Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - SYNTHETIC DRUGS, REAL DANGER</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





	SYNTHETIC DRUGS, REAL DANGER

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

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
	HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

	SECOND SESSION

	__________

	MAY 17, 2016

	__________

	Serial No. 114-66

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




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

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

	20-165 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
	-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
	Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
	DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
	Washington, DC 20402-0001














	BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
	F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
	Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
	LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
	STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
	DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
	J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
	STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
	TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
	LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
	JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
	TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
	JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
	TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
	TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
	RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
	BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
	DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
	RON DeSANTIS, Florida
	MIMI WALTERS, California
	KEN BUCK, Colorado
	JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
	DAVE TROTT, Michigan
	MIKE BISHOP, Michigan

	Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
	Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
	------

	Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations

	F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman

	LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman

	STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
	J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
	TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
	JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
	TREY GOWDY, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
	RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
	KEN BUCK, Colorado
	MIKE BISHOP, Michigan

	Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel

	Joe Graupensperger, Minority Counsel











	C O N T E N T S

	----------

	MAY 17, 2016

	Page

	OPENING STATEMENTS

	The Honorable Ken Buck a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Colorado, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
	Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations............... 1
	The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
	from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
	the Judiciary.................................................. 2
	The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
	the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 3

	WITNESSES

	Louis J. Milione, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
	Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration
	Oral Testimony................................................. 5
	Prepared Statement............................................. 8
	William Smith, Jr., Fraternal Order of Police
	Oral Testimony................................................. 18
	Prepared Statement............................................. 20
	Devin Eckhardt, Founder of the Connor Project Foundation
	Oral Testimony................................................. 28
	Prepared Statement............................................. 30
	David Earl Nichols, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Chemical Biology
	and Medicinal Chemistry at the University of North Carolina at
	Chapel Hill
	Oral Testimony................................................. 35
	Prepared Statement............................................. 37

	LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

	Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
	Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking
	Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,
	and Investigations........................................54

	OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
	Unprinted Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

	Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in
	Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the
	Judiciary. This material is available at the Subcommittee and can
	also be accessed at:

	http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
	ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104923


	SYNTHETIC DRUGS, REAL DANGER

	----------


	TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016

	House of Representatives

	Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
	Homeland Security, and Investigations

	Committee on the Judiciary

	Washington, DC.

	The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room
	2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Ken Buck,
	(acting Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
	Present: Representatives Buck, Goodlatte, Gohmert, Bishop,
	Labrador, Conyers, Jackson Lee, and Chu.
	Staff Present: (Majority) Robert Parmiter, Counsel; Scott
	Johnson, Clerk; Zachary Somers, Parliamentarian & General
	Counsel; (Minority) Joe Graupensperger, Minority Counsel; and
	Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
	Mr. Buck. The Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
	Investigations Subcommittee will come to order. Without
	objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the
	Subcommittee at any time. We welcome everyone to this morning's
	hearing on synthetic drugs, and I will begin by recognizing
	myself for an opening statement.
	Last week, the House took significant steps forward in
	combating the opioid epidemic in America. Today, this
	Subcommittee will examine a related but equally important
	issue: the scourge of synthetic drugs in the United States.
	Simply put, synthetic drugs are a prime example of how
	criminals can stay one step ahead of law enforcement.
	Today, parents have to worry not only about a child's
	exposure to illegal drugs, but about synthetic drugs, many of
	which are produced and marketed directly at children and young
	adults. Synthetic cannabinoids, with names like Spice, K2, or
	Scooby Snax, come in brightly-colored packaging, often
	containing cartoon characters or other decorations to make them
	attractive to teenagers.
	Additionally, they are being marketed and sold as legal
	alternatives to marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Thus young
	people believe them to be safe, legal alternatives. However,
	they are addictive and deadly. That is because these drugs
	while designed to mimic the effects of certain illegal drugs,
	often contain a panoply of additional chemicals which can cause
	increased heart rate, psychosis, and death.
	The professor who is widely credited with first
	synthesizing cannabinoids for research purposes, Dr. John
	Huffman of Clemson University, has said, ``These things are
	dangerous. Anybody who uses them is playing Russian roulette.
	They have profound psychological effects. We never intended
	them for human consumption.''
	Indeed, they are often labeled as not for human
	consumption. But everyone, the manufacturer, seller, and the
	user, knows they are intended to be consumed. Many States have
	banned these substances by adding them to their controlled
	substance schedules which has resulted in a patchwork of State
	laws. Congress has also legislatively scheduled some of these
	substances, most recently in 2012.
	However, the problem is that as soon as the substance is
	scheduled, or the process begins to schedule a substance, the
	manufacturers of these illicit drugs simply change a single
	atom, and the substance is different, and no longer a scheduled
	substance. Its chemical makeup has been altered slightly, and
	though it may have the same effect on the body, it is no longer
	the same chemically. The process has been short circuited.
	However, the need for a Federal response remains clear, since
	most synthetic drugs are manufactured and imported overseas,
	especially from China.
	In just a month, in 2014, synthetic marijuana poisoned more
	than 200 people in my home State of Colorado and killed at
	least one. The Arapahoe County District Attorney George
	Brauchler described people trying to cut their own heads off
	and set themselves on fire after using synthetic drugs. In my
	State, these drugs have been marketed as synthetic marijuana,
	and sold at tobacco shops and convenience stores often for a
	profit of 300 percent or more. It is big business and these
	manufacturers are profiting off of our misery.
	I thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee
	today and look forward to their participation. I now recognize
	the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers from
	Michigan, for his opening statement.
	Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the
	witnesses. I look forward to an important discussion. We are
	going to talk about synthetic drugs, a problem that is
	primarily affecting adolescents and young adults, and I wish to
	welcome our witnesses and express my gratitude to them for
	taking time to come here, offer their personal experiences and
	insight.
	The abuse of synthetic drugs, or designer drugs, has been
	recognized as far back as the 1980's. Producers of these drugs
	work continuously to create legal alternatives to controlled
	substances like marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, and opioids
	that produce similar kinds of highs. Sometimes packaged in
	small, shiny packets with images of cartoon characters printed
	on them, and names like K2, Spice, Vanilla Sky, and Scooby
	Snax, these products are marketed as a harmless good time.
	Unsuspecting teenagers and young adults, who are the primary
	consumers of these products, can purchase so-called synthetic
	marijuana or bath salts at gas stations, convenience stores,
	novelty shops, and over the Internet for further reinforcing
	the erroneous belief that these products are safe.
	However, in many cases, they are more potent and more
	hazardous than the controlled substances that they are meant to
	imitate. The chemical used to create synthetic drugs can be
	toxic to the human body, producing extreme paranoia, violent
	behavior, aggression, hallucinations, seizures, and even death.
	Synthetic drug use has even been linked to heart attacks,
	psychosis, and suicides. Instead of attending their child's
	football game or graduation or helping them complete college
	applications, parents find themselves in hospital rooms praying
	their teenager wakes from a coma or in emergency rooms hoping
	their child will regain their sanity and return to college.
	There are mechanisms in current law to allow for these
	drugs to be evaluated and controlled on a case-by-case basis.
	For instance, the DEA has the ability to temporarily place
	substances on Schedule I, when it is necessary to avoid an
	imminent hazard to public safety.
	However, the DEA is finding it difficult to keep pace with
	the development and production of new substances that are not
	currently illegal. Prosecutors have an additional tool, the
	Analog Enforcement Act of 1986, to prosecute those who produce
	synthetic drugs. This legislation serves as a method of
	criminalizing synthetic drugs without having to ban them
	individually. We in Congress need to learn more about these
	drugs and that is why this hearing is important, and consider
	if legislation is needed. And we must be careful to craft an
	appropriate response that does not over-criminalize or over-
	penalize. I thank our witnesses for their time and the benefit
	of their expertise.
	I look forward to a discussion of this troubling issue. I
	thank the Chairman, and yield back.
	Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. I would now like to
	recognize the full Committee Chairman, Mr. Goodlatte of
	Virginia, for his opening statement.
	Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
	here today as the Judiciary Committee continues its efforts to
	protect the American people from the real and growing danger of
	drug abuse. Last week, this Committee moved five bills through
	the House that will help law enforcement and the treatment
	community address the opioid epidemic, so this hearing is very
	timely. I want to focus my remarks today on the threat of
	synthetic opioids which present a critical threat to the
	American people.
	As we all know, the principle driver of the opioid epidemic
	in this Nation has been the overabundance of prescription pain
	pills in the hands of consumers, especially opioids like
	oxycodone and hydrocodone. America's addiction to opioids has,
	of course, been noticed in the criminal underworld, and
	malefactors have taken big steps to profit off America's pain.
	One way they have done this is through the production of
	synthetic opioids, including counterfeit prescription
	medications laced with fentanyl and fentanyl derivatives. For
	those who have been paying attention to this Committee's work,
	fentanyl is an opioid pain medication which can be 100 times
	more powerful than morphine.
	To put that into perspective, Heroin is typically three
	times as powerful as morphine. Fentanyl is intended to be used
	to treat extreme pain associated with late stage cancer and
	other significant health problems. It is not intended to be
	used recreationally, yet it is, and with the rise of synthetic
	opioids, it is increasingly being used unknowingly.
	Often drug traffickers will cut heroin with fentanyl to
	produce a more potent high. That has led to a rash of deaths
	across the country because of fentanyl's potency. In recent
	legislation, this Committee included language to provide for a
	sentencing enhancement for any offender who traffics in heroin
	cut with fentanyl.
	With respect to synthetic opioids, fentanyl is also widely
	used. The profit margin is shocking. Less than a milligram of
	fentanyl can be lethal. That means a kilogram of fentanyl can
	generate enormous profits for the illicit trafficker, sometimes
	upward of a million dollars, so we have a problem. Between 2013
	and 2014, the rate of drug overdose deaths involving synthetic
	opioids nearly doubled. According to the Centers for Disease
	Control and Prevention, a substantial portion of this increase
	appears to be related to the availability of illicit fentanyl.
	According to the DEA's 2015 National Drug Threat
	Assessment, Mexico is the primary source country for illicitly
	produced fentanyl in the United States. However, pharmaceutical
	fentanyl has also been diverted from the legitimate supply
	chain and into the illicit market. Some derivatives and analogs
	of fentanyl are manufactured in China and shipped to the United
	States. Drug traffickers and associated profiteers are
	continuously developing new ways to exploit the American
	market. Evidence of new opioid drugs, some more powerful than
	fentanyl, are turning up on the American street corners.
	For example, W18, a synthetic opioid potentially 100 times
	more powerful than fentanyl, which law enforcement has called
	the next deadly synthetic street drug. We are under siege. It
	is time for Congress to act, and this hearing represents a good
	first step. I thank the witnesses for their testimony, and look
	forward to the responses to our questions.
	Mr. Buck. I thank the Chair. Without objection, other
	Member's opening statements can be made part of the record.
	Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that very much.
	Mr. Buck. We have a very distinguished panel today. I will
	begin by swearing in our witnesses before introducing them. If
	you would all please rise. Raise your right hand.
	Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is
	the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
	you God? Thank you, you may be seated.
	Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses responded
	in the affirmative. Mr. Louis Milione, is that correct?
	Mr. Milione. Yes.
	Mr. Buck. Special Agent Louis Milione is a deputy assistant
	administrator for the United States Drug Enforcement
	Administration's Office of Diversion Control, where he has
	served since October 2015. Mr. Milione acts as the principle
	advisor to the DEA administrator on matters pertaining to the
	regulation of programs relating to the diversion of legally
	produced controlled substances and listed chemicals. Mr.
	Milione began his career with the Drug Enforcement
	Administration in 1997, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree
	from Villanova University, and a law degree from Rutgers
	University School of Law.
	Officer William Smith, Jr., is an officer with the
	Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. He has over 20
	years of law enforcement experience, much of which has focused
	on narcotics.
	Mr. Devin Eckhardt is the father of Connor Eckhardt, who
	died tragically after smoking synthetic marijuana. Mr. Eckhardt
	is the founder of the Connor Project, and has addressed the
	United Nations to raise awareness globally about the dangers of
	synthetic drug use. He joins us today along with his wife,
	Veronica, in continuation of that effort.
	Mr. David Nichols currently serves as an adjunct professor
	of chemical biology and medicinal chemistry at the University
	of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has been recognized as a
	distinguished professor emeritus at Perdue University, and as
	an adjunct professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at
	Indiana University.
	Dr. Nichols holds a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry
	from the University of Cincinnati, a PhD in medicinal chemistry
	from the University of Iowa, and was a post-doctoral fellow in
	pharmacology at the University of Iowa.
	We will now proceed. I will now recognize each of the
	witnesses for their opening statement, which will be limited to
	5 minutes. Mr. Milione?

	TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. MILIONE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
	OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

	Mr. Milione. Thank you, Congressman Buck, distinguished
	Members of the Committee. Synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic
	cathinones, deadly fentanyl analogs, and other toxic synthetic
	substances are flooding the United States, putting unsuspecting
	users at risk of death and permanent injury. DEA sees this drug
	threat as second only to the opioid scourge that is currently
	devastating our country. Synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones
	are unpredictable, untested substances placed in colorfully
	market packaging and then marketed to our country's use as a
	legal high.
	Emergency room doctors report a wide range of life-
	threatening side effects, including brain damage, cardiac
	arrest, kidney failure, and extreme psychosis. Synthetic
	cannabinoids and cathinones are sold openly in gas stations,
	convenience stores, head shops, and over the Internet from
	domestic and foreign sources.
	Fentanyl analogs are a fast growing, particularly troubling
	part of this synthetic drug threat. Here you have the dangerous
	convergence of synthetic drugs with this country's opioid
	epidemic. With Fentanyl analogs, you have substances many times
	more potent than heroin that are being sold as heroin, mixed
	with heroin, or pressed into pill form and sold as prescription
	drugs. Fentanyl analogs are so deadly that a miniscule amount
	can kill an unsuspecting user. They can be ordered from Asia
	over the Internet and delivered directly to your home. Because
	of the massive profit potential, Mexican cartels are
	aggressively purchasing fentanyl and fentanyl analogs from
	Asia, shipping it into Mexico, mixing it with other substances,
	and distributing it throughout the United States.
	For all of us in the DEA, for all of our great Federal,
	State, and local law enforcement partners, for all the
	dedicated prosecutors around this country, our primary mission
	is to protect the public. In trying to protect the public from
	this synthetic drug threat, here is the most frustrating part.
	The foreign-based manufacturers and domestic pied pipers of
	this poison often operate with impunity because they exploit
	loopholes in the analog provisions of the Controlled Substances
	Act, and capitalize on the lengthy, resource intensive,
	reactive process required to schedule either permanently or
	temporarily these dangerous substances.
	As we speak, criminal chemists in foreign countries are
	tweaking the molecular structure of controlled synthetics,
	keeping the same pharmacologic properties as the controlled
	substance, but helping the manufacturers and distributors avoid
	criminal exposure because of the altered molecular structure.
	We see these newly created synthetic drugs by the dozens every
	year. It is important to remember that these new dangerous
	substance get piled on top of the hundreds that we have already
	determined need to be controlled based on overdoses, deaths,
	and law enforcement encounters.
	DEA moves to temporarily schedule as many of this growing
	backlog as quickly as we can, but for each substance that
	process averages between three and 4 months. Once temporarily
	scheduled, we seek HHS' evaluation for permanent scheduling, a
	process that can take at least several years for each
	substance.
	Despite our best efforts, DEA cannot control these
	substances at a pace that will prevent additional overdoses and
	deaths. We at the DEA are very grateful for all the legislative
	and scheduling tools Congress has given us over the years. We
	have had success investigating, prosecuting, and convicting the
	traffickers of these dangerous substances using the Controlled
	Substances Act when the synthetic drugs are placed in Schedule
	I. We have also successfully used the Analog Act for substances
	not placed in Schedule I. However, today's synthetic drug
	crisis has outgrown the Analog Act. Thirty years ago, when the
	act was passed by Congress, there were far fewer analog users,
	and fewer traffickers than exist today. The trafficking
	networks that existed in 1986 were significantly less
	sophisticated than the transnational criminal networks
	currently operating.
	We will continue to do everything we can, working with the
	tools you generously have given us to bring these substances
	under control and protect the public, but we are many steps
	behind the traffickers and need your help. In the short term,
	this esteemed body could provide DEA and our law enforcement
	partners throughout the country immediate relief by placing the
	hundreds of substances we have determined to be dangerous into
	Schedule I.
	This would allow us to keep these synthetic drugs out of
	the country, get them off the shelves of retail stores, and
	bring to justice not the user population, but the egregious
	domestic and foreign traffickers preying on our youth,
	exploiting human frailty for profit, and flooding our country
	with these dangerous drugs. In the long term, we would welcome
	amendments to the Controlled Substances Analog Act that would
	align the act with the current threat, and/or perhaps other
	tools that would allow us to more quickly bring these drugs
	under control.
	We stand ready to work with you, provide you any assistance
	we can, and address any of your concerns. One concern that has
	been raised is that placing hundreds of dangerous synthetic
	drugs into Schedule I will impede legitimate scientific
	research. Here are several facts that may inform that concern.
	DEA has never rejected a proposal for bona fide research with
	any Schedule I substance. Currently, there are 469 approved
	Schedule I researchers, and many have multiple approved
	protocols to study different Schedule I substances.
	During the last year, it has taken an average of 32 days
	for DEA to approve a researcher's Schedule I application once
	that researcher has received FDA approval, a little more than 4
	weeks. I would argue these are reasonable requirements when
	balanced with our duty to protect the public from these highly
	unstable and often deadly drugs. The DEA is committed to doing
	everything we can to address this threat. We look forward to
	working with Congress, with all our partners in the law
	enforcement, medical, and scientific communities to improve our
	effectiveness. Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I
	look forward to answering any questions you have.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Milione follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
	__________

	Mr. Buck. Thank you, Special Agent Milione.
	Mr. Milione. Thank you.
	Mr. Buck. Officer William Smith, I recognize you for 5
	minutes.
	Mr. Smith. Good morning Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members
	of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security
	Investigations.
	Mr. Buck. Would you pull the microphone closer please? I am
	sorry to interrupt you. Would you pull the microphone a little
	closer to you?

	TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SMITH, JR.,
	FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE

	Mr. Smith. I apologize. As first responders who respond to
	the individuals under the influence of synthetic drugs, the
	side effects of synthetic drugs are very common and similar to
	another drug which law enforcement officers encounter, which is
	phencyclidine, or PCP. As the Committee can see, I am not a
	small officer, and have dealt with individuals both underneath
	these synthetic drugs and PCP. And let it be known, even at my
	stature at times, it has been very difficult for myself and
	other officers to restrain these individuals.
	Individuals under the influence of these substances have an
	absolute almost supernatural human strength and de-increased
	pain tolerance, which can lead to officers and other first
	responders being injured when dealing with these individuals.
	According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, poison
	control has seen a 229 percent spike in calls in relationship
	to synthetic drugs.
	Hundreds of these synthetic drugs are manufactured overseas
	in China and Mexico with no regulations or medical purposes.
	There has been reported 49,000 new chemicals used in these
	synthetic drugs. This is costing children and teenagers their
	lives. Also, these synthetic drugs are designed to keep law
	enforcement from finding the origin of the chemicals. The DEA
	testified this past fall, in front of the House Energy and
	Commerce Committee, that they are three steps behind the
	criminals when it comes to synthetics and analogs. In the past
	few years, synthetic marijuana has become the popular choice
	for synthetic drugs. It is designed to mimic the effects of
	organic marijuana, and has a wide commercial availability. It
	can be bought at local stores for as little as $5 apiece, which
	made it popular among young people and the homeless.
	This is because it is sold under interesting brand names,
	such as Bizarro, K2, Spice, and Scooby Snax. These synthetic
	drugs are usually manufactured in foreign facilities in China
	and Mexico, with an ever changing chemical cocktail. All 50
	states have outlawed synthetic drugs in some way. The problem
	is that the ever changing chemical makeup. The manufacturers of
	these synthetic drugs keep changing the chemical makeup to try
	to skirt the law and claim that their product are not illegal.
	Synthetic marijuana has two to five times the strength,
	amount of THC than normal marijuana, and the availability and
	high use of drugs in recent years have led to a 1400 percent
	increase in hospital visits from 2009 to 2012. Commissioner
	William Bratton of the city of New York Police Department
	stated, ``This is the scourge on our society, affecting the
	most disadvantaged neighborhoods, our most challenged citizens.
	It affects teenagers of public housing, homeless city
	shelters, and is quite literally flooding our streets.'' In the
	previous session of Congress, the FOP supported legislation to
	add synthetic bath salts, marijuana, and other synthetic drugs
	to DEA's schedule of controlled substance, but the chemical
	manufacturers have found loopholes for manufacturing and
	distributing these drugs, or analog drugs, because they are
	similar, but not chemically identical to the scheduled
	substances. With the loopholes, these manufacturers and
	distributors sell; and abusers of these synthetic substance all
	know exactly what to do with them. They ingest them, snort them
	to get a dangerous and unpredictable high.
	In the past few years, we have found even more--seen more
	new drug of fentanyl. The synthetic fentanyl used by doctors is
	the most powerful opioids in medicine. However according to
	DEA, much of what is being found on the street is not diverted
	from hospitals, but rather sourced from China and Mexico.
	Frequently people buy it on the street with no idea it is
	fentanyl.
	It is reported to be 100 to 200 times stronger than heroin.
	Just a quarter of a gram or a milligram, .25 milligrams, can
	kill you. To put it in perspective, just how little .25
	milligrams is, a typical baby aspirin is 81 milligrams. If you
	cut that 81 milligram tablet into 324 pieces, one of these
	pieces would be equivalent to a quarter milligram. Admitting
	[spelled phonetically] the 80 percent of all fentanyl seizures
	in 2014 were concentrated in just 10 states: Ohio,
	Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Kentucky,
	Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, and Indiana. I would like to
	thank the Committee for hearing our national FOP
	representation.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________

	Mr. Buck. Thank you, Officer Smith. I now recognize Mr.
	Eckhardt. If you could turn your microphone on for 5 minutes.
	Thank you very much.

	TESTIMONY OF DEVIN ECKHARDT, FOUNDER OF
	THE CONNOR PROJECT FOUNDATION

	Mr. Eckhardt. Before I begin, I would like to make sure
	that each of the Committee Members has a copy of the brochure.
	Thank you. As it was stated, my name is Devin Eckhardt, and I
	am joined by my wife Veronica. And for very personal reasons,
	we chose to join you here today as you dedicate some time to
	better understanding the threats and issues surrounding new
	psychoactive substances, sometimes referred to as synthetic
	designer drugs, the epidemic rate at which they are spreading,
	the severity of their destructive effects both within the U.S.
	and globally, and the deadly impact they are having upon our
	countries, our communities and our families.
	And it is our sincere hope and prayer that each of you will
	leverage both your individual and collective power to do more
	than simply discuss this growing problem, but rather you will
	choose to take action now and make changes necessary to
	eradicate these deadly poisons and their proliferation. It is
	my hope that my testimony will help provide some heart to the
	head knowledge that you hear so frequently in these
	conversations.
	Sadly my wife, family, and I tragically know all too well
	the devastating impact of synthetic drugs. In July of 2014, our
	19 year old son Connor was a bright, vibrant young man with a
	full life ahead of him. He was really what most would have
	considered the all-American young boy. He had a great job. He
	was preparing to go back to college. He loved music, surfing,
	the outdoors. He had lots of friends, and of course he was
	deeply loved by his family, his sisters, his mother, and of
	course me, his father.
	This first photo here was a family shot taken July 5th of
	2014. It was the last time we would be together like this as a
	family. Eight days later, Connor was with a new friend. He made
	the seemingly innocent decision. He agreed to try something
	called Spice, a synthetic poison, and the result was the second
	photo there. After many days in the hospital with our son in a
	coma, he was ultimately declared brain dead. Connor died July
	16th, 2014, after one smoke of a legal high purchased at a
	local store.
	At the time, we were unaware of NPSs, and we made the
	decision to share our story publically, to be painfully
	transparent and naked with our tragedy before a watching world,
	with the simple hopes that perhaps it might change one person's
	life. It might spare them and their family the horrific
	circumstances that we were facing and that we now live with
	each day.
	Since the death of our son 671 days ago, we have met far
	too many parents who have also lost their children to synthetic
	drugs like Spice. And through our outreach, speaking, and
	education efforts over these past 671 days, we have
	communicated with literally hundreds of thousands of people
	throughout the United States and around the world who have lost
	loved ones or had their lives tragically destroyed by synthetic
	drugs.
	Unfortunately, what happened to Connor is not unique. Far
	too many people have suffered irreparable harm, including
	death, as a result of trying or using these poisons. However,
	what is unique about his story is how it is received an
	overwhelming global response to what we have shared publically
	through social media, news interviews, TV, radio broadcasts
	around the world. His story has cut through the racial,
	socioeconomic, geographic, and religious barriers typically
	encountered. We know that NPSs are affecting everyone
	everywhere. We are not just one voice. Connor is not just one
	face or some statistic. We represent the voice and the face of
	the many others just like us.
	We have had the opportunity to reach millions of people on
	this subject. We have been interviewed by most of the major
	news and media outlets around the U.S. and globally, and of
	course we have leveraged social media. We have had individually
	unique Facebook posts that have reached millions at a time,
	with one reaching over 37 million people globally. We have had
	the opportunity to speak in many settings. We have worked with
	and spoken to senators, legislators, law enforcement officials,
	and many in government. We even met with a lord from the House
	of Lords in the U.K. this past summer as we were there on this
	subject.
	We have worked with numerous organizations in an effort to
	educate and increase awareness on the dangers of synthetic
	drugs, and we have worked to change the laws so that these
	poisons are removed from our streets, our stores, and our
	communities, but more must be done. The problem is getting
	worse. Hundreds of new synthetic drug compounds have appeared
	around the world in the last few years, sometimes spreading at
	the rate of a new drug per week, and we are allowing these to
	come into our country.
	Illicit drug manufacturers are constantly working and
	changing the formulas, developing new chemical derivatives in
	order to evade the laws, and frankly they are working faster
	than we are. The issue of NPSs needs to be addressed and it
	needs to be done now.
	When this congressional gathering has ended, you return
	home. You will return to your families, your children, those
	you love and care for. When we return home, we return to a
	family that has been forever changed, because of the death of
	our beloved son as the result of synthetic drugs. As long as
	the people around the world pushing these poisons into our
	communities know that there are little or no consequence for
	their actions, and they do know this, we will continue to see
	the spread of synthetic drugs and the terrible harm they are
	bringing to our families, and to our youth and communities. You
	have the power to do something about this.
	You are in positions of influence and leadership, and we
	are pleading with you to please take action. Do not just talk
	about and debate the issues. Bring about change that will get
	these substances out of our communities, and deal appropriately
	with those behind the manufacturing and distribution of NPSs
	globally. Thank for your time and your consideration on this.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Eckhardt follows:]


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________

	Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Eckhardt, thank you for your
	courage, and I appreciate your wife being here also. Thank you.
	Dr. Nichols, I recognize you for 5 minutes.

	TESTIMONY OF DAVID EARL NICHOLS, Ph.D., ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF
	CHEMICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
	NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

	Mr. Nichols. Congressman Buck, is my microphone on?
	Congressman Buck, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
	opportunity to appear today. During my career, I worked with
	synthetic drugs, possessing a researcher's Schedule I DEA
	registration. My goal was to understand how the structure of a
	molecule engaged a biological target. Thus, better
	understanding how these substances act in the brain. I am very
	concerned about the potential harms to human health presented
	by synthetic drugs. Their availability requires a response,
	including regulation.
	Yet I do not believe that the proposed legislation would
	have prevented the recent emergence of Spice mixtures. Rather
	they focus on already known controlled substance types. We
	badly need reasonable approaches to controlling new chemo types
	of synthetic substances. The challenge is to preserve
	researcher's needs while also stemming the flow of dangerous
	synthetic chemicals.
	An appropriate response should consider three points.
	First, allowing research of potential therapeutic uses. Second,
	legislation should be guided by rigorous science. And third,
	the impact on mass incarceration, especially in cases where
	substances have not been fully vetted by the scientific
	community. Few investigators will pursue research with Schedule
	I drugs. Various researching Schedule I substances discourage
	engagement. Obtaining a Schedule I license is not a trivial
	matter, and a researcher must be very motivated to obtain one,
	even if the investigator requires only small drug amounts that
	do not represent a potential for diversion.
	In most cases, researchers are funded, for example, by
	NIDA, to study only the deleterious properties of a specific
	drug of abuse. But it is also important to have funding
	available for research to identify beneficial properties of
	Schedule I substances, as with recent medical marijuana.
	The costs and regulatory burdens of a Schedule I license
	deter research that might lead to new medicines. Research on
	Schedule I drugs is important, because in the last decade,
	clinical studies have indicated that psilocybin, a Schedule I
	drug, may have unique therapeutic efficacy in treating anxiety,
	depression and addiction to alcohol and nicotine.
	As another example, Professor Charles Nichols at LSU
	decided to study the receptor targets of hallucinogens before
	he had a Schedule I license. The only hallucinogen available
	without a license was called DOI. He discovered, quite by
	accident, that DOI has potent anti-inflammatory properties,
	indicating potential efficacy in treating cardiovascular
	disease and asthma. Had DOI been a Schedule I, he never would
	have discovered this therapeutic breakthrough. Most
	pharmaceutical companies have a ban in research on novel drugs
	for depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive
	disorder, and others. They have unknown causes, the research is
	extremely expensive with a low probability of success.
	Ironically, the kinds of substances we are concerned with here
	today act in the brain, and it is quite possible that new
	medicines will result from more research on them. Any
	responsible legislation should protect research that might lead
	to the discovery of new medicines.
	Without solid scientific evidence, it is unwise to schedule
	new molecules with untested potential. Sometimes changing a
	single atom on a molecule can dramatically alter its
	pharmacology. Superficial comparisons of chemical structure
	resemblance or predicted pharmacological effects, as in some
	proposed bills, are not a reliable basis for Schedule I
	classification. For example, bupropion or Wellbutrin, an
	effective anti-depressant, resembles Cathinone, yet it has no
	abuse potential.
	There are hundreds of thousands of synthetic compounds that
	could be made, and we still know very little about just a few
	of the most recent ones. Also, there is no schedule category
	for drugs that have no known medical value, but which have also
	not been shown to have high abuse potential. We should
	carefully research compounds flagged by law enforcement by
	scheduling only those who have demonstrated public health and
	safety risks. Input from the scientific medical community would
	preclude the scheduling of compounds with no demonstrated
	public health dangers, preventing needless prosecution and
	incarceration of individuals for using these substances.
	Persons who manufacture and distribute these substances that
	harm human health should be held accountable.
	But many people today do not believe that making users
	criminals for simple possession is appropriate. There is a
	consensus developing that use of psychoactive substances is a
	public health problem, not a criminal matter. The war on drugs
	has been largely unsuccessful in preventing drug use, and has
	contributed to our country having the largest prison population
	in the world, a large percentage of whom were incarcerated as a
	result of non-violent drug offenses.
	In summary, the proliferation of new synthetic substances
	represents a great threat to the health of our youth. And
	regulation must be a component to the solution of this problem.
	But I strongly believe drug control and scheduling decisions
	should be grounded in the best science. There must be balance
	between the needs of research and enforcement, so that
	potential new therapeutic discoveries are not lost by
	restricting access to novel compounds. Humans and adolescents
	in particular, are known to be curious and to experiment. But
	most pass through that phase without serious consequences.
	Draconian penalties and felony convictions for use only add to
	the problem. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________

	Mr. Buck. Thank you, Dr. Nichols. We will now proceed under
	the 5 minute rule with questions for the witnesses. And I will
	recognize the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Gohmert from Texas.
	Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank all the witness
	for being here. It is an important subject. And, Mr. Eckhardt,
	I know this is obviously very difficult for you. What a
	handsome young man you and your wife had, obviously brought a
	lot of joy. You mentioned that he bought it legally. You ever
	find out how he heard about this, and where he purchased it?
	Mr. Eckhardt. Connor was with a new friend that day. He had
	actually been offered--think it is on.
	Mr. Gohmert. Yeah. Think it is.
	Mr. Eckhardt. Can you hear me okay?
	Mr. Gohmert. Yeah.
	Mr. Eckhardt. He had actually been offered marijuana. He
	declined; he did not want that, he did not want to be around
	that. And as an alternative, the synthetic drugs were suggested
	and they were purchased at a local smoke shop, along with, you
	know, other tobacco products. And I think truly was viewed as a
	safe alternative.
	Mr. Gohmert. It was legal?
	Mr. Eckhardt. Legal.
	Mr. Gohmert. Yeah, so it must be okay.
	Mr. Eckhardt. And I think, you know, there is youth, find
	themselves often in situations of peer pressure, and he was
	declining one thing, and it was a way to concede.
	Mr. Gohmert. He was acting admirably. Relying on his
	government that if it was too harmful, it would be illegal,
	obviously. And obviously, as you and your wife have been doing,
	you have been raising awareness. If he had been aware of the
	dangers, obviously he was sharp enough, and moral enough that
	he would have turned it down, and just did not know the risk.
	Mr. Milione, how big is the market for illicit prescription
	drugs compared to heroin?
	Mr. Milione. The market for prescription illicit or
	prescription opioids is massive. It would be hard to put a
	number on it. If you put it in overdose numbers, we are talking
	18,000, 19,000 overdoses in 1 year of prescription opioids.
	With heroin, you have almost 9,000. That is a trend, heroin is
	trending up. You have a massive prescription opioid problem.
	Mr. Gohmert. So is the prescription opioid trending down,
	or just heroin trending up?
	Mr. Milione. We do not see a downward trend in prescription
	opioid abuse or overdoses. That is trending up, not at quite
	the rate that heroin is trending up. They are both trending up;
	heroin is intersecting unfortunately, on that graph.
	Mr. Gohmert. Is it not interesting, as our Federal
	Government is forcing people to turn away from God, they are
	searching for answers in other places that are not so good for
	them? Do you know what the profit margin for a kilogram of a
	synthetic cannabinoid is?
	Mr. Milione. It is a massive profit margin. So for maybe
	$1,500, $1,000, up to $2,000, you could buy a kilogram of
	synthetic substances that is a synthetic cannabinoid, and 13
	kilograms of, let's say marshmallow leaf. And you can turn that
	into about $250,000, that initial $1,000 to $1,500 into
	$250,000 of profit.
	Mr. Gohmert. Dr. Nichols, you wrote an article in January
	of 2011, where you expressed remorse because someone had used
	your published research to produce a substance that caused six
	deaths. How could they have used your article to produce that?
	I mean, did you go into that kind of detail? It is hard to
	believe they could have taken your article and--what is that?
	Mr. Nichols. The situation is, the chemists who were
	involved in making these substances are quite accomplished. I
	think many of them must have PhDs. So we publish in the open
	scientific literature, and I had been doing studies of ecstasy,
	its mechanism of action.
	Mr. Gohmert. Right.
	Mr. Nichols. So one of the compounds we had made was called
	MTA. And in the assay that we used was a rad assay. It really
	identified compounds that caused the release of a brain
	transmitter called serotonin. And that does not represent the
	effects of ecstasy, but somebody, apparently in the
	Netherlands, saw that paper we published, and actually we had
	published that it was a potential anti-depressant, when we
	actually looked at it. They saw we had made it.
	The synthetic methods are in all the published literature.
	So they simply made a batch of it, and ironically put it into
	tablets called flatliners. This was really the first case
	where--and I was really shocked, because all medicinal chemists
	who work in this field publish their work in the open
	literature, and if you work with cocaine analogs, or
	hallucinogens, or DMA analogues, it is all out there. The
	methods are on the papers. It just takes someone to mine that
	literature to find the kind of compound they want to work with.
	Mr. Gohmert. But you were not publishing the recipe or
	anything?
	Mr. Nichols. It is in the scientific publication.
	Mr. Gohmert. But not in your article. That is what----
	Mr. Nichols. No, not in the essay, no.
	Mr. Gohmert. But I am just saying. I think you blame
	yourself too much for that. But I appreciate the time. Thank
	you, I yield back.
	Mr. Buck. Chair recognizes the Ranking Member from Texas,
	Ms. Jackson Lee.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is
	a very important hearing. I want to thank each of the
	witnesses; Mr. Milione and Mr. Smith, Mr. Eckhardt, and
	certainly Dr. Nichols. Thank you so very much. I hope I
	pronounced Mr. Milione almost correctly.
	I was previously in a meeting, and I will have to go to
	another meeting dealing with criminal justice, but this is a
	very important hearing. Let me thank the Chairman as well, Mr.
	Buck. Let me also thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr.
	Sensenbrenner, and the Chairman of the full Committee, and Mr.
	Conyers, the Ranking Member of the full Committee.
	I am grateful for the work that we have done to organize
	this hearing, and bring the use and abuse of synthetic drugs to
	the attention to the Subcommittee on Crime. We have several
	witnesses here today who will provide us with their own
	perspectives regarding the effects and dangers of synthetic
	drugs. My home State of Texas has been significantly affected
	by the proliferation of synthetic drugs.
	Kush is a street name for the popular illegal substance in
	Houston right now. And it has caused great harm. It is a
	designer drug made from combinations of synthetic chemical,
	sprayed on plant material, then packaged like candy, smoked
	like marijuana. It has no constraints, no regulations, no
	guidelines. Kush is typically many times more potent than
	natural marijuana, and produces physical and psychological
	effects that are uncharacteristic of natural marijuana use.
	People who have used Kush have suffered paralysis, brain
	damage, heart attacks, and even death. Kush is but one name, or
	supposed brand name for the synthetic marijuana.
	And law enforcement agencies, including those in Texas and
	across the Nation, have identified hundreds of names given to
	synthetic marijuana. This Committee hearing is important for
	that reason. We need to get the facts. Whatever we generate in
	legislation should be confined by the facts.
	We do not want to expand the fishnet, if you will, on
	individuals who happen to be either attracted, addicted, or
	using this drug. And I hope that we will have enough facts in
	our record to be able to craft a sufficient Federal response to
	this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask
	unanimous consent that the rest of my statement be included in
	the record.
	Mr. Buck. Without objection.
	[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
	Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
	Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member,
	Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Conyers.
	I am grateful for the work you have done to organize this hearing
	and bring the use and abuse of synthetic drugs to the attention of the
	Subcommittee on Crime.
	We have several witnesses here today, who will provide us with
	their own unique perspectives regarding the effects and dangers of
	synthetic drugs.
	My home state of Texas has been significantly affected by the
	proliferation of synthetic drugs.
	``Kush'' is the street name for the most popular illegal substance
	in Houston right now.
	It is a designer drug made from combinations of synthetic chemicals
	sprayed on plant material, then packaged like candy, and smoked like
	marijuana.
	Kush is typically many times more potent than natural marijuana and
	produces physical and psychological effects that are uncharacteristic
	of natural marijuana use.
	People who have used Kush have suffered paralysis, brain damage,
	heart attacks and even death.
	Kush is but one name, or supposed brand name, for synthetic
	marijuana.
	Law enforcement agencies across the Nation have identified hundreds
	of names given to synthetic marijuana.
	Synthetic marijuana has become increasingly popular with teenagers
	as young as twelve and twenty-somethings.
	According to the DEA, it is the second-most abused substance by
	twelfth-graders, and overdoses of the drug are increasing in Texas.
	Synthetic marijuana has been linked to severe paranoia, psychotic
	episodes, violent delusions, kidney damage, suicidal thoughts, and
	self-mutilation.
	Two weeks ago, a man commandeered a D.C. transit bus, then, struck
	and killed a man.
	It was later determined that the individual who took over the bus
	smoked synthetic marijuana and PCP before the incident.
	But, there are six other classes of synthetic drugs other than the
	class to which synthetic marijuana belongs.
	A study conducted by the University of Michigan in 2014 revealed
	that synthetic drugs were the second most used substances amongst
	students in grades eight through twelve.
	People are marketing synthetic drugs to our children with colorful
	packaging covered with cartoon characters.
	Without knowing what they are ingesting, kids believe these
	substances pose no danger to them physically or legally because they
	can easily walk into a gas station or convenience store and purchase
	them with no hassle involved.
	In reality, the dangers of using synthetic drugs are often greater
	than using the actual drug.
	The physical and psychological effects produced by synthetic drugs
	are wholly unpredictable.
	Those who overdose on these substances are also at greater risk of
	dying because doctors and first responders must first identify the
	source of the problem, preventing them from rendering the appropriate
	medical treatment in a timely manner, if, at all.
	We all share common goals--to protect our children and shield them
	from dangers they may not be able to understand or appreciate.
	We must consider all possible solutions, including treatment and
	prevention.
	As we did when the House acted last week to pass legislation
	addressing the opioid epidemic, we must adopt comprehensive approaches
	to issues of synthetic drug abuse.
	I hope the information we receive today will help us formulate
	appropriate and even-handed solutions that address more than just the
	criminal aspects of this problem.
	Thank you.
	__________

	Ms. Jackson Lee. And I am also going to ask that my
	questions for the witnesses be submitted for answers to
	comment. I ask unanimous consent, and my questions submitted to
	the witnesses that I may present.
	Mr. Buck. Without objection, so ordered.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. And I am going to propose a question to
	Dr. Nichols. I am concerned about making sure that we are not
	so broad that we in fact do not appropriately respond to
	synthetic drugs. And let me, by the way, in a moment of
	personal privilege, my daughter graduated with honors from the
	University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, so you are elevated
	even higher in my eyesight.
	Why is it important, Dr. Nichols, that the scientific
	experts in the fields that study synthetic compounds play a
	role in determining the appropriate response in terms of drug
	scheduling and other controlled measures? And might I ask that
	you describe any promising research that you are aware of on
	these issues.
	Mr. Nichols. Well the legislation that I have seen in
	general basically tries to expand the landscape around known
	compounds, and I have done patent legislation, and I work with
	patents. And in patents, pharmaceutical companies will claim a
	genus of compounds. And in a recent case, there were 58
	trillion compounds. So the possibility for harm is sort of
	unimaginable.
	So I think we really need expert medicinal chemists and
	neuro-pharmacologists to look at these compounds that have been
	proposed for scheduling to really determine. I know I have seen
	some of the proposed bills, and they basically try to think of
	everything possible. One of the comments I made was, we are
	talking about hallucinogens, cathinone-analogues, fentanyl-
	analogues, and synthetic cannabinoid compounds. But what if a
	new type of drug hits the street? There is no legislation that
	would take care of a new chemo type.
	So then, all of a sudden, we have another cathinone. Some
	Chinese chemist plays around a lab, finds something we have
	never seen before, and now we have another scourge. So the laws
	that are proposed really are sort of hindsight laws, based on,
	if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I
	think we need some out of the box thinking in terms of ways to
	approach this that would cut off the possibility for new chemo
	types of drugs that we have not seen it, and would be more
	careful in circumscribing the things that we have.
	Using expertise, there is lots of expertise in the American
	chemical society, in pharmacology societies, that could sit
	down and look at these and say, ``These are problems, these
	need some evidence,'' rather than just casting a wide net that
	is going to create all kinds of problems. Many of the compounds
	may not even be harmful to human health.
	So it is kind of an unfocused shotgun approach that I think
	could be much more focused on real problems with some
	expertise. And I just have not seen that brought to bear.
	Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you. I know the other
	witnesses will have some instructive information that I will
	draw from your answers. Dr. Nichols, I think you have laid a
	landscape, or parameters, that we should seriously look at. We
	just had successful set of legislative initiatives on opioid,
	and I think it was based on a lot of thought, a lot of
	hearings, opioid and heroin. We passed a series of about 18
	bills last week that all of us can find satisfaction in the way
	we approached it.
	The Judiciary Committee bill did not have any mandatory
	minimums at all. It was treatment, and recognition of the vast
	problem. I want to make sure that we are accurately and
	appropriately addressing this problem, and I will take to
	heart, if you will, take under advisement, your very astute
	analysis dealing with the vastness of compounds and subsets
	that we should address to make sure that we narrowly address
	these poisonous synthetic drugs, and not have a wide reach.
	With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. With that
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I appreciate your time.
	Mr. Buck. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. I now recognize the
	gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bishop.
	Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the
	witnesses for being here today. I want to particularly thank
	Mr. Eckhardt and Veronica for being here today, for your
	testimony. Like many of the folks in this room, I am a parent.
	I have a 16 year old son, and a 14 and a 10 year old. And this
	issue causes me great agony. And for you, my heart goes out to
	you and your wife. I pray for you and your family for what you
	have been through.
	I thank you for your courage to be here. It is incredible
	what you are doing, and thank you for raising awareness. And I
	intend to take your message back to my district, and certainly
	to my family. But I wondered if you might be able to share with
	us what you believe, in your experience so far, is the most
	effective method of raising awareness, and what is the most
	efficient method in curtailing the use of synthetic drugs?
	Ms. Eckhardt. May I speak?
	Mr. Bishop. Yes, please.
	Ms. Eckhardt. Thank you so much for having us here.
	Obviously, it is very difficult for Devin and I. Not only did
	we travel overnight from California, but we are so passionate
	about this subject. And laws take time to change. They
	obviously need to change now. But getting that public service
	announcement, which is now happening with the opiate and heroin
	epidemic, getting public service announcements out there,
	recognizing that these products are available in candy form, in
	liquid form, in the vapes, in the e-cigarettes, in the
	marijuana type leaf, getting that message out there to parents.
	They simply do not know.
	I said I wish I could carry--I have a book this big--that
	is full of stories, full of stories from people who have lost
	their children, either to death or to mental illness from
	using. People simply do not know. It needs to be taught in the
	classrooms. Teachers need to know. Physicians need to know.
	Nurses need to know. Counselors need to know. The public needs
	to know at large. And this is something that can be done
	immediately. Awareness, education, prevention.
	And I would like to also mention that if you are 13, 14,
	15, 17 years old, under 18 years old, and you become addicted
	to Spice, and it is very addictive, where do they go? There is
	not a place for an addicted child to get treatment, and this is
	a very serious issue needed to be discussed at another time.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Veronica, I appreciate
	your being here, and appreciate your testimony. Agent Milione
	and Officer Smith, I wondered if you might be able to address
	this issue. I, as a former prosecutor, have had an interaction
	with law enforcement over the years. K2 was an issue not too
	long ago. Hit the stores, it was in the local gas stations, at
	the party stores. I got a call from one of my local police
	chiefs, Chief Narsh from Lake Orion Police Department, who told
	me that he was trying to get it off the shelves but he could
	not do it because there was no legal authority to do that.
	How do we get ahead of this? What do we do to give you the
	tools in law enforcement to prepare for the next generation?
	And clearly, these folks that are selling them in the stores
	are selling them with knowledge that they are being used in an
	illicit way. They are not just bath salts or incense. It is
	being used by our youth in a way that is intended for some sort
	of high. How do we get ahead of this, and what can we do as
	Congress to help and give you the tools you need?
	Mr. Milione. Thank you very much for the question. As I
	mentioned before, we have already identified hundreds, not
	based on theory, but based on overdoses, deaths, law
	enforcement encounters, we are getting multiple every month. So
	now we are talking dozens every year. So, the most effective
	way to give immediate relief to our State and local partners
	and our Federal partners is get them into Schedule I. That
	would solve a couple of problems. It would give us the ability
	to get them out of those stores, to be able to stop it at the
	border.
	But more importantly, we would be able to increase the cost
	of those that are trafficking it--not using it, trafficking in
	it--in the United States, but then overseas, because they
	operate with impunity. That would be one fix.
	Another possible solution would have to do with that
	labeling. In the same way that with anabolic steroids, there is
	a bill that you have to have appropriate labeling. If there is
	false labeling, there may be some kind of a false labeling
	penalty that would increase the civil penalty, and tamp down
	the incentive for these retail stores, convenience stores to
	have this in their places of business. So those are a couple of
	ideas, but we would be more than happy to work on any,
	providing any technical assistance in that area.
	Mr. Smith. Representative, as Veronica spoke to it, PSA and
	getting the word out on the street. And I believe Mr. Buck or
	Mr. Eckhardt spoke to the fact of these kids are buying this
	legally in stores. And again, thinking it is a legal substance,
	they are not doing any of the hardcore street drugs that we
	used to see them do: cocaine, heroin, marijuana. They are not
	taking this out of de facto ramifications that come from using
	something that they buy at their convenience store for $5.
	Mr. Bishop. Thank you both very much. I wish we had more
	time on this. I mean, anything I can personally do and I know
	others are the same way. Anyway I can help, I would love to be
	part of that solution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
	Mr. Buck. Thank you, and the Chair recognizes Ms. Chu from
	California for 5 minutes.
	Ms. Chu. Yes. Mr. Milione, the Controlled Substances Act
	provides for two mechanisms for controlling drugs and other
	substances. Congress can do it legislatively, or the DEA, in
	collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services,
	can do it administratively. When the DEA takes an action to
	temporarily schedule a substance, retailers begin selling new
	versions of their products with new unregulated compounds in
	them. In your opinion, how effective is the current legislative
	framework?
	Mr. Milione. Certainly we appreciate all the tools that
	Congress has given us. The challenge in this space is that it
	is a reactive process, and it is a lengthy process, resource-
	intensive process. And the same medicinal chemists,
	pharmacologists that do this analysis for DEA and work with our
	partners at HHS also travel the country. I think it is 65
	different Federal prosecutions under the Analogue Act, as
	experts.
	So it is a very reactive process. Scheduling temporarily
	takes, on average, three to 4 months, after harm has already
	occurred. Once we initiate that process, it is generally two to
	3 years by the time HHS can do their analysis. So when you pile
	on top the dozens that we are getting every year, on top of the
	hundreds that we have already identified, it is like pushing
	that proverbial massive rock up a hill.
	Ms. Chu. And what should Congress do to expedite the
	classification and scheduling of these synthetic drug
	analogues?
	Mr. Milione. I would be willing to work with your staff to
	talk specifics, provide some technical advice, anything that
	would either streamline that process, or give us some breathing
	room and get the ones that we have already identified onto
	Schedule I.
	Ms. Chu. Yes, I would love work with you on that.
	Mr. Milione. Yes, absolutely.
	Ms. Chu. Mr. Milione, in order to skirt Federal and State
	laws, many of these synthetic drugs are being labeled as not
	intended for human consumption, or legal in certain states. How
	are these claims affecting law enforcement's ability to
	prosecute synthetic drug-related crimes, and what could be done
	about this?
	Mr. Milione. Well that is the evil brilliance of some of
	the traffickers. They are going to look at the law, the
	Analogue Act, and they are going to create something and put
	that on the substance so that creates a defense for them. So
	now you have a battle for the experts when you prosecute them
	under the Analogue Act.
	So, one way that you could potentially fix that, that I
	mentioned a moment ago, is if you had some kind of a labeling
	requirement so that they are appropriately labeled. That would
	defeat that defense, but that is kind of in the realm of the
	technical assistance and advice or interaction that we could
	have to maybe talk about those in greater detail.
	Ms. Chu. Mr. Milione, a majority of these synthetic drugs
	have been manufactured and imported from China. What has the
	DEA been doing to combat the manufacturing of these chemical
	compounds?
	Mr. Milione. That is one of the biggest challenges, right?
	The manufacturers operate with impunity because the majority of
	these substances are not in Schedule I. Fortunately, we have a
	very strong and growing relationship with the Republic of
	China.
	In October of 2015, they scheduled 116 of these new
	psychoactive substances, these synthetics, and as a result of
	our cooperation with them, they provided leads with us to
	identify domestically where gatekeepers and--not cartel heads,
	but cartel distributors--would be in the United States, so that
	we could work under our laws here in the United States to bring
	them to justice.
	Ms. Chu. And how are these precursor chemicals being
	imported into the United States?
	Mr. Milione. They are being labeled as research chemicals.
	They are being, like any other contraband, mislabeled and then
	sent in. And unfortunately, the majority of them, we do not
	have the authority to stop them. We cannot help our partners at
	the CBP, Customs and Border Patrol, because the majority of
	them are not scheduled.
	Ms. Chu. And, Officer Smith, in the past several years,
	there has been an enormous increase in the variety and number
	of synthetic drugs available. The effects of the drugs can vary
	so greatly. As a first responder, what additional safety and
	health precautions do police officers have to take when
	approaching an individual suspected to be under the influence
	of synthetic drugs?
	Mr. Smith. Ma'am, from the law enforcement first responder
	stand point in general would be, law enforcement, fire, EMS,
	dealing with individuals on synthetic drugs, and I spoke to it
	earlier, it is similar to the effects of PCP on an individual.
	You know, they are very unpredictable to deal with. They can be
	very passive at one moment, and with the flick of a light
	switch per se, they are extremely agitated, they are very
	violent, and we are getting officers and firefighters and EMS
	responders hurt from the synthetic drugs.
	Ms. Chu. Thank you. I yield back.
	Mr. Buck. Thank you. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Labrador
	from Idaho for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Labrador. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back
	1 or 2 minutes to Mr. Bishop who has a few more questions.
	Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Labrador. We have got a
	thousand questions here and a very small amount of time, but I
	wondered if I might ask Mr. Milione--the DEA's Project Synergy
	found that millions of dollars in the sales of these synthetics
	were being funneled back to the Middle East, for what I assume
	to be terrorism purposes, or funding terrorism. Can you comment
	on that, and share more about that?
	Mr. Milione. Sure. Project Synergy, it was a multi-year,
	multi-agency investigation, and you are right, about millions
	and millions, hundreds of millions in proceeds were going back
	to the Middle East; Yemen, Syria, Lebanon. We continue to
	explore that, we work with our partners at the FBI, and our
	Special Operations Division, which is a multi-agency
	coordination center.
	But that operation resulted in the seizure of almost 7,000
	kilograms of cathinones, cannabinoids, and a number of
	successful--hundreds of prosecutions. But we are still
	exploring that, and I would not be able to speak to some of the
	threads of those investigations on the money.
	Mr. Bishop. One follow-up, a quick follow-up--we know that
	this is not necessarily manufactured here, that in many cases,
	it comes from China, overseas somewhere. How is the trafficking
	handled when it gets to the Untired States? Who does it?
	Cartels or----
	Mr. Milione. Well, on both the synthetic cannabinoid,
	cathinone side, but on the fentanyl analogues, which are the
	deadly, much more potent than heroin synthetic, there is
	several ways, but the primary way is, manufactured in China,
	sent into Mexico. Mexican cartels now are exploiting and
	capitalizing on the opioid epidemic in the country, obviously
	with their heroin trafficking, and they are taking the
	synthetic fentanyl, mixing it with heroin and other substances,
	and sending it across the border. Southwest border, couriers
	taking it into Lawrence, Massachusetts. Really, any part of the
	country is being touched.
	But you can also get it directly from China. You can order
	it over the Internet. You can get this substance sent to you,
	delivered directly to your home. You can mix it with other
	compounds and then distribute it in the United States. It is a
	terrible treacherous world that they are creating.
	Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much for your testimony. I yield
	back to Congressmen Labrador.
	Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And thank you all for
	being here today. I applaud the Chairman for calling this
	hearing and taking steps to fight this epidemic.
	Mr. Eckhardt, I want to express to you--I have five
	children, and I cannot even imagine what you are going through,
	and I want to express my deepest condolences to you, to your
	wife, and to your entire family for your tragic loss. I am sure
	it is difficult to be here and testify, but I greatly admire
	the courage that you have to testify here and to help us to
	more fully understand the true impact of these drugs, you know,
	on our society.
	Mr. Milione, I want to follow up on some of the questions
	that were being asked. To your knowledge, is DEA working with
	Customs and Border Protection to interdict these shipments?
	Mr. Milione. We are working with them as closely as we can
	and with the tools that we have, absolutely.
	Mr. Labrador. Do you have cooperative agreements in place?
	Mr. Milione. I do not know as far as the agreements, but I
	am sure there are MOU's that exist. But there is a healthy
	working relationship with CBP.
	Mr. Labrador. Yeah. And you think that working relationship
	is functioning?
	Mr. Milione. I believe so, in this context, yes.
	Mr. Labrador. Can you estimate the number of prosecutions
	of synthetic drug manufacturers and distributors that have
	occurred in the United States?
	Mr. Milione. I am sorry, I missed that.
	Mr. Labrador. Can you estimate the number of prosecutions
	of synthetic drug manufacturers and distributors that have
	occurred in the United States?
	Mr. Milione. It would be very hard for me to come up with a
	hard number. I would be happy to take that back and get that to
	you.
	Mr. Labrador. Okay. Mr. Smith, how has your department had
	to shift its drug enforcement policies in order to combat the
	influx of synthetic drugs?
	Mr. Smith. The combating of the synthetic drugs is typical
	enforcement of any other law. The fact that we are running in a
	problem the same as Mr. Malone, and as Dr. Nichols testified
	to, is the ever-changing chemical make-up of these synthetic
	drugs for prosecution. Was made by the DEA and Dr. Nichols,
	just them tweaking one chemical atom of that synthetic drug
	changes the enforcement aspect on law enforcement's side, due
	to the fact of now, you have a chemical drug that was actually
	scheduled, now they change an atom, it is no longer that
	chemical, it is a new chemical, so therefore it cannot be
	prosecuted.
	Mr. Labrador. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Eckhardt, is there
	anything that you have not been able to tell us, that we have
	not asked you, that you would like to say?
	Mr. Eckhardt. How much time do you have? Yeah, I think one
	of the things that occurs to me as this conversation goes on
	is, I would say at what price tag? At what price tag are
	changes being made, or being delayed? From a parent's
	perspective, from the general public's perspective, we would
	feel like, and the many, many hundreds of thousands of people
	that we have communicated with would feel like if something
	looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck,
	let's call it a duck.
	We are down at the molecular atom structure, and because
	they change one molecule, it skirts our laws, and it is
	available. How many young people have to lose their lives to
	death or permanent disability? What is the impact on our
	community and our society as a result of that? And at what
	price tag are we preserving the ability to research these, or
	to talk about them or to study trends and statistics before we
	actually do something? Let's do something. If it is not the
	right thing, we can always change it down the road as we learn
	more.
	But I think parents and the general public out there need
	to be informed about this. We had no idea. We were not parents
	with our heads in the sand. We talked to our children about
	drugs and the perils of what they face as youth growing up in
	today's world. We did not have a clue about what is going on,
	and the more we learn, the more terrifying it gets to be a
	parent in today's world. We need help from our government.
	Mr. Labrador. Thank you. I yield back.
	Mr. Buck. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes the
	Chair of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia.
	Mr. Goodlatte. Well thank you Mr. Chairman, and I apologize
	for not being able to be with you for the entire hearing. I did
	appreciate in particular your testimony, Mr. Eckhardt, and this
	brochure.
	I have, in my experience here in the Congress, seen a few
	other people who basically dedicated their lives to trying to
	make their son or daughter's life meaningful, and I know that
	is exactly what you are trying to do in dealing with a horrific
	loss like you are. So, I very much commend you for that.
	I do not know how much your foundation's research has given
	you about this, but--and it may have been asked already--but
	some of these products like K2 and Spice and Chronic that I see
	on the bottom of the brochure here--they look like, you know,
	regular commercial products, and that increases, I am sure, the
	opinion that people think that ``Hey this must be legitimate.
	It is for sale here in this store.''
	What do you know about those companies? Are they legitimate
	companies that make other products, or are they just totally
	illegal operations that have this stuff mysteriously appear in
	various stores for people to buy?
	Mr. Eckhardt. Yeah, to the best of our understanding, there
	is no legitimate use for the chemicals, and the businesses that
	are proliferating these products out there in marketplace are
	not selling legitimate.
	Mr. Goodlatte. If you were to sue them, they would just
	disappear in thin air? They are not----
	Mr. Eckhardt. In the case with our son, we tried to
	discover who was the manufacturer, and were unable to get that,
	even though we had the packet itself. So there is a deep web,
	and it is not easy to go and identify. These are not products
	that are typically being made in some manufacturing plant with
	the name of the company out front.
	Mr. Goodlatte. Do you think they are made in the U.S. or
	made outside and shipped in?
	Mr. Eckhardt. Our understanding is both, both.
	Mr. Goodlatte. And how much cooperation did you get from
	law enforcement, from the DEA and others, in trying to do that
	research up that chain to find out who made it and where they
	made it?
	Mr. Eckhardt. From our perspective, the law enforcement and
	the people around us were very supportive.
	Mr. Goodlatte. But they were not able to help you go up the
	chain and find out who actually made that product that was in
	that bag?
	Mr. Eckhardt. Right.
	Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Milione, you testified about how potent
	Fentanyl is even if it is just absorbed through the skin. What
	harm could this substance do if dispersed over a crowd of
	people?
	Mr. Milione. It could kill them. I mean it would depress
	their--I am not a scientist, obviously, but we fortunately have
	much smarter people than myself on our staff that are
	scientists. And it will depress your respiration and it could
	cause death. So as was talked about, a very miniscule amount
	can cause death.
	So one of the challenges obviously for the unsuspecting
	user is that they could be taking Fentanyl and not realize that
	it is Fentanyl and overdose. But then for my brothers and
	sisters in law enforcement, the first responders, and within
	the DEA, when we go in on warrants, it is a very, very
	difficult situation. Every time you encounter heroin now, you
	have to assume it is Fentanyl, because if you inhale it, it
	becomes airborne, you get it on your skin, you could have that
	kind of a reaction. So that is something that law enforcement
	all over the country is--and EMS, firefighters, everyone is
	concerned with that.
	Mr. Goodlatte. And that is added? Heroin is cut with that,
	and some other things are cut with that in order to increase
	the addictive nature of it? Is that----
	Mr. Milione. Increase its potency, so it can be added----
	Mr. Goodlatte. That develops a reputation, people go back
	to it because ``Hey, that was really''----
	Mr. Milione. Well that is kind of the tragic part of it,
	right?
	Mr. Goodlatte. Yeah.
	Mr. Milione. Word gets out that there is a very strong--and
	traffickers will do that. They will spike something very hot,
	so that when it goes out, unfortunately you will have overdose
	deaths. Word will travel, and that particular X product is
	very, very potent, so there will be a desire for that product.
	So it is mixed with heroin, it is mixed with other substances.
	It really can be mixed with anything, just to kind of expand
	its commercial viability.
	Mr. Goodlatte. Adding that to some other product, as
	dangerous as the other product might be, like heroin--adding
	that to it is almost tantamount to knowing you are going to be
	committing a certain number of murders as that is distributed
	amongst the populous.
	Mr. Milione. That is----
	Mr. Goodlatte. Unavoidable that a significant quantity of
	this in the hands of the population is going to result in a
	certain number of deaths.
	Mr. Milione. That is correct, and we have had success.
	Mr. Goodlatte. You have got to know that going in, right?
	Mr. Milione. Yes, and we have had success with death
	investigations post-overdose.
	Mr. Goodlatte. How difficult is it to prosecute the
	manufacturers of these synthetic drugs?
	Mr. Milione. When you were speaking earlier--here is the
	biggest challenge. The biggest challenge is it is reactive. Our
	success with any of the biggest cartels, the most violent
	insulated groups, has been with a proactive infiltration. To
	get them indicted, get them convicted, arrest them in the
	United States, or bring them--extradite them from another
	country.
	The problem is in a reactive case, the harm has already
	occurred, so now you are trying to rebuild that. It is
	challenging, especially when the substances aren't necessarily
	Schedule I substances.
	Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you,
	Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Buck. This concludes today's hearing. Thanks to all of
	our distinguished witnesses for attending. Without objection,
	all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional
	written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for
	the record. The hearing is adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
	subject to the call of the Chair.]

	[all]
	</pre></body></html>