defunding the police. I, too, have spent many visits to
the border and have actually gone to Mexico City and met with
our intelligence community. And let me make something clear.
The drugs are coming across our border in drones and are
coming across our border in container semis that are filled
with watermelons that have been carved out with the drugs. So
the issue is, are we willing to slow commerce at the border and
put X-rays in place that can detect these drugs?
It is not simple, and furthermore, it is not the
humanitarian crisis, which is at the border, of people who are
seeking a life without persecution.
Now to the two attorney generals, thank you so much for
your leadership. Let me ask you, General Healey, you have made
it pretty clear that if we don't pass this act, the Sacklers
will not be held accountable. You also said we have a very
short window of time.
Can you give us some timeframe? If our colleagues want to
hold the Sacklers accountable, and I heard Ranking Member Comer
say that, then this is the only vehicle by which they will be
held accountable, and I want to know how much time we have in
order to move this through the legislative process.
Ms. Healey. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I'd say the date is August 9. August 9 is the date when the
bankruptcy judge is going to bring everybody together and have
what's called a confirmation hearing, either approve or
disapprove the proposed plan.
Now Purdue and the Sacklers have until July 7 to file a new
plan. Make no mistake, it's not going to be an improvement. And
so I think our view is we have this very short window until
August 9 because at that point, a Federal bankruptcy judge is
going to act, and the actions that he takes will have serious
implications and ramifications on our states and families.
Ms. Speier. Thank you. There hasn't been a lot of time
today spent on the FDA and whether or not they have an
obligation to determine whether a drug is addictive in nature,
which I am told they do have a responsibility to do that. But
Curtis Wright was the person who actually was one of the
authors of the 11-month process, a very quick process by which
OxyContin was, in fact, made available through the FDA. And
yet, a year later, he leaves and goes to work for Purdue.
Do either of the attorney generals have an opinion on what
we should be doing about the revolving door at the FDA as it
relates to a circumstance like this? General Wasden?
Mr. Wasden. That's really a policy call for Congress to
make. I have my concerns about how that happens, but that's
kind of beyond the level of what I do. My job really
concentrates on dealing with the consumer protection violations
at my level.
Ms. Speier. All right. General Healey, any comment?
Ms. Healey. My job is to enforce the law that others make.
Ms. Speier. All right, thank you.
Mr. Keefe, did Purdue know whether OxyContin was more
potent than morphine, and did they share that information with
doctors when marketing the drug?
Mr. Keefe. Yes, they were aware that OxyContin was more
potent than morphine. And no, they had discussions about how,
if they were to inform doctors of that fact, doctors who
believed the opposite about the actual facts in terms of the
potency of the drugs, that that would reduce their market. And
so they made a specific decision not to do anything to inform
doctors that they had that wrong in order to grow the market
for the drug.
Ms. Speier. And did they inform the FDA about the knowledge
they had that it was more potent and more addictive than
morphine?
Mr. Keefe. Well, I think the FDA would have known, but
broadly speaking, the idea at Purdue Pharma, when they were
launching OxyContin, was that they wanted to expand the use of
this drug beyond the cancer pain market. They wanted to promote
it for nonmalignant pain in a way that nobody ever had with
strong opioids up to that point. And so everything in their
interactions with the FDA was driven by that marketing
incentive.
Ms. Speier. All right. My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired, and
the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is recognized
for five minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses, everyone, but especially Ms. Pleus. You demonstrate
that which Chairman Cummings often said, and that is to turn
your pain into purpose, and thank you for that.
I especially want to thank Attorney General Maura Healey,
my AG from Massachusetts. Thank you for being a pacesetter.
Thank you for your leadership in this fight to hold the Sackler
family accountable. You have been a beacon of hope for so many
in our district and throughout the country.
This is a personal issue for millions of families. It does
not just affect the person battling this substance use
disorder. The destabilization, the pain, the trauma is
pervasive. It affects whole families and entire communities.
And it's just simply not enough for the Sackler family to offer
empty apologies while their pockets are full. The billions of
dollars they raked in by exploiting opioid addiction should be
reinvested in those whose lives were decimated by their precise
intentional and immoral actions.
As we discuss reforms to exact accountability for America's
opioid crisis, we must remember that the work of restorative
justice and healing is critical. Now as has been recounted
throughout this hearing, unfortunately, the Sacklers are using
produced bankruptcy to shield themselves from liability. They
are predators. They are cowards, plain and simple. And if
successful, their shameful efforts will deprive communities of
billions of dollars in much-needed relief and recourse.
Now I want to just pick up on that, the need for
restoration, Attorney General Healey. In the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, you have launched a number of initiatives to
address the hurt and harm caused by the opioid epidemic,
including the Opioid Recovery and Remediation Fund, which
benefits community organizations in Roxbury and other parts of
my district.
And I will elevate in my recent visit at the Dimock
Community Health Center, which I know you have been to many
times, we were going over the state's numbers. And in fact,
there has been a 69 percent increase in opioid overdose among
black men. Devastating.
So could you just speak, how could the Sacklers' withdrawal
of funds affect the Commonwealth's ability to invest in
services that would address the harm caused by the opioid
crisis?
Ms. Healey. Well, it's wonderful to see you, Congresswoman,
and I thank you for your advocacy. I thank you for always
standing strong for the families and for the services that they
need.
And one of the things you were very supportive of was this
idea that here in Massachusetts any recoveries we get from our
investigations or litigations we're going to put right into
treatment. Because we don't have the treatment resources that
we need right now to deal with what has been a growing crisis.
You're right. The numbers are worse this year than last
year, and disproportionately so for populations of color. Black
men in particular, you cited here in Massachusetts. That's a
trend nationwide. So I thank you for that support, and I want
you to know that my colleagues and I share the view that if we
are going to get the resources and take from the Sacklers what
they profit, pocketed through what we in the business say ill-
gotten gains, right? That's how they made their money.
We get that money, it's going to go toward treatment. It's
going to go toward treatment in our communities for our
families, and it's going to be done equitably and also
addressing the real racial disparities, too, that we see now
growing exponentially in our communities that are very
concerning.
But that's from the heart. That's where--that's where all
the--that's where all the AGs are in terms of how this money
would be used because we know that we don't have the treatment
options right now for people who are currently diseased and
sick and dying in our communities. We need to save lives as we
hold more people accountable.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. Thank you
for getting it. Thank you for launching the Opioid Recovery and
Remediation Fund.
The Sackler family, again, their apologies are empty. Their
pockets remain full. They have prioritized profit over people,
and we thank you and your cohorts for your commitment, both in
ensuring accountability, but in making the necessary
investments that will support the recovery and the healing for
the many who were exploited and have lost their lives and
continue to struggle.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Yields back.
Before we close, I would like to offer the ranking member
an opportunity to offer any closing remarks he may have.
Ranking Member Comer, you are recognized.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
And I think one thing that we have gotten out of this
hearing is that Republicans and Democrats both agree that the
Sackler family should be held accountable. We agree that the
bankruptcy rules are probably in their favor, and that is a
terrible thing to have on their side, the courts with that.
We pledge to work with Democrats on any type of legislation
to hold them accountable, although I think that the way you
hold people accountable is through the court system, and I
certainly don't want to do anything to hinder the plaintiffs
and everyone who is trying to do just that by holding the
Sackler family accountable with ongoing court proceedings.
But we also, Madam Chair, respectfully, want to hold a
hearing on border security because of when we talk about the
drug problem in America, we can't overlook the fact that there
are drugs crossing the border illegally every day. If that
requires, as Congresswoman Speier implied, that we need more X-
rays on the border, then that is something that we may have to
make that investment. But we have to take it seriously.
We strongly urge President Biden and Vice President Harris
to actually visit the border, just as the Republicans on the
House Oversight Committee have done, and listen to the Border
Patrol agents and listen to the local residents and local law
enforcement officials talk about the drugs that are crossing
the border, the human trafficking that is crossing the border,
and the humanitarian crisis at the border, seeing all these
young kids and young girls walking across the border. We have
got to do something about that. And that is in our hands. That
is something that we can do.
And with respect to the SACKLER Act, that is on the
Democrat majority in the House. That bill will not go through
our committee. That will go through the Judiciary Committee.
So, and strongly encourage Mr. Connolly and Mr. Lynch and the
other members who were commenting that Republicans were trying
to distract, that was completely false. We are not trying to
distract. We are trying to state the facts.
The facts are that bill has to be heard in Judiciary
Committee. So you need to talk to Nadler and Pelosi and Hoyer
about that. And with respect to the ongoing drug problem, we
want to have a committee hearing on the border crisis, and we
want to do something about all the drugs that are crossing this
border as we speak.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. And I now recognize myself.
Let me conclude by expressing my frustration with my
Republican colleagues. In December, this committee came
together to hold the Sacklers accountable for causing and
fueling the opioid crisis. But since then, my Republican
colleagues have refused to support a common sense reform that
will allow Congress to promote meaningful accountability for
millions of lives cut short by the Sacklers' actions.
Ranking Member Comer said he had not read the SACKLER Act
yet, and I would urge him to read it closely and to seriously
consider it. It is a good faith proposal, and I am serious
about working in a bipartisan manner on this issue.
Earlier, the career prosecutor who led the first Federal
investigation into Purdue Pharma told us that the system had
failed to hold the Sacklers accountable and that the Sacklers
are poised to get away with it again. Mr. Montcastle called on
Congress to pass the SACKLER Act. We heard directly from Ms.
Pleus, who shared her family's heartbreaking story and called
on Congress to pass the bill.
And we heard from attorney generals from both sides of the
aisle, Healey and Wasden, who came together and made the
bipartisan case for why Congress shouldn't let the Sacklers get
away with it again. The opioid epidemic has claimed nearly half
a million American lives. This crisis knows no boundaries, and
it has hit blue states and red states and purple states.
In his testimony, Mr. Keefe called on us to do the right
thing by our constituents, all of whom have been really touched
by this crisis. So I urge my Republican colleagues to heed this
call as they consider what we can do to ensure the Sacklers are
held accountable and promote justice for all of our
constituents.
In closing, I want to thank our panelists for their
remarks, and I want to commend my colleagues for participating
in this important conversation.
With all of that and without objection, all members have
five legislative days within which to submit extraneous
materials and to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses for their response. I ask our witnesses to please
respond as promptly as they are able.
This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]