and again, it's getting d.o.e. the right information. if the test procedures aren't set, how do they know how products are performing out in the field? >> is it safe to say it's pretty dadgum hard to innovate when you don't know how you're going to be measured at the end of this? >> you don't know what the target is. you don't know what you're going to be measured on. >> if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. okay. mr. chairman, i'm going to yield back 45 seconds. >> we thank the gentleman from ohio. the chair will recognize the gentleman from oklahoma mr. mullin for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. thank you for having this meeting. i'll be honest, there's a few meetings we have in here that i had to study hard on because i'm not familiar with it. this is as i would say in my wheelhouse. i understand this situation extremely well. ms. noll, i'm going to talk to you for probably the remainder of the time. because a couple of things you said, and i just want to set the record straight. one, you said huge savings that these energy savings standards the d.o.e. has put out has put huge savings. that was your words, right? based on what? >> based on analysis. >> what analysis?

>> analysis that aceee and the appliance awareness project that's done as well as energy zone analysis. >> are you really looking at bills and prices? because you said huge savings and then you said up to $500 a year on energy cost. is that correct? >> correct. >> in oklahoma the average household today their total energy bill a year is $1,296. so you're saying that because of your savings, you know, that bill would have been $1,796? is that right? >> absent the standards. >> but yet if i go back and i look at 2008, the midline whirlpool dishwasher, the average use was about $29 a year is what that unit cost to run. at the same time, the cost of the unit was $375. today the same unit is $399 and it costs $32 a month to -- or a

year to run. >> the standards program's been in effect since 1987. >> i'm just talking about -- you said huge savings. >> mm-hmm. >> so i'm trying to figure out where the huge savings are from. because right now we're just talking about -- we're just talking about dishwashers. dishwashers we can see in the years have went up. they cost more. so that's not a savings. and they cost more to run per year. so just give me an opportunity again. where is huge? huge would be massive. i mean, i'm thinking like big time. that's huge, is your word. $500, i guess you could say that's huge. but i don't see it. that's the dishwasher. so i'll give you the mike and let you go ahead and try to explain that for me. >> in my opinion i think $2 trillion in savings to consumers is a lot of -- >> you say 2 trillion. i'm trying to figure out what the $2 trillion are.

d.o.e. comes in here and makes all these outlandish claims all the time. how much they're saving the mid-level households and all this stuff and how much energy is down when energy cost is actually up. and then you're in here making claims that the household is saving money and i'm just not seeing it. if anybody on the panel can help me, let me know because i don't want to make a claim that's not true and right now i'm seeing a claim that's not true. go ahead. miss miller. >> i think it's a valid question to say what is this analysis based on. and i think to reiterate some of the other remarks made by other members of this panel it's difficult to see where those claims come from in d.o.e.'s analysis. >> right. >> and if you're looking at dishwashers specifically, if you look at the standards that were finalized in 2012, they assumed as you mentioned before, mr. mcgwire, that the payback period would be about 12 years, which is only as long as your dishwasher is going to last. and i think they assumed that

households would save on net $3. >> let me read you a manual for a startup for a new dishwasher now. on top of it costing more to run, quote, this is out of the manual, says "run hot water at sink nearest your dishwasher until water is hot. turn off water for best dishwasher results. water should be 120 degrees before it enters the dishwasher." this is the new standards that we have to have out. so not only does it cost more to run, ms. noll, now we're having -- we're wasting water, which this is a big issue nowadays. we always talk about water savings. especially let's go to california. let's talk about california for a second. they're supposed to run, waste hot water, and let it run 1/4. this is the manual that comes for dishwashers now that says that. refrigerators. let me use refrigerators real quick.

refrigerators in 2008, average whirlpool refrigerator cost $999. that same unit comparable today is $1,299. energy cost, also up. now, these are two major appliances. we're talking about refrigerator. we're talking about a dishwasher. where's the huge savings? d.o.e. and the argument on all these energy-efficient appliances are always out there talking about huge savings. and the american people think it's huge. and yet i gave you two examples of -- >> hold on, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's time has expired. thank you. seeing no further witnesses seeking time the chair asks unanimous consent to enter for the record a multitude of statements on the subject matter from a number of agencies and concerned citizens. without objection, so ordered. in closing, the chair wants to thank all the witnesses for your time, your expertise, and your insights as to use hair

blow-dryers to dry dishes in the dishwasher. the chair reminds members you have five legislative days to submit questions for the record and executive eors, statements for the record. without objection this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you. tuesday morning here on c-span 3, a hearing on people who stay in the u.s. longer than allowed by their visas and what that means for national security. that house homeland security committee gavels at 10:00 a.m.

eastern here on c-span 3. madame secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪ ♪ now, a hearing on synthetic drugs, manmade chemicals with names like k-2, spice, and bath salts.

federal, state, and local officials testified about the manufacture and sale of the drugs, some of which is legal. senator chuck grassley of iowa chairs the senate judiciary committee. >> start until there's members of the other political party here, but they happen to be stuck in traffic, which shouldn't surprise anybody. they said i could go ahead. wherever we are in the testimony, when they arrive, i will let them give their opening statement right away. in many areas across this committee's jurisdiction, we hear time and again that technology is outpacing the law, but in no other area is a result of this gap as deadly and tragic

as it is with a recent rise in the production, marketing, and sale of synthetic drugs to young people. traffickers created these drugs in laboratories so that they produce the same or greater effects on a user as controlled substances. but when the government acts to ban the new drug, traffickers simply tweak the chemical formula ever so slightly to evade the law. dealers give these substances exciting names like vanilla sky, spice, and crazy clown. and sell them in legitimate convenience stores all to market them to young people as legal and therefore presumably safe, a safe way to get a high. but of course this is all a lie. these drugs are anything but

safe. almost six years ago to the day, a young man from iowa, dave rozga, became one of the first young people to die from the effects of smoking synthetic marijuana or k-2. david's parents have since become outspoken advocates for education, awareness, and action against the menace of synthetic drugs. i'm honored to have them and david's brother here today and david's father will share his family's story. synthetic marijuana or cannabis are substances that have little to do with the marijuana plant. the substance is typically composed of plant matter sprayed with chemicals designed to mimic the effect of the thc, the active marijuana ingredient,

with far more potency. synthetics often marketed as bath salts or glass cleaner are another type of synthetic drug. these are stimulants that imitate the effects of cocaine and methamphetamines. a third category of synthetic drugs has emerged as a concern, synthetic opioids in the form of fentanyl. this committee needs no introduction to the opioid crisis of course. fentanyl and its derivatives and opioids are five times more powerful than morphine. quote, they are deadly convergents of the synthetic drug threat and current national opioid epidemic, end quote.

just last week it was widely reported that the overdose of fentanyl was responsible for the death of the musician prince. according to dea, synthetic drugs are largely developed outside the united states, mostly in china and smuggled into the country through the mail or across the border with mexico. reports have indicated that the profits are often traceable back to the middle east, so we need to take a hard look at whether law enforcement has tools needed to protect the public from these synthetics. while this committee acted a few years ago to clear the trafficker since then, it's clear traffickers are continuing to outpace us. in 2012 after rozga testified before the senate, this committee acted by passing my bill the david mitchell rozga

act. the bill placed a series of synthetic can baa noids and other analogs on schedule one. it extended the time for which a substance can be scheduled by the dea to protect the public. the bill had broad bipartisan support on the committee. the next year my bill became law as part of the synthetic drug abuse prevention act. this was an important step to help protect our young people. sure enough calls to poison control centers began to level off or decline for a time. and since march 2012, the dea has used its temporary scheduling authority to place 35 synthetic drugs on schedule i. but clearly the threat posed by these drugs has not abated. calls to poison centers for

synthetic marijuana have once again begun to spike, rising from 2,600 in 2013 to 3,600 in 2014 and almost 8,000 in 2015. news stories continue to depict the awful effects of ingesting these substances on our youth and the effects on our health care and criminal justice systems. and law enforcement continues to encounter these substances in record numbers. so i thank all of our witnesses for being here today to help us learn more about this crisis. many of us on the committee have supported legislation that we think we can help. but given the complex way in which drug traffickers can evade the law, this is a difficult problem and doesn't have an easy answer. i'm going to now turn to senator feinstein and instead of what i

gave orally, because i shortened my statement, i want my printed statement put in the record without objection. senator? >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. i want to welcome our witnesses. and as i look out at the audience here today, it appears to be a knowing and intelligent audience, so i'm really very pleased to see this. well, that may have been -- [ laughter ] he's a humorist, so i have a humorist comment. i'm not a humorist, so i wouldn't deliver it well. so i'm going to cease and desist. we're here today to discuss synthetic drugs and the challenges in bringing the manufacturers and traffickers of these substances to justice. i think this audience knows that unregulated substances mimic the effects of controlled substances such as marijuana, pcp, and lsd.

and that's bad news. in 2015, there were 7,789 poison center exposures nationwide to synthetic canaboids, also known as synthetic marijuana. this is the most since the drug appeared in the united states. there were 3,960 exposures in the states just represented by this committee, mr. chairman. that's almost half of the exposures nationwide. the challenge for law enforcement is that manufacturers, mostly in china and india, change one or two molecules in a drug's composition and they produce a controlled substance analog. the new drug, even though it has a similar effect on the body to

a controlled substance, may no longer be illegal under federal law and enforcement efforts become difficult. these drugs are then shipped to our country where they are marketed as legal alternatives to illegal drugs and appeal to youth because they're easily accessible. often sold at gas stations, convenience stores, or online. we're now beginning to see a decrease in synthetic c cannaboidics exposures, but synthetics continue to bring about havoc. in sacramento, there were 52 fentanyl related overdoses in one month, resulting in at least

12 deaths. nationally from 2014 to 2013 to 2014, there was an 80% increase in overdoses involving synthetic opioids, including fentanyl. i've never seen that before. an 80% increase in a year. and while alarmingly high, these statistics may also be inaccurate because fentanyl caused deaths are often misclassified as prescription opioid or heroin related. like other synthetic drugs, illicit fentanyl and its analogs are clandestinely produced and primary enter the united states in one of three ways. one, chinese chemists produce and ship it to the united states via international mail. two, mexican drug traffickers

produce it with precourser chemicals from china and smuggle it across the southwest border. or three, chinese chemists produce it and ship it to canada where it is smuggled across the northern border. the point of this is regardless of the type synthetic drugs pose a deadly and quickly evolving public health threat. mr. chairman, you and i have held two drug caucus hearings on this topic dating back to 2011. since then, though, congress has only scheduled 26 substances and another 35 have been administratively controlled through temporary scheduling, only 11 of which have been permanently controlled. simply put, our current legislative and administrative framework prevents the swift action that's needed to address

this constantly evolving problem. that's why with others in 2015 i reintroduced the protecting our youth from dangerous synthetic drugs act. this is a bipartisan bill cosponsored by many members of this committee. and this bill would prevent manufacturers from skirting federal law by establishing an interagency committee that would convene on an add-needed basis to quickly designate and prohibit new synthetic drugs encountered by law enforcement. i think importantly since controlled substance analogs are not subject to schedule i research restrictions, legitimate scientific and medical research would be safeguarded. controlling new synthetic drugs more quickly will better enable us to protect our nation's youth

and ensure successful prosecutions against those who manufacture and traffic these drugs. so if people here have comments on this bill, i would very much like to hear them. and i think one thing is clear, mr. chairman. we really have to move with alacrity. we really have to do something to stop this. i've never seen this in my lifetime before in this country, and so i am hopeful that under your leadership we'll be able to come forward with some important legislation. and i thank you very much. >> i associate myself with her remarks about acting quickly on this. michael botticelli is director of national drug control policy. he leads the administration's drug policy efforts and is responsible for creating a

manual of national drug control strategy. previously he served as director of substance abuse services at massachusetts department public health. an undergraduate degree at sienna college and a masters of education. we invite you back and we're glad you're back here. richard hartunian is a u.s. attorney, northern district new york. prior to his confirmation, he served as assistant u.s. attorney for 12 years. he is a graduate of georgetown university, albany law school of union university. chuck rosenberg has served as acting administrator for the dea since 2015. began his career of public service as an assistant u.s.

attorney eastern district virginia from 94 to the year 2000. after a few years in the private sector, he served in a series of senior positions in law enforcement, including consul to then fbi director muller, consul to then attorney general ashcro ashcroft, and chief of staff to then general comey. in 2006, he was confirmed by the senate as u.s. attorney eastern district virginia, a position you have held since 2008. he also has an undergraduate degree from tufts, law degree from the university of virginia, and master's degree from harvard. he joined the fda in 97 after working as basic science researcher and academic

physician, medical college of georgia and veterans administration hospital augusta, georgia. he earned his ph.d. from the university of nebraska medical school. completed his residency case western reserve and his fellowship at yale university. would you start out, mr. botticelli, please? >> thank you for inviting me back to discuss issues related to synthetic drugs. although all synthetics drugs, met amphetamine, fentanyl, and opioids are of great concern to the administration, i'll focus on -- they are designed to mimic the effects of controlled substances. in december 2015, the united nations estimated that there were over 600 identified nps on

the global market. the vast majority of these not controlled under u.n. drug treaties or domestic drug control authorities. they are often mixed with material to form a dangerous final package and final product in alluring packaging. the potency and composition can vary from batch to batch. many pose a serious threat to public health, including addiction and life-threatening medical consequences. i appreciate that mr. mike rozga is here today from iowa to talk about his son david's tragic death associated with the use of a synthetic. there are also many young people that are a testament to the deadly impact that nps is having on our families and communities. although the u.n., the federal government, and all 50 states and the district of columbia have developed responses to nps, there are still ways it can be

manufacturing that make it challenging. all nps are manufactured in china. given the fatal and nonfatal effects of these substances, this clearly needs to change. the united states is leading discussions with international partners on how the global response to nps can be improved. in april at the special session of the u.n. general assembly we joined other countries to encourage the world health organization to engage more proactively in the review of services for international control. and while international control of drugs and chemical precursers are important, the existing international scheduling framework is underutilized and is unable to control the overwhelming number of nps that exist or could be developed in the future. as a result, the united states

and other countries are working to press china to take control within their borders. most importantly, china streamlined their scheduled process for nps and determined that the impact of a substance both domestically and internationally should factor into the review for substances for control. our federal agencies will continue to work directly with china to reduce the manufacture of nps. federal agencies are also working with law enforcement to support investigations domestically and abroad. with the science and research community to better understand the pharmacology of nps and to form better treatment strategies and to inform communities about the danger of synthetic drugs. despite these efforts, we're kerned about the availability of traditional responses to

successfully reduce availability of nps. the data collection needed to support of scheduling actions for the existing, let alone potential nps, is a huge task. under the analog statute, prosecutors must start each case anew, even if the same substance is involved, which is a time-consuming and resource intensive process. technical experts at dea and the fda have been meeting and working together on the data collection required to place new drugs under control and how that plays into permanent scheduling processes. we believe that a coordinated response to scheduling, which aims to protect public health and public safety and takes into research interests is necessary to get and stay ahead of the supply of nps. congress can help by legislatively controlling a significant number of nps that

are structurally related to scheduling compounds. it helps prevent further harms to the public. in the long term, more significant reforms to the domestic scheduling framework are needed to stay ahead of the realities of the illicit drug market. in recent months, the united kingdom and australia have taken bold steps aimed at getting ahead and staying ahead of this drug threat. we'll continue to work with our international partners, federal government agencies, and our partners at the state, local, and tribal levels to prevent the threat to our communities that these dangerous substances pose. thank you very much. >> now go ahead mr. hartunian. >> yes, chairman grassley.

on behalf of attorney general lynch and my partners, i thank you for the opportunity to testify here today about synthetic drugs. synthetics drugs continue to flourish are horrible human costs, including hallucinations, violence, hospitalizations, and worse. there is no quality control. and there's significant variations in toxicity. as a result, police officers encounter users that irrational and combative. in 2012 involved a 54-year-old utica man who was seen naked in the street waving a tree branch. when the man told police they have to kill him to stop him,

the officers deployed a taser gun, but the man pulled the probes out of his chest and continued walking until two officers subdued him. in march of 2016, syracuse police took a 25-year-old man to the hospital after his mother reported that he had set his mattress on fire after ingesting synthetic drugs. syracuse has seen so many overdoses of synthetics locally known as spike that it's been called spike nation. now under the analog act criminal liability depends on a finding in each case that the substance is an analog intended for human consumption and that the defendant either knew the substance was one regulated under federal law or knew the identity of the substance. even if a substance is widely regarded as a controlled substance analog under the statute, each criminal prosecution must establish that fact anew, which requires extensive use of expert witnesses to prove that the

analog is substantially similar to a controlled substance in structure and effect. in light of the common practice of marketing and selling synthetics with names like bath salts is set up a lack of knowledge defense. neither the challenges nor the evasive actions of the synthetic drug manufacturers and distributors have deterred our efforts to protect the american public. in the northern district of new york, we first used the analog act in a case that began in 2009 to convict 20 defendants in a ring importing molly from china and distributing it in the syracuse area. multi-kilo quantities were shipped, some falsely labeled as metal corrosion inhibiter.

in 2012, we successfully prosecuted the owner of nine head shops in central new york which sold synthetic drugs. we seized nearly 12 kilograms of spice and k-2 and thousands of packages of amped, clear, and legal funk. he went to jail for 87 months. from coast to coast and in the heartland, my fellow u.s. attorneys have achieved similar successes. in north dakota after two teena teenagers died in the grand fork area, there was a business confirmed that was importing analogs from several countries and distributing them across the united states. carlton and 14 other defendants were convicted and sentenced. in the eastern district of california, victor pled guilty to causing at least 24 tons of misbranded synthetic drugs to be introduced into interstate commerce marketed with names

like bizarre, orgasmo. in april 2016 in the middle district of florida, a chinese national was sentenced to 50 months in prison for his involvement in supplying hundreds of grams to the u.s. zang was a chemical engineer. he altered his inventory accordingly. in the northern district of iowa, two men were convicted in late 2015 of conspiracy to distribute analogs and conspiracy to launder drug money. they were wholesaler distributors of ones like nice guy and mr. happy. while our prosecutions punish offenders and deter others from

engaging in such conduct and raise public awareness of the dangers of synthetic drugs, we understand that education, prevention, and rehabilitation are essential components to a comprehensive solution. we partner with educators and medical providers in town hall events. we invest substantial resources in youth education programs like our leadership project reaching fifth grade students in new york's capital region. and the northern district's intensive reentry court which helps high risk offenders to deal with their addictions and successfully reintegrate into society. the tools congress has given us allows to take significant action. our resolve remains unwavering. thank you. i look forward to answering any questions you may have.

>> thank you. now mr. rosenberg. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to be here. i appreciate you holding this hearing on this topic, sir. sometimes in our lexicon, we use words perhaps without thinking about it. unprecedented, historic, unique. but i think that what we're seeing is unprecedented and historic. we have an epidemic, another word that sometimes is often overused but is apt here. it fits. this is an epidemic. i want to talk about this a little bit thematically. i'll be brief. i think there are three other words that help me think about this problem. one is vile. one is volatile. and one is lethal. let me explain. the reason this is so vile -- and you touched on it, mr. chairman, is because a lot of these poison pedalers are marketing to children. they take substances, put them

in shiny foil packets, give it a fun-sounding name, put it in a grocery store and sell it to kids. by any definition, i think that's vile. volatile. let me explain that as well. as you touched on, mr. chairman and senator feinstein mentioned, we are trying to keep up with a picture that changes almost every day. we've identified something like 400 new nps, psychoactive substances over the last four or five years. we were seeing one a week. now we're seeing two or three in a month. i almost feel each time i sign an administrative control regulation that i'm simply telling the bad guys not this one anymore. move over here. and that's what they do.

it's volatile. for every one substance we have controlled legislatively or administratively, there are 11 more out there that are uncontrolled and it is changing all the time. so vile and volatile. let me briefly address lethal. folks will talk today eloquently perhaps on this panel, certainly on the next one, about the effect that this has had on our kids and the folks we have lost. i want to talk about it from a slightly different perspective, from a law enforcement perspective. fentanyl is so dangerous that we have had to instruct our agents if that they touch it or inhale it accidentally, they can die. if they're a canine officer and their dog sniffs it perhaps because it is laced in heroin, that dog can die. we have trained our agents, not because they're first responders because typically they're not,

but because they could encounter fentanyl to administer to narcan to one another. we have to protect our own people because this stuff is so lethal. it's really a remarkable substance. we're putting out a roll call video through the international association of police to warn a million police officers across the country that you can't field test this stuff. you can't transport it the way you normally transport other drugs. you have to be so careful because just being exposed to it not even purposely ingesting it or touching it, can kill you. vile, volatile, and lethal. i'm very happy that you're doing this. we've got a lot of work to do. we're playing catch up, and we need your help. thanks for the opportunity.

>> you're very plain spoken. thank you very much. now mr. -- dr. throckmorton. >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important role that fda has in supporting efficient and scientific assessment of new drugs whether illicit or -- i agree with all of the comments that the three panelists have made as far as the seriousness of this issue. new illicit inthetic drugs are flooding the u.s. market. they pose significant health risks. we appreciate the efforts the committee is doing and fda is committed to doing our part. while we are the lead federal agency for regulating controlled

substances and enforcing csa, hhs has a number of responsibilities, many of which are performed by fda in this area. my testimony today will focus on the role we have in the drug scheduling process, including the emergency control of new and dangerous street drugs. as a part of our work, fda conducts a scientific and medical evaluation, which forms the basis for the hhs recommendation to the dea about the appropriate level of control for a substance that has the potential to be abused. the eight factors are spelled out in my written testimony. that evaluation involves a careful analysis on synthesis, structure, receptor binding, and clinical studies to help us understand a drug's abuse potential. once complete, our analysis is shared and then sent to hhs who

transmits a recommendation to the dea for final decision making. under the csa, controlled substances are listed in one of five schedules. for today, schedule i is the highest level of control reserved for drugs that have a high potential for abuse. no currently accepted medical use and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. in addition to this work, fda has a role in the energy or nontemporary scheduling of illicit drugs that you have referred to. dea can place a substance into schedule i more quickly. in this process, fda provides information about whether a given substance is an ingredient in an approved drug product or the subject of an investigational drug study. we participate in the final scheduling action following the emergency action. the scientific process to determine the appropriate level of control for a substance balances the important need to

protect the public from the dangers posed by drugs and substances of abuse while at the same time seeking to provide access to these drugs for researchers for potential drug development. finally, in addition to its role in scheduling drugs, fda works with the department of justice, including dea, and other state and federal agencies to support criminal investigations involving the illegal sale, use, and diversion of controlled substances. with this background, i want to turn to the emerging public health threat of nps. we have engaged with fda to test the abusiveness of these substances. we completed a memorandum of understanding that is facilitating the sharing of information so we can work more

closely together. most of them were emergency scheduled and then permanently controlled under the csa later. we are working with the dea to do even better by improving the process of drug scheduling with the enactment of the synthetic drug abuse prevent act in 2012 as a part of the fda scheduling drugs act. using this approach, fda has been able to evaluate 16 substances to make recommendations for permanent scheduling by dea. extending this approach, we've also been able to apply a similar way to look at new bath salts. these are highly dangerous stimulant and hallucinogenic substances that can cause toxic effects including convulsions and death.

chemists can rapidly alter the chemical structures to stay ahead of regulators. placing these substances into schedule i can help protect the public health. however the same chemical structures found in the n prk s overlap with drugs that have potential therapeutic use. the requirements placed on the conduct of research using schedule i may act as a disincentive for research in those therapies. we believe by performing efficient scientific review we can balance the important health risks propowith appropriate and scientific understanding. fda is committed on working with other partners on science in this area to understand and enhance the timely and appropriate assessment of these

substances in advancement of public health. we hope you'll continue to give the relevant federal agencies an opportunity to share perspectives on proposed responses, including scientific-based solutions. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i'm happy to answer any questions i can. >> i would ask my colleagues who will take five minutes. we won't have a second round because we have five witnesses on the second panel. i want to make sure that they have their opportunity to testify before the committee as well. i'm going to start with mr. hartunian. it appears from your written testimony that you and some of your colleagues have had quite a bit of success prosecuting cases pursuant to the controlled substance analog enforcement act despite the challenges posed by proceeding under that statute. so you're to be commended for

that. so my question, with that in mind, despite complaints about the scheduling process being too slow and cumbersome, do you have an opinion on continuing to schedule dangerous synthetic substances or should we just rely on prosecuting these substances as analogs? >> thank you, chairman grassley for that question. i think it's clear that the more chemical substances that we schedule, the easier it is for us to do our jobs. your act in 2012 was helpful adding chemicals and substances to the schedule list under the controlled substances act. that clearly makes it easier for prosecutors to in a more straightforward way to present cases in court, establish that the chemical compound is something that is on a controlled substance schedule and then proceed without questions about its chemical

composition and its effect. when we run across synthetics that are unscheduled, we have to deal with the challenges of the controlled substance analog act. they're well familiar to you chairman and senators through your great work with the drug caucus. you've heard about that. we have to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt that can be challenging. they're subject to expert testimony battles. frequently the defendants will call experts to call into question testimony about the effect of a substance when in fact there is a plethora of testing that's been done. that can confuse jurors and make it difficult to prove. to answer your question, sir, the quicker, the faster, we can get these drugs scheduled, the better.

>> mr. botticelli, we keep hearing that our current scheduling approach for synthetics just isn't as agile enough to deal with it. at the same time, we also hear concerns that if we move to schedule substances too quickly, it could hurt legitimate research. as we look to find a better approach to address this threat, what can you tell us and the congress about how other countries are addressing it?