Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2851, legislation that would give Attorney General Jeff Sessions through the Drug Enforcement Administration sweeping new authority to combat the synthetic drug crisis facing our country.

In 2016, nearly 64,000 Americans died because of a drug overdose, and the overdose rate from the synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, nearly doubled. We know that illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues are extremely deadly and increasingly are being shipped into our country through China.

I know all Members would agree that synthetic drugs are a very real threat that we have to combat. However, it is unclear to me that the appropriate response to this crisis is the creation of a new schedule-- schedule A--that would impose new burdens on researchers and manufacturers. It would also dramatically limit the scientific and medical role HHS and the FDA play in our scheduling process today.

In fact, the DEA already has the authority today to temporarily add these synthetic substances to the Controlled Substances Act if they determine that they pose an imminent hazard to public safety. The agency has used this authority over 80 times, including most recently to put all fentanyl-related substances into schedule I. DEA also has authority under the Analogue Act to treat synthetics that are substantially similar to a controlled substance the same way they treat the controlled substance, and this is authority the DEA has and continues to use to combat this crisis.

Instead of proposing to improve the DEA's existing statutory authority, this bill creates a new schedule for synthetic substances, and it gives almost sole discretion as to when a substance can be temporarily scheduled in the new schedule A and expands temporary scheduling for up to 5 years.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source