Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to commemorate Juneteenth, as a Texan and one who acknowledges that it was my State, 153 years ago, June 19, 1865, where General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas, and announced the freedom of the last American slaves, belatedly freeing 250,000 slaves in Texas nearly 2\1/2\ years after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Having spent 2 days at the border, I know that there are 2,000 children who have been separated from their families who are seeking freedom. I rise today in honor of Juneteenth because it was and is a living symbol of freedom for people who did not have it.

Today, I introduced H. Res. 948, the annual congressional resolution commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day, which is cosponsored by more than 50 of my colleagues. Juneteenth remains the oldest known celebration of slavery's demise.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need to be able to honor the issue of freedom, so I conclude by saying that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, ``Freedom is never free,'' and African American labor leader A. Phillip Randolph often said, ``Freedom is never given; it is won.''

We must win the freedom for these children, 2,000, who have been separated from their families.

Mr. Speaker, 153 years ago, on June 19, 1865, General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas and announced the freedom of the last American slaves; belatedly freeing 250,000 slaves in Texas nearly two and a half years after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Juneteenth was first celebrated in the Texas state capital in 1867 under the direction of the Freedmen's Bureau.

Juneteenth was and is a living symbol of freedom for people who did not have it.

Today, I introduced H. Res. 948, the annual congressional resolution commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day, which is co-sponsored by more than 50 of my colleagues.

Juneteenth remains the oldest known celebration of slavery's demise.

It commemorates freedom while acknowledging the sacrifices and contributions made by courageous African Americans towards making our great nation the more conscious and accepting country that it has become.

It was only after that day in 1865 when General Granger rode into Galveston, Texas, on the heels of the most devastating conflict in our country's history, in the aftermath of a civil war that pitted brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor and threatened to tear the fabric of our union apart forever that America truly became the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ``Freedom is never free,'' and African American labor leader A. Phillip Randolph often said ``Freedom is never given. It is won.''

Truer words were never spoken.

We should all recognize the power and the ironic truth of those statements and we should pause to remember the enormous price paid by all Americans in our country's quest to realize its promise.

Juneteenth honors the end of the 400 years of suffering African Americans endured under slavery and celebrates the legacy of perseverance that has become the hallmark of the African American experience in the struggle for equality.

In recent years, a number of National Juneteenth Organizations have arisen to take their place alongside older organizations--all with the mission to promote and cultivate knowledge and appreciation of African American history and culture.

Juneteenth celebrates African American freedom while encouraging self-development and respect for all cultures.

But it must always remain a reminder to us all that liberty and freedom are precious birthrights of all Americans which must be jealously guarded and preserved for future generations.

As it takes on a more national and even global perspective, the events of 1865 in Texas are not forgotten, for all of the roots tie back to this fertile soil from which a national day of pride is growing.

Mr. Speaker, there is one person in the United States that can stop the mean-spirited separation of children at the border of my State. The vileness of separating babies as young as 6 months, babies who are breastfeeding, is at the feet, the hands, mind, and heart of President Trump.

This is not a Democratic policy. We have never utilized this kind of deterrence, and we have never stopped an asylum possibility because of domestic violence or gang violence, as this administration is doing.

Secondarily, the IG report, which I commend to the American people to read, has nothing to do with the Mueller investigation and Mr. Mueller, with his integrity intact, must continue that investigation and do it well and answer the questions of the Russian collusion in the election of 2016.

On another note, Happy Father's Day. In the memory of my late father, Ezra C. Jackson, we miss you. But all of the fathers who have fallen, and those who live, we wish you a wonderful day.

As well, Happy Juneteenth to those who celebrate Juneteenth, who recognize that it was 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation that African Americans in the South and, particularly, Texas knew that they were free. Freedom is precious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A substance (i) the chemical structure of which is

substantially similar to the chemical structure of a

controlled substance in schedule I and II;

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

effect on the central nervous system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have further speakers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal sentencing guidelines as originally granted by Congress in 1984.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I oppose this amendment for two reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, Americans love sports. They love honest sports. They love winning the Stanley Cup by the great team here in Washington. We loved winning the World Series with the Houston Astros. We love our Olympics.

Today, I rise because I recently introduced, H.R. 6067, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, or RADA.

In the realm of international sports, it has become almost commonplace for too many athletes to yield to the temptation of bridging the gap between their own skills and the pinnacle of athletic achievement by resorting to performance-enhancing drugs.

To conceal this fall from grace, cheaters are employing increasingly sophisticated modes of masking the use of any prescribed drugs. This practice, some of it state-sanctioned, undermines international athletic competition. That is why I introduced the RADA Act, H.R. 6067.

I ask my colleagues to join me. This is a bipartisan bill supported by Ms. Gwen Moore, Dr. Burgess, and myself. Our numbers are growing. The legislation I have introduced is bipartisan.

As well, we salute the valiant man who revealed the true extent of the complex, state-run doping scheme in Russia.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to close by saying a young lady by the name of Alysia Montano lost a race to Russians who had been a part of doping fraud. She lost the medal and she lost millions, but she also may have lost her spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times entitled: ``U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize Doping in Global Competitions'' which cites RADA as a step in the right direction toward criminalizing doping in international sports.

[From the New York Times, June 12, 2018]

U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize Doping in Global Competitions

(By Rebecca R. Ruiz)

United States lawmakers on Tuesday took a step toward

criminalizing doping in international sports, introducing a

bill in the House that would attach prison time to the use,

manufacturing or distribution of performance-enhancing drugs

in global competitions.

The legislation, inspired by the Russian doping scandal,

would echo the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it

illegal to bribe foreign officials to gain a business

advantage. The statute would be the first of its kind with

global reach, empowering American prosecutors to act on

doping violations abroad, and to file fraud charges of a

different variety than those the Justice Department brought

against top international soccer officials in 2015.

Although American leagues like Major League Baseball would

not be affected by the legislation, which would apply only to

competitions among countries, it could apply to a league's

athletes when participating in global events like the Ryder

Cup, the Davis Cup or the World Baseball Classic.

The law would establish America's jurisdiction over

international sports events, even those outside of the United

States, if they include at least three other nations, with at

least four American athletes participating or two American

companies acting as sponsors. It would also enhance the

ability of cheated athletes and corporate sponsors to seek

damages, expanding the window of time during which civil

lawsuits could be filed.

To justify the United States' broader jurisdiction over

global competitions, the House bill invokes the United

States' contribution to the World Anti-Doping Agency, the

global regulator of drugs in sports. At $2.3 million, the

United States' annual contribution is the single largest of

any nation. ``Doping fraud in major international

competitions also effectively defrauds the United States,''

the bill states.

The lawmakers behind the bill were instrumental in the

creation of the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which gave the government

the right to freeze financial assets and impose visa

restrictions on Russian nationals accused of serious human

rights violations and corruption. On Tuesday, the lawmakers

framed their interest in sports fraud around international

relations and broader networks of crime that can accompany

cheating.

``Doping fraud is a crime in which big money, state assets

and transnational criminals gain advantage and honest

athletes and companies are defrauded,'' said Sheila Jackson

Lee, Democrat of Texas, who introduced the legislation on

Tuesday. ``This practice, some of it state-sanctioned, has

the ability to undermine international relations, and is

often connected to more nefarious actions by state actors.''

Along with Ms. Jackson Lee, the bill was sponsored by two

other Congressional representatives, Michael Burgess,

Republican of Texas, and Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin.

It was put forward just as Russia prepares to host soccer's

World Cup, which starts Thursday. That sporting event will be

the nation's biggest since the 2014 Sochi Olympics, where one

of the most elaborate doping ploys in history took place.

The bill, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, takes its name

from Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the chemist who ran Russia's

antidoping laboratory for 10 years before he spoke out about

the state-sponsored cheating he had helped carry out--most

notoriously in Sochi.

At those Games, Dr. Rodchenkov said, he concealed

widespread drug use among Russia's top Olympians by tampering

with more than 100 urine samples with the help of Russia's

Federal Security Service.

Investigations commissioned by international sports

regulators confirmed his account and concluded that Russia

had cheated across competitions and years, tainting the

performance of more than 1,000 athletes. In early 2017,

American intelligence officials concluded that Russia's

meddling in the 2016 American election had been, in part, a

form of retribution for the Olympic doping scandal, whose

disclosures Russian officials blamed on the United States.

Nations including Germany, France, Italy, Kenya and Spain

have established criminal penalties for sports doping

perpetrated within their borders. Russia, too, passed a law

in 2017 that made it a crime to assist or coerce doping,

though no known charges have been brought under that law to

date.

Under the proposed American law, criminal penalties for

offenders would include a prison term of up to five years as

well as fines that could stretch to $250,000 for individuals

and $1 million for organizations.

``We could have real change if people think they could

actually go to jail for this,'' said Jim Walden, a lawyer for

Dr. Rodchenkov, who met with the lawmakers as they considered

the issue in recent months. ``I think it will have a

meaningful impact on coaches and athletes if they realize

they might not be able to travel outside of their country for

fear of being arrested.''

The legislation also authorizes civil actions for doping

fraud, giving athletes who may have been cheated in

competitions--as well as corporations acting as sponsors--the

right to sue in federal court to recover damages from people

who may have defrauded competitions.

Ms. Jackson Lee cited the American runner Alysia Montano,

who placed fifth in the 800 meters at the 2012 Summer

Olympics. Two Russian women who placed first and third in

that race were later disqualified for doping, elevating Ms.

Montano years later. ``She had rightfully finished third,

which would have earned her a bronze medal,'' Ms. Jackson Lee

said, noting the financial benefits and sponsorships Ms.

Montano could have captured.

The bill would establish a window of seven years for

criminal actions and 10 years for civil lawsuits. It also

seeks to protect whistle-blowers from retaliation, making it

illegal to take ``adverse action'' against a person because

he or she has disclosed information about doping fraud.

Dr. Rodchenkov, who has lived in the United States since

fall 2015, has been criminally charged in Russia after he

publicly deconstructed the cheating he said he carried out on

orders from a state minister.

``While he was complicit in Russia's past bad acts, Dr.

Rodchenkov regrets his past role in Russia's state-run doping

program and seeks to atone for it by aiding the effort to

clean up international sports and to curb the corruption

rampant in Russia,'' Ms. Jackson Lee said, calling Tuesday's

bill ``an important step to stemming the tide of Russian

corruption in sport and restoring confidence in international

competition.''

Mr. Speaker, join me in supporting the RADA bill.

I thank Isabella Belcher and the OSCE staff.

Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced H.R. 6067, the Rodchenkov Anti- Doping Act (``RADA'') because in the realm of international sports, it has become almost commonplace for too many athletes to yield to the temptation of bridging the gap between their own skill and the pinnacle of athletic achievement by resorting to performance enhancing drugs.

And to conceal this fall from grace, cheaters are employing increasingly sophisticated modes of masking the use of any proscribed drugs.

The United States has a large role to play in ferreting out corruption in international sports.

Not only do U.S. athletes lose out on millions in sponsorships, but when a U.S. company spends millions to create a marketing campaign around an athlete, only to have that athlete later implicated in a doping fraud scandal, the damage to that company's brand can cost tens of millions.

This has been the story of Alysia Montafio, a U.S. runner who competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics games in London and placed fifth place in the 800 meters behind two Russian women finishing first and third.

These women were later found to have engaged in doping fraud by the World Anti-Doping Agency, meaning that Ms. Montano had rightfully finished third, which would have earned her a bronze medal.

Ms. Montano estimates that doping fraud cost her `maybe half a million dollars, if you look at rollovers and bonuses, and that's without outside sponsorship maybe coming in.'

She adds, `That's not why you're doing it, but you still deserve it.' She certainly does. Until now, defrauded U.S. athletes and companies have had little recourse against doping fraud.

A recent article published by The New York Times titled ``U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize Doping in Global Competitions'' references the RADA as a step in the right direction toward criminalizing doping in international sports.

The RADA is an important step to stemming the tide of Russian corruption in sport and restoring confidence in international competition.

This practice, some of it state-sanctioned, undermines international athletic competition and is often connected to more nefarious actions by state actors.

This is why it is necessary for Congress to enact H.R. 6067, the bipartisan Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act (``RADA'' Act)

The legislation I have introduced is bipartisan, and bears the name of courageous whistleblower Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, a valiant man who revealed the true extent of the complex state-run doping scheme which permitted Russia to excel in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, and which resulted in its ban from the 2018 Olympic Games.

While he was complicit in Russia's state-run doping program, Dr. Rodchenkov regrets his role and seeks to atone for it by aiding the effort to clean up international sports and to curb the rampant corruption within Russia.

The RADA Act is a serious step towards cracking down on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in major international competitions because it establishes criminal penalties and civil remedies for doping fraud.

A number of other nations, including Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain, have embraced criminal sanctions for doping fraud violations and it is time for the United States to be added to this list.

Doping fraud in major international competitions--like the Olympics, the World Cup and the Tour de France--is often linked with corruption, bribery and money laundering.

It is not just victory that criminals engaged in doping fraud snatch away from clean athletes--athletes depend on prize money and sponsorships to sustain their livelihoods.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Raskin for his leadership, consistent leadership, on these issues. And certainly, I think, the recognition of the fact that the poor of this Nation, both in the biblical sense of our faith or the document of your faith, the poor have always been acknowledged, and, in a certain sense, in the Christian Bible honored.

And it is a sad state of affairs for us to come to this point in the Nation to realize that our poor are suffering at large numbers and that there is no relief.

I know that Dr. King, some 50 years ago, as he was planning the Poor People's march--and many of us realized that he was not able to fulfill it for he was shot by an assassin's bullet on April 4, 1968. But the valiant people went forward with his dream of eliminating poverty. And I am reminded of his words: Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

And so I speak today of the sprinkling, the harsh sprinkling of poverty and injustices in this Nation today, and I make it a very special message to the leader of the free world, who has every power to collaborate with this important body, to make commitments to end the very conditions that Dr. King, some 50 years ago, sought to come to Washington that was ultimately proceeded with by leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and poor people from around the Nation.

They might not have succeeded specifically, but they did bring to the Nation's eyes and hearts the violence of poverty among Native Americans, Latinos, African Americans, poor, and Caucasians in places beyond the South. And, interestingly enough, that poverty continues.

I speak, in particular, of certain elements that show our lack of concern and where we must get steady and back on track. First, what all of us have been speaking about over the last couple of days and weeks is the untoward and the impossible thought of taking children away from parents who are fleeing poverty, violence, and desperation to come.

We know that, in my home State of Texas, a migrant was separated from his family and committed suicide while in Federal detention. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. And a mother, while breastfeeding her young child, while both were in Federal detention, had her child ripped away from her arms. That must stop. That is a poverty of mind, a poverty of heart and spirit.

I want to thank Reverend Barber, who will be headed to Washington on June 23 with the massive, largest expression of those who still, unfortunately, live in the shadows, not of their own making. When I say that, they are not in the shadows, they are there, but seeming there in the shadows with respect to the policies of this administration, the terrible Robin Hood tax bill that has created nothing but a balloon of wealth to the top 1 percent, so much so that the wages of Americans have not gone up. When you travel throughout the country and in my district, most people don't know, working Americans have no idea that any tax bill was passed that was supposed to impact them because it has not impacted them, and the only thing that is happening is a flush of corporate profits.

Now, it would seem that one is criticizing that success. We are criticizing the unequalness of what happens to working families who work every day and have not had a wage increase.

Then out of that comes the implosion of the Affordable Care Act, brick by brick being taken away. I know of people who have told me that their loved one was put in a wheelchair and pointed toward the door: Get out. And the Affordable Care Act provided that there were no caps on one's insurance until you got better in the hospital. But because of the atmosphere, and the climate, and the constant attack on the Affordable Care Act, hospitals are feeling the burden and are sending people out the door who are not well.

Even more frightening for people are those who have preexisting conditions, one of the glaring parts of the Affordable Care Act, one where people were waving the flag. They were excited, if they had a preexisting condition, which, before the Affordable Care Act, it could have been acne or it could have been pregnancy. But now, that coverage and protection for our loved ones who may have preexisting conditions, loved ones who could function with healthcare and not be relegated to be homebound because they were so sick they could not work.

This is a terrible approach to how you run a country.

In these last two points, I want to make it clear how important it is to recognize that poverty still is. And not only Dr. King, but we recognize that Robert Francis Kennedy, also struck down by an assassin's bullet, worked in his campaign for President in 1968 to bring to the attention of Americans the fact that it is so important to realize poverty exists in the worst way in the mountains and valleys, and urban centers, and that Americans should stand up against poverty.

Poverty impacts the criminal justice system. In 1968, African Americans were about five to four times as likely as Whites to be imprisoned, or jailed. Compared to today, they are six to four times as likely as Whites to be incarcerated, which is troubling, given the population difference.

As Judge Learned Hand observed, ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice.''

It is important that, as we match meaningful prison reform, we must match it with meaningful sentencing reduction. We must stop the tide of poverty by ending mass incarceration. And we must, in fact, recognize that we must fight against recidivism, open the doors of opportunity for ex-felons as they come out, and make sure that we are reducing those mandatory minimums that have kept people in jail 15, 20, 25, or 30 years away from their family so that their children grow up without them.

We must recognize that poverty attacks at a very young age. It moves people toward the juvenile justice system, and it only causes them to believe this is the only thing that they can engage in. I have introduced legislation to give hope to the juvenile justice system: no more solitary confinement; alternative placement; and if they are able, as they rehabilitate, we ban the box on saying that they have been in the juvenile system.

I want to stop homelessness. That is what Dr. King knew had to end to end that aspect of poverty, and to, of course, end it among our veterans.

I want to end the idea of $23 billion out of SNAP's program.

And, of course, I want to recognize that when we have these devastating storms, the amount of homelessness goes up. It is so very important to recognize the devastation of Hurricane Harvey, that there are those who are still unhoused, and to make a commitment after every disaster that we make those communities whole: volcanos, tornadoes, fires, and floods.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing us to be here tonight. And I want to conclude by showing this Robin Hood tax bill, stealing from the poor. This year, the administration, President Trump, proposed to slash housing benefits by $11 billion because we had to pay for the tax cut. Weeks after that tax cut was passed, President Trump proposed to pay for the bill by slashing housing benefits and other supports for low-income people who struggle to make ends meet. And here we stand with the $1.5 trillion deficit.

So, what is our message? That we must never give up in this fight. We must stand in the tradition of Dr. King. We must be reminded of those who are coming to Washington in the coming days. We must say to have mercy on them. And, of course, as Reverend Barber would always seek, that they be blessed, blessed with mercy and success, as they stand against poverty and stand for the ending and elimination of poverty

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressional Progressive Caucus for anchoring this important Special Order.

In the spirit of the 50th Anniversary of the Poor People's Campaign, we are here today to bring the nation's attention to the issues that affect them: immigration, health care, paid sick leave, criminal justice, homelessness, and environmental justice.

We must act without delay regarding the ``zero-tolerance'' policy that separates families apprehended on the southern border by U.S. Border Patrol.

As the member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and former Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Maritime and Border Security, I cannot think of a situation more devastating than having the government forcibly separate a parent from her child to a place unknown, for a fate uncertain, absent any form of communication.

Every day, hundreds of persons, ranging from infants and toddlers to adolescents and adults, flee violence, oppression, and economic desperation from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, seeking safe harbor in the United States.

They are not criminals or terrorists, they are refugees seeking asylum.

The level of callousness displayed by this administration towards those seeking refuge within our borders is shocking.

Every day that passes seemingly reveals another horrific tale of a migrant interacting with Trump's border patrol forces and then being worse for the wear because of it.

We know of the immigrant who was deported to Mexico, a country he left when he was three years old, only to be murdered by gang violence just three weeks after his forced return.

We know of the young mother, separated from her children at the border, left to wonder about their fate, safety, future, and whether she would ever see them again.

In my home state of Texas, a migrant who was separated from his family, committed suicide while in federal detention.

A mother who, while breastfeeding her young child when both were in federal detention, had her child ripped away from her arms.

This cannot be how we make America great again, this is how we make America hateful again.

This week brought news that the Trump administration is seeking to build a tent city at Fort Bliss for the purpose of housing children separated from their parents.

This is unconscionable, outrageous and it must stop.

I have written to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security calling for an immediate end to this policy.

America is the envy of the world, in large part because of our welcoming and generous nature.

For over 100 years, those seeking a better life have been drawn to this land by the words on the Statue of Liberty: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.''

The current president fails this obligation, but he is who he is.

We must be who we are: a loving, embracing people, eager to share the bounty of this country to all who seek it.

The President and GOP have promised for years now to create a plan to improve health insurance for everybody.

But that promise has not been kept.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has significantly improved the availability, affordability, and quality of health care for tens of millions of Americans, including millions who previously had no health insurance at all.

Americans are rightly frightened by Republican attempts to repeal the ACA without having in place a superior new plan that maintains comparable coverages and comparable consumer choices and protections.

It is beyond dispute that the ``Pay More For Less'' plan proposed by House Republicans a few months ago fails this test miserably.

The Republican ``Pay More For Less Act'' is a massive tax cut for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's most vulnerable, the poor and working class households.

This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity--no bill has ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor and working class.

This Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people and raising costs for the poor and middle class.

It is despicable and shameful that those elected to serve their people would rather see their pockets full than their constituents healthy and well.

Fifty years or so ago the American Labor Movement was little more than a group of dreamers, and look at it now.

From coast to coast, in factories, stores, warehouse and business establishments of all kinds, industrial democracy is at work.

From ending sweatshop conditions, unlivable wages, and 70-hour workweeks, we have come a long way from our practices over 100 years ago.

However, we still have work to be done.

Currently in America, there are no federal legal requirements for paid sick leave.

For companies subject to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Act does require unpaid sick leave and are only eligible to take FMLA after they have worked for their employer for at least 12 months, worked for at least 1,250 hours over the previous 12 months, and work at a location where at least 50 employees are employed by the employer within 75 miles.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, state and local government workers were more likely than workers in private industry to have access to paid sick leave but less likely to have access to paid vacations and holidays.

As with workers in private industry, state and local government workers in the lower wage categories were less likely to have access to paid sick leave than workers in higher wage categories.

Workers in lower wage categories were less likely to have access to paid sick leave than more highly paid workers.

For private-industry workers with an average wage in the lowest 10 percent, 27 percent had access to paid sick leave; among workers with an average wage in the highest 10 percent, 87 percent had access to paid sick leave.

This is an atrocity.

We must allow for all of our constituents to be able to work within a healthy environment.

In 1968, African Americans were about 5.4 times as likely as whites to be in prison or jail; compared to today, African Americans are 6.4 times as likely as whites to be incarcerated, which is especially troubling given that whites are also much more likely to be incarcerated now than they were in 1968.

It is clear the inequalities and disparities that ignited hundreds of American cities in the 1960s still exist and have not been eliminated over the last half-century.

As Judge Learned Hand observed, ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration justice.''

Reforming the criminal justice system so that it is fairer and delivers equal justice to all persons is one of the great moral imperatives of our time.

For reform to be truly meaningful, we must look at every stage at which our citizens interact with the system--from policing in our communities and the first encounter with law enforcement, to the charging and manner of attaining a conviction, from the sentence imposed to reentry and collateral consequences.

The need for meaningful prison reform cannot be overstated because being the world's leader in incarceration is neither morally nor fiscally sustainable for the United States, or the federal government, the nation's largest jailer.

For individuals who have paid their debt, the reentry process is paved with tremendous, and often insurmountable, obstacles resulting in recidivism rates as high as 75 percent in some areas.

More must be done to ensure that the emphasis on incarceration is matched with an equal emphasis on successful reentry so that the approximately 630,000 individuals who reenter society each year are prepared to be successful in civilian life.

This is why I have also strongly supported and cosponsored legislation that will allow those with a criminal conviction to have a fair chance to compete for jobs with federal agencies and contractors.

I have also been working for many years to stop the over- criminalization of our young people.

Today, more and more young children are being arrested, incarcerated, and detained in lengthy out-of-home placements.

Harsh and lengthy penalties handed down to young offenders increase their risk of becoming physically abused, emotionally traumatized, and reduce their chance of being successfully reintegrated back into their communities.

I have introduced and supported legislation to help reform how youth and juveniles are treated to reduce contact and recidivism within the juvenile and criminal justice system; to help protect them from a system that turns them into life-long offenders.

Just as we need to minimize the conviction of innocent people, we must address the unnecessary loss of life that can result from police and civilian interactions.

Effective law enforcement requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and equally.

That confidence has been eroded substantially in recent years by numerous instances of excessive use of lethal forces.

There is no higher priority than improving the peacefulness of these interactions and rebuilding the trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve and protect.

Currently, over half a million people in the United States on any given night are experiencing homelessness.

Now that Congress has lifted the low spending caps required by law for defense and domestic programs, lawmakers should ensure the highest level of funding possible for affordable housing.

When U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s resources are cut, families may lose access to stable housing, putting them at increased risk of homelessness.

This year, President Trump proposed to slash housing benefits by $11 billion compared to current levels.

Weeks after passing a massive tax bill that grows our deficit by $1.5 trillion, the President proposed to pay for the tax bill by slashing support for low income people who struggle to make ends meet.

HUD and The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) affordable housing programs have lifted millions of families out of poverty.

Without this investment, many of these families would be homeless, living in substandard or overcrowded conditions, or struggling to meet other basic needs.

As well, homelessness among the American veteran population is on the rise in the United States and we must be proactive in giving back to those who have given so much to us.

Today, in our country, there are approximately 107,000 veterans (male and female) who are homeless on any given night.

And perhaps twice as many (200,000) experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year.

We have an obligation to provide our veterans the assistance needed to avoid homelessness, which includes adequately funding for programs such as Veterans Administration Supportive Housing (VASH) that provide case-management services, adequate housing facilities, mental health support, and address other areas that contribute to veteran homelessness.

We must commit ourselves to the hard but necessary work of ending veteran homelessness in America because providing a home for veterans to come home to every night is the very least we can do.

As one of the original members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I am well aware of the range of threats that our nation has faced.

However, I believe that the threats posed by climate change have been ignored to our nation's detriment.

Climate change is the challenge of our lifetime and for far too many years we have heard the warnings from prominent scientists regarding the danger to people if nothing is done to reverse the amounts of Green House gases released into the atmosphere.

All of you will recall the devastation that Hurricane Harvey wreaked on the Houston community last fall.

Neither Houston nor any other city in the nation had ever experienced flooding of the magnitude caused by Harvey.

In addition to the immense costs of recovery and reconstruction, the cost of human lives is always immeasurable.

If we do not collectively and concretely address the looming threat of climate change, we must prepare for many more devastating natural disasters that destroy lives and livelihoods.

In 2015, the Pentagon published a report that found climate change to be a security risk, because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations.

Communities within the United States and countries around the world that already are fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges caused by climate change.

The poor and marginalized who live in areas that already prone to the consequences of severe weather because the land was cheaper or unwanted by developers will suffer the early consequence of climate change, but the damage will not stop there it will be felt by all.

As many of you well know, Greenhouse Gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) absorb heat (infrared radiation) emitted from Earth's surface.

Increases in these concentrations of these gases in Earth's atmosphere are causing our planet to warm by trapping more of this heat.

Warmer temperatures have caused the Arctic Ice sheets to melt at an unprecedented rate.

This winter we have seen extreme temperature swings in some parts of the country, while in others they have seen no winter at all.

We are at a point where we can no longer wait for action only from Washington D.C., we must begin to take action in our own cities, counties and states to prepare for the challenges we will face if the rise in temperatures is not abated.

It will continue my efforts in Washington to make sure that we have flood study of the greater Houston area to determine the implications of flooding and development in our area.

I urge my colleagues in Congress, and all Americans, to look at what unites us rather than what divides us.

We are linked by our compassion, and bound by the fundamental edict of the American Dream that says we will strive to provide our children with a better life than we had.

We can, and we must, find the common ground necessary to make this dream a reality for Americans of every race and creed, nationality and religion, gender and sexual orientation; indeed for every American wherever he or she may live in this great land regardless of what he or she looks like or who they may love.

We can do it; after all, we are Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, sex toys with children is disgusting, and I believe it is something that one would want simply to say pass a bill to cease and desist.

But I would like to discuss H.R. 4655, the Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots Act of 2017, also known as the CREEPER Act of 2017.

There is no doubt that we oppose what this bill is intending to do. The bill seeks to prohibit the importation and transportation of child sex dolls.

There is no doubt that child sexual exploitation is a serious, grave problem in our country. It is a growing and ever-evolving problem that requires a multifaceted response, and one might argue that the creation of these dolls, besides being exploitation of our most precious resource, is just to make money. That is absolutely both disgraceful and absurd.

Combating child sexual exploitation requires aggressive action by the Congress of the United States, and we must remain always vigilant to stamp out any new methods in technology developed and used by child predators to harm our children.

Just yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that, in a coordinated effort spanning all 50 States during March, April, and May, 2,300 suspected child sex offenders were arrested. In my own hometown of Houston in 2016, 126 people were arrested as online predators as part of a coordinated effort to tackle the problem of child exploitation; and last year, 13 were arrested.

We must protect our children everywhere from any and all bad actors who want to do them harm. I am concerned, however, that the majority has not given us sufficient time to properly consider this bill, its basis for making a correlation between the possession of obscene dolls and possession of child pornography, and its relation to child abuse. Those are important points, and I know that this bill has great intentions. We might have made it even greater.

We also did not have the opportunity to assess whether this bill would implicate a reporting statute for sex offenders or to identify any other problems and perhaps an opportunity to offer ways to improve this bill to ensure we are, in fact, protecting all of our children. Mr. Speaker, I look forward, however, to hearing further in the discussion of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his explanation of the CREEPER bill. As I stated, it is disgusting, but, more importantly, it harms our children.

What we want to do in this Congress is to ensure that not only do we register our concern for the fairness of the criminal justice system, the criminal code, but that we provide the greatest protection we can ever provide for our children.

So the idea of sex toys and the utilization of child sex toys is what I want to be clear, and the importation and transportation is a dastardly act. I hope as this bill makes its way through the Congress that we will be assured that it frames itself to go after those who are the most vile and vicious as it relates to the child sex toys and in keeping with the confines and the parameters of a just criminal code.

Might I also just say that I just feel compelled, as the gentleman I know has worked on many issues, to remind this House that we have a crisis at the border. It is very important as we relate to children and children being taken away from families--mothers--that we also turn our attention to protecting those children.

So with that point, I want to indicate my support for effective measures to protect our children. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is, again, a topic that is impacting so many Americans. I recall the CARA Act that the Judiciary Committee passed out some 2 years ago, a miraculous piece of legislation because we did not criminalize, we sought to help those who have been badly addicted to drugs.

I rise in support of H.R. 6029, the REGROUP Act. This bill increases the funding authorized for the Department of Justice's Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program from $103 million per year to $330 million per year through the fiscal year 2023.

The opioid crisis is a national emergency, and we should certainly expend the resources to prevent opioid abuse and treat those who have become addicted. We have found that the overcriminalization of these persons who are addicted has not served us well. They have generated a whole population of persons who have been labeled under the topic, but realistically it is impacting their lives: mass incarceration.

In the United States, drug overdoses are the leading cause of accidental death, with opioids being involved in nearly two-thirds of overdose deaths. Overall, the number of drug overdose deaths has nearly quadrupled over the past 20 years. Although effective for the treatment of pain, prescription opioids are highly addictive, and nearly half of all U.S. opioid overdose deaths involve a prescription opioid.

Many Members understand that this became part of the wave of new treatment that medical school students and doctors were told and instructed, that a patient should not have to suffer pain. It had good intentions. But through that process of medical treatment became a population of extended addicted persons who began to use a prescription drug as a drug of use and recreation, and then those who were given it in the medical sense who were able to get it over and over again on the basis of pain became addicted.

Overall, the number of drug overdose deaths has nearly quadrupled, as I said, and this has been thought of as an effective treatment for pain. Prescription opioids are highly addictive, and nearly half of all U.S. opioid overdose deaths involve a prescription opioid, as I have said.

Deaths related to heroin have similarly increased as individuals often transition from more expensive prescription opioids to cheaper heroin which has had a rise in its use.

In 2016, Congress adopted this program, as I indicated, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, as we refer to it. The Judiciary Committee had a portion of that legislation. CARA was a well-intentioned initiative to enhance the efforts against opioids across the range of relevant executive branch agencies, involving the jurisdiction of several of our committees in the House.

I was pleased that the Judiciary Committee's contribution to this effort resulted in the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program which reflects an approach not strictly based on arresting and prosecuting.

At the time, I noted with approval that we were not raising sentences or expanding mandatory minimums, but instead funding a range of approaches, including anti-addiction mechanisms such as treatment alternatives to incarceration, which fell under the Department of Justice.

Such alternatives incentivized by this program include training for criminal justice agency personnel on substance abuse disorders, the implementation of mental health courts, drug courts, and veterans' treatment courts, assisting parents whose incarceration could result in children entering the child welfare system, and community-based substance abuse diversion programs.

It is well-known by Members that if you have one of these courts in your jurisdiction, they have been powerful. Mental health courts, drug courts, and veterans' courts have steered a lot of people away from incarceration. They work well. The judges believe they are constructive, and we are doing more for people.

In 2015, we learned through a Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee hearing about the success of a newly developed Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or LEAD, approach that was spearheaded in cities such as Seattle and Santa Fe.

Through the program we are extending today, hopefully we will make it easier for other cities to afford to implement diversion programs such as LEAD.

Other purposes for which these grants may be used include providing training and resources for first responders in administering opioid overdose reversal drugs, expanding medication-assisted treatment programs operated by criminal justice agencies, implementing prescription drug monitoring programs, preventing opioid abuse by juveniles, and implementing prescription drug take-back programs, in addition to investigating the illicit distribution of opioids.

This funding will be an added contribution to these very vital programs, and I hope that we will be in the business every day of saving lives and turning around those addicted persons who not only are hurting themselves, but they are hurting their families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6029, the REGROUP Act. This bill increases the funding authorized for the Department of Justice's Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program from $103 million per year to $330 million per year through fiscal year 2023.

The opioid crisis is a national emergency, and we should certainly expend the resources necessary to prevent opioid abuse and treat those who have become addicted.

In the United States, drug overdoses are the leading cause of accidental death, with opioids being involved in nearly two thirds of overdose deaths.

Overall, the number of drug overdose deaths has nearly quadrupled over the past twenty years. Although effective for the treatment of pain, prescription opioids are highly addictive and nearly half of all U.S. opioid overdose deaths involve a prescription opioid.

Deaths related to heroin have similarly increased, as individuals often transition from more expensive prescription opioids to cheaper heroin.

In 2016, Congress adopted this program as part of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or ``CARA'' as we often refer to it. CARA was a well-intentioned initiative to enhance the efforts against opioids across the range of relevant executive branch agencies, involving the jurisdiction of several of our Committees in the House.

I was pleased that the Judiciary Committee's contribution to this effort, resulted in the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program, which reflects an approach not strictly based on arresting and prosecuting.

At the time, I noted with approval that we were not raising sentences or expanding mandatory minimums, but instead funding a range of approaches including anti-addiction mechanisms such as treatment alternatives to incarceration.

Such alternatives incentivized by this Program include training for criminal justice agency personnel on substance abuse disorders, the implementation of mental health courts, drug courts, and veterans' treatment courts, assisting parents whose incarceration could result in children entering the child welfare system, and community-based substance abuse diversion programs.

In 2015, we learned through a Crime Subcommittee hearing about the success of the newly-developed Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, or LEAD, approach that was spearheaded in cities such as Seattle and Santa Fe.

Through the program we are extending today, hopefully we will make it easier for other cities to afford to implement diversion program such as LEAD.

Other purposes for which these grants may be used include providing training and resources for first responders to administer opioid overdose reversal drugs, expanding medication-assisted treatment programs operated by criminal justice agencies, implementing prescription drug monitoring programs, preventing opioid abuse by juveniles, and implementing prescription drug take-back programs, in addition to investigating the illicit distribution of opioids.

More than 80 percent of the defendants sentenced for crack cocaine offenses were African Americans, despite the fact that more than 66 percent of crack users were either White or Hispanic.

In 2010, we reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1, but we did not even make those changes apply retroactively, and the remaining disparity--and the remaining mandatory nature of the penalty--remains.

There is more to do, and there is no excuse to allow such injustices to persist even as Congress attempts to take credit for efforts to address the opioid crisis.

As former Attorney General Eric Holder said when he instituted his initiative to address some of the inequities with respect to prosecuting drug crimes, we need to be ``Smart on Crime.''

We do not need do not need more ``get tough'' rhetoric from President Trump or Attorney General Sessions about imposing the death penalty for drug crimes. And we should not be telling prosecutors to ratchet up criminal charges and penalties for drug offenders. None of that solves the problem.

Instead of doubling down on failed policies that do nothing more than proliferate misery, we need real leadership, involving a commitment to increase resources for alternatives that we know are actually effective.

And so, while we should support this bill, we should do more to promote a broader and more just approach for all drugs, and re- instituting policies that reflect the need to be ``Smart on Crime.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope the funding we appropriate in the years to come will match the increased authorization for funding the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program administered by the Department of Justice.

But we must do more than write checks, we must challenge ourselves to change our mindset and methodology in the way we address drug abuse across the range of substances that we have criminalized.

After years of failed policies, we should have learned that we cannot arrest or incarcerate our way out of any drug crisis, and mass incarceration--fueled primary by drug-related arrests--has harmed our communities in many ways.

Therefore, as I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill today, I also ask that we commit ourselves to extending this conversation past today so that we can work together to reform our drug laws, our sentencing

laws, and broaden our approaches to preventing and addressing drug abuse.

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

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

Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership and for his concern for what has been a deadly journey for many Americans.

As I close, I would like to share just a moment of the devastating impact that this epidemic of drugs has had in many communities.

More than 80 percent of the defendants sentenced for crack cocaine offenses were African Americans, despite the fact that more than 66 percent of crack cocaine users were either White or Hispanic.

In 2010, we reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. We did not even make those changes apply retroactively. The remaining disparity and the remaining mandatory nature of the penalty remains. Therefore, there is much to do.

This bill will help us a lot, but there is no excuse to continue to allow people, as is evidenced by the recent pardon by the administration of an individual who had been incarcerated on a drug offense, no excuse for us to allow these injustices to persist, even as we proceed to work on this opioid epidemic.

So I think it is extremely important that, as former Attorney General Eric Holder said when he instituted his initiative to address some of the inequities with respect to prosecuting drug crimes, we need to be smart on crime. Treatment is very important. This legislation raising the amount of grant money to help with the courts and treatment elements will be a major aspect to saving lives.

But we do not need to continue to get tough in another arena where we are speaking about raising penalties, imposing the death penalty for drug crimes, as the Attorney General has offered. We should not be telling prosecutors to ratchet up criminal charges and penalties for drug offenders. None of that solves the problem.

What we are doing today will solve the problem. Instead of doubling down on failing policies that do not do anything more than proliferate misery for the incarcerated person who really needs treatment, as well as the family, we need real leadership involving a commitment to increase resources for the alternatives we know are actually effective.

I really do believe the veterans courts, for example, are a Godsend to many of our veterans who come back and truly need help. They are so grateful for help. They may have gotten addicted while in the service or because of circumstances after leaving the service, including issues dealing with their own psychological needs. In any event, we know that they have served their Nation.

Continuing to support those kinds of alternatives are extremely important, and we should support this bill so that we can continue those alternatives, but we need to make sure that we speak against those approaches that ignore the Smart on Crime. I would ask that we reinstitute the Smart on Crime, which diminishes the number of people who get caught up in the system who are just truly addicted from the terrible plight that they have with drug addiction.

As we work to do more, we must ensure that we look at the crisis as it relates to mass incarceration. We must also treat all of the addictions--crack cocaine--as the same, because it spreads throughout our Nation.

So as we continue this conversation, again, I add my appreciation to the Congressman from Pennsylvania, the chairman, and Ranking Member Nadler. As we rise to support this legislation, let us continue to seek to reform our drug laws, let us reform our sentencing laws, and let us broaden our approaches to preventing and addressing drug abuse.

I think the experts will tell us that that has been one of the most effective pathways to get people away from drugs and to get their lives and the lives of their families restored.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the eve of Father's Day. Fathers and mothers, their greatest gift, in their minds, are their children. Their greatest loves are their children. The greatest willingness to sacrifice their lives are for their children.

Mr. Rodas asked the question: ``Why are you taking him?'' Mr. Rodas, an immigrant from Honduras, wanted nothing more than a better life for his wife and three children, and Edison was with him.

In a policy that could be more wicked than evil, this administration, with no legal grounding, has begun to snatch children away from their fathers and their mothers.

I know the policy. It was designed some years back for unaccompanied children. It was not designed for punishment, for taking children from parents who then do not know where they are and possibly the government not being able to find them.

Why are we taking him from his father? Why are babies crying in the night? Because mothers are separated, because they have been snatched away at the border in my State, the State of Texas.

We should cease and desist, Mr. Speaker. This is Father's Day.

Why are we taking children? The American people need to know, and the American people need to stand up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Correa from the great State of California for taking the time to really allow those of us who are in pain to express that pain. I know that my colleagues, each one of them--as we say sometimes in our religious institutions--have come in their own way.

I come in a series of ways. One, as a years-long member of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Being present when we designed a policy for unaccompanied children to be protected and to get to their rightful guardian and not go into the hands of sex traffickers. That was, in fact, a stated policy of the United States for unaccompanied children.

And in many ways it happens. In the last 4 or 5 years I was at the border when the surge of unaccompanied children came because of the violence, particularly in Central America. These children came. We knew they were coming, and we had standup facilities run by nuns and other religious organizations to take unaccompanied children until a legitimate legal guardian in the United States could be documented, or some other legitimate family documented.

When I say, documented, documented that they were able to take the child and that they were legal to the extent that they were not human traffickers.

That is what policies we had. There is no policy. There is no regulation. There is no statute. There is no law. There is no law that is allowing the personnel at the border, customs--particularly Border Patrol--to snatch, rip, and tear children away from their family. And if the distinguished gentleman from California would allow me, I want this to be a call to action because there is a legal process or legislative process.

As my previous colleagues have said, many of us are introducing legislation. This past weekend I stood with Guatemalan citizens, people of Guatemalan descent, and we know for fact that 1 million people have been displaced in Guatemala because of the volcano. And I just have to say, they will be fleeing, many of them.

We also know that people have come because they have suffered unbelievable, unspeakable gang violence: the decapitating of heads, the murder of children. One mother saw two sons murdered and she took the last child, boy child, to try to find refuge.

There are stories like this all over. And so what is happening at the border is a nonpolicy that is done only for the vileness of punishment. We will punish these people and they will not come anymore.

As we are on the brink of Father's Day. For those who read the Scriptures, they know the story of Moses. Sometimes a parent is so desperate that they will either escape with that child or they will send that child on. And America has always been a place that has found a regular order to deal with this crisis. That is not what is happening, and the American people need to understand.

The courts are overloaded. There are not enough immigration judges. There are not enough lawyers. They are taking into court 50 and 70 people at a time. There are some people who are not speaking Spanish. They are speaking an indigenous language, and they do not understand at all, except they have come with the right that they have--and the legal term is ``credible fear''--they have come to seek asylum.

And we have for long precedent allowed those who have experienced domestic violence--the stories are horrific--or those who have been the victim of gangs to come, and that is not happening now.

So I just want to hold up these pictures that show the anguish of parents who could be like any one of us. The anguish of the father, Mr. Rodas, whose 5-year-old was snatched from him; the anguish of parents who desire to do nothing but to help their child or themselves and these children are being snatched away. It is not any immigration policy, but a policy to scare, to punish, to frighten, to undermine, and to do a vileness.

Not because America is not good. We are. But it is important that we act upon that goodness and that we don't have these series of pictures where when this mother turns her back, the child is snatched away.

So the call to action is to the vastness of our religious community, the

vast television ministry, TBN, The Impact Network, The Word Network, Hillsong Church, whatever ones you want to call. In this day of worship, all of these leaders should stand and speak out in the loudest voice against the unspeakable, nonkindness, ungodly act of snatching children away from parents.

I will be going down to visit and to see a number of centers, and all I ask is my Government to be what it is: a loving and nurturing place of values and democracy, and a recognition that we are a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws.

These people have come to seek asylum. That is a legal process. Some may win it and some may not. But I would only say to you that who are we, if we cannot, as a mass of Americans, cry out against this administration. No matter how much of a cult we think this administration has been called, there have to be some good people that will recognize that our values, our flag rises above any person. And it is important for us to save the lives of these children.

Mr. Correa, let me thank the gentleman so very much for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Correa is a valued member of this body and one of the outstanding member of the Homeland Security Committee, where he Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficienty.

We are here today to call upon the President and the Congress of the United States to act without delay regarding the ``zero-tolerance'' policy that separates families apprehended on the southern border by U.S. Border Patrol.

As the member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and former Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Maritime and Border Security, I cannot think of a situation more devastating than having the government forcibly separate a parent from her child to a place unknown, for a fate uncertain, absent any form of communication.

Every day, hundreds of persons, ranging from infants and toddlers to adolescents and adults, flee violence, oppression, and economic desperation from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, seeking safe harbor in the United States.

They are not criminals or terrorists, they are refugees seeking asylum.

The American government must harness all available resources to aid those enduring unimaginable suffering, which is why I have called upon the President to extend Temporary Protected Status for those affected by this volcano, including introducing broader legislation that makes Guatemala eligible for TPS.

While they hope to receive asylum, none of us expected that they would be treated as criminals or that their children would be forcibly separated from them.

I cannot think of a situation more devastating than having the government forcibly separate a parent from their child to a place unknown, for a fate uncertain, absent any form of communication.

But shamefully that is exactly what is happening under this administration.

Reports indicate that as many as 700 children have been taken from adults claiming to be their parents since October 2017, including more than 100 children under the age of 4.

This startling fact comes after Acting Assistant Secretary Steven Wagner of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) testified before the Senate in April 2018 that during a review of more than 7,600 unaccompanied immigrant children who had recently arrived and been placed with a sponsor, officials at the agency were unable to determine the precise whereabouts of 1,475 children.

This is unconscionable and unacceptable.

This administration's practice of separating children from their parents inexplicably turns accompanied children into unaccompanied children, with all of the attendant risks and dangers, including human trafficking.

In 2014, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported that ``over a period of 4 months, HHS allegedly placed a number of UACs in the hands of a ring of human traffickers who forced them to work on egg farms in and around Marion, Ohio.

The minor victims were forced to work six or seven days a week, twelve hours per day.

The traffickers repeatedly threatened the victims and their families with physical harm, and even death, if they did not work or surrender their entire paychecks.''

What is even more reprehensible is to this day, the Trump administration maintains that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is not legally responsible for children after they are released from ORR care. This line of thinking allows such gross negligence to take place in the first place. As the Founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and as a parent and grandparent, this is unacceptable.

Studies have documented that when young children are traumatically removed from their parents, their physical and mental health and well- being suffers.

The effects of these traumatic experiences--especially in children who have already faced serious adversity--are unlikely to be short- lived, and can likely last a lifetime.

This is exacerbated when the child in custody speaks a language that is not English or Spanish.

Although the government has a legal obligation to provide reasonable language services to unaccompanied minors, many children arriving to the U.S. speak indigenous languages and have little or no translation assistance provided by the U.S. government.

The Trump administration's ``zero-tolerance'' policy does not make our nation safer or more secure, nor is it a solution to the problem of illegal immigration and refugees seeking asylum. It is, however, monstrously cruel, inhumane, and shameful and makes a mockery of America's reputation as the most welcoming and generous nation on earth.

United Nations Office spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani recently condemned the Trump administration's treatment of unaccompanied minors coming to the United States saying that ``the use of immigration detention and family separation as a deterrent runs counter to human rights standards and principles''.

The last time this nation had policies that promoted the forcible separation of children from newly arrived persons was slavery: a dark chapter in this nation's history that we should not revisit.

Today, the parents of these thousands of children will not be deterred from finding ways to reunite with their children, even reentering the United States under the threat of imprisonment.

It would be unconscionable to prosecute parents under these circumstances. There must be strong and aggressive congressional oversight of this administration's immigration enforcement.

The Trump administration's policy should cease and desist immediately.

National Policy regarding immigration legislation should not create greater fear for families already traumatized by intolerable conditions in their home countries.

U.S. immigration policy should not deter refugees from seeking asylum within our borders.

We should welcome mothers carrying their babies to a safe haven and assure the safety of their children.

I will soon be introducing legislation prohibiting the separation of children from their families absent a health or safety risk. The legislation will also provide that these children the right to be represented by counsel and that translation services be available at all legal proceedings at all stages.

As we have seen with the recent volcanic activity and earthquakes in Guatemala, the United States should be seeking ways to help its neighbors in the Southern Hemisphere.

The American government must harness all available resources to aid those enduring unimaginable suffering, which is why I have called upon the President to extend Temporary Protected Status for those affected by this volcano.

In the coming days, I will also be introducing broader legislation that makes Guatemala eligible for TPS, so that those who fled this horror, and other mainstays of the world--like a murder rate which is among the highest in the country, and rampant gang violence--may have hope to realize their American dream.''

The Trump administration is utterly failing in its basic duty to treat all persons with dignity and compassion.

Rather, it is making a mockery of our national values and reputation as a champion of human rights.

This crisis is not just an immigration matter, nor is it just a foreign policy matter.

It is a humanitarian crisis, executed by an administration that purports to be the champion of `family values' but whose actions do not actually value families.

We are a great country with a long and noble tradition of providing sanctuary to the persecuted and oppressed. And it is in that spirit that we should act. We can do it; after all, we are Americans.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I introduced H.R. 6067, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act (``RADA'') because in the realm of international sports, it has become almost commonplace for too many athletes to yield to the temptation of bridging the gap between their own skill and the pinnacle of athletic achievement by resorting to performance enhancing drugs.

And to conceal this fall from grace, cheaters are employing increasingly sophisticated modes of masking the use of any proscribed drugs.

This practice, some of it state-sanctioned, undermines international athletic competition and is often connected to more nefarious actions by state actors.

This is why it is necessary for Congress to enact H.R. 6067, the bipartisan Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act (``RADA'' Act)

The legislation I have introduced is bipartisan, and bears the name of courageous whistleblower Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, a valiant man who revealed the true extent of the

complex state-run doping scheme which permitted Russia to excel in the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, and which resulted in its ban from the 2018 Olympic Games.

While he was complicit in Russia's state-run doping program, Dr. Rodchenkov regrets his role and seeks to atone for it by aiding the effort to clean up international sports and to curb the rampant corruption within Russia.

The RADA Act is a serious step towards cracking down on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in major international competition because it establishes criminal penalties and civil remedies for doping fraud.

A number of other nations, including Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain, have embraced criminal sanctions for doping fraud violations and it is time for the United States to be added to this list.

Doping fraud in major international competitions--like the Olympics, the World Cup and the Tour de France--is often linked with corruption, bribery and money laundering.

It is not just victory that criminals engaged in doping fraud snatch away from clean athletes--athletes depend on prize money and sponsorships to sustain their livelihoods.

The United States has a large role to play in ferreting out corruption in international sports.

Not only do U.S. athletes lose out on millions in sponsorships, but when a U.S. company spends millions to create a marketing campaign around an athlete, only to have that athlete later implicated in a doping fraud scandal, the damage to that company's brand can cost tens of millions.

This has been the story of Alysia Montano, a U.S. runner who competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics games in London and placed fifth place in the 800 meters behind two Russian women finishing first and third.

These women were later found to have engaged in doping fraud by the World Anti-Doping Agency, meaning that Ms. Montano had rightfully finished third, which would have earned her a bronze medal.

Ms. Montano estimates that doping fraud cost her `maybe half a million dollars, if you look at rollovers and bonuses, and that's without outside sponsorship maybe coming in.'

She adds, `That's not why you're doing it, but you still deserve it.' She certainly does. Until now, defrauded U.S. athletes and companies have had little recourse against doping fraud.

A recent article published by The New York Times titled ``U.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminalize Doping in Global Competitions'' references the RADA as a step in the right direction toward criminalizing doping in international sports.

The RADA is an important step to stemming the tide of Russian corruption in sport and restoring confidence in international competition.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the New York Times article published June 12, 2018 entitled ``U.S. Lawmakers Seek To Criminalize Doping in Global Competitions'', which cites RADA as a step in the right direction toward criminalizing doping in international sports.

[From the New York Times, June 12, 2018]

U.S. Lawmakers Seek To Criminalize Doping in Global Competitions

(By Rebecca R. Ruiz)

United States lawmakers on Tuesday took a step toward

criminalizing doping in international sports, introducing a

bill in the House that would attach prison time to the use,

manufacturing or distribution of performance-enhancing drugs

in global competitions.

The legislation, inspired by the Russian doping scandal,

would echo the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it

illegal to bribe foreign officials to gain a business

advantage. The statute would be the first of its kind with

global reach, empowering American prosecutors to act on

doping violations abroad, and to file fraud charges of a

different variety than those the Justice Department brought

against top international soccer officials in 2015.

Although American leagues like Major League Baseball would

not be affected by the legislation, which would apply only to

competitions among countries, it could apply to a league's

athletes when participating in global events like the Ryder

Cup, the Davis Cup or the World Baseball Classic.

The law would establish America's jurisdiction over

international sports events, even those outside of the United

States, if they include at least three other nations, with at

least four American athletes participating or two American

companies acting as sponsors. It would also enhance the

ability of cheated athletes and corporate sponsors to seek

damages, expanding the window of time during which civil

lawsuits could be filed.

To justify the United States' broader jurisdiction over

global competitions, the House bill invokes the United

States' contribution to the World Anti-Doping Agency, the

global regulator of drugs in sports. At $2.3 million, the

United States' annual contribution is the single largest of

any nation. ``Doping fraud in major international

competitions also effectively defrauds the United States,''

the bill states.

The lawmakers behind the bill were instrumental in the

creation of the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which gave the government

the right to freeze financial assets and impose visa

restrictions on Russian nationals accused of serious human

rights violations and corruption. On Tuesday, the lawmakers

framed their interest in sports fraud around international

relations and broader networks of crime that can accompany

cheating.

``Doping fraud is a crime in which big money, state assets

and transnational criminals gain advantage and honest

athletes and companies are defrauded,'' said Sheila Jackson

Lee, Democrat of Texas, who introduced the legislation on

Tuesday. ``This practice, some of it state-sanctioned, has

the ability to undermine international relations, and is

often connected to more nefarious actions by state actors.''

Along with Ms. Jackson Lee, the bill was sponsored by two

other Congressional representatives, Michael Burgess,

Republican of Texas, and Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin.

It was put forward just as Russia prepares to host soccer's

World Cup, which starts Thursday. That sporting event will be

the nation's biggest since the 2014 Sochi Olympics, where one

of the most elaborate doping ploys in history took place.

The bill, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, takes its name

from Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the chemist who ran Russia's

antidoping laboratory for 10 years before he spoke out about

the state-sponsored cheating he had helped carry out--most

notoriously in Sochi. At those Games, Dr. Rodchenkov said, he

concealed widespread drug use among Russia's top Olympians by

tampering with more than 100 urine samples with the help of

Russia's Federal Security Service.

Investigations commissioned by international sports

regulators confirmed his account and concluded that Russia

had cheated across competitions and years, tainting the

performance of more than 1,000 athletes. In early 2017,

American intelligence officials concluded that Russia's

meddling in the 2016 American election had been, in part, a

form of retribution for the Olympic doping scandal, whose

disclosures Russian officials blamed on the United States.

Nations including Germany, France, Italy, Kenya and Spain

have established criminal penalties for sports doping

perpetrated within their borders. Russia, too, passed a law

in 2017 that made it a crime to assist or coerce doping,

though no known charges have been brought under that law to

date.

Under the proposed American law, criminal penalties for

offenders would include a prison term of up to five years as

well as fines that could stretch to $250,000 for individuals

and $1 million for organizations.

``We could have real change if people think they could

actually go to jail for this,'' said Jim Walden, a lawyer for

Dr. Rodchenkov, who met with the lawmakers as they considered

the issue in recent months. ``I think it will have a

meaningful impact on coaches and athletes if they realize

they might not be able to travel outside of their country for

fear of being arrested.''

The legislation also authorizes civil actions for doping

fraud, giving athletes who may have been cheated in

competitions--as well as corporations acting as sponsors--the

right to sue in federal court to recover damages from people

who may have defrauded competitions.

Ms. Jackson Lee cited the American runner Alysia Montano,

who placed fifth in the 800 meters at the 2012 Summer

Olympics. Two Russian women who placed first and third in

that race were later disqualified for doping, elevating Ms.

Montano years later. ``She had rightfully finished third,

which would have earned her a bronze medal,'' Ms. Jackson Lee

said, noting the financial benefits and sponsorships Ms.

Montano could have captured.

The bill would establish a window of seven years for

criminal actions and 10 years for civil lawsuits. It also

seeks to protect whistle-blowers from retaliation, making it

illegal to take ``adverse action'' against a person because

he or she has disclosed information about doping fraud.

Dr. Rodchenkov, who has lived in the United States since

fall 2015, has been criminally charged in Russia after he

publicly deconstructed the cheating he said he carried out on

orders from a state minister.

``While he was complicit in Russia's past bad acts, Dr.

Rodchenkov regrets his past role in Russia's state-run doping

program and seeks to atone for it by aiding the effort to

clean up international sports and to curb the corruption

rampant in Russia,'' Ms. Jackson Lee said, calling Tuesday's

bill ``an important step to stemming the tide of Russian

corruption in sport and restoring confidence in international

competition.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 449, the Synthetic Drug Awareness Act of 2017, which requires the Surgeon General to report to Congress on the public health effects of the in reased use since January 2010 by individuals who are 12 to 18 years old of drugs developed and manufactured to avoid control under the Controlled Substances Act.

The term ``synthetic drug'' means a drug which is developed and manufactured to avoid control under the Controlled Substances Act.

There are more than 200 identified synthetic drug compounds and more than 90 different synthetic drug marijuana compounds.

Many of these synthetic drugs are made in foreign countries and then smuggled into the United States.

These clandestinely-made drugs have no manufacturing safety standards that are normally required by the Food and Drug Administration.

Synthetic opioids have surpassed prescription opioids as the most common drug class involved in overdose deaths in the United States.

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, fentanyl-related deaths nationwide are up from previous years by 73 percent.

Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid created using man-made chemical components rather than naturally occurring ingredients, is 50-100 times more potent than morphine.

Overall, drug overdose deaths involving fentanyl-type drugs in th United States rose from about 3,000 in 2010 to more than 19,400 in 2016.

The rate of teen drug overdose deaths in the United States climbed 19 percent from 2014 to 2015, from 3.1 deaths per 100,000 teens to 3.7 per 100,000.

The number of American teens to die of a drug overdose leapt by almost a fifth in 2015 after seven years of decline.

The opioid epidemic claimed more than 52,000 lives in 2015.

In Texas, Synthetic opioids account for almost one-fifth of drug related overdoses.

In 2016, there were 1,375 opioid-related overdose deaths in Texas specifically, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Last year, 364 drug-related overdose deaths happened in Houston.

Synthetic marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin top the list of drug-related problems in the Houston area.

Geographically, death rates from overdoses involving synthetic opioids increased in 21 states, with 10 states doubling their rates from 2016-2017.

No area of the United States is exempt from this epidemic--we all know a friend, family member or loved one devastated by opioids.

H.R. 449 is a positive step in the right direction, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 449, the Synthetic Drug Awareness Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4684, the Ensuring Access to Quality Sober Living Act of 2018.

Opioid abuse has become a public health crisis with devastating consequences, including; overdoses, rising incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome, homelessness, and unemployment.

H.R. 4684 ensures that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration has the resources to provide the best practices for operating recovery houses and to distribute the information to states, and to provide technical assistance to states seeking to adopt such practices.

It is undeniable that, to ensure their path to recovery, victims of substance abuse are in need of proper recovery housing that is free from alcohol and drug use.

People suffering from addiction are in dire need of healthy living environments to ensure a successful transition.

Recovering addicts coming from an environment that does not provide the proper assistance, face many challenges and problems when they later reenter society.

Every day, over 115 Americans die after overdosing on opioids, with more than 64,000 deaths reported in the year 2016.

In 2015, 2,588 opioid overdose related deaths were reported in my home state of Texas with Harris County accounting for 318 of those deaths.

It has been reported that 91 percent of victims in recovery will experience a relapse, 59 percent of those will experience a relapse within the first two weeks of sobriety, and 80 percent within a month after discharging from a detox facility.

H.R. 4684 will not only provide addicts with qualified recovery homes but healthy family oriented settings.

Medical research suggests that recovery residencies should be structured like a family home, a community living environment which is centered on peer support and connection to services.

These provisions of the bill will provide victims of opioid addiction with much needed guidance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4684 to show their support in this extremely critical moment in time and ensure that those who have fallen victim to the opioid epidemic are provided with qualified recovery housing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5002, the ACE Research Act.

It is undeniable that more money, resources, and research needs to go into solving the many addictions, diseases, and disorders that face our society today.

H.R. 5002 amends the Public Health Service Act by augmenting the National Institutes of Health's research initiatives, by introducing more critical research that will strengthen the understanding and yield cures to the myriad of health problems that are facing Americans today.

The ACE Research Act will provide the National Institutes of Health with the necessary authority, resources and support it needs to further research and increase the fundamental biological understanding of the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and disorders.

Additionally, the research initiatives undertaken by the National Institutes of Health may be supported through transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements under the ACE Research Act.

The ACE Research Act will provide the National Institutes of Health with the measures to implement high impact, cutting-edge research necessary to combat public health threats.

Further, the National Institutes of Health will be able to partner with companies that have the technology and resources to administer this cutting-edge research.

National Institutes of Health conducts tremendous, groundbreaking research that investigates the causes and remedies of diseases, addictions, ailments, and other public health areas for all people.

Moreover, the National Institutes of Health is the leading government agency that is responsible for essential public health and biomedical research, which helps Americans combat the health concerns that arise daily.

The ACE Research Act will support the National Institutes of Health's research initiatives in finding cures to the growing opioid addiction in America today.

Opioid addiction, which includes the overuse of illicit and prescription drugs, is taking the lives of Americans across our nation each day.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report cited 63,632 drug overdose deaths in 2016 in America, 42,249 of which were related to opioid overdoses.

In 2016, there were 1,375 opioid-related overdose deaths in Texas, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

In the city of Houston, there were 364 drug-related overdose deaths alone that happened in 2016 according to the Treatment Canter, a highly respected drug and alcohol addiction treatment service center.

Therefore, it is vital that research is done concerning drug abuse and addictions, as it has been a long-term problem in our society.

According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, addiction is ``a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry.''

Addiction is not a choice, a moral feeling, or a lack of will-power; it is a disease of the brain that requires proper treatment.

Addiction is a longstanding mental and physical illness that many Americans are facing today, leading to their lives being compromised, and in some cases even leading to their death.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is overseeing important research to respond to this epidemic, and this bill responds favorably to its request for more flexibility in conducting research on treatments for opioid addiction and other disease areas.

This research may lead to scientific advances that may find solutions to the opioid crisis, as well as solutions to other addictions and public health threats.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5002, which will expand the National Institutes of Health's research initiatives to include valuable research that will address the multitude of health concerns facing Americans today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5102, the ``Substance Use Disorder Workforce Loan Repayment Act of 2018.''

H.R. 5102 would establish a loan repayment program for mental health professionals practicing in areas with few mental health providers or with high death rates from overdose.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the Public Health Service Act to create a loan repayment program for individuals who complete a period of service in a substance use disorder treatment job in a mental health professional shortage area and counties where the drug overdose death rate is higher than the national average.

This bill authorizes $25 million per year over fiscal years 2019- 2028.

H.R. 5102 will strengthen America's substance abuse treatment workforce and provide for greater access to care for patients who need it the most.

Mr. Speaker, the current trends of substance abuse in the U.S. are startling.

A Columbia University study found that over 40 million Americans age 12 and over meet the clinical criteria for drug addiction and abuse.

As substance abuse rates and death from overdose rates increase, studies project a shortage of 85,000 physicians in 2020--the impact of which will be the most devastating in rural communities.

In my home state of Texas, 10.1 people die per 100,000 in the population from drug overdoses.

In 2016, in Houston there were 364 drug overdose related deaths reported.

H.R. 5102 addresses these critical issues by providing an additional path for health care providers to practice in rural and underserved communities, ultimately giving greater access to care for those suffering from substance use disorder.

This piece of legislation will strengthen rural health care systems and will improve access to care for patients in these rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Substance Use Disorder Workforce Loan Repayment Act of 2018'' will help build a well-equipped workforce to combat the current rise in substance use disorders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5228, the Stop Counterfeit Drugs by Regulating and Enhancing Enforcement Now Act, or the SCREEN Act.

Mr. Speaker, one way the nation can express its concern for our citizens' health is by addressing the issue regarding counterfeit drugs and synthetic opioids.

Among other things, H.R. 5228 will strengthen the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to combat counterfeit drugs, illegal and synthetic opioids, and opioid-like substances.

Because the capabilities of counterfeit drugs and opioids are rapidly and continuously evolving, there is no ``single'' technology that provides long-term assurance of drug security.

H.R. 5228 will implement new, holistic technology to better protect our drug supply.

Opioids are a class of drugs that include the illegal drug heroin.

All opioids are chemically related and interact with opioid receptors on nerve cells in the body and brain.

According to a recent study, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report there were 63,632 drug overdose deaths in 2016 in America, 42,249 of which were related to opioid overdoses.

This issue directly affects my state of Texas, because in 2016, there were 1,375 opioid-related overdose deaths, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

In the city of Houston alone, there were 364 drug-related overdose deaths.

Another issue that H.R. 5228 will address is the prevalence of counterfeits, or fake medicines which are produced and sold with the intent to deceptively represent its authenticity or effectiveness.

Fake medicine may contain harmful or inactive ingredients that harm users, or might have the right active ingredient but at the wrong dosage.

Counterfeit drugs are illegal and can be harmful to your health.

Mr. Speaker, critics of the FDA say the entire screening system is underutilized and filled with incomplete and late information.

By enacting H.R. 5228, the FDA will have the authority to combat the scourge of opioids and counterfeit drugs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5228.