[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.
____________________