[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 100 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5204-H5221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




STOP THE IMPORTATION AND TRAFFICKING OF SYNTHETIC ANALOGUES ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2851.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fitzpatrick). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 934 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2851.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0912


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2851) to

[[Page H5205]]

amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify how controlled substance 
analogues are to be regulated, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bost in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, all Members of the Chamber are acutely aware of the 
devastation caused by the opioid epidemic. The epidemic is destroying 
lives and families across the United States. It affects every area of 
our country, and grandparents, parents, and children alike.
  Especially during the course of this week, we have been reminded that 
over 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016. More than 20 
percent of these deaths resulted from an overdose of synthetic opioids 
like fentanyl, which can be as much as 100 times more powerful than 
painkillers like morphine.
  Additionally, synthetic analogues with street names like K2, spice, 
bath salts, or molly, are designed to mimic other drugs like marijuana, 
LSD, and ecstasy, and can be more potent and deadly than the real 
thing.
  Criminal drug manufacturers, largely from China and Mexico, work 
continuously to stay ahead of our laws by altering the molecular 
structure of their drugs as soon as the government bans them.
  The Controlled Substance Act, which was signed into law more than 40 
years ago, was designed to protect the public from the dangers 
associated with drugs and drug use. However, this law was not designed 
to handle the magnitude and speed with which these new psychoactive 
substances have emerged in our communities.
  It currently takes 3 years to schedule a new drug, but criminals can 
skirt the law by quickly changing a drug molecule and get it to the 
U.S. streets, often through the mail.

                              {time}  0915

  The bill we are considering today, the Stop the Importation and 
Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, or SITSA, updates Federal law 
to provide swifter action to stop the unlawful importation and 
distribution of synthetic drugs and gives law enforcement effective 
tools to help keep our communities safe.
  While Congress has taken action to combat the opioid epidemic through 
the historic Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, it is clear that 
we need more tools to combat the ever-growing problem of synthetic drug 
abuse.
  Instead of taking 3 years to bring a drug under control, SITSA gives 
the Attorney General the power to act quickly and to classify a new 
dangerous drug in a matter of months when it is virtually identical to 
a current scheduled and powerful drug. The bill also requires the 
Attorney General to work with the Department of Health and Human 
Services so that these synthetic drugs can still be studied by 
qualified researchers.
  Supporters of H.R. 2851 include the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District 
Attorneys Association, and the American College of Emergency 
Physicians.
  I fully support this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to do the 
same, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Marino, and I want to make it very clear 
that we have spent a lot of time in the Judiciary Committee, in this 
Congress, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, on almost every other 
bill in stemming the tide, the rage, the horror of opioid addiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I have lived through crack cocaine addiction and heroin 
addiction, and now heroin has returned, itself. I have watched my 
constituents in these low-drug offenses wind up not getting treatment 
and wind up getting the devastation of mass incarceration.
  Frankly, if this bill had listed the synthetic analogues on schedule 
A and provided the science to determine what they were, this would be a 
bill that the whole House could support, but that is not the case.
  And so I raise concerns that I hope this House will listen to and 
recognize that opportunities to fix this legislation as we move to the 
Senate would make this the kind of response that has been consistent 
with the view that the incarceration of an opioid-addicted person and/
or those who are limited sellers does not bring us to where we need to 
be.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to discuss the Stop the Importation and Trafficking 
of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017, which establishes a mechanism by 
which synthetic drugs can be temporarily and permanently controlled to 
curtail illicit manufacturing, importation, and distribution. H.R. 2851 
would also establish new Federal crimes related to the misuse of 
controlled substances identified in the bill.
  I am acutely concerned about the dangers presented by drugs like 
fentanyl and its synthetic analogues that have contributed to a 
disturbing number of overdose deaths, even in my home district of 
Houston.
  This bill, while well-intended, is flawed for several reasons. First, 
it eliminates the use of scientific evidence by which synthetic 
analogues are currently analyzed.
  Under current law, the Attorney General must work in collaboration 
with drugs experts at the Department of Health and Human Services as 
part of the permanent scheduling process. Absent collaboration of the 
scientific community, the AG, under this bill, will have sole 
discretion to unilaterally determine which drugs are a schedule A 
substance.
  This is alarming because arbitrary scheduling of substances without 
verifiable data will undoubtedly create disproportionate incarcerations 
of low-level drug offenders.
  Second, this bill overcriminalizes drug offenders, many of whom are 
in dire need of support in their battles with addiction, substance 
abuse, and mental illness. We recognize this is an alarming epidemic 
and the need for medical treatment is very important.
  Third, although we know that synthetic analogues are often 
manufactured and mixed with heroin outside the country--namely, China--
and where users and sellers here may lack knowledge, this bill 
heightens the penalties, nonetheless.
  In June 2016, the head of the DEA, Chuck Rosenberg, testified before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee that: ``Illicit fentanyl, fentanyl 
derivatives and their immediate precursors are often produced in 
China.'' By the time the drugs enter the United States, where they are 
sold, he said, buyers and sellers are often unaware of the composition 
and potency of the drugs.
  Fourth, this bill amends the Federal sentencing guidelines without 
the input of the United States Sentencing Commission, which recently 
underwent a robust examination of synthetic drugs and penalties.
  The bill disregards the jurisdictional authority granted by Congress 
to the Commission back in 1984. The Commission is a nonpartisan, 
independent body which sets sentencing guidelines for Federal judges.
  Since the introduction of this bill, the Commission approved a 
multipart synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018, which included 
extensive public comment, expert testimony, and a multiyear data 
analysis.
  The Commission's recent amendment reflects the evolving nature of 
these synthetic drugs, creates a class-based approach, establishes a 
new drug ratio and a new guideline penalty for fentanyl analogues that 
will promote uniformity in Federal sentencing. We should, therefore, 
allow this more thorough and data-driven process to come to completion, 
absent interruption by the Attorney General, as provided in the bill.
  And lastly, this bill imposes mandatory minimum terms of supervised 
release of not less than 3 years in addition to imprisonment, and not 
less than 6 years if there was a prior conviction.
  Furthermore, the bill also appears to impose mandatory minimum 
sentencing. Current law requires that if a controlled substance 
analogue is intended for human consumption, it shall be treated as a 
schedule I substance, 21

[[Page H5206]]

U.S.C. 813. Because the analogue would be treated as a schedule I drug, 
the penalty of such drugs is not less than 20 years mandatory minimum 
if death or serious bodily injury occurs.

  Under 21 U.S.C. 802(32) a controlled substance analogue is:

       A substance (i) the chemical structure of which is 
     substantially similar to the chemical structure of a 
     controlled substance in schedule I and II;
       (ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic 
     effect on the central nervous system.

  Under this bill, a schedule A drug is a substance that has a chemical 
structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of 
the controlled substance in schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, an actual 
or predicted stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the 
central nervous system.
  The penalty for such drugs under this bill is not more than 10 years, 
no mandatory minimum, and if serious bodily injury occurs, not more 
than 15.
  Therefore, if the composition of a schedule A drug is substantially 
similar to the chemical structure of a substance in schedule I or II, 
then we have a mandatory minimum problem, unless the bill explicitly 
says in its penalty provision that a schedule I penalty is not 
triggered by placement of a substance in schedule A.
  This creates great ambiguity with respect to sentencing because the 
vague language leaves an endless number of individuals exposed to 
mandatory minimum and, of course, mass incarceration.
  Given the number of new drugs out there and the constant evolving 
nature of these synthetic drugs, it is unknown at this point and unfair 
in this bill's framework the number of drugs that will trigger a 
mandatory minimum sentence.
  If we are committed to giving treatment, if we are committed to 
stopping the mass incarceration and steering people away from the use 
of opioid drugs, that will be the preferable approach: to take note of 
the fact that they are on schedule A, to provide the scientific 
background, and to then allow the existing sentencing structure to 
proceed.
  Mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses gave birth to an 
explosion in our prison population. It is responsible for many of our 
criminal justice deficiencies. It is really the reason why we are 
fighting for sentencing reduction.
  Congress acknowledged this as a devastating policy approach and, as a 
result, passed the Fair Sentencing Act. Inclusion of new mandatory 
minimum sentencing is particularly egregious because these inflexible 
one-size sentencing laws undermine justice by preventing judges from 
fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their 
offenses, like the 19-year-old seller who, as the DEA Administrator 
said, may not have even known that it was laced.
  Mandatory sentencing laws have caused Federal prison populations to 
soar, destroying families and communities, and led to overcrowding and 
exorbitant costs to taxpayers.
  And so I ask my colleagues, let us work together to work on the bill 
before us and focus it on ways that get to the dastardliness of 
synthetic analogues but, as well, responds mercifully to the increasing 
incarceration of persons through mandatory minimums and the lack of 
using the United States Sentencing Commission's guidelines.
  Mr. Chair. H.R. 2851, ``Stop the Importation and Trafficking of 
Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017,'' establishes a mechanism by which 
synthetic drugs can be temporarily and permanently controlled to 
curtail illicit manufacturing, importation and distribution.
  H.R. 2851 would also establish new federal crimes related to the 
misuse of controlled substances identified in the bill.
  I am acutely concerned about the dangers presented by drugs like 
fentanyl and its synthetic analogues that have contributed to a 
disturbing number of overdose deaths, even in my home district of 
Houston.
  This bill while well-intended, is flawed for several reasons: First, 
it eliminates the use of scientific evidence by which synthetic 
analogues are currently analyzed.
  Under current law, the Attorney General must work in collaboration 
with drug experts at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
as part of the permanent scheduling process.
  Absent collaboration of the scientific community, the AG, under this 
bill, would have sole discretion, to unilaterally determine which drugs 
are Schedule A substance.
  This is alarming because arbitrary scheduling of substances without 
verifiable data, will undoubtedly create disproportionate incarceration 
of low-level drug offenders.
  Second, this bill over criminalizes drug offenders, many of whom are 
in dire need of support in their battles with addiction, substance 
abuse and mental illness.
  We recognize this as an alarming epidemic, and the need for medical 
treatment, which is why we appropriated an exuberant amount of money 
towards the opioid crisis in our recent omnibus bill which passed in 
the House.
  Third, although we know that synthetic analogues are often 
manufactured and mixed with heroin outside the country, namely China, 
and where users and sellers here may lack knowledge, this bill 
heightens the penalties nonetheless.
  In June 2016, the head of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg testified before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee that, ``Illicit fentanyl, fentanyl 
derivatives, and their immediate precursors are often produced in 
China.''
  By the time the drugs enter the United States, where they are sold, 
he said, buyers and sellers are often unaware of the composition and 
potency of the drugs.
  Fourth, this bill amends the federal sentencing guidelines without 
the input of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (Commission), which 
recently underwent a robust examination of synthetic drugs and 
penalties.
  The bill disregards the jurisdictional authority granted by Congress 
to the Commission back in 1984.
  The Commission is a non-partisan, independent body, which sets 
sentencing guidelines for federal judges.
  Since the introduction of this bill, the Commission approved a multi-
part synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018, which included extensive 
public comment, expert testimony and a multi-year, data analysis.
  The Commission's recent amendment reflects the evolving nature of 
these new synthetic drugs, creates a class-based approach, establishes 
new drug ratios and a new guideline penalty for fentanyl analogues that 
will promote uniformity in federal sentencing.
  We should therefore, allow this more thorough and data-driven process 
to come to completion, absent interruption by the Attorney General as 
provided in this bill.
  And lastly, this bill imposes mandatory minimum terms of supervised 
release of not less than 3 years in addition to imprisonment, and not 
less than 6 years if there was a prior conviction.
  Furthermore, the bill also appears to impose mandatory minimum 
sentencing.
  Current law requires that if a controlled substance analogue is 
intended for human consumption, it shall be treated as a schedule I 
substance. (21 USC 813).
  Because the analogue would be treated as a schedule I drug, the 
penalty for such drugs is not less than 20 years (mandatory minimum) if 
death or serious bodily injury occurs.
  Under 21 USC 802(32), a ``controlled substance analogue'' is: A 
substance (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar 
to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or 
II; (ii) Which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on 
the central nervous system. . . .
  Under this bill, a Schedule A drug is a substance that has a Chemical 
structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a 
controlled substance in schedule I, II, III, IV or V; and
  An actual or predicted stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic 
effect on the central nervous system. . . .
  The penalty for such drugs under this bill is not more than 10 years 
(no mandatory minimum), and if serious bodily injury occur, not more 
than 15 years.
  Therefore, if the composition of a schedule A drug is substantially 
similar to the chemical structure of a substance in schedule I or II, 
then we have a mandatory minimum problem, unless the bill explicitly 
says in its penalty provision, that a schedule I penalty is not 
triggered by placement of a substance on schedule A.
  This creates great ambiguity with respect to sentencing, because the 
vague language leaves endless number of individuals exposed to 
mandatory minimum sentencing.
  Given the number of new drugs out there, and the constant evolving 
nature of these synthetic drugs, it is unknown at this point and under 
this bill's framework, the number of drugs that will trigger a 
mandatory minimum sentence.
  Mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses gave birth to the 
explosion in our prison population, and is responsible for many of our 
criminal justice system's deficiencies. Thus, we cannot return there 
again.
  Congress acknowledged this as a devastating policy approach, and as a 
result, passed of the Fair Sentencing Act.
  Inclusion of a new mandatory minimum sentence, is particularly 
egregious because these inflexible, one-size sentencing laws undermine

[[Page H5207]]

justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the 
individual and the circumstances of their offenses.
  Mandatory sentencing laws have caused federal prison populations to 
soar, destroyed families and communities, and led to overcrowding and 
exorbitant costs to taxpayers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Katko).
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
speak in favor of legislation I authored, H.R. 2851, the Stop the 
Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017.
  Synthetic drug abuse has crippled my community and the communities of 
many other Members in this Chamber. Last year, Syracuse area hospitals 
saw a record number of overdoses due to synthetic drug abuse. In May of 
last year, over 15 individuals had overdosed on synthetic drugs and 
were taken to the ER in a span of 24 hours. All of these synthetic 
drugs were purchased at bodegas in Syracuse, purchased over the 
counter, and stamped ``not for human consumption.'' Clearly, that was 
the intent.
  Unfortunately, stories like this have become the new normal. First 
responders and emergency room physicians across the Nation have seen 
incredible increases in calls due to synthetic overdoses, which is why 
I wholeheartedly support this legislation, as do they.
  Toxic synthetic drugs are designed to mimic street drugs like 
marijuana, LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, fentanyl, and other hard drugs. They 
can be more potent than the real thing and oftentimes are more deadly.
  Unfortunately, when law enforcement encounters and begins to combat a 
specific synthetic drug compound, which they must do under the law, 
manufacturers of these substances are able to slightly alter the 
chemical structure of the drug, and this puts law enforcement at a 
serious disadvantage because that chemical alteration makes that drug 
technically not legal until it gets on the analogue statute. This 
leaves them constantly one step behind.
  As a former Federal prosecutor for more than 20 years but, more 
importantly, as a father, getting these drugs off the streets and out 
of the hands of our loved ones remains a top priority for me.
  Right before I introduced this bill, I met with a constituent in my 
district, Teresa Woolson, whose son was tragically killed by a 
synthetic drug identified as XLR-11. He went into a store and bought 
it. It was called K2/spice. He thought that since it was sold over the 
counter it was okay to use. He used the drug, smoked it--it was 
synthetic marijuana--had a seizure, and drowned in Lake Ontario.
  Unfortunately for Teresa, the drug that killed her son managed to 
remain legal and on the streets and sold over the counter in stores for 
4 years after his death until it was finally added to the controlled 
substances list. This is unacceptable. These families deserve more than 
that and they deserve justice.
  The potency and dangers of synthetic drugs do not only threaten 
users. We are now seeing local law enforcement and first responders put 
in harm's way simply by coming in contact with these highly potent and 
often lethal substances, oftentimes being mixed with heroin, which is 
killing people at a record pace in this country.
  Numerous cases across the country have resulted in emergency 
personnel becoming gravely ill and even dying while responding to these 
synthetic overdoses.
  The threat synthetic drugs pose to our communities and law 
enforcement must be stopped. H.R. 2851 takes a big step toward 
eradicating these harmful substances and protecting our communities. 
The bipartisan SITSA Act will give local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement the necessary tools to target synthetic substances and the 
criminals who traffic them.
  Specifically, this legislation will create a new schedule to the 
Controlled Substances Act and establish a mechanism by which analogues 
can be temporarily or permanently added to that schedule in as little 
as 30 days after the chemical composition is determined by the Attorney 
General.
  With amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee and on the House 
floor today, we have struck the right balance between providing law 
enforcement with the tools they need and facilitating research on these 
chemical compounds.
  I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Walden and 
their staffs, specifically Tony Angeli and Adam Buckalew, for their 
tireless work on this bill. I would also like to thank my legislative 
director, John Drzewicki, who has done a tremendous job on this bill.
  The stories of synthetic drug use are in no way limited to my area of 
the country. This is a nationwide epidemic. I respectfully ask my 
colleagues to vote in favor of SITSA because every moment we fail to 
act, another person is affected by synthetic drugs.
  Since I have more time, I want to address a specific issue spoken 
about by my colleague from Texas. Under this bill, a substance placed 
in schedule A would be a schedule A controlled substance as defined in 
21 U.S.C. 802(6). In a controlled substance analogue case, the criteria 
of that 21 U.S.C. 802(32) and 813 must be met for each defendant, case 
by case, in addition to the elements of the underlying crime. It cannot 
be simply asserted a schedule A controlled substance is substantially 
similar pursuant to those provisions and the court arrive at a 21 
U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(c) penalty.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chair, just so I am clear about the gentlewoman's 
position, the gentlewoman is concerned that a drug trafficker may face 
a penalty of a harsh sentence when they have caused someone's death, as 
an example.

                              {time}  0930

  Let me give you an example. Deanna Axe was 5 months pregnant. She had 
been off heroin for 8 months. A drug trafficker pushed her and cajoled 
her over the course of about 12 hours through texts that we saw trying 
to get her to try this specific type of heroin. She took one dose. Her 
mother found her. The heroin that he gave her killed her and her 5-
month-old baby in her womb.
  That is the reality of what we are facing. He is facing 15 years in 
prison. He pled guilty to that. She is gone. Her baby is gone. That is 
the reality.
  So we are trying to find a positive balance here. No one is 
suggesting that mandatory minimums under 841(b)(1)(A) or 841(b)(1)(B) 
can be applicable. They are not. It is the (b)(1)(C) category for this, 
except when a death is caused. So please let us try and find a proper 
balance here.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the ranking member of the 
Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas for yielding the time, and I thank her for her leadership in 
opposing this bill.
  I, too, oppose the bill. This bill is yet another in a long line of 
so-called tough-on-crime bills that Congress has enacted since 
President Nixon declared a war on drugs nearly 50 years ago. These laws 
have, without question, failed to win the so-called war. But they have 
succeeded in placing the United States as number one in incarceration 
rates in the world to the extent it is so bad that some studies have 
actually shown that our incarceration rate is so bad that it actually 
adds to crime because so many children are being raised by parents who 
are incarcerated.
  So much of the Department of Justice budget has been on prisons that 
aren't doing any good when that money should be spent on things that 
could do some good. Too many people have felony records and can't find 
jobs who are actually adding to crime by this so-called war on drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, there are three main reasons why I oppose this bill. 
First, the bill abandons evidence and expertise in exchange for 
expediency. By giving the Attorney General the power to permanently 
designate analogue substances to a new drug schedule, he will be free 
to ignore the experts at the Department of Health and Human

[[Page H5208]]

Services and the Federal Drug Administration. This is the Attorney 
General whose judgment has led him to rip children from their parents 
at the border.
  The bill also codifies drug equivalency laws which are used at 
sentencing absent any input from the United States Sentencing 
Commission, which is already conducting an in-depth study of analogue 
drugs. In addition to research and expertise, the Sentencing Commission 
also possesses the flexibility to adjust sentencing guidelines as 
necessary if its knowledge of analogue substances changes.
  Second, the bill will add to the problem of mass incarceration. By 
enacting higher sentences without a mens rea requirement, people could 
serve longer sentences even if they did not know that a drug contained 
an analogue substance.
  Third, we simply do not need the bill. The Department of Justice 
already prosecutes cases involving drug analogues under existing law. 
The then-Acting Administrator of the DEA said as much in her testimony 
before the Judiciary Committee on December 12 of last year when she 
described the current legal process as workable but resource intensive.
  Mr. Chairman, let's not enact yet another law that sends more people 
to prison while ignoring the root cause of the current crisis; that is, 
substance abuse, which is a public health problem and should be treated 
as such.
  Other opioid bills we have been considering take this public health--
not criminal justice--approach. That is the approach we should take, 
and we should pursue that strategy by rejecting this bill.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all those who have put so much 
work into this, especially Mr. Katko of New York who has been 
relentless in his battle to stop illegal fentanyls from coming in and 
killing.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and 
Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues, also known as the SITSA Act of 
2017. Now, this legislation will give law enforcement officials 
additional tools to get and keep synthetic drugs such as fentanyl off 
our streets in America.
  On February 28, during our first of four legislative hearings on the 
opioid crisis, we focused on finding ways to protect our communities 
and the people who live in them and equip law enforcement with the 
necessary tools to fight this deadly opioid epidemic that kills more 
people than traffic accidents in America. During that hearing, the 
chief of police from Syracuse, New York, Frank Fowler, talked about how 
synthetic drugs tore apart his community. His call for this legislation 
rings as true now as it did then.
  After that hearing, we held a roundtable to hear from families who 
had been directly impacted by this deadly crisis. Seated across that 
table from me was Michael Gray. He bravely shared his family's story, 
hoping that their loss would help spur Congress to modernize Federal 
laws. He gave me a picture of his daughter, Amanda, and he gave me a 
new one yesterday when I met with him and Amanda's brother.
  This is Amanda Gray. She suffered from some mental illness and self-
medicated with something you and I would know as heroin. She wasn't a 
regular user. She was an intermittent user. The person who sold her 
heroin knew that. Just this past January, Amanda bought some heroin. 
What she didn't know was that it was not heroin. It has now been 
determined not only was it--normally they cut fentanyl into heroin. 
This had no heroin. It was all fentanyl.
  Let me explain why that is so deadly. It is so potent that if you 
took a saltshaker and sprinkled three or four or five or half a dozen 
grains of salt on this podium and touched them, you would likely have 
that fentanyl go through your skin, and you would fall on the floor 
here in this Chamber. Unless one of our folks here in the Chamber or 
one of the medics nearby had Narcan, naloxone, to resuscitate you, you 
would die. Tragically, that is what happened to Amanda. She took what 
she thought was heroin, and she died from 100 percent fentanyl.

  That same night, her father recalls news reports saying additional 
people in their city died. It is a fatal but common trend with illicit 
fentanyl.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. WALDEN. This illegal fentanyl that comes into our country from 
foreign countries, generally through our mail facilities, has been one 
of the deadliest waves of the opioid crisis to hit our Nation.
  Representative Katko's bill will modernize the Controlled Substances 
Act to create a new schedule of drugs that specifically concentrates on 
the rapidly changing synthetic analogues of opioids such as fentanyl.
  In doing this, we must make sure to keep particular attention on not 
compromising important public health protections. A thoughtful 
amendment was offered by our committee member in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Morgan Griffith of Virginia, which ensures that 
research and innovation will not be impeded by SITSA. Among other 
issues, if an applicant is registered to conduct research with a 
schedule I or II substance, they can continue to do that research that 
they may be pursuing with a schedule A substance while their 
application is being processed.
  The bill we will vote on today is the result of bipartisan feedback 
from two House committees as well as the collaboration of multiple 
agencies within the Trump administration.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a thoroughly thought-out bill. I 
encourage my colleagues to support it to help stop the spread of deadly 
synthetic opioid analogues.
  Let us remember why we are here. It is children like Amanda and the 
parents who survive them, the parents who got the worst call any parent 
could ever get, and that is notifying them of the death of their child. 
We are going to stop this from happening in America with the package of 
bills we have going through the House and the Senate. Mr. Katko's work 
on this is extraordinary as is the other members of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I call for Members to support this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Schneider). Congressman Bradley Scott Schneider is a 
member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, synthetic opioids are a dangerous new frontline in our 
efforts to end the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities.
  A recent analysis found that synthetic opioids, particularly illicit 
fentanyl, caused more overdose deaths in the United States in 2016 than 
prescription opioids. Synthetics are many times more potent and fatal 
than heroin, sometimes requiring two, four, six, or even more doses of 
antidotes like Naloxone to revive an overdose victim.
  The Federal Controlled Substances Act was signed into law more than 
40 years ago, and it is not equipped to handle this dangerous new 
development. Put simply, illegal manufacturers, especially those 
operating overseas, are creating deadly new synthetic opioid analogues 
faster than our laws or research can keep up.
  That is why I rise today in support of the Stop the Importation and 
Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017 to equip our law 
enforcement officials with the tools they need to keep our communities 
safe.
  This bill creates a schedule A in addition to the five existing 
schedules in the Controlled Substances Act. This is a mechanism to 
temporarily schedule and set regulations around new synthetic drugs 
while our scientific and research communities develop a better 
understanding of the associated risks. This bill also adds 13 existing 
synthetic fentanyls to this new schedule.
  Importantly, this crackdown is targeted at the manufacturers, 
importers, and distributors of these deadly substances, not the 
individual users. Simple possession is expressly omitted from the scope 
of this bill. Individuals suffering from addiction need medical help, 
not prison time. To start to turn

[[Page H5209]]

the tide on the opioid epidemic, we must address synthetic opioids.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and my fellow members 
of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in support of this needed 
legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the ranking member of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Texas 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2851, legislation that 
would give Attorney General Jeff Sessions through the Drug Enforcement 
Administration sweeping new authority to combat the synthetic drug 
crisis facing our country.
  In 2016, nearly 64,000 Americans died because of a drug overdose, and 
the overdose rate from the synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and 
fentanyl analogues, nearly doubled. We know that illicit fentanyl and 
fentanyl analogues are extremely deadly and increasingly are being 
shipped into our country through China.
  I know all Members would agree that synthetic drugs are a very real 
threat that we have to combat. However, it is unclear to me that the 
appropriate response to this crisis is the creation of a new schedule--
schedule A--that would impose new burdens on researchers and 
manufacturers. It would also dramatically limit the scientific and 
medical role HHS and the FDA play in our scheduling process today.
  In fact, the DEA already has the authority today to temporarily add 
these synthetic substances to the Controlled Substances Act if they 
determine that they pose an imminent hazard to public safety. The 
agency has used this authority over 80 times, including most recently 
to put all fentanyl-related substances into schedule I. DEA also has 
authority under the Analogue Act to treat synthetics that are 
substantially similar to a controlled substance the same way they treat 
the controlled substance, and this is authority the DEA has and 
continues to use to combat this crisis.
  Instead of proposing to improve the DEA's existing statutory 
authority, this bill creates a new schedule for synthetic substances, 
and it gives almost sole discretion as to when a substance can be 
temporarily scheduled in the new schedule A and expands temporary 
scheduling for up to 5 years.

                              {time}  0945

  Another reason I oppose this bill is because it also eliminates the 
critical scientific and medical analysis by HHS and FDA. It only 
requires the DEA to consider recommendations from HHS, eliminating the 
binding nature of such analysis under the permanent scheduling process 
today.
  A letter in opposition from a coalition including the ACLU, Drug 
Policy Alliance, Human Rights Watch, and the NAACP, among others, has 
also raised concerns about SITSA circumventing the role of HHS in the 
scheduling process. The letter notes: ``SITSA would enable the Attorney 
General, an unelected individual, to single-handedly determine which 
substances are acceptable for private citizens to consume.''
  As a public health agency, HHS, acting through FDA, is best 
positioned to be making decisions regarding scheduling drugs or 
substances based on their scientific and medical analysis. We should 
not hand this authority over to a law enforcement agency, and that is 
yet another reason why I oppose this bill.
  I also continue to be concerned about the potential for H.R. 2851 to 
undermine or stifle research and development of synthetic substances. 
We know that many synthetic drugs have the same chemical properties as 
drugs with known therapeutic uses. By subjecting schedule A substances 
to the same requirements as schedule I, we may be unintentionally 
creating hurdles for the research community to evaluate whether these 
substances may be possible alternatives for treatment of pain and 
addiction.
  These are all discussions I wish I could have raised during 
consideration of the legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee. 
Despite receiving primary referral, the chairman chose to cede to the 
Judiciary Committee, denying our members the opportunity to have a full 
debate on this legislation.
  For all these reasons, I join my colleague, Congressman Nadler, the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, in opposing this flawed 
legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on my side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Katko).
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly respond to some of 
the comments that were made by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle.
  First of all, when my colleague refers to sweeping new authority--I 
believe that was a quote--that the Attorney General has under this law, 
it must be made clear that it gives the Attorney General authority to 
list these substances temporarily on a controlled substance analogue 
list under schedule A. It also gives Congress 180 days to overrule the 
Attorney General at any time.
  That is a very potent and powerful check. This does not shift 
significant power to the Attorney General. I think that is important to 
note.
  My colleagues also noted several times that it would limit the 
research ability of individuals under this statute to research 
synthetic drugs. The Griffith amendment addresses this issue in a 
powerful and potent manner. It ensures and protects that individuals 
doing research can continue to do the research and will not be 
sanctioned or in trouble for doing that research.
  We have worked closely with the industry to get their input. More 
importantly, we worked very, very closely with Health and Human 
Services and the Drug Enforcement Administration to provide substantial 
input. Based on that input, we have made the adjustments that are now 
memorialized in the Griffith amendment.
  While we are talking here, let's keep something in perspective. Every 
hour in this country, at least five people die from heroin- and opioid-
related overdoses. That is five an hour. By the time we are done, five 
more people will have died. Of those individuals dying, the vast 
majority are dying because of the synthetic drug components that are 
being found in all the heroin overdoses, such as synthetic fentanyl.
  Synthetic fentanyl and other synthetic drugs are generally made 
outside this country. The bad guys know that when we find a chemical 
compound and get it listed on the drug analogue statute, they simply 
tweak the compound, and then it takes another 3 or 4 years for that 
drug to get back on the statute and to again make the compound illegal. 
It is a cat-and-mouse game that they are winning and we are losing, 
because we are losing our children.
  In closing, I would look to just note this and ask people to consider 
this. Let's put a face on this stuff.
  John Socci had a daughter. She was murdered in front of her 18-month-
old child by her boyfriend, who was addicted to opioids. Two years 
later, they lost their son to a heroin overdose.
  Breanna Axe, as I mentioned earlier, died 5 months pregnant when a 
drug dealer repeatedly pushed her to try heroin, even though she hadn't 
been using for 7 or 8 months. One dose and she was gone. That dose had 
synthetic drugs in it as well.
  There are so many other stories out there. Law enforcement is in 
trouble because of these synthetic drugs. They are afraid to even touch 
them because simple contact is going to kill them.
  While we are complaining about jurisdiction and who was able to 
review this bill or whether researchers are properly protected, which I 
submit they are, people are dying in this country at a rapid rate. We 
must do something.
  Victor Woolsen, who I talked about earlier who bought a synthetic 
drug over the counter, had a seizure, and died, that synthetic drug was 
on the streets for 4 years after he died. It took us 4 years to get 
that drug off the shelves and off the streets of our country.
  I don't think it is a tall stretch to ask the Attorney General to 
have authority, when I believe this is not just an epidemic, it is a 
pandemic in this

[[Page H5210]]

country, to get these drugs off the streets quickly, 30 days. If the 
Attorney General messes up, we will be right back here to fix it within 
180 days. That is the backstop. We also have backstops for the 
researchers as well.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Kristen Holman adored her little 
brother, Garrett. She cherished his warm heart and his bigger than life 
personality. She loved her brother unconditionally, as did her mother 
and father, Bobbie and Don.
  Unfortunately, on February 9, 2017, at the age of 20, Garrett lost 
his life to a synthetic opioid that was mailed straight to him from 
China. My district lost a promising young man, Don and Bobby lost their 
son, and Kristen lost her little brother and only sibling.
  Sadly, tens of thousands of families across the Nation have lost 
their loved ones to the opioid crisis. According to the Centers for 
Disease Control, drug overdoses killed over 64,000 Americans in 2016, a 
staggering increase of over 21 percent from 2015.
  Of those souls lost, over 20,000 deaths were caused by synthetic 
opioids, the same type of drug that took Garrett's life.
  Regrettably, the suffering shows no signs of slowing, as deaths from 
synthetic opioids have more than doubled from last year.
  Synthetic drugs can be more potent and deadly than the real thing. 
However, when law enforcement encounters a certain synthetic drug 
compound and takes steps under current Federal law to bring the drug 
under lawful control, the manufacturers of these synthetics slightly 
alter the chemical structure of the drug to once again evade law 
enforcement. As a result, law enforcement is constantly one step behind 
the manufacturers.
  Left undeterred, manufacturers and distributors continue to flood the 
U.S. with deadly synthetic drugs. Seizures of illicit fentanyl by 
Customs and Border Protection increased 64,000 percent between 2013 and 
2017. We must stop this flood of poison that is fueling an epidemic 
that has taken far too many lives.
  The Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, 
or SITSA, ensures that manufacturers and distributors of deadly 
synthetic drugs cannot continue to evade law enforcement. SITSA 
modernizes the Controlled Substances Act by clarifying the regulation 
of synthetic analogues.
  First, SITSA modernizes the Controlled Substances Act to establish 
schedule A, a new category for controlled substance analogues.
  Second, the act establishes a streamlined mechanism by which 
synthetic analogues can be temporarily and/or permanently added to 
schedule A, but only after a thorough analysis by the Attorney General 
and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  Altogether, SITSA will combat the flow of synthetic drugs that have 
taken both Garrett's life and lives of 20,000 Americans over the last 
year.
  This bill was carefully crafted over the past 2 years with extensive 
coordination between law enforcement agencies from the Department of 
Justice and scientists and researchers at the Department of Health and 
Human Services.
  Together, this bill strikes a balance between giving law enforcement 
the ability to stop the flow of deadly synthetic drugs while allowing 
the research community to study these dangerous drugs, identify the 
root causes of addiction, and advance the latest cures for serious 
illnesses.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot stand idle as criminal manufacturers and 
distributors of synthetic drugs continue to flood our country and 
destroy the lives of countless Americans. Not one more family should 
feel the pain that the Holmans feel after a synthetic drug shipped from 
China took Garrett's life.
  SITSA is a bipartisan bill, and I commend Mr. Katko and Miss Rice, 
both of New York, for their efforts in moving this legislation forward. 
I urge my colleagues to support SITSA and bring an end to the era where 
manufacturers and distributors can freely profit from selling these 
dangerous drugs and destroy so many lives.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have further 
speakers?
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am 
prepared to close.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We all want to do good, and all of us have had our tragedies as it 
relates to the use of drugs by the innocent. As I listened to my 
colleagues, they are right: The heinous persons are those who are the 
major exporters and the hardened drug dealers.
  We want to save lives. I think we found over the last couple of 
months and past years that enhancing the research and providing 
treatment for those very individuals who have succumbed will provide us 
with that pathway.
  In the instance of the underlying bill, I would hope that we would 
have the opportunity to get the bad guys. But in the instance of the 
way it is constructed, SITSA will worsen the mass incarceration of drug 
offenders; it will expand the use of harsh maximum sentences for drug 
offenses; and the bill creates new penalties for thousands of synthetic 
drugs, calling for maximum sentences of 10, 20, 30 years, or life 
imprisonment.
  The carve-out for possession does not define quantities that would 
constitute possession and will not prevent many people who possess 
small quantities or sell drugs to support their own addiction from 
getting slammed by draconian new penalties in SITSA.
  So we have addicted persons who sell on the streets of our 
neighborhoods. They need treatment. That is what we should be focusing 
on. SITSA will punish people who lack criminal culpability. This bill 
will disproportionately increase low-level drug offenders who did not 
import or package the drug and often are unaware of the chemical 
composition of the drugs, as the DEA Administrator indicated in his 
testimony before the Senate that most of the sellers would not know 
that there had been traces of other drugs in that particular drug they 
were selling.

                              {time}  1000

  SITSA is unnecessary because the Attorney General can already ban 
synthetic drugs. This was demonstrated earlier this year when the 
Attorney General used powers already granted by the Congress to place 
illicit fentanyl analogues not already regulated by the Controlled 
Substances Act into schedule I for 3 years, allowing time to pursue 
permanent scheduling.
  Through rulemaking, at a congressional hearing last month, Acting 
Administrator Patterson indicated: This mass scheduling action 
addressed concern that prosecutors can't convict people for trafficking 
synthetic drugs.
  Finally, SITSA has devastating impacts on scientific research. Many 
synthetic drugs share chemical properties with drugs that have been 
known to have therapeutic uses, such as opioids. Under SITSA, once a 
drug has been added to schedule A, many of the same hurdles that apply 
to conducting research with schedule I drugs will apply to substances 
added to proposed schedule A.
  These burdens will be costly and time consuming. Some of them are 
research dealing with how do you stop this addiction, how do you stop 
people's proclivity for addiction. So this burden is costly and time 
consuming to the research and host institutions and will have a 
chilling effect on promising research towards the development of opioid 
addiction therapies and safer medications to treat pain that are 
desperately needed to help end the ongoing opioid overdose crisis.
  While SITSA provides some relief for researchers who already have a 
schedule I or II, there are many difficulties that we are facing.
  Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida). The gentlewoman 
from Texas has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 
8 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, while SITSA provides some relief for 
researchers who already have a schedule I or II registration to proceed 
with schedule A research, SITSA does not provide accommodations 
necessary to ensure researchers can obtain drug

[[Page H5211]]

samples for research. Commercial manufacturers are not likely to 
produce schedule A drugs.
  Provisions in SITSA intended to ease registration requirements will 
help little when researchers access the drug material they need to 
study the therapeutic potential.
  Here is the main point. The main point is that researchers are 
researching how to cease the addiction that is killing so many. Low-
level sellers are caught up under this bill; and, as indicated by the 
DEA, they, too, are victims. It is well known that the idea of mass 
incarceration does not solve the problem of addiction or cause the 
ending of the tragic loss of life.
  I hurt for those suffering from addiction, and it is important to be 
able to utilize our government knowledge to help that end, and the 
Sentencing Commission has done that.
  The difficulty we have is whether or not this bill, even though from 
Judiciary, really bears down on saving lives. What we want to do is 
raise the treatment, deal with those already structured to handle the 
listing of analogues, and work with communities to ensure that the laws 
we have are enforced and that we don't create a whole new population of 
those who will be victims of mass incarceration and, at the same time, 
do nothing to treat those who desperately need our help, our support, 
and our resources to move them away from addiction, to save their 
lives, and to allow them to live fruitful and productive lives.
  That is what I hope that we will be able to do as we move forward on 
the right approach to dealing with drug addiction and the new surge of 
synthetic drugs.
  Mr. Chair, may I inquire if the gentleman from Pennsylvania has any 
further speakers.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared 
to close.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2851, the Stop 
the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act.
  This bill is well intentioned but fatally flawed. I agree with the 
goal of preventing dangerous synthetic drugs from evading regulation, 
but this bill circumvents existing procedures for placing synthetic 
analogues on the existing schedule of the Controlled Substances Act, 
which reasonably incorporate medical and scientific analysis in favor 
of a law enforcement-focused approach that would worsen the mass 
incarceration crisis and could undermine scientific research.
  There are already statutory mechanisms in place to provide for the 
scheduling and regulation of new drugs that may be dangerous if 
misused. Those mechanisms require an appropriate degree of 
collaboration at the outset among the Justice Department, the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and 
the Food and Drug Administration in scheduling synthetic analogues. 
This is because each of these agencies is equally important to the 
scheduling process.
  By marginalizing the roles of HHS and the FDA in this bill, we would 
establish a mechanism that does not adequately consider scientific and 
medical evidence about the substance in question. Such input is 
critical to a process that may result in the imposition of significant 
criminal penalties related to these analogue drugs.
  Under this bill, not only would the Attorney General hold the sole 
authority by himself to schedule these substances, but he or she would 
also have the power to set sentence levels for newly scheduled analogue 
drugs by establishing equivalencies between each newly scheduled 
analogue and drugs that are already controlled.
  As a result, this legislation would expand penalties for drug 
offenses, concentrate an overwhelming amount of unchecked power within 
the Justice Department, overcriminalize certain conduct, and punish 
individuals without adequate proof of intent.
  While the bill was slightly improved during our committee markup by 
eliminating the new mandatory minimum sentences included in the bill as 
introduced, the bill, nevertheless, would impose potentially lengthy 
maximum sentences for offenses involving these analogues.

  I am mostly concerned that substances designated as analogues under 
the procedures instituted by this bill could trigger the imposition of 
mandatory minimum sentences under other provisions of the Controlled 
Substances Act. Although we have been told by the majority that this is 
not the intent of the bill, this ambiguity is another reason to oppose 
the legislation.
  At the very least, the bill would explicitly impose mandatory minimum 
terms of supervised release, which, as the Judicial Conference of the 
United States observes, undermines the discretion of judges who are in 
the best position to make such determinations based on the facts and 
circumstances of each case.
  We can do more to address concerns about emerging and potentially 
dangerous analogue drugs, but ditching scientific evidence and imposing 
new mandatory minimums is not the answer.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, we hope that we will be able to work 
together to save lives and to fix the issues that we are addressing 
here today.
  Mr. Chair, we all want to solve the escalating problems of synthetic 
drugs, which permeate throughout our districts.
  Therefore, our initial reaction would be to naturally support this 
endeavor.
  However, while well-intended, this bill highlights many problems and 
does not fulfill the overall goal of stemming the tide of drugs on our 
streets.
  We must exercise prudence, as to not further exacerbate the crisis of 
mass incarceration and punish those that need help with substance abuse 
and whom this bill purports to help.
  Because this bill would concentrate an overwhelming amount of 
unchecked power within DOJ, eliminate scientific and medical analysis 
and interagency collaboration from the process of scheduling synthetic 
analogues, and expand penalties for drug offenses, I have serious 
concerns about H.R. 2851.
  The bill is strongly opposed by a broad spectrum of stakeholders, 
including Freedom Works, Drug Policy Alliance, Families Against 
Mandatory Minimum, ACLU, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights, National Council of Churches, Human Rights Watch, The 
Sentencing Project and many others.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled by those who oppose this legislation.
  Among the obligations we owe our constituents, one is to keep deadly 
substances like synthetic opioids out of our country and out of the 
hands of drug traffickers. Drug traffickers have no regard for the 
devastation they inflict on our citizens, as their sole motive is greed 
and profit. Sadly, their greed resulted in over 64,000 drug overdose 
deaths in 2016, destroying countless families.
  If a terrorist organization killed 175 Americans each and every day, 
we would all be certain that our response would be swift, laser-
focused, and decisive.
  There is no question and no greater responsibility Congress has than 
to protect the health and safety of all Americans. Voting against this 
crucial legislation is a clear signal to all drug traffickers that 
Congress is giving them a green light to continue spreading their 
carnage.
  While we may differ as to the priorities to solve the opioid 
epidemic, make no mistake: a responsible and truly effective solution 
must include treatment, prevention, and enforcement. Over the course of 
this week, this Chamber has approved legislation in all three of those 
areas.
  This bill before us now gives law enforcement and the protecters of 
our borders the tools to keep these deadly poisons out of our 
communities. It also assures that these potent chemicals can remain in 
the hands of qualified researchers. Altogether, this bill strikes the 
perfect balance to respond to this ongoing epidemic.
  Mr. Chair, I want to state that I take a backseat to no one when it 
comes to

[[Page H5212]]

treatment. There is no question that drug addiction is addiction. It is 
not only a biological addiction; it is a mental addiction as well.
  As a prosecutor for 18 years, an assistant district attorney, 
district attorney, and a U.S. attorney, I have seen my share of the 
devastation of drugs, put a lot of dealers away, helped a lot of people 
get into treatment; and, unfortunately, I have seen my share of people, 
particularly young people, on slabs in morgues.
  Anyone dealing today with opioids--regardless if they read the 
newspaper, regardless if they watch TV, regardless if they are aware of 
this legislation--knows, because of publicity, because of the deaths 
that are caused by opioids and fentanyl, of the probability of fentanyl 
or something like it being in the drug that they are selling. So I do 
not accept the argument that they don't know that it is there. Everyone 
knows that it is there.
  Mandatory sentencing, I used when I was a prosecutor in my community, 
and it worked. It put the worst of the worst away. We also, as 
prosecutors, had discretion.
  My constituents demand that we aggressively--aggressively--act now on 
this problem. Not only am I hearing that from the great Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania but across the country.
  I want to explain one thing on the chemical makeup. I had enough 
chemistry in college to make me dangerous. Picture, if you will, a 
chain of molecules and picture a single molecule. The scientists in 
China have devised a way to take an atom from that molecule or add to 
it to slightly change the composition, which technically removes it 
from being an illegal drug or an illegal opioid. This is why this 
legislation is needed.
  The Chinese are there every day trying to figure out a way--and they 
are figuring out ways--to alter, how to get around the law. We have to 
be a step ahead of them. This legislation is what is needed. It is 
good, bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Katko and Miss Rice, both of New York, 
for this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 2851.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on the Judiciary, it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 115-74. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 2851

       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 ``Stop the Importation and 
     Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017'' or the 
     ``SITSA Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHEDULE A.

       Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     812) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``five schedules of 
     controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, 
     IV, and V'' and inserting ``six schedules of controlled 
     substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, V, and 
     A'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Schedule A.--
       ``(A) In general.--The drug or substance--
       ``(i) has--
       ``(I) a chemical structure that is substantially similar to 
     the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule 
     I, II, III, IV, or V; and
       ``(II) an actual or predicted stimulant, depressant, or 
     hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is 
     substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, 
     depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous 
     system of a controlled substance in schedule I, II, III, IV, 
     or V; and
       ``(ii) is not--
       ``(I) listed or otherwise included in any other schedule in 
     this section or by regulation of the Attorney General; and
       ``(II) with respect to a particular person, subject to an 
     exemption that is in effect for investigational use, for that 
     person, under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) to the extent conduct with 
     respect to such substance is pursuant to such exemption.
       ``(B) Predicted stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic 
     effect.--For purpose of this paragraph, a predicted 
     stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the 
     central nervous system may be based on--
       ``(i) the chemical structure, structure activity 
     relationships, binding receptor assays, or other relevant 
     scientific information about the substance;
       ``(ii)(I) the current or relative potential for abuse of 
     the substance; and
       ``(II) the clandestine importation, manufacture, or 
     distribution, or diversion from legitimate channels, of the 
     substance; or
       ``(iii) the capacity of the substance to cause a state of 
     dependence, including physical or psychological dependence 
     that is similar to or greater than that of a controlled 
     substance in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V.''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the matter preceding schedule I, by striking ``IV, 
     and V'' and inserting ``IV, V, and A''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:


                              ``schedule a

       ``(a) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in 
     another schedule, any of the following substances, as 
     scheduled in accordance with section 201(k)(5):
       ``(1) 4-fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl.
       ``(2) Valeryl fentanyl.
       ``(3) 4-methoxybutyryl fentanyl.
       ``(4) 4-methylphenethyl acetyl fentanyl.
       ``(5) 3-furanyl fentanyl.
       ``(6) Ortho-fluorofentanyl.
       ``(7) Tetrahydrofuranyl fentanyl.
       ``(8) Ocfentanil.
       ``(9) 4-fluorobutyryl fentanyl.
       ``(10) Methoxyacetyl fentanyl.
       ``(11) Meta-fluorofentanyl.
       ``(12) Isobutyryl fentanyl.
       ``(13) Acryl fentanyl.''.

     SEC. 3. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SCHEDULING OF SCHEDULE A 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     811) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Temporary and Permanent Scheduling of Schedule A 
     Substances.--
       ``(1) The Attorney General may issue a temporary order 
     adding a drug or substance to schedule A if the Attorney 
     General finds that--
       ``(A) the drug or other substance satisfies the criteria 
     for being considered a schedule A substance; and
       ``(B) adding such drug or substance to schedule A will 
     assist in preventing abuse or misuse of the drug or other 
     substance.
       ``(2) A temporary scheduling order issued under paragraph 
     (1) shall not take effect until 30 days after the date of the 
     publication by the Attorney General of a notice in the 
     Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the 
     grounds upon which such order is to be issued. The temporary 
     scheduling order shall expire not later than 5 years after 
     the date it becomes effective, except that the Attorney 
     General may, during the pendency of proceedings under 
     paragraph (5), extend the temporary scheduling order for up 
     to 180 days.
       ``(3) A temporary scheduling order issued under paragraph 
     (1) shall be vacated upon the issuance of a permanent order 
     issued under paragraph (5) with regard to the same substance, 
     or upon the subsequent issuance of any scheduling order under 
     this section.
       ``(4) A temporary scheduling order issued under paragraph 
     (1) shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(5) The Attorney General may, by rule, issue a permanent 
     order adding a drug or other substance to schedule A if such 
     drug or substance satisfies the criteria for being considered 
     a schedule A substance. Such rulemaking may be commenced 
     simultaneously with the issuance of the temporary scheduling 
     order issued under paragraph (1) with regard to the same 
     substance.
       ``(6) Before initiating proceedings under paragraph (1) or 
     (5), the Attorney General shall transmit notice of an order 
     proposed to be issued to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services. In issuing an order under paragraph (1) or (5), the 
     Attorney General shall take into consideration any comments 
     submitted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in 
     response to a notice transmitted pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(7) On the date of the publication of a notice in the 
     Federal Register pursuant to paragraph (2), the Attorney 
     General shall transmit the same notice to Congress. The 
     temporary scheduling order shall take effect according to 
     paragraph (2), except that the temporary scheduling order may 
     be disapproved by Act of Congress within 180 days from the 
     date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register.''.

     SEC. 4. PENALTIES.

       (a) Controlled Substances Act.--The Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 401(b)(1) (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)), by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(F)(i) In the case of any controlled substance in 
     schedule A, such person shall be sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment of not more than 10 years and if death or 
     serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance 
     shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 
     15 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized 
     in accordance with the provisions of title 18, United States 
     Code, or $500,000 if the defendant is an individual or 
     $2,500,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or 
     both.
       ``(ii) If any person commits such a violation after a prior 
     conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such 
     person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not 
     more than 20 years and if death or serious bodily injury 
     results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to 
     a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years, a fine not 
     to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance 
     with the provisions of title 18, United States Code, or

[[Page H5213]]

     $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if 
     the defendant is other than an individual, or both.
       ``(iii) Any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under 
     this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior 
     conviction, impose a term of supervised release of not less 
     than 2 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and 
     shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of 
     supervised release of not less than 4 years in addition to 
     such term of imprisonment.'';
       (2) in section 403(a) (21 U.S.C. 843(a))--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) to export a substance in violation of the controlled 
     substance laws of the country to which the substance is 
     exported.''; and
       (3) in section 404 (21 U.S.C. 844), by inserting after 
     subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) A person shall not be subject to a criminal or civil 
     penalty under this title or under any other Federal law 
     solely for possession of a schedule A controlled 
     substance.''.
       (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.--Section 
     1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 960(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) In the case of a violation under subsection (a) 
     involving a controlled substance in schedule A, the person 
     committing such violation shall be sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment of not more than 20 years and if death or 
     serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance 
     shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 
     life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in 
     accordance with the provisions of title 18, United States 
     Code, or $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or 
     $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or 
     both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior 
     conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such 
     person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not 
     more than 30 years and if death or serious bodily injury 
     results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to 
     not more than life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the 
     greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the 
     provisions of title 18, United States Code, or $2,000,000 if 
     the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the 
     defendant is other than an individual, or both. 
     Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, 
     any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this 
     paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, 
     impose a term of supervised release of not less than 3 years 
     in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there 
     was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised 
     release of not less than 6 years in addition to such term of 
     imprisonment. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall 
     not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person 
     sentenced under the provisions of this paragraph which 
     provide for a mandatory term of imprisonment if death or 
     serious bodily injury results.''.

     SEC. 5. FALSE LABELING OF SCHEDULE A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 305 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 825) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) False Labeling of Schedule A Controlled Substances.--
       ``(1) It shall be unlawful to import, export, manufacture, 
     distribute, dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, 
     distribute, or dispense, a schedule A substance or product 
     containing a schedule A substance, unless the substance or 
     product bears a label clearly identifying a schedule A 
     substance or product containing a schedule A substance by the 
     nomenclature used by the International Union of Pure and 
     Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
       ``(2)(A) A product described in subparagraph (B) is exempt 
     from the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry 
     nomenclature requirement of this subsection if such product 
     is labeled in the manner required under the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
       ``(B) A product is described in this subparagraph if the 
     product--
       ``(i) is the subject of an approved application as 
     described in section 505(b) or (j) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act; or
       ``(ii) is exempt from the provisions of section 505 of such 
     Act relating to new drugs because--
       ``(I) it is intended solely for investigational use as 
     described in section 505(i) of such Act; and
       ``(II) such product is being used exclusively for purposes 
     of a clinical trial that is the subject of an effective 
     investigational new drug application.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 402 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 842) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(16), by inserting ``or subsection 
     (f)'' after ``subsection (e)''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(D), by inserting ``or a schedule A 
     substance'' after ``anabolic steroid''.

     SEC. 6. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLERS OF SCHEDULE A 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       (a) Controlled Substances Act.--Section 303 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(k)(1) The Attorney General shall register an applicant 
     to manufacture schedule A substances if--
       ``(A) the applicant demonstrates that the schedule A 
     substances will be used for research, analytical, or 
     industrial purposes approved by the Attorney General; and
       ``(B) the Attorney General determines that such 
     registration is consistent with the public interest and with 
     the United States obligations under international treaties, 
     conventions, or protocols in effect on the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(2) In determining the public interest under paragraph 
     (1)(B), the Attorney General shall consider--
       ``(A) maintenance of effective controls against diversion 
     of particular controlled substances and any controlled 
     substance in schedule A compounded therefrom into other than 
     legitimate medical, scientific, research, or industrial 
     channels, by limiting the importation and bulk manufacture of 
     such controlled substances to a number of establishments 
     which can produce an adequate and uninterrupted supply of 
     these substances under adequately competitive conditions for 
     legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial 
     purposes;
       ``(B) compliance with applicable State and local law;
       ``(C) promotion of technical advances in the art of 
     manufacturing substances described in subparagraph (A) and 
     the development of new substances;
       ``(D) prior conviction record of applicant under Federal 
     and State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or 
     dispensing of substances described in paragraph (A);
       ``(E) past experience in the manufacture of controlled 
     substances, and the existence in the establishment of 
     effective control against diversion; and
       ``(F) such other factors as may be relevant to and 
     consistent with the public health and safety.
       ``(3) If an applicant is registered to manufacture 
     controlled substances in schedule I or II under subsection 
     (a), the applicant shall not be required to apply for a 
     separate registration under this subsection.
       ``(l)(1) The Attorney General shall register an applicant 
     to distribute schedule A substances--
       ``(A) if the applicant demonstrates that the schedule A 
     substances will be used for research, analytical, or 
     industrial purposes approved by the Attorney General; and
       ``(B) unless the Attorney General determines that the 
     issuance of such registration is inconsistent with the public 
     interest.
       ``(2) In determining the public interest under paragraph 
     (1)(B), the Attorney General shall consider--
       ``(A) maintenance of effective control against diversion of 
     particular controlled substances into other than legitimate 
     medical, scientific, and industrial channels;
       ``(B) compliance with applicable State and local law;
       ``(C) prior conviction record of applicant under Federal or 
     State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or 
     dispensing of substances described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(D) past experience in the distribution of controlled 
     substances; and
       ``(E) such other factors as may be relevant to and 
     consistent with the public health and safety.
       ``(3) If an applicant is registered to distribute a 
     controlled substance in schedule I or II under subsection 
     (b), the applicant shall not be required to apply for a 
     separate registration under this subsection.
       ``(m)(1) Not later than 90 days after the date on which a 
     substance is placed in schedule A, any practitioner who was 
     engaged in research on the substance before the placement of 
     the substance in schedule A and any manufacturer or 
     distributor who was handling the substance before the 
     placement of the substance in schedule A shall register with 
     the Attorney General.
       ``(2)(A) Not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     Attorney General receives an application for registration to 
     conduct research on a schedule A substance, the Attorney 
     General shall--
       ``(i) grant, or initiate proceedings under section 304(c) 
     to deny, the application; or
       ``(ii) request supplemental information from the applicant.
       ``(B) Not later than 30 days after the date on which the 
     Attorney General receives supplemental information requested 
     under subparagraph (A)(ii) in connection with an application 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Attorney General shall 
     grant or deny the application.
       ``(n)(1) The Attorney General shall register a scientific 
     investigator or a qualified research institution to conduct 
     research with controlled substances in schedule A in 
     accordance with this subsection. In evaluating applications 
     for such registration, the Attorney General shall apply the 
     criteria set forth in subsection (f) of this section that 
     apply to practitioners seeking a registration to conduct 
     research with a schedule I controlled substance, except that 
     the applicant shall not be required to submit a research 
     protocol.
       ``(2) If the applicant is not currently registered under 
     subsection (f) to conduct research with a schedule I 
     controlled substance, the Attorney General shall refer the 
     application to the Secretary, who shall determine whether the 
     applicant will be engaged in bona fide research and is 
     qualified to conduct such research.
       ``(3) If the applicant is currently registered under 
     subsection (f) to conduct research with a schedule I 
     controlled substance, the applicant will be considered 
     qualified to conduct research with controlled substances in 
     schedule A and the Attorney General shall modify the 
     applicant's registration to include schedule A controlled 
     substances in accordance with this paragraph. The applicant 
     shall notify the Attorney General of his intent to conduct 
     research with a controlled substance in schedule A. Upon 
     receiving such notification, the Attorney General shall 
     modify the practitioner's existing registration to authorize 
     research with schedule A controlled substances, unless the 
     Attorney General determines that the registration 
     modification

[[Page H5214]]

     would be inconsistent with the public interest based on the 
     criteria of subsection (f).
       ``(4) Registrations issued under this subsection to a 
     qualified research institution will apply to all agents and 
     employees of that institution acting within the scope of 
     their professional practice.
       ``(5) At least thirty days prior to conducting any research 
     with a controlled substance in schedule A, the registrant 
     shall provide the Attorney General with written notification 
     of the following:
       ``(A) The name of and drug code for each substance.
       ``(B) The name of each individual with access to each 
     substance.
       ``(C) The amount of each substance.
       ``(D) Other similar information the Attorney General may 
     require.
       ``(6) The quantity of a schedule A controlled substance 
     possessed by a person registered under this subsection shall 
     be appropriate for the research being conducted, subject to 
     the additional limitations set forth in this paragraph. To 
     reduce the risk of diversion, the Attorney General may 
     establish limitations on the quantity of schedule A 
     controlled substances that may be manufactured or possessed 
     for purposes of research under this subsection and shall 
     publish such limitations on the website of the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration. A person registered under this 
     subsection may, based on legitimate research needs, apply to 
     the Attorney General to manufacture or possess an amount 
     greater than that so specified by the Attorney General. The 
     Attorney General shall specify the manner in which such 
     applications shall be submitted. The Attorney General shall 
     act on an application filed under this subparagraph within 30 
     days of receipt of such application. If the Attorney General 
     fails to act within 30 days, the registrant shall be allowed 
     to manufacture and possess up to the amount requested. The 
     Attorney General shall have the authority to reverse the 
     increase for cause.
       ``(7) The Attorney General shall by regulation specify the 
     manner in which applications for registration under this 
     subsection shall be submitted.
       ``(8) Registrants authorized under this subsection may 
     manufacture and possess schedule A controlled substances up 
     to the approved amounts only for use in their own research 
     setting or institution. Manufacturing for use in any other 
     setting or institution shall require a manufacturer's 
     registration under section 303(a).''.
       (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.--Section 
     1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 958) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j)(1) The Attorney General shall register an applicant 
     to import or export a schedule A substance if--
       ``(A) the applicant demonstrates that the schedule A 
     substances will be used for research, analytical, or 
     industrial purposes approved by the Attorney General; and
       ``(B) the Attorney General determines that such 
     registration is consistent with the public interest and with 
     the United States obligations under international treaties, 
     conventions, or protocols in effect on the date of enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(2) In determining the public interest under paragraph 
     (1)(B), the Attorney General shall consider the factors 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 
     303(k)(2).
       ``(3) If an applicant is registered to import or export a 
     controlled substance in schedule I or II under subsection 
     (a), the applicant shall not be required to apply for a 
     separate registration under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Controlled Substances Act.--The Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 303(c) (21 U.S.C. 823(c))--
       (A) by striking ``subsections (a) and (b)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a), (b), (k), or (l)''; and
       (B) by striking ``schedule I or II'' and inserting 
     ``schedule I, II, or A'';
       (2) in section 306 (21 U.S.C. 826)--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``schedules I and II'' and inserting ``schedules I, II, and 
     A'';
       (B) in subsection (b), in the second sentence, by striking 
     ``schedule I or II'' and inserting ``schedule I, II, or A'';
       (C) in subsection (c), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``schedules I and II'' and inserting ``schedules I, II, and 
     A'';
       (D) in subsection (d), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``schedule I or II'' and inserting ``schedule I, II, or A'';
       (E) in subsection (e), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``schedule I or II'' and inserting ``schedule I, II, or A''; 
     and
       (F) in subsection (f), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``schedules I and II'' and inserting ``schedules I, II, and 
     A'';
       (3) in section 308(a) (21 U.S.C. 828(a)), by striking 
     ``schedule I or II'' and inserting ``schedule I, II, or A'';
       (4) in section 402(b) (21 U.S.C. 842(b)), in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``schedule I or II'' and 
     inserting ``schedule I, II, or A'';
       (5) in section 403(a)(1) (21 U.S.C. 843(a)(1)), by striking 
     ``schedule I or II'' and inserting ``schedule I, II, or A''; 
     and
       (6) in section 511(f) (21 U.S.C. 881(f)), by striking 
     ``schedule I or II'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``schedule I, II, or A''.
       (b) Controlled Substances Import Export Act.--The 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 1002(a) (21 U.S.C. 952(a))--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``schedule I or II'' and inserting ``schedule I, II, or A''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``schedule I or II'' and 
     inserting ``schedule I, II, or A'';
       (2) in section 1003 (21 U.S.C. 953)--
       (A) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``schedule I or II'' and inserting 
     ``schedule I, II, or A''; and
       (B) in subsection (d), by striking ``schedule I or II'' and 
     inserting ``schedule I, II, or A'';
       (3) in section 1004(1) (21 U.S.C. 954(1)), by striking 
     ``schedule I'' and inserting ``schedule I or A'';
       (4) in section 1005 (21 U.S.C. 955), by striking ``schedule 
     I or II'' and inserting ``schedule I, II, or A''; and
       (5) in section 1009(a) (21 U.S.C. 959(a)), by striking 
     ``schedule I or II'' and inserting ``schedule I, II, or A''.

     SEC. 8. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES.

       Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or V'' and inserting 
     ``V, or A'';
       (2) in paragraph (14)--
       (A) by striking ``schedule I(c) and'' and inserting 
     ``schedule I(c), schedule A, and''; and
       (B) by striking ``schedule I(c),'' and inserting ``schedule 
     I(c) and schedule A,''; and
       (3) in paragraph (32)(A), by striking ``(32)(A)'' and all 
     that follows through clause (iii) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(32)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term 
     `controlled substance analogue' means a substance whose 
     chemical structure is substantially similar to the chemical 
     structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II--
       ``(i) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic 
     effect on the central nervous system that is substantially 
     similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or 
     hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a 
     controlled substance in schedule I or II; or
       ``(ii) with respect to a particular person, which such 
     person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, 
     or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that 
     is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, 
     depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous 
     system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.''.

     SEC. 9. AMENDMENT TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       Section 2D1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is 
     amended, in Application Note 6 (Analogues and Controlled 
     Substances Not Referenced in this Guideline) of the 
     Commentary, by striking ``In determining the most closely 
     related controlled substance, the court shall, to the extent 
     practicable, consider the following:'' and inserting the 
     following: ``In determining the most closely related 
     controlled substance and the applicable guideline or drug 
     equivalence, the court shall--
       ``(A) if Attorney General has provided guidance on the 
     appropriate sentencing equivalency or ratio to a controlled 
     substance that is referenced in the guidelines through 
     publication in the Federal Register (whether such guidance is 
     included in or separate from any notice of proposed temporary 
     or permanent scheduling of such substance under section 201 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811)), apply any 
     such sentencing equivalency or ratio; and
       ``(B) in the absence of guidance with respect to a 
     substance or group of substances as described in paragraph 
     (A), use equivalencies for the following structural classes 
     of substances as if they were included on the Drug 
     Equivalency Tables:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 ``Drug Class                          Marihuana Equivalency of 1 gm of subject substance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synthetic Opioids............................  1 gm = 10 kg
Synthetic Cannabinoids.......................  1 gm = 167 gm
Synthetic Cathinones.........................  1 gm = 380 gm
Tryptamine...................................  1 gm = 80 gm
Phenethylamines..............................  1 gm = 2.5 kg
Piperazines..................................  1 gm = 2 kg
Benzofurans..................................  1 gm = 500 gm
Arylcyclohexylamines (PCP-like substances)...  1 gm = 1 kg
Methylphenidate analogs......................  1 gm = 100 gm
Benzodiazepines..............................  1 `unit' (as defined in Note (F) to the Drug Quantity Table in
                                                2D1.1) = 0.0625 gm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page H5215]]

     In the case of a substance for which paragraphs (A) and (B) 
     above are not applicable, the court shall determine an 
     equivalency or ratio by considering the following factors, to 
     the extent practicable:''.

     SEC. 10. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     may be construed to limit--
       (1) the prosecution of offenses involving controlled 
     substance analogues under the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 801 et seq.); or
       (2) the authority of the Attorney General to temporarily or 
     permanently schedule, reschedule, or decontrol controlled 
     substances under provisions of section 201 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) that are in effect on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 11. STUDY BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     complete a study and submit a report to the Committees on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate 
     regarding the costs associated with the amendments made by 
     section 4, including--
       (1) the annual amounts expended by Federal agencies in 
     carrying out the amendments;
       (2) The costs associated with arrests, trials, convictions, 
     imprisonment, or imposition of other sanctions in accordance 
     with the amendments; and
       (3) the impact (including the fiscal impact) of the 
     amendments on existing correctional facilities and the 
     likelihood that those amendments will create a need for 
     additional capacity for housing prisoners.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 115-751. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.

                              {time}  1015


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Griffith

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 115-751.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, strike lines 3 through 6, and insert the following:
       ``(i) the chemical structure and--

       ``(I) the structure activity relationships; or
       ``(II) binding receptor assays and other relevant 
     scientific information about the substance;''.

       Page 3, line 17, strike ``subsection (c)--'' and insert 
     ``subsection (c), in the matter preceding schedule I, by 
     striking `IV, and V' and inserting `IV, V, and A' ''.
       Beginning on page 3, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through page 4, line 12.
       Page 5, beginning on line 2, strike ``or misuse''.
       Page 5, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 6, 
     line 5, and insert the following:
       ``(5)(A) Beginning no earlier than 3 years after issuing an 
     order temporarily scheduling a drug or other substance under 
     this subsection, the Attorney General may, by rule, issue a 
     permanent order adding a drug or other substance to schedule 
     A if such drug or substance satisfies the criteria for being 
     considered a controlled substance in schedule A under this 
     subsection, except as provided in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) If the Secretary has determined, based on relevant 
     scientific studies and necessary data requested by the 
     Secretary and gathered by the Attorney General, that a drug 
     or other substance that has been temporarily placed in 
     schedule A does not have sufficient potential for abuse to 
     warrant control in any schedule, and so advises the Attorney 
     General in writing, the Attorney General may not issue a 
     permanent scheduling order under subparagraph (A) and shall, 
     within 30 days of receiving the Secretary's advice issue an 
     order immediately terminating the temporary scheduling 
     order.''.
       Page 6, line 7, strike ``or (5)''.
       Page 6, line 8, strike ``an order'' and insert ``a 
     temporary order''.
       Page 6, line 10, strike ``or (5)''.
       Page 15, line 9, strike ``Not later'' and insert ``(A) Not 
     later''.
       Page 15, after line 15 insert the following:
       ``(B)(i) If an applicant described in subparagraph (A) is 
     registered pursuant to subsection (f) to conduct research 
     with a controlled substance in schedule I or II on the date 
     on which another substance is placed in schedule A, the 
     applicant may, subject to clause (iii), conduct research with 
     that other controlled substance in schedule A while the 
     application for registration pursuant to subparagraph (A) is 
     pending.
       ``(ii) If an applicant described in subparagraph (A) is 
     registered pursuant to subsection (f) as described in clause 
     (i) to conduct research with a controlled substance in 
     schedule III, IV, or V on the date on which another substance 
     is placed in schedule A, the applicant may, subject to clause 
     (iii), conduct research with that other controlled substance 
     in schedule A while the application for registration pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) is pending, provided the substance for 
     which the applicant is registered to conduct research is in 
     the same schedule as, or a less-restricted schedule than, the 
     controlled substance whose similarity in chemical structure 
     and actual or predicted effect to the controlled substance in 
     schedule A formed the basis for placement of the substance in 
     schedule A, as set forth in the order published in the 
     Federal Register placing the substance in schedule A.
       ``(iii) The permission to conduct research pursuant to 
     clause (i) or clause (ii) is conditional on the applicant's 
     complying with the registration and other requirements for 
     controlled substances in schedule A.
       ``(iv) This subparagraph does not apply to applicants 
     registered pursuant to subsection (f) whose authorization to 
     conduct research with any controlled substances is limited to 
     doing so as a coincident activity pursuant to applicable 
     regulations of the Attorney General.''.
       Page 16, line 19, insert after the period the following: 
     ``The 60-day period under subsection (m)(2)(A) shall be 
     tolled during the period beginning on the date on which the 
     Attorney General refers an application to the Secretary under 
     this paragraph, and ending on the date on which the Secretary 
     submits a determination related to such referal to the 
     Attorney General.''.
       Page 16, beginning on line 20, strike ``If the applicant'' 
     through ``this paragraph.'' on page 17, line 1, and insert 
     the following: ``An applicant who meets the criteria under 
     subsection (m)(1)(B) with respect to a particular schedule A 
     controlled substance shall be considered qualified to conduct 
     research with that substance. The Attorney General shall 
     modify such applicant's registration to include such schedule 
     A controlled substance in accordance with this paragraph.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 934, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that 
incorporates an interagency agreement transmitted to Congress by the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, the United States Department of 
Health and Human Services, and the United States Department of Justice.
  It clarifies several issues: when the Attorney General can 
temporarily and permanently schedule a drug or substance to the newly 
created schedule A, and it prevents the Attorney General from 
permanently scheduling a drug or substance if the Secretary of HHS 
determines that there is not sufficient potential for abuse.
  It also clarifies when research can be conducted with a schedule A 
substance while a registration application is pending. If an applicant 
is registered to conduct research with a schedule I or II substance, 
they can continue to do research they may be pursuing with a schedule A 
substance while their application is being processed.
  Likewise, if an applicant is registered to conduct research with a 
schedule III, IV, or V substance, they can continue to conduct research 
with a schedule A substance while their application is pending, so long 
as the component that gave rise to the schedule A determination is in 
the same or a less restricted schedule.
  This amendment is important to research. This amendment will help 
ensure that research is not impeded or stunted because of a change in 
the schedule of a substance. While we all want to get dangerous 
substances off the street, history has taught us that when a substance 
is scheduled, many research options are taken off the table or made 
prohibitively complicated.
  Sometimes derivatives of dangerous substances can provide cures and 
treatments for deadly diseases or chronic conditions, and we don't want 
to hamstring our researchers who are equipped to discover potential 
positive uses.
  Though it may still need to be a scheduled substance, an analogue, in 
theory, could be a less addictive term of an opioid pain relief, and if 
researchers are looking at it as a possible less addictive form, I 
believe we would all want to keep that research going and not impede 
that research as it moves forward.
  So I believe this is an important amendment, and I hope everybody 
will join me in supporting it. I thank Mr. Raskin and Ms. Jackson Lee 
for their assistance and support of this amendment as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5216]]

  

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Griffith for his succinct and 
excellent summary of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Griffith-Raskin-Jackson Lee 
amendment. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his excellent work on 
this with his professional staff. It is an important consensus 
amendment, and I also want to specifically mention the hard work of DEA 
detailee Tony Angeli. I also want to salute our partners at the 
National Institute on Drug Addiction and the National Institutes of 
Health, which is headquartered in my district.
  This amendment will do a lot to aid NIH scientists and allied 
researchers across the country who are presently working on the science 
of addiction and advancing medical efforts to treat and to prevent it.
  This amendment constitutes a significant improvement in the text of 
the bill. With the amendment, researchers will not have to immediately 
cease their work while they wait to clear licensing hurdles if a 
substance is placed on schedule A.
  The amendment creates a two-tiered system for researchers: one 
section for those who have a schedule I or schedule II license and one 
for those who have a schedule III through V license.
  Researchers with schedule I or II licenses can continue working with 
any substance placed on schedule A without cessation of that work while 
an application for schedule A licensure is pending. This includes work 
with synthetic cannabinoids and opioids, which is obviously essential 
to our making progress in the field.
  Researchers with schedules III, IV, and V licenses can continue 
working with substances that are temporarily placed on schedule A while 
an application for licensure is pending. However, the researchers will 
only be able to work with substances placed on schedule A whose 
similarity and chemical structure and actual or predicted effect is 
derivative of a substance presently on schedule III through V.
  Schedule III licensees can work with analogues of schedules III 
through V. Schedule IV licensees can work with analogues of schedules 
IV and V and so on.
  Lastly, as a safeguard, the research exemptions provided for in this 
amendment do not apply to licensed practitioners such as physicians, 
pharmacists, and hospitals whose involvement with research is only as a 
coincidental activity to their primary work.
  This amendment refines and strengthens the research component of the 
underlying legislation and is not opposed by stakeholders in the 
research field. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just very quickly thank the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and Mr. Griffith. I am delighted 
to join them, and I will simply say it is equally essential that 
science has a role in this very complex process to ensure the 
appropriate penalties are being applied based on compositions of the 
synthetic drugs involved.
  I congratulate both of them for the excellent work that has been 
done, and I am delighted to be a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Griffith/Raskin/Jackson Lee 
Amendment. The amendment will reflect the current process under 
existing law.
  Under current law, the Attorney General must work collaboratively 
with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its experts 
in the scientific community, in order to determine best practices for 
the permanent scheduling process.
  Given the variation in toxicity levels in many of these synthetic 
drugs, it is imperative that the research community be involved in the 
process to ensure accuracy of defining the chemical structure of these 
drugs or substances.
  It is equally essential that science have a role in this very complex 
process to ensure the appropriate penalties are being applied based on 
compositions of the synthetic drugs involved.
  At markup I made it clear that we should not proceed with this bill 
absent involvement from the scientific community.
  Today, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this amendment with my 
colleagues Griffith and Raskin.
  In addition to restoring collaboration with the research community, 
this amendment also provides that permanent scheduling cannot occur 
earlier than 3 years after the Attorney General issues a temporary 
scheduling order.
  This allows the scientific community time to address any pending 
issues that pertain to the drugs temporarily scheduled and prior to 
placing them on schedule A permanently.
  If the research finds that these temporarily scheduled drugs lack 
sufficient potential for abuse that would qualify such drugs under 
schedule A, then this amendment provides that the Attorney General has 
30 days in which he must terminate the temporary scheduling order for 
that drug or substance.
  This is a sensible amendment that will provide oversight of the 
scheduling process. And for these reasons, I support this amendment and 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Jackson Lee, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he might consume 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time does the gentleman 
from Virginia have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes three impactful 
changes to SITSA. First, it changes and sets strict definitions of what 
constitutes a controlled substance analogue suitable for inclusion in 
schedule A. A substance proposed for inclusion in schedule A must have 
a close chemical and scientific relationship to a substance already 
controlled in one of the other five schedules.
  Second, it checks the power of the Attorney General in the permanent 
scheduling process. Under this bill, the Attorney General will be able 
to act swiftly to bring certain synthetic drugs under temporary import 
and distribution controls. However, this part of the amendment ensures 
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or HHS, possesses a 
veto power in the permanent scheduling process.
  If, after more extensive analysis, HHS concludes the drug lacks 
psychological properties, then the Attorney General must remove the 
drug from the schedule A list and decontrol it.
  Third, it ensures that researchers with current Federal licenses in 
any of the five existing schedules of controlled substances can 
continue their research. Government and private sector chemists and 
scientists are researching and developing new drugs and substances 
every day. These researchers already possess a Federal license, called 
a registration, to conduct their research.
  This part of the amendment safeguards the ability of qualified 
researchers to continue their research while unsafe and untested 
synthetic drugs are controlled in schedule A. This amendment makes a 
great piece of legislation even better. I applaud Mr. Griffith's and 
Mr. Raskin's efforts in doing do. I support this amendment and 
encourage all Members to do the same.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 115-751.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 9 (and redesignate provisions accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 934, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It restores 
the commission's jurisdiction over the

[[Page H5217]]

Federal sentencing guidelines as originally granted by Congress in 
1984.
  The United States Sentencing Commission has been working to address 
the seriousness and complexity of synthetic drugs for several years. If 
I might refer my colleagues to the April 12 meeting of the Sentencing 
Commission where the chairman began his remarks and indicated that the 
commission was going to move forward on a multipart amendment regarding 
synthetic drugs, which will include but be not limited to K2 or spice, 
fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.
  This amendment draws upon public comment, expert testimony, and data 
analysis gathered during a multiyear study of synthetic drugs. That is 
what the Sentencing Commission does, and my amendment asks to remove 
the section in this underlying legislation that directs this 
responsibility to the Attorney General.
  The process that was created by the Sentencing Commission created a 
new guideline definition of the term fentanyl analogue. The change 
effectively raises the guideline penalties for fentanyl analogues to a 
level more consistent with the current statutory penalty structure to 
address the severe dangerousness of fentanyl.
  The amendment also creates a four-level sentencing enhancement for 
knowingly misrepresenting or knowingly marketing fentanyl or fentanyl 
analogues as another substance which equates to an approximate 50 
percent increase in sentence length.
  What I am saying to my colleagues is that we have a structure. The 
report was issued on April 2018. The Sentencing Commission has done its 
job, and I think that we would do well to embrace the work that has 
been done here. The commission's recent amendment creates a class-based 
approach for synthetic drugs, establishes new drug ratios, and a new 
guideline for fentanyl analogues, so it is unnecessary to have section 
9 in the present legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, section 9 of the bill would provide guidance 
in sentencing during the current problematic time for courts, 
prosecutors, and defendants. Courts are having difficulties similar to 
those of law enforcement because of the constantly evolving nature of 
synthetic drugs and their chemical makeup.
  Recently, the U.S. Sentencing Commission unanimously approved a slate 
of new amendments to the sentencing guidelines. Among them are 
guidelines for the three most potent classes of synthetic analogues 
being imported from China and distributed in the United States. I view 
this as a tremendous step forward in providing guidance to courts, 
which are performing very labor-intensive examinations during 
sentencing proceedings
  This amendment would strike section 9 of the bill. Chairman Goodlatte 
has spoken to and received correspondence from Judge William Pryor, 
acting chairman of the Sentencing Commission. Both he and his staff 
have assured Chairman Goodlatte that synthetic drug guidelines will 
remain a priority for the commission.
  I am agreeable to striking section 9 of this bill, and I encourage 
the Sentencing Commission to continue its important work and to provide 
guidance to the courts in these often complex cases.
  I support the Jackson Lee amendment and encourage all Members to do 
likewise.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, and, as well, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and 
the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. We worked on this, and I 
am glad that our staff was able to communicate.
  I think it is important to emphasize that, going forward, the 
Sentencing Commission will continue its multiyear study to ensure that 
the Federal sentencing guidelines are updated to reflect any new 
challenges resulting from these serious drugs and that they be 
addressed in the Federal sentencing guidelines.
  Consistent with its mission established by Congress in the Sentencing 
Reform Act of 1984, the commission will also work to update guidelines 
on an annual basis to reflect any new needs that we may have with 
respect to these new and growing synthetic analogues and other drugs 
that are continually coming, tragically, into the marketplace.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Chairman, I have here a public data presentation for synthetic 
drugs, dated January 2018; also the April 2018 report; and, as well, 
the opening statement of the chairman of the Sentencing Commission 
dated April 12, 2018.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee amendment, which 
restores the Commission's jurisdiction over the federal sentencing 
guidelines, as originally granted by Congress.
  The United States Sentencing Commission has been working to address 
the seriousness and complexity of synthetic drugs for several years.
  Since this legislation was introduced, the Sentencing Commission 
approved a multi-part synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018.
  The Commission conducted extensive research of past cases and current 
data, held multiple hearings and engaged in extensive collaboration 
with DOJ, DEA and experts to determine the best manner to address these 
drugs within the context of the federal sentencing guidelines.
  The Commission's recent amendment creates a class-based approach for 
synthetic drugs, establishes new drug ratios and a new guideline 
penalty for fentanyl analogues.
  Consistent with the established process, the recent amendment 
reflected a deliberative, data-driven process which included extensive 
public comment, expert testimony and data analysis gathered during a 
multi-year study of synthetic drugs.
  Section 9 of H.R. 2851 should be struck from the pending legislation 
because: It is unnecessary, overly broad and duplicative of the 
Commission's existing action. Section 9 will result in greater 
litigation and delays for the federal courts. This section would also 
undermine the certainty in federal sentencing for synthetic drugs that 
would otherwise be avoided based on the Commission's new amendment. 
Congress delegated the authority to amend the federal sentencing 
guidelines two decades ago in order to ensure fair, data-driven 
outcomes in federal sentencing. This provision is an unprecedented and 
unnecessary departure from the process that has worked well since 
established by Congress in 1984.
  Going forward, the Commission will continue its multi-year study to 
ensure that the federal sentencing guidelines are updated to reflect 
any new challenges resulting from these serious drugs are addressed in 
the federal sentencing guidelines.
  Consistent with its mission established by Congress in the Sentencing 
Reform Act of 1984, the Commission will also work to update the 
guidelines on an annual basis to reflect any new laws enacted by 
Congress.
  For all these reasons, I support this amendment and ask my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


    Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 115-751.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the committee print, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 12. REPORT ON CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES SOLD BY 
                   MEANS OF THE INTERNET.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter, the Administrator of the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration shall make publicly available 
     on the website of the Drug Enforcement Administration a 
     report on, for the previous year, the lawful and unlawful 
     sale of controlled substance analogues (as defined in section 
     102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) by 
     means of the Internet, including the following information:
       (1) The types of controlled substance analogues that were 
     sold, and the number of sales for each such substance.

[[Page H5218]]

       (2) The name of each person, entity, or Internet site, 
     whether in the United States or abroad, that knowingly or 
     intentionally delivers, distributes, or dispenses, or offers 
     or attempts to deliver, distribute, or dispense, a controlled 
     substance analogue by means of the Internet, whether lawfully 
     or unlawfully.
       (3) An estimate of the total revenue for all of the vendors 
     described in paragraph (2) for all of the sales described in 
     paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 934, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer this 
amendment in honor of a young man called Daniel Keegan.
  Daniel served in the Army's 82nd Airborne as an intelligence analyst 
for 8 years. He was deployed to Afghanistan twice. In 2009, Daniel was 
named Soldier of the Year of the 7th Special Forces Group at Fort 
Bragg. He was a remarkable young man.
  Like many of our heroes, he came home with PTSD. It took too long to 
get him hooked up at the VA. There were a bunch of dropped balls. So he 
began to self-medicate. He did that with drugs that he found online. He 
could order the drugs right from his own couch.
  Daniel lost his life in January of 2016. His mother, Stephanie, came 
to my office not long after. Stephanie Keegan has now dedicated her 
life to improving services at the VA and fighting the heroin and opioid 
epidemic, particularly as it relates to our men and women in uniform.
  Just a couple of months ago, Stephanie joined me in Hudson Valley to 
announce the Stop Online Opioid Sales Act, and that is what is in this 
amendment.
  We started looking at this issue, and we found out that we are losing 
the information battle in the fight to stop online drug sales. In fact, 
we don't even know exactly how much is coming into our country, or 
where it is coming from.
  Earlier this year, the Senate released a report suggesting that $800 
million of opioids were coming just from China alone and being sold 
online. I am told that 50,000 doses of fentanyl can be fit inside a 
business size envelope.
  We need to get on top of this problem. These statistics are alarming. 
The trend is alarming. We don't know what is happening. We need the DEA 
to get in the game on this, and we need to know how much of an issue 
this really is.
  It is really hard to keep up with the constantly evolving tech 
landscape when it comes to drug sales. But the first step in stopping 
the problem is understanding the scope.
  What we know is that drug addicts, right now, can conduct their 
online habit without leaving their home. The drugs come in the UPS 
truck, or the FedEx truck, or the U.S. mail, and they can sell drugs to 
people who come to that location.
  I have spoken to recovering addicts who never left their house, who 
conducted, for years, an online drug business out of their own house 
and fed their own habit with it.
  We need to get on top of this problem. That is what is in this 
amendment and what it would allow us to do. We would simply require the 
DEA to compile a comprehensive report on the sale of drugs online 
within a year, and then be required to continue to issue annual reports 
containing this information.
  Under the amendment, the reports would include the types and amounts 
of controlled substances and analogues sold online, the name of each 
entity and person selling them, and an estimate of the revenue being 
generated through these illegal channels.
  This opioid crisis has impacted folks from every State, every party, 
and every walk of life, and it certainly doesn't care what party you 
belong to.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, 
to join me in support of this amendment so that we can fight back 
against this scourge and stop burying young American heroes like Daniel 
Keegan.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Drug 
Enforcement Administration to compile a report on both the lawful and 
illicit sale of synthetic drug analogues over the internet. 
Unfortunately, the internet and the dark web have become sizable 
marketplaces for many illegal drugs, especially synthetic analogues.
  As Chairman Goodlatte stated earlier, Garrett Holman lost his life 
from synthetic drugs he ordered over the internet and received in the 
mail from China. The report requested by this amendment will help 
Congress and law enforcement have a better picture of the magnitude of 
the synthetic drug problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Maloney amendment, I urge my colleagues 
to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
for capturing the scourge of the epidemic of online drug sales that 
reach into the living rooms of so many innocent persons, and my 
sympathy for the loss of one of our heroes who wore the uniform.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment as contributing to the 
important information knowledge chain that is so necessary to families 
to help stop this scourge of going after innocent persons in their 
homes.
  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentlewoman for 
those comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thornberry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part A of House Report 115-751.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the committee print, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 12. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES.

       Section 203 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     813) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``A controlled'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--A controlled''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Determination.--In determining whether a controlled 
     substance analogue was intended for human consumption under 
     subsection (a), the following factors may be considered, 
     along with any other relevant factors:
       ``(1) The marketing, advertising, and labeling of the 
     substance.
       ``(2) The known efficacy or usefulness of the substance for 
     the marketed, advertised or labeled purpose.
       ``(3) The difference between the price at which the 
     substance is sold and the price at which the substance it is 
     purported to be or advertised as is normally sold.
       ``(4) The diversion of the substance from legitimate 
     channels and the clandestine importation, manufacture, or 
     distribution of the substance.
       ``(5) Whether the defendant knew or should have known the 
     substance was intended to be consumed by injection, 
     inhalation, ingestion, or any other immediate means.
       ``(6) Any controlled substance analogue that is 
     manufactured, formulated, sold, distributed, or marketed with 
     the intent to avoid the provisions of existing drug laws.
       ``(c) Limitation.--For purposes of this section, evidence 
     that a substance was not marketed, advertised, or labeled for 
     human consumption, by itself, shall not be sufficient to 
     establish that the substance was not intended for human 
     consumption.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 934, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me commend the manager of the bill, Mr. 
Marino, and the author of the legislation, Mr. Katko. Synthetic drugs 
are a plague on this country, and part of the reason is

[[Page H5219]]

that our laws have not kept up with the evolving threat. Mr. Katko's 
legislation helps the law catch up somewhat, and that is important for 
the safety of our people.
  My amendment deals with a related area where the law has not caught 
up. Many of the purveyors of these poisons will seek to evade 
responsibility by printing on the label ``not intended for human 
consumption.'' The reason they do that is 21 U.S.C. 813 says: ``A 
controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human 
consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a 
controlled substance in schedule I.''
  Now, the loophole there is, ``to the extent intended for human 
consumption.'' So what these people do is they just print the label, 
``not intended for human consumption,'' and that makes it more 
difficult to arrest and prosecute and to keep these drugs off of the 
street.
  My amendment simply replaces part of that sentence with six factors, 
which should be considered, to see whether it is really intended for 
human consumption, whether it is really a situation where people know 
full well that kids are buying this stuff, that they are smoking it, or 
that they are otherwise ingesting it and dying as a result.
  As I said, this is consistent with the idea that we need to have our 
laws catch up with what the purveyors of these poisons are doing, and 
this is another attempt to add to the very valuable work that Mr. Katko 
has begun.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 
4 proposed by the gentleman from Texas.
  The amendment adds a list of factors that may be considered when 
proving whether a particular substance was intended for human 
consumption.
  I oppose this amendment for two reasons.
  First, because criminal liability could result from one of the 
factors being proven merely under a negligent standard. Only whether 
the defendant should have known the substance was intended to be 
consumed by injection, inhaling, ingestion, or any other immediate 
means, it is not an appropriate standard to which we should attach 
criminal liability, particularly severe consequences such as mandatory 
minimums.
  Now, I have indicated that we have an action by the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission that took place on April 2018. We have a detailed analysis 
of the range of analogues, synthetic analogues, including K2, spice, 
and other fentanyl analogues, but not limited to. Therefore, we have a 
marker. We have a standard to save lives. And what we should be 
emphasizing, again, is treatment.
  Second, this amendment actually makes it easier to trigger mandatory 
minimums. For instance, a defendant could be subjected to a 20-year 
mandatory minimum in instances where serious bodily harm injury 
results. I am opposed to amendment 4 because defendants could be 
subjected to such mandatory minimums relying, in part, on proof that 
they should have known a substance was intended for human consumption.
  Now, let me be very clear. Some of these individuals who are 
defendants are, themselves, addicted, and, therefore, they are acting 
as an addicted person. It is not an excuse, but it emphasizes that we 
should steer ourselves more toward a maximizing of treatment and 
education to stop the scourge of the utilization of these drugs.
  That is clearly, as well, taken care of under the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission, meaning that these concerns of the gentleman, which I 
respect his concerns, are taken care of by a long list of responses and 
sentencing for the different drugs that are noted as synthetic 
analogues. Again, we do have a basis going forward. The gentleman's 
concerns can be taken care of in already established law and policies 
by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
  I have long opposed any laws that will trigger mandatory minimums 
because we have seen the results of that. We have also heard over time 
from the U.S. judicial commission, if you will, because this takes away 
a judge's discretion and interferes with their sound judgment in 
sentencing the individual defendants that appear before them. 
Therefore, I oppose amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee for allowing my amendment 
to be placed in order. I also believe that, at this point, we would do 
well to follow regular order to save lives and to continue to allow the 
Sentencing Commission to move forward as they made their commitment in 
the chairman's letter. The chairman of the commission said that they 
will not stop working on synthetic analogues and that they will 
continue to structure the right kind of criminal justice that works as 
it relates to sentencing to ensure that the concerns of my colleague 
are taken.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would improve the Federal Analogue Act, 
a provision in the Controlled Substance Act, which, during a 
prosecution, allows a chemical that is determined to be substantially 
similar to a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II to be 
treated as if it were also listed in those schedules, but only if the 
substance is intended for human consumption.
  Drug traffickers, particularly those who traffic synthetic drugs, 
repeatedly attempt to evade Federal law by labeling their synthetic 
drugs with a phrase, ``not made for human consumption.'' They do this 
routinely in a preemptive attempt to rebut an assertion during their 
prosecution that they never meant the drug be intended for human 
consumption.

                              {time}  1045

  The Thornberry amendment sets forth six factors which a court may 
consider when determining whether a controlled substance analogue was 
intended for human consumption. It also states a label on the product 
is not sufficient proof, standing alone, that the defendant did not 
intend it for human consumption. This amendment is quite similar to S. 
207, the SALTS Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee reported 
favorably 3 weeks ago.
  Mr. Chair, I think this is a useful amendment to the legislation 
before us, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, again, let me indicate that I appreciate 
the gentleman's concern. I am concerned that simply a negligence 
standard would be the standard for judging a defendant under this 
particular amendment: should have known the substance was intended to 
be consumed by injection, inhaling, injection, or any other immediate 
means. That is not an appropriate standard that would attach criminal 
liability and particularly severe consequences such as a mandatory 
minimum.
  Again, I am holding up one of the reports from the Sentencing 
Commission, and I would make the argument that it is thorough in its 
review, and our colleagues can be comforted by the fact that, again, 
the Sentencing Commission will continue its work and it will continue 
to address some of the concerns of my friend from Texas. I would hope 
that we would allow that process to proceed.
  I think it would be very concerning to all of us if we had a 
negligence standard. I believe the courts will address the fact based 
upon the defendant and the facts that we have in place.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and oppose the 
underlying bill
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Amendment 13, proposed by Mr. 
Thornberry. The amendment adds a list of factors that may be considered 
when proving whether a particular substance was intended for human 
consumption. I oppose this amendment for two reasons:
  First, because criminal liability could result from one of the 
factors being proven merely under a negligence standard--only whether 
the defendant should have known the substance was intended to be 
consumed by injection, inhalation, ingestion or any other immediate 
means. It is not an appropriate standard

[[Page H5220]]

to which we should attach criminal liability, particularly, severe 
consequences, such as mandatory minimums.
  Second, this amendment actually makes it easier to trigger mandatory 
minimums. For instance, a defendant could be subjected to a 20-year 
mandatory minimum in instances where serious bodily injury results. I 
am opposed to Amendment 13 because defendants could be subjected to 
such mandatory minimums relying in part on proof that they should have 
known a substance was intended for ``human consumption''.
  I have long been opposed to any laws that trigger mandatory minimums 
because they take away judges' discretion and interfere with their 
sound judgment in sentencing the individual defendants that appear 
before them. Therefore, I oppose Amendment 13.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the amendment that affects 
sentencing in any way. The amendment simply seeks to remove a get-out-
of-jail-free card that these purveyors of poison have been using to try 
to evade responsibility.
  There is nothing that says, if you meet any one of these factors, you 
are automatically going to jail.
  What it says is you have to look deeper into these six factors to 
determine whether or not it really was intended for human consumption, 
that just putting a label that says ``I didn't intend anybody to smoke 
this stuff'' is not enough to evade liability.
  And I would note, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, 
and the Fraternal Order of Police have all supported this provision. 
And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania noted, a similar provision 
sponsored by Senator Klobuchar was passed out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee recently.
  Mr. Chairman, this arises because a few years ago, a constituent of 
mine named Jesse in Amarillo, Texas, told his mother that it was no big 
deal; he was smoking synthetic marijuana.
  Well, it turns out it was this potpourri stuff that had been sprayed 
with toxic chemicals. Unfortunately, Jesse died. And as the police went 
to the place where he would buy this stuff, it had prominently on the 
label, ``Not intended for human consumption.'' It greatly hindered 
their ability to get that stuff off the street.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment fixes that. I urge Members to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 158, not voting 46, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 267]

                               AYES--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--158

     Adams
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bera
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (MN)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Soto
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--46

     Bass
     Beatty
     Black
     Blunt Rochester
     Carter (TX)
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Ellison
     Estes (KS)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Huffman
     Johnson (LA)
     Jones
     Kelly (MS)
     Labrador
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     Mullin
     Neal
     O'Rourke
     Pearce
     Quigley
     Reichert
     Roby
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Sanchez
     Scalise
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Walz
     Webster (FL)
     Wittman
     Yoh

                              {time}  1113

  Mr. CORREA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 267.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ferguson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 2851) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify how 
controlled substance analogues are to be regulated, and for other 
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 934, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.

[[Page H5221]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this is a 
5-minute vote on the passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the question of agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the 
Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 142, not voting 46, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               AYES--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cicilline
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallagher
     Garamendi
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Torres
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--142

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (MD)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallego
     Garrett
     Gomez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (NY)
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Krishnamoorthi
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Massie
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--46

     Bass
     Beatty
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blunt Rochester
     Carter (TX)
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Ellison
     Estes (KS)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Huffman
     Johnson (LA)
     Jones
     Kelly (MS)
     Labrador
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     Mullin
     Neal
     O'Rourke
     Pearce
     Quigley
     Reichert
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Sanchez
     Scalise
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Walz
     Webster (FL)
     Wittman
     Yoho

                              {time}  1124

  Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to a funeral, I 
will miss the vote on H.R. 2851, Stop Importation and Trafficking of 
Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017. It was my intention to vote ``no.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Friday, 
June 15, 2018, due to changes in the floor vote calendar.
  If I had been able to vote, I would have voted as follows:
  On the Thornberry Amendment to H.R. 2851, the Importation and 
Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, I would have voted ``nay.''
  On final passage of H.R. 2851, I would have voted ``nay.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make votes on June 15, 
2018, due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 267 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 268.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on June 15, 2018, I was absent. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 267 and ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 268.

                          ____________________