House Report 112-295, Part 2 - 112th Congress (2011-2012)
November 22, 2011, As Reported by the Judiciary Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 112-295 - SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL ACT OF 2011




[House Report 112-295]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


112th Congress                                            Rept. 112-295
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 2

======================================================================



 
                   SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL ACT OF 2011

                                _______
                                

 November 22, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1254]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1254) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to 
place synthetic drugs in Schedule I, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Committee Votes..................................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    11
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    11
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    11
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    14
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    14
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    14
Agency Views.....................................................    15
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    20
Dissenting Views.................................................    22

                             The Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

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);
                  ``(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-alphapyrrolidinopropiophenone 
        (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).
          ``(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-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I).
          ``(39) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-
        2).
          ``(40) 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-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).''.

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''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    This bill places forty-one synthetic chemicals in Schedule 
I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).\1\ It also defines 
the term ``cannabimimetic agents'' to enable Federal law to 
include and proscribe future, emerging synthetic marijuana 
drugs. This bill increases the amount of time during which the 
Attorney General can temporarily place drugs in Schedule I of 
the CSA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(c).
    \2\21 U.S.C. Sec. 811(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    This bill concerns the imminent and emerging threats posed 
by three classes of synthetic drugs. These drugs have no 
medical benefit, are abused by adolescents and adults on an 
increasing and sometimes deadly scale, and are manufactured and 
distributed without adherence to any safety standards.
    Synthetic stimulants are substitutes for cocaine, 
methamphetamine and the club-drug Ecstasy. These drugs are 
intentionally mislabeled by their manufacturers as ``bath 
salts'' or ``plant food'' to trick the purchaser into thinking 
the drugs are mild or innocuous, and are labeled ``not for 
human consumption'' to circumvent Federal law. In fact, they 
are not bath salts or a bath product. Their only know purpose 
is for consumption as a recreational drug. On October 21, 2011, 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) exercised its 
emergency scheduling authority to control three of the most 
abused synthetic stimulants seen today.
    ``Bath salts'' can have very harmful effects on its users. 
Users have reported impaired perception, reduced motor control, 
extreme paranoia and violent episodes. These synthetic drugs 
have been popular among teens and young adults, and are sold at 
retail outlets and over the Internet.
    In March 2011, a Pennsylvania man, high on bath salts, 
entered a monastery and stabbed a priest in the face. In May 
2011, a 23-year old Florida man died due to a bath salts 
overdose. In April 2011, following a 3-day bath salts binge, 
another Pennsylvania man was injured after jumping out of 
second story window, fleeing from imaginary intruders. 
Recently, the epidemic use of bath salts has led to several 
suicides and homicides throughout the United States. According 
to data provided by the American Association of Poison Control 
Centers, there were 303 calls to poison control centers in 2010 
reporting exposures to bath salts. In the first half of 2011, 
there were 4,137 calls--a 2,600 percent increase of such calls 
in just one year.
    Synthetic cannabinoids are man-made marijuana. Organic 
plant matter is typically sprayed with a combination of 
dangerous synthetic chemicals. These products are produced 
without any quality control leading to widely varying dosages. 
These drugs, sometimes branded as ``K2'' or ``Spice'' are 
frequently labeled ``herbal incense'' to deceive the purchaser. 
In March 2011, the DEA exercised its emergency scheduling 
authority to temporarily place five synthetic cannabinoids in 
schedule I.
    There are many cases nationwide where people suffered from 
high blood pressure, vomiting, extreme anxiety, tremors, 
hallucinations, seizures and death after ingesting synthetic 
cannabinoids. There were 2,915 calls to U.S. poison control 
centers for exposure to synthetic cannabinoids for 2010. In 
just the first half of 2011, there were 3,787 calls, on course 
for a 150% increase in just one year.
    Synthetic hallucinogens are sometimes referred to as ``2C'' 
compounds. They are chemical analogs of a class of drugs which 
exert hallucinogenic and stimulant effects similar to 
mescaline, only they are much more potent. Some 2C compounds 
are already proscribed under Schedule I.
    The 2C chemicals in this bill are unique and represent 
another emerging synthetic drug problem causing an imminent 
danger to the public health. Based on reports of individual 
uses of these compounds and what is known of their 
pharmacology, they have a high potential for abuse. They have 
been implicated in dangerous side effects such as 
hallucinations and death. The DEA has classified them as drugs 
of significant concern, comparable to synthetic stimulants and 
synthetic cannabinoids.
    In March 2011, a mass overdose on 2C hallucinogens resulted 
in a teenager's death and ten more teens taken to local 
hospitals in Blaine, Minnesota, after a spring-break house 
party. The seller of these 2C synthetic drugs was charged with 
third degree murder for causing the teen's death.
    These three classes of synthetic drugs have triggered 
severe consequences. The effects on individuals vary widely, 
from psychotic episodes to death. Permanent neurological 
disorders have been documented in some users. The costs to 
health care systems are also severe. Emergency room admissions 
have increased significantly, frequently leading to patient 
transfers to costly intensive care units. The Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) has not approved any of these synthetic 
drugs for human consumption or for medical use.
    Synthetic stimulants and cannabinoids are illegal in 
several states. As of October 2011, approximately 37 states 
have enacted legislation prohibiting synthetic stimulants, and 
41 states have enacted legislation prohibiting synthetic 
cannabinoids. A Federal ban would permit the enforcement of 
Federal drug trafficking laws, particularly with regards to 
interstate trafficking of these substances, and enhance the 
authority to seize these synthetic drugs as they enter the 
United States.
    The CSA permits the Attorney General to temporarily place 
new and emerging drugs in Schedule I when they imminently 
endanger the public health.\3\ During the temporary scheduling 
period, several agencies including the FDA and the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse conduct tests to assess the dangers of 
these drugs. The bill seeks to double the time available to 
place emerging drugs on Schedule I and to enhance the tools 
available to law enforcement to combat the abuse of new and 
emerging drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\21 U.S.C. Sec. 811(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Opponents of the bill, including many minority members of 
the Committee, denounce the role of Congress in legislatively 
scheduling these synthetic drugs, arguing instead that the 
Administration should be the sole scheduling authority. This 
assertion flies in the face of the legislative intent of the 
CSA and over forty years of precedent. The CSA, by design, 
classifies controlled substances on one of five schedules, each 
with varying degrees of authorized distribution and use. This 
structure is not trivial or haphazard. It is intended to allow 
the law to conform to the ever-fluctuating controlled 
substances market. More importantly, it was designed to 
specifically allow for both legislative and administrative 
scheduling. In fact, in the past 20 years, Congress has 
legislatively scheduled over 50 controlled substances--the 
Executive Branch has scheduled 31 substances.
    Opponents also argue that placement of these synthetics on 
Schedule I prohibits any further research on the substances. 
This misstates the law. The CSA and its regulations clearly and 
specifically allow for approved research of substances listed 
in Schedule I.\4\ As of October 2011, nearly 4,000 individuals 
or entities, those being manufacturers, bona fide researchers 
and analytical laboratories, are authorized by the DEA to 
handle Schedule I drugs for scientific and investigative 
purposes. There are 325 researchers with credentials approved 
by the DEA who may conduct tests on schedule I drugs. Research 
and analysis of these synthetic drugs may be conducted subject 
to the conditions already in place for all highly addictive and 
dangerous drugs classified in Schedule I of the Controlled 
Substances Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\21 USC Sec. 823(f); 21 CFR 1301.18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    H.R. 1254, the Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011, was 
introduced by Mr. Dent on March 30, 2011. The bill was referred 
to the Energy and Commerce Committee and secondarily to the 
House Committee on the Judiciary. The Energy and Commerce 
Committee, Health Subcommittee held a hearing on July 21, 2011. 
The Health Subcommittee marked up and reported the bill on July 
26, 2011. The Energy and Commerce Committee marked up and 
reported the bill on July 28, 2011. The House Committee on the 
Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 1254.

                        Committee Consideration

    On October 6, 2011, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism 
and Homeland Security discharged the bill. On October 27, 2011 
and November 3, 2011, the Committee met in open session and 
mark-up sessions were held. On November 3, 2011, the Committee 
met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 1254 favorably 
reported with an amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 1254.
    1. An amendment to strike Section 3, which doubles the 
length of time the Attorney General can temporarily schedule a 
drug in emergency situations. Amendment #3 by Mr. Cohen (TN) 
failed 6-13.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................                              X
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Marino......................................................                              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................                              X
Mr. Ross........................................................                              X
Ms. Adams.......................................................                              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott.......................................................
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................              X
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................              X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
(Vacant)........................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              6              13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment to exclude simple possession offenses from 
the ambit of this bill. Amendment #6 by Mr. Scott (VA) failed 
6-14.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Marino......................................................                              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................                              X
Mr. Ross........................................................                              X
Ms. Adams.......................................................                              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................              X
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................              X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              6              14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An amendment to require the Attorney General to consult 
a peer-reviewed independent scientific body before making any 
change to the drug schedules. Amendment #13 by Mr. Cohen (TN) 
failed 5-14.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Marino......................................................                              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................                              X
Mr. Ross........................................................                              X
Ms. Adams.......................................................                              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................              X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              5              14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An amendment ordering an evaluation and report to 
Congress regarding the drug scheduling process and the existing 
drug control schedules. Amendment #4 by Mr. Nadler (NY) failed 
4-14.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Marino......................................................                              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................                              X
Mr. Ross........................................................                              X
Ms. Adams.......................................................                              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................              X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              4              14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An amendment to exclude the synthetic drugs added to 
Schedule I by this bill from the application of mandatory 
minimum sentences. Amendment #7 by Mr. Scott (VA) failed 6-16.

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................                              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................                              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................                              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................                              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................                              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................                              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Marino......................................................                              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................                              X
Mr. Ross........................................................                              X
Ms. Adams.......................................................                              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei......................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................              X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              6              16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair 
passed 13-4. Amendment 8 by Mr. Scott (VA).

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................              X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................              X
Mr. Griffin.....................................................              X
Mr. Marino......................................................              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................              X
Mr. Ross........................................................
Ms. Adams.......................................................              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei......................................................              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................                              X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair 
passed 13-4. Amendment #10 by Ms. Jackson Lee (TX).

                                                 ROLLCALL NO. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman.............................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr...........................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Lungren.....................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks......................................................
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan......................................................              X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz....................................................
Mr. Griffin.....................................................              X
Mr. Marino......................................................              X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................              X
Mr. Ross........................................................              X
Ms. Adams.......................................................              X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Amodei......................................................              X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................                              X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi...................................................
Mr. Quigley.....................................................
Ms. Chu.........................................................
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................
(Vacant)........................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             13               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1254, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 9, 2011.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1254, the 
``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 1254--Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.



As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 
                        November 3, 2011




    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1254 would have no 
significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill 
could affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any 
effects would be insignificant for each year.
    H.R. 1254 would expand the list of substances regulated 
under the Controlled Substances Act (title II of Public Law 91-
513, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 
1970) to include cannabimimetic agents, chemicals that are 
commonly known as synthetic drugs. As a result, the government 
might be able to pursue cases involving drug use that it 
otherwise would not be able to prosecute. CBO expects that H.R. 
1254 would apply to a relatively small number of additional 
offenders, however, so any increase in costs for law 
enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not 
be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1254 
could be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government 
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. 
Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime 
Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO expects that any additional 
revenues and direct spending would not be significant because 
of the small number of cases likely to be affected.
    H.R. 1254 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 
costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 1254 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined 
in UMRA, on manufacturers, sellers, and consumers of certain 
synthetic chemicals. CBO estimates that the cost of complying 
with those mandates would probably exceed the annual threshold 
established in UMRA for private-sector mandates in the first 
year after enactment ($142 million in 2011, adjusted annually 
for inflation).
    By adding selected chemical compounds to schedule I of the 
Controlled Substances Act, the bill would prohibit the sale, 
distribution, or use of those chemicals without a permit issued 
by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The cost of that 
prohibition would be the forgone income from lost sales and the 
value of the inventory of the banned products. Because of the 
nature of the market being regulated, the scope of sales 
affected is difficult to determine. Some industry experts 
estimate that the profits generated by the sale of products 
containing such synthetic chemicals amount to billions of 
dollars annually.
    However, based on information from industry and law 
enforcement experts, CBO expects that, by the date of the 
legislation's enactment, most vendors will have largely 
replaced the banned substances with new products because many 
States have already passed legislation banning some or all of 
the compounds listed in the bill and because the DEA has 
already issued emergency rules temporarily banning five 
cannabimimetic agents and three synthetic stimulants. Thus, the 
cost of the mandate would be much smaller than the profits 
currently being earned in the industry. Given the estimated 
magnitude of industry profits, however, it would only require 
about a 5 percent to 10 percent decrease in profits for the 
costs to exceed the annual threshold for private-sector 
mandates. Consequently, CBO estimates that the cost of the 
mandate would probably exceed the annual threshold in the first 
year following enactment. Thereafter, costs would be minimal, 
CBO estimates.
    The bill also would impose a mandate by prohibiting the 
unregistered possession of the banned compounds, requiring 
individuals and facilities that wish to use or handle the 
chemicals to register with the DEA. Individuals who are unable 
to obtain DEA approval would have to dispose of the banned 
chemicals in their possession. CBO expects that the cost to 
those individuals would be small. Because some of those 
compounds have been temporarily placed under schedule I of the 
Controlled Substances Act by two emergency rules issued by the 
DEA in 2011, most researchers investigating those synthetic 
compounds have already registered with the DEA. The legislation 
would not require them to register again with the DEA; 
therefore, CBO expects the cost of the mandate to private 
research facilities to be small.
    On October 14, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for 
H.R. 1254, the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011,'' as 
ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce 
on July 28, 2011. The two versions of the bill are similar, and 
the estimated costs are the same.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz 
(for Federal costs) and Michael Levine (for the impact on the 
private sector). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
1254 places several synthetic drugs in Schedule I of the 
Controlled Substances Act and increases the Attorney General's 
authority to temporarily schedule future, emerging drugs.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 1254 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec. 1: Short Title
    Section 1 provides that the short title of H.R. 1254 is the 
``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011.''
Sec. 2: Addition of Synthetic Drugs to Schedule I of the Controlled 
        Substances Act.
    Section 2(a) places 15 synthetic marijuana drugs in 
Schedule I. It also defines the term ``cannabimimetic agents'' 
as substances which have a certain effect on receptors in the 
brain. This will enable Federal law to include and proscribe 
future, emerging synthetic marijuana drugs. Section 2(b) places 
26 synthetic stimulant drugs and synthetic hallucinogenic drugs 
in Schedule I.
Sec. 3: Temporary Scheduling to Avoid Imminent Hazards to Public Safety 
        Expansion.
    Section 3 doubles the amount of time during which the 
Attorney General can temporarily place drugs in Schedule I of 
the Controlled Substances Act. Currently, if the Attorney 
General finds that scheduling on a temporary basis is necessary 
to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, he may do so 
for up to one year and may extend for up to six months. This 
section would permit temporary scheduling for up to two years 
with a possible one-year extension.

                              Agency Views
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>



                               __________

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                       CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

TITLE II--CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         Part B--Authority To Control; Standards and Schedules

        AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSTANCES

  Sec. 201. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1) * * *
  (2) The scheduling of a substance under this subsection shall 
expire at the end of [one year] 2 years from the date of the 
issuance of the order scheduling such substance, except that 
the Attorney General may, during the pendency of proceedings 
under subsection (a)(1) with respect to the substance, extend 
the temporary scheduling for up to [six months] 1 year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

  Sec. 202. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until 
amended pursuant to section 201, consist of the following drugs 
or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual 
name, chemical name, or brand name designated:

                               Schedule I

  (a)   * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another 
schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, 
which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic 
substances, or which contains any of 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:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (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-alphapyrrolidinopropiophenone 
        (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).
          (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-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I).
          (39) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine 
        (2C-T-2).
          (40) 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-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).
  (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);
                  (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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Dissenting Views

                              INTRODUCTION

    H.R. 1254, the ``Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011,'' 
represents an end-run around existing law for criminalizing new 
substances. This bill would add more than 40 synthetic chemical 
compounds to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act 
(``CSA'') with virtually no empirical evidence to demonstrate 
that such scheduling is warranted. Adding dozens of substances 
to Schedule I, the schedule that carries the most serious 
prohibitions and penalties for drug crimes, without the benefit 
of any meaningful process, is a mistake. H.R. 1254 will 
seriously hinder legitimate research, subject low-level users 
to Federal prosecution, waste resources, and do little to 
further its purported goal of reducing substance abuse.
    These problems, as well as numerous other concerns, have 
prompted ten organizations to oppose the bill, including the 
American Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance, Justice 
Policy Institute, National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People, National Association of Criminal Defense 
Lawyers, National Association of Social Workers, The Sentencing 
Project, StoptheDrugWar.org, Students for a Sensible Drug 
Policy,\1\ and Families Against Mandatory Minimums 
(``FAMM'').\2\ In addition, several researchers from the 
University of California, Irvine, the University of California, 
Berkeley, the University of California, San Francisco, and the 
University of Wisconsin-Madison have also expressed serious 
concern that H.R. 1254 will impede legitimate, scientific 
research.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith 
and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. from the American Civil American 
Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance, Justice Policy Institute, 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Social 
Workers, The Sentencing Project, StoptheDrugWar.org, Students for a 
Sensible Drug Policy (Oct. 4, 2011) (``Sign-On Letter'').
    \2\See Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith 
and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. from Families Against Mandatory 
Minimums (Oct. 5, 2011) (``FAMM Letter'').
    \3\See Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith 
and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. from Richard Chamberlin, Professor 
of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Services, Chair of Pharmaceutical 
Sciences, University of California, Irvine (Oct. 31, 2011) (``UCI 
Letter''); see also ``Views on Synthetic Drug Control Act'' (``Views 
Memo'') (on file with H.Comm. on the Judiciary, Dem. Staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For these reasons, and those described below, we 
respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to reject this 
seriously flawed bill.

                       DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

    H.R. 1254 would place on Schedule I numerous chemical 
compounds commonly found in a class of synthetic drugs known as 
K2 and Spice that imitate marijuana, and a second class of 
synthetic drugs that have stimulant properties and often 
contain mephedrone. Schedule I is the most restrictive and 
punitive schedule under the CSA. The bill also doubles the 
period of time that the Attorney General may temporarily place 
a substance on Schedule I (from 1 to 2 years) and doubles the 
length for an extension of temporarily scheduling (from 6 
months to 1 year), all without requiring any medical or 
scientific evidence.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\An amendment offered by Rep. Cohen to strike this portion of 
H.R. 1254 was defeated by a vote of 6-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Judiciary Committee has not held any hearings or 
subcommittee markups regarding this legislation or the related 
issues. While the Energy and Commerce Committee did hold a 
hearing on March 30, 2011 to ``Address Bioterrorism, Controlled 
Substances and Public Health Issues,'' the sole witness was 
Representative Dent, the sponsor of the bill. On July 28, 2011, 
the Energy and Commerce Committee agreed by voice vote to 
favorably report H.R. 1254 with one technical amendment.
    Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee have raised 
serious concerns regarding the lack of Judiciary Committee 
process on H.R. 1254. On October 3, 2011 Ranking Member John 
Conyers, Jr. (D-MI); Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA); 
along with Representatives Steve Cohen (D-TN); Henry C. 
``Hank'' Johnson (D-GA); Melvin L. Watt (D-NC); Pedro R 
Pierluisi (D-PR); Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); and Jerrold Nadler 
(D-NY) wrote to Chairman Smith and Subcommittee Chairman 
Sensenbrenner requesting a hearing to consider numerous 
concerns about this legislation before markup.\5\ This request 
was denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See Letter to House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Rep. Lamar 
Smith and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Chair 
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. from House Committee on the Judiciary 
Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. et al. (Oct. 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        CONCERNS WITH H.R. 1254

I. H.R. 1254 CIRCUMVENTS THE NORMAL SCHEDULING PROCESS AND CRIMINALIZES 
   NUMEROUS SUBSTANCES WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC OR MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO 
                            SUPPORT DOING SO

    Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 811 sets forth the process for placing 
a substance on Schedule I. It requires that the Attorney 
General request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
(Secretary) ``a scientific and medical evaluation, and his 
recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substances 
should be so controlled. . . .'' The Secretary must engage in 
an eight-factor analysis, which includes an evaluation of 
``[t]he state of current scientific knowledge regarding the 
drug or other substance[;] [w]hat, if any, risk there is to the 
public health[;] [i]ts actual or relative potential for 
abuse[;] and [i]ts psychic or physiological dependence 
liability[,]'' among other factors.
    H.R. 1254 circumvents this statutory process and would 
place 46 substances on Schedule I, with virtually no science to 
support the conclusion that these substances need to be 
criminalized. Even the Director of the Office of the National 
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) R. Gil Kerlikowske recognized that 
there is ``a lack of sufficient data regarding the prevalence 
of bath salt stimulant drugs.''\6\ Although Representative 
Adams claimed at the markup that there were boxes of research 
on the substances at issue, no report or other document with an 
analysis of the 46 substances was presented at the markup. 
Moreover, the appropriate forum for such evidence to be 
presented and discussed is at a hearing, however, the majority 
denied a request for a hearing to examine these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Congressional Research Service, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and 
Issues for Congress, at 12 (Oct. 28, 2011) (``CRS Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A decision to federalize a substance and subject 
individuals to harsh penalties is serious. A bill that allows 
for Federal prohibition of numerous substances--even some that 
are not yet present in the United States--is problematic 
especially without scientific evidence.\7\ Several amendments 
offered by the Minority sought to address the dearth of 
evidence and refine the scheduling process, but all were 
defeated. For example, Representative Scott offered an 
amendment to require empirical evidence before criminalizing 
these substances, similar to what is required under Sec. 811. 
His amendment, however, was defeated by voice vote. 
Representative Cohen offered an amendment that would have 
required the Attorney General to consult with a peer-reviewed, 
independent scientific organization before scheduling 
substances in the future. His amendment was defeated by a vote 
of 5 to 14. And, Representative Nadler offered an amendment 
that would have required a study of the scheduling process 
generally. It was defeated by a vote of 4 to 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\To date, the Drug Enforcement Agency (``DEA'') has temporarily 
scheduled eight synthetic substances. These are the only substances 
currently present in the United States. Because temporary scheduling, 
unlike legislative scheduling, requires a partial analysis of the 
substances by the Attorney General, Rep. Scott offered an amendment to 
limit H.R. 1254 to placing those eight substances on Schedule I. This 
amendment was defeated by voice vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       II. H.R. 1254 WILL HINDER MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

    Schedule I designation would hinder ongoing and future 
research aimed at better understanding these compounds and 
their possible medical use. This is particularly concerning in 
the case of synthetic cannabinoids, where research is underway 
with regard to whether they have the same medicinal benefit as 
marijuana. Notably, Clemson University Professor John F. 
Huffman, the first to synthesize cannabinoids, is ``against 
adding synthetic cannabinoids to Schedule I, asserting that 
there is still much to learn about synthetic cannabinoids and 
that placing them on Schedule I would create too many hurdles 
for researchers who need access to these drugs. Professor 
Huffman has created several synthetic cannabinoids that are 
seen as showing promise in treating skin cancers, pain, and 
inflammation.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\CRS Report at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several other researchers and scientists have expressed 
serious concerns that H.R. 1254 would impede research in ways 
perhaps not intended by supporters of the bill. Researchers at 
the University of California at Irvine have indicated that 
scheduling these substances will significantly hinder 
research.\9\ The chair of the chemistry department believes 
that ``classifying a broad list of chemicals as Schedule I 
would be an outright disaster for biochemical research!''\10\ 
He goes on to note that the same structural components that 
make very potent drugs of abuse are also found in leading 
medications and new drug leads for a variety of important 
diseases such as Parkinson's disease and other neurological 
disorders.\11\ Another professor of chemistry and chair of 
pharmaceutical sciences said that the problem with the bill's 
blanket coverage is that all of the compounds on the list have 
many potential uses as building blocks for other organic 
molecules with absolutely no relationship to cannabinoid 
receptors or hallucinogens. . . .''\12\ His concerns were 
echoed by yet another professor who indicated that he and his 
colleagues ``have been repeatedly hampered by the restrictive 
treatment of mundane `precursor compounds' such as piperidine'' 
and described the numerous hoops that they must jump through to 
study them.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\UCI Letter at 1.
    \10\Id.
    \11\Id. at 1-2.
    \12\Id. at 1.
    \13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, a professor of medicine and bioengineering and 
therapeutic services, and the Chief of the Division of Clinical 
Pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco, 
stated that ``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.''\14\ Researchers from the University of 
California, Berkeley also echoed these concerns.\15\ Even 
further, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences and Associate 
Dean for Research at the School of Pharmacy at the University 
of Wisconsin-Madison stated that as a result of this bill ``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.''\16\ 
Although the DEA disputes that research will be hampered, the 
opinions of legitimate and well-established faculty at numerous 
universities cannot be ignored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Views Memo at 1.
    \15\Id.
    \16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  III. BY ADDING NEW SUBSTANCES TO SCHEDULE I, H.R. 1254 WOULD CREATE 
 FEDERAL PENALTIES AND EXPAND A MANDATORY MINIMUM FOR SUBSTANCES ABOUT 
                       WHICH WE KNOW VERY LITTLE

    Although H.R. 1254 itself does not set forth penalties, all 
of the substances that will be added to Schedule I will be 
subject to the already existing penalty structure in Title 21. 
This includes the expansion of at least one mandatory minimum, 
21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(C). In other words, these substances will 
be treated the same, for purposes of charging and sentencing, 
as the drugs that they seek to mimic, without any evidence that 
they possess the same health hazards. This is because, as the 
DEA acknowledges, little is known at the present time about 
these substances. Under the normal statutory scheduling 
process, the DEA, the Food & Drug Administration and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services would have the 
opportunity to determine whether treating these substances in 
the same fashion as other Schedule I substances is warranted. 
However, H.R. 1254 completely bypasses this important process.
    The problem with mandatory minimums is that they must be 
imposed regardless of whether the sentencing judge agrees or 
disagrees with the sentence.\17\ In a letter to the Chair and 
Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Families Against 
Mandatory Minimums describes an instance where a Federal judge 
in a case involving 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(C) felt that the 
defendant was deserving of a shorter sentence, but had no 
choice but to impose 20 years in prison.\18\ The bill removes 
discretion from the judge, who is in the best position to 
determine a fair sentence as he or she has considered all of 
the evidence and has heard from the parties and the defendant. 
This concern is heightened when the underlying crime involves 
synthetic substances that we know very little about. 
Nevertheless, when Representative Scott offered an amendment to 
exclude 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b)(C) from the application of this 
bill, it was defeated by a vote of 6 to 16. As an alternative, 
Representative Scott then offered an amendment that would have 
allowed a judge to apply 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(f) (known as ``the 
safety valve'') to cases involving synthetic drugs, it was 
objected to on germaneness grounds. A motion to table the 
appeal of the ruling of the chair passed by a vote of 13 to 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\FAMM Letter
    \18\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FAMM is not the only organization that objects to H.R. 1254 
because of its stiff penalties and scant scientific evidence to 
support imposition of such penalties. For instance, the Drug 
Policy Alliance believes H.R. 1254 ``would invariably lead to 
the prosecution and incarceration of low to mid level offenders 
who could be prosecuted by the States where treatment or 
diversion opportunities are available.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Letter from Drug Policy Alliance (``DPA'') at 1 (July 26, 2011) 
(``DPA Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Supporters of the bill assert that their goal is to 
apprehend importers, traffickers, and large distributors of 
synthetic substances. They also claim to be concerned with 
young people who may tend to experiment with these substances. 
It should be noted, however, that these young people are the 
same individuals who would face prosecution for use and 
possession under this bill. As the American Civil Liberties 
Union, Justice Policy Institute, the National Association of 
Social Workers, and the National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People, among others, jointly observed, 
``Youth would be better served by a proactive effort by 
Congress to fund studies and evaluations that give the public, 
lawmakers and health authorities a better understanding of the 
health implications of synthetic drugs.''\20\ Nevertheless, 
when Representative Scott offered an amendment to exclude the 
offense of simple possession from the bill's applicability, not 
a single Majority member supported it. It was defeated by a 
vote of 6 to 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Sign-On Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 IV. H.R. 1254 REPRESENTS A RUSH TO CRIMINALIZE SUBSTANCES, WHEN THERE 
  IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CRIMINALIZATION WILL ACTUALLY REDUCE DEMAND OR 
                             PREVENT DEATHS

    There is little evidence that criminalizing these 
substances will result in favorable outcomes for public health 
and safety. The United Kingdom's experience is instructive. In 
2010, the United Kingdom added mephedrone to its schedule of 
prohibited substances in an effort to curb its use. An article, 
however, published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, 
described a survey of mephedrone users completed in June 2010, 
and compared this survey with a previous survey completed in 
2009. The results of these surveys on what occurred after the 
scheduling of mephedrone in the United Kingdom were the 
following: (1) most survey respondents stated that they would 
continue to use the same amount of mephedrone; (2) prices on 
average had doubled; and (3) illegal sellers made greater 
profits as a result of the price increase.\21\ In other words, 
adding these substances to the schedule of prohibited 
substances will not curb use, but will simply put more money in 
the pockets of sellers and traffickers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Mephedrone: Still Available and Twice the Price, The Lancet, 
Vol. 136 (Nov. 6, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, the public reaction and media reports about the 
effects of synthetic drugs on individuals and the safety 
hazards of these substances echoes the crack cocaine hysteria 
of the 1980's. When Congress rushed to act then, it passed a 
law that devastated the African-American community and took two 
decades to remedy. Congress only partially repealed this unfair 
law last year, with the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act. We 
should be cautious not to make a similar fear-driven mistake 
with synthetic drugs, as it too could have far-reaching, 
unintended consequences. In recognition of the fact that little 
is known about the effects of this bill, Representative Jackson 
Lee offered an amendment requiring the Attorney General, in 
consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, to 
conduct a demographic study of users of synthetic drugs. Her 
amendment, however, was ruled non-germane and a motion to table 
the appeal of the ruling passed by a vote of 13 to 4.
    Proponents of H.R. 1254 point to press accounts of 
tragedies that have befallen individuals who have abused 
synthetic substances as justification for criminalizing these 
substances. As was revealed during the markup, however, 
criminalization by states of these substances has not prevented 
deaths.\22\ There is simply no reason to believe, nor any 
evidence to indicate, that Federal scheduling will achieve any 
different results. It would be much more prudent for Congress 
to develop education campaigns and ad councils to raise 
awareness of the dangers of synthetic drugs, rather than 
criminalize these substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\See, e.g., ``How `bath salts' led to suicide, Virginia Gazette 
(October 8, 2011), available at http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2011/
10/08/news/doc4e8f78d6557cf829866915.txt (last visited November 17, 
2011) (noting that the Virginia Assembly passed legislation earlier 
this year making substances at issue in this article illegal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. H.R. 1254 PROVIDES AN EXPENSIVE FEDERAL SOLUTION TO A FUNDAMENTALLY 
                             LOCAL PROBLEM

    The need for Federal intervention is particularly 
questionable when at least 30 states have already enacted 
legislation criminalizing synthetic drugs, and more states have 
legislation pending. States are assessing the situation and 
enacting laws accordingly. Nonetheless, proponents fail to 
justify why the Federal Government must act or why state laws 
are inadequate. As the Drug Policy Alliance notes, 
``Prohibiting these substances at the Federal level would 
expand the reach of the Federal Government into the territory 
reserved for state governments.''\23\ Nonetheless, for cases 
that warrant Federal prosecution, the DEA can utilize the 
analog statute, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 813. This statute allows the DEA 
to prosecute substances that are chemically and 
pharmacologically similar to a substance already on a schedule 
(e.g., synthetic cocaine). This is an appropriate option in 
serious and large trafficking cases, where there may be an 
interest that is served in prosecuting the matter federally, 
rather than locally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\DPA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Passage of this proposal would also stifle efforts by state 
lawmakers to tailor policy to fit the needs of their 
communities. For example, a number of states have implemented 
an array of creative and innovative approaches designed to 
divert low-level offenders from arrest or incarceration. H.R. 
1254, on the other hand, would compel, and in some cases 
require, state lawmakers to adopt criminal penalties identical 
to those mandated under the CSA. Accordingly, this bill 
overrides state law and ties the hands of state lawmakers from 
pursuing more effective policies and evidence-based approaches 
to respond to the emergence of synthetic drugs. Lawmakers in 
the sixteen states with medical marijuana policies in place are 
also increasingly seeking resolution of the federal-state 
conflict that has undermined local efforts. This legislation 
would introduce more conflict and confusion at the state and 
local level.
    In addition, the arrests and prosecutions that will result 
from this legislation will require the allocation of new 
funding at a time when Congress is focusing on reducing 
government spending and prison populations. H.R. 1254 does not 
provide offsets for the new spending it would require or any 
estimate of the scope of this additional spending. Although the 
Congressional Budget Office (``CBO'') concludes that the 
effects of this bill would be insignificant,\24\ it fails to 
address the hidden costs of arrest, prosecution, and 
corrections (incarceration and supervision). Given that a 
single marijuana arrest (along with subsequent prosecution and 
punishments) costs taxpayers more than $10,000 on average,\25\ 
and that the bill adds 46 new substances to Schedule I, the 
CBO's conclusion is not realistic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Cong. Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 1254 at 1 (November 
9, 2011).
    \25\John B. Gettman, Crimes of Indiscretion: Marijuana Arrests in 
the United States, George Mason University School of Public Policy 
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Congressional Research Service notes in its report on 
this topic, ``The growing Federal prison population and prison 
crowding continue to be concerns for the Bureau of Prisons 
(BOP) as well as for policymakers.''\26\ It is important, given 
our current fiscal crisis, to fully consider the economic cost 
of implementing this legislation. In response to these 
concerns, Representative Jackson Lee offered an amendment 
requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a 
fiscal analysis of the bill and its enforcement. Her amendment, 
however, was defeated by voice vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\CRS Report at 12. The report further notes:

      The number of inmates held in BOP facilities grew from 
      125,560 in FY 2000 to 180,725 as of September 2011. From 
      FY2000-FY2010, prison overcrowding grew from 32% over rated 
      capacity to 37% over rated capacity, despite the fact that 
      the number of facilities operated by BOP increased from 97 
      to 116. The growing Federal prison population has not only 
      resulted in more crowded prisons, but it has also strained 
      BOP's ability to properly manage and care for Federal 
      inmates. Given that a majority of the Federal prison 
      population is incarcerated for drug-related offenses, 
      Congress may question the potential effect on the prison 
      population and crowding should it move to schedule 
      additional substances. It is unknown whether BOP, in the 
      current fiscal environment, is able to accommodate 
      increases in the number of inmates and the number of 
      inmates requiring special services.

                               CONCLUSION

    H.R. 1254 represents an ill-advised rush to criminalize 
synthetic substances about which little is known. The 
unintended consequences of this legislation are substantial. It 
will seriously hinder legitimate research and encourage 
prosecution of low-level users, both which do nothing to 
address the public safety issues that supporters of the bill 
seek to address. Rather than focus on a punitive law 
enforcement oriented response, the public would be better 
served by measures that address the root causes of substance 
abuse, expand substance abuse treatment, and create public 
awareness campaigns to educate the community, particularly 
youth, about the dangers of abusing synthetic drugs. For these 
reasons, we must respectfully dissent.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Steve Cohen.
                                   Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.