STOP Act of 2018

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the information he has given us, and I certainly thank him for his comments at the close of his initial statement on the colloquy.

We are all ecstatic, as I am sure the gentleman can understand, that after 44 years--and I might say I was an initial season ticket holder to the Washington Capitals, who started their career at the Capital Center in Prince George's County under the ownership and tutelage of Abe Pollin, an extraordinary member of our community who died, and then now under Ted Leonsis' leadership, and, of course, Alex Ovechkin's extraordinary accomplishments of his own, being named the most valuable player.

And I might say, as I know the gentleman would join me in saying, the Las Vegas team had an extraordinary accomplishment themselves, being the first expansion team ever to make it to the finals in the National Championship.

So, it was a wonderful night for those of us who live in the Washington National Capital area, and we thank the gentleman for his observation.

Let me say as well, that we share the gentleman's happiness that the economy is doing well. It is doing well. What he did not observe, but we are happy about, is that President Obama, under his leadership, took this economy from the worst economy that the gentleman and I have experienced in our lifetimes to one of the best.

Now, it was not the best, because the best economy was under Bill Clinton in the late 1990s in terms of almost every indication. But it is certainly positive information, as the gentleman has pointed out, of where the economy is now.

So we all welcome that. We are hopeful, of course, that we will build on that.

The gentleman mentions there are over 6 million jobs available. One of the challenges, as the gentleman knows, is that we don't have the skill sets matching the jobs, and that is why they are vacant. That is why they are unable to fill them. We need to, I think, focus on that. We need to focus on investing in our infrastructure.

But as was mentioned on the floor yesterday in terms of a couple of the bills Tim Ryan, in particular, mentioned, there are still 4 in 10 adults who can't pay a $400 bill if it came present. So we have work to do, and hopefully we can do that together.

But it certainly is good news that unemployment is down and the economy is moving along, continuing in the path that, from our perspective, was set by President Obama, and that President Trump, unlike President Obama, inherited a thriving, robust, growing economy. So I am pleased that we have gone to that place.

Now, I know the gentleman indicated that a number of opioid-related bills will be on the floor next week. I talked to the chairman of the committee yesterday, the gentleman from Oregon, and most of those are bipartisan bills. I hope all of them will end up, as they come to the floor, as bipartisan bills.

The addiction crisis, of course, requires that we invest in a comprehensive, long-term approach to expanding access to substance abuse treatment. I hope we can tackle this issue in a meaningful and bipartisan way. But I do want to address a number of other upcoming items for this work period, starting with the farm bill.

As the gentleman knows, last month, the farm bill failed on the House floor, and we have until June 22 to reconsider. My question is: Does the gentleman expect that we will see a farm bill on the floor by June 22?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observation.

He talks about work. We are requiring those to work to work in order to get government benefits. What is controversial about that?

Democrats support work. We want to see people working. We oppose, however, your SNAP proposal because it is antiwork. You are taking a work requirement that is working and replacing it with one that won't work.

This is not about putting people to work. It is about pretending that you care about work as cover for taking assistance away from struggling families.

As a result of this bill, there will be fewer working--I know the majority leader wants to hear this particular piece of information.

As a result of this bill as it is currently written, there will be fewer working SNAP beneficiaries, not more, and millions more people going hungry. That is the working poor who are getting nutritional assistance for themselves and their families. There will be less of them under your bill.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is ecstatic about recent statistics. I think that he has, of course, warrant to be.

Let me read to the gentleman statistics over a 68-year period where Democrats have had the Presidency and Republicans have had the Presidency on and off. The gentleman's words are almost exactly the same words I heard in 2001 and 2003 when we were told and the country was told, if we adopted those tax bills that the gentleman is so very proud of--which is plunging our country $1.8 trillion into additional debt, which he and his party wrung their hands about so repeatedly--and that the CBO says is a result of what I believe to be the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in which I have served.

Let me repeat that. I have served in 18 Congresses. I believe this past Congress to be, this Congress that we are in, the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in which I have served.

Yes, we have a philosophical difference. You gave 83 percent of your tax revenues to the richest people in America. CBO says that; I don't say that. And 17 percent to all the rest; i.e., some 300 million-plus Americans.

Yes, we have a philosophical difference. We would have suggested that the mix be a little fairer to those in the middle and the bottom of the economic growth. But, no, you chose to give your benefits to the wealthiest in America. Not surprising. It is trickle-down economics one more time.

In 2001 and 2003, what happened? You did the tax cuts.

And what happened 6 years later? The country was plunged into the deepest recession you, Mr. Majority Leader, or me have ever experienced in our life. As a matter of fact, you have to be over 90 years of age to have experienced a deeper recession than was brought on by the Bush economic policies in the last decade, a depth of recession which the Obama policies brought us out of faster than any other nation in the world.

Those are the statistics. Faster than any other nation. The stock market--we are all about the stock market. The stock market went up almost 300 percent under Barack Obama. Now, when you get to 300 percent, we will about how well you have done. We will see what your trade policies that the President is imposing on the country do to employers and to employees and to consumers. We will see.

But let me tell you what has happened over the last 68 years under Democratic Presidents and under Republican Presidents. The gentleman wants to know about history. Under Republican Presidents over the 36 years that your party enjoyed control of the Presidency, the GDP grew by an average of 2.5 percent. Under Democrats for 32 years, by 4.1 percent.

Now, what did that 1.6 percent difference mean?

What it meant was, under Republican Presidents over the last 68 years, 35 million jobs were created. The gentleman talks about jobs. Under Democratic Presidents--4 less years, 32 years--there were 64.960 million jobs created.

Now, I hope, unlike your past performance, that the job growth continues, that the stock market increase continues, but that has not been the history. We will see.

So I hope that when you deal with the farm bill, notwithstanding your statistics, that you bring a bipartisan bill. Very frankly, the farm bill has historically been a farm bill. But what you did was passed a tax bill giving the rich 83 percent of its benefits. And in the farm bill you were taking nutritional assistance away from families and children. That is why you couldn't pass it, among other reasons. It was not bipartisan, as it was two Congresses ago when we reauthorized this. You tried to cut the SNAP program by $40 billion.

The gentleman well knows the Senate is not pursuing your policies either

on the Republican side or the Democratic side.

You are missing a lot of good information.

The fact of the matter is, you know your farm bill is not going to pass the Senate.

Mr. Leader, on the farm bill I would urge you to come together with us. I don't know that there is a more bipartisan member of this Congress than Collin Peterson, the ranking Democratic on the Agriculture Committee. Very frankly, the chairman was not interested in a bipartisan bill. I don't know whether it was by direction or his own view.

But let us come to a bipartisan agreement on this farm bill and pass it over to the Senate so that you can do something, not just talk about how you are reducing nutritional assistance to people that rely on it for their food every day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the words of the majority leader. He and his party, without exception, opposed President Obama's programs. Without exception.

We became the majority in 2007, and we worked with President Bush on a number of things, including a very substantiation environmental bill signed by President Bush, and other bills as well.

He mentions about the rescission package. Mr. Speaker, if you will recall, when we had this debate some weeks ago, he said everything in this rescission bill is what we don't need.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Ebola money was rescinded in that bill some weeks ago, but not in this bill. He changed it because, very frankly, Mr. Speaker, they found out, oops, we need the Ebola money. So they took it out of this bill.

We think you need the CHIP money. We think we need the CHIP money to make sure that if there is a happening or an occurrence that occurs, the CHIP money is needed either directly or indirectly to make sure that children, in fact, are taken care of.

Who has said that? Mr. Tom Cole has said that. We have used that money effectively and appropriately.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that if the Ebola money--which I was assured was not needed--that cut was restored by our Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, because they found out, yes, it is needed.

Now, in terms of wasting time, 65 votes over the last Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act--65--with a full and unquestioned knowledge that none of those votes would result in something happening for our country in the United States Senate. They weren't going to vote for that. They knew that. So we spent a lot of time on that.

Let me also say: The gentleman says let's get about our business. Let me ask the gentleman: Does he expect a bill on the DACA protectees, the Dreamers, to come on the floor next week?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would only say, I appreciate his comments. But, Mr. Speaker, I have heard them a long time, many, many times: We are going to solve this issue.

Mr. Ryan came to the floor and said: We are going to solve this issue. You vote for this caps bill, and we will get an immigration bill on the floor that will solve this issue.

That was some 2\1/2\ months ago. It is not solved yet, Mr. Speaker. I hope the

leader does, in fact, bring a bill to the floor quickly.

In fact, the suggestion that had been made by many Members of his party and mine to bring four options to the floor seems absolutely consistent with the Speaker's pledge to take the tough issues head-on; and that is, bring the Democratic bill that is cosponsored by one of the senior Republicans, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, to the floor; bring the Goodlatte bill, which has been reported out of the Republican Judiciary Committee, to the floor; bring a bill cosponsored by Mr. Hurd and Mr. Aguilar to the floor.

Then what we provide, Mr. Leader, is that the Speaker can bring a bill to the floor of his choosing. What could be fairer than that to let the people's House speak on this critically important issue? So I would hope the gentleman would facilitate that coming to the floor.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is the most closed Congress in history. He talks about coming to his office, and I have. We have worked constructively and positively together, and I have great respect for the majority leader. I know he is very close to President Trump, and he has talked about his working with President Trump to move forward.

Let us hope that the talks with Korea bear fruit. We have had a lot of talks with the Koreans. They have made a lot of pledges, and they haven't followed them. We will see what happens. We are hoping for the best.

In coming to your office, we have had some discussions. We have had discussions about DACA. But, very frankly, when we come to this floor, this is the most closed Congress, Mr. Leader, in recent history, if not history. We have had 85 closed rules. Zero, not a single open rule have we considered.

Over 2,000 germane amendments have been blocked by the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, that is amendments that are in order, and they have been blocked. In fact, 194 Republicans--Republicans--have been refused the opportunity to move forward on their amendments.

Now, I know that the leader's schedule is such that we can conclude this debate. I have other things to say. But I am hopeful that, frankly, whatever we bring to the floor, bring it on a rule that provides for full consideration, bring it that reflects facing the tough issues, bring it so the House can work its will on these bills, including the farm bill, including an immigration bill that protects the Dreamers, and including other legislation so critical to this country. Let the House work its will through the amendatory process.

Mr. Speaker, unless the gentleman wants to say something, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2851, H.R. 5735, and H.R. 5788. We could have done so much better. I am going to get into some of the great ideas that we talked about and amendments were submitted but didn't make it through.

This week is supposed to be about bringing bills to the floor that actually do something about the opioid crisis that is having devastating consequences on families and entire communities, including in my home State of Colorado.

Legislation to address opioid abuse and save lives is long overdue. But I am sad to say that the bills that are being brought forth make, at the most, incremental changes and will not substantially affect the plague that is affecting our country of opioid addiction, abuse, and death.

As you know, this is a crisis that cuts across State lines. It affects every congressional district in our country. I certainly know people directly affected in my constituents. I am sure every Member of Congress does.

In Colorado the rate of drug overdoses since 2000 has more than doubled. This is not a partisan issue, and I

wish we could come together around a more significant response that actually did something to combat opioid abuse.

If Republicans were serious about dealing with opioids, they would drop their assault on Medicaid. Medicaid is a critical service to help individuals battling opioid addiction, including supporting inpatient treatment centers and case managers to help get people the help they need.

Frankly, we should have a discussion about how to achieve universal healthcare. There are people today who are unable to get coverage or support to recover from the substance abuse that holds them hostage. While Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act have dramatically improved and expanded access to health coverage, including drug treatment, there are too many Americans today--in fact, over millions--who do not have health insurance.

There is no single solution to the opioid crisis. Instead, policymakers should use a multipronged approach, universal healthcare, substance abuse, and mental health treatment being one. Another prong is identifying alternative treatments, instead of highly addictive opioid compounds for pain management. That is one of the things that I am so disappointed is not being advanced to the floor.

Many States have medical marijuana available to patients with a variety of health issues, including chronic pain. Doctors across the country have prescribed medical marijuana as a legitimate treatment option for pain management. In cases where it works, it provides a less harmful alternative, a less harmful and less addictive alternative to opioids.

Opioids have a role in pain management. But if a first-line therapy like medical marijuana, acupuncture, or acupressure can work, you can prevent people from developing a dependency, because almost three- quarters of opioid abuse starts with prescription drug treatment for pain management. In some cases, those first-line treatments like medical marijuana, acupuncture, and acupressure won't work, and prescriptions to opioids have their role. But let's at least prevent some people from having to go on prescription opioids when a less harmful, less addictive, and less damaging therapy can work effectively for their pain management. I have heard from so many Coloradans for whom medical marijuana works instead of having to resort to opioids.

Unfortunately, medical marijuana is still illegal at the Federal level. There are limited research opportunities about the safety and efficacy of marijuana, and that is holding us back from really understanding how medical marijuana can be used for pain management.

I offered a very simple and commonsense amendment at the Rules Committee last night that authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to study medical marijuana as an alternative treatment option to prescription opioids, just very simply. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA alone has treated about 70,000 veterans for opioid addiction last year alone, but my amendment was, unfortunately, blocked from getting a vote.

The issue is personal for me, Mr. Speaker. I was able to present a Purple Heart to a veteran who lives in my district in Colorado, a young man who put his life on the line for our country. He told me that he uses medical marijuana for his pain issues and has successfully been able to take himself off of the opioids that the VA had prescribed for those pain issues.

I also offered an amendment with Representatives Pocan and Gosar last night that, unfortunately, was not even allowed to be debated here on the floor that would prevent a natural botanic substance like kratom from being scheduled under the new scheduling authority created by SITSA. Unfortunately, it was blocked.

Kratom, which is a cousin of the coffee plant, is used by many as an alternative to addictive opioids and a way of escaping addiction. I have heard from so many constituents for whom legal access to kratom is critical to their sobriety and their battle against opioid addiction.

We can very simply ensure that that legal access could be retained had this amendment been allowed. If it is cut off, as the FDA and others have been threatening, there is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be any doubt in anybody's mind, that people will resort back to deadly opioids, rather than managing through harm reduction using other compounds that are less dangerous and less deadly, be it medical marijuana or kratom.

We are debating these bills today because we know we need to take action to address the opioid epidemic that we all have felt the human face of in our communities. But instead of trying to ban substances and put more Big Government bans on top of things that people are using to recover from opioids, we should be exploring and embracing alternative treatment options to opioids.

Simply put, we need to improve access to alternative pain relief options beyond opioids like kratom and like medical marijuana, because 75 percent of opioid abuse starts with prescription drugs usually for pain management. We need to embrace that part of the solution. Increase freedom. Let Americans choose less harmful compounds that work for pain management and free people up to never become the victim of a terrible cycle of opioid addiction. Unfortunately, both of those amendments were blocked.

H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, is a bill that would create a new schedule of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act giving even more authority to the Department of Justice to wage a failed drug war and determine which substances are illegal, sidestepping the current process for scheduling drugs, sidestepping Congress, and often sidestepping common sense. When you put Government bureaucrats in charge, they only take more power every time.

This bill creates lengthy sentencing and penalties, indulging in the over criminalization. It could harm hundreds of thousands of people battling opioid abuse by relying on incarceration and penalization, rather than treatment and helping people recover from opioid abuse.

This is a public health issue. It is not that there is not a criminal dimension; there, of course, is for cartels and smugglers. But when it comes to your niece or nephew, Mr. Speaker, your cousin or your neighbor's kid, we want to help them get better, recover their lives, and free themselves from the vicious cycle of opioid addiction. This bill does not do that.

While it is well-intended, it has serious flaws that need to be addressed. If we want to have an impact on fighting epidemics, the answer is not to give even more authority to government bureaucrats in Washington. It is to empower the American people themselves to take control of our own destiny.

The rule also provides for consideration of the THRIVE Act, that is H.R. 5735. It is a different topic, but it is related. It is designed to create housing opportunities for people suffering from substance abuse disorders.

The problem with this bill is it sets arbitrary time limits on those who seek stable housing while receiving treatment for substance use disorders, and it doesn't actually increase the supply of affordable housing.

When we are dealing with homelessness and transitory housing, we need to take meaningful action to actually increase the supply of beds for people who are in recovery. We have to walk the walk. Without funding for beds and for treatment, we are just talking around the edges and we are not really solving this problem.

The final bill under this rule is H.R. 5788, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, which is another bill that creates more paperwork for the Postal Service. Frankly, it just adds, again, another level of bureaucracy.

I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, that people smuggling opioids into this country don't put opioids on the Customs form. They don't say: ``We are illegally bringing opioids into the country.'' Yes, we need to do more against smuggling, but creating more forms to fill out by government bureaucrats is not the answer.

This bill is being considered under a closed rule. This is the 86th closed rule of this Congress. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that not a single Member, Democrat or Republican, was able to

offer an amendment to this bill, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act. There were good ideas from both sides that aren't even allowed to be advanced.

The Republicans continue to bring bills to floor this way that limit the opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to actually do something to stop opioid abuse. It is frustrating.

As a legislator who has a lot of ideas about what we can do to actually save lives, increase freedom, and reduce opioid abuse, which would pass--I think a lot of my ideas would get 300, 350 votes here in the House--we are not even allowed to bring them forward. It is just so frustrating when we all know the human face of people who are suffering from being caught in the vicious cycle of opioid addiction. We have seen it affect so many families, including so many of our friends and even family.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the midst of a devastating opioid crisis that is spiraling out of control. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opioids are responsible for 6 out of 10 overdose deaths in the country. More than 115 Americans die each day from opioid overdose.

The house is on fire; yet, with these bills today, unfortunately, the Republicans are not addressing this problem in a meaningful way. The American people need strong action from Congress to stem the tide of the opioid scourge and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lujan's legislation, H.R. 3495, the Opioid and Heroin Abuse Crisis Investment Act, which would make a difference by extending badly needed funding to combat the growing public health crisis of opioid-related addiction and deaths.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, a year and a half into this session of Congress, and finally the Republicans are bringing something to the floor around the opioid epidemic, but it is too little, too late. They prioritized, unfortunately, corporate tax giveaways over families that are struggling and communities which are affected by the path of destruction caused by opioid drug abuse.

As we address opioid addiction, we need to remember that many communities were suffering from substance use disorders long before Congress began to wake up to this issue. Opioid abuse affects both rural and urban communities and has a human face and a tragedy in every congressional district.

We should support efforts to address this through treatment instead of incarceration or punishment, through alternatives instead of giving Washington, D.C., bureaucrats more power.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. All of these bills will be focusing on one thing: fighting our Nation's opioid epidemic.

America has the greatest mission statement in the world: form a more perfect Union. This is our task here.

I am encouraged by all of the good things I am seeing around the country. We have 6.7 million jobs open. We have just created our millionth job since the tax cut has been passed. Unemployment is tying a 50-year low. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last 49 years, there has only been 7 months where unemployment has been below 4 percent, and two of those months were April and May that we just went through.

Americans' net worth has increased to $100 trillion. That is $7 trillion since the election, the highest we have ever seen. We also just passed last night, Mr. Speaker, the largest rescission package in the history of Congress.

But I also know that it is our responsibility to work every day to make our Nation even stronger. So, Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of the deadliest drug crisis in history. For the first time, drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50. 174 of our friends and family, our neighbors, are lost every day to substance abuse. Simply put, we need all hands on deck to attack this crisis.

That is why we will bring over 60 bills from eight different committees to the floor in the coming weeks to combat this crisis and save lives. This includes:

H.R. 5788, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Bishop. This bill will close loopholes in international shipping to stop the flow of synthetic opioids;

Next, H.R. 5735, the THRIVE Act, sponsored by Representative Andy Barr, which would establish a pilot program for evidence-based transitional housing nonprofits that have experience in recovery and skills training;

H.R. 2851, the Stop Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, sponsored by Representative John Katko. This bill will enable law enforcement to more swiftly respond to synthetic drugs and keep our communities safe.

Along with numerous other bills, passing these will truly help us form a more perfect Union.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend across the aisle. We are no strangers to droughts in California, but a 44-year championship drought is quite something. So congrats to my friend's beloved Washington Capitals on finally winning Lord Stanley's cup. It was a fun series to watch. It was a well-deserved victory for your team and for all of the fans of this region.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The answer to the question is yes.

I believe the farm bill is incredibly important for so many reasons. The food and agriculture industry drive more than 43 million jobs, over a quarter of all American jobs.

And it is what you talked about earlier. Yes, the economy is moving so well after the tax cut: more than 3 million new jobs, more than 1 million just since the tax cut bill went through, we recently reached.

And the other challenge we now find ourselves in, and it is an interesting challenge we haven't found ourselves in in quite some time: there are 6.7 million jobs out there, but only 6.3 million people looking for them. It has been the reverse for quite some time, and we are actually in a stronger position, so we need to have job training.

The uniqueness of this farm bill, it provides those able bodies who do not have underage children, that we are going to give them the training to help them get into the workforce. So it is just more good news, and our intention is to pass that this month; and as soon as it is scheduled, I will inform all Members.

Well, I thank my friend for yielding, and this is just a clear example of the difference in philosophical opinion.

We had this same debate when it came to the tax bill--that it was going to be Armageddon; if people got bonuses, it would be crumbs; and that we would be in a really worse position than we are.

Well, as we found out, Mr. Speaker, that is totally untrue. The economy is stronger. Again, in the last 49 years there has only been 7 months in the history of America where unemployment was below 4 percent. Two of those seven months are April and May of this year. We just hit 1 million new jobs, based upon that tax cut. More so since the election. Household wealth has increased by $7 trillion just since the election.

Now, this is the philosophical difference. Currently, two-thirds of able-bodied adults report no earned income at all. Why?

Because the SNAP program is letting them down. Not a single child or family who currently qualifies will be cut off. Our proposal only applies to those age 18 to 59. It exempts pregnant women, individuals who are mentally or physically disabled, and the primary caregivers of a child under the age of 6. What we do is give them the job training to get back into the workforce.

Because of that, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability, 83 percent of Americans support work requirements for SNAP. That includes 71 percent of Democrats. Unfortunately, when that bill came to the floor, every Democrat said no.

Mr. Speaker, that was the same thing that happened when we gave the American public tax cuts and created new jobs and the lowest unemployment--unemployment claims gives you the best projection of unemployment--in 44 years. Forty-four years, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know another statistic that just came out?

Small businesses are the greatest creators of new jobs. Since 1974 they have always surveyed them and they asked them this question: Is now a good time to expand?

Mr. Speaker, remember what a small business is. They don't have a great amount of capital. It is at its highest level since they took this poll.

So I don't mind having a philosophical difference of agreement, because there is a contrast between us. There is a contrast in philosophy. One believes it would be Armageddon if you let people keep more of what they earn. The facts don't pan out. Thankfully, we were successful, Mr. Speaker. The American people can keep more.

The other thing that happened, Mr. Speaker, is that 48 out of 50 States have a lower electrical bill. Also, in one company, 1.2 million of their employees have longer maternity leave.

The sad part is, I wish I could have sat here and said: As America, making it a more perfect Union, this whole body voted for it. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, one side had to carry the load.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would be upset, too, if I voted against every economic bill brought to this floor that had the opportunity to grow America--and the statistics prove it.

It is not me saying it. It is The New York Times. To be frank, Mr. Speaker, I don't think they have ever said many nice things about Republicans. But this is what they said about the economics of today: ``We ran out of words to describe how good the job numbers are. The economy is in a sweet spot, with steady growth and broad improvement in the labor market.'' That is The New York Times.

I don't have a problem if you are upset by the fact that the economy is exactly what we said would happen if we got the economic changes we desired. Just as when we looked at deregulation, we will continue to make this move forward.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard many times on the other side of the aisle in these colloquies: Work with us. Work with us on CHIP.

But, Mr. Speaker, they are being directed by people higher up not to work with us in the committee, just as they said not to work with us on the farm bill, when we were working together the whole time. But we kept the things they wanted inside that bill.

Just as we voted on this floor a little earlier today, there was a message that went out from the leader on the other side to not vote at all. So they held their votes until it passed, and 23 brave, courageous individuals on the other side broke from the letter that the leadership asked them not to vote for.

What was it about?

It was about VA and veterans.

I think you have got to stop playing politics.

Just last night on this floor, Mr. Speaker, I heard from my dear friend who was very concerned because there was an agreement and the trust was going to be broken. Even though at the end of the day he couldn't vote for that agreement and trust that we worked so hard together on in an omni, that if we did anything in a rescission package to cut funding that the taxpayers would want us to do, that he couldn't deal with the omni.

So I took him at his word. He said: You had 1, 2, 3 years in these committees. They just sat there in these programs.

There is a program in there that has $4.7 billion parked by the Obama administration to help fund electric cars. What was the one automotive company that went bankrupt and took the money as well? Fisker. That is $4.7 billion. Nothing has been done on that since 2011.

So I took him at his word. We worked with the administration. We brought the largest rescission package here, because, yes, we want to take care of this debt. We think it is the responsibility of everybody here. But, no, those words rang hollow that day. There wasn't a vote for that, but we were able to pass it anyway.

I look right here at the Economic Cycle Research Institute in October 2016. It is their numbers. There was a 2 percent average growth under Obama versus 2.7 under Bush. In terms of average pace of GDP growth, Obama's was the slowest expansion on record. The numbers prove otherwise on what you say, but the most important thing it proves is that people are working. People care about the security of their job. People care about the security and safety of the country.

I feel very thankful that next week our President will be sitting down with the leader of North Korea with the hopes that we can make this world more secure.

We are building the security of jobs. We are building the security of the world. I would firmly believe: Let the American public judge whether they are better off today than they were a few short years ago.

I don't need numbers to show it. I can just see every statistic, the jobs, the people, and I am proud of that fact.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, the other side to follow through. I have heard time and again: I would never shut the government down; we wouldn't go that political. But when the day came, they did.

Politics and the election are over. Let's put people before politics. Let's make sure this country is secure economically and secure with safety around the world. And that is exactly what we are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I said it before, and I will say it again: Republicans are committed to solving this issue for good, not passing a bill and patting ourselves on the back, but for dealing with this issue in a meaningful way that is beneficial to hardworking Americans.

As you know, my door is always open. You have been there many times. I am committed to bringing all Members to the table and working together to solve this problem.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I need to go to a meeting dealing with this subject. I am late to it right now. But we will continue to work to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 934 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule provides for consideration of three bills intended to give our country more necessary tools to tackle the opioid crisis.

The three bills this rule makes in order today were all reported favorably by their committees. H.R. 5735, the Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments Demonstration Program Act, was the subject of a hearing by the Committee on Financial Services on April 17 and was reported favorably on May 22 with a bipartisan vote of 34 ``yes'' votes.

H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, was the subject of hearing by the Committee on the Judiciary in June of 2017, and was reported favorably in July of 2017 by a unanimous voice vote.

The final bill made in order by this bill is H.R. 5788, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, which was reported favorably in May with a unanimous voice vote.

Together, these three bills provide the foundation of the House's legislative response this week to the opioid crisis which is wrecking lives and communities across this country.

Mr. Speaker, the eastern plains of Colorado has been my home for many decades. I often refer to the area as God's country. It is full of goodhearted, hardworking people who care for their families and neighbors. Many of these people work the land and provide services to those who do. They farm, they ranch, they produce energy resources, they transport livestock.

And when hardship and disaster strikes, neighbors move heaven and Earth to help each other. They grieve over loss and bear each other's burdens. However, it is not an unfamiliar refrain to hear that in the heart of this God's country is a disease plaguing our people.

All across this land, in rural towns, suburban developments, and urban neighborhoods, abuse of opioids is wrecking people's lives. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 64,000 Americans died of a drug overdose in 2016. Of that number, 65 percent, or 42,000 of those deaths, were directly related to the opioid epidemic. That means that every day 115 people die due to opioids.

While those are astounding numbers, it helps to compare with past figures. In 2000, 8,400 people died due to opioid abuse. These recent numbers indicate a nearly 500 percent increase. That is shocking and sad.

Colorado has not been spared from the opioid crisis. In fact, the CDC reports that in 2015 alone, Colorado saw 159 heroin overdose deaths in addition to the 259 prescription drug overdoses. This is particularly harmful to my district, with 8 of the 17 counties in Colorado exhibiting the highest overdose death rates being in eastern Colorado.

As some of these figures indicate, our opioid crisis is not just prescription drug abuse. While many who are caught in the cycle of abuse began with prescriptions, the availability and accessibility of heroin has perpetuated and intensified the crisis.

Most of the heroin on our Nation's streets comes into the United States through Mexico. It is distributed via cities like Denver in a ruthlessly efficient manner. An entire delivery system is established in which orders can be placed through a central operator, essentially a franchisee of the cartels, who dispatches a delivery driver to the purchaser.

In February of this year, Detective Nick Rogers of the Denver Police Department testified before the Judiciary Committee how criminal operations flow north through Mexico and from other places such as Honduras and Nicaragua. Heroin dealers enter our country illegally with fake identification from Mexico and establish these distribution networks in neighborhoods.

In the past, our law enforcement officers were able to apprehend these criminals and have them deported. Recently, however, local government policies have been having a negative impact on these police operations. Places like Denver have instituted so-called sanctuary policies that prohibit local law enforcement from working with Federal immigration authorities. The effect has been that law enforcement officers, such as Detective Rogers, apprehend the same drug dealers over and over and over again. They are prohibited from contacting Federal immigration officers to help control this scourge. This is confounding to many of us. We should be facing this crisis using every tool at our disposal.

We could continue discussing at length how sanctuary policies--while well-intentioned and sounding humanitarian--are having a profoundly negative impact in relation to opioid abuse. But there is other work that needs to be done to stand in the gap against this onslaught of bad actors.

Mr. Speaker, in 2016 Congress passed and the President signed into law the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. CARA was the most comprehensive addiction treatment legislation passed by the Federal Government in several decades. It coordinated Federal response with State and local efforts to prevent, treat, help recover, and provide justice to those who are suffering under the impacts of opioid abuse.

While that bill was a good step, the bills before us today continue to organize Federal efforts to meet this public health and legal crisis.

The first two bills deal with a gap in Federal law that has been exposed by this crisis and exploited by international crime organizations. That gap is synthetic drugs. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, there are more than 300 known designer synthetic drugs, and this number grows with each passing year.

The gap in Federal law occurs because the Controlled Substances Act was not designed to deal with the ever-changing compounds that have resulted in more than 300 synthetic drugs. It currently takes us about 3 years to complete the process of placing a substance on the banned substance list. If we attempted to ban each drug as it was discovered, in the time it would take for our government to complete its action, criminal gangs would simply change the molecular structure just enough to avoid our laws, and we would be forced to start the process over again.

Because of this scenario, H.R. 2851 sets up a streamlined process for temporarily placing a synthetic drug on the illegal list. This will empower the Attorney General to respond quickly to criminal drug manufacturers in China and Mexico who work continuously to stay ahead of our drug laws.

Not only do we work to streamline the process of banning a substance in the United States, we also are working to prevent substances from reaching our shores in the first place.

H.R. 5788 requires the Postal Service to obtain advance electronic data on international mail shipments and transmit this data to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP. Under current law, private shippers, including express delivery carriers, are required to collect and submit this same information to CBP. Because current law does not require this information of the United States Postal Service, we have a significant vulnerability that allows criminal operations to ship synthetics and other contraband directly to the United States with relative ease.

This legislation simply closes a loophole by extending the requirement to the United States Postal Service. The data collected will allow CBP to target high-risk shipments, particularly shipments containing synthetics, for inspection and possible seizure.

The first two bills deal with bad actors overseas. The final bill attempts to help those afflicted by opioid abuse transition back to normal life. H.R. 5735 creates a pilot program in which a portion of existing housing vouchers are set aside for transitional housing for those who are undergoing opioid use disorder or other substance abuse disorder recovery.

In March of 2017, President Trump established a commission to strategize on how to combat drug addiction and opioid abuse. The final report of that commission said: ``There is a critical shortage of recovery housing for Americans in or pursuing recovery. Recovery residences are alcohol and drug-free living environments for individuals seeking the skills and social support to remain free of alcohol or other drugs and live a life of recovery in the community.''

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes individuals who complete recovery programs reenter life having lost everything. They are in danger of falling right back into the rhythms of their previous life which could lead them back into addiction. This bill ensures that they have a supportive housing situation to help them become reestablished in their community.

Over the course of the next week, we are going to pass nearly 30 bills dealing with aspects of the Federal response to the opioid crisis. These three bills today take major steps toward keeping the flow of drugs out of our country and helping those who are caught in the cycle of dependency become successful members of society again.

I know I speak for my community when I say that we need to be active in combating the scourge of opioid abuse. The flow of opioids and synthetics into our country from overseas must end. The lives of many of our loved ones depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, I support passage of these bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), my friend and the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further witnesses. I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year due to opioid abuse. What started as an epidemic of prescription drug abuse has led into a resurgence in heroin addiction and synthetic drug abuse. The easy availability of these drugs has led to widespread abuse and death.

My home of eastern Colorado has been particularly hard-hit by this affliction. In the most recent statistics available, more than 400 Coloradoans have died of opioid and synthetic overdose. This number is devastating enough on its own, but it does not include the many other lives that are wrecked and torn apart from this curse.

We know many of the bad actors. We know China and Mexico, in particular, are deadly merchants in this sickening trade. Anything that we can do to block these goods from entering our country we should do. Our neighbors, our children, our loved ones deserve a fighting chance. These bills today form yet another defense against the opioid crisis in America.

I want to thank Chairman Sessions, Chairman Brady, Chairman Hensarling, and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing these bills forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule, supporting the underlying bills, and standing in the gap in defense of our communities that are ravaged by this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be on the floor today regarding a bill that we have been negotiating for many months and that deals with an incredibly important topic: the opioid epidemic that is having a devastating impact across the country.

Despite current efforts, this opioid epidemic continues to ravage our communities. Every day in this country, 115 Americans lose their lives to opioids--painkillers. In 2016, my home State of New Jersey alone experienced 2,056 lives lost to this epidemic. The New Jersey Attorney General predicts that it will be 3,000 this year.

This legislation addresses one aspect of the crisis: synthetic opioids making their way into homes across the country through the mail. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, China is the primary source of the fentanyl that enters this country. Fentanyl is often sold online and then shipped to the United States in small quantities, making it very difficult to detect.

I saw firsthand the way that the U.S. Postal Service and Customs is working together to stop the flow of synthetic opioids coming in through international mail. I visited a mail facility in Secaucus, New Jersey, with representatives from these agencies and the Food and Drug Administration. I know that the Postal Service receives an overwhelming volume of mail and they are working hard with limited resources to screen shipments. But we have some clear strategies that we can employ to create an effective system for targeting shipments that have a risk of containing these opioids, namely collecting advance electronic data, AED, on all packages that enter the United States.

The information contained in the AED typically includes the name and address of the shipper and recipient, as well as the contents of the package. CBP, Customs and Border Protection, uses this information to identify packages that may pose a risk. Customs can then place a hold on the shipment and notify carriers that a package must be presented for examination.

Private carriers have been required to collect this information since 2002, but we made the Postal Service exempt from this requirement. As a result, it has become the preferred method for shipping illicit materials, including opioids, into the United States.

The version of the STOP Act that we are considering today is an amended version of the original act, which was introduced back in 2017. We had 271 sponsors on that legislation.

The old STOP Act would have required the United States Postal Service to collect 100 percent of that information within 1 year or face penalties of up to $5,000 for every package for which it failed to do so. A number of stakeholders raised concerns with this approach, so we worked with them, including the Postal Service and their unions, to try to arrive at a workable solution.

As a result of these discussions and consultations, we have been able to make a number of important changes. The legislation on the floor today makes a number of significant changes that address the concerns raised by stakeholders.

First, this bill allows more time for the United States Postal Service to come into compliance. The United States Postal Service will have until the end of 2020 to transmit the AED on all international mail delivered to the United States.

This legislation includes a waiver that excludes countries that lack capacity to collect that information and pose a low risk of violating U.S. laws from the 100 percent requirement. As a result, the United States Postal Service will not be penalized for issues that are outside its control and should be able to comply with its international commitments.

Second, the amended legislation removes the requirement that the United States Postal Service hire a broker for every package that enters into the United States, saving costs and ensuring they can receive inbound mail under its current practices.

Finally, the legislation provides for a more nuanced approach to United States Postal Service penalties. Customs is required to reduce or eliminate penalties if the Postal Service does one of three things: it cooperates with Customs, it has a high compliance rate, or it takes remedial measures.

These changes were proposed by the United States Postal Service to address its concerns regarding the penalties provision. So as a practical matter, these changes mean that, if the Postal Service continues its current work, penalties will likely never be imposed. Further, the legislation does not allow penalties to be considered until 2021.

I would also like to highlight language in the bill directing the Customs and Border Protection to provide an annual report on the individuals and the companies that are not providing this information and the manner in which it imposes penalties. Requiring the CBP to report this useful information on violators and violator penalty assessments I believe will enhance the interdiction of prohibited items from entering the United States through express consignment operators.

This revised bill has support from a variety of public safety and public health groups, as well as the National Conference of State Legislatures. Just before we started today, the Fraternal Order of Police sent a supporting letter in support of this. This is good news for both sides of the aisle.

This revised bill has support from a variety of public safety and public health groups. Despite the significant changes, I understand that some of the stakeholders remain opposed, and we should understand that. We tried to work with those who have opposed. I respect the continued concerns that these stakeholders have articulated and look forward to working with them going forward.

However, with the changes that we have been able to incorporate into this legislation on a bipartisan basis, I believe that the current legislation provides an aggressive but workable approach to the United States Postal Service. I strongly support the legislation, Mr. Speaker, on the floor today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers on my side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I plead with you and my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle. I think we are making a big step today in this piece of legislation. I know there are other pieces.

I would recommend, Mr. Speaker, that we approach this deadly epidemic--and it is deadly--in the same way that we approached the epidemic at the end of the eighties and the early nineties, and that was the epidemic of the HIV virus. No one wanted to talk about it, Mr. Speaker, so people died when they could have been saved if we had had knowledge of prevention, if we had had knowledge of how we take care of those folks.

It took us until the beginning of the nineties, until we opened up local clinics, until people felt less involved in a stigma. Then they had to come out from the shadows to protect the rest of the population, including themselves. Then we came together, and the Federal Government passed the Ryan White legislation, which has been a big help on the HIV virus. Then we came together.

Unfortunately, maladies bring Americans together. Well, that is good that we do come together, though.

I ask and plead that we have the same vigor in approaching opiates and approaching fentanyl, which is coming in from other countries. If we do that, we will not only survive; we will help those--and we will prevent many from falling into the trap. You have heard some people talk about that trap today, starting with painkillers and moving on to even more dangerous drugs.

We are going to get through this. We are going to get through this. Yesterday we passed by voice vote legislation to change the protocol on how we approach the patients, not only in the emergency rooms of America, but in many departments and hospitals across the United States. We need to find alternatives to the very opiates that are making fools of us. Those alternatives shall be part of the solution, part of the solution to getting to the promised land, as the gentleman says.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Bishop. I want to thank Mr. Brady. I want to thank my good friend from Massachusetts, Richie Neal, and all of those who worked on this legislation: David Reichert and many more. I congratulate our persistence in getting through a lot of hurdles.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.