[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19145-19153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL ACT OF 2011

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1254) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to place synthetic 
drugs in Schedule I, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1254

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act 
     of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SYNTHETIC DRUGS TO SCHEDULE I OF THE 
                   CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

       (a) Cannabimimetic Agents.--Schedule I, as set forth in 
     section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     812(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d)(1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed in 
     another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or 
     preparation which contains any quantity of cannabimimetic 
     agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of 
     isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and 
     salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical 
     designation.
       ``(2) In paragraph (1):
       ``(A) The term `cannabimimetic agents' means any substance 
     that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist 
     as demonstrated by binding studies and functional assays 
     within any of the following structural classes:
       ``(i) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with substitution at 
     the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl or alkenyl, 
     whether or not substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any 
     extent.
       ``(ii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 3-(1-naphthylmethane)indole 
     by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, 
     whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any 
     extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl or 
     naphthyl ring to any extent.
       ``(iii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the 
     nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not further 
     substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent, whether or not 
     substituted on the naphthoyl ring to any extent.
       ``(iv) 1-(1-naphthylmethylene)indene by substitution of the 
     3-position of the indene ring, whether or not further 
     substituted in the indene ring to any extent, whether or not 
     substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent.
       ``(v) 3-phenylacetylindole or 3-benzoylindole by 
     substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether 
     or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent, 
     whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent.
       ``(B) Such term includes--
       ``(i) 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
     hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497);
       ``(ii) 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-
     hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP-47,497 
     C8-homolog);
       ``(iii) 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 and AM678);
       ``(iv) 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073);
       ``(v) 1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019);
       ``(vi) 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole 
     (JWH-200);
       ``(vii) 1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250);
       ``(viii) 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH-
     081);
       ``(ix) 1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-122);
       ``(x) 1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-398);

[[Page 19146]]

       ``(xi) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM2201);
       ``(xii) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694);
       ``(xiii) 1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR-19 and 
     RCS-4);
       ``(xiv) 1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole 
     (SR-18 and RCS-8); and
       ``(xv) 1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH-
     203).''.
       (b) Other Drugs.--Schedule I of section 202(c) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended in 
     subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(18) 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone).
       ``(19) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).
       ``(20) 3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone (methylone).
       ``(21) Naphthylpyrovalerone (naphyrone).
       ``(22) 4-fluoromethcathinone (flephedrone).
       ``(23) 4-methoxymethcathinone (methedrone; Bk-PMMA).
       ``(24) Ethcathinone (N-Ethylcathinone).
       ``(25) 3,4-methylenedioxyethcathinone (ethylone).
       ``(26) Beta-keto-N-methyl-3,4-benzodioxyolybutanamine 
     (butylone).
       ``(27) N,N-dimethylcathinone (metamfepramone).
       ``(28) Alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (alpha-PPP).
       ``(29) 4-methoxy-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (MOPPP).
       ``(30) 3,4-methylenedioxy-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone 
     (MDPPP).
       ``(31) Alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone (alpha-PVP).
       ``(32) 6,7-dihydro-5H-indeno-(5,6-d)-1,3-dioxol-6-amine) 
     (MDAI).
       ``(33) 3-fluoromethcathinone.
       ``(34) 4'-Methyl-a-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (MPBP).''.

     SEC. 3. TEMPORARY SCHEDULING TO AVOID IMMINENT HAZARDS TO 
                   PUBLIC SAFETY EXPANSION.

       Section 201(h)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 811(h)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``2 years''; and
       (2) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``1 year''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 1254 was introduced by my friend and colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Representative Charlie Dent, in response to a frightening 
trend of synthetic drug use in our communities. These synthetic drug 
substitutes, made from chemical compounds that are sold legally in most 
States, mimic the hallucinogenic and stimulant properties of drugs like 
marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines. While these synthetic drugs 
are just as dangerous as their traditional counterparts, they are not 
illegal.
  Many families and young people in our communities do not realize the 
destructiveness of these synthetic drugs because of their legal status 
and their wide availability and often harmless-sounding names such as 
``Bath Salts'' and ``Plant Food,'' both cocaine substitutes.
  H.R. 1254 would, first, ban synthetic drugs that imitate marijuana, 
cocaine, and methamphetamines; and, second, allow the Drug Enforcement 
Administration to temporarily schedule a new substance for up to 3 
years. Currently, DEA can only temporarily schedule a substance for up 
to 18 months.
  I would like to thank Congressman Dent for working with the DEA on 
this important issue, and I would urge my colleagues to support this 
commonsense and bipartisanly supported legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to support H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act. 
This bill enjoys bipartisan support and is aimed to eliminate 
commercial availability of harmful synthetic narcotics. Under this 
proposal, hallucinogenic drugs would no longer be able to hide behind 
misleading aliases.
  During committee consideration, I was quite alarmed to hear some of 
the stories shared by the bill's sponsor, Representative Charlie Dent, 
as well as other Members. Around the country, constituents have been 
able to utilize synthetic products to the detriment of their mental and 
physical health and, in some cases, costing them their lives.
  Unfortunately, these imitation drugs are not illegal, and there is a 
critical need to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to keep 
these harmful and dangerous drugs off the street. The Synthetic Drug 
Control Act adds specific synthetic versions of drugs of abuse to 
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These designer drugs mimic 
some of the effects of drugs such as marijuana and can be very unsafe, 
causing convulsions, anxiety attacks, and dangerously elevated heart 
rates, among other conditions.
  Under current authority, the Drug Enforcement Agency has difficulty 
taking action against these drugs because they've been designed to fall 
outside existing statutory descriptions of Schedule I drugs. H.R. 1254 
will enable the Drug Enforcement Agency to take appropriate enforcement 
actions to get them off the street and away from our Nation's youth.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
legislation, and I hope the way we work together on it can prove a 
model for our efforts on future legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield 5 minutes to the prime sponsor of the legislation, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. I certainly appreciate the support of Mr. Pitts and Mr. 
Pallone for their leadership on this issue. It's deeply appreciated.
  This issue of synthetic or designer drugs was first brought to my 
attention by a woman, a mother in my district whose son had been 
abusing legal substitutes for marijuana. These synthetic cannabinoids, 
as they're referred to, or synthetic marijuana, affect the brain in a 
manner similar to marijuana, but can actually be even much more 
harmful.
  Synthetic marijuana, or canna- binoids, are just one category of 
designer drugs. Even more potent substances have properties similar to 
cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, and other hard street drugs. These 
substances are marketed as innocent products like bath salts, plant 
food, incense, and they're sold under brand names familiar to their 
users, such as K2 Spice, Vanilla Sky, or Ivory Wave. However, these are 
total misnomers designed to facilitate their legal sale. These drugs 
have no legitimate purpose, period.
  H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act, drafted in consultation 
with Federal law enforcement, has three principal components:
  First, a prohibition of broad structural classes of synthetic 
marijuana or the cannabinoids;
  Two, a prohibition of synthetic stimulants and other designer drugs, 
such as bath salts, mephedrone, MDPV, C2E, et cetera, several of those;
  Third, an expansion of the DEA's existing authority to temporarily 
ban a new substance from 1\1/2\ to 3 years. Under current law, if the 
DEA and Department of Health and Human Services can prove that a 
substance is, one, dangerous and, two, lacking legitimate value while 
it is temporarily banned, the prohibition will become permanent.
  Over the past year there's been a sharp increase in the number of new 
reports detailing horrific stories of individuals high on synthetic 
drugs. A man in Scranton, Pennsylvania, stabbed a priest, and another 
jumped out a three-story window, both high on bath salts. Several 
deaths from West Virginia to Florida to Pennsylvania to Iowa have been 
attributed to abuse of synthetic drugs.
  Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has introduced a companion bill with 
provisions very similar to H.R. 1254, named after one of his young 
constituents who tragically took his own life while high on synthetic 
marijuana.

[[Page 19147]]



                              {time}  1740

  A man in my district was arrested this past May for firing a gun out 
of his window in a university neighborhood. Police charges indicate 
that he injected himself with bath salts, and he later told police he 
thought there were people on the roof watching him.
  Finally, I was approached by another distraught mother from my 
district whose son was hospitalized for over 2 weeks after suffering 
liver failure and other complications after injecting himself with bath 
salts. These substances pose a substantial risk, both to the physical 
health of the user as well as to the safety of those around them when 
these drugs contribute to dangerous, psychotic behavior, suicide, and 
public endangerment.
  The fact that these drugs are legal in many States contributes to the 
misconception that they are safe. And the use of easily recognizable 
brand names and logos on the packaging promotes the concept of a 
consistent product.
  Significant variations of potency from one unit to the next have led 
recurrent users to inadvertently overdose. One of the major 
difficulties in combating these designer drugs is the ability of the 
producers to skirt the law with different chemical variations. By 
modifying the formula in some minor way, producers can generate a new 
compound which circumvents legal prohibitions but has similar narcotic 
events. DEA needs enhanced authority to temporarily schedule new 
variations when they hit the market, and they usually hit Europe first, 
and then they enter the United States.
  A growing number of States, including Pennsylvania, have enacted bans 
on many forms of synthetic drugs, but Federal action is necessary to 
prevent these drugs from being obtained by simply crossing State lines 
or, increasingly, ordering them over the Internet.
  I believe over 30 States have passed bans, if my memory serves me 
correctly. State-by-State differences in which individual substances 
are controlled and how strongly makes for a confusing legal patchwork, 
and Federal legislation certainly will facilitate enforcement.
  The U.S. Department of Justice announced its support of H.R. 1254 as 
amended by the House Judiciary Committee in a letter dated September 
30, 2011, and I would submit that for the Record.
  I also want to point out, too, that the American College of Emergency 
Physicians, which notes the devastating physical and psychotic effects 
of these drugs, has also endorsed this bill, and I think that's quite 
significant as well.
  Finally, go to a hospital like Children's Hospital of Philadelphia--
they'll tell you they get a case every day with individuals who are 
suffering from these particular drugs. A year ago at this time, they 
probably got no calls. And now every day, and that's not just typical 
in Philadelphia but throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  You will also hear some folks here today who might actually argue 
that medical research will somehow be impeded. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. This legislation does not in any way impede medical 
research. I would be happy to get into that at some point.

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 2011.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, 
         Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman. This letter provides the Department of 
     Justice's views on H.R. 1254, as amended by the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, titled the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act 
     of 2011.'' The bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act 
     (CSA) to address the growing use and misuse of synthetic 
     drugs by placing a number of substances in schedule I and by 
     extending the length of time that a drug may be temporarily 
     placed in schedule I.
       We support the bill as drafted, but believe it can be 
     strengthened with the addition of the ``2C family'' of drugs 
     listed in an appendix to this letter and in S. 839. The 
     Department also supports the goals of S. 605, Dangerous 
     Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011 or the ``David Mitchell 
     Rozga Act''; S. 839, Combating Designer Drugs Act of 2011; 
     and S. 409, Combating Dangerous Synthetic Stimulants Act of 
     2011. H.R. 1254 already contains many provisions included in 
     S. 605 and S. 409, and we urge that the bill be expanded to 
     include the provisions of S. 839.


                     The Threat of Synthetic Drugs

       In recent years, a growing number of dangerous products 
     have been introduced into the U.S. marketplace. Products 
     labeled as ``herbal incense'' have become increasingly 
     popular, especially among teens and young adults. These 
     products consist of plant materials laced with synthetic 
     cannabinoids which, when smoked, mimic the deleterious 
     effects of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), the 
     principal psychoactive constituent in marijuana. To 
     underscore the scope and breadth of the synthetic cannabinoid 
     problem, a recent report prepared by the United Nations 
     Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) notes that more than 100 
     such substances have been synthesized and identified to 
     date.''
       There is also growing evidence demonstrating the abuse of a 
     number of substances labeled as ``bath salts'' or ``plant 
     foods'' which, when ingested, snorted, smoked, inhaled, or 
     injected, produce stimulant and other psychoactive effects. 
     These synthetic stimulants are based on a variety of 
     compounds and are purported to be alternatives to the 
     controlled substances cocaine, amphetamine, and Ecstasy 
     (MDMA). These drugs have been distributed and abused in 
     Europe for several years and have since appeared here in the 
     United States. According to a recent National Drug 
     Intelligence Center report, poison control centers and 
     medical professionals around the country have reported an 
     increase in the number of individuals suffering adverse 
     physical effects associated with abuse of these drugs.
       There are other newly developed drugs that also pose a 
     significant threat to the public. This includes the ``2C 
     family'' of drugs (dimethoxyphenethylamines), which are 
     generally referred to as synthetic psychedelic/hallucinogens. 
     Recently, a 19-year-old male in Minnesota died of cardiac 
     arrest after allegedly ingesting 2C-E, one of the substances 
     within this class of drugs. We note that the 2C substances 
     listed in the attached Appendix are included in the list of 
     substances covered by S. 839. The Department supports the 
     addition of the 2C family of substances listed in the 
     Appendix to H.R. 1254.
       Products containing synthetic drugs are dangerous and 
     represent a growing challenge to law enforcement. Apart from 
     the wide array of harmful or even lethal side effects of many 
     of the listed substances, neither the products nor their 
     active ingredients have been approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration for use in medical treatment, and 
     manufacturers and retailers of the products containing these 
     substances do not disclose that there are synthetic drugs in 
     their products. Synthetic drug abusers may endanger not only 
     themselves but others: some become violent when under the 
     influence of these substances, and abusers who operate motor 
     vehicles after using synthetic drugs likely present similar 
     dangers as those under the influence of controlled 
     substances.
       With the exception of the five substances recently 
     controlled by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 
     pursuant to its temporary scheduling authority, the listed 
     synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic stimulants are not 
     currently in any schedule under the CSA.


                   Efforts to control Synthetic Drugs

       Congress created an interagency process for placing new and 
     emerging drugs into one of five schedules of the CSA (21 
     U.S.C. 811 et seq.). One such mechanism, temporary scheduling 
     (21 U.S.C. 811(h)), was specifically designed to enable the 
     Department to act in an expeditious manner if such action is 
     necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 
     In response to the growing threat posed by known synthetic 
     cannabinoids, on March 1, 2011, the DEA temporarily placed 
     the following five synthetic cannabinoids in schedule I: JWH-
     018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47, 497, and CP-47, 497 C8 
     homologue.
       The DEA is currently gathering scientific data and other 
     information about synthetic cathinones as well as evaluating 
     their psychoactive effects to support administrative action 
     to schedule these substances under the CSA. To temporarily 
     schedule these stimulants, the DEA must find that placement 
     in schedule I is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the 
     public safety, a finding that requires the DEA to consider 
     the following three factors: history and current pattern of 
     abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and 
     what, if any, risk there is to the public health, including 
     actual abuse; diversion from legitimate channels; and 
     clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. Once 
     data have been gathered to meet the statutory criteria to 
     temporarily schedule these cathinones, the Department will 
     initiate an action to temporarily place them into schedule 1. 
     In fact, on September 8, 2011, the DEA published a notice of 
     intent in the Federal Register (21 FR 55616) to temporarily 
     place mephedrone, methylone and MDPV in schedule I.
       Unfortunately, however, the distribution and abuse of 
     synthetic drugs cannot be fully addressed by temporary 
     scheduling because as law enforcement investigates, 
     researches,

[[Page 19148]]

     and develops evidence to support such action, illicit drug 
     makers create new synthetic drugs for the purpose of evading 
     federal law. Scheduling via legislation is an additional tool 
     to promote public health and safety.


                         Purpose of Legislation

       Placing synthetic carnnabinoid and synthetic stimulant 
     substances in schedule I would expose those who manufacture, 
     distribute, possess, import, and export synthetic drugs 
     without proper authority to the full spectrum of criminal, 
     civil, and administrative penalties, sanctions, and 
     regulatory controls. Unless authorized by the DEA, the 
     manufacture and distribution of these substances, and 
     possession with intent to manufacture or distribute them, 
     would be a violation of the CSA and/or the Controlled 
     Substances Import and Export Act.
       H.R. 1254, as well as S. 409, would amend the CSA by 
     expanding the list of substances in schedule I of the CSA (21 
     U.S.C. 812(c)). To address synthetic cannabinoid abuse, the 
     bill names 15 unique substances that would be placed in 
     schedule I; this list includes those temporarily scheduled by 
     the DEA. Additionally, the bill creates five structural 
     classes of substances collectively referred to as 
     ``cannabimimetic agents.'' In order for a substance to be a 
     cannabimimetic agent, the substance must: (1) bind to the CB1 
     receptor; and (2) meet any of the definitions for those 
     structural classes. If both criteria are met, that substance 
     will be a schedule I cannabimimetic agent controlled 
     substance.
       To address emerging synthetic stimulant abuse, H.R. 1254 
     names 17 unique substances that would be placed in schedule 
     I. These substances have either been encountered by law 
     enforcement here in the United States or are most likely to 
     be encountered by law enforcement in the United States based 
     on their use and misuse in Europe, which is likely where the 
     use and misuse originated.
       Finally, the bill seeks to double the amount of time 
     allowed for the Department to temporarily schedule new and 
     emerging drugs by amending 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In this regard, 
     the bill seeks to enhance the tools available to the 
     Department to combat the abuse of new drugs that will appear 
     in the future.
       For these reasons, the Justice Department supports H.R. 
     1254 and recommends that the Committee consider strengthening 
     it in the ways we have proposed.
       Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. The 
     Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the 
     perspective of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the submission of this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ronald Weich,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.


                                Appendix

       Additional Synthetic Drugs for Inclusion in section 202(c) 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)):
       Redline of H.R. 1254, as amended by Energy and Commerce on 
     July 28, 2011--
       ``(35) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)
     ethanamine (2C-E).
       (36) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)
     ethanamine (2C-D).
       (37) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)
     ethanamine (2C-C).
       (38) 2-(4-lodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)
     ethanamine (2C-I).
       (39) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]
     ethanamine (2C-T-2).
       (40) 2-[4-(lsopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl
     -[ethanamine (2C-T-4).
       (41) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H).
       (42) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)
     ethanamine (2C-N).
       (43) 2-(2.5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)
     ethanamine (2C-P).''

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and a strong supporter of 
this bill. The spread of synthetic drugs like bath salts has quickly 
reached crisis levels in many communities throughout our country. This 
year in Maine, the Bangor Police Department has responded to hundreds 
of bath salts-related incidents.
  In October, I organized a meeting of local, county, State, and 
Federal law enforcement officials to discuss the spread of bath salts 
in our State. The message they shared with me was clear, and the 
message they shared with the ONDCP Deputy Director Ben Tucker was also 
clear: We need to give our law enforcement officers more tools to 
combat this epidemic.
  While Maine has banned bath salts, a national law will build upon 
that good work and help make this a bigger impact all across the 
country. So I urge my colleagues to support the Synthetic Drug Act.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Florida, Congresswoman Sandy Adams, who was formerly in law 
enforcement.
  Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Congressman Pitts.
  Mr. Speaker, in October 2010, a 31-year-old Texas man hanged himself 
in the bedroom. At the top of his suicide note the man wrote, ``Thanks, 
bath salts.''
  January 2011 in Panama City, Florida, a daughter tried to attack her 
sleeping mother with a machete before fleeing the scene. Police said 
she had spent several days taking drug-altered bath salts.
  June, 2011, a 38-year-old Army sergeant murdered his wife and killed 
himself following a police chase. Both had chemically altered bath 
salts in their systems. Later in the day, the couple's 5-year-old son 
was found dead with a plastic bag over his head and bruises on his 
body.
  Horrific cases just like these have been documented across the 
country. These incidents led many States, including my home State of 
Florida, to outlaw these often dangerous and deadly substances.
  Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to add MDPV and 
mephedrone, chemicals added to bath salts to induce a drug high, to 
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These substances are not 
marketed for human consumption.
  It also is why I have joined Representative Charlie Dent in his work 
to bring H.R. 1254, which includes a bill I introduced in April, to the 
floor today. You have heard no research can be conducted if this 
passes, but those claims are false. It can be conducted. Research is 
being done and will continue to be done on Schedule I chemicals. Just 
listen to the ER doctors and the poison control centers that have both 
asked for this bill, that both want this bill to save lives.
  Too many lives have been lost and too many violent acts have been 
already committed due to these drugs. These dangerous substances are 
being packaged and marketed to our children by using innocuous names 
like Ivory Snow, Bliss, and Vanilla Sky. Today I urge support for H.R. 
1254. Let's get the substances off the streets and out of the hands of 
our children.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Virginia will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will place over 40 chemical compounds on 
Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act at a time when only eight 
of these substances can even be found in the United States. And it does 
so in a way that circumvents the normal process, that skirts scheduling 
substances, and does so without any scientific or medical research or 
evidence to support it.
  Congress has a process for placing substances on drug schedules. The 
Criminal Code sets forth a process that the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services must engage in to determine the 
propriety of scheduling substances. The Secretary must conduct a 
scientific and medical evaluation and provide recommendations about 
whether the substances being analyzed need to be controlled. And this 
needs to be a scientific study, not a compilation of anecdotes.
  In this there is a mechanism for addressing emergencies. In the case 
where the Attorney General on his own determines that there is an 
emergency, the Code provides that substances may be placed on Schedule 
I for up to 1\1/2\ years while the evidence is being developed to 
permanently schedule them.
  Moreover, the Judiciary Committee during our consideration received 
numerous statements from pharmaceutical and medical researchers 
imploring us not to hamper their ability to determine possible medical 
uses of these substances by placing them on Schedule I, which makes it 
illegal to possess these substances without a permit even for research 
purposes.

[[Page 19149]]

  This includes promising research on the cure for Parkinson's disease 
that would be compromised by this bill. Now, even with a permit, the 
restrictions placed on researchers once they are placed on Schedule I 
are unduly onerous. So there are legal uses of these substances.
  Mr. Speaker, when Congress established a process for the Secretary 
and the Attorney General to do their due diligence and study the 
propriety of placing substances on Schedule I, we've had a very 
thoughtful process. And if we want to establish good crime policy, we 
need to follow that thoughtful process. H.R. 1254 circumvents that 
process. For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1254.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, 
Congressman Tom Latham.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for this 
opportunity today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug 
Control Act. This bill addresses an alarming danger to our kids that 
many American families may not be aware of.
  Many American teenagers are experimenting with synthetic drugs that 
supposedly mimic the effects of marijuana or other types of drugs. 
These products, known as K2, Pure Evil, Cloud Nine, and other names, 
can often be bought legally at convenience stores or at so-called 
``head shops'' where they're passed off as incense or bath salts. In 
reality, the users of these substances can experience unexpected 
anxiety attacks, extreme paranoia, hallucinations, and thoughts of 
suicide; and the users are at serious risk of harming themselves.
  Our experience with this issue in the State of Iowa illustrates why a 
Federal ban on these dangerous substances is so important. A year and a 
half ago yesterday, 18-year-old David Rozga, from Indianola, Iowa, shot 
himself after taking K2. In response to the tragedy, David's parents, 
Mike and Jan, have led a campaign to outlaw synthetic drugs like K2. 
They testified before Congress about the dangers of the drug and 
enlisted the help of their elected Representatives in cracking down on 
the sale and abuse of these substances.
  My colleagues, we must act on this issue to protect our kids. And the 
time is now. The threat posed by synthetic drugs is dangerous, and it's 
growing. In the past 2 weeks alone, there have been several cases where 
teens have been injured or hospitalized after taking synthetic drugs. 
In Polk County, three teens were involved in a high-speed crash after 
smoking one of these substances. In central Iowa, a teenage boy was 
hospitalized after taking synthetic drugs. He became violently ill--
having seizures, vomiting, and hallucinations.
  I really want to thank the Rozga family for their selfless 
willingness to relive the tragedy they've experienced, and I want to 
thank them for their efforts to prevent other families from 
experiencing the same heartbreak. This legislation and other efforts to 
address this threat to our children would simply not have occurred 
without the Rozgas' courage, strength, and leadership.
  I am heartened today that Congress has listened to their message and 
is taking action. It is time to recognize how dangerous these 
substances are and to ban their sale in the United States by clarifying 
their status as Schedule I controlled substances. As a cosponsor of 
H.R. 1254, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this most 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We are all opposed to the damage that 
these drugs can do to the American people, but I have to express my 
opposition to this bill.
  My concern about the bill is its effect on scientific research. When 
a drug is placed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, it 
becomes difficult to obtain not only for illegal purposes but for 
researchers who wish to study its pharmaceutical and medical potential. 
While this may be justified for some drugs, it isn't a restriction that 
should be implemented rashly. That's because it becomes very difficult 
for scientists to get permission to obtain these molecules even for the 
scientific study that we need.
  For example, in the United States, only 325 researchers have been 
able to obtain Schedule I licenses at this moment. Congress established 
the procedure for scheduling drugs, and it requires a scientific and 
medical evaluation. This bill would bypass that process rather than 
relying on scientific and medical experts. I've heard from faculty from 
a range of universities, and they've shared their concerns about the 
impact.
  Here is what Warren Heideman, Ph.D., professor of pharmaceutical 
sciences and associate dean for Research, School of Pharmacy, at the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison writes:
  ``The bill is an irrational, simplistic response to a social problem 
of great complexity. As such, the world will get significantly less 
medical and technical help with a low probability of helping anyone 
with a substance abuse issue. The list is too broad and does seriously 
restrict what would otherwise be important and easy experiments. 
Paperwork problems are already a serious campus concern.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Here is what Dr. Neal Benowitz, M.D., 
the chief of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of 
California, San Francisco, writes:
  ``While we support restrictions on the sale of these chemicals for 
purposes of illicit use . . . scheduling so as to impede access to 
precursor chemicals in small quantities has the potential to seriously 
hamper medical research. On balance, the faculty are against this 
measure.''
  John Arnold, the faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Green 
Chemistry, writes:
  ``This effort is well-intentioned, but it will cause more problems 
than it solves.''
  We are all against drugs that harm our people; but we had no hearings 
in the Judiciary Committee on this, and I think the placing of these 
molecules on Schedule I is evidence of that lack of scholarship. These 
drugs need to be controlled, but they need to be controlled in such a 
way that there is no harm done to the vital scientific and medical 
research that we count on.
  I join the gentleman from Virginia in urging a ``no'' vote on this 
bill in the hopes that we can come back with a measure that 
accomplishes the worthy goals without doing damage to scientific 
research, which will save so many lives.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, a former prosecutor, Congressman Pat Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I rise in support of H.R. 1254 for the very practical 
reason that, as a prosecutor, I have seen the impact of what can be 
done when children are lured into the false promise, into the sense 
that somehow, because it's synthetic, it doesn't present the same kind 
of danger as the drugs that are often believed to be the most 
dangerous--the heroins, the cocaines. These are luring kids into a 
false sense of security.
  As has been suggested, this evidence isn't anecdotal. I have had the 
chance to visit an emergency department at one of the leading 
children's hospitals in the Nation where we have seen a dramatic rise 
in families who are being affected because their children are coming in 
and are under the control of these synthetic substances. For that 
reason, the American College of Emergency Physicians supports this 
bill.
  Lastly, I think we have it backwards. If what we're trying to say is 
that somehow we've got to let these children be exposed while we wait 
with the potential that there could be research done, the fact of the 
matter is I have worked with pharmaceutical companies and with the DEA 
to be able to get access to drugs that have been held under control. 
That can be done in

[[Page 19150]]

working with the DEA. That's the solution. It's not the solution to put 
our kids at risk.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for yielding the 
time.
  I rise in opposition to this particular bill. It's not that I am, 
indeed, in favor of any of the particular drugs that are here; but just 
like Mrs. Adams, my colleague from Florida mentioned, the State of 
Florida has already criminalized it, as many States have, and it's 
really a State issue.
  It seems interesting. When the subject du jour comes up, the item of 
the day, there is a rush to action and a rush to forget States' rights. 
There is a desire on gun bills to overlook the States and to have a 
Federal law on the interstate shipment of guns or on the interstate 
transportation of guns by people with permits. In this situation, drugs 
that should be criminalized are criminalized at the State level, but 
all of a sudden we're doing it more at the Federal level.
  This bill would place more than 40 chemical compounds on Schedule I, 
the most punitive and restrictive schedule, without any independent 
scientific evidence that doing so is necessary or warranted. It is a 
rush to legislate before we know all the facts.
  This bill essentially bans these substances without any study 
whatsoever. I've read the press reports of young people who have been 
harmed by these substances and by others, and I'm very sympathetic as 
that's certainly wrong; but we shouldn't legislate on the basis of 
anecdotal evidence. It's typical of the ``shoot first and ask questions 
later'' approach that we have taken to drug policy in this country for 
decades.
  Our national drug policy should be driven by science, not politics. 
We've already gotten a well-deserved reputation here as a do-nothing 
Congress; but bills like this and our attitudes towards clean air, 
clean water, global climate change, and other environmental issues have 
made this the no-respect-for-science Congress as well.

                              {time}  1800

  The DEA has already taken steps to temporarily place certain 
synthetic substances on Schedule I while it conducts a review. If there 
is an emergency that requires temporarily scheduling the other 
substances in this bill, the DEA can review them and do that just as 
well.
  But we shouldn't circumvent the process established in law. I don't 
think this is a responsible way to legislate. I know the sponsors of 
this bill know about the emergency review process because the bill 
doubles the length of time a bill can be put on emergency review on a 
schedule from 18 months to 3 years; it doubles it. Yet there's been no 
hearings or evidence that 18 months was insufficient, none whatsoever. 
It was just a knee-jerk way to respond to the issue du jour.
  This is a very serious issue and deserves serious study and 
consideration before we act, as all bills before Congress should. I 
fear that this bill continues the misguided policies that we've created 
towards drugs in this country.
  Just look at our experience with marijuana, which Congress placed on 
Schedule I in 1970. According to the criteria of the Controlled 
Substances Act, it supposedly has a high potential for abuse, has no 
currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and 
there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical 
supervision.
  Let's put aside for a minute the question of whether it has a 
potential for abuse. Certainly there's a lot of evidence that it does 
not. But I think thousands of people who depend on marijuana to treat 
the effects of such diseases as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple 
sclerosis would take issue with the notion that it has no medical use, 
and 15 or so States have legalized it for medical use. It increases 
appetite and eases pain in a way that has helped countless people in 
the last stages of life.
  But we treat our approach to drugs as a law enforcement matter, not a 
scientific matter, and we've placed marijuana in Schedule I, the most 
restrictive schedule. Meanwhile, the scientific community is urging 
that we reschedule marijuana so we can continue to conduct important 
research and make it available to those in need.
  Recently, the California Medical Association called for cannabis to 
be legalized and regulated, primarily so that scientists can gain 
access to it and conduct further research. They advocated wider 
clinical research with accountable and quality-controlled production of 
cannabis. None of this can happen with the tight restrictions we've 
placed on cannabis. That's exactly the situation we may find ourselves 
in with the substances named in this bill.
  I know that licenses are available for research in the Schedule I 
drugs, but there's no reason to make researchers go through such hoops. 
It is nearly as easy to get permission to do research on a Schedule I 
drug as it would be to go to the Vatican and ask for a grant to study 
birth control.
  We don't know what medical benefits these substances may contain and 
we don't know the true risk they pose. Perhaps they belong in a lower 
schedule. And Schedule II would certainly deter young people from using 
them and others and set a penalty stage. But we have no idea. We just 
decided to throw the book and make it Schedule I.
  Perhaps they shouldn't be scheduled at all. I suspect they should be 
scheduled, maybe Schedule II. But the scientists should decide this and 
not politicians. We have no basis to believe they belong in Schedule I. 
Haven't we learned from this Nation's 40-year experiment with the war 
on drugs?
  Prohibition does not work. It is an expensive and counterproductive 
policy that fills up our prisons and places a mark on our citizens that 
can make jobs, housing, and education nearly impossible to obtain. We 
should focus our efforts on educating young people about the substances 
and continue to do research about their benefits and risks.
  Instead of basing our drug policy on science, we are letting it be 
driven by politics. This bill continues that trend, and regrettably I 
must urge its defeat. We need to send this bill back to committee and 
take a careful, considerable review so that we can have Congress make 
this decision on a scientific basis with help from the scientists.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. COHEN. The DEA can use its emergency powers to temporarily 
schedule these substances while letting the scientific process play 
out. Let's put science first and politics second. Let's defeat this 
bill.
  If we put science first and politics second, maybe we won't be in 
single figures in the public's mind as an organization that they 
support as an institution. Part of the 9 percent level is because we do 
things sometimes in a rush to judgment and politics and the issue du 
jour rather than allowing the scientific process and doing what is 
logically best for our Nation to prevail.
  I urge the defeat of this bill.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleague that I am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Marino), a former prosecutor.
  Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently coauthored a letter with my colleagues, 
Representative Sandy Adams and Representative Trey Gowdy, concerning 
this very issue, and I'd like to read just a paragraph:
  ``As of October 4, 2011, the DEA has 325 researchers conducting 
research with Schedule I controlled substances. These researchers 
include research centers and universities who seek to better understand 
the effects of Schedule I controlled substances. Additionally, as

[[Page 19151]]

of October 4, 2011, the DEA has 3,983 active registrants who 
manufacture, research, and conduct chemical analysis with Schedule I 
controlled substances.
  ``In fact, many researchers who would conduct research to better 
understand the compounds controlled in H.R. 1254 are already registered 
with the DEA, which means there would be virtually no impact on ongoing 
research.''
  Mr. Speaker, as a former prosecutor for 18 years at the State and 
local level, I have seen firsthand the disaster this drug causes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PITTS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MARINO. I have seen firsthand what this drug does. If it doesn't 
kill our children, it makes them suicidal; it makes them incredibly 
violent.
  And I still get calls, as a former prosecutor, from hospitals and 
emergency service personnel telling me the violence that a child under 
this influence causes, not only on him- or herself, but emergency 
personnel. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I had another speaker that 
arrived unexpectedly.
  Mr. PITTS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the proposed multistate mortgage settlement 
currently being negotiated between the country's major mortgage 
servicers and the State attorney generals.
  Before we haphazardly rush into a settlement, we need to pause for 
what I call station identification, so to speak.
  I'm speaking on the wrong bill.
  But I also rise in opposition to the synthetic drug bill. I think 
there is not enough research. I think there's information still needed. 
I don't think that we are in a position to allow this action to take 
place, and so I join in opposition to passage of this legislation.
  Mr. PITTS. I am prepared to close; so I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill circumvents 
the normal thoughtful process for scheduling drugs. Most of the drugs 
in this bill can't even be found in the United States. And to the 
extent there is an emergency and a need to place these on a schedule, 
the Attorney General has the emergency process where he can just put a 
drug on the schedule for a year and a half.
  Medical researchers have asked us not to pass the bill because it 
will disturb promising research, particularly on Parkinson's disease, 
and so they have asked us not to pass this bill.
  We should follow the thoughtful process for scheduling drugs and 
defeat this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the prime 
sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. I do want to address a few of the statements I heard on the 
floor from my friends from Tennessee and Virginia.
  My friend from Tennessee made some comments, but I want to be very 
clear, these drugs are dangerous, have a high potential for abuse and 
no accepted medical use, which is why they belong on Schedule I. 
Schedules II and V are reserved for drugs used in legitimate medical 
procedures.
  So we're talking about Schedule I here, not Schedules II through V. 
Let me be very clear on that point.

                              {time}  1810

  Second, the FDA has stated that the drugs listed in H.R. 1254 have no 
medical use, and there are no INDs--that is, investigational new drug 
applications--for these substances pending with the FDA. This is from 
the FDA. H.R. 1254 will not prevent further research into synthetic 
drugs. It's simply false to say that it will.
  DEA has a routine, well-established procedure in place to facilitate 
scientific study of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, and 
heroin. Currently the DEA has licensed nearly 4,000 individuals and 
other entities, including universities, manufacturers, researchers, and 
labs to handle Schedule I drugs for scientific and investigational 
purposes. These are facts.
  I also want to point out, my friend from Virginia made some comments 
about I guess eight compounds having been found in the United States. 
Actually, dozens of compounds have been found in the United States. 
Many bath salt chemicals currently are in the United States, but only 
three synthetic stimulants and five synthetic cannabinoids have been 
emergency scheduled by the DEA because they have to go chemical by 
chemical in order to act on this matter. They have to deal with this on 
a chemical-by-chemical basis.
  We need Congress to give the DEA authority to be more effective and 
get ahead of this problem. We know that these drugs are coming into 
this country from Europe. That's where they're coming from, these 
compounds. There are some in Europe right now. Our goal is to get out 
in front of this before they have a chance to be exported into the U.S.
  Another comment I heard about 325 researchers, well, 325 researchers 
because that's all who have applied to do this type of research. DEA is 
not in the business of turning researchers away, so I want to be clear 
on these points.
  There's so much more that can be said on this. But again, research 
will not be impeded in any way. There is a mechanism, there is a 
process in place to do research on these Schedule I drugs. It's well 
established. This has nothing to do with the medical marijuana debate. 
I heard that argued earlier, too. We're talking about synthetic 
marijuana and synthetic cocaine. This stuff is dangerous. And, in fact, 
some would argue worse than the real stuff, so let's get to it.
  This is about public safety. This is about the health of our 
constituents. We know what's going on. In fact, somebody pointed out to 
me today that a store in Washington, D.C., a few blocks from the 
Capitol, somebody is selling this stuff. My State and over 30 other 
States have seen this problem. They know what's happening across this 
country. We need to do something about it. DEA is alarmed by this. 
Justice is on board. DEA is on board. Let's do something for the good 
of the American people. Please pass H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug 
Control Act of 2011. It's in the best interest of the American people, 
and the best interest of our children. We're doing the right thing.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Synthetic Drug Control Act adds 
specified synthetic versions of drugs of abuse to Schedule I of the 
Controlled Substances Act. These designer drugs generally mimic the 
effects of marijuana or of stimulants and can be unsafe, causing 
convulsions, anxiety attacks, dangerously elevated heart rates, and 
bizarre and dangerous behavior, among other conditions. Under current 
authority, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has difficulty 
taking action against these drugs because they fall outside existing 
statutory descriptions of Schedule I drugs. H.R. 1254 will enable DEA 
to take appropriate enforcement actions to get them off the street and 
away from our Nation's youth. I therefore believe it is critical that 
we deal with the threat these drugs pose.
  I wish to note however that I have concerns with the basic underlying 
statute that would now apply to these listed substances through this 
legislation. In particular, I do not support the mandatory minimum 
sentencing provisions of the Controlled Substances Act for Schedule I 
drugs, provisions that under this legislation will apply to the listed 
synthetic drugs as they apply to all Schedule I drugs. Mandatory 
minimum sentencing inappropriately applies a one size fits all 
approach, eliminating the ability of judges to exercise discretion in 
determining an appropriate sentence in light of individual 
circumstances. The sentencing judge is in the best position to 
determine a fair sentence, having considered all of the evidence and 
having heard from the parties and the defendant.
  I also believe that the administrative process for scheduling 
controlled substances should be improved, so that the Attorney General, 
with the help of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, can make 
scheduling decisions without resorting to help from Congress.

[[Page 19152]]

I do not know whether such improvement requires legislation or 
regulation. I do know, however, that it is rarely a good idea for 
Congress to make scientific determinations such as are required to make 
good scheduling decisions.
  Additionally, I believe it is incumbent upon DEA to reevaluate the 
recordkeeping and other regulatory requirements it imposes upon 
scientists who use controlled substances for legitimate research. The 
agency should ensure that such research is not impeded or discouraged 
through unnecessarily onerous requirements.
  I recognize that it is not a simple task to strike the right balance, 
to exercise enough control to discourage abuse but not so much as to 
discourage research that may lead to important therapeutic advances and 
treatments. I intend to send a letter to DEA Administrator Michele 
Leonhart asking for a report on the restrictions imposed upon 
researchers, particularly those in academia who work with amounts of 
scheduled substances too small to pose a serious risk of diversion. I 
would like to know what if any improvements can be effected to 
eliminate or modify those requirements whose costs in time and 
resources outweigh their potential benefits in hindering research 
scientists from becoming drug abusers. I hope the Chairman of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and others will join me on the letter.
  Finally, however, while I remain concerned about aspects of the 
underlying statute, the question before us is whether these substances 
should be controlled as would be accomplished through passage of this 
legislation. I believe the answer is yes, because of the danger to 
public health posed by the listed synthetic drugs.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter from one of my 
constituents with respect to the debate on H.R. 1254 that occurred on 
December 7, 2011.

       Dear Congressman Latham: Regarding the Synthetic Drug 
     Control Act, as you know I am a mother who lost her son to 
     these drugs and I can't stop myself from reacting to the 
     opposition on the floor yesterday.
       Hundreds of chemical compounds are used to make synthetic 
     drugs manufactured under the guise of bath salts, plant food, 
     k2 and various names of synthetic marijuana--with the sole 
     purpose being to ingest. These drugs are smoked, snorted, 
     injected, or put into drinks. The label may say they are not 
     for human consumption, but they are implicitly being sold as 
     such.
       Yet those opposing H.R. 1254 argue that not enough research 
     has been done to prove whether or not these already banned 
     and potentially future banned chemicals would bear any 
     medical benefit.
       To the contrary, not only have the synthetic drugs included 
     in this legislation failed to show medicinal promise, but the 
     Controlled Substances Act would still allow research on these 
     synthetic drugs to continue if H.R. 1254 were enacted.
       Under current law, researchers, universities and labs may 
     register with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to obtain 
     Schedule I controlled substances for scientific study. DEA 
     allows thousands of labs to handle Schedule I drugs for 
     scientific and investigative purposes. Chemicals with ``a 
     high potential for abuse'' and ``a lack of accepted safety'' 
     under the Controlled Substances Act should be placed under 
     Schedule I--available for scientific study but not sold on 
     convenience store shelves.
       The reality is that without H.R. 1254, our society will 
     continue to allow informal, unsupervised and unethical 
     medical experimentation--with our kids as the subjects. It 
     begins with unscrupulous manufacturers obtaining unknown 
     chemical compounds from other countries. It is either 
     manufactured overseas here or in our own backyard. These 
     drugs are openly sold to those ``18 years or older'' and can 
     be purchased at gas stations, convenience stores and head 
     shops around this country. Its availability is rampant on the 
     internet as well. It is difficult if not impossible to find 
     out who the people really are that sell the chemicals or 
     premade products. When it's all said and done, it is American 
     teens who are being endangered and experimented with.
       Let's be bold and put a stop to the newest drug trends that 
     are sweeping across our nation like a tidal wave--Jan Rozga, 
     Indianola, IA

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this legislation because, 
like the rest of my colleagues, I want to see an end to the illegal 
manufacture, sale, and use of synthetic drugs that mimic the properties 
of illegal drugs. Many of these drugs are extremely dangerous and 
warrant control. In fact, some 30 states, including Hawaii, have laws 
that address the manufacture, sale, and use of synthetic drugs.
  I am concerned, however, that we may be moving too fast. I would 
prefer to see a bill that is as important as this considered under 
regular order, with members having an opportunity to offer amendments. 
I am hoping that the Senate will take a more measured approach in 
considering this legislation.
  I am especially concerned about the application of mandatory minimum 
sentences and Schedule I penalties that are included in this bill. I 
support judicial discretion, especially when the lives and futures of 
young people are involved.
  I know too that there are concerns that this could impede legitimate 
scientific research of chemical compounds listed in this bill. 
Adjustments to this legislation may be needed to ensure that we don't 
hinder development of future biomedical breakthroughs.
  We need to make sure the legislation targets those most responsible 
for widespread distribution of these drugs. Most important, we need to 
find ways to keep our young people from using synthetic drugs. 
Education of parents and young people is badly needed as is market 
regulation to reduce the availability and misuse of certain household 
and industrial aerosol products. Adding to our already crowded prisons 
is not a real solution to the very real problem of synthetic drugs.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 1254, 
the Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.
  While I support sensible restrictions on dangerous substances, I am 
concerned about the unintended consequences this bill could have on 
medical research. This bill has the potential to make these kinds of 
substances extremely difficult for researchers to obtain. In fact, many 
researchers have expressed concern that the list in this bill is too 
broad and would restrict their ability to conduct important 
experiments.
  Additionally, this legislation would bypass the scientific and 
medical review process that is in place for adding substances to 
Schedule I. Making decisions without scientific review is problematic.
  It is important to note that states are free to make decisions 
regarding these kinds of substances. I supported the reasonable step 
New Jersey took when it banned the synthetic drugs known as ``bath 
salts'' this summer.
  Since this bill would bypass scientific review and could hinder much-
needed research, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify my position on H.R. 
1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act.
  My vote in support of H.R. 1254 is not without reservations. I 
support this legislation because the health and safety of our citizens 
is my primary concern. This legislation will protect our communities, 
and particularly our youth, from more than forty new and dangerous 
synthetic drugs. These substances have been the cause of violent 
incidents and numerous deaths around the nation and it is preferable to 
immediately list them as Schedule I as opposed to allowing them to 
continue to be abused in our communities.
  Criminalizing these substances, however, will not solve the root 
problem of drug abuse in our communities. I have serious concerns about 
the over-criminalization of drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences lead to 
over-capacity criminal justice and prison systems at significant burden 
to taxpayers. I have long advocated for a comprehensive approach to 
drug abuse treatment, including education, prevention, treatment, 
research, and enforcement. In fact, I have authored legislation to 
expand accessible treatment, especially for underserved communities, 
and research into cutting edge treatment therapies. Responsible law 
enforcement is just the way to address this issue, and it must be 
executed in conjunction with a robust and multifaceted approach that 
targets the root of drug abuse problems.
  I also have concerns about the impact of penalties in H.R. 1254 on 
our scientific research processes. While, it is regrettable that H.R. 
1254 circumvents the process for listing drugs as laid out in the 
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), it is necessary in this circumstance. 
The evidentiary procedure in CSA has worked well for determining the 
listing of new substances. Unfortunately, it can be time-intensive and 
the law enforcement community, including the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) and the Department of Justice, supports the 
immediate listing of these synthetic drugs because of the harm they 
inflict on our communities. This bill increases the length of time that 
a new substance can be temporarily scheduled by the DEA, thereby 
allowing more time for the usual CSA listing process to be carried out.
  Throughout my career I have supported scientific research. The study 
of synthetic drugs is important for understanding their impact on 
health and their potential beneficial uses. Unfortunately, most of the 
substances included in this legislation have not been subjected to 
extensive scientific study, and I am concerned that listing them as 
Schedule I drugs may inhibit the study of these drugs. While the DEA 
has a procedure for scientists to study Schedule I controlled 
substances, it presents greater barriers for scientists to work with 
these drugs.

[[Page 19153]]

As of October 4, 2011, the DEA has 325 researchers conducting research 
with Schedule I controlled substances. These researchers include 
research centers and universities who seek to better understand the 
effects of Schedule I controlled substances. Additionally, as of 
October 4, 2011, the DEA has 3,983 active registrants who manufacture, 
research, and conduct chemical analysis with Schedule I controlled 
substances. I encourage the scientific community to continue their 
efforts to understand these and other drugs.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1254, the 
``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.''
  I share the concerns that supporters of this bill have about the sale 
of synthetic drugs that are determined to be harmful. The issue here is 
what process should be used to determine whether a drug is harmful and 
should be banned. I oppose this bill because it circumvents the 
established process for scheduling controlled substances as illegal for 
any uses without proper scientific review. This bill short-circuits 
that process and substitutes the less-informed judgment of Congress for 
the more considered view of scientists and experts.
  We already have a process for banning drugs temporarily on an 
emergency basis. Indeed, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has 
temporarily prohibited the sale or manufacture of many of the compounds 
banned in this bill as more in-depth scientific reviews are conducted. 
I also support Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's 
decision to ban the sale of many of these drugs in the State. I believe 
that the temporary ban by the DEA and the State bans of these drugs are 
sufficient at this point to protect our society from the harms caused 
by these synthetic drugs. Congress should only act to add these drugs 
to the list of Schedule I controlled substances after the process laid 
out in the Controlled Substance Act is completed.
  The process established in the Controlled Substance Act requires that 
the Attorney General request from the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services ``a scientific and medical evaluation, and his 
recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substances should be 
so controlled. . . .'' This process is important for many reasons and 
should not be circumvented by this bill. Without proper scientific 
review this bill could create significant hurdles for medical research 
of cures and treatments for various diseases. During the bill mark up 
in the Judiciary Committee, statements from medical researchers were 
submitted stating that this bill could hamper their ability to 
determine lawful uses of these substances by making them illegal to 
possess. R. Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the Office of the National 
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), stated that these drugs are dangerous, but 
acknowledged that there is ``a lack of sufficient data regarding the 
prevalence of bath salt stimulant drugs.'' Additionally, the penalties 
for possessing and distributing Schedule I drugs are serious. Adding 
over 35 additional substances to the list of Schedule I drugs, for 
which people can be incarcerated, should not be taken lightly by 
Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1254, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________