H.Res. 934

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Marino, and I want to make it very clear that we have spent a lot of time in the Judiciary Committee, in this Congress, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, on almost every other bill in stemming the tide, the rage, the horror of opioid addiction.

Mr. Chairman, I have lived through crack cocaine addiction and heroin addiction, and now heroin has returned, itself. I have watched my constituents in these low-drug offenses wind up not getting treatment and wind up getting the devastation of mass incarceration.

Frankly, if this bill had listed the synthetic analogues on schedule A and provided the science to determine what they were, this would be a bill that the whole House could support, but that is not the case.

And so I raise concerns that I hope this House will listen to and recognize that opportunities to fix this legislation as we move to the Senate would make this the kind of response that has been consistent with the view that the incarceration of an opioid-addicted person and/ or those who are limited sellers does not bring us to where we need to be.

Mr. Chair, I rise to discuss the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017, which establishes a mechanism by which synthetic drugs can be temporarily and permanently controlled to curtail illicit manufacturing, importation, and distribution. H.R. 2851 would also establish new Federal crimes related to the misuse of controlled substances identified in the bill.

I am acutely concerned about the dangers presented by drugs like fentanyl and its synthetic analogues that have contributed to a disturbing number of overdose deaths, even in my home district of Houston.

This bill, while well-intended, is flawed for several reasons. First, it eliminates the use of scientific evidence by which synthetic analogues are currently analyzed.

Under current law, the Attorney General must work in collaboration with drugs experts at the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the permanent scheduling process. Absent collaboration of the scientific community, the AG, under this bill, will have sole discretion to unilaterally determine which drugs are a schedule A substance.

This is alarming because arbitrary scheduling of substances without verifiable data will undoubtedly create disproportionate incarcerations of low-level drug offenders.

Second, this bill overcriminalizes drug offenders, many of whom are in dire need of support in their battles with addiction, substance abuse, and mental illness. We recognize this is an alarming epidemic and the need for medical treatment is very important.

Third, although we know that synthetic analogues are often manufactured and mixed with heroin outside the country--namely, China-- and where users and sellers here may lack knowledge, this bill heightens the penalties, nonetheless.

In June 2016, the head of the DEA, Chuck Rosenberg, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that: ``Illicit fentanyl, fentanyl derivatives and their immediate precursors are often produced in China.'' By the time the drugs enter the United States, where they are sold, he said, buyers and sellers are often unaware of the composition and potency of the drugs.

Fourth, this bill amends the Federal sentencing guidelines without the input of the United States Sentencing Commission, which recently underwent a robust examination of synthetic drugs and penalties.

The bill disregards the jurisdictional authority granted by Congress to the Commission back in 1984. The Commission is a nonpartisan, independent body which sets sentencing guidelines for Federal judges.

Since the introduction of this bill, the Commission approved a multipart synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018, which included extensive public comment, expert testimony, and a multiyear data analysis.

The Commission's recent amendment reflects the evolving nature of these synthetic drugs, creates a class-based approach, establishes a new drug ratio and a new guideline penalty for fentanyl analogues that will promote uniformity in Federal sentencing. We should, therefore, allow this more thorough and data-driven process to come to completion, absent interruption by the Attorney General, as provided in the bill.

And lastly, this bill imposes mandatory minimum terms of supervised release of not less than 3 years in addition to imprisonment, and not less than 6 years if there was a prior conviction.

Furthermore, the bill also appears to impose mandatory minimum sentencing. Current law requires that if a controlled substance analogue is intended for human consumption, it shall be treated as a schedule I substance, 21

U.S.C. 813. Because the analogue would be treated as a schedule I drug, the penalty of such drugs is not less than 20 years mandatory minimum if death or serious bodily injury occurs.

Under 21 U.S.C. 802(32) a controlled substance analogue is:

A substance (i) the chemical structure of which is

substantially similar to the chemical structure of a

controlled substance in schedule I and II;

(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic

effect on the central nervous system.

Under this bill, a schedule A drug is a substance that has a chemical structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of the controlled substance in schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, an actual or predicted stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system.

The penalty for such drugs under this bill is not more than 10 years, no mandatory minimum, and if serious bodily injury occurs, not more than 15.

Therefore, if the composition of a schedule A drug is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a substance in schedule I or II, then we have a mandatory minimum problem, unless the bill explicitly says in its penalty provision that a schedule I penalty is not triggered by placement of a substance in schedule A.

This creates great ambiguity with respect to sentencing because the vague language leaves an endless number of individuals exposed to mandatory minimum and, of course, mass incarceration.

Given the number of new drugs out there and the constant evolving nature of these synthetic drugs, it is unknown at this point and unfair in this bill's framework the number of drugs that will trigger a mandatory minimum sentence.

If we are committed to giving treatment, if we are committed to stopping the mass incarceration and steering people away from the use of opioid drugs, that will be the preferable approach: to take note of the fact that they are on schedule A, to provide the scientific background, and to then allow the existing sentencing structure to proceed.

Mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses gave birth to an explosion in our prison population. It is responsible for many of our criminal justice deficiencies. It is really the reason why we are fighting for sentencing reduction.

Congress acknowledged this as a devastating policy approach and, as a result, passed the Fair Sentencing Act. Inclusion of new mandatory minimum sentencing is particularly egregious because these inflexible one-size sentencing laws undermine justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses, like the 19-year-old seller who, as the DEA Administrator said, may not have even known that it was laced.

Mandatory sentencing laws have caused Federal prison populations to soar, destroying families and communities, and led to overcrowding and exorbitant costs to taxpayers.

And so I ask my colleagues, let us work together to work on the bill before us and focus it on ways that get to the dastardliness of synthetic analogues but, as well, responds mercifully to the increasing incarceration of persons through mandatory minimums and the lack of using the United States Sentencing Commission's guidelines.

Mr. Chair. H.R. 2851, ``Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017,'' establishes a mechanism by which synthetic drugs can be temporarily and permanently controlled to curtail illicit manufacturing, importation and distribution.

H.R. 2851 would also establish new federal crimes related to the misuse of controlled substances identified in the bill.

I am acutely concerned about the dangers presented by drugs like fentanyl and its synthetic analogues that have contributed to a disturbing number of overdose deaths, even in my home district of Houston.

This bill while well-intended, is flawed for several reasons: First, it eliminates the use of scientific evidence by which synthetic analogues are currently analyzed.

Under current law, the Attorney General must work in collaboration with drug experts at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of the permanent scheduling process.

Absent collaboration of the scientific community, the AG, under this bill, would have sole discretion, to unilaterally determine which drugs are Schedule A substance.

This is alarming because arbitrary scheduling of substances without verifiable data, will undoubtedly create disproportionate incarceration of low-level drug offenders.

Second, this bill over criminalizes drug offenders, many of whom are in dire need of support in their battles with addiction, substance abuse and mental illness.

We recognize this as an alarming epidemic, and the need for medical treatment, which is why we appropriated an exuberant amount of money towards the opioid crisis in our recent omnibus bill which passed in the House.

Third, although we know that synthetic analogues are often manufactured and mixed with heroin outside the country, namely China, and where users and sellers here may lack knowledge, this bill heightens the penalties nonetheless.

In June 2016, the head of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that, ``Illicit fentanyl, fentanyl derivatives, and their immediate precursors are often produced in China.''

By the time the drugs enter the United States, where they are sold, he said, buyers and sellers are often unaware of the composition and potency of the drugs.

Fourth, this bill amends the federal sentencing guidelines without the input of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (Commission), which recently underwent a robust examination of synthetic drugs and penalties.

The bill disregards the jurisdictional authority granted by Congress to the Commission back in 1984.

The Commission is a non-partisan, independent body, which sets sentencing guidelines for federal judges.

Since the introduction of this bill, the Commission approved a multi- part synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018, which included extensive public comment, expert testimony and a multi-year, data analysis.

The Commission's recent amendment reflects the evolving nature of these new synthetic drugs, creates a class-based approach, establishes new drug ratios and a new guideline penalty for fentanyl analogues that will promote uniformity in federal sentencing.

We should therefore, allow this more thorough and data-driven process to come to completion, absent interruption by the Attorney General as provided in this bill.

And lastly, this bill imposes mandatory minimum terms of supervised release of not less than 3 years in addition to imprisonment, and not less than 6 years if there was a prior conviction.

Furthermore, the bill also appears to impose mandatory minimum sentencing.

Current law requires that if a controlled substance analogue is intended for human consumption, it shall be treated as a schedule I substance. (21 USC 813).

Because the analogue would be treated as a schedule I drug, the penalty for such drugs is not less than 20 years (mandatory minimum) if death or serious bodily injury occurs.

Under 21 USC 802(32), a ``controlled substance analogue'' is: A substance (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; (ii) Which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system. . . .

Under this bill, a Schedule A drug is a substance that has a Chemical structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I, II, III, IV or V; and

An actual or predicted stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system. . . .

The penalty for such drugs under this bill is not more than 10 years (no mandatory minimum), and if serious bodily injury occur, not more than 15 years.

Therefore, if the composition of a schedule A drug is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a substance in schedule I or II, then we have a mandatory minimum problem, unless the bill explicitly says in its penalty provision, that a schedule I penalty is not triggered by placement of a substance on schedule A.

This creates great ambiguity with respect to sentencing, because the vague language leaves endless number of individuals exposed to mandatory minimum sentencing.

Given the number of new drugs out there, and the constant evolving nature of these synthetic drugs, it is unknown at this point and under this bill's framework, the number of drugs that will trigger a mandatory minimum sentence.

Mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses gave birth to the explosion in our prison population, and is responsible for many of our criminal justice system's deficiencies. Thus, we cannot return there again.

Congress acknowledged this as a devastating policy approach, and as a result, passed of the Fair Sentencing Act.

Inclusion of a new mandatory minimum sentence, is particularly egregious because these inflexible, one-size sentencing laws undermine

justice by preventing judges from fitting the punishment to the individual and the circumstances of their offenses.

Mandatory sentencing laws have caused federal prison populations to soar, destroyed families and communities, and led to overcrowding and exorbitant costs to taxpayers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have further speakers?

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

We all want to do good, and all of us have had our tragedies as it relates to the use of drugs by the innocent. As I listened to my colleagues, they are right: The heinous persons are those who are the major exporters and the hardened drug dealers.

We want to save lives. I think we found over the last couple of months and past years that enhancing the research and providing treatment for those very individuals who have succumbed will provide us with that pathway.

In the instance of the underlying bill, I would hope that we would have the opportunity to get the bad guys. But in the instance of the way it is constructed, SITSA will worsen the mass incarceration of drug offenders; it will expand the use of harsh maximum sentences for drug offenses; and the bill creates new penalties for thousands of synthetic drugs, calling for maximum sentences of 10, 20, 30 years, or life imprisonment.

The carve-out for possession does not define quantities that would constitute possession and will not prevent many people who possess small quantities or sell drugs to support their own addiction from getting slammed by draconian new penalties in SITSA.

So we have addicted persons who sell on the streets of our neighborhoods. They need treatment. That is what we should be focusing on. SITSA will punish people who lack criminal culpability. This bill will disproportionately increase low-level drug offenders who did not import or package the drug and often are unaware of the chemical composition of the drugs, as the DEA Administrator indicated in his testimony before the Senate that most of the sellers would not know that there had been traces of other drugs in that particular drug they were selling.

SITSA is unnecessary because the Attorney General can already ban synthetic drugs. This was demonstrated earlier this year when the Attorney General used powers already granted by the Congress to place illicit fentanyl analogues not already regulated by the Controlled Substances Act into schedule I for 3 years, allowing time to pursue permanent scheduling.

Through rulemaking, at a congressional hearing last month, Acting Administrator Patterson indicated: This mass scheduling action addressed concern that prosecutors can't convict people for trafficking synthetic drugs.

Finally, SITSA has devastating impacts on scientific research. Many synthetic drugs share chemical properties with drugs that have been known to have therapeutic uses, such as opioids. Under SITSA, once a drug has been added to schedule A, many of the same hurdles that apply to conducting research with schedule I drugs will apply to substances added to proposed schedule A.

These burdens will be costly and time consuming. Some of them are research dealing with how do you stop this addiction, how do you stop people's proclivity for addiction. So this burden is costly and time consuming to the research and host institutions and will have a chilling effect on promising research towards the development of opioid addiction therapies and safer medications to treat pain that are desperately needed to help end the ongoing opioid overdose crisis.

While SITSA provides some relief for researchers who already have a schedule I or II, there are many difficulties that we are facing.

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chair, while SITSA provides some relief for researchers who already have a schedule I or II registration to proceed with schedule A research, SITSA does not provide accommodations necessary to ensure researchers can obtain drug

samples for research. Commercial manufacturers are not likely to produce schedule A drugs.

Provisions in SITSA intended to ease registration requirements will help little when researchers access the drug material they need to study the therapeutic potential.

Here is the main point. The main point is that researchers are researching how to cease the addiction that is killing so many. Low- level sellers are caught up under this bill; and, as indicated by the DEA, they, too, are victims. It is well known that the idea of mass incarceration does not solve the problem of addiction or cause the ending of the tragic loss of life.

I hurt for those suffering from addiction, and it is important to be able to utilize our government knowledge to help that end, and the Sentencing Commission has done that.

The difficulty we have is whether or not this bill, even though from Judiciary, really bears down on saving lives. What we want to do is raise the treatment, deal with those already structured to handle the listing of analogues, and work with communities to ensure that the laws we have are enforced and that we don't create a whole new population of those who will be victims of mass incarceration and, at the same time, do nothing to treat those who desperately need our help, our support, and our resources to move them away from addiction, to save their lives, and to allow them to live fruitful and productive lives.

That is what I hope that we will be able to do as we move forward on the right approach to dealing with drug addiction and the new surge of synthetic drugs.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire if the gentleman from Pennsylvania has any further speakers.

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

Mr. Chair, we hope that we will be able to work together to save lives and to fix the issues that we are addressing here today.

Mr. Chair, we all want to solve the escalating problems of synthetic drugs, which permeate throughout our districts.

Therefore, our initial reaction would be to naturally support this endeavor.

However, while well-intended, this bill highlights many problems and does not fulfill the overall goal of stemming the tide of drugs on our streets.

We must exercise prudence, as to not further exacerbate the crisis of mass incarceration and punish those that need help with substance abuse and whom this bill purports to help.

Because this bill would concentrate an overwhelming amount of unchecked power within DOJ, eliminate scientific and medical analysis and interagency collaboration from the process of scheduling synthetic analogues, and expand penalties for drug offenses, I have serious concerns about H.R. 2851.

The bill is strongly opposed by a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including Freedom Works, Drug Policy Alliance, Families Against Mandatory Minimum, ACLU, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of Churches, Human Rights Watch, The Sentencing Project and many others.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just very quickly thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and Mr. Griffith. I am delighted to join them, and I will simply say it is equally essential that science has a role in this very complex process to ensure the appropriate penalties are being applied based on compositions of the synthetic drugs involved.

I congratulate both of them for the excellent work that has been done, and I am delighted to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Griffith/Raskin/Jackson Lee Amendment. The amendment will reflect the current process under existing law.

Under current law, the Attorney General must work collaboratively with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its experts in the scientific community, in order to determine best practices for the permanent scheduling process.

Given the variation in toxicity levels in many of these synthetic drugs, it is imperative that the research community be involved in the process to ensure accuracy of defining the chemical structure of these drugs or substances.

It is equally essential that science have a role in this very complex process to ensure the appropriate penalties are being applied based on compositions of the synthetic drugs involved.

At markup I made it clear that we should not proceed with this bill absent involvement from the scientific community.

Today, I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this amendment with my colleagues Griffith and Raskin.

In addition to restoring collaboration with the research community, this amendment also provides that permanent scheduling cannot occur earlier than 3 years after the Attorney General issues a temporary scheduling order.

This allows the scientific community time to address any pending issues that pertain to the drugs temporarily scheduled and prior to placing them on schedule A permanently.

If the research finds that these temporarily scheduled drugs lack sufficient potential for abuse that would qualify such drugs under schedule A, then this amendment provides that the Attorney General has 30 days in which he must terminate the temporary scheduling order for that drug or substance.

This is a sensible amendment that will provide oversight of the scheduling process. And for these reasons, I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It restores the commission's jurisdiction over the

Federal sentencing guidelines as originally granted by Congress in 1984.

The United States Sentencing Commission has been working to address the seriousness and complexity of synthetic drugs for several years. If I might refer my colleagues to the April 12 meeting of the Sentencing Commission where the chairman began his remarks and indicated that the commission was going to move forward on a multipart amendment regarding synthetic drugs, which will include but be not limited to K2 or spice, fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.

This amendment draws upon public comment, expert testimony, and data analysis gathered during a multiyear study of synthetic drugs. That is what the Sentencing Commission does, and my amendment asks to remove the section in this underlying legislation that directs this responsibility to the Attorney General.

The process that was created by the Sentencing Commission created a new guideline definition of the term fentanyl analogue. The change effectively raises the guideline penalties for fentanyl analogues to a level more consistent with the current statutory penalty structure to address the severe dangerousness of fentanyl.

The amendment also creates a four-level sentencing enhancement for knowingly misrepresenting or knowingly marketing fentanyl or fentanyl analogues as another substance which equates to an approximate 50 percent increase in sentence length.

What I am saying to my colleagues is that we have a structure. The report was issued on April 2018. The Sentencing Commission has done its job, and I think that we would do well to embrace the work that has been done here. The commission's recent amendment creates a class-based approach for synthetic drugs, establishes new drug ratios, and a new guideline for fentanyl analogues, so it is unnecessary to have section 9 in the present legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and, as well, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. We worked on this, and I am glad that our staff was able to communicate.

I think it is important to emphasize that, going forward, the Sentencing Commission will continue its multiyear study to ensure that the Federal sentencing guidelines are updated to reflect any new challenges resulting from these serious drugs and that they be addressed in the Federal sentencing guidelines.

Consistent with its mission established by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the commission will also work to update guidelines on an annual basis to reflect any new needs that we may have with respect to these new and growing synthetic analogues and other drugs that are continually coming, tragically, into the marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a public data presentation for synthetic drugs, dated January 2018; also the April 2018 report; and, as well, the opening statement of the chairman of the Sentencing Commission dated April 12, 2018.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee amendment, which restores the Commission's jurisdiction over the federal sentencing guidelines, as originally granted by Congress.

The United States Sentencing Commission has been working to address the seriousness and complexity of synthetic drugs for several years.

Since this legislation was introduced, the Sentencing Commission approved a multi-part synthetic drugs amendment in April 2018.

The Commission conducted extensive research of past cases and current data, held multiple hearings and engaged in extensive collaboration with DOJ, DEA and experts to determine the best manner to address these drugs within the context of the federal sentencing guidelines.

The Commission's recent amendment creates a class-based approach for synthetic drugs, establishes new drug ratios and a new guideline penalty for fentanyl analogues.

Consistent with the established process, the recent amendment reflected a deliberative, data-driven process which included extensive public comment, expert testimony and data analysis gathered during a multi-year study of synthetic drugs.

Section 9 of H.R. 2851 should be struck from the pending legislation because: It is unnecessary, overly broad and duplicative of the Commission's existing action. Section 9 will result in greater litigation and delays for the federal courts. This section would also undermine the certainty in federal sentencing for synthetic drugs that would otherwise be avoided based on the Commission's new amendment. Congress delegated the authority to amend the federal sentencing guidelines two decades ago in order to ensure fair, data-driven outcomes in federal sentencing. This provision is an unprecedented and unnecessary departure from the process that has worked well since established by Congress in 1984.

Going forward, the Commission will continue its multi-year study to ensure that the federal sentencing guidelines are updated to reflect any new challenges resulting from these serious drugs are addressed in the federal sentencing guidelines.

Consistent with its mission established by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Commission will also work to update the guidelines on an annual basis to reflect any new laws enacted by Congress.

For all these reasons, I support this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for capturing the scourge of the epidemic of online drug sales that reach into the living rooms of so many innocent persons, and my sympathy for the loss of one of our heroes who wore the uniform.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment as contributing to the important information knowledge chain that is so necessary to families to help stop this scourge of going after innocent persons in their homes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 4 proposed by the gentleman from Texas.

The amendment adds a list of factors that may be considered when proving whether a particular substance was intended for human consumption.

I oppose this amendment for two reasons.

First, because criminal liability could result from one of the factors being proven merely under a negligent standard. Only whether the defendant should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhaling, ingestion, or any other immediate means, it is not an appropriate standard to which we should attach criminal liability, particularly severe consequences such as mandatory minimums.

Now, I have indicated that we have an action by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that took place on April 2018. We have a detailed analysis of the range of analogues, synthetic analogues, including K2, spice, and other fentanyl analogues, but not limited to. Therefore, we have a marker. We have a standard to save lives. And what we should be emphasizing, again, is treatment.

Second, this amendment actually makes it easier to trigger mandatory minimums. For instance, a defendant could be subjected to a 20-year mandatory minimum in instances where serious bodily harm injury results. I am opposed to amendment 4 because defendants could be subjected to such mandatory minimums relying, in part, on proof that they should have known a substance was intended for human consumption.

Now, let me be very clear. Some of these individuals who are defendants are, themselves, addicted, and, therefore, they are acting as an addicted person. It is not an excuse, but it emphasizes that we should steer ourselves more toward a maximizing of treatment and education to stop the scourge of the utilization of these drugs.

That is clearly, as well, taken care of under the U.S. Sentencing Commission, meaning that these concerns of the gentleman, which I respect his concerns, are taken care of by a long list of responses and sentencing for the different drugs that are noted as synthetic analogues. Again, we do have a basis going forward. The gentleman's concerns can be taken care of in already established law and policies by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

I have long opposed any laws that will trigger mandatory minimums because we have seen the results of that. We have also heard over time from the U.S. judicial commission, if you will, because this takes away a judge's discretion and interferes with their sound judgment in sentencing the individual defendants that appear before them. Therefore, I oppose amendment No. 4.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Rules Committee for allowing my amendment to be placed in order. I also believe that, at this point, we would do well to follow regular order to save lives and to continue to allow the Sentencing Commission to move forward as they made their commitment in the chairman's letter. The chairman of the commission said that they will not stop working on synthetic analogues and that they will continue to structure the right kind of criminal justice that works as it relates to sentencing to ensure that the concerns of my colleague are taken.

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

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

Mr. Chair, again, let me indicate that I appreciate the gentleman's concern. I am concerned that simply a negligence standard would be the standard for judging a defendant under this particular amendment: should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhaling, injection, or any other immediate means. That is not an appropriate standard that would attach criminal liability and particularly severe consequences such as a mandatory minimum.

Again, I am holding up one of the reports from the Sentencing Commission, and I would make the argument that it is thorough in its review, and our colleagues can be comforted by the fact that, again, the Sentencing Commission will continue its work and it will continue to address some of the concerns of my friend from Texas. I would hope that we would allow that process to proceed.

I think it would be very concerning to all of us if we had a negligence standard. I believe the courts will address the fact based upon the defendant and the facts that we have in place.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and oppose the underlying bill

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to Amendment 13, proposed by Mr. Thornberry. The amendment adds a list of factors that may be considered when proving whether a particular substance was intended for human consumption. I oppose this amendment for two reasons:

First, because criminal liability could result from one of the factors being proven merely under a negligence standard--only whether the defendant should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhalation, ingestion or any other immediate means. It is not an appropriate standard

to which we should attach criminal liability, particularly, severe consequences, such as mandatory minimums.

Second, this amendment actually makes it easier to trigger mandatory minimums. For instance, a defendant could be subjected to a 20-year mandatory minimum in instances where serious bodily injury results. I am opposed to Amendment 13 because defendants could be subjected to such mandatory minimums relying in part on proof that they should have known a substance was intended for ``human consumption''.

I have long been opposed to any laws that trigger mandatory minimums because they take away judges' discretion and interfere with their sound judgment in sentencing the individual defendants that appear before them. Therefore, I oppose Amendment 13.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I sat here and I listened to Congressman Hensarling, the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where I serve as ranking member, I thought to myself he was absolutely correct on many of the issues that he surfaced when he held the letter up in the air and he said that there are many Members of Congress who could tell similar stories or maybe have gotten similar letters. He is absolutely correct.

Even more than that, there are many of us who have watched the devastation of communities that we represent because of drug addiction over the years for a long time. Unfortunately, many of these stories ended in tragedy, and I am pleased that we are focusing time and attention on opioid addiction and abuse.

I am so absolutely thrilled that we are paying attention, and we are recognizing that this is literally a disease and that we can help people, that we can do rehabilitation, that we can provide resources to keep people from dying and being imprisoned and treated in ways that will not help deal with the problem in any real ways. I am pleased about all of that, and I think the intentions of many of our Members are very good, that they really want to do something because many of them are seeing this for the first time.

But let me tell you how many years I have been seeing this. Let me tell you about how many deaths I know about. Let me tell you about the imprisonment of those who were both addicted and dealing drugs. Let me tell you about those who have died not only from heroin, that you are seeing now, but crack cocaine and other kinds of drugs and the mixtures that we don't even know about that have caused so many deaths, so much devastation.

So I want to do everything that I can to share my knowledge with you, to share my experiences with you, to help in every way that I possibly can move to credible, reasonable, sensible, rehabilitation and support and assistance for those who are addicted.

We are trying, as I can see in many of the bills that are being produced, to do what we think is best, but much of it needs more consideration. It needs better understanding.

Today, we hear talking about a piece of legislation that I think the author of the legislation is absolutely sincere in what he would like to do. He is seeing drug addicted persons who have abused not only prescription drugs but all the way to heroin on the streets without jobs, laying in the alleys without support, without housing, no place to go, and that is what he is attempting to do. He is attempting to do everything that he possibly can to get them safe and secure places to live with the other resources that must go along with it, supportive resources in order to help them become the persons that they can be.

But you cannot do this on the cheap. You cannot do this without understanding that rehabilitation costs money.

So, while I absolutely applaud the attempt, I want to share with you that taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been waiting in line for years--I am talking about single-family parents with their children who simply are praying and hoping that they can get a voucher so that they can get a decent place to live.

I am not talking about drug addicted people, necessarily. I am talking about people, some of whom work every day on minimum wages who cannot afford the first and last month's rent to get into a place. I am talking about those who, even if they could find a place, they would be paying more than 30 percent of their income to have a safe and decent place. I am talking about those who have been living in rental units that really need more than just rehabilitation. They are dangerous places that people are living.

They are places that still are not protected from wind and rain and all of those things that people should not have to experience trying to live in a decent place to live. I am talking about people who are living in apartments that the ceilings are falling in who are looking for a decent place. I am talking about people who call every day to check to see if in fact they are going to be the next person who is going to be allowed a voucher. I am talking about people who have been waiting 2 and 3 years and on and on and on.

So I support the idea that the new population of opioid abusers can have a decent place to live and resources, but let's not deny the people who have been standing in line, who have been praying, who have been hoping for a decent place. Let's not take 10,000 vouchers in a so- called demonstration project.

Really, we don't need a demonstration project. I can tell you, many folks in this House can tell you what they know and what they have experienced so that we can put together good, credible, sensible legislation. But it will cost some money.

It is not about taking from one and giving to the other. The old people call

that robbing Peter to pay Paul. We don't want to do that. We don't want to say to Ms. Jones with 3 kids out there waiting in line for 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, what have you: Sorry, we have a new population that we are going to serve. No, we are not going to vote for more money, for more resources. We are going to take from your opportunity. Sorry you have been standing in line all this long.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to be helpful to all of the folks who need our help. I understand the shock that many are going through who are experiencing this for the first time, but I want you to know about the many nights that I have gone to bed when I have heard about another death of someone who is addicted, who has not had a place to live, who has been on somebody's doorstep, who has been in an alley. I want you to know what I know and what I understand about that mother who has begged me to help find a bed in a unit, a rehabilitative unit that could be used.

So this is not the way to do it, and this is not about creating new nonprofits with no experience, no background, to be able to implement this program. This is about understanding all the people who have struggled with these nonprofits, who begged for money, who begged for resources to deal with the populations who are basically dying from this addiction.

So whether it is about the fact that there is not enough money here, or we should not be developing new nonprofits to do this because we have experience with our public housing entities that know how to do this, this is about us saying: Yes, we have a problem, and we are going to spend the money. We are going to put the time in on it to develop the good, credible legislation. We are going to be serious about it. We don't want to just look like we are trying to do something. We are going to be positive. We are going to be committed. We are going to do what it takes in order to help these people who are waiting and looking for just another chance in life.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a little clarity in what is being presented by my colleague about whether or not vouchers will be taken away from anybody. The fact of the matter is nobody thinks that vouchers will be taken away from anybody. They will never get the voucher.

They are standing in line waiting for years to get Section 8 vouchers to be able to have a decent place to live. That means that you take 10,000 vouchers away from the people, and the families, and the children, who have been waiting in line all of this time and you give it to a new population of people. That is what this is all about. That cannot be denied, and that is a fact.

I am sure that my colleague who is proposing this legislation will agree with me, the fact of the matter is, that person who has been waiting for so long will have to continue to wait, because the voucher that he or she could have gotten is going to go to someone else.

Let me just talk a little bit about Mr. Barr's letter that he sent to the appropriators. First of all, I want to thank him for offering to send the letter. And I want to thank him for coming to me and asking me if I would sign on to the letter. What Mr. Barr is doing is--if I may correctly describe this--is having second thoughts about the fact that you need some money, you need some resources in this program. So the gentleman from Kentucky's letter to the appropriators is basically meaningless, because his own bill directly contradicts it.

And I pointed this out to him as we had this discussion. The plain text of H.R. 5735 states, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act

and the amendments made by this act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.''

Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways. You can't support language that specifically prohibits appropriators from funding your demonstration and then turn around and ask the appropriators to provide funding. This just doesn't make good sense. That is why I had to say that I could not sign on with him on that letter, knowing what the language was in the legislation.

So, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants funding for this demonstration, he needs to be consistent in his advocacy for that funding, and that includes petitioning his own leadership for a waiver of their rules preventing bills that cost money from being considered.

I would be happy to join the gentleman from Kentucky in requesting funding for additional vouchers to support people with substance use disorders. But I cannot support this unworkable demonstration. And I cannot lend credibility to his efforts to distract us from the fact that his bill would take vouchers away from families in need, who have been standing in line begging, waiting, and praying for a decent, safe and secure place for them and their families to live.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, yes, Mr. Duffy is absolutely correct, I care about this issue very deeply, and I want to do the right thing. I want him to know that while he was talking about the 2.8 million vouchers, does he know that there are 5 million people who are in need of these vouchers?

You cannot make the argument that there is more than enough to go around with all of these people standing in line. When they opened up the waiting list recently, just in Los Angeles alone, 600,000 people attempted to get access to these vouchers.

This is about whether or not you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. Either you are willing to pay for your demonstration project, or you want to take away the opportunities of those who have been standing in line, and we are talking about families with children. You don't tell me what is going to happen to them because you won't increase the number of vouchers, and you don't want to put any money into it, so you have to show how you care.

It is one thing for us to get up on this floor and talk and debate and explain what we would like to see happen, but it is another thing when we say that we are willing to put the resources that are needed to deal with the problem.

I will just say that of the 2.8 million people waiting, 5 million people are in need, and the average waiting time is almost 2 years. So what are you going to do? You don't need a demonstration. We have enough information, we have enough research, and we have enough stories about what has happened for so many years and how so many people have died because they have not had resources available to them to deal with the problem.

And, again, I am willing to spend as many hours as it takes to help you know and understand the history of this problem. It didn't just start with opioid abuse. It didn't just start with communities who never experienced this before. This has been going on for years and years and years.

I join with Members in wanting to do something about it. But I say to Mr. Barr, it is going to cost some money, and we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. We should not take from those in need. We should not tell the people standing in line, Too bad, stand in line a little bit longer because we have a new episode that we have to deal with.

Let's take care of everybody who wants to change their lives, everybody who wants to put behind them this addiction, everybody who is begging for just a second chance.

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

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

Again, I am so pleased that Members on the opposite side of the aisle are just being introduced to this crisis. I am so pleased that they are just learning about addiction. I am so pleased that they are willing to talk about it. But I am not so pleased that they are not willing to spend any resources on it. I don't know if they understand that the average cost of a voucher annually is $9,500.

Why can't they support that amount of money to deal with credible, decent housing for the very individuals that they say they are trying to give some support to. I don't know how much they know about addiction. And I don't know how much they know about the history of the war on drugs.

Have any of them ever visited a drug rehabilitation project? Let me commend them to one that they need to know about. It is right here in Washington, D.C. It is known as N Street Village. Please go. I want them to learn about what they do, or what the costs are, and how they struggle for more and more resources to help more and more people. They cannot legislate. They cannot come up with programs without having an understanding of, and an appreciation of, what has happened in this country and the many people who have died, and the families who have suffered.

It didn't just start now. The gentleman who just spoke talked about it is now a crisis. No, it has been a crisis for a long time.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. Chair, it is interesting that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle can come into this Chamber and talk about homelessness and talk about rehabilitation and talk about the need for housing.

I am the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee with every wish and every hope to be able to have this committee take up a bill on homelessness. I have not been able to get that done. We have taken up over 100 bills on the Financial Services Committee, but not once have we dealt with the issue of homelessness.

The gentleman from Minnesota who talked about homelessness and the fact that veterans are homeless is absolutely correct, but what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to come to the floor to try and convince the Members of this House that somehow a demonstration project where you take 10,000 vouchers from the existing vouchers that people are standing in line for is going to make a dent in this problem? I don't think so.

This problem has been around for a long time, and I really do want the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to understand what has not been done to help those people who have needed a lot of assistance and a lot of help.

I can recall, God bless her soul, when Nancy Reagan said to drug abusers, ``Just Say No.'' This is another piece of legislation that falls in that category: 10,000 vouchers in a demonstration project.

You have been hearing how huge this problem is. We don't need a demonstration project for a few people taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been standing in line. We need to appropriate the dollars that are necessary, number one, to help fund those organizations that have been working on this problem for years that need more money, that need more beds, that need more resources.

We need more money not only to deal with the housing issue that is attempting to be addressed in this demonstration project, but whether it is helping to equip police departments with the necessary equipment to save lives of the people on the street who are overdosed that they encounter in their daily work. Some communities have that, a few communities have that, but every community experiencing this problem needs to have that.

In addition to that, we need more beds for rehabilitation. You can't get to supportive housing until you deal with the addiction so that when people are ready to go into transitional housing, they get the support that goes along with that. That is not just a bed and a roof, but it is the social services that go along with it.

It will cost money, and unless you are willing to put up the dollars, unless you are willing to work with our appropriators to do what is necessary to honestly and forcefully deal with this issue, we are just talking about it. We are just pontificating. We are just saying things that we don't even understand.

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

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

While I have this opportunity, I will refer to my bill on homelessness again. My bill is a bill that will end homelessness. It costs $13 billion, and I would dare say that we could have funded this effort when we were thinking about the tax cuts.

Some of those tax cuts benefit the richest people in this country. While we were reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, we could have easily spent $13 billion to deal with ending homelessness.

That tax cut was worth $1.8 trillion. $13 billion from that $1.8 trillion, what would that have done for homelessness in America? We could have been on the road to ending homelessness.

So the bill number is H.R. 2076. I am hopeful that the Members of the House and the Members of the Senate will take a look at this legislation so that they know that we have something that has been given a lot of attention, that has a lot of research, that understands what it takes to get rid of homelessness. So my bill, H.R. 2076, is a bill that I would ask my colleagues to immediately support.

Mr. Chairman, we have many Members of this Congress who want to do something about providing housing opportunities for those who are the victims of opioid abuse and drugs. I join with them, and I, too, am very concerned, and I know that we can do something substantive about this issue of providing housing opportunities.

But again, I will say over and over again, it should not be done in such a way that we have a little demonstration project that will take away 10,000 vouchers from the neediest of people who have been standing in line, in order to say or think or have anyone believe that we are doing something about this crisis in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of Mr. Hensarling how many more speakers he has.

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

Mr. Chairman, this week, we are seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle advance legislation focused on individuals with opioid use disorders. We are really talking about drug addiction. These are the people they used to call drug addicts, and I don't want us to hide behind any new language. We are talking about a serious problem of addiction here.

But something very important is missing from these bills and that is new resources and funding necessary to actually make a difference for those individuals.

H.R. 5735 is a clear example of this problematic approach. Rather than providing funding for housing assistance vouchers for individuals with disorders, individuals who are addicted, this bill takes away 10,000 existing vouchers that would otherwise go to people in need, many of whom have been waiting and waiting for years.

There are millions of people on waiting lists across the country, including families with children, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and others in need. Redistributing these vouchers away from others who need housing is simply not a fair or reasonable step.

What we need is bold action to commit real dollars to tackling this public health crisis, and also to address the shortage of affordable housing in this country. Unfortunately, this bill falls short and commits no new funding for additional vouchers.

While H.R. 5735 has an important goal, the way it tries to get there is ultimately harmful and counterproductive.

For these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill. This will not begin to make a dent in the crisis. We

don't need a demonstration project. We need to move forward with a committed project with the funding that is necessary in order to deal with drug addiction.

We have drug addicts who are in the alleys and on the streets in communities who never saw this before, who never experienced this before.

Listen to someone who has seen it, who knows about it, who understands how many lives have been lost because of it, and let's do the right thing. It is not about a demonstration project. It is not about just a few vouchers. This is about real action.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment is simply a last-ditch attempt to address significant administrative concerns and questions about the correct interpretation of the underlying legislation.

The fact that this amendment had to be revised three times before a final version was submitted past the deadline for consideration by the Rules Committee, is indicative of the hasty and haphazard nature in which this bill has been cobbled together.

For example, in response to a Congressional Budget Office score that interpreted the bill to create up to 50,000 new vouchers, resulting in a cost of $1.2 billion, this amendment would clarify that the intent of the gentleman from Kentucky was not to provide new funding, but, instead, to take vouchers away from people waiting in line for housing assistance.

And while this amendment resolves a few technical issues, it also creates new problems. In particular, this amendment would add broad authority for the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to waive requirements that would otherwise apply under the Section 8 program. This includes being able to waive basic tenant protections as well as the requirement that rents are affordable to residents at 30 percent of their adjusted income, which is known as the Brooke amendment.

In sum, this amendment does nothing to address the fundamental issues with this bill, including the fact that it prohibits new funding.

Mr. Chairman, I really do need to point out that perhaps it was not clear in Mr. Barr's presentation about this amendment that this amendment additionally reinforces his point that no additional funds would be authorized.

As a matter of fact, if you look at section 5 of the amendment where it says, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act and the amendments made by this act. Such requirement shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated,'' which simply means taking 10,000 vouchers from people who are waiting in line, who are desperate for the need for safe and secure housing, and it makes sure that you understand that he does not want any more funds appropriated. Except, there is some kind of contradiction that can be confusing.

When he first introduced the bill--and I talked about the fact that he had not only asked me to sign on to a letter to the appropriators asking for more money, and I decided not to do that because of the fact that he still had this amendment that would say that there should be no additional funds spent on this.

What is my friend doing? What is he talking about? How can he send a letter to the appropriators asking for more money when, not only does he have in the bill, but in the amendment to the bill, very clear language that says there should be no additional funds appropriated.

Well, of course, that is confusing. And I am not so sure why the contradiction is there. But I do know this: I believe that the intent of my colleague is a good intent; that he really would like to do something about opioid addiction. I believe that most of the Members who have gotten involved in this issue and who are learning about it for the first time, and understanding that there is a crisis for the first time, want to do something about this issue.

But what they have not done is, they have not taken the time to construct legislation to truly deal with the issue, and spend the money, ask for the money, ask for the resources that are necessary to deal with what they say is a crisis.

They come here and they talk about homelessness, and they talk about the opioid abusers who are on the streets who need housing. Yes, they do. Just as all of those people who have been standing in line waiting for Section 8 housing need housing.

They talk about veterans who are homeless. They are absolutely correct. Some of those veterans have drug problems. Others don't have drug problems. They have come back from their service to their country without jobs, without a place to live, and here we are, talking about robbing the folks who have been standing in line and who are in need-- including the veterans on the street--robbing them of their opportunities because we want to take away 10,000 housing vouchers from them.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't think the amendment really does what the gentleman would like to have it do, but I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, 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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2851.

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

Mr. Chairman, all Members of the Chamber are acutely aware of the devastation caused by the opioid epidemic. The epidemic is destroying lives and families across the United States. It affects every area of our country, and grandparents, parents, and children alike.

Especially during the course of this week, we have been reminded that over 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016. More than 20 percent of these deaths resulted from an overdose of synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which can be as much as 100 times more powerful than painkillers like morphine.

Additionally, synthetic analogues with street names like K2, spice, bath salts, or molly, are designed to mimic other drugs like marijuana, LSD, and ecstasy, and can be more potent and deadly than the real thing.

Criminal drug manufacturers, largely from China and Mexico, work continuously to stay ahead of our laws by altering the molecular structure of their drugs as soon as the government bans them.

The Controlled Substance Act, which was signed into law more than 40 years ago, was designed to protect the public from the dangers associated with drugs and drug use. However, this law was not designed to handle the magnitude and speed with which these new psychoactive substances have emerged in our communities.

It currently takes 3 years to schedule a new drug, but criminals can skirt the law by quickly changing a drug molecule and get it to the U.S. streets, often through the mail.

The bill we are considering today, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, or SITSA, updates Federal law to provide swifter action to stop the unlawful importation and distribution of synthetic drugs and gives law enforcement effective tools to help keep our communities safe.

While Congress has taken action to combat the opioid epidemic through the historic Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, it is clear that we need more tools to combat the ever-growing problem of synthetic drug abuse.

Instead of taking 3 years to bring a drug under control, SITSA gives the Attorney General the power to act quickly and to classify a new dangerous drug in a matter of months when it is virtually identical to a current scheduled and powerful drug. The bill also requires the Attorney General to work with the Department of Health and Human Services so that these synthetic drugs can still be studied by qualified researchers.

Supporters of H.R. 2851 include the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and the American College of Emergency Physicians.

I fully support this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled by those who oppose this legislation.

Among the obligations we owe our constituents, one is to keep deadly substances like synthetic opioids out of our country and out of the hands of drug traffickers. Drug traffickers have no regard for the devastation they inflict on our citizens, as their sole motive is greed and profit. Sadly, their greed resulted in over 64,000 drug overdose deaths in 2016, destroying countless families.

If a terrorist organization killed 175 Americans each and every day, we would all be certain that our response would be swift, laser- focused, and decisive.

There is no question and no greater responsibility Congress has than to protect the health and safety of all Americans. Voting against this crucial legislation is a clear signal to all drug traffickers that Congress is giving them a green light to continue spreading their carnage.

While we may differ as to the priorities to solve the opioid epidemic, make no mistake: a responsible and truly effective solution must include treatment, prevention, and enforcement. Over the course of this week, this Chamber has approved legislation in all three of those areas.

This bill before us now gives law enforcement and the protecters of our borders the tools to keep these deadly poisons out of our communities. It also assures that these potent chemicals can remain in the hands of qualified researchers. Altogether, this bill strikes the perfect balance to respond to this ongoing epidemic.

Mr. Chair, I want to state that I take a backseat to no one when it comes to

treatment. There is no question that drug addiction is addiction. It is not only a biological addiction; it is a mental addiction as well.

As a prosecutor for 18 years, an assistant district attorney, district attorney, and a U.S. attorney, I have seen my share of the devastation of drugs, put a lot of dealers away, helped a lot of people get into treatment; and, unfortunately, I have seen my share of people, particularly young people, on slabs in morgues.

Anyone dealing today with opioids--regardless if they read the newspaper, regardless if they watch TV, regardless if they are aware of this legislation--knows, because of publicity, because of the deaths that are caused by opioids and fentanyl, of the probability of fentanyl or something like it being in the drug that they are selling. So I do not accept the argument that they don't know that it is there. Everyone knows that it is there.

Mandatory sentencing, I used when I was a prosecutor in my community, and it worked. It put the worst of the worst away. We also, as prosecutors, had discretion.

My constituents demand that we aggressively--aggressively--act now on this problem. Not only am I hearing that from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania but across the country.

I want to explain one thing on the chemical makeup. I had enough chemistry in college to make me dangerous. Picture, if you will, a chain of molecules and picture a single molecule. The scientists in China have devised a way to take an atom from that molecule or add to it to slightly change the composition, which technically removes it from being an illegal drug or an illegal opioid. This is why this legislation is needed.

The Chinese are there every day trying to figure out a way--and they are figuring out ways--to alter, how to get around the law. We have to be a step ahead of them. This legislation is what is needed. It is good, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Katko and Miss Rice, both of New York, for this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time does the gentleman from Virginia have left?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes three impactful changes to SITSA. First, it changes and sets strict definitions of what constitutes a controlled substance analogue suitable for inclusion in schedule A. A substance proposed for inclusion in schedule A must have a close chemical and scientific relationship to a substance already controlled in one of the other five schedules.

Second, it checks the power of the Attorney General in the permanent scheduling process. Under this bill, the Attorney General will be able to act swiftly to bring certain synthetic drugs under temporary import and distribution controls. However, this part of the amendment ensures that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or HHS, possesses a veto power in the permanent scheduling process.

If, after more extensive analysis, HHS concludes the drug lacks psychological properties, then the Attorney General must remove the drug from the schedule A list and decontrol it.

Third, it ensures that researchers with current Federal licenses in any of the five existing schedules of controlled substances can continue their research. Government and private sector chemists and scientists are researching and developing new drugs and substances every day. These researchers already possess a Federal license, called a registration, to conduct their research.

This part of the amendment safeguards the ability of qualified researchers to continue their research while unsafe and untested synthetic drugs are controlled in schedule A. This amendment makes a great piece of legislation even better. I applaud Mr. Griffith's and Mr. Raskin's efforts in doing do. I support this amendment and encourage all Members to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, section 9 of the bill would provide guidance in sentencing during the current problematic time for courts, prosecutors, and defendants. Courts are having difficulties similar to those of law enforcement because of the constantly evolving nature of synthetic drugs and their chemical makeup.

Recently, the U.S. Sentencing Commission unanimously approved a slate of new amendments to the sentencing guidelines. Among them are guidelines for the three most potent classes of synthetic analogues being imported from China and distributed in the United States. I view this as a tremendous step forward in providing guidance to courts, which are performing very labor-intensive examinations during sentencing proceedings

This amendment would strike section 9 of the bill. Chairman Goodlatte has spoken to and received correspondence from Judge William Pryor, acting chairman of the Sentencing Commission. Both he and his staff have assured Chairman Goodlatte that synthetic drug guidelines will remain a priority for the commission.

I am agreeable to striking section 9 of this bill, and I encourage the Sentencing Commission to continue its important work and to provide guidance to the courts in these often complex cases.

I support the Jackson Lee amendment and encourage all Members to do likewise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Drug Enforcement Administration to compile a report on both the lawful and illicit sale of synthetic drug analogues over the internet. Unfortunately, the internet and the dark web have become sizable marketplaces for many illegal drugs, especially synthetic analogues.

As Chairman Goodlatte stated earlier, Garrett Holman lost his life from synthetic drugs he ordered over the internet and received in the mail from China. The report requested by this amendment will help Congress and law enforcement have a better picture of the magnitude of the synthetic drug problem.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Maloney amendment, I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would improve the Federal Analogue Act, a provision in the Controlled Substance Act, which, during a prosecution, allows a chemical that is determined to be substantially similar to a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II to be treated as if it were also listed in those schedules, but only if the substance is intended for human consumption.

Drug traffickers, particularly those who traffic synthetic drugs, repeatedly attempt to evade Federal law by labeling their synthetic drugs with a phrase, ``not made for human consumption.'' They do this routinely in a preemptive attempt to rebut an assertion during their prosecution that they never meant the drug be intended for human consumption.

The Thornberry amendment sets forth six factors which a court may consider when determining whether a controlled substance analogue was intended for human consumption. It also states a label on the product is not sufficient proof, standing alone, that the defendant did not intend it for human consumption. This amendment is quite similar to S. 207, the SALTS Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee reported favorably 3 weeks ago.

Mr. Chair, I think this is a useful amendment to the legislation before us, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it.

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.