Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds on the Baldwin-Portman amendment.

Mr. President, Senator Baldwin spoke a moment ago about this amendment we are about to vote on.

It is $20 million to the National Nuclear Security Administration's domestic isotope program. This is something this body voted for back in 2012. CBO says it has no budget authority impact. It is really important because we are getting this all from overseas. We have no domestic source. We want to get away from using highly enriched uranium for national security reasons.

I encourage you to all vote for this.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, today I come back to the floor of the Senate to talk again about the opioid crisis that has gripped the country and my State of Ohio.

I want to focus on the issue of fentanyl. This is the most deadly of the drugs now. It is a drug that is causing the most overdoses at a time in which we have unprecedented numbers of overdoses.

Fentanyl is a synthetic form of heroin and opioids. It is coming through the mail. It is coming mostly from one country--China. It is the poison that has contributed more in the last few years to the rise in opioid use than anything else.

Over the past week, we have made some significant progress in pushing back against fentanyl, and I want to report on that today.

As I am talking today, the U.S. House of Representatives is going to take up legislation called the STOP Act, which we have been working on here in the Senate for a couple of years. I am very pleased about that. I suspect the vote today will be bipartisan. I suspect it will pass the House.

I also want to report that here in the Senate we have had a breakthrough in the last week. Not only have we negotiated something with the House that is, in my view, an improvement from the legislation that passed the House Ways and Means committee a couple of weeks ago, but also, in the Senate Finance Committee this week, we had a markup and got a commitment from the chairman and ranking member that the Finance Committee will also mark up the same legislation--identical legislation--as is likely to pass the House of Representatives today.

I thank Chairman Orrin Hatch and Ranking Member Ron Wyden for working with us to ensure we could get this legislation marked up in committee and onto the floor of the U.S. Senate as part of whatever we do in terms of the opioid crisis here in the coming days and weeks.

Of course, I also commend my House colleagues for the vote today and for the work they have done on this, particularly the Ways and Means Committee chairman, Kevin Brady, Representatives Mike Bishop, Dave

Reichert, Bill Pascrell, and John Faso for their efforts on this bill to combat the opioid crisis. Again, my hope is the bill that passes the House today will be identical to the bill we will take up here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, so we can ensure we can get this bill to the President for his signature as soon as possible.

This is an urgent issue. This is not just an important issue; it is an urgent issue. We need to push back, and we need to push back hard.

The drug fentanyl is so dangerous that a couple milligrams of it, a few flecks of it, can kill you. Again, it is something that is causing the most overdoses right now. It is not just affecting those who are overdosing on it; it is affecting all of us, including our first responders, including young children who come in contact with it. The stories of kids exposed to fentanyl are really heartbreaking, perhaps because someone left it behind at a party, perhaps because their parents or other family members left it behind, and these young children are overdosing and dying. This is happening in my State. This is happening around the country.

First responders are being affected. I hear stories about it when I am home, whether it is a firefighter, someone in the healthcare industry, or someone who is in law enforcement. A story, which I have mentioned before, is about an East Liverpool, OH, police officer. He pulls over two suspects, notices they are spreading white powder inside the car, trying to hide it. Wisely, he puts on gloves and a mask. He makes the arrest. When he is back at the police station booking these individuals--not for the traffic violation so much as for the fentanyl--he looks at his shirt and notices a couple of flecks of something white on his shirt, and brushes it off like that. His fingers are exposed to the fentanyl. Immediately, he falls to the ground unconscious and has to be revived by Narcan, not once, not twice, but for Chris Green, a big guy--6 feet 2 inches, 200-some pounds, in great shape--four doses of Narcan were necessary to save his life and keep him alive.

As his police chief said, if they weren't right there with him, what would have happened? What would have happened if he had gone home, had those flecks on his shoulder, and hugged his kids? This is an incredibly dangerous substance, and we have to deal with it.

Last year, law enforcement officials in Massachusetts said that with two doses of Narcan, they revived a man who said he had been smoking only marijuana. How could this be? It was because fentanyl was mixed with that marijuana.

I was in Lorain, OH, last week for a meeting with folks involved in pushing back against this substance abuse problem--law enforcement, social workers, treatment providers. Law enforcement told us a story that was very much the same--a young man who had to be revived by using Narcan. He said: I was just smoking dope.

It couldn't be. Sure enough, when they checked, they found out the marijuana had been laced with fentanyl. It is also going into cocaine. It is also going into crystal meth. In fact, crystal meth now is becoming a bigger problem in my home State of Ohio, and we know for a fact that this is a bigger problem in part because it is being mixed with fentanyl.

The Dayton area recently released its county overdose report. The Dayton area experienced three times as many crystal meth-related overdose deaths in 2017 as compared to 2016. Again, they believe fentanyl mixed into these drugs is the contributing factor.

The county coroner from Cincinnati said that she has now seen fentanyl mixed with cocaine and marijuana, as well as a number of street drugs. Fentanyl and its variants are now the deadliest drugs of the opioid epidemic.

One of the takeaways I have had from my meetings around the State, talking to people about how we push back on fentanyl, is a growing consensus that we need to make much more progress in keeping the fentanyl from coming into our communities in the first place. Again, we know this is what is causing the big increase in overdoses and deaths at a time when we are doing more at home to address the opioid crisis. If not for fentanyl, I strongly believe we would be making progress. We would be seeing a reduction in overdoses.

This body has passed the CARA legislation--the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act; it has also passed the 21st Century Cures Act. I have been at different places in the State in the last few weeks where they have been using that funding well, to do things like quick response teams--when somebody is revived with Narcan, the miracle drug that reverses the effects of the overdose, then, be sure you are getting that person treatment by working with law enforcement, treatment providers, and social workers together. It is working.

In one case where they are using funding from the CARA legislation, 80 percent of the people whom they are coming into contact with are going into treatment. That is a tremendous improvement from, unfortunately, what is generally happening, which is that very few people are actually going from the Narcan overdose saving the person's life into treatment. We have to deal with that gap.

So we are making progress, yet the fentanyl is overwhelming the system. So it is time for us to figure this out, and push back harder.

In 2013, in my home city of Cincinnati, we experienced a 1,000- percent increase in fentanyl deaths. In the first 5 months of this year, more than 90 percent of the drugs seized by the Hamilton County crime lab contained fentanyl--more than 90 percent.

Most of the drugs we talk about pushing back against--think of cocaine, heroin, even crystal meth--come in overland, mostly across the southern border from Mexico. What law enforcement tells us and what the intelligence community tells us is that fentanyl comes in primarily by the U.S. mail system. So instead of coming overland--and the need for helping to secure our southern border is clear partly because of that-- here we have a situation where this drug is coming in through our own Federal agency, the U.S. mail service. They tell us it comes primarily from one country--China. It is made in a laboratory in China, and it is shipped over here.

We spent about 18 months studying this issue. We went undercover and contacted a lot of different websites, and they all told us the same thing, which is this: If you are going to buy from us, ship it by U.S. mail. If it comes by U.S. mail, we guarantee delivery. If you don't send it by U.S. mail, we are not so sure we can guarantee it.

Why is that? Because 16 years ago, this body and the U.S. House of Representatives, after the tragic incidents of 9/11, decided we were going to tighten up on packages coming into our country and the law enforcement screening of those packages. So we required all the private carriers--FedEx, UPS, DHL, and others--to provide law enforcement data about those packages, where they were from, what was in them, where they were going. They had to provide that data electronically and in advance so that law enforcement could use big data and use analytics to determine what packages were suspect to be able to pull them offline.

I have been to those facilities where this happens. It is very impressive. It is also very dangerous. These packages, once identified, have to be taken into a room where there is adequate ventilation and other precautions taken--gloves and masks and so on--because of the danger of fentanyl.

But the U.S. Post Office was not required 16 years ago to provide that information. Instead, the legislation said that the post office needed to study the issue, leaving it clear in legislative history that Congress considered it a problem but wanted to give the post office time to look into it. Specifically, they asked the Postmaster General and Department of Homeland Security to come up with a report. It never happened.

So here we are, 16 years later. The post office doesn't have that requirement, and these other ways you can send packages mailed into the United States do have that requirement. So guess where the traffickers go.

The post office in the last year or so has begun to step up its efforts, and I am happy about that. I believe they did it because of our hearings and because of the pressure from Congress and because of this legislation called the

STOP Act. They now say that they are screening about 36 percent of their packages. Again, that is a big improvement. However, there are about 900 million packages a year. That means about 315 million packages are being looked at, and this is a big improvement, but we still have so many hundreds of millions of packages not receiving that kind of screening.

In addition, we learned through our hearings and investigation that 20 percent of the time, when law enforcement had identified a Postal Service package that was suspect, it was not presented to law enforcement. In other words, it went into the community anyway.

Clearly, we have a big problem. We are not screening adequately, we are not providing the information for enough packages, and we are not giving law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. By the way, with regard to the private carriers, it is 100 percent required.

So the legislation we are proposing is to tell the post office: This poison has to be stopped in every way we possibly can. This is a crisis. This is not just important; it is urgent. It is something we want you to address.

So it says that by 2020 we have to have 100 percent of packages screened, and we have to give law enforcement the tools they need. Law enforcement, of course, is desperate to get this information. If they have the information, they can help. They can help to keep these packages out of our country. They can also help to raise the price.

Some packages that are stopped, of course, would otherwise have gone to a post office box or someone's home or an abandoned house and been distributed. Packages that could have poisoned hundreds of thousands of people and killed hundreds of thousands of people have been seized in the State of Ohio. There was a package found recently in Nebraska that could have killed millions of people. In a relatively small quantity, this is incredibly powerful, dangerous stuff.

Now, with this legislation, we will be able to identify more of these packages and get them offline and, again, at a minimum, be able to raise the cost.

One of the reasons fentanyl has taken over and pushed out other drugs--by the way, it is 50 times more powerful than heroin. One reason is that it is relatively inexpensive. This will raise the price and reduce the volume and help to save lives.

We now have over one-third of the U.S. Senate as cosponsors of this legislation, including Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden. Again, I appreciate their support and their work on this. We also have about half of the House of Representatives who have supported the STOP Act in the other Chamber.

It is time for us to take the next step: pass this legislation, get it in place, and immediately tell countries like China, if you want to send packages to us, you have to provide this information.

We have done everything we can in other ways to encourage China to crack down on these labs, the evil scientists who are continuing to make this product. We are taking other steps, of course, to do that. We are taking other steps to deal with this issue in terms of increased prevention and education efforts. That is in the CARA legislation. There is $10 million right now available for the administration to come up with a national media campaign that I would strongly support. They have already started a smaller media campaign with the private sector. I support that as well. We need to push back every way we can, letting people know the dangers, including the fact that any street drugs you take now potentially can have deadly consequences, including fentanyl.

We need to do more in terms of getting people into treatment. This is a disease, and it needs to be treated as such. We are not going to be able to make progress unless we take people who are already addicted and get them into the treatment and longer term recovery they need. Longer term recovery is funded by CARA and Cures. This is the first time Congress has done this. It is very important because if you get people into longer term recovery programs--sober housing and group discussions, helping to support them--you have a much higher likelihood of somebody getting clean, being successful, being able to get back on track, getting back with their family, getting back to their job.

Finally, we have to do more in terms of helping law enforcement. Again, that is partly what we are doing here, giving them the tools to be able to stop some of this poison from coming in, in the first place.

I am encouraged with the progress we made just in the last week. We now have a House bill that is being voted on, as I speak. We now have a Senate bill that has been agreed to be reported out of committee coming onto the floor. They are identical. They both do the job. They both tell the post office we have to change behavior.

By the way, in terms of the post office, someone told me today that the postal union was concerned about this legislation. I encourage you to talk to rank-and-file mail carriers, postal carriers, and ask them what they think. They don't want to be carrying this poison into our communities. They don't want to be potentially exposed to this poison, should a package leak, because of the danger of it.

The people I talk to agree, we absolutely have to crack down on this. We are not asking the post office to do it alone. We are providing funding to Customs and Border Protection to be there with them. The postal inspectors, the folks who are actually local law enforcement, are desperate to ensure that we can do this because they are tired of it. They are tired of seeing this stuff come in, like an avalanche coming into our country, and creating all these problems across the board in our communities, every sector of our community being affected. People are desperate for solutions because they acknowledge the problem.

I had a tele-townhall meeting last week in Washington where I called in and spoke to thousands of Ohioans at once. We do this on a monthly basis. For the last few years, we have been asking questions about opioids in our survey. It is a very simple question. It says: Have you been directly affected? Has anybody you know been directly affected by this opioid crisis?

Unbelievably, we have gotten typically about 50 percent of the people who called--again, these are thousands of people randomly selected-- saying: Yes, my family or someone I know has been directly affected by opioids.

At the call last week, two-thirds of the people on the call said they have been directly affected or someone they know has been directly affected. That is why people are desperate for a solution because it is affecting them. It is affecting their lives. It is affecting their families. It is affecting our communities. It is affecting every single aspect of our community--the healthcare system, the foster care system, the prison system, the court system. It is time for us to step up and do more. Yes, prevention, treatment, longer term recovery but also helping law enforcement to be able to push back and stop some of this poison from coming into our communities in the first place.

Let's pass the STOP Act to give law enforcement the tools they need against this new scourge of this epidemic, and by doing so, we will save lives.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, while my vote would not have changed the outcome, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to invoke cloture on the Toomey amendment. I was questioning nominees at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations at the time of the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the consent with respect to H.R. 88 be amended to reflect that the Murkowski amendment was an amendment to the committee-reported amendment and the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to and the bill, as amended, passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 536, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motionS to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today I want to talk about some new information regarding the Iran nuclear deal

negotiated by the Obama administration. This agreement is known sometimes as the JCPOA, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This is an agreement that was reached by the Obama administration. It was voted on after the fact by this body. Actually, a majority of Members of the House and Senate chose to oppose the agreement, but not enough to be able to stop it. So it went into effect, and, as my colleagues know, it has gotten some play recently as the administration has pulled out the involvement of the United States in that agreement.

What I want to talk about this evening is new information that has come from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. We began an investigation into one aspect of this agreement nearly 2 years ago, and it was based on information that we received that despite the Obama administration's claims to the contrary, there may have been some undisclosed arrangement with Iran to grant them access to the U.S. financial system.

Recall that the basic deal with Iran went like this: In exchange for Iran agreeing to certain limitations regarding its nuclear arsenal, including limiting the new production of enriched uranium for 15 years, the United States and other members of the United Nations Security Council would agree to lift some economic sanctions on Iran. It was the basic construct of the agreement.

As part of that agreement, which included ongoing deadlines that needed to be met over a period of years, the United States lifted what are often referred to as ``secondary sanctions.'' So these weren't direct sanctions on the United States, but these were sanctions on foreign companies, foreign entities, and foreign countries that do business with those under U.S. sanctions--in this case, Iran.

Under the Iran deal, other countries were now allowed, for the first time, to freely do business with Iran without the risk of the United States imposing sanctions on them. That was something that was very important to Iran. Iran was also allowed to access money that had been frozen abroad in other countries because the threat of U.S. sanctions against cooperating foreign partners no longer existed.

At the same time, really because of the nonnuclear concerns regarding Iran, including supporting terrorism, human rights violations, ballistic missile development, and basic destabilization of the region, U.S. sanctions against Iran remained in place. So our primary sanctions stayed in place. This means Iran was banned from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, and banks and other private institutions were still banned from accessing the U.S. financial systems on behalf of Iran.

This is a big deal. Any country that is sanctioned really wants access to our financial system because it is so intertwined with the rest of the world, and they were still banned from directly accessing our U.S. financial system.

This was a key point that the Obama administration made clear throughout the negotiations with Iran. They repeatedly provided assurances to the American people that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system. They made the same claims publicly before congressional committees and in testimony here on the Hill.

On July 23, 2015, before the deal was implemented, a senior Treasury official, as an example, said: ``Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.'' This testimony further stated: ``Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial market.''

That is us. That is what they said.

On August 5, 2015, the then-Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that ``Iran will be denied access to the world's most important market and unable to deal in the world's most important currency''--that being the dollar.

He also stated: ``Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.''

These claims were very clear: The U.S. financial system was not to be used.

Despite these claims, the very next year, just after implementation of the deal had begun, we started hearing reports that the Obama administration was considering changing course on this policy.

This obviously raised a lot of concerns from Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle because the Iranian regime remained a state sponsor of terrorism--the No. 1 state sponsor of terror. It continued to threaten ballistic missile activities, and it continued to commit egregious violations of human rights, as it still does today. In fact, in July of 2016, a bipartisan group of 35 Senators sent a letter to President Obama expressing deep concern over these rumors that Iran might be granted access to the U.S. dollar and to the U.S. financial system.

It was about that time when we started our investigation in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Again, we did so because we were hearing rumors that this might be happening.

Today, after a nearly 2-year investigation, we unveiled a report that detailed for the first time how, despite their claims to the contrary, the Obama administration secretly granted a specific license authorizing the conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of dollars using the U.S. financial system.

Remember that this happened despite repeated assurances to the public and Congress that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system. Specifically, the Obama administration asked two banks--U.S. banks--to execute the transactions. Fortunately, these two big U.S. multinational banks refused to do so. The report outlines key findings and recommendations designed to prevent this from happening in the future.

What funds are we talking about? Well, before the Iran deal was implemented, Iran transferred approximately $13 billion in oil revenue assets to bank accounts overseas. They deposited $8.8 billion of that oil revenue in one bank account at Bank Muscat in Muscat, Oman.

Three days after implementation of the agreement on January 19, 2016, Bank Muscat contacted the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, which is the agency within the Treasury Department responsible for enforcing U.S. sanctions. They did this on behalf of the Central Bank of Iran. This is the Oman bank contacting the U.S. Treasury Department saying: We need your help.

Bank Muscat sought to convert $5.7 billion in Omani money--the rial-- into euros on behalf of Iran. Because the rial is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the most efficient conversion was with an intermediary step through a U.S. bank using U.S. dollars, so that is what they asked for. Iran was eager to convert this money into a more universal currency and was adamant about getting this done quickly.

Despite its public stance that it would not provide Iran access to the U.S. financial system and U.S. banks, on February 24, 2016, OFAC again--this Department of the Treasury agency--issued a specific license to Bank Muscat authorizing Iranian assets worth nearly $5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system.

Today I heard some say that this specific license was just a narrow exemption or just a minor fix. To that I direct my colleagues to an email from a Bank Muscat official, which said that the license was ``a gigantic breakthrough which has assured Iran of almost full global financial inclusion.'' That doesn't sound like a narrow fix to me.

Anyone suggesting that the specific license didn't grant access to the U.S. financial system hasn't read the report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I would encourage them to do that. But they also haven't read the Obama administration's emails that we cite in this report.

Don't take my word for it, though. As one State Department official wrote to his Iranian counterpart: ``OFAC informed Bank Muscat and the Central Bank of Oman today that they have a license to convert Iranian assets in its

account to euros through the U.S. financial system.''

That is from the State Department at the time.

Members of the Obama administration clearly understood that something was wrong here; this was not part of the Iran deal. A senior State Department official wrote at the time in 2016 that the transaction was ``prohibited by U.S. sanctions that are still in place and which we were clear we would not be removing as part of the JCPOA.'' That same official wrote that granting the transaction ``exceeded'' the JCPOA commitments because it authorized the use of the U.S. financial system.

Let me repeat that so it is crystal clear. The Obama administration State Department completely understood this concession--that giving Iran access to the U.S. financial system was ``prohibited by U.S. sanctions'' that ``we were clear we would not be removing.''

Those aren't my words. They aren't the words of the subcommittee. Those are the words of the senior State Department official at the time. There was no confusion about this as far as we can tell.

Shortly after issuing the specific license to use the U.S. financial system to convert the rials, a Treasury official wrote in an email on the matter: ``I think we earned the right to never discuss this matter ever again.''

I disagree. I think we have to talk about this and to talk about how before, during, and after the Treasury Department and the State Department officials testified in front of Congress that Iran would not have access to the U.S. financial system, they worked behind the scenes to allow exactly that. We have to talk about this to be sure it doesn't happen again.

Following the issuance of the specific license, OFAC contacted these two U.S. banks urging them to convert Iran's rials to U.S. dollars. It appears the administration was becoming desperate. Iran was making both public and private claims that they were not getting the benefit of the deal they expected and asserting that the deal could fall apart. You all may remember that time period, when there were threats by Iran to pull out of the deal.

We discovered an email where a State Department official even suggested that the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury should contact these U.S. banks themselves and encourage them to facilitate this conversion. By the way, we have no evidence that those calls were made, and I am not suggesting that.

Both U.S. banks declined to complete the transaction. According to the banks, they refused to do so due to compliance, reputational, and legal risks associated with doing business with Iran. They did the right thing.

Because U.S. banks were unwilling to convert the funds despite requests from the Obama administration, ultimately, Bank Muscat was unable to effectuate the conversion using the U.S. dollar. The State Department has now told us that Iran, over time, converted the funds into euros in small increments using European banks.

The only reason the transaction wasn't executed through the U.S. financial system was that these two U.S. banks refused, despite pressure, even though the administration asked them to help convert the money.

After the Iran deal was implemented--and after the Treasury Department had issued a specific license--the Obama administration continued to maintain the false notion that it had not provided Iran access to the U.S. financial system.

On April 5, 2016, Ambassador Thomas Shannon said: ``There is no exchange of dollars inside the U.S. financial system, and we have not allowed an access to our larger financial system.''

On May 25, 2016, the Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence said: ``But Secretary Lew has said exactly what I have said here today, and I know he was looking forward to me being here to be able to relay his views on this. Iran will not have access to our financial system.''

On June 7, 2016, Treasury wrote a letter to Senators Kirk and Rubio saying: ``The administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system.''

Time after time--before, during, and after the Iran deal--the Obama administration misled the American people and misled Congress on this point. I believe it was because the administration was so eager to make sure this deal was going to work. They wanted to keep Iran in the deal.

Our report also shows that the State Department and Treasury Department held at least 200 meetings, or ``road shows,'' around the world to encourage other countries to do business with Iran. In the road shows, Treasury Department officials also downplayed any potential future penalties or fines that might result from sanctions.

During one road show, the head of OFAC reportedly told the audience that ``95 percent of the time OFAC sees an apparent violation it results in a simple warning letter or no enforcement action.''

So this is the head of the agency at Treasury responsible for enforcing sanctions saying that 95 percent of the time it results in a simple warning letter or no enforcement action. We shouldn't be telling anyone that we enforce sanctions--one of our most important foreign policy tools--only 5 percent of the time.

One European regulator who attended an OFAC road show commented that foreign financial institutions felt, in his words, ``political pressure'' to conduct business with Iran and Iranian companies. Sanctions are a vital foreign policy tool, yet, in this case, the Obama administration seemed to be sending the wrong message about their enforcement and effectiveness.

The PSI report released today outlines key transparency recommendations to ensure that undisclosed side deals like this never happen again, including requiring the current administration to keep congressional committees of jurisdiction up to date on the status of any future negotiations with Iran, disclosing to Congress any specific licenses that are proposed, and putting in place stronger enforcement of U.S. sanctions. Going forward, this report also underscores how important the U.S. financial system is to global finance markets, and it gives us a substantial amount of leverage in negotiations. We should choose to use it.

We now have an opportunity to fix the fundamental flaws in the Iran deal and put in place a stronger agreement that truly protects America's national security interests and the interests of our allies in the region. Recall that the Iran deal was opposed again by a bipartisan majority of this body.

I support our efforts to work with our European allies to put in place a better deal that truly represents our own national security interests and those of our allies in the region. I hope this report helps us to avoid the kinds of problems that occurred last time the next time around.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will start by congratulating Senator Klobuchar, who was on the floor earlier to speak about the Congressional Accountability Act, and Senator Blunt for their hard work to enact legislation that will make this place work better. It is a rare display of bipartisanship, coming together to improve our processes with regard to sexual harassment and other issues, and I thank them for that.

Earlier this week, some of us talked about the veterans bill that passed this Chamber--another sign of bipartisanship. It passed with a big vote, and it will help our veterans in Ohio to get the care they need, where they want it. Going into Memorial Day, I am very glad it passed.

We have heard a lot of concerns that my colleagues raised about veterans not being able to get the care they wanted in their hometowns or the specialist they wanted or not being able to get reimbursed appropriately for care outside of the VA system, and now they will be able to do it.

Another part of that legislation that helps our veterans deals with an issue that is affecting all of the States in this body and sadly has become an epidemic in our country; that is, the opioid epidemic. It is an issue that some of our veterans are facing when they come back from service. Some have PTSD. Some have traumatic brain injuries and other injuries that require procedures. In response to the acute pain and some of these other conditions, they are given opioid medication. As a result, sadly, a number of our veterans have become addicted to opioids.

This legislation will help by, No. 1, cutting back on the overprescribing of opioids but also by using nonaddictive pain alternatives--medicines that do not have opioids in them--and other forms of therapy to help them deal with pain. These therapies will now be used more in our VA hospital system. That is a good thing for our veterans.

Mr. President, talking about the opioid issue, sadly, this is gripping my State of Ohio in a way that has caused us to have more deaths by opioids than any other cause of death. But it is not just Ohio; it is an epidemic because now, nationally, it is the No. 1 cause of accidental death, and for Americans under 50, it is the No. 1 cause of death, period. This makes it the worst drug epidemic we have faced in this country--the worst since, we will recall, back in the 1980s and 1990s when we were very concerned about cocaine and other drugs. This has become the worst drug epidemic we have ever faced.

We had a tele-townhall meeting this week where I called several thousand Ohioans. We had about 20,000 people on the call at any one time. During that call, we had a survey question. Among other questions, it asked about opioids, and it asked a very simple question: Do you know someone who has been personally affected? Have you been or do you know someone who has been personally affected by this opioid epidemic? The numbers were shocking this week. Typically, over half of the callers say yes. That is how bad it is in Ohio. This week, it was 66 percent--two-thirds of the callers. Thousands of people in Ohio reported back from a tele-townhall. So it is not a self-selected group; it is people who have called in to talk about various issues, and 66 percent said they know someone who has been directly affected by this opioid addiction issue.

It has unfolded in three waves. The first wave was really prescription drugs, and this was back in the late 1990s and into the 2000s. There were pill mills in Southern Ohio and other States. Kentucky and West Virginia were hit hard. This was medication that was being abused, in many cases leading to an addiction.

The second wave was the heroin wave. This was when heroine became more readily available and was actually less expensive than prescription drugs, and many people turned to heroin. That heroin led to many more overdoses and other issues, including diseases associated with the use of needles, hepatitis C and others.

Now there is a new wave, and the new wave, sadly, is even more deadly than the first two. It is what is called synthetic opioids or synthetic heroin. The one that you have probably heard of is called fentanyl, sometimes carfentanil, which is even more powerful. It is truly at epidemic levels in my State, and it is being made worse by this new wave of synthetic heroin.

There are other drugs, as well, that are affecting us in our country. In my own State, in some regions of Ohio, crystal meth now coming up from Mexico is creating a bigger problem. Cocaine is certainly an issue. But as I have looked at the statistics and traveled the State, it is clear that our No. 1 issue is opioids and that synthetic opioids--50 times more potent than heroin--are the new face of the opioid epidemic.

Fentanyl was involved in about 37 percent of the deaths in Ohio as recently as 2015. By 2016, it was responsible for 58 percent of the overdose deaths. So it has gone from 37 percent to 58 percent in 1 year. We don't have all the numbers yet for 2017, but unfortunately the numbers we do have from various regions of the State indicate that 2017 is going to be just as bad, if not worse. Columbus, OH, as an example, has seen a staggering increase in opioid overdoses due to fentanyl. Two-thirds of the county's 2017 overdose deaths were due to fentanyl-- two-thirds.

I am told by law enforcement that fentanyl--again, this drug that is so deadly that a few flakes of it can kill you--has also been sprinkled into other drugs. I have talked to recovering addicts who told me their stories about finding out that they were actually taking fentanyl when they thought they were taking another drug. It has been sprinkled into other street drugs, according to law enforcement and some of these recovering addicts I have talked to, including cocaine, even including marijuana, and including heroin.

Just last week, two men in the Toledo area were arrested for drug conspiracy with the intent to distribute. A little more than half a pound of fentanyl was seized upon their arrest. Half a pound of fentanyl would be equivalent to about 1 cup of fentanyl--small enough to fit into a ziplock bag in your kitchen. Yet that one drug seizure of 1 cup was enough fentanyl, according to experts, to kill 16,000 people. Remember, just a few flecks of it can

kill you. That is more than half of the population of Toledo, where this arrest took place. That is how dangerous these drugs are.

Fentanyl comes mostly from laboratories in China, and mostly it is shipped to the United States through a Federal agency; this is, the U.S. Postal Service. It is unbelievable to me that we are not doing more to push back on this given that it is actually a government entity through which the experts say most of this fentanyl is coming in, primarily from one country, primarily through the post office.

We looked into this in an 18-month investigation in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. Our investigators revealed just how easy it is to purchase fentanyl online and have it shipped to the United States. The drugs can be found through a simple Google search, and overseas sellers essentially guarantee delivery if the fentanyl is sent through the U.S. Postal Service.

I have spent time talking to Postal Service employees about this, including back home in Ohio, and they don't want to be any part of this. No. 1, it is very dangerous. You can imagine, if these packages leak--I talked earlier about the dangers of fentanyl--people can be subjected to it, exposed to it, overdose themselves, even die. Also, they don't want to be any part of it because they don't want to see these poisons coming into our country--that they are delivering--and going to an empty warehouse or a post office box or even being delivered to someone's home, and during our investigation, we found all three. We found in several instances that people had received fentanyl through the mail and then had died of overdoses. We would have tracked that from hearing who had died and being able to track some of the payments and shipments. So there is no question that people are receiving fentanyl at their homes and taking it and dying. No one wants to be a part of that.

Why is the post office the preferred way for these drugs to come? Why do the traffickers say: If you send it through the post office, then delivery is guaranteed. It is really pretty simple. The U.S. Postal Service is exempt from a Federal law that was passed post-9/11. In 2002, Congress passed a law that required the private carriers--think FedEx or DHL or UPS--to get advance electronic data from their customers, which would then be provided to law enforcement, and it would tell law enforcement where the package is from, what is in the package, and where it is going. With that information, using big data analytics, Customs and Border Protection has been able to identify suspicious packages because they have this data on the packages coming in--every package, 100 percent of the packages. They then are able to pull these packages off line, test them, and not have this poison come into our communities.

The same is not true, unfortunately, with regard to the U.S. Postal Service. Until we began this congressional investigation and began to push the Postal Service, there was very little electronic data being provided on any packages from the Postal Service. Now, remember, there are 900 million packages coming in a year. How can law enforcement possibly find the suspect packages without having this data and without having good detection equipment to be able to find it? It is like finding a needle in a haystack. But with this information, they are able to be much more effective, as they have been with these private carriers--DHL, UPS, FedEx, and so on.

Under pressure from Congress, over the last year or so, the Postal Service has been getting some data on international packages. Last year, they received data on about 36 percent of their packages, based on the testimony they have given us, meaning that the United States received about 318 million packages without any of the screening, without any of this data on it at all. So 36 percent is an improvement, but still the vast majority of packages are not being stopped.

By the way, 20 percent of the packages that were identified by law enforcement as being problematic based on the amount of electronic data that was provided--20 percent of those packages were not presented to law enforcement, based on the testimony we received.

Finally, we learned that even though 36 percent of the packages had some sort of data, much of that data was not useful. It was not decipherable, not helpful for law enforcement.

So we have a long way to go, and we have a crisis in front of us. It is time for Congress to act because it is clear to me that the Postal Service needs this congressional mandate to more expeditiously close this loophole that is allowing this deadly poison to continue coming into our homes and onto our streets.

Again, this is the No. 1 killer in my home State of Ohio, and when we look nationally, this is the new face of the opioid epidemic. There is legislation to deal with this. It is called the STOP Act. It is a bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator Amy Klobuchar. She spoke on the floor earlier. We talked earlier about getting this legislation passed. This legislation will close the loophole. It will insist that our international mail screening take place, and it will stop some of this deadly fentanyl from coming into our communities. It will simply hold the Postal Service to the same standard as private mail carriers and require that within 1 year, they get electronic data on all packages entering the United States. It is fair, it is commonsense, and it is going to make a big difference in our communities.

By the way, that is why about one-third of the Senate and about half of the House of Representatives have already signed on as cosponsors of our legislation. It is bipartisan. It is bicameral. The President's Opioid Commission--we remember that President Trump asked a bunch of experts to come together, led by Governor Chris Christie, to have a commission look at this opioid issue and come up with recommendations. One of the recommendations: Pass the STOP Act. Keep some of this fentanyl out of our country.

Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee took up our legislation, and I appreciate their doing that. Sadly, what they reported out was a weaker version of the STOP Act than is necessary to address this problem.

Their version gives the Postal Service, as an example, 4 years to implement these changes at a time when this is a crisis. Remember, it is increasing every year, to the point of being the No. 1 cause of death in my State and in many other States.

It also only requires them to get data on 95 percent of packages--not 100 percent--eventually.

It also gives the Federal Government the ability to waive the requirement altogether if it is ``in the national security interest of the United States.'' I hate to see them use that waiver. How could it possibly be in the national security interest of the United States of America not to have information to give to law enforcement to stop something this deadly from coming into our country? That makes no sense. I know from what I have seen and heard in Ohio that we need this and we need it now. We need this data on all foreign packages. That is in our national security interest, not setting lower screening standards or creating a loophole to evade accountability.

I am encouraged that the Ways and Means Committee chairman, Kevin Brady, has acknowledged these concerns. By the way, having spoken to him, I know he has a passion for addressing this issue.

I know he is personally committed to coming up with legislation that works. We need to resolve these differences, get this legislation to the floor of the House and the Senate, and get it passed so that we can begin to stop the fentanyl flooding into our country. It is at the forefront of the epidemic that we see around the country. It is taking lives. It is sidelining workers.

The No. 1 cause of crime in my State is related to opioids. Often, the criminal acts committed--such as burglary, shoplifting, and fraud-- are to pay for the habit. It is crippling communities. It is breaking families apart. It is doing so at an alarming rate.

This morning, we had testimony in the Committee on Finance regarding rural healthcare, and some of the providers were talking about the fentanyl crisis. I asked them what they are doing about it and how it is going, particularly with regard to kids who were born with what is called neonatal abstinence syndrome, meaning they were

born to an addicted mother, and they have to be taken through withdrawal as a baby. These little babies you could hold in the palm of your hand are having to go through withdrawal.

They told me that the foster care systems in their States are overwhelmed; mine is, in Ohio. We have more kids under State supervision and in foster care than ever. We can't find foster families fast enough because so many of the parents are unable to take care of the kids. There are more grandparents and great-grandparents than ever having to step forward and take care of these kids. It is affecting our communities in so many ways.

The STOP Act alone isn't going to solve of all of these problems. We get that. We have passed legislation around here in the last year and a half to increase prevention and education and to increase treatment and longer term recovery. That is very important, and we need to do more of it. We have new legislation to take that to the next level.

But combating this crisis at its source by making it harder for drugs to enter our country is certainly a step we can, and should, take. It is only common sense. At the very least, it would reduce supply and help to drive up the cost of this drug. One of our problems is that the drug is powerful, but it is also relatively inexpensive.

We have an opportunity with the STOP Act to make a real difference for families in every single State represented in this Chamber. If you are not already a cosponsor, I hope you will join us in this effort. If you are a cosponsor and you support this, I hope you will talk to your leadership, both sides of the aisle.

Let's get this to the floor. Let's get a vote. Let's ensure we are doing everything we possibly can to stop this poison.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to start by congratulating my colleague from Wyoming on reporting out this legislation on water infrastructure and, particularly, for the help he has given us with regard to the Great Lakes. What the Senator has done to help us to maintain and to protect the Great Lakes is very much appreciated. It is the No. 1 tourist destination in Ohio, and there is a $6 billion fishing industry in the Great Lakes, with Lake Erie being the No. 1 lake for fishing.

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative the Senator supported is incredibly important, as well as keeping the dredge material out of the lake and helping us with the Army Corps. We thank the Senator. We also hope to keep invasive species out of the lake, including bighead carp, which would ruin that $6 billion fishing industry. We thank the Senator for his support. We look forward to getting that bill to the floor soon for a vote.

Mr. President, today I wish to talk, as other colleagues have, about the men and women of our Armed Forces--the brave men and women in uniform who protect us every day and some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice for all of us.

This coming Monday, of course, is Memorial Day. This holiday weekend is a time for all of us to kick back a little bit, spend some time with our families, relax, and be with friends. But let's not forget what Memorial Day stands for. It is first and foremost an opportunity to reflect on the service and sacrifice of those who gave their lives defending the freedoms we enjoy and sometimes take for granted as Americans.

I will be spending part of the day at a Memorial Day parade that I try to attend every year and have for many years in Blue Ash, OH, which is north of Cincinnati. It is an event that I think is as patriotic as any I have seen in my State. It is a wonderful parade. There are many veterans in the parade but also veterans who come to watch. It ends at a beautiful memorial for our veterans. It was constructed over time in Blue Ash, paying tribute to patriots from every single conflict we have been involved in as a country since our founding.

Across the country on Memorial Day, we will give humble thanks to those brave men and women in uniform who, during their lives, fought for the principles we hold dearest and who, in their deaths, sacrificed themselves in defense of those Americans ideals.

Freedom is bought at a price, sometimes a very high price--the price of lives, of limbs, of some of the veterans who gave the prime years of their lives for all of us. Part of the cost is the scars of war. Some of those scars are very visible, of course. Others are more invisible-- those who are coming back with PTSD or traumatic brain injuries. Those scars can't be seen, but they are certainly felt. Servicemembers brave those risks because of their sense of duty and their sense of patriotism.

I am proud to be the son and the grandson of two Army infantry lieutenants. One is a World War I veteran, and

one is a World War II veteran. They instilled in me this importance of duty, hard work, the virtue of service, and the merits of servant leadership. They believed in these values and embodied them in their lives, as so many veterans do.

This weekend, as we pay thanks to the many men and women who were laid to rest under the flag they died defending, we should all take a moment to remember and thank all veterans as well--past and present-- whose service also has made our way of life possible.

The men and women of our United States military represent the best in all of us, and they deserve the best from all of us.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I want to first commend my colleague from Kansas for his passion for our veterans and for his hard work on legislation that is really going to help in Ohio and around the country to ensure they have the care they deserve and also for his mention of Senator McCain, who is a true national hero. He now has a documentary about him on HBO, as some of us saw earlier today. It will soon be available for everyone to see. It is very powerful.

STOP Act

Madam President, we heard earlier from one of my colleagues from Indiana who talked about the fact that this is National Police Week. A number of us have come to the floor to talk about our incredible men and women in uniform back home who protect us every day through their dedication, their public service, and it is appropriate to commend them.

I will say, as I have talked to police officers from Ohio this week, one issue came up again and again that doesn't get the attention it deserves; that is, the influx of synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, and the effect it is having on our law enforcement community, our first responders, in general, and, for that matter, all of our citizens. What they told me is, this is the issue that is creating so much crime in our communities. This is the issue that is filling our courtrooms and our jails.

One police officer I met with this week is a corrections officer at a jail in one of our urban areas in Ohio. I asked him to just give me an estimate. What percentage of the inmates in this jail are there because of the drug crisis and specifically the opioid issue?

He thought for a minute, and he said: Probably 90 percent--90 percent. Some are there because of selling drugs, some of them are there, though, because they have committed a crime while they were trying to get the money to be able to pay for their habit--so it is shoplifting; it is fraud; it is burglary. This issue is now everywhere.

The last year for which we have good information would be 2016. We have a lot of information nationally on that, and 2016 was the worst year on record in terms of overdose deaths attributable to these synthetic drugs coming into our country. Guess what. Almost certainly, 2017 is worse.

As one example, the coroner for Franklin County, OH--that is the Columbus area in Ohio, our fastest growing city--recently released their 2017 overdose report for the county. Franklin County had 520 overdose deaths in 2017. That is a 47-percent increase from 2016. So 2016 was the worst year on record; 2017, almost a 50-percent increase in overdose deaths. By the way, sadly, those overdose deaths are on track again this year to reach a record.

Two-thirds of those overdose deaths in Columbus, OH, Franklin County, involve fentanyl, which is this synthetic opioid that is overtaking our communities in Ohio. Think about that. Two-thirds of those overdose deaths last year in Columbus, OH, were due to fentanyl.

Just last week, a Cleveland man was sentenced to more than 11 years in Federal prison for selling fentanyl that resulted in a 46-year-old Ohio man's death. Earlier this month, a man in Lorain, OH, was convicted of selling fentanyl, resulting in a 23-year-old's death.

This drug and the opioid crisis knows no bounds. It is in every age group. It is in every ZIP Code. It is everywhere.

Unbelievably, this fentanyl drug--a synthetic form of heroin, a synthetic form of opioids--we are told by the experts is coming into our country through the U.S. mail system. This is shocking to me, and it should be something we can do something about. This is a Federal agency, after all.

Unlike other drugs--let's say heroin or even crystal meth, which tend to come over land, mostly from Mexico--this drug primarily is coming through the U.S. mail system from one country primarily--China. It is coming from laboratories in China, where some evil scientist is mixing this deadly brew and then sending it through the U.S. mail into our communities. It is being shipped directly into your community in small packages. These are the deadliest drugs we have ever experienced, and they are being shipped directly through a Federal agency.

What is fentanyl? It is 50 times more powerful than heroin. It is inexpensive. It is readily available now in many communities. It is the new scourge, killing more people in my State of Ohio last year than any other drug. We need to do all we can to stop more of these poisons from entering our communities. At the very least, if we can't stop it all, let's raise the price because the cost of this drug, being so inexpensive and it being so powerful, is one of the things that is driving these overdoses and these deaths.

It is not just overdoses. It is people whose lives are getting off track, families breaking apart, community dysfunction, people leaving work. It is the babies who are being born with this neonatal absence syndrome, so they have to go through withdrawal as little babies whom you can hold in your two hands. It is affecting our communities in so many ways.

There is a new study out showing that of the men who are out of the workforce altogether--probably 8\1/2\ million men--roughly half of them are taking pain medication on a daily basis. When pushed, two-thirds say it is prescriptions. What does that mean? This means it is affecting one of the big issues we are all hearing about back home, which is lack of a workforce. Well, here you have millions of Americans who are off track because of this issue. So, yes, it is tragic and unbelievable that over 60,000 Americans a year are dying from overdoses, but it is even worse than that. That is the tip of the iceberg, in a way. There are so many other aspects of this that are affecting the communities we represent in the Chamber.

With regard to fentanyl, this new scourge, we conducted an 18-month investigation in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. We did this because we are hearing more and more about fentanyl. We wanted to look into how fentanyl is being shipped into the United States and what can be done at the Federal level to stop it. The investigation revealed just how easy it is to purchase fentanyl online and have it shipped to the United States. It is so easy, in fact, we found that most of the overseas providers essentially guaranteed delivery if you use the U.S. mail system.

Through a simple Google search, our staff found hundreds of websites, many affiliated with Chinese labs openly advertising fentanyl for sale.

We went undercover, using an investigator from the Department of Homeland Security to help us find some of these websites. We found that in several cases--seven different cases--individuals who receive fentanyl through some of these websites had died from an overdose shortly after receiving their fentanyl. We were able to find that the sellers would tell you to ship the drugs through the Postal Service, not a private carrier like FedEx or DHL or UPS or any other private carrier. As we have learned in our investigation, this is because the Postal Service, unlike these private carriers, is not required to have what is called advanced electronic data as part of the package. In other words, law enforcement is not given information on these packages.

The data that is in this advance electronic information is the name and address of the sender, the name and address of the person who is receiving the package, and what the contents of the package are. How does this help? Well, this gives law enforcement the ability to use big data to find out what region it is coming from--again, if there is a region in China that is sending a lot of this poison, they will know that; where it is going; if it is going to a particular post office box where they have reason to believe that it might be suspect, or perhaps it is going to an abandoned warehouse.

The information about what is in the package obviously is very interesting to Customs and Border Protection. They need this help. Why? Because they can't otherwise identify suspicious packages. There are 900 million packages a year now coming into the United States through the mail system--900 million packages. It is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Yes, we need better detection equipment, and we have actually passed legislation recently do to that. We have additional legislation to be able to hire more individuals to help detect whether these packages have opioids contained within them. But this advance information that you can have on the package is so incredibly important, and it is the reason the traffickers are saying: Don't send it through a private carrier; send it through our own government agency because we think we can guarantee delivery there. It is a glaring loophole in our screening process, and it is a national security threat. It is a clear example of where Congress ought to come together on a bipartisan basis and enact Federal policies to fix this flaw.

Shortly after the tragic events of 9/11--September 11, 2001--Congress did pass a law in this regard, and the law did require all private carriers to obtain advance electronic data on all international packages entering the United States and did require them to share that data with law enforcement. The concern was not just contraband or opioids; it was also explosives. They passed that legislation here in Congress because they knew it was important to have law enforcement get that information.

With regard to the post office, they made it optional. Congress required the Postmaster General and the Secretary of the Treasury to determine whether the post office should also collect such data. This was 17 years ago. That determination was never made. They did not follow the law. From one administration to the next, to the next, to the next, there was no determination, which, of course, has resulted in no data requirements for the Postal Service. Again, that was in 2002.

For about 14 years, the Postal Service sat by and did nothing on this issue, knowing that this was a loophole, that this was an opening in the law for traffickers and others to be able to send things into our country. To me, that is unacceptable.

In the last couple of years, after pressure from Congress and, frankly, our investigation that I talked about earlier and the hearings we held talking about this issue in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the Postal Service did actually start to do what, in my view, they should have done starting 16 years ago, but unfortunately what they are doing is not nearly enough. They have begun getting some data on some international packages, but the efforts are inadequate. One hundred percent of private carriers' packages have to have it, and do, and they provide it to law enforcement.

The U.S. Postal Service last year began an effort to get more of this advance electronic data, but they received it, based on testimony they provided to us, on only about 36 percent of the international packages. This means that the United States received more than 318 million packages last year that had no screening on them, no information for law enforcement to be able to identify the package.

We also found that the quality of the data that was provided by the Postal Service was inadequate in many cases and therefore not helpful to law enforcement. That is again based on testimony before our committee.

Even when the Postal Service conducted a pilot program to screen for

drugs, they only presented 80 percent of the packages targeted by Customs and Border Protection for inspection. So even when they did have information on it and law enforcement said ``I want that package''--again, using big data in figuring out what might be a suspicious package--only 80 percent of them were even delivered to law enforcement out of the 36 percent that had electronic data. So the other 20 percent of those suspicious packages were allowed to go into circulation, into our communities, without having any screening.

Frankly, it has been a challenge to get the post office to address this problem on their own. We are talking about 900 million packages a year. And they have funding problems. I get that. But, folks, this is a crisis. It is a true epidemic. It is the No. 1 killer in my State.

It is time for Congress to act. People are dying every day because of these synthetic drugs. How many more of our people have to die before our own Postal Service takes the measures that we know can be taken to stop these poisons?

The STOP Act is a bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, that will close this loophole and therefore help stop these deadly drugs from entering our communities. Senator Klobuchar was on the floor earlier this afternoon and wanted to speak at this time about the legislation. She had to catch a plane to get back to her home State of Minnesota, but I appreciate her partnership on this issue and her promotion of our dealing with this issue here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

The STOP Act is very simple, and it is common sense. It is going to hold the U.S. Postal Service to the same standard as these private mail carriers that we talked about and require that they get advance electronic data not on 36 percent but on 100 percent of packages entering the United States--and good data--and then present that to law enforcement.

We are not punishing the Postal Service or forcing them to jump through unnecessary hoops. We are simply saying that, given the crisis we face, the U.S. Postal Service, a Federal agency, should require the same types of advance electronic data from foreign countries that private mail carriers do, and we give the Postal Service a year to do it.

By the way, when I talked to mail carriers about this issue, when I talked to postal inspectors about this issue, certainly when I talked to Customs and Border Protection individuals about this issue, they all agreed. Who wouldn't? They have families too. They understand. This issue needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed urgently.

The United States of America provides this advance electronic data on 90 percent of our packages that we send to other countries, so we are not asking for something that we are not doing. It makes sense all around the world. It makes sense here, and it will help save lives.

Thirty-three of my Senate colleagues--20 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and 1 Independent--have signed on as cosponsors of this legislation. The Presiding Officer today, who is from West Virginia--her State has been getting hit really hard like Ohio. She has a passion for this issue. She knows that we need to do all we can do to stop this poison from coming in.

The legislation has the support of a broad cross-section of this body. It has also been endorsed by President Trump's opioid commission. This is a commission that he formed to look at answers, and this is one of their specific recommendations: The STOP Act--pass it.

Just this week, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, reaffirmed her support for this measure.

The House companion bill has 271 cosponsors--more than half of the U.S. House of Representatives.

By the way, asking every country for this kind of information, this advance electronic data, is not just common sense, it is also reasonable. The United States provides that data on nearly all of our packages that go into China, as an example, so why shouldn't China do that for us? At least one country--Sweden--recently returned packages from China that did not comply with Swedish postal rules on providing this information. So the Postal Service's argument that they have to accept and deliver packages from foreign posts under treaty obligations is simply not the case. If a country doesn't play by our rules, we can simply choose to return their packages. By the way, threatening to do so is all we need to do because these countries then will comply. We have the largest market in the world. We are the biggest economy in the world. We just have to insist on it.

China is already starting to recognize the importance of providing this data for access to U.S. markets. For example, as of early this year, when we published our report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, we had information that China had already provided electronic data on roughly 50 percent of the packages headed to the United States. So this notion that somehow China can't do it--of course they can.

Yesterday, instead of marking up this bipartisan STOP Act I talked about, the STOP Act legislation, the House Ways and Means Committee considered a weaker alternative to our bill. Apparently, they were hearing from some at the Postal Service who don't want Congress to require them to get this electronic data within 1 year, which we think is not just doable but reasonable. They don't want Congress to put in place penalties if they don't get that data, and our legislation, yes, has penalties.

The Postal Service doesn't mind if Congress simply recommends that they get the data, but remember, Congress recommended that way back in 2002. That was 16 years ago. And until very recently, just the last couple of years, the Postal Service did nothing to provide that crucial information.

Unfortunately, the weaker alternative approved by the committee yesterday would eliminate the real, enforceable, and immediate requirement that the Postal Service provide law enforcement with the information they need to identify and stop the shipment of deadly synthetic drugs into our communities.

In particular, the STOP Act requires that within 1 year, the Postal Service secure advance electronic data on 100 percent of packages here in the United States and transmit that data to law enforcement, to Customs and Border Protection. The version reported out yesterday gives the Postal Service 4 years--4 years. Remember the No. 1 killer in my State and in many States. Last year, there was an increase from the year before, and this year looks worse again. We can't wait 4 years. We don't have to.

The version they reported out also requires only 95 percent of the packages to have that data.

In addition, this alternative to the STOP Act that was reported out yesterday actually gives the Federal Government the authority to waive the requirements in the STOP Act that would get advance electronic data if it is in the ``national security interest of the United States.'' They can waive it altogether. I am struggling to think of a time when knowing less about what is coming into our country is in our national security interest.

As the permanent subcommittee investigation's report from January makes clear, there are hundreds of millions of packages coming into this country through the Postal Service every year with little or no screening at all. That is frightening. This loophole is allowing drug traffickers to exploit our own Federal Government, and we can't allow this status quo to continue.

The organization Americans for Securing All Packages--ASAP--issued a statement last week urging the Ways and Means Committee to ``reject this weakened alternative, and pass the STOP Act, a bill with 271 bipartisan cosponsors.''

Just yesterday, Shatterproof--another addiction advocacy group fighting against the opioid addiction issue--issued a similar statement calling on Congress to pass the STOP Act, not the watered-down version.

I want to say today on the floor that I very much appreciate the fact that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady has acknowledged these concerns and has committed to working with us to resolve these differences during the legislative process. I know him. I know he is a passionate advocate of addressing this issue. He wants

to reverse the opioid epidemic, and he wants this to work, so I look forward to working with him.

I particularly appreciate the House coauthors of the STOP Act, including Representatives Mike Bishop and Bill Pascrell. I talked to Mr. Bishop today, and I know his passion to deal with this issue as well.

The coalition of support for the STOP Act, by the way, also includes the Fraternal Order of Police. I talked about the fact that police officers understand the dangers of this. By the way, to give an example of how dangerous this is to them, it is not just the overcrowding of our prison system and the courts and the crime that is being committed, it is a personal danger to them as law enforcement officers.

In East Liverpool, OH, a police officer pulled over two men for a traffic violation, and he noticed there was a powdery substance in the car. Being alert, he put on his mask and his gloves and arrested those two gentlemen because the powdery substance was fentanyl. They had stupidly tried to spread it around the car. He took them down to the station and booked them.

After he booked them, he was talking to his fellow officers, and he looked down on his shirt and noticed a few white flecks. So, as anyone would do, he took his hand and flicked the pieces of something white off of his shoulder. It was fentanyl. That exposure to his fingers caused him to drop, unconscious, on the floor. This is a big guy, 6 feet 2 inches, over 200 pounds, and in good shape. He overdosed and nearly died.

As his police chief said, if we had not been there to apply Narcan-- not once, twice, or three times but five and six times, having taken him to the emergency room--if we hadn't been there, he didn't think he would have made it. Think if he would have gone home to hug his kid without brushing those flecks off his shoulder.

Our police officers are subject to this all the time, as are other first responders. It is appropriate that police organizations around the country are strongly in support of the STOP Act. So are the National Association of State EMS Officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and anti-opioid groups like Shatterproof, which I talked about, but also groups like SAFE, or Stop Addiction Fatality Epidemic, and other groups which have said: This is crazy; we have to stop this stuff from coming into our communities and, again, at a minimum, get the price up, because part of the reason it is spreading so much is that it is not just deadly and powerful, but it is inexpensive.

There is a strong bipartisan consensus that this bill, the Senate STOP Act, is absolutely needed to help combat the wave of opioid addiction and overdose deaths on the front end, by keeping some of these more deadly drugs from ever entering our communities in the first place.

This is a step we can take in the Senate to make accessing these deadly and inexpensive synthetic drugs more difficult.

The STOP Act will make life a little easier for the people of Ohio and across the country who are increasingly fatally overdosing or being unknowingly exposed to these deadly drugs.

Of course, this is only one part of combating the opioid epidemic. We understand that. We passed legislation here, which I coauthored, that increases treatment options, does more in terms of prevention, provides longer term recovery, and helps to provide our police officers and other first responders with the Narcan that is needed to reverse the effects of overdoses.

But, to my colleagues, this one is common sense. Stopping more of these deadly drugs from ever entering the country in the first place and raising the price of these drugs will make a difference and will save lives.

Let's pass this legislation. Let's work with the House to be sure it is legislation that will be effective immediately to be able to stop the increasing danger these opioids are causing in our communities all around the country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this afternoon, I wish to talk about the brave men and women in law enforcement who are protecting us every single day. I am from Ohio. We are proud of our Ohio law enforcement. We are proud of the leadership that many Ohio law enforcement have had at a national level over the years. In fact, right now, the vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police is an officer from Marion,