Civil Rights Cold Case Investigations Support Act of 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I took chemistry in high school. I wasn't very good at it, but I think I got a B, and I was glad to get rid of it because I didn't understand a lot of it, and that was not where I was headed in life.
The question which the Senator from Wisconsin puts before us today is a complicated question. It seems he is--do we have a drug crisis in America? Yes. Is fentanyl dangerous? Yes. Is fentanyl deadly? Yes. Is fentanyl on schedule I, the highest possible narcotic rating under our Criminal Code? Yes.
So what is this discussion about fentanyl? Why are we at this again?
I don't know the Senator from Wisconsin's background in chemistry and the like, but here is how I understand it and why it is not as simple as paying tribute to this young man who lost his life to fentanyl. And I can come up with examples that I have run into as well. It is heartbreaking what is going on.
There are certain elements that contain fentanyl that have other chemical structures, not simple fentanyl, which is already a prohibited narcotic under American law. And these so-called analogs of fentanyl have many chemical variations. It turns out that some of them are deadly dangerous, but some of them are not. It turns out that some are deadly dangerous, and others may have a promise to be the next Narcan for the researchers.
So we have been struggling, literally, for years with a research community that says: When it comes to fentanyl analogs, don't sweep them all into category I. Some of them may be lifesaving, as odd as that sounds. It could happen. And I have been saying it is a reasonable argument, but how long is this investigation going to go on? How long will this research continue?
We are told that it is sincere and real--it has happened under previous administrations and this administration--and that to sweep all these chemical analogs of fentanyl into this category would be, frankly, counterproductive. We may be walking away from something that is a lifesaver rather than a life-taker.
And it is because of that that we have been temporarily extending the decision to put fentanyl and its analogs on category I so that this research can establish whether, in fact, there is a lifesaver, that there is something positive in a fentanyl analog.
I have just given you the sum total of my understanding of this issue. As I said, I didn't major in chemistry and barely got through it in high school, but I think that is where we are.
I don't think there is any disagreement between us that fentanyl is deadly and dangerous and belongs on that category I.
When it comes to the analogs, they said to me: Durbin, you are a liberal arts lawyer. Don't act like you are a chemist. Give us the time to do this right.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Sure. Yes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. There is an element that the Senator from Wisconsin may not be aware of. When a drug is on schedule I, it is prohibited to do research on it. That is the reason why we are running into problems with cannabis, now legal in my State and maybe in your State as well.
And I raised the basic question: Are the health claims about cannabis true or false?
And they said: We cannot research it because it is on the list of prohibited drugs in the United States.
The problem is, if we put all of these analogs on the list, it is going to stop the research that we need to finish. It is a catch-22.
What we have tried to do is a temporary extension saying: Give us the final word. We have got to make a decision.
I do not quarrel with you in any way about the danger of fentanyl, but the people who do this for a living--and I can't keep up with their conversations, by and large--have explained to me: We are trying to find a good use of a fentanyl analog. Don't close the door, slam the door, by putting it on schedule I because research stops.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Yes, of course.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I would just say that my information is a little different. I respect the Senator from Wisconsin and his tribute to this poor young man who lost his life, but we are trying to do the sensible thing. Fentanyl itself is going to continue to be branded a dangerous drug, titled in category 1. But Federal analogs and a variation on that theme is what we are discussing, and for reasons--I am trying to bow to the experts in science and research--on a temporary basis. Believe me, if they have got something, we want to see it. If not, we are going to categorize them as schedule I. So for the reasons I have mentioned, I am going to object.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Iowa is sincere and accurate as he describes the fentanyl challenge we face in the United States. He tells the story of losing an Iowan. Sadly, I can tell a similar story in my home State of Illinois.
We currently have a temporary answer to this situation that extends until December 31 of this year, and admittedly, it is coming on us, but it isn't tomorrow. It will be in just a few months.
One of my colleagues on the committee, Senator Cory Booker, has a particular expertise and interest in this issue, but, unfortunately, he could not be here at this moment when the Senator from Iowa made his motion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source