[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]