Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3192, the ``CHIP Mental Health Parity Act.'' H.R. 3192 would ensure access to mental health and substance use disorder prevention and treatment services for children under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Beginning in infancy and continuing through adolescence, children need access to mental health screening and assessment and a complete array of evidence-based therapeutic services. Around 1 in 5 children in the U.S. suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder, but only 20 to 25 percent of affected children will receive treatment. Untreated mental health and substance use disorders are associated with family dysfunction, school expulsion, poor school performance, juvenile incarceration, unemployment, and suicide. CHIP has been an essential source of children's health coverage, ensuring that families have access to high quality, affordable, pediatric health care for children in working families whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to purchase private health insurance on their own. Given the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders in children and the nationwide opioid epidemic, it is essential now more than ever that all children and adolescents enrolled in CHIP have access to mental health and substance use disorder screening and treatment. There are currently over 400,000 CHIP recipients in Texas. This figure is significantly less than in 2014, when nearly half of all children in Texas were enrolled in CHIP or Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3192 and the estimated 8.9 million children across the United States who rely on CHIP for their necessary health services.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5605, the ``Advancing High Quality Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders in Medicare Act.'' This important bill provides applicable beneficiaries increased access to opioid use disorder treatment services and will improve physical and mental health outcomes for such beneficiaries. In 2016, approximately one-third of Medicare beneficiaries received an opioid prescription, 500,000 of which received high doses of opioids yet many lack access to quality treatment for substance abuse. This legislation would create an Alternative Payment Model (APM) demonstration program to incentivize the delivery of high quality, evidence-based substance use disorder treatment services. The voluntary program would enroll eligible beneficiaries who agree to receive Substance Use Disorder (SUD) treatment services through providers and institutions participating in the Program. To support those who are suffering from opioid use disorders, we must employ a multi-faceted approach that actually achieves results. The purpose of the Advancing High Quality Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders in Medicare Act is to assist states in the implementation of a variety of strategies, including: Reducing hospitalizations and emergency department visits; Increasing the use of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders; Improving health outcomes of individuals with opioid use disorders, including by reducing the incidence of infectious diseases (such as hepatitis C and HIV); Reducing deaths from opioid overdose; and Reducing the utilization of inpatient residential treatment. Under the Program, the Secretary of the Health and Human Services shall make payments to participants for: Furnishing opioid use disorder treatment services delivered through opioid use disorder care teams; or Arranging for such service to be furnished, to applicable beneficiaries participating in the Program. The current surge of opioid usage requires a strong, national response, and with passage of the Advancing High Quality Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders in Medicare Act, we are addressing this issue. Opioid use disorder leads to physical and functional changes to parts of the brain affecting impulse, reward, and motivation. In recent years, it is estimated that 2.1 million individuals in the United States have an opioid use disorder. This legislation would require APM demonstration program participants to provide both medication as well as psychosocial supports, such as care management, psychotherapy, treatment planning and appropriate social services to treat substance use disorder, which is considered the gold standard of care. Voluntary APM demonstration program participation would be prioritized in regions with high prevalence of opioid use disorders. Care teams would require inclusion of health care providers who are licensed to dispense opioid medications for the purpose of detoxification or maintenance treatment for opioid use disorder, as well as appropriate providers of psychosocial treatment. In addition, in conjunction with stakeholders, the Health and Human Services Secretary would develop quality and outcome measures to assess the care beneficiaries receive through the Program. Participating providers or institutes will receive a monthly case management fee for all beneficiaries receiving opioid treatment services. Program participants will receive a higher case management fee if their care team includes an addiction specialist, and for the initiation of treatment period, which is treatment and resource intensive. Participants would be eligible to receive an additional incentive payment for providing quality substance use disorder treatment care. The demonstration program is authorized for four years and capped at 20,000 participants. I am confident that the comprehensive approach we are taking to address those suffering from Opioid Use Disorder will help address the nation's growing epidemic. For these reasons, I support the Advancing High Quality Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders in Medicare Act and the goal of ensuring the best possible response to treat opioid use disorder in America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5811, which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to post approval study requirements for certain controlled substances. H.R. 5811 allows the FDA to require that pharmaceutical manufacturers study certain drugs after they are approved to assess any potential reduction in those drugs' effectiveness for the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in labeling. In recent years, many communities have been devastated by the number of overdoses that have been related to the escalating opioid epidemic. According to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, illegal substances, deadly synthetics such as fentanyl, and legally available pain relievers accounted for more than 42,000 deaths across the country in 2016. Further, in the city of Houston, there were 364 drug-related overdose deaths alone that happened in 2016 according to the Treatment Center, a highly respected drug and alcohol addiction treatment service center. This is a national emergency that deserves immediate action. H.R. 5811 would expand an existing mandate that requires drug developers to conduct post-approval studies or clinical trials for certain drugs. FDA will provide doctors and patients the information they need to use medicines wisely. This will ensure that drugs, both brand-name and generic, work correctly and that their health benefits outweigh their known risks. Under current law, in certain instances, the FDA can require studies or clinical trials after a drug has been approved. H.R. 5811 would permit the FDA to use that authority if the reduction in a drug's effectiveness meant that its benefits no longer outweighed its costs. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass H.R. 5811.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to commemorate Juneteenth, as a Texan and one who acknowledges that it was my State, 153 years ago, June 19, 1865, where General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas, and announced the freedom of the last American slaves, belatedly freeing 250,000 slaves in Texas nearly 2\1/2\ years after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Having spent 2 days at the border, I know that there are 2,000 children who have been separated from their families who are seeking freedom. I rise today in honor of Juneteenth because it was and is a living symbol of freedom for people who did not have it. Today, I introduced H. Res. 948, the annual congressional resolution commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day, which is cosponsored by more than 50 of my colleagues. Juneteenth remains the oldest known celebration of slavery's demise. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need to be able to honor the issue of freedom, so I conclude by saying that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, ``Freedom is never free,'' and African American labor leader A. Phillip Randolph often said, ``Freedom is never given; it is won.'' We must win the freedom for these children, 2,000, who have been separated from their families. Mr. Speaker, 153 years ago, on June 19, 1865, General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas and announced the freedom of the last American slaves; belatedly freeing 250,000 slaves in Texas nearly two and a half years after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Juneteenth was first celebrated in the Texas state capital in 1867 under the direction of the Freedmen's Bureau. Juneteenth was and is a living symbol of freedom for people who did not have it. Today, I introduced H. Res. 948, the annual congressional resolution commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day, which is co-sponsored by more than 50 of my colleagues. Juneteenth remains the oldest known celebration of slavery's demise. It commemorates freedom while acknowledging the sacrifices and contributions made by courageous African Americans towards making our great nation the more conscious and accepting country that it has become. It was only after that day in 1865 when General Granger rode into Galveston, Texas, on the heels of the most devastating conflict in our country's history, in the aftermath of a civil war that pitted brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor and threatened to tear the fabric of our union apart forever that America truly became the land of the free and the home of the brave. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ``Freedom is never free,'' and African American labor leader A. Phillip Randolph often said ``Freedom is never given. It is won.'' Truer words were never spoken. We should all recognize the power and the ironic truth of those statements and we should pause to remember the enormous price paid by all Americans in our country's quest to realize its promise. Juneteenth honors the end of the 400 years of suffering African Americans endured under slavery and celebrates the legacy of perseverance that has become the hallmark of the African American experience in the struggle for equality. In recent years, a number of National Juneteenth Organizations have arisen to take their place alongside older organizations--all with the mission to promote and cultivate knowledge and appreciation of African American history and culture. Juneteenth celebrates African American freedom while encouraging self-development and respect for all cultures. But it must always remain a reminder to us all that liberty and freedom are precious birthrights of all Americans which must be jealously guarded and preserved for future generations. As it takes on a more national and even global perspective, the events of 1865 in Texas are not forgotten, for all of the roots tie back to this fertile soil from which a national day of pride is growing.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there is one person in the United States that can stop the mean-spirited separation of children at the border of my State. The vileness of separating babies as young as 6 months, babies who are breastfeeding, is at the feet, the hands, mind, and heart of President Trump. This is not a Democratic policy. We have never utilized this kind of deterrence, and we have never stopped an asylum possibility because of domestic violence or gang violence, as this administration is doing. Secondarily, the IG report, which I commend to the American people to read, has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation and Mr. Mueller, with his integrity intact, must continue that investigation and do it well and answer the questions of the Russian collusion in the election of 2016. On another note, Happy Father's Day. In the memory of my late father, Ezra C. Jackson, we miss you. But all of the fathers who have fallen, and those who live, we wish you a wonderful day. As well, Happy Juneteenth to those who celebrate Juneteenth, who recognize that it was 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation that African Americans in the South and, particularly, Texas knew that they were free. Freedom is precious.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Marino, and I want to make it very clear that we have spent a lot of time in the Judiciary Committee, in this Congress, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, on almost every other bill in stemming the tide, the rage, the horror of opioid addiction. Mr. Chairman, I have lived through crack cocaine addiction and heroin addiction, and now heroin has returned, itself. I have watched my constituents in these low-drug offenses wind up not getting treatment and wind up getting the devastation of mass incarceration. Frankly, if this bill had listed the synthetic analogues on schedule A and provided the science to determine what they were, this would be a bill that the whole House could support, but that is not the case. And so I raise concerns that I hope this House will listen to and recognize that opportunities to fix this legislation as we move to the Senate would make this the kind of response that has been consistent with the view that the incarceration of an opioid-addicted person and/ or those who are limited sellers does not bring us to where we need to be. Mr. Chair, I rise to discuss the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017, which establishes a mechanism by which synthetic drugs can be temporarily and permanently controlled to curtail illicit manufacturing, importation, and distribution. H.R. 2851 would also establish new Federal crimes related to the misuse of controlled substances identified in the bill. I am acutely concerned about the dangers presented by drugs like fentanyl and its synthetic analogues that have contributed to a disturbing number of overdose deaths, even in my home district of Houston. This bill, while well-intended, is flawed for several reasons. First, it eliminates the use of scientific evidence by which synthetic analogues are currently analyzed. Under current law, the Attorney General must work in collaboration with drugs experts at the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the permanent scheduling process. Absent collaboration of the scientific community, the AG, under this bill, will have sole discretion to unilaterally determine which drugs are a schedule A substance. This is alarming because arbitrary scheduling of substances without verifiable data will undoubtedly create disproportionate incarcerations of low-level drug offenders. Second, this bill overcriminalizes drug offenders, many of whom are in dire need of support in their battles with addiction, substance abuse, and mental illness. We recognize this is an alarming epidemic and the need for medical treatment is very important. Third, although we know that synthetic analogues are often manufactured and mixed with heroin outside the country--namely, China-- and where users and sellers here may lack knowledge, this bill heightens the penalties, nonetheless. In June 2016, the head of the DEA, Chuck Rosenberg, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that: ``Illicit fentanyl, fentanyl derivatives and their immediate precursors are often produced in China.'' By the time the drugs enter the United States, where they are sold, he said, buyers and sellers are often unaware of the composition and potency of the drugs. Fourth, this bill amends the Federal sentencing guidelines without the input of the United States Sentencing Commission, which recently underwent a robust examination of synthetic drugs and penalties. The bill disregards the jurisdictional authority granted by Congress to the Commission back in 1984. The Commission is a nonpartisan, independent body which sets sentencing guidelines for Federal judges. Since the introduction of this bill, the Commission approved a multipart synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018, which included extensive public comment, expert testimony, and a multiyear data analysis. The Commission's recent amendment reflects the evolving nature of these synthetic drugs, creates a class-based approach, establishes a new drug ratio and a new guideline penalty for fentanyl analogues that will promote uniformity in Federal sentencing. We should, therefore, allow this more thorough and data-driven process to come to completion, absent interruption by the Attorney General, as provided in the bill. And lastly, this bill imposes mandatory minimum terms of supervised release of not less than 3 years in addition to imprisonment, and not less than 6 years if there was a prior conviction. Furthermore, the bill also appears to impose mandatory minimum sentencing. Current law requires that if a controlled substance analogue is intended for human consumption, it shall be treated as a schedule I substance, 21 U.S.C. 813. Because the analogue would be treated as a schedule I drug, the penalty of such drugs is not less than 20 years mandatory minimum if death or serious bodily injury occurs. Under 21 U.S.C. 802(32) a controlled substance analogue is: A substance (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I and II; (ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system. Under this bill, a schedule A drug is a substance that has a chemical structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of the controlled substance in schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, an actual or predicted stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system. The penalty for such drugs under this bill is not more than 10 years, no mandatory minimum, and if serious bodily injury occurs, not more than 15. Therefore, if the composition of a schedule A drug is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a substance in schedule I or II, then we have a mandatory minimum problem, unless the bill explicitly says in its penalty provision that a schedule I penalty is not triggered by placement of a substance in schedule A. This creates great ambiguity with respect to sentencing because the vague language leaves an endless number of individuals exposed to mandatory minimum and, of course, mass incarceration. Given the number of new drugs out there and the constant evolving nature of these synthetic drugs, it is unknown at this point and unfair in this bill's framework the number of drugs that will trigger a mandatory minimum sentence. If we are committed to giving treatment, if we are committed to stopping the mass incarceration and steering people away from the use of opioid drugs, that will be the preferable approach: to take note of the fact that they are on schedule A, to provide the scientific background, and to then allow the existing sentencing structure to proceed. Mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses gave birth to an explosion in our prison population. It is responsible for many of our criminal justice deficiencies. It is really the reason why we are fighting for sentencing reduction. Congress acknowledged this as a devastating policy approach and, as a result, passed the Fair Sentencing Act. Inclusion of new mandatory minimum sentencing is particularly egregious because these inflexible one-size sentencing laws undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses, like the 19-year-old seller who, as the DEA Administrator said, may not have even known that it was laced. Mandatory sentencing laws have caused Federal prison populations to soar, destroying families and communities, and led to overcrowding and exorbitant costs to taxpayers. And so I ask my colleagues, let us work together to work on the bill before us and focus it on ways that get to the dastardliness of synthetic analogues but, as well, responds mercifully to the increasing incarceration of persons through mandatory minimums and the lack of using the United States Sentencing Commission's guidelines. Mr. Chair. H.R. 2851, ``Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017,'' establishes a mechanism by which synthetic drugs can be temporarily and permanently controlled to curtail illicit manufacturing, importation and distribution. H.R. 2851 would also establish new federal crimes related to the misuse of controlled substances identified in the bill. I am acutely concerned about the dangers presented by drugs like fentanyl and its synthetic analogues that have contributed to a disturbing number of overdose deaths, even in my home district of Houston. This bill while well-intended, is flawed for several reasons: First, it eliminates the use of scientific evidence by which synthetic analogues are currently analyzed. Under current law, the Attorney General must work in collaboration with drug experts at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of the permanent scheduling process. Absent collaboration of the scientific community, the AG, under this bill, would have sole discretion, to unilaterally determine which drugs are Schedule A substance. This is alarming because arbitrary scheduling of substances without verifiable data, will undoubtedly create disproportionate incarceration of low-level drug offenders. Second, this bill over criminalizes drug offenders, many of whom are in dire need of support in their battles with addiction, substance abuse and mental illness. We recognize this as an alarming epidemic, and the need for medical treatment, which is why we appropriated an exuberant amount of money towards the opioid crisis in our recent omnibus bill which passed in the House. Third, although we know that synthetic analogues are often manufactured and mixed with heroin outside the country, namely China, and where users and sellers here may lack knowledge, this bill heightens the penalties nonetheless. In June 2016, the head of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that, ``Illicit fentanyl, fentanyl derivatives, and their immediate precursors are often produced in China.'' By the time the drugs enter the United States, where they are sold, he said, buyers and sellers are often unaware of the composition and potency of the drugs. Fourth, this bill amends the federal sentencing guidelines without the input of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (Commission), which recently underwent a robust examination of synthetic drugs and penalties. The bill disregards the jurisdictional authority granted by Congress to the Commission back in 1984. The Commission is a non-partisan, independent body, which sets sentencing guidelines for federal judges. Since the introduction of this bill, the Commission approved a multi- part synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018, which included extensive public comment, expert testimony and a multi-year, data analysis. The Commission's recent amendment reflects the evolving nature of these new synthetic drugs, creates a class-based approach, establishes new drug ratios and a new guideline penalty for fentanyl analogues that will promote uniformity in federal sentencing. We should therefore, allow this more thorough and data-driven process to come to completion, absent interruption by the Attorney General as provided in this bill. And lastly, this bill imposes mandatory minimum terms of supervised release of not less than 3 years in addition to imprisonment, and not less than 6 years if there was a prior conviction. Furthermore, the bill also appears to impose mandatory minimum sentencing. Current law requires that if a controlled substance analogue is intended for human consumption, it shall be treated as a schedule I substance. (21 USC 813). Because the analogue would be treated as a schedule I drug, the penalty for such drugs is not less than 20 years (mandatory minimum) if death or serious bodily injury occurs. Under 21 USC 802(32), a ``controlled substance analogue'' is: A substance (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; (ii) Which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system. . . . Under this bill, a Schedule A drug is a substance that has a Chemical structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I, II, III, IV or V; and An actual or predicted stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system. . . . The penalty for such drugs under this bill is not more than 10 years (no mandatory minimum), and if serious bodily injury occur, not more than 15 years. Therefore, if the composition of a schedule A drug is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a substance in schedule I or II, then we have a mandatory minimum problem, unless the bill explicitly says in its penalty provision, that a schedule I penalty is not triggered by placement of a substance on schedule A. This creates great ambiguity with respect to sentencing, because the vague language leaves endless number of individuals exposed to mandatory minimum sentencing. Given the number of new drugs out there, and the constant evolving nature of these synthetic drugs, it is unknown at this point and under this bill's framework, the number of drugs that will trigger a mandatory minimum sentence. Mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses gave birth to the explosion in our prison population, and is responsible for many of our criminal justice system's deficiencies. Thus, we cannot return there again. Congress acknowledged this as a devastating policy approach, and as a result, passed of the Fair Sentencing Act. Inclusion of a new mandatory minimum sentence, is particularly egregious because these inflexible, one-size sentencing laws undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses. Mandatory sentencing laws have caused federal prison populations to soar, destroyed families and communities, and led to overcrowding and exorbitant costs to taxpayers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider). Congressman Bradley Scott Schneider is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have further speakers?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We all want to do good, and all of us have had our tragedies as it relates to the use of drugs by the innocent. As I listened to my colleagues, they are right: The heinous persons are those who are the major exporters and the hardened drug dealers. We want to save lives. I think we found over the last couple of months and past years that enhancing the research and providing treatment for those very individuals who have succumbed will provide us with that pathway. In the instance of the underlying bill, I would hope that we would have the opportunity to get the bad guys. But in the instance of the way it is constructed, SITSA will worsen the mass incarceration of drug offenders; it will expand the use of harsh maximum sentences for drug offenses; and the bill creates new penalties for thousands of synthetic drugs, calling for maximum sentences of 10, 20, 30 years, or life imprisonment. The carve-out for possession does not define quantities that would constitute possession and will not prevent many people who possess small quantities or sell drugs to support their own addiction from getting slammed by draconian new penalties in SITSA. So we have addicted persons who sell on the streets of our neighborhoods. They need treatment. That is what we should be focusing on. SITSA will punish people who lack criminal culpability. This bill will disproportionately increase low-level drug offenders who did not import or package the drug and often are unaware of the chemical composition of the drugs, as the DEA Administrator indicated in his testimony before the Senate that most of the sellers would not know that there had been traces of other drugs in that particular drug they were selling. SITSA is unnecessary because the Attorney General can already ban synthetic drugs. This was demonstrated earlier this year when the Attorney General used powers already granted by the Congress to place illicit fentanyl analogues not already regulated by the Controlled Substances Act into schedule I for 3 years, allowing time to pursue permanent scheduling. Through rulemaking, at a congressional hearing last month, Acting Administrator Patterson indicated: This mass scheduling action addressed concern that prosecutors can't convict people for trafficking synthetic drugs. Finally, SITSA has devastating impacts on scientific research. Many synthetic drugs share chemical properties with drugs that have been known to have therapeutic uses, such as opioids. Under SITSA, once a drug has been added to schedule A, many of the same hurdles that apply to conducting research with schedule I drugs will apply to substances added to proposed schedule A. These burdens will be costly and time consuming. Some of them are research dealing with how do you stop this addiction, how do you stop people's proclivity for addiction. So this burden is costly and time consuming to the research and host institutions and will have a chilling effect on promising research towards the development of opioid addiction therapies and safer medications to treat pain that are desperately needed to help end the ongoing opioid overdose crisis. While SITSA provides some relief for researchers who already have a schedule I or II, there are many difficulties that we are facing. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on both sides.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, while SITSA provides some relief for researchers who already have a schedule I or II registration to proceed with schedule A research, SITSA does not provide accommodations necessary to ensure researchers can obtain drug samples for research. Commercial manufacturers are not likely to produce schedule A drugs. Provisions in SITSA intended to ease registration requirements will help little when researchers access the drug material they need to study the therapeutic potential. Here is the main point. The main point is that researchers are researching how to cease the addiction that is killing so many. Low- level sellers are caught up under this bill; and, as indicated by the DEA, they, too, are victims. It is well known that the idea of mass incarceration does not solve the problem of addiction or cause the ending of the tragic loss of life. I hurt for those suffering from addiction, and it is important to be able to utilize our government knowledge to help that end, and the Sentencing Commission has done that. The difficulty we have is whether or not this bill, even though from Judiciary, really bears down on saving lives. What we want to do is raise the treatment, deal with those already structured to handle the listing of analogues, and work with communities to ensure that the laws we have are enforced and that we don't create a whole new population of those who will be victims of mass incarceration and, at the same time, do nothing to treat those who desperately need our help, our support, and our resources to move them away from addiction, to save their lives, and to allow them to live fruitful and productive lives. That is what I hope that we will be able to do as we move forward on the right approach to dealing with drug addiction and the new surge of synthetic drugs. Mr. Chair, may I inquire if the gentleman from Pennsylvania has any further speakers.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, we hope that we will be able to work together to save lives and to fix the issues that we are addressing here today. Mr. Chair, we all want to solve the escalating problems of synthetic drugs, which permeate throughout our districts. Therefore, our initial reaction would be to naturally support this endeavor. However, while well-intended, this bill highlights many problems and does not fulfill the overall goal of stemming the tide of drugs on our streets. We must exercise prudence, as to not further exacerbate the crisis of mass incarceration and punish those that need help with substance abuse and whom this bill purports to help. Because this bill would concentrate an overwhelming amount of unchecked power within DOJ, eliminate scientific and medical analysis and interagency collaboration from the process of scheduling synthetic analogues, and expand penalties for drug offenses, I have serious concerns about H.R. 2851. The bill is strongly opposed by a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including Freedom Works, Drug Policy Alliance, Families Against Mandatory Minimum, ACLU, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of Churches, Human Rights Watch, The Sentencing Project and many others. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just very quickly thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and Mr. Griffith. I am delighted to join them, and I will simply say it is equally essential that science has a role in this very complex process to ensure the appropriate penalties are being applied based on compositions of the synthetic drugs involved. I congratulate both of them for the excellent work that has been done, and I am delighted to be a cosponsor of the amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Griffith/Raskin/Jackson Lee Amendment. The amendment will reflect the current process under existing law. Under current law, the Attorney General must work collaboratively with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its experts in the scientific community, in order to determine best practices for the permanent scheduling process. Given the variation in toxicity levels in many of these synthetic drugs, it is imperative that the research community be involved in the process to ensure accuracy of defining the chemical structure of these drugs or substances. It is equally essential that science have a role in this very complex process to ensure the appropriate penalties are being applied based on compositions of the synthetic drugs involved. At markup I made it clear that we should not proceed with this bill absent involvement from the scientific community. Today, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this amendment with my colleagues Griffith and Raskin. In addition to restoring collaboration with the research community, this amendment also provides that permanent scheduling cannot occur earlier than 3 years after the Attorney General issues a temporary scheduling order. This allows the scientific community time to address any pending issues that pertain to the drugs temporarily scheduled and prior to placing them on schedule A permanently. If the research finds that these temporarily scheduled drugs lack sufficient potential for abuse that would qualify such drugs under schedule A, then this amendment provides that the Attorney General has 30 days in which he must terminate the temporary scheduling order for that drug or substance. This is a sensible amendment that will provide oversight of the scheduling process. And for these reasons, I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It restores the commission's jurisdiction over the Federal sentencing guidelines as originally granted by Congress in 1984. The United States Sentencing Commission has been working to address the seriousness and complexity of synthetic drugs for several years. If I might refer my colleagues to the April 12 meeting of the Sentencing Commission where the chairman began his remarks and indicated that the commission was going to move forward on a multipart amendment regarding synthetic drugs, which will include but be not limited to K2 or spice, fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. This amendment draws upon public comment, expert testimony, and data analysis gathered during a multiyear study of synthetic drugs. That is what the Sentencing Commission does, and my amendment asks to remove the section in this underlying legislation that directs this responsibility to the Attorney General. The process that was created by the Sentencing Commission created a new guideline definition of the term fentanyl analogue. The change effectively raises the guideline penalties for fentanyl analogues to a level more consistent with the current statutory penalty structure to address the severe dangerousness of fentanyl. The amendment also creates a four-level sentencing enhancement for knowingly misrepresenting or knowingly marketing fentanyl or fentanyl analogues as another substance which equates to an approximate 50 percent increase in sentence length. What I am saying to my colleagues is that we have a structure. The report was issued on April 2018. The Sentencing Commission has done its job, and I think that we would do well to embrace the work that has been done here. The commission's recent amendment creates a class-based approach for synthetic drugs, establishes new drug ratios, and a new guideline for fentanyl analogues, so it is unnecessary to have section 9 in the present legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and, as well, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. We worked on this, and I am glad that our staff was able to communicate. I think it is important to emphasize that, going forward, the Sentencing Commission will continue its multiyear study to ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines are updated to reflect any new challenges resulting from these serious drugs and that they be addressed in the Federal sentencing guidelines. Consistent with its mission established by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the commission will also work to update guidelines on an annual basis to reflect any new needs that we may have with respect to these new and growing synthetic analogues and other drugs that are continually coming, tragically, into the marketplace. Mr. Chairman, I have here a public data presentation for synthetic drugs, dated January 2018; also the April 2018 report; and, as well, the opening statement of the chairman of the Sentencing Commission dated April 12, 2018. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee amendment, which restores the Commission's jurisdiction over the federal sentencing guidelines, as originally granted by Congress. The United States Sentencing Commission has been working to address the seriousness and complexity of synthetic drugs for several years. Since this legislation was introduced, the Sentencing Commission approved a multi-part synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018. The Commission conducted extensive research of past cases and current data, held multiple hearings and engaged in extensive collaboration with DOJ, DEA and experts to determine the best manner to address these drugs within the context of the federal sentencing guidelines. The Commission's recent amendment creates a class-based approach for synthetic drugs, establishes new drug ratios and a new guideline penalty for fentanyl analogues. Consistent with the established process, the recent amendment reflected a deliberative, data-driven process which included extensive public comment, expert testimony and data analysis gathered during a multi-year study of synthetic drugs. Section 9 of H.R. 2851 should be struck from the pending legislation because: It is unnecessary, overly broad and duplicative of the Commission's existing action. Section 9 will result in greater litigation and delays for the federal courts. This section would also undermine the certainty in federal sentencing for synthetic drugs that would otherwise be avoided based on the Commission's new amendment. Congress delegated the authority to amend the federal sentencing guidelines two decades ago in order to ensure fair, data-driven outcomes in federal sentencing. This provision is an unprecedented and unnecessary departure from the process that has worked well since established by Congress in 1984. Going forward, the Commission will continue its multi-year study to ensure that the federal sentencing guidelines are updated to reflect any new challenges resulting from these serious drugs are addressed in the federal sentencing guidelines. Consistent with its mission established by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Commission will also work to update the guidelines on an annual basis to reflect any new laws enacted by Congress. For all these reasons, I support this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for capturing the scourge of the epidemic of online drug sales that reach into the living rooms of so many innocent persons, and my sympathy for the loss of one of our heroes who wore the uniform. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment as contributing to the important information knowledge chain that is so necessary to families to help stop this scourge of going after innocent persons in their homes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 4 proposed by the gentleman from Texas. The amendment adds a list of factors that may be considered when proving whether a particular substance was intended for human consumption. I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, because criminal liability could result from one of the factors being proven merely under a negligent standard. Only whether the defendant should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhaling, ingestion, or any other immediate means, it is not an appropriate standard to which we should attach criminal liability, particularly severe consequences such as mandatory minimums. Now, I have indicated that we have an action by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that took place on April 2018. We have a detailed analysis of the range of analogues, synthetic analogues, including K2, spice, and other fentanyl analogues, but not limited to. Therefore, we have a marker. We have a standard to save lives. And what we should be emphasizing, again, is treatment. Second, this amendment actually makes it easier to trigger mandatory minimums. For instance, a defendant could be subjected to a 20-year mandatory minimum in instances where serious bodily harm injury results. I am opposed to amendment 4 because defendants could be subjected to such mandatory minimums relying, in part, on proof that they should have known a substance was intended for human consumption. Now, let me be very clear. Some of these individuals who are defendants are, themselves, addicted, and, therefore, they are acting as an addicted person. It is not an excuse, but it emphasizes that we should steer ourselves more toward a maximizing of treatment and education to stop the scourge of the utilization of these drugs. That is clearly, as well, taken care of under the U.S. Sentencing Commission, meaning that these concerns of the gentleman, which I respect his concerns, are taken care of by a long list of responses and sentencing for the different drugs that are noted as synthetic analogues. Again, we do have a basis going forward. The gentleman's concerns can be taken care of in already established law and policies by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. I have long opposed any laws that will trigger mandatory minimums because we have seen the results of that. We have also heard over time from the U.S. judicial commission, if you will, because this takes away a judge's discretion and interferes with their sound judgment in sentencing the individual defendants that appear before them. Therefore, I oppose amendment No. 4. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee for allowing my amendment to be placed in order. I also believe that, at this point, we would do well to follow regular order to save lives and to continue to allow the Sentencing Commission to move forward as they made their commitment in the chairman's letter. The chairman of the commission said that they will not stop working on synthetic analogues and that they will continue to structure the right kind of criminal justice that works as it relates to sentencing to ensure that the concerns of my colleague are taken. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, again, let me indicate that I appreciate the gentleman's concern. I am concerned that simply a negligence standard would be the standard for judging a defendant under this particular amendment: should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhaling, injection, or any other immediate means. That is not an appropriate standard that would attach criminal liability and particularly severe consequences such as a mandatory minimum. Again, I am holding up one of the reports from the Sentencing Commission, and I would make the argument that it is thorough in its review, and our colleagues can be comforted by the fact that, again, the Sentencing Commission will continue its work and it will continue to address some of the concerns of my friend from Texas. I would hope that we would allow that process to proceed. I think it would be very concerning to all of us if we had a negligence standard. I believe the courts will address the fact based upon the defendant and the facts that we have in place. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and oppose the underlying bill Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Amendment 13, proposed by Mr. Thornberry. The amendment adds a list of factors that may be considered when proving whether a particular substance was intended for human consumption. I oppose this amendment for two reasons: First, because criminal liability could result from one of the factors being proven merely under a negligence standard--only whether the defendant should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhalation, ingestion or any other immediate means. It is not an appropriate standard to which we should attach criminal liability, particularly, severe consequences, such as mandatory minimums. Second, this amendment actually makes it easier to trigger mandatory minimums. For instance, a defendant could be subjected to a 20-year mandatory minimum in instances where serious bodily injury results. I am opposed to Amendment 13 because defendants could be subjected to such mandatory minimums relying in part on proof that they should have known a substance was intended for ``human consumption''. I have long been opposed to any laws that trigger mandatory minimums because they take away judges' discretion and interfere with their sound judgment in sentencing the individual defendants that appear before them. Therefore, I oppose Amendment 13. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.