Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act.

This bill is well intentioned but fatally flawed. I agree with the goal of preventing dangerous synthetic drugs from evading regulation, but this bill circumvents existing procedures for placing synthetic analogues on the existing schedule of the Controlled Substances Act, which reasonably incorporate medical and scientific analysis in favor of a law enforcement-focused approach that would worsen the mass incarceration crisis and could undermine scientific research.

There are already statutory mechanisms in place to provide for the scheduling and regulation of new drugs that may be dangerous if misused. Those mechanisms require an appropriate degree of collaboration at the outset among the Justice Department, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration in scheduling synthetic analogues. This is because each of these agencies is equally important to the scheduling process.

By marginalizing the roles of HHS and the FDA in this bill, we would establish a mechanism that does not adequately consider scientific and medical evidence about the substance in question. Such input is critical to a process that may result in the imposition of significant criminal penalties related to these analogue drugs.

Under this bill, not only would the Attorney General hold the sole authority by himself to schedule these substances, but he or she would also have the power to set sentence levels for newly scheduled analogue drugs by establishing equivalencies between each newly scheduled analogue and drugs that are already controlled.

As a result, this legislation would expand penalties for drug offenses, concentrate an overwhelming amount of unchecked power within the Justice Department, overcriminalize certain conduct, and punish individuals without adequate proof of intent.

While the bill was slightly improved during our committee markup by eliminating the new mandatory minimum sentences included in the bill as introduced, the bill, nevertheless, would impose potentially lengthy maximum sentences for offenses involving these analogues.

I am mostly concerned that substances designated as analogues under the procedures instituted by this bill could trigger the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences under other provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. Although we have been told by the majority that this is not the intent of the bill, this ambiguity is another reason to oppose the legislation.

At the very least, the bill would explicitly impose mandatory minimum terms of supervised release, which, as the Judicial Conference of the United States observes, undermines the discretion of judges who are in the best position to make such determinations based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

We can do more to address concerns about emerging and potentially dangerous analogue drugs, but ditching scientific evidence and imposing new mandatory minimums is not the answer.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, we hope that we will be able to work together to save lives and to fix the issues that we are addressing here today.

Mr. Chair, we all want to solve the escalating problems of synthetic drugs, which permeate throughout our districts.

Therefore, our initial reaction would be to naturally support this endeavor.

However, while well-intended, this bill highlights many problems and does not fulfill the overall goal of stemming the tide of drugs on our streets.

We must exercise prudence, as to not further exacerbate the crisis of mass incarceration and punish those that need help with substance abuse and whom this bill purports to help.

Because this bill would concentrate an overwhelming amount of unchecked power within DOJ, eliminate scientific and medical analysis and interagency collaboration from the process of scheduling synthetic analogues, and expand penalties for drug offenses, I have serious concerns about H.R. 2851.

The bill is strongly opposed by a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including Freedom Works, Drug Policy Alliance, Families Against Mandatory Minimum, ACLU, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of Churches, Human Rights Watch, The Sentencing Project and many others.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source