U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–310 WASHINGTON : 2018

H.R. 2851, STOP THE IMPORTATION AND 

TRAFFICKING OF SYNTHETIC ANALOGUES 

ACT OF 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 27, 2017 

Serial No. 115–38 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 27, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

The Honorable Louis Gohmert, Texas, Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 2 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 5 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable John Katko, New York’s 24th Congressional District, U.S. 

House of Representatives 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Ms. Demetra Ashley, Acting Assistant Administrator, U.S. Drug Enforcement 

Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Mr. Robert Perez, Acting Executive Assistant Commissioner, U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Ms. Marcia Lee Taylor, President and CEO, Partnership for Drug-Free Kids ..

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Ms. Reta Newman, Special Advisor to Drug Free America Foundation, Chief 

Chemist and Laboratory Director, Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Ms. Anglea Pacheco, Commissioner for New York Sentencing Commission, 

Former District Attorney, First Judicial District of Santa Fe, New Mexico 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. 2851, STOP THE IMPORTATION AND 

TRAFFICKING OF SYNTHETIC ANALOGUES 

ACT OF 2017 

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:16 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert [vice 

chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gohmert, Goodlatte, Chabot, Ratcliffe, 

Roby, Gowdy, Jackson Lee, Conyers, Deutch, Jeffries, and Lieu. 

Staff Present: Anthony Angeli, Counsel; Scott Johnson, Clerk; 

Mauri Gray, Minority Counsel, Minority Crime Detailee; Joe 

Graupensperger, Minority Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Veronica 

Eligan, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Monalisa Dugue, 

Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I apologize for the delay in markup in another 

room and a lot of breathing room here. But I do not want that, in 

any way, to make you think we do not appreciate the importance 

of you, your position, and your testimony. So, we will get the ranking member, and we will be ready to start. Are we okay if we start? 

All right, we have the ranking member of the full committee. So, 

at this time, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations will come to order. Without objection, the 

chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any 

time. We welcome everyone to today’s hearing on H.R. 2851, and 

I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing concerns a critical issue: Criminal drug traffickers and importers are able to circumvent the current Federal 

law by modifying a single atom or molecule of a currently controlled substance in a laboratory. They create a substance that is 

technically lawful, but often highly dangerous, addictive, and even 

deadly. These synthetic analogues are being trafficked into the 

United States, often from China or Mexico, and pose a grave threat 

to the health and safety of our own Americans. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

Synthetic drugs have caused a public health epidemic in the 

United States. Uncontrolled synthetic analogues have come to represent the deadly convergence of the synthetic drug problem with 

the opioid epidemic. The human toll and the financial costs are 

staggering: 52,000 Americans died in 2015 from drug overdoses. 

That is 144 people per day. For those who overdose, they present 

themselves in emergency rooms with a variety of issues, many with 

dangerously high body temperatures. 

Doctors must rely on their experience of treating other patients 

with similar symptoms because, frequently, there are no tests to 

detect the particular type of synthetic drug the patient overdosed 

on. Hospital admissions can last days or even weeks in an intensive care unit, spending huge amounts of limited resources of our 

hospitals and healthcare systems. 

And then there is the personal toll. Last year, this committee 

heard from Devin and Veronica Eckhardt, who lost their son to one 

dose of the synthetic drug ‘‘spice.’’ On a Saturday night on July 

2014, Connor Eckhardt smoked a synthetic drug and did not feel 

well, so he laid down to sleep it off. He never woke up. Five days 

later, doctors declared Connor, age 19, braindead. After his organs 

were donated, Connor was removed from life support. 

The National Institute of Drug Abuse has declared synthetic 

drugs a serious public health risk. Manufacturers and retailers of 

synthetic drugs disingenuously label them as, ‘‘Not for human consumption,’’ to obey Federal law. They do not identify the particular 

drugs they are peddling, nor is there any quality control over the 

dosage or the adulterants in the package. All of this is done in the 

name of greed. 

Neither the products nor their active ingredients have been approved by the FDA for human consumption or for use in legitimate 

medical treatment, causing the purchaser to play Russian roulette 

with their lives. Synthetic drug users also place others at risk. 

Some become violent while under the influence, while other abusers, who drive after using these drugs, place themselves and others 

in danger. 

The U.S. has faced situations like this before, and we have always responded firmly and decisively. The change to the Controlled 

Substances Act contained in H.R. 2851 represents that decisive response. Federal law, meant to protect Americans, can no longer be 

outpaced by resourceful criminals, whose sole motive is greed, at 

the expense of families and even human lives. I thank the witnesses for appearing here before the subcommittee today and look 

forward to their participation. At this time, I recognize the ranking 

member for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gohmert. And welcome to 

our witnesses. We look forward to your testimony. I am grateful 

that each of you has taken time to participate in this extremely important conversation about a crucial subject: synthetic drug legislation, specifically H.R. 2851. 

I recognize that analogues to some synthetic drugs are dangerous 

and are harming our citizens, particularly young people. Some of 

these modified, man-made substances are more potent, more dangerous, and, oftentimes, more deadly than the substances they are 

designed to mimic. However, in responding to the dangers these 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

drugs pose, I want to caution my colleagues to be very careful in 

developing any legislation. While we will more fully explore these 

issues today, quite frankly, I am concerned that H.R. 2851 is a 

well-intentioned but flawed bill and raises several concerns that I 

intend to discuss with you today. 

First, this bill is overbroad in the new authorities it would grant 

to the Attorney General. While much of the conversation surrounding synthetic analogues focuses on the chemistry of the substances from the process of manufacturing them to their effects on 

the human body, H.R. 2851 would eliminate vital scientific and 

medical evaluations normally undertaken by the Department of 

Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration and the scheduling of drugs. 

Today, it is my intention to explore alternatives to completely 

doing away with the collaboration of DOJ, Health and Human 

Services, and FDA in scheduling synthetic analogues, because each 

of these agencies are equally important to the scheduling process. 

Not only would the Attorney General hold the sole authority to 

schedule these substances, but he would also have the power to 

shape sentencing policy without the input of the United States Sentencing Commission that is actually studying the issue of synthetic 

drugs and penalties right now. 

Secondly, we must be cautious in our response to synthetic 

drugs, heeding the lessons we learned and the fear-driven legislation enacted in response to crime. The bill would establish lengthy 

and sometimes mandatory minimum penalties for offenses when 

users and sellers of these analogues often may not even know of 

the presence of these analogues when combined with other substances. Over-penalization would be counterproductive and only 

contribute to our crisis of over-incarceration. 

In addition, this bill has the potential to chill medical research 

into substances that may be beneficial or into alternatives treatments for drug addiction. This is particularly so with such a truncated process based solely on the Attorney General’s determination 

of what is substantially similar and what the predicted effects of 

a substance may be. 

So, in closing, I want to note that the committee has received a 

letter from over 65 advocacy organizations opposing the bill. And, 

Mr. Chairman, I ask you now for unanimous consent to insert the 

letter with these advocacy organizations in the record. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Although they are not here to testify 

today, we should take their views into account when reviewing this 

bill. I thank Chairman Gohmert, and again wanted to welcome our 

witnesses, including my friend, Representative John Katko, the 

sponsor of the bill as we discuss this legislation. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. At this time, I yield to the chairman 

of the full committee, Chairman Goodlatte, for 5 minutes. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today as the Judiciary Committee 

builds on its efforts to stop the epidemic of synthetic drugs. The 

Crime Subcommittee held a subject matter hearing last year on 

this issue and the groundbreaking piece of legislation we are disVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:30 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032310 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A310.XXX A310

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

cussing today is part of the solution to that epidemic. I am honored 

to cosponsor H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking 

of Synthetic Analogues Act. 

The Controlled Substances Act expresses Federal U.S. drug policy by which the manufacture, importation, distribution, possession, and use of certain substances are regulated. Synthetic drugs, 

once called designer drugs, but now known as new psychoactive 

substances, are posing a serious public health threat. And this bill 

would update Federal law to provide prompt action to stop the unlawful importation and distribution of synthetic drugs. This bill 

maintains the careful balance that Congress struck when it first 

enacted the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 to continue to protect the American public from harmful and deadly drugs while promoting the safe research of new substances. 

The deadliest drug in Virginia last year was a synthetic opioid. 

Fentanyl contributed to more than half of the 1,133 deaths due to 

opioid overdoses in 2016. In November 2016, the Virginia health 

commissioner declared the opioid addiction crisis a public health 

emergency in Virginia. As if fentanyl were not deadly enough, 

carfentanil, a synthetic opioid about 100 times more potent than 

fentanyl—by the way, fentanyl is said to be 100 times more potent 

than heroin—has been linked to numerous overdose deaths around 

the country. Because synthetic drugs are potent and cheap, greedy 

criminals are adding synthetic drugs to cocaine and heroin with 

deadly results. These powerful drugs also present a grave danger 

to first responders, innocent bystanders, and children. 

Last week’s China National Narcotics Control Commission announced scheduling controls against four new synthetic drugs. This 

and prior scheduling actions by China have been the culmination 

of ongoing cooperative efforts between the DEA and the Government of China. While I applaud these efforts and encourage them 

to continue, it is now clear that our laws to control synthetic drugs 

were not designed for the epidemic we find ourselves in now. 

There are presently over 400 known synthetic drugs being imported and distributed in the United States, many of which are 

technically legal. Criminal drug traffickers and their illicit chemists have learned how to manipulate drug molecules to completely 

evade U.S. and international laws solely for their own greed and 

financial profit. H.R. 2851 finally gives U.S. law enforcement nimble tools to react as soon as these deadly drugs arrive in our country, so we can collectively, through enforcement, treatment, and 

education, retake our communities from the plague of synthetic 

drugs. 

In the 1990s, the U.S. faced a similar situation with regard to 

GHB, the date rape drug. It was scheduled and strict Federal laws 

were enacted. Not long ago, steroid molecules were being manipulated much the same way synthetic drugs are now, and Congress 

responded with the Designer Anabolic Steroid Control Act enacted 

in 2014. Today, a unique class of drugs, trafficked by highly resourceful criminals, must be confronted head on, with a unique and 

agile response. H.R. 2851 is that response. We have a responsibility 

to protect the American people from criminals who exploit misery 

for profit. It is time for Congress to act again. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

I want to thank Congressman Katko for his tireless work on this 

effort, and for introducing the important legislation before us 

today. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony. I 

look forward to hearing their responses to our questions. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And at this time, I 

recognize the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Ms. 

Jackson Lee, for her opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman Gohmert, thank you so very much 

for your courtesies. And I am delighted that the chairman and the 

ranking member are joining us today along with Mr. Lieu, who is 

joining us. And I saw Mr. Chabot and thank him for his presence 

here as well. We thank the witnesses, and in particular, I want to 

thank my colleague from the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. 

Katko, for his presence here. And, of course, Ms. Ashley is the acting assistant administrator with the DEA. And Mr. Perez, acting 

executive assistant, commissioner with CBP. It seems like we have 

the meshing of Judiciary and Homeland Security today. So, you are 

welcome. Thank you very much. 

As a ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, I am committed to finding ways to work collaboratively with the chairman, 

my colleagues, and experts like you in order to help save lives and 

maybe loss as a result of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. Now, let 

me first make the statement that this committee has worked in a 

bipartisan manner in criminal justice reform, of which I hope we 

will reignite on listening to and addressing the question of mandatory amendments, but also the question of mass incarceration. We 

also, in a bipartisan manner, address the question of fentanyl and 

recognize its deadly impact. 

Last year, the powerful opioid was blamed for hundreds of overdose deaths on the East Coast and made its way to my congressional district in Houston. Experts like you help us save lives that 

may be lost as a result of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. Drug 

analysts at the Houston Forensic Science Center found fentanyl 10 

times last year in fake pharmaceuticals and powders. A 2015 investigation found that the tragic 2012 death of two teenagers from 

Grand Forks, North Dakota was linked to the usage of synthetic 

drugs purchased from an internet-based company near Houston, 

Texas. 

It is a national epidemic, a national phenomenon, a national crisis. Just this month, a 22-year-old man charged with possession of 

under 2 grams of fentanyl, with intent to distribute the dangerous 

and highly addictive drug from China to young people in West 

Houston area. Given the effect of fentanyl and its analogues on our 

country and in Houston particularly, and both familiar and acutely 

concerned by the dangers they pose, and thus look to do whatever 

I can to curtail this alarming epidemic. 

And we did do so in the last Congress with a bipartisan bill of 

this Judiciary Committee that became part of the overall Omnibus 

bill out of Judiciary Committee. I think there was a great deal of 

jubilation that we had passed a bill dealing with treatment and 

prevention as opposed to prosecution. 

We must, however, do so in a manner that does not enhance the 

Attorney General’s arbitrary war on drugs. This process must take 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
6 

into account the scientific analysis as required currently under the 

law for scheduling, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach based 

on the Attorney General’s prediction of potential abuse. I am hoping that those of us who sympathize with the author of the bill and 

have made these indicting statements about this terrible drug can 

find a way to work with this legislation to answer some of our concerns. 

This method, as I mentioned, that gives the Attorney General the 

one-size-fits-all has the potential for abuse. This method will undoubtedly have a sweeping effect and will produce unintended consequences. As we are all aware, oftentimes, we respond legislatively to the crisis of the moment with well intentions, where lasting adverse impacts result, albeit inadvertently. While I am deeply 

committed to holding accountable manufacturers and traffickers of 

deadly drugs that have a high potential for abuse, I am equally 

concerned about the important underlying issues. Let me also say 

that I am equally concerned about treatment and the work that we 

have done in the bill that was passed in the last Congress. 

First, expansion of power. This bill will give the Attorney General unfettered authority to criminalize and prosecute any drugs he 

or she elects to add to schedule A and that he predicts may generate similar effects or have similar composition found in fentanyl 

and other related controlled substances. As written, this bill is both 

vague and broad in scope, likely giving authority to control substances with low abuse potential based purely on the substance 

chemical similarity, that of a schedule-controlled substance. The 

Sentencing Commission currently is engaged in an ongoing investigation on synthetic drugs. This bill provides no meaningful oversight to penalties prescribed by the A.G., absent any input by the 

Commission on his pending investigation. 

Second, unlike the Senate version of this bill, the House bill adds 

mandatory minimums to the Federal goal. This is particularly 

problematic given the bipartisan progress this committee has made 

relevant to reduction and harsh sentences for drug offenses related 

to heroin and crack. Section 4 of this bill imposes a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 for the first-time offense or not more 

than 15 if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of a 

schedule A substance, but not more than 20 for a second offense, 

not more than 30 years if death or a serious bodily injury. 

Additionally, it imposes a term of supervised release of not less 

than 3 years and a fine of up to $1 million for first-time offenders, 

or not less than 6 years and a fine of up to $2 million for a second 

offense. Let me be very clear. I have confidence in our Federal 

judges, and they have testified before us on many occasions, asking 

for the discretion to be able to make the right decision and the 

right sentence. For all I know, it may be longer or may be less. But 

it does not do well to have a one-size-fits-all as relates to these 

kinds of cases of which there is probably a lot of issues that the 

court needs to consider. 

Third, this bill disregards the mens rea element that is to represent or constitute a crime. Given that these drugs enter the border, U.S. sellers are often unaware of the drug’s composition and 

potency. Head of DEA Chuck Rosenberg testified before the Senate 

Judiciary Committee last year in June and had listed fentanyl, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
7 

fentanyl derivatives, and their immediate precursors are often produced in China. We must be judicious in our approach as we seek 

solutions for the opioid epidemic and not rush to over criminalize, 

which extirpates the already overburdened Federal Code and overcrowding prison cells. 

Even Mr. Rosenberg stated, in his testimony, that educating his 

agents on the drugs’ toxicity, in a rollcall video that warns millions 

of police officers across the country, is key because the drug is volatile and changes every day. Hence, this evidence further supports 

the need to thoroughly analyze and educate the public rather than 

criminalize, prematurely, every potential lab-induced nuance that 

may have a predicted potential for abuse. 

I hope that today’s hearing will further our efforts in seeking 

avenues to improve, where necessary, rather than criminalize and 

incarcerate absent due process, but more importantly, as all of us 

want to do, to save lives, stop the siege of drugs in this country, 

and particularly the epidemic of fentanyl. Where can we do this 

better and best? We can do it when we work together and listen 

to experts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, the gentlelady’s time has expired. At this 

time, we have a very distinguished panel. And without anything 

further, we begin by swearing in our witnesses. So, if you would 

all please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you and each of you solemnly swear the testimony you are 

about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Please be seated. The record will reflect each witness answered 

in the affirmative. And, at this time, I will do a brief introduction. 

Of course, Congressman John Katko is the sponsor of H.R. 2851. 

You heard some criticisms, and I look forward to your statement 

and information about that. And I am very grateful that you took 

the bold step of moving forward by filing the bill, so that we could 

get to this process. It is entitled the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017. Our friend, Representative Katko, is the representative of New York’s 24th congressional 

district since 2015. Thank you for being here. 

Ms. Demetra Ashley is the acting assistant administrator for diversion control at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. She 

serves as the principle advisor to the acting administrator on all 

diversion enforcement investigations and all regulatory matters affecting DEA’s 1.7 million registrants. Ms. Ashley began her DEA 

career in 1987 in the Washington Field Division. She has worked 

in several offices to include the Detroit Field Division, two tours in 

the Chicago Field Division, and several positions in DEA headquarters. Ms. Ashley earned a bachelor’s degree from Wayne State 

University and a master’s degree in communications from Northwestern University. 

So, we appreciate your being here, Ms. Ashley. As a State prosecutor and judge and chief justice, I gained great respect for our 

DEA agents with whom I have worked in the State of Texas, and 

have even traveled with Mr. Chabot to Colombia and seen the DEA 

really doing some remarkable work there as well. So, we appreciate 

your being here, representing the DEA. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
8 

Mr. Robert Perez is the acting executive assistant commissioner 

for operation support in U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Mr. 

Perez began his career with U.S. Customs Services in 1992 as a 

customs inspector in New Jersey. He has held several positions in 

Washington, D.C. and Detroit, Michigan, where, as the court director, he led the activities of more than 1,100 CBP employees 

throughout the State at seven ports of entry, including the busiest 

commercial truck border crossing in North America. Mr. Perez 

holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from Rutgers University. 

And so, we do appreciate your being here, Mr. Perez. Of course, 

being the active executive assistant commissioner of operation support of an organization, they really did not do much of anything 

anymore, and I am prone to sarcasm. You have become more vital 

than ever to maintaining our little experiment as a Republic. So, 

thank you. 

At this time, we recognize Representative Katko for your opening 

statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, just one moment, if I might? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me tell the witnesses I will be able to listen to Representative Katko’s testimony, and then I will step away 

because of the healthcare crisis that we are going through and will 

try to be back before you finish. If not, let me thank you for your 

testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. You are recognized. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN KATKO, CONGRESSMAN, NEW YORK’S 

24TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT; DEMETRA ASHLEY, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT 

ADMINISTRATION; AND ROBERT PEREZ, ACTING EXECUTIVE 

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER 

PROTECTION 

STATEMENT OF JOHN KATKO 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member 

Jackson Lee, Ranking Member Conyers, and others in the panel. 

I appreciate your allowing me to speak before you today regarding 

H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic 

Analogues Act of 2017, a bill I recently introduced in a bipartisan 

manner with Congresswoman Kathleen Rice from New York. 

I must say, over my 20-year career as a Federal prosecutor doing 

organized crime cases, as well as the last several years in Congress, it is much different being in the hot seat here than it is 

being the one asking questions. And I must say I enjoy the position 

I am in right now. I must apologize in advance, as with Ms. Jackson Lee, that after my testimony, I am going to have to leave because I have a markup that I have to deal with that is going on 

all day. 

The synthetic drug epidemic has swept our Nation, and it has 

crippled communities in Central New York and across this great 

country of ours. Just a week ago, Syracuse Area Hospitals, which 

are the heart of my district, saw a record number of overdoses due 

to synthetic drug abuse. First responders across the Nation have 

seen incredible increases in calls due to synthetic overdoses. Fire 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
9 

departments, police officers now, instead of dealing with law enforcement matters, are often reviving people because of synthetic 

drug issues. 

For example, in June of 2015, Washington, D.C. recorded 439 

ambulance trips, resulting in 15 per day related to synthetic drug 

abuse. Toxic synthetic drugs are designed to mimic street drugs 

that are already illegal like marijuana, LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, and 

other hard drugs. They can be more potent than the real thing and, 

oftentimes, are far more deadly. 

Unfortunately, when law enforcement encounters a specific drug 

compound, manufacturers of these substances are able to simply 

slightly alter the chemical structure of that drug. This puts law enforcement at a serious disadvantage and are constantly one step 

behind them. As a former U.S. attorney, but more importantly as 

a father of teenagers, getting these drugs off the streets and out 

of the hands of our loved ones means a top priority for me. 

Two weeks ago, I met with a constituent of my district whom I 

first met when I was campaigning for the first time in 2014. Her 

name was Theresa Wilson. Her son bought synthetic marijuana 

across the counter, and he had a seizure because of it and ended 

up dying because of it. He was a good kid, hardworking kid, going 

to school and everything, but he was killed by a synthetic drug that 

was later identified as XLR11. He purchased it at a local headshop 

in Oswego, New York. 

Unfortunately for Theresa, the drug that killed her son managed 

to remain legal and on the streets for at least 4 years after his 

death until it was finally added to the controlled substances list 

last year in one of the bulk bills that we passed identifying controlled substance analogues. While users of synthetics are certainly 

at a risk for overdosing, we are now seeing local law enforcement 

and first responders put in harm’s way repeatedly by simply coming in contact with these dangerous substances. Numerous cases 

across the country have seen emergency personnel die responding 

to overdoses. This is both tragic and unacceptable, and H.R. 2851 

is a positive step in eradicating these harmful substances from our 

community. 

The SITSA Act will give local law enforcement and Federal law 

enforcement the necessary tools to target synthetic substances and 

the criminals who traffic them. Specifically, this legislation will create a new schedule to the Controlled Substances Act and establish 

a mechanism by which synthetic drug analogues can be temporarily or permanently added to that schedule in as little as 30 days 

after the chemical composition is determined by the attorney general. 

The new schedule, schedule A, will add 13 synthetic fentanyls 

that have been identified by the DEA as an immediate threat to 

public health and safety. These synthetics have been confirmed as 

the cause of death in at least 162 cases in the United States. But 

I must digress for a moment and comment upon the fact that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of heroin deaths in this 

country have been caused by heroin that has been laced with synthetic drugs such as fentanyl, and those drugs are not accounted 

for. And as someone spoke earlier, I think it was Chairman Goodlatte before he left, 144 people a day are dying of heroin overdoses, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
10 

144 a day. And the vast majority of those heroin overdoses have 

a component of synthetic drugs contained within them. That is 

what we are trying to stop. 

Finally, the bill maintains firm penalties for foreign manufacturers, which is an important component, and importation. It provides 

a multistep sentencing process, which includes application of existing Federal guidelines. The goal of this legislation is not only to 

prevent drug abuse, but to facilitate proper research so that we 

may better understand these chemical compounds. 

The stories of synthetic drug abuse are in no way limited to my 

area of the country. This is a nationwide epidemic, and some of my 

colleagues have even called it a pandemic; colleagues from Ohio, for 

example. I respectfully ask this committee to consider the act because every moment we fail to act, every moment we fail to act, another person is affected by synthetic drugs. And, think about it: by 

the time this hearing is over, several more people will have died 

because of synthetic drugs that are laced into the heroin. 

I thank you all for allowing me to testify this morning, but before 

I conclude, I just want to briefly respond to Mr. Conyers and Ms. 

Jackson Lee, some of their concerns. You have stated, Ranking 

Member Conyers, that it is going to shape sentencing policy that 

is overbroad in its over-penalization. Now, we respectfully submit 

that this bill simply operates within the parameters already set in 

the Federal statute in 21 U.S.C. 841. And we are simply taking 

that statute and allowing the process to be expedited, to get these 

drugs off the street. That is very important. 

And with respect to Ms. Jackson Lee’s comments about the sentencing reform, we are all for sentencing reform and it is a bipartisan matter. And I say that from a guy who used to put people 

away all the time in these cases. I believe in sentencing reform, 

and I believe that low-level criminals should have safety valves. 

And I routinely use them in my cases. But I can tell you that this 

does not create any harm to the sentencing reform. The sentencing 

reform is the 21 U.S.C. 841. This bill is more about process than 

it is about sentencing, in my mind. It is operating within existing 

parameters, largely. 

And with respect to mandatory minimums, the only mandatory 

minimum, other than for supervised release issues, is if someone 

provides drugs that kill somebody, and I stand by that. And the 

bottom line is I respectfully want to continue my conversation with 

both of you and try and have more conversations on this. I think 

it is an important issue. 

Let us not take our eye off the ball here. People are dying as we 

speak from the synthetic drugs that are flooding our country. And 

the heroin alone is not doing it; it is the drugs that are laced with 

these synthetics that are killing them. And for the Teresa Wilsons 

of the world and the people in my district that are losing kids every 

day, we owe it to them to do all we can to stop, and that is what 

this bill attempts to do. So, I look forward to speaking with colleagues on both sides of the aisle moving forward to try to reach 

a solution to this. I thank you very much, and I appreciate the time 

for allowing me to testify. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, thank you. And since you are going to 

be stepping away, we will have some flexibility, basically, in anVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:30 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032310 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A310.XXX A310

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
11 

swering issues that have arisen. We know you have got to get away 

to a markup, and we appreciate your being here. Thank you again. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Ms. Ashley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes 

for your opening statement. We look forward to hearing from you. 

STATEMENT OF DEMETRA ASHLEY 

Ms. ASHLEY. Good morning. Acting Chairman Gohmert, Ranking 

Member Conyers, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today and speak about the dangers of synthetic drug abuse. 

I have been a diversion investigator with the Drug Enforcement 

Administration for 30 years. Currently, I serve as the acting assistant administrator for the Diversion Control Division. I cannot 

think of a more important topic than what you have invited this 

panel to discuss today, specifically how to address a threat that is 

deadly and constantly changing. 

Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on 

this very topic. The DEA acting administrator, Chuck Rosenberg, 

described this threat in three simple words: vile, volatile, and lethal. I believe these three words are even more relevant today than 

they were a year ago. 

Vile because of the insidious manner in which traffickers and 

manufacturers deliberately exploit the unsuspecting and the vulnerable, particularly teenagers, the homeless, and those suffering 

from addiction. 

Volatile because the entire synthetic drug landscape continues to 

be more complicated and more dangerous. For every one substance 

that is legislatively or administratively controlled, there are many 

more that remain uncontrolled. The challenge for DEA is that this 

volatile threat requires new and innovative means in order to respond quickly. 

Finally, lethal: lethal because the unsuspecting users continue to 

lose their lives at alarming rates. Take, for example, two 13-yearold boys in Park City, Utah who overdosed after purchasing a synthetic opioid, U–47700, also known as pink; they purchased it over 

the internet. Or an individual with an opioid misuse disorder who 

tragically overdoses after unwittingly consuming counterfeit pills 

containing fentanyl or carfentanil. Or a first responder who inadvertently inhales a white powder during the course of his normal 

duties and requires multiple hits of naloxone to recover. 

These substances kill people; they kill the unsuspecting and the 

vulnerable, so what is DEA’s approach to countering this vile, volatile, and lethal threat? Enforcement and engagement. DEA will 

continue to target the most significant offenders of the Controlled 

Substances Act. We will continue to focus on the drug cartels, 

whose only motive is to make tremendous profit off of unsuspecting 

and vulnerable populations. 

Because synthetic drugs are made in the lab, the profit potential 

is enormous. One kilogram of fentanyl purchased in China for 

$3,500 to $5,000 can generate millions on the illicit market. 

DEA will enforce the rule of law on those criminals who are 

pushing these poisons on our public. DEA also continues to engage 

with its counterparts both domestically and abroad. Earlier this 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
12 

month, DEA released an updated video message to law enforcements nationwide about the dangers of handling fentanyl and its 

deadly consequences. We provide numerous publications to law enforcement and first responders, communities, and partnered with 

demand reductions coalitions nationwide as part of our 360 strategy. 

DEA has also been working directly with our law enforcement 

counterparts in China. That relationship has been very productive, 

and we were extremely happy to learn that China took action on 

116 synthetic substances in October of 2015. In March of this year, 

China subsequently scheduled four additional fentanyl analogues 

and, earlier this month, moved to place domestic controls over U– 

47700. We will continue to engage all of our partners on this synthetic issue. 

Last year, you heard testimony from Devin Eckhardt, father of 

Connor Eckhardt, the teenager who tragically lost his life after just 

one use of a synthetic drug. Devin asked that we leverage all our 

collective power and make changes that are necessary to eradicate 

the deadly poisons from our streets. For those of us who have had 

the honor of meeting the Eckhardts or any of the countless families 

whose lives have been turned upside down from synthetic drugs, 

we understand that plea all too well. Let me ensure the committee 

that DEA will do everything possible to eradicate these vile, volatile, and lethal drugs from our communities. 

I want to thank this committee for their ongoing work and their 

attention to this subject, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much, Ms. Ashley. At this time, 

Mr. Perez, you are recognized for your opening statement. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PEREZ 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member 

Conyers, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear today and discuss the role of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection in combatting the flow of dangerous synthetic drugs into the United States, including synthetic 

opioids such as fentanyl, synthetic cannabinoids, and synthetic 

cathinones. The majority of illicit, synthetic drugs smuggled into 

the United States has done so through international mail facilities, 

expressed consignment carrier facilities, or through our ports of 

entry. The dedicated men and women of CBP—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Excuse me, was that on? It is now, OK. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The dedicated 

men and women of CBP work around the clock to combat this challenge. In fiscal year 2016, CBP officers and agents seized or disrupted more than 3.3 million pounds of narcotics. CBP seizures of 

fentanyl, the most frequently-seized synthetic opioid, have significantly increased over the past 3 years from approximately 2 

pounds in 2013 to over 400 pounds in 2016. 

Additionally, last year, CBP interdicted more than 1,200 pounds 

of synthetic cannabinoids and over 1,400 pounds of synthetic 

cathinones. Drug trafficking organizations continually adapt to 

evade detection and interdiction by law enforcement. CBP uses the 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
13 

same interdiction methods to seize synthetic drugs as it uses to detect other illicit substances coming across the border. 

Thanks to the support of Congress, CBP has made significant investments and improvements to our drug detection technology and 

targeting capabilities. For example, at the National Targeting Center, CBP leverages advanced information alongside law enforcement intelligence records to identify smuggling trends and target 

shipments that may contain illicit substances or related equipment 

being diverted for the seduced, such as pill presses, tablet machines, or precursor chemicals. 

The National Targeting Center also serves as a critical focal 

point for the daily collaboration between CBP and many critical 

law enforcement partners, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations, the FBI, and members of the intelligence community. Drug trafficking organizations and individual purchasers 

often move synthetic drugs in small quantities to try to evade detection. In the expressed consignment environment, CBP can place 

an electronic hold and notify carriers that a parcel needs to be presented for inspection. 

Together with the U.S. Postal Service, CBP is working to develop 

the same capability in the international mail environment through 

an advanced data pilot program. In addition to their expertise, 

training, and intuition, CBP officers and agents use various forms 

of technology and equipment to detect synthetic drugs hidden on 

people and cargo conveyances and other containers. Through CBP’s 

Field Triage Infrared Reachback Program, infrared spectrometers 

are utilized to collect data from substances believed to be or contain synthetic drugs, which is subsequently transmitted for our laboratories for interpretation. Trained scientists are, then, able to 

reasonably identify classes of drugs and flag them for comprehensive testing, even if the drugs had not been seen before. 

Canine operations are another invaluable component of CBP’s 

counter narcotic efforts. CBP is currently working to conduct a 

pilot course to assess the feasibility of safely and effectively adding 

fentanyl as a trained odor to deployed narcotic detection canine 

teams. CBP has also implemented a program to provide training 

and equipment to keep our frontline employees safe from accidental 

opioid exposure. 

Through our ongoing pilot, CBP officers and agents are trained 

to recognize the signs and symptoms of an opioid overdose and to 

administer naloxone, a potentially lifesaving drug for the treatment 

of opioid overdoses. CBP will continue to do all we can to refine 

and further enhance the effectiveness of our detection and its addiction of dangerous synthetic drugs being smuggled into the U.S. 

Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Conyers, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, thank you, Mr. Perez. At this time, we 

will begin questioning by members. 

Since I am going to be here for the duration of the hearing, I am 

going to wait to ask my questions, and therefore, I will go to Mr. 

Chabot from Ohio. You have 5 minutes for questioning. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
14 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Back in the 

1980s, I was on Cincinnati City Council, and Ronald Reagan was 

President, and the drug scourge in this country had gotten so bad 

that we had declared a war on it. We had a program, ‘‘Just Say 

No.’’ We had about 10,000 overdose deaths nationwide back in ’82. 

And this year, we think it will be approaching 60,000 overdose 

deaths, and so it has gotten incredibly bad out there, as the witnesses of this panel have already testified to, and I know the next 

panel will say from different aspects, but much the same thing, I 

am sure. 

Back, again, in my district, and I represent most of the city of 

Cincinnati, during one week last summer, we had 174 reported 

overdoses just in one week. We had a young girl, a 9-year-old girl 

in March just a couple months ago. She called 911 after both of her 

parents overdosed in their SUV on heroin. She told the dispatcher 

that she was scared and that her parents, ‘‘Will not wake up.’’ The 

girl did not know where she was or what was wrong with her parents. But she did know enough to call 911 for help, and that call 

literally saved her parents’ life, but no little girl or boy, 9-yearsold or at any age, should ever have to be placed in that situation. 

So, it is terrible out there. 

And Ohio has been one of the worst States with respect to this, 

you know, horrific drug problem that we have, especially heroin, 

and I will get into a question here; I am not just going to ramble 

on and on, but especially when it comes to combining heroin, which 

is already a terribly dangerous drug, with these synthetic things 

like fentanyl, and that is the one that is been particularly deadly 

in Ohio because my understanding is that it is something like 50 

to 100 times more potent than morphine, and then you mix that 

with the heroin, and you have a deadly, deadly brew there. 

I guess my first question is, and I am supportive of this legislation, I would welcome you this. I assume you had a chance to look 

at the legislation that we are dealing with here. Could you tell us, 

how will this legislation make your jobs easier? How will it make 

the American people safer right now with respect to drug overdoses 

than they are now? And I would invite either or both. If you could 

turn the mic on there? Thank you. 

Ms. ASHLEY. I can say I am a 30-year investigator with DEA. 

And it has always been helpful to law enforcement to be proactive 

rather than reactive. The situation we are dealing with now, it is 

after the fact, after the uptick of E.R. visits, after the uptick of 

deaths, frankly. So, new legislation, more nimble legislation, would 

give us the opportunity to be proactive and get in front of these circumstances. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And Mr. Perez. 

Mr. PEREZ. And, Congressman, I would echo Ms. Ashley’s comments and add that, from a CBP perspective, given our focus on 

interdiction and the potential deterrent nature of actions taken by 

this body that would not only deliver a greater consequence and 

provide more agility for all of law enforcement to apply the law 

when it comes to these illicit substances, if we can deter further 

people from beginning to even consider trafficking in this type of 

a scourge, that obviously will enable us as well and assist us in 

what it is we do every day. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
15 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I have got a minute left that I have got. 

If I could turn just to a related issue. And you have already mentioned this, but it is also my understanding, and you indicated 

somewhat this in your testimony, that our first responders who are 

there to, you know, save lives and protect people can be now, themselves, at risk because of their exposure to these drugs. Could you 

elaborate a little bit on that, what the risk is and what ought to 

be done about it? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, with respect to CBP, again, Congressman, we 

recognized early on, as we began to see an uptake, particularly in 

the fentanyl, which really is primarily the most dangerous of the 

synthetics that we have encountered today. Several years ago, in 

recognition, actually working alongside DEA to understand the 

dangers for our frontline men and women, we began to roll out 

training and awareness training and musters to those frontline officers and agents who most would come encountering these substances. 

And, in addition to this, being present in about 34 locations. And 

the locations where we are seizing the most of these substances is 

where we have also deployed trained officers and agents to administer the naloxone, the NARCAN, if you will, so that, in case there 

is an accidental opioid overdose, we can immediately respond to 

that. 

So, that is something that we are continually trying to do our 

very best to protect those men and women who are unquestionably 

our most treasured resource. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. At this time, the ranking 

member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

their very good contributions here. Let me ask Administrator Ashley about the eight-factor analysis that is currently being used. 

Would you talk with us a little bit about that? 

Ms. ASHLEY. Certainly, sir. The current process for permanently 

scheduling controlled substances, the DEA works jointly with HHS, 

and they are great partners. The Food and Drug Administration, 

and also DEA, conduct an eight-factor analysis. The issue there is 

that it is a very extensive process. It can take anywhere from 18 

months to several years to actually permanently schedule the drug. 

We also have the tool of emergency scheduling. Emergency 

scheduling, we would conduct a three-factor analysis also working 

along with HHS. And HHS would complete an eight-factor. And, 

even with all cylinders firing, if everything goes right, it would still 

take 3 to 4 months to emergency schedule a substance. And, as I 

mentioned a little bit ago, we would want to be proactive rather 

than reactive. 

Both our emergency scheduling process and our eight-factor analysis for permanent scheduling is after we have collected the data, 

the information, the seizures, the deaths, and the uptick in emergency room visits. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, under this bill, we would eliminate the eightfactor analysis. 

Ms. ASHLEY. Well, I am not as familiar with the bill. I am generally familiar with it. But from what I understand, it is a temVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:30 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032310 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A310.XXX A310

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
16 

porary scheduling. If it is under schedule A, it is temporary. So, the 

analysis is still going to take place in order to permanently schedule, if necessary, the substance that is encountered. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, would you support eliminating the eight-factor analysis? 

Ms. ASHLEY. The eight-factor analysis, I do not believe it would 

be taken away. That is not my understanding. I am not as familiar 

with the bill, sir. 

And I would like to add, as a practical matter, again, HHS, they 

are such great partners with us. Our scientific staff and their scientific staff, we are typically looking at the same substances, exchanging information constantly. We have basically a day-to-day 

relationship with the scientific staff at HHS and also at DEA. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now, let me ask you about the enforcement power 

under H.R. 2851. It would give the Attorney General and, most 

likely, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the power to make 

the law, enforce the law, and then decide the appropriate sentence 

for breaking the law. Do you believe that this might be a little bit 

too much power to be located into one agency? 

Ms. ASHLEY. Sir, I would have to defer to the department in 

speaking about the mandatory minimums or sentencing. As an investigator, I can tell you that mandatory minimums are another 

tool. Historically, they have created a deterrent effect. Again, I 

would have to refer back to the department. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, let me ask the same question to my good 

friend sitting next to you, Mr. Perez. 

Mr. PEREZ. Congressman, I would say from a CBP perspective, 

we would absolutely, and I would absolutely, appreciate the complexities with respect to balancing, again, the actual consequence 

delivery. But unquestionably from the interdiction focus that we 

have on the frontline, the enabling in any way the agency to not 

only interdict, but deter further the trafficking in these illicit substances is what we would really appreciate the opportunity to work 

with the committee on further. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, what about my question, though? I mean, do 

you support the whole idea of eliminating eight-factor analysis or 

not? Or do you know enough about it to venture a recommendation? 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Congressman. On the eight-factor analysis, we certainly would defer to the experts over at the DEA who 

really are the frontline in handling those issues. 

Mr. CONYERS. Let me ask you this, Mr. Perez: does CBP support 

this legislation in its current form? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, Congressman, any effort by this body, we 

would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to further enable law enforcement to interdict and deter the trafficking 

in these substances. Unquestionably, our focus is national security, 

is homeland security, and any effort to enable us to further deliver 

on that law enforcement mission and to do so alongside the committee we would welcome that committee. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, could you explain how this legislation might 

help CBP in its efforts to stop the flow of synthetic analogues enter 

the United States? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
17 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Congressman. So, one of the big challenges we do have when we encounter these narcotics being trafficked in the express consignment environment, in the mail facilities, or even across our ports of entry, is the constant changes in 

the chemical structures, the added analogues, the diversity with 

which the drug trafficking organizations are adapting in order to 

evade detection. And so, it is in that light and in that vein that, 

again, we absolutely would welcome this effort and are greatly appreciative of what it is the committee is endeavoring. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Thank you both for your responses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. At this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Ms. Ashley, you were indicating earlier that fentanyl could be purchased in China for, say, $5,000 and 

end up bringing here and making millions, with what substance 

would people normally cut that in order to enhance the value that 

dramatically? 

Ms. ASHLEY. That is a good question, sir. I do not know which 

substance they would cut it with. I am sorry I do not know the answer to that question. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Because I know we have heard testimony about 

it being added to some other substances and making it more dangerous, but I was wondering in order to get to millions of dollars 

in value it has got to be added to something; it has got to be cut 

some way. Mr. Perez, do you have any idea? 

Mr. PEREZ. What we have seen, Mr. Chairman, with respect to 

the utilization of fentanyl is that actually being used to cut heroin 

along the southern border, in fact. And so, while present in much 

lesser quantities as a percentage of what it is we are seizing, it is 

in those larger seizes, if you will, that we are affecting in the 

southern border that fentanyl itself is being used to further the 

quantities of the heroin that is being smuggled. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But is it not true that one of the things that has 

brought about the, the heroin epidemic, if you will, has been the 

price of heroin being comparatively cheaper than some other drugs. 

Is that not right? 

Mr. PEREZ. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I would add to that the 

availability and the volume of which of what is moving in the elicit 

markets right now is certainly adding to that as well. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Ms. Ashley, did you have some additional information? 

Ms. ASHLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just happen to have one of our 

scientific staff here in the room. He just passed to me that 

fentanyl, as Mr. Perez has already said, is mixed with heroin, and 

then pressed into a pill. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And pressed into a pill. 

Ms. ASHLEY. And pressed into a pill, yes. Also pill presses are 

being imported and used to press the heroin and fentanyl mixture 

into a pill. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, Mr. Perez, what is the primary way in which 

synthetic drugs and fentanyl are making their way to America’s 

teenagers and adults bring about this epidemic? 

Mr. PEREZ. So, originating primarily from China and/or Mexico, 

again for the heroin laced with the fentanyl—— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
18 

Mr. GOHMERT. Which is more predominant as a source, China or 

Mexico? 

Mr. PEREZ. Quantity wise, from Mexico, Mr. Chairman. As far as 

incidents are concerned because the volume of actual seizure incidence that we are encountering are dominated in both the mail environment and the expressed consignment environment those 

would be from China. And so, those are the routes of the originating countries as well as the manner with which these elicit synthetics are being smuggled. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you know if, under this bill, kratom would be 

listed as a schedule A drug? Either of you. 

Ms. ASHLEY. Thank you for the opportunity, I can give you an 

update on kratom. I can say to you, that is not the track that 

kratom is on right now. If I can explain a little, DEA took action 

to schedule kratom back in August 2016 and subsequently withdrew that action. And we withdrew the action after, you know, concern from stakeholders, concern from Congress, even, concern from 

the public, and we decided to take a more prudent measure there. 

And right now, kratom is on the path of eight-factor analysis 

through the Food and Drug Administration, and we are currently 

waiting on that action. We made the request in 2014, and we are 

waiting for their recommendation. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, under this, would marijuana be a schedule 

A substance? 

Ms. ASHLEY. Marijuana would not be looked at as a schedule A, 

and the reason is it is already scheduled in schedule I, it is already 

permanently scheduled. So, there would be no need to back track 

that and place it into a temporary sort of environment. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, this bill propose an entirely new regulatory 

scheme where the power is really concentrated in the Attorney 

General and the DEA; what aspects of this bill would allow DEA 

to act quickly to curb synthetic drug importation? 

Ms. ASHLEY. For importation. So, what it does is as it comes into 

CBP, and my colleague here can actually help to join into the response; as it comes in, sometimes it is mislabeled, and sometimes 

it has the accurate label because it is not a regulated substance, 

so they would be able to identify it immediately as it comes in because it is on the bill of lading. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. My time has expired. I recognize the 

chairman of the full committee, Chairman Goodlatte. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Ashley, how many synthetic drugs that would come within the scope 

of this bill are being researched right now by how many registrants? In other words, how many registrants have you authorized to research synthetic drugs? 

Ms. ASHLEY. Currently, we have a little over 400 DEA registrants registered to handle schedule I controlled substance. The 

thing that is complex about this issue, the U.N. reported in 2016 

that there are approximately 700 additional ones. They are not 

under DEA regulatory authority, so there could be more that are 

not being tracked and accounted for. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. And really creative criminal chemists can 

come up with new molecular combinations on a daily basis that 

would just keep you going through this and going through this and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
19 

going through this. You have got to be able to identify them and 

act quickly once you do identify them; is that not—— 

Ms. ASHLEY. That is exactly right. They are made in a lab clandestinely. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. People who are cutting heroin with 

fentanyl or its analogues or importing fentanyl outside the regular 

drug process are already breaking the law in myriad ways; do you 

believe that this additional layer of deterrents will stop people who 

are already breaking the law? 

Ms. ASHLEY. I do; I will give you an example. When China scheduled the 116 synthetic drugs in October 2015, the amount of flow 

of these substances coming into the United States decreased, we 

approximate, between 40 to 60 percent. Once they were identified, 

Border Control can track them, and there was a decrease in what 

is coming into the country. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Are you concerned about the driving of 

these criminals to the dark Web and seeing more of this simply delivered by mail to people? 

Ms. ASHLEY. Well, the thing with the dark Web, it is ground zero 

for all criminal activity. I do not believe that this sort of action 

would make it any worse frankly. It is just ground zero in the dark 

Web. So there is going to be that criminal activity, all aspects of 

criminal activity in the dark Web no matter what laws we put in 

place. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. And the substance still has to go through 

some delivery mechanism. Are there ways to screen for this? I 

mean, are there dogs that can smell these types of drugs, or what 

is done to try to stop? 

Ms. ASHLEY. It is a very dangerous circumstance, and my colleague could probably speak to it better. With the dogs, if they are 

inhaling the same way any human would inhale, it is detrimental 

to their lives. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Good point. 

Mr. PEREZ. I will add, Mr. Chairman, that CBP is, in fact, in the 

midst of a pilot program where we are testing our canine handling 

teams, a finite number of those to potentially detect the odor of 

fentanyl. As you may know, it is a menu of sorts of different odors 

that the canines are trained on, and so, ever so safely, we are in 

the middle of a pilot program to explore the feasibility of introducing fentanyl as an added odor. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. So, what is the turnaround time from 

seizing a suspected substance and positively identifying the substance? What does CBP do with the package or shipment that contains that substance? 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, upon seizure, we will 

typically utilize some of the technology that we have deployed to 

the busiest mail facilities, express consignment facilities, southwest 

border locations, through the infrared spectrometers that the officers and agents utilize. That data is sent directly to our laboratory 

scientist and, really, depending on the circumstance we have in 

front of us, we could turn around those results within 24 hours, if 

need be, for investigative purposes. If we encounter an instance 

where we have a subject, for example, in custody and there is a potential investigative lead interaction that need to take place. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
20 

But if and when we do encounter some of these substances under 

the normal course of doing business in the mail environment, for 

example, where there is no further investigation, typically we will 

queue those up, and it may take several weeks, given the amount 

of volume of what actually gets sent to our laboratories for testing. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Is fentanyl the synthetic you are seizing 

the most, or are there other things that are not on our radar? 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As far as quantities are 

concerned, the synthetic cannabinoids and cathinone in quantities 

still outweigh the fentanyl but unquestionably the spike and/or increase in the amount of fentanyl that we are seizing is outpacing 

any other synthetic drug at the moment. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. What kind of synthetic drug traffickers 

does CBP particularly target? 

Mr. PEREZ. Not unlike any other drug trafficking organization, 

Mr. Chairman. We work alongside the entirety of the law enforcement communities, certainly at the Federal level, but also at the 

State and local level and our international partners. And so, it is 

not uncommon that those same organizations that are trafficking 

in other types of narcotics are also now moving their business into 

these synthetics. And so, the same tools, the same information, the 

same intelligence, the same investigative tools that we utilize to 

combat all those other drug trafficking organizations are what we 

are currently employing to stop this surge. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, let me 

just say each of your written statements will be entered into the 

record in its entirety, and we appreciate your testimony today. I 

would ask if you would review H.R. 2851 again and any suggestions you may have that would improve it from your background 

experience and training, if you would submit those within the next 

10 days then that would be immensely helpful to us as we go forward. Appreciate that very much. Anything further that you have 

thought of that you needed to add to illuminate on any question 

that you have already answered? All right. 

Then, we appreciate your being here and, again, thank you so 

much for your patience. At this time, panel one will be excused, 

and we will ask panel two to please come forward. 

All right, thank you; I appreciate your patience as well. Thank 

you so much for being here. Obviously, this is a very big problem. 

Could I ask you each to stand and raise your right hand so I 

could swear the witnesses in? 

Do you, and each of you, solemnly swear that the testimony you 

are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

All right, please be seated. The record will reflect each witness 

has responded in the affirmative. 

I will briefly introduce our distinguished witnesses here today in 

our second panel. 

Ms. Marcia Lee Taylor is the President and CEO of the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, a nonprofit organization which provides 

support and guidance to families struggling with their son or 

daughter’s substance use. Previously, she served as the senior advisor for drug policy research for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
21 

on Crime and Drugs for the Democratic Staff Director of the Senate 

Caucus on International Narcotics Control, working for then-Senator Joe Biden. In that capacity, she worked on a wide variety of 

drug policy bills aimed at curbing the proliferation of methamphetamine, ecstasy, GHB, as well as drug treatment prevention and enforcement initiatives. Ms. Taylor is a graduate of the College of the 

Holy Cross and holds a master’s degree in public policy from 

Georgetown University. So, thank you for being here, Ms. Taylor. 

I will go ahead and introduce our other witnesses, and then we 

can take testimony one after another. Ms. Reta Newman is a special advisor for the Drug Free America Foundation. She is also the 

chief chemist and director at the Pinellas County, Florida Forensic 

Laboratory where she manages operations for analysis of fire debris, controlled substances, and other chemical components. She 

has been a forensic chemist since 1989 and holds her certifications 

in the analysis of drugs as well as fire debris. Ms. Newman has authored several publications and offers presentations on a national 

level. She holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Missouri 

State University and a master’s degree in management from The 

University of Phoenix. Ms. Newman, welcome. We are pleased to 

have you here, as well. 

Ms. Angela Pacheco was the first woman ever elected to the first 

Judicial District Attorney’s Office in Santa Fe, New Mexico and retired in December 2015, but obviously not completely retired from 

everything. I had a witness once during voir dire, and the district 

attorney said, ‘‘Sir, I see that you are retired; what are you retired 

from?’’ And he said, ‘‘Everything.’’ Obviously, that is not your case; 

you are still quite active. 

You previously served as assistant district attorney, deputy district attorney, and supervisor of Family Violence Unit in that office. 

Her legal career has consisted primarily of criminal prosecution in 

which she has tried a number of high profiled cases. Prior to becoming an attorney, Ms. Pacheco was a social worker for 13 years 

in Northern New Mexico. She received a bachelor of arts in social 

work from the College of Santa Fe and her juris doctorate from the 

Hamlin University School of Law. 

So, again, your written statements will each be entered in full 

into the record. At this time, I ask you each to summarize your 

own testimony in 5 minutes or less, and you see how it works with 

the lights. When the yellow light illuminates, there will be 1 

minute left, but in any event, we are being a little less formal here 

today, and we do appreciate your being here. We need your input. 

And so, at this time, Ms. Taylor, I recognize you for your opening 

statement for 5 minutes. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
22 

STATEMENTS OF MARCIA LEE TAYLOR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PARTNERSHIP FOR DRUG-FREE KIDS; RETA NEWMAN, SPECIAL ADVISOR TO DRUG FREE AMERICA FOUNDATION, 

CHIEF CHEMIST AND LABORATORY DIRECTOR OF THE 

PINELLAS COUNTY FORENSIC LABORATORY; AND ANGELA 

PACHECO, FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FIRST JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 

STATEMENT OF MARCIA LEE TAYLOR 

Ms. TAYLOR. Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Conyers, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. My name is Marcia Lee Taylor, and I am President and 

CEO of the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, a 30-year-old national 

nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting families struggling 

with their son or daughters’ substance use. 

Created by the advertising industry at the height of the powder 

and crack cocaine epidemic, the partnership has run the largest 

single-issue PSA campaign in our Nation’s history. And over the 

course of the past decade, we have developed a number of resources 

that go beyond the 30-second PSA for families to get their arms 

around the addiction issue. 

We empower families with information, support, and guidance to 

get the help their loved one needs and deserves in a variety of 

ways. Through our national toll-free help line, 1–855–DRUGFREE, 

and new online live chat service, we have connected 10,000 families 

to bilingual, master’s-level counselors who help them develop a 

plan to address their child’s substance use. And with our national 

network of parent coaches, with nearly 200 volunteers in 2017, and 

our new ‘‘Ask-a-Coach’’ feature, we connect parents to others who 

have been there and can help them learn how to love their child 

through this health crisis and understand that tough love and rock 

bottom are not the only viable options. 

Through our website, drugfree.org, we provide 5 million families 

per year with the latest cutting edge scientific information distilled 

into actionable tips and tools to help them understand the disease 

of addiction, be better able to navigate the treatment system, and 

get their child to accept help. And thanks to our local and national 

media partners, we receive approximately $100 million a year in 

donated time to run PSAs to let parents know that there is help 

for their loved one and that they can find support at the partnership. And working with private sector partners like Google and 

Facebook, we help reach parents as they actively search for help 

online. 

In all of these tools, we use evidence based concepts such as community reinforcement and family training, otherwise known as 

CRAFT, and motivational interviewing to help parents obtain the 

best possible outcomes for getting their child into treatment and 

onto the path to recovery. 

Among the parents we serve, the fear of fentanyl and its equally 

deadly analogues is palpable. Our moms and dads see the news reports about overdose deaths from adulterated heroin and now cocaine. They see stories about counterfeit Xanax pills and other 

medications that are, in fact, pure fentanyl. They read accounts of 

law enforcement officials who overdose from simply being in proxVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:30 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032310 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A310.XXX A310

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
23 

imity to a seizure of drugs that contain some of these potent alternates, and they are terrified that their child will be the next statistic. 

Our helpline staff and parent coaches cannot reassure these 

mothers and fathers that everything will be fine, because they 

know that the parent’s fears are not overblown. Their kids could, 

in fact, be the next fatality. They know that even if there is a first 

responder nearby to administer a dose of NARCAN to reverse the 

overdose, it may not be enough. In many cases, people overdosing 

on fentanyl need multiple doses of NARCAN to revive them if they 

can be revived at all. 

One mom from New Hampshire, who is in recovery herself from 

heroin, commented to me that when she was using heroin in the 

1970s overdose was not nearly as common. So, when her son became addicted, she listened to people who told her to wait until he 

hit rock bottom and was ready for treatment. Unfortunately, her 

son died from a fatal fentanyl dose before the elusive rock bottom 

came to pass. She told me that she thought that she had time. 

With the potency of heroin on the street today and the proliferation 

of fentanyl analogues, parents simply do not have time to wait for 

a child to be ready to enter treatment. They need to come up with 

a plan to intervene and help their child further upstream and the 

partnership has resources to help them do just that. 

The legislation before the committee today, H.R. 2851, the Stop 

the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, takes 

an important step of classifying 13 fentanyl analogues as controlled 

substances as well as creating a mechanism to make it easier to 

control substances going forward. The problem of regulating analogue substances and other uncontrolled compounds that are 

abused is not a new one. 

Prior to my work at the partnership, I spent 11 years working 

on drug policy in the Senate. And during that time, I worked on 

two pieces of legislation that are relevant to the discussion today. 

The Hilary J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000, which moved gamma hydroxybutyric, also known 

as GHB, from classification as a dietary supplement to a controlled 

substance, and the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 which classified a number of substances as steroids and made it easier to control future analogues. 

In the GHB legislation and the bill before us today, a complicating factor with the possibility that one of the substances could 

have potential as an FDA-approved medication. The GHB legislation took the path of bifurcated scheduling, whereby the substance 

was classified as a schedule I control substance in its illicit form 

and left the door open to an FDA approved version being a schedule III substance with the important caveat that there had to be 

tight controls and restricted distribution. XYREM, the FDA-approved version of the drug, is available through a closed distribution network and only one pharmacy in the entire country is able 

to dispense it. While the GHB bill was narrowly tailored, the bill 

before us today addresses a wide swath of substances. We must 

make sure when we are crafting the final legislations steps are 

taken to ensure that researchers are able to study schedule A subVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:30 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032310 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A310.XXX A310

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
24 

stances for future medical use without the restrictions that come 

with studying a schedule I substance. 

In the case of the steroid bill, we knew that there was an incentive for chemist to innovate and stay one step ahead of law enforcement by making minor alterations to illegal substances so they 

evaded the reach of the law. To control that, the legislation amended the definition of anabolic steroid in the Controlled Substance 

Act and removed the requirement that the substance must be proven to promote muscle growth so that it was easier for DEA to 

schedule such analogues in the future. It is critical the DEA has 

the ability to act swiftly to control new substances that violate the 

spirit of the law particularly when they are as deadly as the 

fentanyl analogues available today. 

The balance between scheduling dangerous substances and allowing research on them for medical purposes is difficult to get exactly right, but it is critical that we do so in order to protect both 

public health and public safety. Thank you again for inviting me 

here today, and I am happy to answer any questions that you 

might have. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Taylor. 

Ms. Newman, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF RETA NEWMAN 

Ms. NEWMAN. Good morning, Mr. Gohmert, Ranking Member 

Conyers, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much 

for inviting me to testify today about this proposed legislation. 

My name is Reta Newman, and I am here today representing 

Drug Free America Foundation for whom I serve as a special advisor. Drug Free America is a nonprofit organization committed to 

developing, promoting, and sustaining national and international 

policies and laws that will reduce either illicit drug use and drug 

addiction. I am also the director of the Pinellas County Forensic 

Laboratory at the District Six Medical Examiner’s Office in Largo, 

Florida. I have asked to speak to you today based on what is going 

on in our county, which hopefully could translate to the rest of the 

country. 

In my testimony today, in support of this legislation I would like 

to provide an awareness of the impact of synthetic drug analogues 

and false labeling of drugs especially, but not limited to, fentanyl 

analogues through examples taken from local drug and death investigations. It should be noted that while my testimony is based 

primarily on what is happening in Pinellas and Pasco Counties, 

which is significant, we are not the epicenter of this crisis which 

makes these statistics all the more concerning. In 2010, Florida 

was in the spotlight for the number of deaths associated with prescription drugs. This prescription drug crisis was such that the average number of accidental deaths associated with prescription 

drugs increased by almost 100 percent in a 2-year period in my 

county. The legislation and enforcement targeting pill mill doctors 

and true prescribing practices by physicians and public education 

to the crisis, the number of overdose deaths associated with prescription opioids dropped in 2014 to the lowest rate in 8 years. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
25 

Unfortunately, since 2015, the overdose rate has increased to levels exceeding that over the prescription drug crisis. In these cases, 

however, the increase is due to illicit drugs. I clandestinely produced and distributed synthetic opioids are the primary drugs of 

concern death associated with synthetic cannabinoids, and 

cathinones have also increased in this time period. 

In 2015, the seize drug unit began to see clandestinely produced 

fentanyl in powders and pills. Fentanyl pills were labeled to mimic 

other pharmaceutical preparations, most commonly Xanax and 

oxycodone. Seven deaths in a 30-day period were attributed to 

these counterfeit pills. A 50-milligram dose of a nonextended release oxycodone can be fatal in most circumstances. The fentanyl 

equivalent is less than one half of a milligram. Given that the 

users were likely expecting 30 milligram oxycodone dosages in 

these counterfeit pills and given the high toxicity of fentanyl, the 

increase in overdoses and overdose deaths were inevitable. In a 

given week our laboratory sees multiple submissions of pills labeled to mimic pharmaceutical preparations which contain a wide 

variety of clandestine mixtures. 

In late 2014, a new fentanyl analogue was introduced to the clandestine market in Florida. Acetyl fentanyl began appearing in 

seized drug DUI and postmortem investigations. The appeal to the 

distributors is this is an inexpensive, highly potent, highly addictive, and noncontrolled drug. When acetyl fentanyl became controlled federally in May of 2015, it was rapidly replaced with butyryl and furanyl-fentanyls. Upon scheduling of those in May 2016, 

the market shifted in our county to fluoroisobutyrfentanyl, which 

is currently not controlled. 

By simply changing one ion at a more functional group in the 

base structure, a novel drug is created. Because the chemical structure of the parent compound, there is the potential to create hundreds of analogues of fentanyl. Currently approximately 50 have 

been isolated. The drugs are quite literally being tested for potency 

and toxicity on the street. The current known range of potency for 

these drugs varies from 100 to 10,000 times of that of morphine 

based on the analogue structure. In several postmortem cases, the 

determination of the cause of death has not come from the drugs 

identified in this decadence but the drugs in the syringes that are 

still decadence arms or hand. The fatal concentrations of some of 

the synthetic analogues is such that it is below the detection limit 

of the laboratory instrumentation and processes. 

The risk of synthetic analogues is not limited to the drug user. 

In the powder form, the drug is easily aerosolized and can be absorbed through the skin. There have been several instances of first 

responder exposure to fentanyl analogues. Our laboratory also has 

NARCAN procedures in place to treat our coworkers should an exposure happen. The potential for a serious event due to widespread 

accidental or intentional exposures do exist. 

In the first 5 months of 2017, fentanyl analogues have contributed to the deaths of 60 people in Pinellas and Paschal Counties 

alone. Approximately 1⁄3 of those are fentanyl analogues that are 

not controlled. While not necessary is potent similar instances of 

noncontrolled analogues have appeared in the forms of multiple 

other drug classes. Analogs as synthetic cannabinoids and synVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:30 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032310 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A310.XXX A310

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
26 

thetic cathinones, among others, have resulted in numerous 

overdoses and overdose deaths throughout the country and in our 

county. As soon as one chemical structure becomes controlled, it is 

rapidly replaced with others. Placing proactive legal controls on 

these analogues will not in itself eliminate the drug abuse problem 

in this country. However, without this legislation the criminal justice community is severely hampered in their ability to attack the 

problem. 

Thank you for your opportunity to speak today and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Ms. Newman. At this time, Ms. 

Pacheco you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ANGELA PACHECO 

Ms. PACHECO. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, ranking members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name 

is Angela Pacheco, and I served as the district attorney in northern 

New Mexico for 7 years, retiring in December 2015. I am currently 

a commissioner for the New Mexico Sentencing Commission. 

The idea behind this bill is laudable. It is true that many synthetic drugs that are substantially similar to drugs like fentanyl 

are entering our country and are behind a lot of overdose deaths. 

The overdose crisis is a national tragedy. I have seen its devastating consequences in my home State. We should all be alarmed 

and should take action. But the problem with the bill is that it 

takes a hammer approach to an issue that needs a scalpel, resulting in the unattended consequences of those with opioid addictions. 

Fentanyl and its synthetic derivatives are often manufactured 

outside the United States. Last June, the head of the DEA told the 

Senate that illicit fentanyl, fentanyl derivatives, and their immediate precursors are often produced in China. They are often added 

to heroin high up on the chain and then sold on the streets of the 

United States. From a prosecutorial standpoint, it means that proposals like the ones contained in this bill to punish every drug seller, regardless of their role, for the sale of synthetic drugs will be 

problematic. Presumably, the harsh sentences in the bill are supposed to deter drug sellers. But how is the drug seller supposed to 

be deterred if they do not know what is in the substance they sell 

and believe it to be simply heroin? In essence, this bill creates a 

strict liability situation where position of heroin with a synthetic 

derivative results in an enhanced sentence. This would mean the 

individuals are exposed to additional lengthy sentences regardless 

of whether they knew or not that the drug they were selling contained these synthetic drugs. 

Also, the new charging memo from the Attorney General encourages Federal prosecutors to charge as much as they can in drug 

cases. Similarly, there is a lot of pressure on prosecutors to do 

something to slow the opioid epidemic. Should this bill pass we will 

likely see Federal prosecutors charging individuals not simply for 

the sale of heroin, but also charging them if the heroin they sell 

contains the slightest trace of a synthetic drug which results in 

harsher sentences for lower-level users. This situation is like the 

early years of the crack epidemic. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
27 

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this bill is the power it 

grants the Attorney General. Under current law, the Attorney General must work with public health officials to decide which drugs 

belong in which schedule and, therefore, which penalties apply. 

This bill completely circumvents the public health process, leaving 

the scheduling decisions almost entirely in the hands of the Attorney General. Let me be clear, prosecutors and law enforcement 

should never be permitted to unilaterally decide which drug should 

be made illegal. That is not our role. We are not public health experts and we are not scientists. This is clearly a separation of powers issue in which those decisions should be made by the legislative 

branch of government. 

We have made great strides as a country in how we treat drug 

use. Just last year, this committee worked on the Comprehensive 

Addiction Recovery Act. A bill that was subsequently signed into 

law and has also recently passed a Sentencing Reform Act which 

reduced mandatory minimums. I was on the front line when this 

epidemic began. New Mexico’s overdose rate has been one of the 

highest in the Nation for over two decades. We have harsh sentences on the books already at the State and Federal level, and 

they did nothing to stop our opioid epidemic. 

Our Nation’s approach to drugs has failed. We need investments 

in public health. We need treatment. We need harm reduction. But, 

fundamentally, we must learn from mistakes of the past and avoid 

responding to these new challenges by continuing the failed policies 

of the war on drugs. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you very much for the testimony. I will go 

ahead and do my questioning last and would recognize the ranking 

member of the full committee for questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all 

the witnesses. Ms. Pacheco, why do you believe that we should not 

add more drugs to the Federal scheduling and sentencing schemes? 

Ms. PACHECO. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, if I 

may, I am not necessarily saying we should not be adding any 

more drugs to the schedulings; what I am saying merely is that the 

scientific process should not be bypassed. As prosecutors, I am not 

in a position to address, you know, the scientific aspects of certain 

drugs. My biggest concern is that, regardless of the drugs we add 

or the penalties attached, we still have not made a difference in 

dealing with the opioid epidemic that has existed for the past several years. 

Mr. CONYERS. So, you think that we need to invest in public 

health as it relates to synthetic analogues; is that correct? 

Ms. PACHECO. I am sorry, sir, I am not certain I understand your 

question. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you believe we need to invest in public health 

as it relates to synthetic analogues? 

Ms. PACHECO. Representative, basically my position is that addictions basically are a public health issue. And we need to start 

addressing addictions as a public health issue, and that is why 

money should be going towards dealing with synthetic addictions 

as all addictions because strictly it is public health. Until we can 

stop the demand for these drugs, the supply is going to continue 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
28 

so we must address the needs of the individuals who experience 

these addictions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Finally, would you explain, from your point of view 

‘‘harm reduction,’’ a term you mentioned in your written testimony? 

Why do you believe we need harm reduction as it relates to synthetic analogues? 

Ms. PACHECO. Well, the concept of harm reduction in general is 

that when an individual is experiencing or has an addiction, their 

main focus is on dealing with their addiction and harm reduction 

basically is so that we can assist the individual to address those 

issues. I am sorry; that is somewhat circular. 

Harm reduction, in its purest form, is, basically, if we can provide the individual with support as their going through their addiction process then hopefully that they will do no other harm such 

as committing crime, such as continuing to sell, such as burglary; 

we are trying it minimize the amount of criminal activity. And 

harm reduction is basically supporting individuals as they’re going 

through their addiction process. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. At this time, I recognize 

Mr. Jeffries for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished chairman and, of course, 

our ranking member, Mr. Conyers, as well as the witnesses for 

your presence here today and the importance of your testimony in 

terms of how we approach the drug problem, the opioid addiction 

crisis that we have here in America in a very sensible smart fashion. Ms. Pacheco, the war on drugs, the phrase was coined at some 

point over the last 40 years, I think can be traced to the early 

1970s, perhaps 1971, when Richard Nixon publicly declared drug 

use in American public enemy number one; is that correct? 

Ms. PACHECO. Correct, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And at that particular point in time in 1971, I believe there were less than 350,000 people incarcerated in America; 

is that right? 

Ms. PACHECO. As to the actual number, I cannot address that sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay, I think the record has previously reflected 

here in the Judiciary Committee that that figure is accurate. In 

terms of the present number, 40-plus years later, we currently 

have over 2.1 million people incarcerated in America; is that right? 

Ms. PACHECO. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And a significant number of those individuals can 

be classified as nonviolent drug offenders; is that right? 

Ms. PACHECO. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now in the early 1970s when the war on drugs 

began, we were in the midst of a heroin addiction crisis; is that correct? 

Ms. PACHECO. Correct, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And then, in the 1980s into the early 1990s, we 

were suffering through what could be called the crack cocaine epidemic; is that right? 

Ms. PACHECO. Correct, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And now we are in the midst of the opioid addiction epidemic; is that right? 

Ms. PACHECO. Correct, sir. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
29 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And during that period of time when we exploded 

the prison population and careened from addiction crisis to addiction crisis, increased incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, is 

there any evidence during that time that this sort of, lock them up, 

throw away the key, law and order approach to dealing with our 

Nation’s persistent drug problem has been effective? 

Ms. PACHECO. From my observation and my personal experience, 

we have not been successful, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. If you can elaborate, during your testimony, you 

spoke of the futility of excessive, long sentences in terms of dealing 

with a drug problem; is that correct? 

Ms. PACHECO. Correct, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Can you elaborate on that perspective? 

Ms. PACHECO. Originally, sir, if you look at the Federal law, and 

again, I may misstate, but I believe it was in the 80’s when crack 

was starting to come into focus, and there were instances where individual crack is a derivative of cocaine, and individuals who had 

large amounts of cocaine were getting smaller sentences than individuals who had much lesser possession of crack who were getting 

higher sentences. 

And, again, similar to the situation is because they were seeing 

so many deaths and harm to family through crack cocaine addiction, that the penalties increased substantially. And it became kind 

of an unjust system where people, like I say, who had large 

amounts of cocaine were serving less sentences than those with, 

you know, your individual low-level user who would sell one or two 

hits of crack to maintain their addiction, would receive higher sentences than those with large amounts of cocaine. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, in connection with the most recent drug crisis that we, in America, are dealing with as it relates to opioid addiction, which is impacting people in the inner city communities 

that I represent as well as suburban America, rural America, there 

is no corner of America that is not impacted by this. If any of the 

panelist could comment in the time that I have remaining, what 

would be an enlightened approach, perhaps anchored in tackling 

this problem from a public health perspective that we should consider here as members of the United States Congress determined 

to tackle this problem on behalf of the people we represent? 

Ms. TAYLOR. I am happy to field that one. I think that over the 

years we have tended to pick a favorite approach to drug policy and 

what we have learned, most certainly, is that there is no silver bullet to this problem. We need to have a comprehensive solution. We 

have seen a lot of legislation, most recently the CARA Act, which 

passed last year, that addresses that, and also the money that is 

invested into treatment as part of the 21st Century Cures bill, 

there really needs to be a comprehensive approach. 

But I would argue that we still need to make sure that we have 

the controls that so that these fentanyl analogues are getting off 

the street. And we really need to make sure that we are addressing 

this problem from every possible angle. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you very much. My time has expired and 

I appreciate all the testimony from the witnesses here today. I 

yield back. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
30 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from New York. Now recognize myself for 5 minutes. I really do appreciate the perspective 

that you each bring from your own experience. 

With regard to the crack cocaine, the reference, I was a bit surprised when Dan Lungren who had been a former attorney general 

of California, before that had been in Congress here in the 1980s. 

When this issue came up, he pointed out that, in the 1980s, Congressman Charlie Rangel and others member of the Congressional 

Black Caucus had pointed out basically that anyone that opposed 

having much tougher sentences for crack, which was an epidemic 

in the African American communities, would basically, in essence, 

be a racist. It meant you did not care about getting to the heart 

of the crack cocaine problem in African American communities. 

And so, what Dan had said, and we went back and found magazine articles, newspaper articles that backed that up, that, actually, 

the Judiciary Committee here went along with that position and 

agreed to tougher sentences for crack over powder cocaine at the 

urging of African Americans in Congress to try to deal with that. 

Well, it did not work out so well in that regard. 

But, Ms. Taylor, I noted in your testimony where you mentioned 

the fear among the parents we serve, the fear of fentanyl and its 

equally deadly analogues, is palpable; you said they are terrified 

that their child might be the next statistic, and that is very understandable in view of the deaths that we have seen, and we see the 

numbers rising. 

What I am wondering is if we might transfer that fear to those 

who are selling these drugs by virtue of the fact we make a stiff 

enough penalty if a death or serious bodily injury results; they do 

not know whether they are selling something that is going to end 

them up in prison for the rest of their lives because of death or serious bodily injury? It would seem like that might be a way of 

transferring the fear from the parents to the drug dealer if he or 

she does not actually know what they are selling. Do you think ignorance should be a defense in those cases for drug dealers, Ms. 

Taylor? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Well, no, but what I really think is the heart of this 

legislation is taking away the economic incentive for the chemist to 

constantly innovate and change a molecule and violate the spirit of 

the law, but not the letter of the law. We have seen this in the 

steroid world. We have seen this now in the opioid world. We will 

continue to see it and just play a game of Whack-a-mole. You 

know, the eight-factor analysis is the ideal, but we need to make 

sure that DEA is nimble, so that, when we detect that there is a 

problem with a substance, we can make sure that we bring it 

under the proper controls and not necessarily as much for what is 

going on in the street as the import side of things, when chemicals 

are being imported. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. And in the time I have left, Ms. 

Pacheco, how do you feel about making a substantially higher penalty for if a deal or serious bodily injury were to result from the 

sale of a drug? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
31 

Ms. PACHECO. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, you know, 

as a prosecutor, I have seen so many, so many different situations. 

And in reference to your question, sir, as a prosecutor, if a person 

knowingly does something to intentionally cause somebody’s death 

or harm, there should be some type of consequence. The issue, 

though, if the individual does not know what is within the drug 

that is contained within the drug, then how can you say that they 

knowingly should take responsibility for the results of their action? 

See, that is where it gets complicated and, you know—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. It sounds like you are saying it would be in the 

best interest of a drug dealer to just say, ‘‘I do not want to know 

what is in this; that way I cannot ever be punished if somebody 

dies from what I am selling.’’ Is that the result we are looking for? 

Ms. PACHECO. No, sir, and most drug dealers that I have encountered in my career have been your low-level—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. From a professional standpoint. 

Ms. PACHECO. From a professional standpoint, of course, thank 

you for that clarification, sir. Most of the drug dealers that I have 

dealt with have been lower level. These are individuals who basically are selling to maintain their habits. It is because of their addiction. The addiction drives them to continue maintaining their 

habit, so the best way they do it is they sell the drug, so they get 

money, so they can buy more drugs, so they can continue their addiction. 

I mean, all they are trying to do is they are trying to survive at 

that level. They are not doing it for monetary purposes, for the 

most part; they are just trying to maintain their addiction. And 

that is what makes it so difficult when we talk about drug reform, 

is that we need to look at it as a medical situation. They have a 

medical condition, and that is why the addiction is continuing. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. My time has expired. But, surely, we 

can all agree, at least, if we can step up, if not elimination, substantial reduction in the supply coming from China and Mexico, 

would not we all be better off? And I see from nodding heads, I 

think we can. 

And that is one thing I think is mostly misunderstood about the 

President’s proposal of the wall: if we can cut down the amount of 

poison, drugs, coming into the United States from or through Mexico that would seem to be the best thing a neighbor could ever do 

for Mexico. They have got hardworking people; they have got natural resources; they ought to be one of the top 10 economies in the 

world, but they have got more corruption than most places because 

of the drugs. It seems like it would be a win for both Nations if 

we can ever bring that to a crawl. 

But we do appreciate so much each of your perspectives. If you 

should have any additional information you wanted the committee 

to consider, the subcommittee, because then it will go to the full 

committee, then please if you could get that to the committee here 

within the next 10 days that would be immensely helpful. You each 

come from different backgrounds, and we appreciate having the 

benefit of your own expertise. Do you have anything additional? 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING
32 

All right, then, with that, this concludes today’s hearing. We do 

appreciate your time and, again, your patience. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record. If there is nothing further, then this hearing is adjourned. Thank you so much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with HEARING