SALTS Act

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have further speakers?

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.

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.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It restores the commission's jurisdiction over the

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. 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.

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.

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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time does the gentleman from Virginia have left?

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. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.