[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 187 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8238-H8244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL ACT OF 2011
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1254) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to place synthetic
drugs in Schedule I, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1254
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act
of 2011''.
SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SYNTHETIC DRUGS TO SCHEDULE I OF THE
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.
(a) Cannabimimetic Agents.--Schedule I, as set forth in
section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
812(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed in
another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or
preparation which contains any quantity of cannabimimetic
agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of
isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and
salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical
designation.
``(2) In paragraph (1):
``(A) The term `cannabimimetic agents' means any substance
that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist
as demonstrated by binding studies and functional assays
within any of the following structural classes:
``(i) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with substitution at
the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl or alkenyl,
whether or not substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any
extent.
``(ii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 3-(1-naphthylmethane)indole
by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring,
whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any
extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl or
naphthyl ring to any extent.
``(iii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the
nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not further
substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent, whether or not
substituted on the naphthoyl ring to any extent.
``(iv) 1-(1-naphthylmethylene)indene by substitution of the
3-position of the indene ring, whether or not further
substituted in the indene ring to any extent, whether or not
substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent.
``(v) 3-phenylacetylindole or 3-benzoylindole by
substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether
or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent,
whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent.
``(B) Such term includes--
``(i) 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497);
``(ii) 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP-47,497
C8-homolog);
``(iii) 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 and AM678);
``(iv) 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073);
``(v) 1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019);
``(vi) 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole
(JWH-200);
``(vii) 1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250);
``(viii) 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH-
081);
``(ix) 1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-122);
``(x) 1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-398);
``(xi) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM2201);
``(xii) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694);
``(xiii) 1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR-19 and
RCS-4);
``(xiv) 1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole
(SR-18 and RCS-8); and
``(xv) 1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH-
203).''.
(b) Other Drugs.--Schedule I of section 202(c) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended in
subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:
``(18) 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone).
``(19) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).
``(20) 3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone (methylone).
``(21) Naphthylpyrovalerone (naphyrone).
``(22) 4-fluoromethcathinone (flephedrone).
``(23) 4-methoxymethcathinone (methedrone; Bk-PMMA).
``(24) Ethcathinone (N-Ethylcathinone).
``(25) 3,4-methylenedioxyethcathinone (ethylone).
``(26) Beta-keto-N-methyl-3,4-benzodioxyolybutanamine
(butylone).
``(27) N,N-dimethylcathinone (metamfepramone).
``(28) Alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (alpha-PPP).
``(29) 4-methoxy-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MOPPP).
``(30) 3,4-methylenedioxy-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone
(MDPPP).
``(31) Alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone (alpha-PVP).
``(32) 6,7-dihydro-5H-indeno-(5,6-d)-1,3-dioxol-6-amine)
(MDAI).
``(33) 3-fluoromethcathinone.
``(34) 4'-Methyl-a-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (MPBP).''.
SEC. 3. TEMPORARY SCHEDULING TO AVOID IMMINENT HAZARDS TO
PUBLIC SAFETY EXPANSION.
Section 201(h)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 811(h)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``2 years''; and
(2) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``1 year''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
General Leave
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 1254 was introduced by my friend and colleague from
Pennsylvania, Representative Charlie Dent, in response to a frightening
trend of synthetic drug use in our communities. These synthetic drug
substitutes, made from chemical compounds that are sold legally in most
States, mimic the hallucinogenic and stimulant properties of drugs like
marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines. While these synthetic drugs
are just as dangerous as their traditional counterparts, they are not
illegal.
Many families and young people in our communities do not realize the
destructiveness of these synthetic drugs because of their legal status
and their
[[Page H8239]]
wide availability and often harmless-sounding names such as ``Bath
Salts'' and ``Plant Food,'' both cocaine substitutes.
H.R. 1254 would, first, ban synthetic drugs that imitate marijuana,
cocaine, and methamphetamines; and, second, allow the Drug Enforcement
Administration to temporarily schedule a new substance for up to 3
years. Currently, DEA can only temporarily schedule a substance for up
to 18 months.
I would like to thank Congressman Dent for working with the DEA on
this important issue, and I would urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense and bipartisanly supported legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to support H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act.
This bill enjoys bipartisan support and is aimed to eliminate
commercial availability of harmful synthetic narcotics. Under this
proposal, hallucinogenic drugs would no longer be able to hide behind
misleading aliases.
During committee consideration, I was quite alarmed to hear some of
the stories shared by the bill's sponsor, Representative Charlie Dent,
as well as other Members. Around the country, constituents have been
able to utilize synthetic products to the detriment of their mental and
physical health and, in some cases, costing them their lives.
Unfortunately, these imitation drugs are not illegal, and there is a
critical need to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to keep
these harmful and dangerous drugs off the street. The Synthetic Drug
Control Act adds specific synthetic versions of drugs of abuse to
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These designer drugs mimic
some of the effects of drugs such as marijuana and can be very unsafe,
causing convulsions, anxiety attacks, and dangerously elevated heart
rates, among other conditions.
Under current authority, the Drug Enforcement Agency has difficulty
taking action against these drugs because they've been designed to fall
outside existing statutory descriptions of Schedule I drugs. H.R. 1254
will enable the Drug Enforcement Agency to take appropriate enforcement
actions to get them off the street and away from our Nation's youth.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
legislation, and I hope the way we work together on it can prove a
model for our efforts on future legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. PITTS. I yield 5 minutes to the prime sponsor of the legislation,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I certainly appreciate the support of Mr. Pitts and Mr.
Pallone for their leadership on this issue. It's deeply appreciated.
This issue of synthetic or designer drugs was first brought to my
attention by a woman, a mother in my district whose son had been
abusing legal substitutes for marijuana. These synthetic cannabinoids,
as they're referred to, or synthetic marijuana, affect the brain in a
manner similar to marijuana, but can actually be even much more
harmful.
Synthetic marijuana, or cannabinoids, are just one category of
designer drugs. Even more potent substances have properties similar to
cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, and other hard street drugs. These
substances are marketed as innocent products like bath salts, plant
food, incense, and they're sold under brand names familiar to their
users, such as K2 Spice, Vanilla Sky, or Ivory Wave. However, these are
total misnomers designed to facilitate their legal sale. These drugs
have no legitimate purpose, period.
H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act, drafted in consultation
with Federal law enforcement, has three principal components:
First, a prohibition of broad structural classes of synthetic
marijuana or the cannabinoids;
Two, a prohibition of synthetic stimulants and other designer drugs,
such as bath salts, mephedrone, MDPV, C2E, et cetera, several of those;
Third, an expansion of the DEA's existing authority to temporarily
ban a new substance from 1\1/2\ to 3 years. Under current law, if the
DEA and Department of Health and Human Services can prove that a
substance is, one, dangerous and, two, lacking legitimate value while
it is temporarily banned, the prohibition will become permanent.
Over the past year there's been a sharp increase in the number of new
reports detailing horrific stories of individuals high on synthetic
drugs. A man in Scranton, Pennsylvania, stabbed a priest, and another
jumped out a three-story window, both high on bath salts. Several
deaths from West Virginia to Florida to Pennsylvania to Iowa have been
attributed to abuse of synthetic drugs.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has introduced a companion bill with
provisions very similar to H.R. 1254, named after one of his young
constituents who tragically took his own life while high on synthetic
marijuana.
{time} 1740
A man in my district was arrested this past May for firing a gun out
of his window in a university neighborhood. Police charges indicate
that he injected himself with bath salts, and he later told police he
thought there were people on the roof watching him.
Finally, I was approached by another distraught mother from my
district whose son was hospitalized for over 2 weeks after suffering
liver failure and other complications after injecting himself with bath
salts. These substances pose a substantial risk, both to the physical
health of the user as well as to the safety of those around them when
these drugs contribute to dangerous, psychotic behavior, suicide, and
public endangerment.
The fact that these drugs are legal in many States contributes to the
misconception that they are safe. And the use of easily recognizable
brand names and logos on the packaging promotes the concept of a
consistent product.
Significant variations of potency from one unit to the next have led
recurrent users to inadvertently overdose. One of the major
difficulties in combating these designer drugs is the ability of the
producers to skirt the law with different chemical variations. By
modifying the formula in some minor way, producers can generate a new
compound which circumvents legal prohibitions but has similar narcotic
events. DEA needs enhanced authority to temporarily schedule new
variations when they hit the market, and they usually hit Europe first,
and then they enter the United States.
A growing number of States, including Pennsylvania, have enacted bans
on many forms of synthetic drugs, but Federal action is necessary to
prevent these drugs from being obtained by simply crossing State lines
or, increasingly, ordering them over the Internet.
I believe over 30 States have passed bans, if my memory serves me
correctly. State-by-State differences in which individual substances
are controlled and how strongly makes for a confusing legal patchwork,
and Federal legislation certainly will facilitate enforcement.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced its support of H.R. 1254 as
amended by the House Judiciary Committee in a letter dated September
30, 2011, and I would submit that for the Record.
I also want to point out, too, that the American College of Emergency
Physicians, which notes the devastating physical and psychotic effects
of these drugs, has also endorsed this bill, and I think that's quite
significant as well.
Finally, go to a hospital like Children's Hospital of Philadelphia--
they'll tell you they get a case every day with individuals who are
suffering from these particular drugs. A year ago at this time, they
probably got no calls. And now every day, and that's not just typical
in Philadelphia but throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
You will also hear some folks here today who might actually argue
that medical research will somehow be impeded. Nothing could be further
from the truth. This legislation does not in any way impede medical
research. I would be happy to get into that at some point.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. This letter provides the Department of
Justice's views on H.R.
[[Page H8240]]
1254, as amended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
titled the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.'' The bill
would amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to address
the growing use and misuse of synthetic drugs by placing a
number of substances in schedule I and by extending the
length of time that a drug may be temporarily placed in
schedule I.
We support the bill as drafted, but believe it can be
strengthened with the addition of the ``2C family'' of drugs
listed in an appendix to this letter and in S. 839. The
Department also supports the goals of S. 605, Dangerous
Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011 or the ``David Mitchell
Rozga Act''; S. 839, Combating Designer Drugs Act of 2011;
and S. 409, Combating Dangerous Synthetic Stimulants Act of
2011. H.R. 1254 already contains many provisions included in
S. 605 and S. 409, and we urge that the bill be expanded to
include the provisions of S. 839.
The Threat of Synthetic Drugs
In recent years, a growing number of dangerous products
have been introduced into the U.S. marketplace. Products
labeled as ``herbal incense'' have become increasingly
popular, especially among teens and young adults. These
products consist of plant materials laced with synthetic
cannabinoids which, when smoked, mimic the deleterious
effects of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), the
principal psychoactive constituent in marijuana. To
underscore the scope and breadth of the synthetic cannabinoid
problem, a recent report prepared by the United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) notes that more than 100
such substances have been synthesized and identified to
date.''
There is also growing evidence demonstrating the abuse of a
number of substances labeled as ``bath salts'' or ``plant
foods'' which, when ingested, snorted, smoked, inhaled, or
injected, produce stimulant and other psychoactive effects.
These synthetic stimulants are based on a variety of
compounds and are purported to be alternatives to the
controlled substances cocaine, amphetamine, and Ecstasy
(MDMA). These drugs have been distributed and abused in
Europe for several years and have since appeared here in the
United States. According to a recent National Drug
Intelligence Center report, poison control centers and
medical professionals around the country have reported an
increase in the number of individuals suffering adverse
physical effects associated with abuse of these drugs.
There are other newly developed drugs that also pose a
significant threat to the public. This includes the ``2C
family'' of drugs (dimethoxyphenethylamines), which are
generally referred to as synthetic psychedelic/hallucinogens.
Recently, a 19-year-old male in Minnesota died of cardiac
arrest after allegedly ingesting 2C-E, one of the substances
within this class of drugs. We note that the 2C substances
listed in the attached Appendix are included in the list of
substances covered by S. 839. The Department supports the
addition of the 2C family of substances listed in the
Appendix to H.R. 1254.
Products containing synthetic drugs are dangerous and
represent a growing challenge to law enforcement. Apart from
the wide array of harmful or even lethal side effects of many
of the listed substances, neither the products nor their
active ingredients have been approved by the Food and Drug
Administration for use in medical treatment, and
manufacturers and retailers of the products containing these
substances do not disclose that there are synthetic drugs in
their products. Synthetic drug abusers may endanger not only
themselves but others: some become violent when under the
influence of these substances, and abusers who operate motor
vehicles after using synthetic drugs likely present similar
dangers as those under the influence of controlled
substances.
With the exception of the five substances recently
controlled by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
pursuant to its temporary scheduling authority, the listed
synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic stimulants are not
currently in any schedule under the CSA.
Efforts to control Synthetic Drugs
Congress created an interagency process for placing new and
emerging drugs into one of five schedules of the CSA (21
U.S.C. 811 et seq.). One such mechanism, temporary scheduling
(21 U.S.C. 811(h)), was specifically designed to enable the
Department to act in an expeditious manner if such action is
necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
In response to the growing threat posed by known synthetic
cannabinoids, on March 1, 2011, the DEA temporarily placed
the following five synthetic cannabinoids in schedule I: JWH-
018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47, 497, and CP-47, 497 C8
homologue.
The DEA is currently gathering scientific data and other
information about synthetic cathinones as well as evaluating
their psychoactive effects to support administrative action
to schedule these substances under the CSA. To temporarily
schedule these stimulants, the DEA must find that placement
in schedule I is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the
public safety, a finding that requires the DEA to consider
the following three factors: history and current pattern
of abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
and what, if any, risk there is to the public health,
including actual abuse; diversion from legitimate
channels; and clandestine importation, manufacture, or
distribution. Once data have been gathered to meet the
statutory criteria to temporarily schedule these
cathinones, the Department will initiate an action to
temporarily place them into schedule 1. In fact, on
September 8, 2011, the DEA published a notice of intent in
the Federal Register (21 FR 55616) to temporarily place
mephedrone, methylone and MDPV in schedule I.
Unfortunately, however, the distribution and abuse of
synthetic drugs cannot be fully addressed by temporary
scheduling because as law enforcement investigates,
researches, and develops evidence to support such action,
illicit drug makers create new synthetic drugs for the
purpose of evading federal law. Scheduling via legislation is
an additional tool to promote public health and safety.
Purpose of Legislation
Placing synthetic carnnabinoid and synthetic stimulant
substances in schedule I would expose those who manufacture,
distribute, possess, import, and export synthetic drugs
without proper authority to the full spectrum of criminal,
civil, and administrative penalties, sanctions, and
regulatory controls. Unless authorized by the DEA, the
manufacture and distribution of these substances, and
possession with intent to manufacture or distribute them,
would be a violation of the CSA and/or the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act.
H.R. 1254, as well as S. 409, would amend the CSA by
expanding the list of substances in schedule I of the CSA (21
U.S.C. 812(c)). To address synthetic cannabinoid abuse, the
bill names 15 unique substances that would be placed in
schedule I; this list includes those temporarily scheduled by
the DEA. Additionally, the bill creates five structural
classes of substances collectively referred to as
``cannabimimetic agents.'' In order for a substance to be a
cannabimimetic agent, the substance must: (1) bind to the CB1
receptor; and (2) meet any of the definitions for those
structural classes. If both criteria are met, that substance
will be a schedule I cannabimimetic agent controlled
substance.
To address emerging synthetic stimulant abuse, H.R. 1254
names 17 unique substances that would be placed in schedule
I. These substances have either been encountered by law
enforcement here in the United States or are most likely to
be encountered by law enforcement in the United States based
on their use and misuse in Europe, which is likely where the
use and misuse originated.
Finally, the bill seeks to double the amount of time
allowed for the Department to temporarily schedule new and
emerging drugs by amending 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In this regard,
the bill seeks to enhance the tools available to the
Department to combat the abuse of new drugs that will appear
in the future.
For these reasons, the Justice Department supports H.R.
1254 and recommends that the Committee consider strengthening
it in the ways we have proposed.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. The
Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the
perspective of the Administration's program, there is no
objection to the submission of this letter.
Sincerely,
Ronald Weich,
Assistant Attorney General.
Appendix
Additional Synthetic Drugs for Inclusion in section 202(c)
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)):
Redline of H.R. 1254, as amended by Energy and Commerce on
July 28, 2011--
``(35) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-E).
(36) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-D).
(37) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-C).
(38) 2-(4-lodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-I).
(39) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]
ethanamine (2C-T-2).
(40) 2-[4-(lsopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl
-[ethanamine (2C-T-4).
(41) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H).
(42) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)
ethanamine (2C-N).
(43) 2-(2.5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)
ethanamine (2C-P).''
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of
this bill. The spread of synthetic drugs like bath salts has quickly
reached crisis levels in many communities throughout our country. This
year in Maine, the Bangor Police Department has responded to hundreds
of bath salts-related incidents.
In October, I organized a meeting of local, county, State, and
Federal law enforcement officials to discuss the spread of bath salts
in our State. The message they shared with me was clear, and the
message they shared with the ONDCP Deputy Director Ben Tucker was also
clear: We need to give our law enforcement officers more tools to
combat this epidemic.
[[Page H8241]]
While Maine has banned bath salts, a national law will build upon
that good work and help make this a bigger impact all across the
country. So I urge my colleagues to support the Synthetic Drug Act.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Florida, Congresswoman Sandy Adams, who was formerly in law
enforcement.
Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Congressman Pitts.
Mr. Speaker, in October 2010, a 31-year-old Texas man hanged himself
in the bedroom. At the top of his suicide note the man wrote, ``Thanks,
bath salts.''
January 2011 in Panama City, Florida, a daughter tried to attack her
sleeping mother with a machete before fleeing the scene. Police said
she had spent several days taking drug-altered bath salts.
June, 2011, a 38-year-old Army sergeant murdered his wife and killed
himself following a police chase. Both had chemically altered bath
salts in their systems. Later in the day, the couple's 5-year-old son
was found dead with a plastic bag over his head and bruises on his
body.
Horrific cases just like these have been documented across the
country. These incidents led many States, including my home State of
Florida, to outlaw these often dangerous and deadly substances.
Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to add MDPV and
mephedrone, chemicals added to bath salts to induce a drug high, to
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These substances are not
marketed for human consumption.
It also is why I have joined Representative Charlie Dent in his work
to bring H.R. 1254, which includes a bill I introduced in April, to the
floor today. You have heard no research can be conducted if this
passes, but those claims are false. It can be conducted. Research is
being done and will continue to be done on Schedule I chemicals. Just
listen to the ER doctors and the poison control centers that have both
asked for this bill, that both want this bill to save lives.
Too many lives have been lost and too many violent acts have been
already committed due to these drugs. These dangerous substances are
being packaged and marketed to our children by using innocuous names
like Ivory Snow, Bliss, and Vanilla Sky. Today I urge support for H.R.
1254. Let's get the substances off the streets and out of the hands of
our children.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Virginia will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will place over 40 chemical compounds on
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act at a time when only eight
of these substances can even be found in the United States. And it does
so in a way that circumvents the normal process, that skirts scheduling
substances, and does so without any scientific or medical research or
evidence to support it.
Congress has a process for placing substances on drug schedules. The
Criminal Code sets forth a process that the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services must engage in to determine the
propriety of scheduling substances. The Secretary must conduct a
scientific and medical evaluation and provide recommendations about
whether the substances being analyzed need to be controlled. And this
needs to be a scientific study, not a compilation of anecdotes.
In this there is a mechanism for addressing emergencies. In the case
where the Attorney General on his own determines that there is an
emergency, the Code provides that substances may be placed on Schedule
I for up to 1\1/2\ years while the evidence is being developed to
permanently schedule them.
Moreover, the Judiciary Committee during our consideration received
numerous statements from pharmaceutical and medical researchers
imploring us not to hamper their ability to determine possible medical
uses of these substances by placing them on Schedule I, which makes it
illegal to possess these substances without a permit even for research
purposes.
This includes promising research on the cure for Parkinson's disease
that would be compromised by this bill. Now, even with a permit, the
restrictions placed on researchers once they are placed on Schedule I
are unduly onerous. So there are legal uses of these substances.
Mr. Speaker, when Congress established a process for the Secretary
and the Attorney General to do their due diligence and study the
propriety of placing substances on Schedule I, we've had a very
thoughtful process. And if we want to establish good crime policy, we
need to follow that thoughtful process. H.R. 1254 circumvents that
process. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1254.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1750
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa,
Congressman Tom Latham.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for this
opportunity today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug
Control Act. This bill addresses an alarming danger to our kids that
many American families may not be aware of.
Many American teenagers are experimenting with synthetic drugs that
supposedly mimic the effects of marijuana or other types of drugs.
These products, known as K2, Pure Evil, Cloud Nine, and other names,
can often be bought legally at convenience stores or at so-called
``head shops'' where they're passed off as incense or bath salts. In
reality, the users of these substances can experience unexpected
anxiety attacks, extreme paranoia, hallucinations, and thoughts of
suicide; and the users are at serious risk of harming themselves.
Our experience with this issue in the State of Iowa illustrates why a
Federal ban on these dangerous substances is so important. A year and a
half ago yesterday, 18-year-old David Rozga, from Indianola, Iowa, shot
himself after taking K2. In response to the tragedy, David's parents,
Mike and Jan, have led a campaign to outlaw synthetic drugs like K2.
They testified before Congress about the dangers of the drug and
enlisted the help of their elected Representatives in cracking down on
the sale and abuse of these substances.
My colleagues, we must act on this issue to protect our kids. And the
time is now. The threat posed by synthetic drugs is dangerous, and it's
growing. In the past 2 weeks alone, there have been several cases where
teens have been injured or hospitalized after taking synthetic drugs.
In Polk County, three teens were involved in a high-speed crash after
smoking one of these substances. In central Iowa, a teenage boy was
hospitalized after taking synthetic drugs. He became violently ill--
having seizures, vomiting, and hallucinations.
I really want to thank the Rozga family for their selfless
willingness to relive the tragedy they've experienced, and I want to
thank them for their efforts to prevent other families from
experiencing the same heartbreak. This legislation and other efforts to
address this threat to our children would simply not have occurred
without the Rozgas' courage, strength, and leadership.
I am heartened today that Congress has listened to their message and
is taking action. It is time to recognize how dangerous these
substances are and to ban their sale in the United States by clarifying
their status as Schedule I controlled substances. As a cosponsor of
H.R. 1254, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this most
important piece of legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We are all opposed to the damage that
these drugs can do to the American people, but I have to express my
opposition to this bill.
My concern about the bill is its effect on scientific research. When
a drug is placed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, it
becomes difficult to obtain not only for illegal purposes but for
researchers who wish to study its pharmaceutical and medical potential.
While this may be justified for some
[[Page H8242]]
drugs, it isn't a restriction that should be implemented rashly. That's
because it becomes very difficult for scientists to get permission to
obtain these molecules even for the scientific study that we need.
For example, in the United States, only 325 researchers have been
able to obtain Schedule I licenses at this moment. Congress established
the procedure for scheduling drugs, and it requires a scientific and
medical evaluation. This bill would bypass that process rather than
relying on scientific and medical experts. I've heard from faculty from
a range of universities, and they've shared their concerns about the
impact.
Here is what Warren Heideman, Ph.D., professor of pharmaceutical
sciences and associate dean for Research, School of Pharmacy, at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison writes:
``The bill is an irrational, simplistic response to a social problem
of great complexity. As such, the world will get significantly less
medical and technical help with a low probability of helping anyone
with a substance abuse issue. The list is too broad and does seriously
restrict what would otherwise be important and easy experiments.
Paperwork problems are already a serious campus concern.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Here is what Dr. Neal Benowitz, M.D.,
the chief of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of
California, San Francisco, writes:
``While we support restrictions on the sale of these chemicals for
purposes of illicit use . . . scheduling so as to impede access to
precursor chemicals in small quantities has the potential to seriously
hamper medical research. On balance, the faculty are against this
measure.''
John Arnold, the faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Green
Chemistry, writes:
``This effort is well-intentioned, but it will cause more problems
than it solves.''
We are all against drugs that harm our people; but we had no hearings
in the Judiciary Committee on this, and I think the placing of these
molecules on Schedule I is evidence of that lack of scholarship. These
drugs need to be controlled, but they need to be controlled in such a
way that there is no harm done to the vital scientific and medical
research that we count on.
I join the gentleman from Virginia in urging a ``no'' vote on this
bill in the hopes that we can come back with a measure that
accomplishes the worthy goals without doing damage to scientific
research, which will save so many lives.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, a former prosecutor, Congressman Pat Meehan.
Mr. MEEHAN. I rise in support of H.R. 1254 for the very practical
reason that, as a prosecutor, I have seen the impact of what can be
done when children are lured into the false promise, into the sense
that somehow, because it's synthetic, it doesn't present the same kind
of danger as the drugs that are often believed to be the most
dangerous--the heroins, the cocaines. These are luring kids into a
false sense of security.
As has been suggested, this evidence isn't anecdotal. I have had the
chance to visit an emergency department at one of the leading
children's hospitals in the Nation where we have seen a dramatic rise
in families who are being affected because their children are coming in
and are under the control of these synthetic substances. For that
reason, the American College of Emergency Physicians supports this
bill.
Lastly, I think we have it backwards. If what we're trying to say is
that somehow we've got to let these children be exposed while we wait
with the potential that there could be research done, the fact of the
matter is I have worked with pharmaceutical companies and with the DEA
to be able to get access to drugs that have been held under control.
That can be done in working with the DEA. That's the solution. It's not
the solution to put our kids at risk.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for yielding the
time.
I rise in opposition to this particular bill. It's not that I am,
indeed, in favor of any of the particular drugs that are here; but just
like Mrs. Adams, my colleague from Florida mentioned, the State of
Florida has already criminalized it, as many States have, and it's
really a State issue.
It seems interesting. When the subject du jour comes up, the item of
the day, there is a rush to action and a rush to forget States' rights.
There is a desire on gun bills to overlook the States and to have a
Federal law on the interstate shipment of guns or on the interstate
transportation of guns by people with permits. In this situation, drugs
that should be criminalized are criminalized at the State level, but
all of a sudden we're doing it more at the Federal level.
This bill would place more than 40 chemical compounds on Schedule I,
the most punitive and restrictive schedule, without any independent
scientific evidence that doing so is necessary or warranted. It is a
rush to legislate before we know all the facts.
This bill essentially bans these substances without any study
whatsoever. I've read the press reports of young people who have been
harmed by these substances and by others, and I'm very sympathetic as
that's certainly wrong; but we shouldn't legislate on the basis of
anecdotal evidence. It's typical of the ``shoot first and ask questions
later'' approach that we have taken to drug policy in this country for
decades.
Our national drug policy should be driven by science, not politics.
We've already gotten a well-deserved reputation here as a do-nothing
Congress; but bills like this and our attitudes towards clean air,
clean water, global climate change, and other environmental issues have
made this the no-respect-for-science Congress as well.
{time} 1800
The DEA has already taken steps to temporarily place certain
synthetic substances on Schedule I while it conducts a review. If there
is an emergency that requires temporarily scheduling the other
substances in this bill, the DEA can review them and do that just as
well.
But we shouldn't circumvent the process established in law. I don't
think this is a responsible way to legislate. I know the sponsors of
this bill know about the emergency review process because the bill
doubles the length of time a bill can be put on emergency review on a
schedule from 18 months to 3 years; it doubles it. Yet there's been no
hearings or evidence that 18 months was insufficient, none whatsoever.
It was just a knee-jerk way to respond to the issue du jour.
This is a very serious issue and deserves serious study and
consideration before we act, as all bills before Congress should. I
fear that this bill continues the misguided policies that we've created
towards drugs in this country.
Just look at our experience with marijuana, which Congress placed on
Schedule I in 1970. According to the criteria of the Controlled
Substances Act, it supposedly has a high potential for abuse, has no
currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and
there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical
supervision.
Let's put aside for a minute the question of whether it has a
potential for abuse. Certainly there's a lot of evidence that it does
not. But I think thousands of people who depend on marijuana to treat
the effects of such diseases as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple
sclerosis would take issue with the notion that it has no medical use,
and 15 or so States have legalized it for medical use. It increases
appetite and eases pain in a way that has helped countless people in
the last stages of life.
But we treat our approach to drugs as a law enforcement matter, not a
scientific matter, and we've placed marijuana in Schedule I, the most
restrictive schedule. Meanwhile, the scientific community is urging
that we reschedule marijuana so we can continue to conduct important
research and make it available to those in need.
Recently, the California Medical Association called for cannabis to
be legalized and regulated, primarily so
[[Page H8243]]
that scientists can gain access to it and conduct further research.
They advocated wider clinical research with accountable and quality-
controlled production of cannabis. None of this can happen with the
tight restrictions we've placed on cannabis. That's exactly the
situation we may find ourselves in with the substances named in this
bill.
I know that licenses are available for research in the Schedule I
drugs, but there's no reason to make researchers go through such hoops.
It is nearly as easy to get permission to do research on a Schedule I
drug as it would be to go to the Vatican and ask for a grant to study
birth control.
We don't know what medical benefits these substances may contain and
we don't know the true risk they pose. Perhaps they belong in a lower
schedule. And Schedule II would certainly deter young people from using
them and others and set a penalty stage. But we have no idea. We just
decided to throw the book and make it Schedule I.
Perhaps they shouldn't be scheduled at all. I suspect they should be
scheduled, maybe Schedule II. But the scientists should decide this and
not politicians. We have no basis to believe they belong in Schedule I.
Haven't we learned from this Nation's 40-year experiment with the war
on drugs?
Prohibition does not work. It is an expensive and counterproductive
policy that fills up our prisons and places a mark on our citizens that
can make jobs, housing, and education nearly impossible to obtain. We
should focus our efforts on educating young people about the substances
and continue to do research about their benefits and risks.
Instead of basing our drug policy on science, we are letting it be
driven by politics. This bill continues that trend, and regrettably I
must urge its defeat. We need to send this bill back to committee and
take a careful, considerable review so that we can have Congress make
this decision on a scientific basis with help from the scientists.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. COHEN. The DEA can use its emergency powers to temporarily
schedule these substances while letting the scientific process play
out. Let's put science first and politics second. Let's defeat this
bill.
If we put science first and politics second, maybe we won't be in
single figures in the public's mind as an organization that they
support as an institution. Part of the 9 percent level is because we do
things sometimes in a rush to judgment and politics and the issue du
jour rather than allowing the scientific process and doing what is
logically best for our Nation to prevail.
I urge the defeat of this bill.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleague that I am
prepared to close.
Mr. PITTS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Marino), a former prosecutor.
Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I recently coauthored a letter with my colleagues,
Representative Sandy Adams and Representative Trey Gowdy, concerning
this very issue, and I'd like to read just a paragraph:
``As of October 4, 2011, the DEA has 325 researchers conducting
research with Schedule I controlled substances. These researchers
include research centers and universities who seek to better understand
the effects of Schedule I controlled substances. Additionally, as of
October 4, 2011, the DEA has 3,983 active registrants who manufacture,
research, and conduct chemical analysis with Schedule I controlled
substances.
``In fact, many researchers who would conduct research to better
understand the compounds controlled in H.R. 1254 are already registered
with the DEA, which means there would be virtually no impact on ongoing
research.''
Mr. Speaker, as a former prosecutor for 18 years at the State and
local level, I have seen firsthand the disaster this drug causes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. MARINO. I have seen firsthand what this drug does. If it doesn't
kill our children, it makes them suicidal; it makes them incredibly
violent.
And I still get calls, as a former prosecutor, from hospitals and
emergency service personnel telling me the violence that a child under
this influence causes, not only on him- or herself, but emergency
personnel. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I had another speaker that
arrived unexpectedly.
Mr. PITTS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia
for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the proposed multistate mortgage settlement
currently being negotiated between the country's major mortgage
servicers and the State attorney generals.
Before we haphazardly rush into a settlement, we need to pause for
what I call station identification, so to speak.
I'm speaking on the wrong bill.
But I also rise in opposition to the synthetic drug bill. I think
there is not enough research. I think there's information still needed.
I don't think that we are in a position to allow this action to take
place, and so I join in opposition to passage of this legislation.
Mr. PITTS. I am prepared to close; so I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill circumvents
the normal thoughtful process for scheduling drugs. Most of the drugs
in this bill can't even be found in the United States. And to the
extent there is an emergency and a need to place these on a schedule,
the Attorney General has the emergency process where he can just put a
drug on the schedule for a year and a half.
Medical researchers have asked us not to pass the bill because it
will disturb promising research, particularly on Parkinson's disease,
and so they have asked us not to pass this bill.
We should follow the thoughtful process for scheduling drugs and
defeat this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the prime
sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. I do want to address a few of the statements I heard on the
floor from my friends from Tennessee and Virginia.
My friend from Tennessee made some comments, but I want to be very
clear, these drugs are dangerous, have a high potential for abuse and
no accepted medical use, which is why they belong on Schedule I.
Schedules II and V are reserved for drugs used in legitimate medical
procedures.
So we're talking about Schedule I here, not Schedules II through V.
Let me be very clear on that point.
{time} 1810
Second, the FDA has stated that the drugs listed in H.R. 1254 have no
medical use, and there are no INDs--that is, investigational new drug
applications--for these substances pending with the FDA. This is from
the FDA. H.R. 1254 will not prevent further research into synthetic
drugs. It's simply false to say that it will.
DEA has a routine, well-established procedure in place to facilitate
scientific study of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, and
heroin. Currently the DEA has licensed nearly 4,000 individuals and
other entities, including universities, manufacturers, researchers, and
labs to handle Schedule I drugs for scientific and investigational
purposes. These are facts.
I also want to point out, my friend from Virginia made some comments
about I guess eight compounds having been found in the United States.
Actually, dozens of compounds have been found in the United States.
Many bath salt chemicals currently are in the United States, but only
three synthetic stimulants and five synthetic cannabinoids have been
emergency
[[Page H8244]]
scheduled by the DEA because they have to go chemical by chemical in
order to act on this matter. They have to deal with this on a chemical-
by-chemical basis.
We need Congress to give the DEA authority to be more effective and
get ahead of this problem. We know that these drugs are coming into
this country from Europe. That's where they're coming from, these
compounds. There are some in Europe right now. Our goal is to get out
in front of this before they have a chance to be exported into the U.S.
Another comment I heard about 325 researchers, well, 325 researchers
because that's all who have applied to do this type of research. DEA is
not in the business of turning researchers away, so I want to be clear
on these points.
There's so much more that can be said on this. But again, research
will not be impeded in any way. There is a mechanism, there is a
process in place to do research on these Schedule I drugs. It's well
established. This has nothing to do with the medical marijuana debate.
I heard that argued earlier, too. We're talking about synthetic
marijuana and synthetic cocaine. This stuff is dangerous. And, in fact,
some would argue worse than the real stuff, so let's get to it.
This is about public safety. This is about the health of our
constituents. We know what's going on. In fact, somebody pointed out to
me today that a store in Washington, D.C., a few blocks from the
Capitol, somebody is selling this stuff. My State and over 30 other
States have seen this problem. They know what's happening across this
country. We need to do something about it. DEA is alarmed by this.
Justice is on board. DEA is on board. Let's do something for the good
of the American people. Please pass H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug
Control Act of 2011. It's in the best interest of the American people,
and the best interest of our children. We're doing the right thing.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Synthetic Drug Control Act adds
specified synthetic versions of drugs of abuse to Schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act. These designer drugs generally mimic the
effects of marijuana or of stimulants and can be unsafe, causing
convulsions, anxiety attacks, dangerously elevated heart rates, and
bizarre and dangerous behavior, among other conditions. Under current
authority, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has difficulty
taking action against these drugs because they fall outside existing
statutory descriptions of Schedule I drugs. H.R. 1254 will enable DEA
to take appropriate enforcement actions to get them off the street and
away from our Nation's youth. I therefore believe it is critical that
we deal with the threat these drugs pose.
I wish to note however that I have concerns with the basic underlying
statute that would now apply to these listed substances through this
legislation. In particular, I do not support the mandatory minimum
sentencing provisions of the Controlled Substances Act for Schedule I
drugs, provisions that under this legislation will apply to the listed
synthetic drugs as they apply to all Schedule I drugs. Mandatory
minimum sentencing inappropriately applies a one size fits all
approach, eliminating the ability of judges to exercise discretion in
determining an appropriate sentence in light of individual
circumstances. The sentencing judge is in the best position to
determine a fair sentence, having considered all of the evidence and
having heard from the parties and the defendant.
I also believe that the administrative process for scheduling
controlled substances should be improved, so that the Attorney General,
with the help of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, can make
scheduling decisions without resorting to help from Congress. I do not
know whether such improvement requires legislation or regulation. I do
know, however, that it is rarely a good idea for Congress to make
scientific determinations such as are required to make good scheduling
decisions.
Additionally, I believe it is incumbent upon DEA to reevaluate the
recordkeeping and other regulatory requirements it imposes upon
scientists who use controlled substances for legitimate research. The
agency should ensure that such research is not impeded or discouraged
through unnecessarily onerous requirements.
I recognize that it is not a simple task to strike the right balance,
to exercise enough control to discourage abuse but not so much as to
discourage research that may lead to important therapeutic advances and
treatments. I intend to send a letter to DEA Administrator Michele
Leonhart asking for a report on the restrictions imposed upon
researchers, particularly those in academia who work with amounts of
scheduled substances too small to pose a serious risk of diversion. I
would like to know what if any improvements can be effected to
eliminate or modify those requirements whose costs in time and
resources outweigh their potential benefits in hindering research
scientists from becoming drug abusers. I hope the Chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee and others will join me on the letter.
Finally, however, while I remain concerned about aspects of the
underlying statute, the question before us is whether these substances
should be controlled as would be accomplished through passage of this
legislation. I believe the answer is yes, because of the danger to
public health posed by the listed synthetic drugs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1254, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________