HALT Fentanyl Act

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 467. I have deep concerns with the partisan approach my Republican colleagues have taken on this bill and the harmful implications it would have on our communities if adopted.

The substance-use and overdose crisis impacts all our communities, and the American people deserve bipartisan solutions that address both public safety and public health. This bill fails on both fronts and simply continues the status quo, allowing opioid use disorder and the overdose crisis to continue to devastate American families across the Nation.

In 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration first issued a temporary classwide scheduling order of fentanyl-related substances under schedule I, the strictest classification for drugs. Congress has voted to extend the temporary order multiple times, most recently in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

Despite this action over the last 4 years, overdoses have not gone down, and we have, unfortunately, not made a dent in the incidence of opioid use disorders. Fentanyl and synthetic opioids continue to flood into the country. In testimony before our committee, the DEA administrator noted the DEA seized more than 50 million fake pills and 10,000 pounds of fentanyl in 2022.

In other words, the HALT Fentanyl Act is a partisan distraction from the hard, bipartisan work that actually has to be done to address a longstanding, intractable problem that faces our communities.

We lost over 100,000 people in 2022 to overdoses. This is one of the biggest public health crises our Nation has ever faced, and now is not the time for a partisan approach. Now is the time for comprehensive bipartisan work.

Democrats stand ready to work with Republicans on addressing the fentanyl crisis. We stand ready to work on permanent scheduling, so long as it is carefully designed to avoid exacerbating inequities in our criminal justice system.

In committee, Democrats offered amendments to improve the HALT Fentanyl Act. We asked that Republicans consider additions to the bill that reflect the Biden administration's commonsense interagency proposal. The proposal would permanently schedule FRS but establish a set of guardrails that promote a scientific and equitable approach. The administration's proposal is reflected in bipartisan legislation that was introduced by Representatives Pappas, Gonzales, and Newhouse and includes an off-ramp to allow for expedited descheduling of FRS that are found to be either inert or have medical applications. There is already evidence that at least one FRS could have potential applications for reversing overdoses, similar to naloxone, and we must provide for such substances to be rapidly descheduled.

The Biden administration's proposal also strikes the right balance on public safety by ensuring that permanent scheduling of FRS does not exacerbate existing inequities in our criminal justice system. It eliminates mandatory minimum standards involving FRS unless an offense results in serious bodily injury or death. Instead, the Republican majority has opted to continue failed punitive mandatory minimum sentencing that we know will disproportionately impact communities of color while doing nothing to address the underlying opioid crisis.

Now, as this bill comes to the House floor, Republicans are continuing to refuse to make this legislation better. Almost 90 amendments were filed for consideration on this bill, and Republicans ruled nearly all of them out of order, including the bipartisan Pappas amendment. An amendment from Representative Pettersen of Colorado would have provided the off-ramp for rapid descheduling of FRS that are inert or have medical applications. An amendment offered by Representative Crockett of Texas would have ensured that Federal law does not stand in the way of the use of fentanyl test strips which have proven to reduce overdoses from fentanyl and FRS. Unfortunately, Republicans refused to make any of these commonsense amendments in order, despite the fact that they are clearly germane.

We simply cannot incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis. The HALT Fentanyl Act does not provide any resources for research, prevention, treatment, recovery, or harm reduction. It also does not provide law enforcement or public health agencies with any additional resources to detect and intercept illicit drugs entering the country.

In fact, nearly every House Republican voted in favor of the default on America act, which would inflict devastating cuts that would force communities to lay off thousands of law enforcement officers and first responders, and that is in addition to the significant cuts the default on America act would make to substance use programs that help treat patients in our communities.

The reality is that this bill, paired with Republican efforts to slash vital public health and safety funding, will

leave our communities worse off and exacerbate existing inequities in our criminal justice system.

Madam Chair, I can't support the underlying bill in its current form. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it. I hope that at some point we can get back to doing some bipartisan work that will really make a difference in terms of this opioid and fentanyl crisis.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Chair, I know the Republicans have a number of speakers, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Madam Chair, I don't like to disagree with my colleague from Arizona who I respect, but she did say that when the Democrats were in the majority that we didn't address the issue, and that is not accurate.

In fact, last Congress we did pass out of the Energy and Commerce Committee a bipartisan mental health and substance use treatment package, H.R. 7666, which became law as part of the consolidated appropriations bill last December, and that bill, H.R. 7666, that came out of our committee, when it came to the floor of the House, was supported by over 400 Members. Only 20 Members didn't vote for it, and it was later signed into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. That new law includes the MAD Act and the MAiD Act, historic pieces of legislation that ensure medical practitioners are prepared to identify and treat substance use disorders and increase access to medication-assisted treatment, such as buprenorphine.

H.R. 7666 also reauthorized billions of dollars in public health programs that addressed the mental health and substance use crisis, including both the substance use prevention treatment and recovery services block grant and State opioid response grants.

Now, I am not suggesting that this is the end all. Obviously, more needs to be done, but part of what I think you are hearing from the Democratic side of the aisle today is that this legislation on the floor doesn't really deal with all these things. It doesn't deal with treatment. It doesn't deal with the border. It doesn't deal with law enforcement and more resources to address the fentanyl crisis.

We believe that a law that is going to really make a difference would do that, and that is the reason that we are saying that this bill that is before us, the HALT Fentanyl Act, really doesn't do anything because it just says that it is going to be in schedule I beyond 2024.

Right now, you already have synthetic fentanyl scheduled in I until the end of next year, and we haven't really seen any progress with that.

We would like to see a comprehensive approach that takes into account treatment that is a follow up on what we passed in the last Congress.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to correct the record, or at least set the record straight, on what the DEA and the Biden administration are saying. I heard what my colleague on the committee said, but I want you to understand that no one on our side of the aisle, certainly not the Biden administration or the DEA, is saying that we should get rid of the current law, which says that synthetic fentanyl is on schedule I. That is the

case now. We have extended it many times. As the gentlewoman said, it is actually extended until December of 2024.

What the Biden administration, in conjunction with the DEA, is saying is that before you go ahead and permanently extend, that you should look at some of the other things that we have talked about on the Democratic side of the aisle. In other words, they say, in this task force from the administration with the DEA, that there is a real possibility that research will find that there are synthetic fentanyl substances that might actually help deal with the crisis and reverse an overdose in certain circumstances.

What they recommend is that we have an off-ramp to ensure that substances that are deemed to have a potential medical application are not improperly classified. If you pass this permanently, then you have to pass another law in order to take something off the list.

Also, they are not recommending that we have mandatory minimum incarceration involving synthetic fentanyl unless an offense results in serious bodily injury or death. This is what some of my colleagues on the Democratic side are saying, that incarceration, mandatory minimum sentencing, is not the answer. We know it hasn't been for years with other drugs, as well.

In addition to that, there should be funding to deal with the research, funding to deal with treatment, funding for law enforcement so they can prevent more fentanyl from coming into the country. None of that is included in this bill.

I just don't want my colleagues on the other side to misrepresent what DEA or what the Biden administration are saying. We all understand the nature of this crisis. We don't think that this bill is going to do anything to change that, because it just basically extends the status quo and doesn't do anything for all of these other things that have been mentioned on the Democratic side.

I think it is really important for you to understand where we are coming from on this. We don't disagree with putting this on schedule I, but we want to see a comprehensive approach, because what we are doing now has failed.

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

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

The point that I have been trying to make and my colleagues have been trying to make on this side of the aisle is that Republicans continue to push punitive and partisan policies with regard to the opioid crisis rather than real solutions to address the substance abuse crisis, strengthen border security, or fix our immigration system.

The partisan HALT Fentanyl Act would not meaningfully address substance abuse. It would simply result in more incarceration.

This bill takes a one-sided approach by only requiring permanent class-wide scheduling of fentanyl-related substances in an attempt to incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis.

By contrast, the Biden administration has put forth an interagency proposal, which I have discussed, to permanently schedule synthetic fentanyl within schedule I without exacerbating existing sentencing disparities and inequities in our criminal justice system, as well as creating an off-ramp to remove or reschedule these substances shown to have medical or therapeutic value.

Now, I know that we hear from the other side: What have you done? What are you doing?

Well, the bottom line is that the Biden administration has taken aggressive action to combat the overdose epidemic. Congress and the administration should be working together on a bipartisan solution to address the fentanyl crisis, but the Republicans are threatening a default crisis right now that would seriously undermine these efforts.

Last year, the Biden administration announced its inaugural National Drug Control Strategy which expands access to lifesaving interventions, like naloxone and buprenorphine, while providing additional resources to law enforcement agencies to intercept illegal drugs.

To support this strategy and address illicit fentanyl, President Biden has called on Congress to make a historic investment of $46 billion in funding for efforts to reduce the supply of illicit fentanyl and stop drug trafficking, as well as expand access to treatment and prevention to reduce overdose deaths across the country.

Now, at the same time, Republicans are threatening a default crisis unless Democrats go along with their drastic cuts that would seriously undermine our ability to combat the fentanyl and opioid crisis.

According to the administration, the cuts demanded by Republicans would force Border Patrol to ax more than 2,000 agents and drastically reduce funding for the DEA and the FBI. These things are crucial to interdiction and anti-drug-trafficking efforts.

The Republican proposal, the default on America act, would reduce funding for treatment for opioid use disorders resulting in thousands more Americans losing access to treatment and recovery. It would also threaten to take health insurance away from millions of low-income individuals, including those struggling with substance use disorders and the opioid epidemic, and it imposes a cruel and unnecessary work requirement on Medicaid.

Now, all we are trying to say on our side of the aisle is in this war on drugs, mandatory sentencing, incarcerate everybody, has not worked. It didn't

work for other drugs. It is not going to work for fentanyl.

At the same time, the Biden administration has put forward a proposal, and it has been put into bill form, the STOP Fentanyl Act, that looks at all of this and tries to increase treatment, tries to increase interdiction and help law enforcement, and tries to do more research to see to what extent we can find uses for synthetic fentanyl that actually will stop, if you will, or prevent overdoses from killing people.

We are just asking for a comprehensive approach. I haven't heard anything from the other side of the aisle that says you are going to do anything more than continue with the current law, which says that we are going to make synthetic fentanyl part of schedule I, which is already the law, at least until the end of next year.

All we are saying is, let's sit down and actually try to come up with something here on a bipartisan basis that is going to make a difference for this fentanyl crisis. What we have done in the past hasn't worked. If we are going to just reduce funding for all of these things, that is certainly not going to work. That is only going to make it worse.

I guess I am just pleading with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Rethink this. We have the time now to come up with a comprehensive approach that will make a difference here. If you pass this partisan bill, it is going to go nowhere in the Senate, it is not going to become law, and we will have accomplished nothing.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let's look for a comprehensive solution along the line of what the President has proposed.

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

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

Madam Speaker, today while we stand here debating this rule, the Republicans' default on America's plan is holding Americans hostage.

Across my district and this country, Americans are wondering what will happen to their food security. How about their Medicare? What about veterans' healthcare? Republicans are holding us hostage so they can protect the tax cuts that they gave to the wealthiest corporations and millionaires.

We need to remember that the debt we are looking at today was incurred by Republicans during the Trump administration, $7 trillion of that.

Do you know what? If they crash the economy, it is not the millionaires who would be hurt. It is working families.

The Republican default on America would impact the very bills we will be talking about today. It would cut funding to fight the fentanyl crisis, treat addiction, reduce pollution, and help Americans pay their bills when a pandemic hits.

The rule we are considering today will make in order three bills.

The first bill is H.R. 467, the HALT Fentanyl Act. We all agree that there is a scourge of fentanyl in our communities, and we all agree it needs to be stopped. There is no district in our country, no family, and no community that hasn't seen and experienced the horrors of fentanyl.

The problem is that this bill isn't going to do what needs to be done to address the fentanyl crisis. To fight the fentanyl crisis, we need more law enforcement funding, and we need to treat addiction.

Right now, as noted, fentanyl-related substances are listed on schedule I. That listing goes to the end of 2024. The main thrust of this bill is to make that listing permanent, but our communities are pleading with us to do more than the status quo.

For decades, we tried to incarcerate our way out of addiction, but addiction is a disease, not a crime.

Madam Speaker, I am speaking from the heart. I know most of my colleagues on this floor have heard that I lost two brothers to addiction, two beautiful souls that were taken from this world far too soon. It was partially because there was no treatment available.

This country has failed to treat addiction as the health crisis that it is, so I know personally the pain that fentanyl brings to our families and our communities because I felt that pain when my brothers passed away.

Treatment for addiction can save precious lives, but we lack the capacity to provide those services. Instead, the default on America plan that their crisis is creating would cut funding for mental health and addiction treatment services.

H.R. 467 would also expand mandatory minimums, which takes away discretion from judges to look at each case on its own, which disproportionately harms Black and Brown communities more than others.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected 37 Democratic amendments that would have added more law enforcement funding to interdict fentanyl at border crossings. They would have provided more evidence-based approaches to fentanyl use. They would have made sure that we had the tools we needed to treat addiction.

Instead of creating and finding solutions, Republicans are creating more problems. The Republicans' default on America act will cut funding for Customs and Border Protection, potentially leading to an increase in the amount of fentanyl hitting our streets.

Is this their way of addressing the fentanyl crisis?

We need to do better. We need to make sure we give real solutions to these very serious problems.

Madam Speaker, I am tired of hearing that Democrats are to blame for the fentanyl crisis. We all recognize the need to do more.

Let me remind my colleagues that in the last 2 years, the Biden administration has seized record amounts of illicit fentanyl at the border.

DHS has seized more than 35,000 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2022.

The Department of Justice disrupted or dismantled 130 fentanyl networks.

The administration is expanding access to treatments for those suffering from addictions.

Democrats in Congress filed a funding bill last year that beefed up resources for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, the National Guard counter-drug program, and the Drug Communities Program.

Contrast that with the Trump administration. A GAO report blasted the previous administration for failing to come up with a coherent national opioid strategy, and the crisis spiked. In the first 2 years of the Trump administration, we saw significant spikes in the fentanyl crisis, and more people died.

According to the CDC, the annual number of overdose deaths from synthetic opioids increased by 192 percent between 2016 and 2020.

In contrast, since day one of this administration, President Biden has provided solutions to the overdose crisis.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the December 2019 GAO report: ``The Office of National Drug Control Policy Should Develop Key Planning Elements to Meet Statutory Requirements.''

Madam Speaker, this GAO report highlights the failures of the last administration in addressing this crisis we are talking about today.

The rule also makes in order two Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions.

H.J. Res. 45 would roll back the student loan payment pause to last October. It would create chaos and instability for millions who are living check to check.

Let's remember why student loans were paused in the first place. Let's remember how dark and horrible it was when the pandemic first hit.

Remember how scary it was when COVID-19 started and the economy was in free fall? People lost their jobs. They were struggling to pay rent. We didn't know what the future held.

A pause to student loan payments was the right response to a public health emergency that was also a financial emergency. The payment pause was a lifeline for 37 million borrowers and their families, giving them much-needed breathing room to pay their bills, to pay their rent without worrying about sabotaging their credit.

H.J. Res. 45 could send surprise bills for interest to tens of millions of Americans. This could lead to unprecedented delinquencies and defaults for the most vulnerable borrowers.

The third bill, S.J. Res. 11, would reverse an EPA rule that reduces air pollution from the trucking industry.

Many parts of America were once cloaked in air pollution that would sit

at street level, sting your eyes, fill your lungs. Choking air, they called it.

In response, we enacted the Clean Air Act and tasked the EPA with cleaning up our air.

Still, one in three Americans live in counties with unhealthy air pollution. Heavy-duty vehicles make up about 6 percent of vehicles on the road but generate 59 percent of these dangerous pollutants that we are talking about. This contributes to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and even death.

The Clean Air Act gives the EPA both the authority and obligation to protect Americans from air pollution that could endanger public health or welfare. That is exactly what EPA's heavy-duty engine and vehicle rule would do.

Republicans want to block the EPA rule from going into effect. Even worse, if this passes, Republicans would block EPA from regulating this pollution in the future.

Why would we want to keep this agency from doing its job of keeping us healthy?

So instead of putting polluters first, Republicans should be spending this week paying America's bills. It is the patriotic thing to do. Clearly, that is not their priority. Remember, a default hurts working- class Americans. It hurts seniors on Medicare, food assistance recipients, and teachers' and students' access to care. If you are still waiting for your tax refund, it might not come.

Democrats have signed a petition to bring to the floor for a vote a bill that would raise the debt ceiling without any harmful cuts to the programs Americans rely on. All we need is five moderate Republicans to join the petition and the default crisis would be over.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to address the fentanyl crisis, but what we are saying is we need to do more. The bill we are looking at today does not increase any funding for law enforcement. It does not address the need that we have to increase our funding to assist law enforcement in interdicting this horrible drug.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, while my colleague speaks loudly about stopping fentanyl at the border, I will remind him that this bill doesn't do anything about fentanyl at the border. Indeed, the Republicans in the Rules Committee last night rejected amendments which would have placed more money on law enforcement and on the ability to stop fentanyl at the border.

Madam Speaker, I remind them that the Cato report points out that fentanyl is brought in at our ports of entry more than 90 percent of the time.

Madam Speaker, I point out that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution, which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost), who will discuss the need to reassure the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an October 2020 NPR article titled: ``Opioid Crisis: Critics Say Trump Fumbled Response To Another Deadly Pandemic.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Newsweek article titled: ``Fentanyl Surge Started and Peaked Under Trump Despite GOP Blaming Biden.''

Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to bring back to focus what we are doing here. This bill does something that we have no objection to, which is to permanently classify fentanyl as schedule

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I agree that we need to make sure that we address fentanyl for every community whether it be New York or New Mexico, because the fentanyl crisis is a public health crisis, and families are losing loved ones every day.

Indeed, in New Mexico in 2020, the New Mexico Department of Health found that 65 percent of people with substance use disorders were not getting the treatment they needed. The same problem we find nationwide. Over 86 percent of people suffering from opioid abuse were not getting the treatment they needed in 2020.

Even once treatment began, people are at their most vulnerable when they suffer from a relapse. Their bodies cannot handle the sudden return of high levels of opioids, and the result is often fatal.

I do hope that we can continue to agree that we must address this and that we must provide an addition to this bill, the kind of funding that is needed and that is urgent to treat addiction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we heard on the House floor today was agreement, agreement on the need to address the scourge of fentanyl and what it is doing to our communities. I think we heard individuals talk about the individual pain they feel, whether it be in Texas, in New York, in New Mexico.

I think we want to hold that sense of agreement on this topic together because we don't always agree on things, but I think in this instance, we agree that we need to put our families first. We need to put the people who unwittingly end up dying from fentanyl with no idea that they were even taking that drug, and we need to remember that pain and that fear that those families must have.

As we talk about this issue, we must also remember that we have to do more. Making sure that fentanyl is classified and is not available with the fentanyl substances is important. We don't disagree on that. The issue that we are raising is the need to do more, and especially given the moment we are living in today.

This week, we are days away from a potential default because Republicans have refused to raise the debt limit. We are in a crisis, and it is a crisis that the Republicans have manufactured. We need to remember what that crisis does. That crisis actually hinders our ability to do the work that is so urgent to combat fentanyl.

Fentanyl comes in through our ports of entry. The Cato Institute, which is not a liberal or progressive institute, notes that 90 percent of fentanyl enters into the country through our ports of entry, smuggled in by, what I would call, despicable Americans who profit off addiction and death.

But let's go back and say what would happen if their default that they have engineered would actually come to be. The Department of Homeland Security has said that if the default in America act goes into effect, it would lead to 2,400 fewer frontline CBP law enforcement officers. That is 2,400 fewer Border Patrol officers. That means that there are going to be fewer officers to help prevent illegal drugs from entering into our country. That would lead to over 150,000 pounds of cocaine and over 350,000 grams of fentanyl avoiding seizure.

The cuts that they have proposed would lead to more fentanyl coming in because there would be fewer officers on the ground to combat it. That is shameful that they would raise and talk about this bill in the angry and loud ways that they have done without acknowledging that the work that they did several weeks ago would actually make this crisis worse.

In New Mexico, as I noted, we know the pain of addiction and overdose all too well. We have lost too many beautiful lives to addiction and fentanyl.

We need to think about what those solutions are that we would want to do. We would want to increase the funding for substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants. That was one of the amendments that was suggested to this rule by Representative Balint.

We want to use Representative Blunt Rochester's amendment, which would have increased education, so stakeholders would know about research and treatment and how to make sure that we make the public aware of these issues.

These are things that Republicans have refused to address in the bills we are looking at today.

I urge my colleagues, I urge those on the other side of the aisle, to really look at what we are doing today. We are doing something that we all agree on, which is addressing a teeny-tiny piece of the fentanyl problem, but we aren't doing what needs to be done in terms of increasing law enforcement, in terms of increasing funding at our borders and for those who are actually doing the work of seizing fentanyl as it comes in, of the law enforcement that must be done. We need to increase that funding, not cut it.

With regard to truck emissions, we cannot tie the EPA's hands. We must keep our air clean. The number of deaths from asthma in children who would survive and not be hurt if this rule goes into effect, would be horrible. I need to tell you that each child who would not be able to breathe because of polluted air is the child that I will think about when I vote on this bill later today.

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

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), 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

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

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

Madam Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 429, providing for consideration of three measures: H.J. Res. 45, H.R. 467, and S.J. Res. 11.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 467 under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce Committee or their designees and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 45 and S.J. Res. 11 under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction or to their designees.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to commit for S.J. Res. 11 and one motion to recommit for H.J. Res. 45.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Included within the measure is H.R. 467, the HALT Fentanyl Act. It is important to say that the HALT Fentanyl Act makes great strides in addressing the growing fentanyl crisis in our country. By making permanent the scheduling of fentanyl-related analogs in the schedule I category, in addition to giving researchers the ability to conduct studies on these substances, we can begin to repair the damage that this drug has inflicted on our communities and our Nation.

I spent almost three decades practicing as a physician. I have witnessed and heard so many devastating stories of the consequences of this crisis which we now face. We face it in north Texas; we face it across the country.

Between September and March, nearly a dozen teens spread across three schools in Carrollton, Texas, were injured because of fentanyl poisoning. In fact, three of those poisonings were fatal. One death is too many, and we must equip our communities to address this issue from the source.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has a long history of producing bipartisan policies to actually address the opioid crisis in this country. The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, known as the SUPPORT Act of 2018, was a product of our committee, and it made reforms to the way we administer programs to control and respond to and better treat individuals who have a problem with opioids.

However, the landscape has drastically changed. It is now a different disease than what it was in 2018, so we have gone from diversion of prescription opioids to the manufacture and importation of illicit fentanyl, products that are created in the People's Republic of China in their base form, exported to Mexico, imported by cartels, and poisoning our children.

We need to better understand the effects of fentanyl and fentanyl- related substances to better treat patients suffering from exposure. The HALT Fentanyl Act will improve regulations to encourage research so we can better understand the impacts of fentanyl on human health.

Our recent bipartisan mental health package passed in the Energy and Commerce Committee worked on several provisions that would relax regulations to expand access to evidence-based treatment programs and ease restrictions on treatment options for substance use care.

Finally, the HALT Fentanyl Act will ensure that law enforcement officers have the tools to prosecute cases relating to fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances. Due to the crisis at our southern border, illicit fentanyl remains an imminent threat throughout the country. At a time when people are dying at alarming rates from fentanyl poisoning, this legislation is an absolute necessity to counteract this crisis and save our young American lives.

Madam Speaker, also included in this package is a provision that would repeal a continuation of President Biden's war on affordable energy and consumer choice.

S.J. Res 11 would be instrumental in protecting American families who would suffer from additional costs passed along to them and ensure that they, the American public, are able to select vehicles that best fit their needs rather than functionaries in the administration in a far- removed Washington, D.C.

If not for our Republican majority, Madam Speaker, President Biden could continue to act unilaterally to enact his radical Green New Deal agenda. Thankfully, the American public saw fit to entrust Republicans with the majority in the people's House to prevent President Biden and Democrats from acting upon their worst impulses.

Once again, Democrats have seen fit to attack a vital component of our Nation's economy. Why Democrats would want to make more difficult the lives of those who deliver our food and our goods to our grocery stores and our homes, and the fuel to our gas stations, I do not know.

Madam Speaker, what I do know is that every American owes these hardworking men and women a tremendous debt of gratitude that we will not soon be able to repay.

Madam Speaker, in 2021, trucks moved close to 11 billion tons of freight across America. That is over 70 percent of the cargo shipped in the continental United States.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some were sitting in the comfort of their homes while dozens of Amazon packages were dropped at their doorsteps. That was only because of these long-haul drivers who traverse our Nation daily, ensuring our communities are supplied with goods that allow Americans to enjoy a high standard of living and literally preventing American families from starving during the pandemic.

So it is bewildering, Madam Speaker, that Democrats have decided to reward the courage and perseverance of long-haul truckers with onerous and expensive new regulations that will have a devastating effect upon their livelihoods.

Madam Speaker, implementing these new regulations and standards will burden truck drivers with as much as $8,000 per driver in new costs when it comes time to retire their current vehicles.

Democrats pride themselves on being advocates of the little guy, the downtrodden, but I would ask you, Madam Speaker, how is forcing Americans already suffering from the sky-high inflation brought to us by the Biden administration, saddling them with an additional $8,000 from their hard-earned dollars, how is that lightening their burden? Madam Speaker, simply, it does not.

Once again, President Biden and members of the Democratic Party are so single-minded in their pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda that they are blind to the obvious collateral damage that their policies are inflicting. Thankfully, our Republican majority will be able to deliver tangible relief by repealing this counterproductive and misguided executive action.

Madam Speaker, today, we are also considering H.J. Res. 45 to formally disapprove of the authority the administration claims it has to unilaterally forgive student loans.

In August 2022, the Biden administration announced a plan to cancel student debt up to $20,000 for Pell grant recipients and up to $10,000 for non-Pell grant recipients for those making under $125,000 a year.

Madam Speaker, on May 11, 2023, 2 weeks ago, a glorious day, the public health emergency came to an end. Americans are back to work. They are back to school. They are returning to normal life.

The Biden administration is attempting to claim authority for this $315 billion student loan forgiveness through the COVID-19 national emergency status and the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, the so-called HEROES Act of 2003. This 2003 law provided temporary relief to military members during their deployment following 9/11. This is a twisted interpretation of a bill that compensated our Nation's servicemen and -women for their heroic efforts after the Nation was attacked on 9/11.

The bottom line is this is quite likely unconstitutional. It is an overreach of executive authority and would not make student debt disappear. It would instead unfairly shift the burden of

student loans to the 87 percent of Americans who did not take out such loans.

Madam Speaker, this is an important rule to consider these important bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), another member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), another member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out, first off, that the Republican House has voted on and passed an increase to the Nation's debt limit. This happened 2 weeks ago. Further action is awaiting in the Senate. Further action is awaiting down at the White House. This House, under the leadership of Speaker McCarthy, has acted and acted appropriately.

Furthermore, I would like to point out, in October of 2018, President Trump signed the SUPPORT Act. The SUPPORT Act was the first meaningful step toward countering what was at the time a crisis in this country because of diversion of prescription drugs, the so-called opioid crisis.

Mr. Speaker, it has changed since then. Since 2018, we are now faced with a different disease in fentanyl poisoning brought to us because of an open southern border, because the President has refused to secure the southern border and because the border czar has refused to secure the southern border. As a consequence, we have an unprecedented amount of fentanyl flowing into our country.

Yes, it is quite right, apps on social media have made it easier for kids to get access to this than ever before.

There is some good news. The Food and Drug Administration has allowed for the over-the-counter sale of Narcan that is to begin this summer. That is a good thing. However, that in no way counteracts the increase in illicit fentanyl that is coming across the southern border because of the refusal of this administration to secure our sovereign border.

Back in 2018 when the SUPPORT Act passed, it was largely through bipartisan efforts on the Committee on Energy and Commerce that brought that bill to its signing. Once again, I thank members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and members of the Senate for bringing before us these important pieces of legislation to roll back the damage that President Biden has done in the fentanyl crisis.

Republicans remain united in pursuing a legislative agenda that puts the welfare of Americans above the special interests of a few.

Mr. Speaker, I urge fellow Members to support the rule and support the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 429 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of

Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social

Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening

motion or demand for division of the question except one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or

their respective designees.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Res. 178.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 467.

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

Madam Chair, action is needed now to address the fentanyl crisis. That is why I rise today in strong support of H.R. 467, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

Fentanyl is the top cause of death for Americans 18 to 49 years old. In my home State of Kentucky, illicit fentanyl overdoses represented 70 percent of all overdoses in 2020 and 2021.

The fentanyl crisis is one of the foremost problems that the American public faces and has been made worse by the crisis at our southern border. Illicit fentanyl is turning virtually every community into a border community with these poisons flooding streets across America and taking innocent lives, including the lives of our kids.

The HALT Fentanyl Act would ban all fentanyl analogues and strip the drug cartels and other criminals of the incentive to create new versions of fentanyl to skirt around the law. This bill is a key step to help get these poisons off our streets and give law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on illicit fentanyl trafficking.

A two-pronged approach to addressing this crisis is needed. We must have a law enforcement and a substance use recovery strategy to address this crisis. That is why I look forward to examining the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act later this year to continue providing access to treatment and recovery support services that so many individuals rely on throughout the country.

To those who oppose this legislation on the grounds it could lead to mass incarceration, the emergency classwide scheduling implemented by President Trump did not lead to mass incarcerations. In a Government Accountability Office study from 2021, the GAO found that there were only eight prosecutions--yes, eight prosecutions--during the period in which the Trump administration temporarily scheduled fentanyl-related substances as schedule I drugs from 2018-2020, with four of them being individuals working on behalf of the cartel because the cartels quit creating illicit fentanyl separate from the fentanyl that is poisoning our kids today.

It could be even worse. I know there are also those who believe the emergency scheduling order didn't lead to reductions in overdose deaths and that this bill before us won't effectively address the issues we are facing.

To both of those criticisms, this bill stops these analogues from being produced in the first place. Right after the classwide ban was put in place, the number of fentanyl analogue encounters dropped nearly 89 percent, more than 6,200 fewer reports of analogues. DEA officials stated that the classwide scheduling contributed to this dramatic drop.

It also includes provisions to facilitate more research into the detection of fentanyl-related substances and potential treatment of fentanyl poisonings, something that has much more red tape in the status quo.

I am happy to see the White House supports two main provisions of the HALT Fentanyl Act. The HALT Fentanyl Act is one step of many this body needs to take to address the end of the overdose crisis. The time to permanently act is now, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on

Madam Chair, this was a bipartisan bill. It got bipartisan votes in committee. It is the DEA's number one priority.

If you are selling fentanyl to our kids, you deserve to be incarcerated. We don't apologize for that.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. Rodgers), the chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), the bill's sponsor.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), the vice chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Mike Garcia.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. D'Esposito). The gentleman from Kentucky has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 8 minutes remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

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

My friend from New Jersey did say that this law expires at the end of the year. That is why we are here today to make scheduling illicit fentanyl permanent.

We have to understand what the status quo is. The status quo currently is horrific. Before these illicit fentanyls were scheduled, although we couldn't get them permanently scheduled, there were all kinds of analogues throughout America. That is why the DEA and others recommended that we schedule these, because once you change the fentanyl molecule, unless these are scheduled, then it becomes no longer illegal. These all appeared in our country, and that is why we are reacting to it. They are scheduled now, and what we are moving to do is to make it permanent.

What has happened since they were scheduled?

They came to me, and they talked about mass incarceration. We have heard that today. There have been eight people in prison under this law, four dealing with cartels, which I would say absolutely should be in prison.

I asked some of my law enforcement people when I was looking into this bill: If you have only arrested eight people, why does it matter?

That is what they are saying on the other side of the aisle.

What they said was the only reason we have only arrested eight people is because when this was put into place, the analogues--not fentanyl, but the analogues, which can be more dangerous--had disappeared from the marketplace. They are bringing in fentanyl that is already scheduled.

The problem is, if we treat fentanyl analogues differently than fentanyl, they are going to reappear again. That is why we have to put them in the same category. If you have fentanyl subject to mandatory minimums, but not these analogues, then they are going to reappear.

We have to pass this bill, we have to move forward, and I recommend support of this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. President, everyone here--everyone here--everybody in the audience, everybody watching on C-SPAN has a loved one or knows of someone whom they have loved who has either overdosed or died, actually, from an overdose of fentanyl--an incredible scourge on our society right now. Drug overdose is the leading cause of death among young adults 18 to 45, and synthetic opioids like fentanyl are 75 percent of the cause, if you will, of U.S. overdose deaths.

Fentanyl continues to kill almost 200 Americans a day--200 Americans a day. Like, today, 200 Americans will die from a fentanyl overdose--an entire generation, dying. Illegal fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances are flooding into our market from the southern border in unprecedented amounts, with the bulk of it originating from a handful of manufacturers in Wuhan Province, China. By the way, you can't help but point out that this is worsened by the Biden administration's complete failure to secure the southern border.

Currently, fentanyl-related substances are classified as schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification provides law enforcement with the tools necessary to combat this emergency, going after the criminals who, again, are flooding our communities with these deadly drugs. But schedule I classification expires at the end of the year, and that is less than 8 months away.

Now, for years, Congress has not made this classification permanent, and every day we get closer to this deadline, we risk losing this essential law enforcement tool. If we don't act, the chemical manufacturers in China, the cartels, and the criminals who exploit our communities are emboldened, and we must not allow this to happen.

That is why today I am calling on the Senate to pass the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act, or the HALT Fentanyl Act, to permanently classify fentanyl-related substances as a schedule I controlled substance. Now, the bill is not controversial. There are no poison pills. All it does is codify current law, ensuring we don't lose tools we need to confront the fentanyl epidemic. The House--with as many problems as the House has had passing legislation--passed this bill on a strong bipartisan basis last year.

And the legislation removes barriers that impede the ability of researchers to conduct studies on these substances and allows for exemptions if the research provides evidence that specific analogs of fentanyl have a valid medical purpose. So we give law enforcement tools, but we also give the scientists, the medical scientists, tools to establish whether one of these analogs is worth having for medical purposes.

Now, it is important to note that this week is National Police Week. We honor police officers and their service to our communities. Now, these officers are on the frontlines of the fentanyl crisis, holding criminals accountable, saving lives by preventing the spread of drugs, but at times giving drugs like Narcan to reverse an overdose.

I am proud to say that we have a letter from 11 national law enforcement organizations supporting the HALT Fentanyl Act. And by passing this legislation, we will send a strong message to law enforcement: We have your back. We have your back as you battle the scourge of deadly drugs in our communities.

The clock is ticking. Failure to act puts Americans in harm's way. We must pass this bill and get it to the President's desk for signature.

Mr. President, now, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 467 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, recognizing that there has been an objection, I would like to point out a couple of things, though.

As regards permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances would do nothing to limit overdoses: Congress has extended fentanyl scheduling on a temporary basis multiple times, and this has led to fewer overdoses and led to the creation of fewer new fentanyl-related substances.

Next, the idea that designating them all as schedule I would limit the ability of researchers to study fentanyl is just not true. There is no indication that the temporary scheduling of fentanyl analogs has stifled research. The DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, has approved every research study since 2018. But this bill goes further by putting a robust process in place to study fentanyl. It does not disrupt ongoing things, but it actually creates an expedited process for certain FDA studies to be done in partnership with Federal Agencies.

Lastly, that somehow this would contribute to overincarceration: The bill does not permanently bar DEA or HHS from continuing to look at the risks associated with it. If something has no risk, they can establish it has no risk. Therefore, it would not lead to overincarceration.

But we do know that fentanyl is a dangerous--a dangerous--substance, and if we are concerned about the overincarceration of a certain population of our society, I can guarantee you that that population, like every population, is having people dying today from fentanyl overdose; that whichever group of Americans we are speaking of, they are losing someone today from fentanyl; and that this bill would help save a life in that particular group and, most importantly, in all groups.

With that, though, recognizing there is an objection, I yield the floor.