[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 23, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2512-H2522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 467, HALT ALL LETHAL TRAFFICKING OF
FENTANYL ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 11, PROVIDING
FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION
FROM NEW MOTOR VEHICLES: HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE AND VEHICLE STANDARDS''; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 45, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION RELATING TO ``WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL STUDENT
LOANS''
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 429
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 467) to amend the Controlled Substances Act
with respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related
substances, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such further amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the
House with such further amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 11) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
``Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards''. All points of order
against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The
joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
commit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 45) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Department of Education relating to
``Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans''. All
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution
are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the joint
resolution are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce or their respective designees;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wagner). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger
Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
[[Page H2513]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a
rule, House Resolution 429, providing for consideration of three
measures: H.J. Res. 45, H.R. 467, and S.J. Res. 11.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 467 under a structured
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce Committee or
their designees and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 45 and S.J.
Res. 11 under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of
jurisdiction or to their designees.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to commit for S.J. Res. 11 and
one motion to recommit for H.J. Res. 45.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. Included within the measure is H.R. 467, the
HALT Fentanyl Act. It is important to say that the HALT Fentanyl Act
makes great strides in addressing the growing fentanyl crisis in our
country. By making permanent the scheduling of fentanyl-related analogs
in the schedule I category, in addition to giving researchers the
ability to conduct studies on these substances, we can begin to repair
the damage that this drug has inflicted on our communities and our
Nation.
I spent almost three decades practicing as a physician. I have
witnessed and heard so many devastating stories of the consequences of
this crisis which we now face. We face it in north Texas; we face it
across the country.
Between September and March, nearly a dozen teens spread across three
schools in Carrollton, Texas, were injured because of fentanyl
poisoning. In fact, three of those poisonings were fatal. One death is
too many, and we must equip our communities to address this issue from
the source.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce has a long history of producing
bipartisan policies to actually address the opioid crisis in this
country. The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, known as the
SUPPORT Act of 2018, was a product of our committee, and it made
reforms to the way we administer programs to control and respond to and
better treat individuals who have a problem with opioids.
However, the landscape has drastically changed. It is now a different
disease than what it was in 2018, so we have gone from diversion of
prescription opioids to the manufacture and importation of illicit
fentanyl, products that are created in the People's Republic of China
in their base form, exported to Mexico, imported by cartels, and
poisoning our children.
We need to better understand the effects of fentanyl and fentanyl-
related substances to better treat patients suffering from exposure.
The HALT Fentanyl Act will improve regulations to encourage research so
we can better understand the impacts of fentanyl on human health.
Our recent bipartisan mental health package passed in the Energy and
Commerce Committee worked on several provisions that would relax
regulations to expand access to evidence-based treatment programs and
ease restrictions on treatment options for substance use care.
Finally, the HALT Fentanyl Act will ensure that law enforcement
officers have the tools to prosecute cases relating to fentanyl and
fentanyl-related substances. Due to the crisis at our southern border,
illicit fentanyl remains an imminent threat throughout the country. At
a time when people are dying at alarming rates from fentanyl poisoning,
this legislation is an absolute necessity to counteract this crisis and
save our young American lives.
{time} 1230
Madam Speaker, also included in this package is a provision that
would repeal a continuation of President Biden's war on affordable
energy and consumer choice.
S.J. Res 11 would be instrumental in protecting American families who
would suffer from additional costs passed along to them and ensure that
they, the American public, are able to select vehicles that best fit
their needs rather than functionaries in the administration in a far-
removed Washington, D.C.
If not for our Republican majority, Madam Speaker, President Biden
could continue to act unilaterally to enact his radical Green New Deal
agenda. Thankfully, the American public saw fit to entrust Republicans
with the majority in the people's House to prevent President Biden and
Democrats from acting upon their worst impulses.
Once again, Democrats have seen fit to attack a vital component of
our Nation's economy. Why Democrats would want to make more difficult
the lives of those who deliver our food and our goods to our grocery
stores and our homes, and the fuel to our gas stations, I do not know.
Madam Speaker, what I do know is that every American owes these
hardworking men and women a tremendous debt of gratitude that we will
not soon be able to repay.
Madam Speaker, in 2021, trucks moved close to 11 billion tons of
freight across America. That is over 70 percent of the cargo shipped in
the continental United States.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some were sitting in the comfort of
their homes while dozens of Amazon packages were dropped at their
doorsteps. That was only because of these long-haul drivers who
traverse our Nation daily, ensuring our communities are supplied with
goods that allow Americans to enjoy a high standard of living and
literally preventing American families from starving during the
pandemic.
So it is bewildering, Madam Speaker, that Democrats have decided to
reward the courage and perseverance of long-haul truckers with onerous
and expensive new regulations that will have a devastating effect upon
their livelihoods.
Madam Speaker, implementing these new regulations and standards will
burden truck drivers with as much as $8,000 per driver in new costs
when it comes time to retire their current vehicles.
Democrats pride themselves on being advocates of the little guy, the
downtrodden, but I would ask you, Madam Speaker, how is forcing
Americans already suffering from the sky-high inflation brought to us
by the Biden administration, saddling them with an additional $8,000
from their hard-earned dollars, how is that lightening their burden?
Madam Speaker, simply, it does not.
Once again, President Biden and members of the Democratic Party are
so single-minded in their pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda that
they are blind to the obvious collateral damage that their policies are
inflicting. Thankfully, our Republican majority will be able to deliver
tangible relief by repealing this counterproductive and misguided
executive action.
Madam Speaker, today, we are also considering H.J. Res. 45 to
formally disapprove of the authority the administration claims it has
to unilaterally forgive student loans.
In August 2022, the Biden administration announced a plan to cancel
student debt up to $20,000 for Pell grant recipients and up to $10,000
for non-Pell grant recipients for those making under $125,000 a year.
Madam Speaker, on May 11, 2023, 2 weeks ago, a glorious day, the
public health emergency came to an end. Americans are back to work.
They are back to school. They are returning to normal life.
The Biden administration is attempting to claim authority for this
$315 billion student loan forgiveness through the COVID-19 national
emergency status and the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for
Students Act, the so-called HEROES Act of 2003. This 2003 law provided
temporary relief to military members during their deployment following
9/11. This is a twisted interpretation of a bill that compensated our
Nation's servicemen and -women for their heroic efforts after the
Nation was attacked on 9/11.
The bottom line is this is quite likely unconstitutional. It is an
overreach of executive authority and would not make student debt
disappear. It would instead unfairly shift the burden of
[[Page H2514]]
student loans to the 87 percent of Americans who did not take out such
loans.
Madam Speaker, this is an important rule to consider these important
bills.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Burgess for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, today while we stand here debating this rule, the
Republicans' default on America's plan is holding Americans hostage.
Across my district and this country, Americans are wondering what
will happen to their food security. How about their Medicare? What
about veterans' healthcare? Republicans are holding us hostage so they
can protect the tax cuts that they gave to the wealthiest corporations
and millionaires.
We need to remember that the debt we are looking at today was
incurred by Republicans during the Trump administration, $7 trillion of
that.
Do you know what? If they crash the economy, it is not the
millionaires who would be hurt. It is working families.
The Republican default on America would impact the very bills we will
be talking about today. It would cut funding to fight the fentanyl
crisis, treat addiction, reduce pollution, and help Americans pay their
bills when a pandemic hits.
The rule we are considering today will make in order three bills.
The first bill is H.R. 467, the HALT Fentanyl Act. We all agree that
there is a scourge of fentanyl in our communities, and we all agree it
needs to be stopped. There is no district in our country, no family,
and no community that hasn't seen and experienced the horrors of
fentanyl.
The problem is that this bill isn't going to do what needs to be done
to address the fentanyl crisis. To fight the fentanyl crisis, we need
more law enforcement funding, and we need to treat addiction.
Right now, as noted, fentanyl-related substances are listed on
schedule I. That listing goes to the end of 2024. The main thrust of
this bill is to make that listing permanent, but our communities are
pleading with us to do more than the status quo.
For decades, we tried to incarcerate our way out of addiction, but
addiction is a disease, not a crime.
Madam Speaker, I am speaking from the heart. I know most of my
colleagues on this floor have heard that I lost two brothers to
addiction, two beautiful souls that were taken from this world far too
soon. It was partially because there was no treatment available.
This country has failed to treat addiction as the health crisis that
it is, so I know personally the pain that fentanyl brings to our
families and our communities because I felt that pain when my brothers
passed away.
Treatment for addiction can save precious lives, but we lack the
capacity to provide those services. Instead, the default on America
plan that their crisis is creating would cut funding for mental health
and addiction treatment services.
H.R. 467 would also expand mandatory minimums, which takes away
discretion from judges to look at each case on its own, which
disproportionately harms Black and Brown communities more than others.
Last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected 37 Democratic
amendments that would have added more law enforcement funding to
interdict fentanyl at border crossings. They would have provided more
evidence-based approaches to fentanyl use. They would have made sure
that we had the tools we needed to treat addiction.
Instead of creating and finding solutions, Republicans are creating
more problems. The Republicans' default on America act will cut funding
for Customs and Border Protection, potentially leading to an increase
in the amount of fentanyl hitting our streets.
Is this their way of addressing the fentanyl crisis?
We need to do better. We need to make sure we give real solutions to
these very serious problems.
Madam Speaker, I am tired of hearing that Democrats are to blame for
the fentanyl crisis. We all recognize the need to do more.
Let me remind my colleagues that in the last 2 years, the Biden
administration has seized record amounts of illicit fentanyl at the
border.
DHS has seized more than 35,000 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year
2022.
The Department of Justice disrupted or dismantled 130 fentanyl
networks.
The administration is expanding access to treatments for those
suffering from addictions.
Democrats in Congress filed a funding bill last year that beefed up
resources for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, the
National Guard counter-drug program, and the Drug Communities Program.
Contrast that with the Trump administration. A GAO report blasted the
previous administration for failing to come up with a coherent national
opioid strategy, and the crisis spiked. In the first 2 years of the
Trump administration, we saw significant spikes in the fentanyl crisis,
and more people died.
According to the CDC, the annual number of overdose deaths from
synthetic opioids increased by 192 percent between 2016 and 2020.
In contrast, since day one of this administration, President Biden
has provided solutions to the overdose crisis.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
December 2019 GAO report: ``The Office of National Drug Control Policy
Should Develop Key Planning Elements to Meet Statutory Requirements.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[From the United States Government Accountability Office, Dec. 2019]
The Office of National Drug Control Policy Should Develop Key Planning
Elements to Meet Statutory Requirements
Why GAO Did This Study
Almost 70,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2018,
according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention data. The 2018 SUPPORT Act reauthorized ONDCP and
imposed new requirements. GAO noted in its March 2019 High
Risk report that the federal effort to prevent drug misuse is
an emerging issue requiring close attention.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 1708a(b), GAO has periodically
assessed ONDCP's programs and operations. This report
assesses the extent to which ONDCP (1) met selected statutory
requirements related to the National Drug Control Strategy in
2017, 2018, and 2019, and (2) has planned or implemented
actions to meet selected new requirements in the SUPPORT Act.
GAO assessed the 2019 Strategy and companion documents
against four key statutory requirements that were consistent
with or similar to ONDCP's ongoing responsibilities under the
SUPPORT Act. GAO also assessed ONDCP's progress in addressing
seven new SUPPORT Act requirements, and interviewed ONDCP
officials.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making 4 recommendations to ONDCP to develop,
document, and implement key planning elements to meet certain
requirements in the SUPPORT Act. ONDCP agreed to implement 2
recommendations related to the Strategy, but disagreed with 2
related to the Drug Control Data Dashboard, noting that
recent updates satisfy the law. GAO maintains that they do
not fully do so, and that implementing key planning elements
would help address the law, as discussed in the report.
What GAO Found
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is
responsible for overseeing and coordinating the development
and implementation of U.S. drug control policy across the
federal government. However, ONDCP did not issue a National
Drug Control Strategy for either 2017 or 2018, as required by
statute. ONDCP was also required to assess and certify
federal agencies' drug control budgets to determine if they
were adequate to meet Strategy goals and objectives. Without
a Strategy in 2017 and 2018, ONDCP could not complete this
process according to statutory requirements. ONDCP issued a
2019 Strategy and companion documents that addressed some but
not all of the selected statutory requirements GAO reviewed.
For example, the Strategy and companion documents did not
include the required 5-year projection for budget priorities.
The October 2018 Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that
Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and
Communities Act (SUPPORT Act) retained some requirements and
introduced new ones for ONDCP. ONDCP met some SUPPORT Act
requirements GAO reviewed. For example, ONDCP filled all five
coordinator positions described in the SUPPORT Act. However,
its approach to meeting other requirements does not
incorporate key planning elements. For example, the SUPPORT
Act requires that future iterations of the Strategy include a
description of how each goal will be achieved, performance
evaluation plans, and a plan for expanding treatment of
substance use disorders. ONDCP could not provide in
[[Page H2515]]
writing or otherwise describe its planned steps, interim
milestones, resource investments, or overall timeframes--all
key planning elements--that would provide assurance it can
meet these requirements by the deadline for the next
Strategy--February 2020. The SUPPORT Act also required ONDCP
to publish an online searchable Data Dashboard of drug
control data, with information including quantities of drugs
and frequency of their use. While ONDCP published (and later
updated) a public version of this resource on its website, as
of December 2019, it was not complete (e.g., lacked required
data on the unmet need for substance use disorder treatment).
Further, ONDCP officials had no information on next steps for
fully meeting the requirements. Developing, documenting, and
implementing key planning elements to meet these
requirements--including resource investments, time frames,
and any processes, policies, roles, and responsibilities--
would be consistent with key principles for achieving an
entity's objective and standards for project management.
Importantly, doing so would help ONDCP structure its planning
efforts and comply with the law.
December 18, 2019.
Congressional Addressees:
The scale and impact of illicit drug use and prescription
drug misuse has profoundly affected individuals, their
families, and the communities in which they live, and
continues to represent a significant threat to public health.
Almost 70,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2018, a 27
percent increase in deaths since 2015, according to the
latest, preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. Since 2011, these deaths have also
outnumbered injury deaths by firearms, motor vehicle crashes,
suicide, and homicide, according to the Drug Enforcement
Administration. Opioids--particularly highly potent synthetic
opioids like fentanyl that are manufactured to mimic
naturally occurring opioids such as morphine--are currently
the main driver of these deaths. Primarily due to increasing
rates of opioid-related deaths and opioid use disorder, the
then-acting secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) declared the opioid crisis a public health
emergency on October 26, 2017. Overdose deaths due to other
potentially dangerous drugs--including cocaine and
methamphetamines--have also increased in recent years.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), within
the Executive Office of the President, is responsible for
coordinating and overseeing the implementation of national
drug control policy, including the National Drug Control
Strategy, across the federal government. ONDCP is also
responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of national drug
control policy efforts by developing and applying specific
goals and performance measurements and monitoring certain
agencies' program-level spending. According to the
President's fiscal year 2020 budget, federal drug control
funding for fiscal year 2018 was $33 billion. Federal drug
control efforts span a range of activities across multiple
agencies--known as National Drug Control Program agencies--
including efforts to prevent illicit drug use and
prescription drug misuse, treat drug use disorders, enforce
drug laws, and stop the importation of illicit drugs into the
United States. As part of overseeing and coordinating these
efforts, the Director of ONDCP is required to promulgate a
National Drug Control Strategy and assess and certify the
adequacy of the annual drug control budgets submitted by
National Drug Control Program agencies.
ONDCP was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,
and, until 2018, was most recently reauthorized by the Office
of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006
(ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006). The ONDCP
Reauthorization Act of 2006 reauthorized ONDCP through
September 30, 2010. After that date, ONDCP continued to
operate under the provisions of the ONDCP Reauthorization Act
of 2006 pursuant to continued funding in annual
appropriations acts. In October 2018, the Substance Use-
Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and
Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (SUPPORT Act),
among other things, reauthorized ONDCP and amended its
authorities. In particular, the SUPPORT Act continues to
require the ONDCP Director to promulgate the National Drug
Control Strategy, and also includes a number of detailed new
requirements for its content and development. For example,
the Strategy is required to include a performance evaluation
plan for each long-range goal in the Strategy for each
National Drug Control Program agency. Furthermore, the
SUPPORT Act includes other new requirements, such as the
creation of a publicly accessible Drug Control Data Dashboard
that captures an array of drug related data.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 1708a(b), we have periodically
assessed ONDCP's programs and operations. This report
assesses the extent to which (1) ONDCP met selected statutory
requirements related to the National Drug Control Strategy
for 2017, 2018, and 2019, and (2) ONDCP has planned or
implemented actions to meet selected new requirements of the
SUPPORT Act. In March and May 2019, we provided testimony on
our preliminary findings regarding the extent to which
ONDCP's 2019 National Drug Control Strategy met selected
statutory requirements.
To assess the extent to which ONDCP met selected statutory
requirements related to the Strategy for 2017, 2018, and
2019, we reviewed the current National Drug Control Strategy
and three associated companion documents that ONDCP stated
are intended to fulfill their statutory requirements, and
assessed these documents against selected provisions of the
ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006. ONDCP officials told us
that they began preparing the current National Drug Control
Strategy, which they issued on January 31, 2019, in early
2018--prior to the enactment of the SUPPORT Act in October
2018. Officials stated that they intended for the 2019
National Drug Control Strategy to respond to the requirements
of the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006 because this was the
applicable law at the time that they began drafting the
Strategy. In light of ONDCP's stated approach, we based our
analysis of the 2019 Strategy and companion documents on
requirements in the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006,
focusing on the same four provisions we discussed in our
March and May 2019 testimonies. These four requirements were
that the National Drug Control Strategy must contain (1)
annual and quantifiable objectives and targets, (2) a 5-year
projection for program and budget priorities, (3) specific
drug trend assessments, and (4) a description of a
performance measurement system. We selected these four
provisions from the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006 because
we determined them to be related to aspects of ONDCP's role
in (a) setting a strategic direction to oversee and
coordinate national drug control policy and (b) ensuring a
framework for measuring results. We also selected these
provisions because they were consistent with or similar to
ONDCP's ongoing responsibilities under the SUPPORT Act, which
is the governing statute for future iterations of the
National Drug Control Strategy. In addition to our analysis
of the 2019 Strategy, we interviewed ONDCP officials about
their activities and responsibilities in overseeing and
coordinating national drug control policy.
To assess the extent to which ONDCP has planned or
implemented actions to meet selected new requirements in the
SUPPORT Act, we reviewed the SUPPORT Act and the ONDCP
Reauthorization Act of 2006 to identify requirements from the
SUPPORT Act that were relevant to ONDCP and excluded, for
example, requirements for other federal agencies. Due to the
large number of requirements in the SUPPORT Act, we focused
on those that were new and notably different from the ONDCP
Reauthorization Act of 2006. Based on this review, we
selected seven requirements to examine. Specifically, we
selected two requirements to designate officials to fill new
coordinator positions--the performance budget coordinator
and the emerging and continuing threats coordinator; four
requirements for new elements to be included in the
National Drug Control Strategy, such as a performance
evaluation plan for each long-range goal in the Strategy;
and one requirement to establish and maintain a drug
control data dashboard. We then assessed relevant
documents and information gathered during interviews with
ONDCP officials about any efforts they had taken to
address selected requirements and compared these against
the relevant statute and Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government related to defining and
establishing an entity's objectives.
To provide additional context for both of our objectives,
we also interviewed officials from three National Drug
Control Program agencies--HHS, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)--about
their views on and contributions to ONDCP's development and
implementation of the 2019 National Drug Control Strategy. We
also interviewed these officials about their agencies' and
components' engagement with ONDCP during the 2017, 2018, and
2019 budget certification process. We selected these agencies
because they received the largest share of 2018 drug control
funding. For each agency, we interviewed headquarters
officials who had responsibilities related to drug control
policy and annual drug control budget submissions. We also
selected and interviewed officials from one component from
each agency--the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration from HHS, the Drug Enforcement Administration
from DOJ, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection from DHS. We
chose these components because of their drug control program
responsibilities and their share of the 2018 drug control
funding. The information collected from these interviews is
not generalizable to all National Drug Control Program
agencies but provides perspective on their experiences.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2018 to
December 2019 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
background--ondcp's responsibilities
ONDCP was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 as
a component of the Executive Office of the President, and its
Director is to assist the President in the establishment of
policies, goals, objectives, and priorities for the National
Drug Control Program. ONDCP is responsible for (1) leading
the national drug control effort, (2) coordinating and
overseeing the implementation of national drug control
policy, (3) assessing
[[Page H2516]]
and certifying the adequacy of National Drug Control Programs
and the budget for those programs, and (4) evaluating the
effectiveness of national drug control policy efforts. About
a dozen National Drug Control Program agencies, as identified
by ONDCP, have responsibilities for drug prevention,
treatment, and law enforcement activities.
developing the national drug control strategy
Among other responsibilities, the Director of ONDCP is
required to develop and promulgate the National Drug Control
Strategy. The National Drug Control Drug Control Strategy is
to set forth a comprehensive plan to reduce illicit drug use
and the consequences of such illicit drug use in the United
States by limiting the availability of and reducing the
demand for illegal drugs. Many of the SUPPORT Act's
requirements for the National Drug Control Strategy are the
same as, or similar to, those that applied under the ONDCP
Reauthorization Act of 2006. For example, both laws require
the National Drug Control Strategy to include a 5-year
projection for the National Drug Control Program and budget
priorities. However, there are certain differences, and the
SUPPORT Act includes a wide range of detailed new
requirements that were not included under the ONDCP
Reauthorization Act of 2006. One of these is that the
National Drug Control Strategy include a description of how
each comprehensive, research-based, long-range quantifiable
goal established in the Strategy for reducing illicit drug
use and the consequences of illicit drug use in the United
States will be achieved. Other examples of new requirements
include creating plans to increase data collection and expand
treatment of substance use disorders. The SUPPORT Act also
requires the Director to release a statement of drug control
policy priorities in the calendar year of a presidential
inauguration (but not later than April 1). The President is
then required to submit to Congress a National Drug Control
Strategy not later than the first Monday on February
following the year in which the term of the President
commences, and every two years thereafter.
certifying agency drug control budgets
The Director of ONDCP is also responsible for developing a
consolidated National Drug Control Program budget proposal
for each fiscal year, which is designed to implement the
National Drug Control Strategy and inform Congress and the
public about total federal spending on drug control
activities. As part of this effort, the Director of ONDCP is
required to assess and certify National Drug Control Program
agencies' drug control budgets on an annual basis to
determine if they are adequate to meet the goals and
objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy.
ONDCP Did Not Fully Address Selected Statutory Requirements Related to
the National Drug Control Strategy in 2017, 2018, or 2019
for 2017 and 2018, ondcp did not issue a national drug control strategy
ONDCP did not issue a National Drug Control Strategy for
2017 or 2018. Pursuant to the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of
2006, the Director of ONDCP was required to promulgate the
National Drug Control Strategy annually and the President was
to submit the National Drug Control Strategy to Congress by
February 1 of each year. According to ONDCP officials, ONDCP
did not issue a National Drug Control Strategy for these
years because (1) ONDCP did not have a Senate-confirmed
Director during those years; and (2) 2017 was the
administration's inaugural year, and previous administrations
also did not issue a Strategy during their first years. By
statute, in the absence of a Director, the Deputy Director of
ONDCP is to perform the functions and duties of the Director
temporarily in an acting capacity. ONDCP had officials
serving as Acting Director beginning in January 2017. The
current Director of ONDCP was appointed Deputy Director
beginning in February 2018 and served as Acting Director from
February 2018 until April 2018. As of April 2018, the current
Director continued in his role as Deputy Director until he
was confirmed by the Senate as Director of ONDCP in January
2019. The previous administration also did not issue a
National Drug Control Strategy in its inaugural year--2009--
but it did issue a National Drug Control Strategy in its
second year. On January 31, 2019, ONDCP issued its
National Drug Control Strategy for 2019, which we discuss
in more detail later in the report.
Without a National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP Could Not Complete the
Drug Control Budget Certification Process in Accordance With Statutory
Requirements in 2017 and 2018
The ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006 required the Director
of ONDCP to issue drug control funding guidance to the heads
of departments and agencies with responsibilities under the
National Drug Control Program by July 1 of each year. ONDCP
is to issue funding guidance for agency budget proposals for
the fiscal year two years in the future. For example, ONDCP
was to issue funding guidance to agencies in 2017 for
development of the 2019 budget, and issue funding guidance in
2018 for development of the 2020 budget. Such funding
guidance was required to address funding priorities developed
in the National Drug Control Strategy. National Drug Control
Program agencies are to submit their budget requests to ONDCP
in the summer of each year (before submission to the Office
of Management and Budget) and in the fall of each year (at
the same time as submission to the Office of Management and
Budget). The Director of ONDCP then determines whether
National Drug Control Program agencies' summer budget
requests are adequate to meet the goals of the National Drug
Control Strategy and certifies whether fall budget
submissions include the funding levels and initiatives
identified during the summer budget review.
Since ONDCP did not issue a Strategy in 2017 or 2018, ONDCP
could not develop and issue funding guidance, nor could it
review and certify budget requests and submissions of
National Drug Control Program agencies, in accordance with
the statutory requirement. ONDCP officials stated that--in
lieu of a Strategy--they used other sources to formulate the
administration's priorities, which served as the basis for
drug control funding guidance in 2017 and 2018. For example,
for the development of the fiscal year 2019 drug control
budget in calendar year 2017, ONDCP officials stated that
they relied upon the following sources for drug policy
guidance:
Initial development of the President's Initiative to Stop
Opioid Abuse and Reduce Drug Supply and Demand;
Draft recommendations from the President's Commission on
Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis;
policy statements made by the President as a candidate; and
policy priorities identified in the fiscal year 2018
President's Budget.
Additionally, for the development of the fiscal year 2020
funding guidance in calendar year 2018, ONDCP officials
stated that they relied upon the following sources for drug
policy priorities:
the interim and final Report of the President's Commission
on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis;
the President's Initiative to Stop Opioid Abuse and Reduce
Drug Supply and Demand;
the draft National Security Council Strategic Framework;
and
a draft 2018 National Drug Control Strategy that ONDCP
officials told us they drafted but did not issue.
These sources may have provided ONDCP officials with some
information about policy priorities and actions. However,
ONDCP officials stated they did not consider these documents
to be the National Drug Control Strategy, and none of the
sources fulfill the statutory requirements under the ONDCP
Reauthorization Act of 2006, which require funding guidance
to address priorities from the National Drug Control
Strategy. ONDCP officials told us that they provided drug
control funding guidance to the heads of departments and
agencies with responsibilities under the National Drug
Control Program in 2017 and 2018. As described by ONDCP
officials, drug control funding guidance identifies key
program goals and the programs and activities that require
agency funding to achieve the objectives of the National Drug
Control Strategy.
ONDCP has since issued the 2019 National Drug Control
Strategy which states that it establishes the
administration's drug control priorities. The Strategy also
states that the priorities provide federal drug control
departments and agencies strategic guidance for developing
their own drug control plans and strategies, and that the
Strategy is intended to ensure federal drug control budget
dollars are allocated in a manner consistent with the
administration's priorities. ONDCP officials told us that the
agency intends to issue the next National Drug Control
Strategy in February 2020 in accordance with the SUPPORT Act.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, this GAO report highlights the
failures of the last administration in addressing this crisis we are
talking about today.
The rule also makes in order two Congressional Review Act disapproval
resolutions.
H.J. Res. 45 would roll back the student loan payment pause to last
October. It would create chaos and instability for millions who are
living check to check.
Let's remember why student loans were paused in the first place.
Let's remember how dark and horrible it was when the pandemic first
hit.
Remember how scary it was when COVID-19 started and the economy was
in free fall? People lost their jobs. They were struggling to pay rent.
We didn't know what the future held.
A pause to student loan payments was the right response to a public
health emergency that was also a financial emergency. The payment pause
was a lifeline for 37 million borrowers and their families, giving them
much-needed breathing room to pay their bills, to pay their rent
without worrying about sabotaging their credit.
H.J. Res. 45 could send surprise bills for interest to tens of
millions of Americans. This could lead to unprecedented delinquencies
and defaults for the most vulnerable borrowers.
The third bill, S.J. Res. 11, would reverse an EPA rule that reduces
air pollution from the trucking industry.
Many parts of America were once cloaked in air pollution that would
sit
[[Page H2517]]
at street level, sting your eyes, fill your lungs. Choking air, they
called it.
In response, we enacted the Clean Air Act and tasked the EPA with
cleaning up our air.
Still, one in three Americans live in counties with unhealthy air
pollution. Heavy-duty vehicles make up about 6 percent of vehicles on
the road but generate 59 percent of these dangerous pollutants that we
are talking about. This contributes to respiratory illness,
cardiovascular problems, and even death.
The Clean Air Act gives the EPA both the authority and obligation to
protect Americans from air pollution that could endanger public health
or welfare. That is exactly what EPA's heavy-duty engine and vehicle
rule would do.
Republicans want to block the EPA rule from going into effect. Even
worse, if this passes, Republicans would block EPA from regulating this
pollution in the future.
Why would we want to keep this agency from doing its job of keeping
us healthy?
{time} 1245
So instead of putting polluters first, Republicans should be spending
this week paying America's bills. It is the patriotic thing to do.
Clearly, that is not their priority. Remember, a default hurts working-
class Americans. It hurts seniors on Medicare, food assistance
recipients, and teachers' and students' access to care. If you are
still waiting for your tax refund, it might not come.
Democrats have signed a petition to bring to the floor for a vote a
bill that would raise the debt ceiling without any harmful cuts to the
programs Americans rely on. All we need is five moderate Republicans to
join the petition and the default crisis would be over.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas that
I am proud to serve with on the House Committee on Rules for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule which provides for
consideration of the HALT Fentanyl Act, an important first step in
fighting back against a drug that is killing thousands of Americans.
The HALT Fentanyl Act is an extension of the work that this majority
is doing to support our law enforcement officers and first responders.
These men and women in blue, who are maligned, villainized, and
defunded in cities and States across the country, need our support
today to continue to fight back against the trafficking of these lethal
drugs.
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers all agree that
without this important scheduling in place, the surge of fentanyl into
this country will break new records and more lives and communities will
be ruined in the wake.
In just a 10-day span earlier this year, State troopers in my
district reported over 20 deaths from fentanyl overdoses. In just a 10-
day span, 20 victims of the flood of this deadly substance into our
country were killed, their families and their communities torn apart in
the process.
In recent years, the drug-related death rate in Erie County in
western New York has risen by 256 percent. As is the case in so many
communities, fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances are responsible
for more and more of these deaths.
It is hard to believe it can get any worse, but sadly, it could. If
we allow the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances to expire, we
will strip law enforcement of the authority they need to seize these
extremely lethal drugs.
They are the ones who are pursuing the traffickers and getting them
off the streets. They are also the ones who, too often, arrive on the
scene to try to save the life of someone who has tragically succumbed
to an overdose.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation that will help
ensure law enforcement has the tools they need to protect our
communities and save lives.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to address
the fentanyl crisis, but what we are saying is we need to do more. The
bill we are looking at today does not increase any funding for law
enforcement. It does not address the need that we have to increase our
funding to assist law enforcement in interdicting this horrible drug.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, it reminds me of Texas--in fact, it
reminds me of someone with whom I served in the Texas Legislature. He
was asked what he did there, and he said: ``Oh, I am not here to do
anything, I am just here in case somebody else decides to do
something.''
That is the approach of these extreme House Republicans. They have no
plan to protect our families from pollution or protect our planet from
the climate crisis. Following their seditious leader, Donald Trump,
they are just here to say ``no.'' For some reason, any time we have a
success that is green, it just makes them see red.
Democrats are choosing to stand with families that are concerned
about real health problems like bronchitis and childhood asthma and
cardiovascular disease that is caused and accentuated by pollution.
We need some heavy-duty action here today to protect our lungs and
the lungs of our planet. Yet, they object to even this modest heavy-
duty truck rule--the first updating of this pollution standard in 20
years.
With their fossilized thinking and smoggy judgment, Republicans are
permitting our planet to overheat, and with this rule rollback, they
would ensure that we keep choking during the overheating.
As health-harming pollutants enter our air and bake, smog pollutes
our cities and endangers the most vulnerable. To prevent announcements
of yet another ozone action day, what we need is a little ozone action
right here in the Capitol.
When this truck rule takes effect, each year we will see tens of
thousands fewer cases of childhood asthma and fewer premature deaths.
Yet, MAGA extremists are not content with merely polluting our minds,
as they do across this country, they refuse to prevent smog and soot
from polluting our lungs.
Yes, life is a highway, but it need not be overwhelmed with health-
harming pollution. Adopting a cleaner standard for trucks protects all
of us, but especially the most vulnerable, the young, the elderly, and
those with respiratory ailments.
You may remember a great musical that proclaimed, ``On a Clear Day
You Can See Forever.'' Not so much now. Not so often across America,
even in our smoggy national parks. Democrats and Republicans may not
see eye-to-eye on much, but we should be able to be clear on smog, it
shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Once upon a time, long, long ago, ``conservation'' was a conservative
value. A ``no'' vote is a breath of fresh air--a vote to keep soot out
of our lungs.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy), another member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. A
lot of conservatives believe in conservation. For example, the Governor
of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has expanded the Everglades more than any
Governor in the history of the State because that is actual
conservation--instead of the nonsense being spewed by my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle.
When they say, oh, we do something. Let's just be clear to the
American people what doing something actually is. It is giving billions
of dollars of subsidies to your fat cat corporate cronies, enriching
them at the expense of hardworking American families. That is the
truth.
Madam Speaker, 90 percent of subsidies are going to billion-dollar
corporations and 80 percent of electronic vehicle subsidies are going
to people making well over $100,000. That is the actual truth of what
is going on.
Here today we are talking about several bills. We are dealing with
the fentanyl crisis, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
refuse to address by allowing our border to be wide open, exploited by
cartels, driving
[[Page H2518]]
fentanyl into our communities on the back of the Chinese, making money
doing so, and killing 72,000 Americans last year alone, including 5
children in Hays County where I live south of Austin. It is happening
every single day.
My colleagues don't care about securing the border. They want to hide
behind the fact that they say that fentanyl comes through ports of
entry. What they don't acknowledge is that there is no patrolling of
the border by Border Patrol because they are all processing human
beings being smuggled here for profit by dangerous cartels.
This bill is designed to take a step forward. It takes an important
step forward in ensuring that we are dealing with the fentanyl
precursors and that we are doing what we need to do to recognize how
deadly it is. The fact is, our colleagues don't want to actually secure
the border, which is where fentanyl pours across every single day.
On student loans--need we go any further than looking at the quotes
from Speaker Pelosi when she said: ``People think that the President of
the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He
can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has
to be an act of Congress.''
That was that grand MAGA extremist, Nancy Pelosi.
She also added: ``Suppose . . . your child just decided they, at this
time, [do] not want to go to college, but you're paying taxes to
forgive somebody else's obligations.'' She continued, ``You may not be
happy about that.''
Are American families supposed to be happy that they now must cover
the cost of someone else's education? Again, that great MAGA extremist
Nancy Pelosi.
The fact is, the American people understand that making other
Americans, plumbers or people who paid off their loans, pay off other
people's student loans is inherently un-American and inherently unfair.
One last message to my Republican colleagues, passing a CRA to die in
the Senate and die at the President's desk is not enough. We should
defund the student loan fiasco in the debt ceiling bill. Don't blink.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, while my colleague speaks loudly
about stopping fentanyl at the border, I will remind him that this bill
doesn't do anything about fentanyl at the border. Indeed, the
Republicans in the Rules Committee last night rejected amendments which
would have placed more money on law enforcement and on the ability to
stop fentanyl at the border.
Madam Speaker, I remind them that the Cato report points out that
fentanyl is brought in at our ports of entry more than 90 percent of
the time.
Madam Speaker, I point out that if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a
resolution, which states that it is the House's responsibility to
protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future
generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost), who will discuss the need to
reassure the American people.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, seniors in America deserve to retire with dignity.
They have earned Social Security and Medicare benefits through a
lifetime of work. The seniors of today without pensions or generational
wealth depend upon their benefits. Yet, they are living in fear that
Republicans in this body will take away their healthcare and their
means to pay for housing or food.
The bills we are considering this week have nothing to do with
combating those fears. What they actually do is harm the health and
financial stability of Americans. They dirty our air, they worsen
student debt, and they increase the prison population.
My Republican colleagues cannot be serious. These priorities and bad
policies do nothing to meet the moment.
Madam Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to come to their
senses, and I urge them to stop playing games with our economy.
Instead, give the American people some certainty. Give our seniors some
certainty. Assure our seniors that you will not cut Social Security and
Medicare. It is one thing to say it on the news, and it is another
thing to do it in this Chamber.
Before Medicare, nearly half of older Americans had no health
insurance. Today, Medicare is often the only source of healthcare for
nearly all seniors. More than 66 million people rely on Social Security
to meet their basic needs in a country where most Americans, over 60
percent, can't afford an unexpected $400 bill tomorrow; that is
seniors, people with disabilities, children, and more than 8 million
veterans.
Republican proposals to sunset Social Security and Medicare would
cause panic and disruption for our seniors at a time when peace and
security are critical and well-deserved.
Let's spend our time this week finally considering Democrats'
legislation that guarantees seniors the retirement that they were
promised and that strengthens our healthcare. Our elders give us so
much: culture, wisdom, and tradition.
Madam Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues in this body to give
back to them and guarantee them what they have earned. Let's do even
more. Let's expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing
benefits.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to
the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FROST. Let's work together to get rid of surprise bills. Let's
end unaffordable prescription drug prices.
Madam Speaker, I urge Republicans in this Chamber to abandon the bad
bills that they are bringing to the floor and refocus on real solutions
that working families and our seniors deserve.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Norman), another member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, as I sit here and listen--I am on the
Rules Committee--I hope all those listening in the balcony, what my
Democrat friends are saying are just words. My strong belief is that
this fentanyl bill, H.R. 467, is a step in the right direction.
The issue that is plaguing this country is the invasion of the
border.
Where have we heard one word from my Democrat colleagues about
stopping the invasion?
We are a Nation of borders. Every nation is sovereign or you cease to
be a Nation. That is where our fentanyl is coming in and it shocks me
to keep hearing you say it is coming in at designated points of entry.
There are no designated points of entry. The whole border is open.
{time} 1300
The lives that were lost due to the drug overdoses that killed
100,000 of our young people last year, why does that not resonate? I
have no earthly idea why this administration is intent on keeping our
borders open, and they know it.
You got a Vice President who is laughing at it. You got a President
who hasn't even been there other than to go on one regulated visit to
the border. It is insane, and the American people are tired of it.
In South Carolina, I went to a news conference with police officers.
They seized enough fentanyl to wipe out the whole State of South
Carolina. What do we hear from the other side? Crickets. We hear
nothing, and it is a crying shame of what happens.
Mr. Speaker, I will end with this: A DEA agent who was talking about
this problem--he had picture after picture of our young people--said,
In the morgue, there are no drug treatment centers. In the morgue,
there are no education systems. In the morgue, there are no things to
coach people who are in a casket. It is a sad day for America, and
hopefully this insanity will end at some point in time when a new
administration takes over.
[[Page H2519]]
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include
in the Record an October 2020 NPR article titled: ``Opioid Crisis:
Critics Say Trump Fumbled Response To Another Deadly Pandemic.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Strong). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[From NPR, Oct. 29, 2020]
Opioid Crisis: Critics Say Trump Fumbled Response to Another Deadly
Epidemic
(By Brian Mann)
When then-presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke in
Manchester, N.H., a week before the 2016 election, he said
the opioid crisis was destroying lives and shattering
families.
``We are going to stop the inflow of drugs into New
Hampshire and into our country 100%,'' Trump promised.
It was a major campaign issue. Overdoses were surging in
battleground states key to the election, like New Hampshire,
Ohio and Pennsylvania.
In 2017--Trump's first year in office--more than 42,000
Americans died from overdoses linked to heroin, fentanyl and
prescription opioids, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Before coronavirus hit, opioids were widely viewed as the
nation's top public health crisis.
Trump declared a public health emergency in October 2017,
noting that overdoses had joined gun violence and car crashes
as a leading cause of death in America.
``No part of our society, not young or old, rich or poor,
urban or rule has been spared this plague,'' he said.
Significant accomplishments followed. Trump signed
legislation in 2018 that boosted federal funding for drug
treatment. During trade talks with China last year, Trump
pushed to slow that country's exports of fentanyl.
``The federal government has taken some important steps to
increase access to evidence-based treatment for opioid use
disorder,'' said Beau Kilmer, who heads the Rand
Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center.
Kilmer also credits Trump for ``pressuring China to better
regulate some of its synthetic opioids.''
A public health emergency, but no clear leadership
But while some progress was made, critics point to serious
missteps behind the scenes that hampered federal efforts,
including the decision to sideline and defund the Office of
National Drug Control Policy-(ONDCP).
An internal memo acquired by NPR in 2017 found the White
House was contemplating a 94% cut in resources to the agency,
tasked since 1988 with developing and coordinating the
nation's drug addiction efforts.
That decision was later reversed but Trump handed
leadership of the opioid response to a series of political
appointees, including former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
and White House adviser Kellyanne Conway.
``This made it difficult for people to understand, you
know, who's leading and coordinating the effort on opioids,''
Kilmer said.
Still, there seemed to be some success, with opioid deaths
dipping slightly in 2018. ``This sign of progress is an
example of what can happen when an administration prioritizes
an issue,'' said ONDCP director Jim Carroll in a statement
earlier this year.
But in 2019, the number of overdoses surged again to a new
record with more than 50,000 opioid-related fatalities. The
CDC's preliminary data shows another big increase in deaths
during the first four months of 2020.
U.S. went two years without a national strategy
Researchers also say fentanyl has continued to spread fast,
despite interdiction efforts, contributing to more overdose
deaths in the western United States where the synthetic
opioid had been scarce.
In December, the Government Accountability Office issued a
report blasting the administration for failing to come up
with a coherent national opioid strategy as required by law.
``ONDCP did not issue a national drug control strategy for
either 2017 or 2018,'' the GAO concluded.
The ONDCP declined an interview request for this story, but
a spokesman told NPR in an email that the agency has
addressed the GAO's concerns and is once again functioning in
full compliance.
``ONDCP has released several documents that together
address all of the statutory requirements that GAO noted as
missing,'' the spokesman said.
But in recent months, even some members of the Trump
administration have begun voicing alarm.
``Basically everything is pointed in the wrong direction,''
said Adm. Brett Giroir, assistant secretary for health and an
opioid policy expert at the Department of Health and Human
Services.
During a panel discussion in late July, Giroir described
recent increases in opioid overdoses as ``a nightmare,''
adding that ``all the progress that we made has been reversed
and this is even before the pandemic.''
Trump attack on Affordable Care Act threatens opioid response
Drug policy experts say things could grow even worse in the
months ahead if Trump is successful in dismantling the
Affordable Care Act.
The program created during the Obama administration
subsidizes state Medicaid programs that provide insurance
coverage for roughly 40% of Americans receiving opioid
addiction treatment.
``We've seen very large increases in the number of
individuals going to treatment programs,'' said Brendan
Saloner, a researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the ACA, as Trump has
urged, those gains in insurance coverage and care would
likely be reversed.
``The situation is bleak and it could be a lot bleaker,''
Saloner said.
Meanwhile, Democrat Joe Eiden has released a plan of his
own promising to end the overdose crisis if he's elected. His
number one policy idea? Preserve and expand the Affordable
Care Act.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include
in the Record a Newsweek article titled: ``Fentanyl Surge Started and
Peaked Under Trump Despite GOP Blaming Biden.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[From Newsweek, Feb. 11, 2022]
Fentanyl Surge Started and Peaked Under Trump Despite GOP Blaming Biden
(By Alex J. Rouhandeh)
A major jump in fentanyl seizures at the border between
fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 has placed President
Joe Biden at the center of GOP criticism. However, the
problem appeared to be mounting months before he took office.
The first time monthly fentanyl seizures saw a sizable
spike over the last four years was in June of 2020 under
former President Donald Trump when Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) seized 713 pounds of the drug, an almost 200
percent increase from the month
Only once before then, over fiscal years 2020 and 2019, did
the pounds of fentanyl seized in a month crack 400 pounds.
However, following the June 2020 seizure, the pounds of
fentanyl taken by CBP has surpassed the 700-pound mark each
month all but twice. The two greatest monthly seizures of
1,212 pounds and 1,193 pounds both took place in October and
December of 2020, just before Trump's turnover to Biden.
Nonetheless, certain Republican politicians have looked to
place sole blame for the issue on Biden.
``The Biden administration's weak stance on border security
and drug enforcement has enabled drug traffickers to send
enormous amounts of fentanyl into our country,'' Republican
Congressman Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina said in a
February 10 statement. ``The carnage and destruction caused
by these weak and incompetent policies must end now.
``This has everything to do with the open borders policies
President Biden imposed on day one of his term that has
allowed an unprecedented supply of this drug to enter the
homeland and devastate families and communities,'' Republican
Congressman Darrell Issa said in a February 8 statement.
So far, 117 Republicans joined together in signing a letter
demanding the president take ``immediate action'' to address
the crisis by supporting the classification of fentanyl as a
schedule 1 drug (with accepted medical use) instead of a
schedule 2 drug (substances with ``high potential for
abuse'').
Although fentanyl is used to treat pain in cancer patients,
according to Med Line, Republicans argue that the drug should
be reclassified to ensure law enforcement ``has the tools
they need to combat this threat.''
Funding for CBP drug enforcement activities through the
National Drug Control Program has looked consistent over the
past several years. Under Trump, almost $3.8 billion went to
CBP for drug enforcement in 2020, and over $3.1 billion was
allocated to the agency in 2019. Under Biden, over $3.4
billion went to CBP through the Drug Program in 2021.
Following the Trump peaks in October and December of 2020,
the fentanyl seized each month has generally hovered between
800 and 1,000 pounds. However, in December of 2021, CBP
seized 549 pounds of fentanyl, the lowest amount seized since
the June of 2020 uptick. The data for January and February of
this year has not come out yet.
Newsweek contacted CBP for comment but did not receive a
response in time for publication.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to bring back
to focus what we are doing here. This bill does something that we have
no objection to, which is to permanently classify fentanyl as schedule
I.
What we keep hearing on the other side, though, is about what more
needs to be done, but their bill doesn't do it. Democrats have bills
that would indeed increase law enforcement, that would indeed increase
treatment for addiction, that would indeed increase the ability for us
to research into these drugs and determine if there are possibilities
in this ground where we could
[[Page H2520]]
actually find antagonistic drugs that would help counter the overdose
that happens from them, but this bill doesn't do that.
Now, when they get up there and they start talking about the open
border, this is not what this bill is. This is not what this bill is.
This bill simply, as was pointed out last night, sort of codifies the
status quo.
Our communities want more. Democrats were willing to provide more. We
have introduced bills that do more, but they were rejected by the
Republicans.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Molinaro).
Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, should we do more? Of course, we should do more, but
fentanyl is pouring into our country not only at our ports of entry,
but across our borders. We did do more a week ago bolstering border
security.
Fentanyl is taking too many American lives, and I rise today in
support of the HALT Fentanyl Act. This bill will help to combat the
spread of fentanyl-related substances by permanently listing it as a
schedule I drug, recognizing its deadly effects, giving our communities
yet one more tool in a growing and necessary toolbox.
The smallest amounts of these drugs can kill even just one person,
and laced with other substances, they are taking countless lives.
Accessibility and lethality of these drugs have fueled countless
fatalities. Fentanyl poisoning is the number one cause of death among
adults 18 to 49 years of age, more than cancer, more than heart
disease, and more than car accidents.
In upstate New York, the opioid crisis is devastating our
communities, and it is being fueled by fentanyl. This is the public
health crisis of our lifetime. In my home State, my district in
Sullivan County, New York, has the highest opioid death rate in the
entire State. That is why we are also pushing for Sullivan County to be
designated a Federal High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.
The truth is, every community in America is a victim to the fentanyl
crisis, every family is on the front line of this opioid crisis, and we
must give law enforcement and communities every tool necessary. I am
proud to support this bill. I am proud to support law enforcement and
their efforts to intercede and give them the tools to keep fentanyl out
of our communities and off our streets.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I agree that we need
to make sure that we address fentanyl for every community whether it be
New York or New Mexico, because the fentanyl crisis is a public health
crisis, and families are losing loved ones every day.
Indeed, in New Mexico in 2020, the New Mexico Department of Health
found that 65 percent of people with substance use disorders were not
getting the treatment they needed. The same problem we find nationwide.
Over 86 percent of people suffering from opioid abuse were not getting
the treatment they needed in 2020.
Even once treatment began, people are at their most vulnerable when
they suffer from a relapse. Their bodies cannot handle the sudden
return of high levels of opioids, and the result is often fatal.
I do hope that we can continue to agree that we must address this and
that we must provide an addition to this bill, the kind of funding that
is needed and that is urgent to treat addiction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee), my distinguished colleague.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I give the compliment back to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico. We are alums, and we will
leave that for all to find out from where, but I am very proud to stand
with her and really to stand with all of those who believe that the
scourge of fentanyl must end now.
Mr. Speaker, we should not have one more death. I don't think there
is any disagreement on this floor that there shouldn't be any more
deaths. I also believe that it is important to recognize that there are
some things that we come together on. I have never heard a Democrat be
against border security. I have never heard a Democrat be against
fighting the scourge of fentanyl taking out children.
As I have said over and over again, as a senior member on Homeland
Security and Judiciary, who has written comprehensive immigration bills
to protect Americans and to secure our borders, at the same time as the
ranking member and former chair of the Crime Subcommittee, I know what
to do with fentanyl.
I have introduced H.R. 3570. We have to stop fentanyl now to be able
to get at the core of our problem. There is no doubt fentanyl comes in
mostly from legal points of entry by United States citizens and others.
It does have other entry points, but the core is to protect the lives
of our children. Why couldn't we do our work where we are doing one
bill and another bill? H.R. 3570 deals with synthetics. It deals with
educational outreach.
Just last night, I was speaking to a young person who said, Can you
get Naloxone to be, if you will, in nontraditional places, clubs?
Certainly, it should be in schools. It might even need to be in places
of civic mindedness because it is where young people go to save their
lives. Then synthetics, fentanyl that is used medically, are being sold
online in pills that are misrepresented to our young people, and they
lose their life.
H.R. 3570 takes care of that, fights the scourge of online sales and
fentanyl trafficking. There is a pathway of getting to where we want to
be, but a schedule I where you are, in essence, doing mandatory
minimums that are not stopping, if you will, this horrible traffic. We
are indicating we can get to this with enhanced penalties for the
actions of the perpetrator so that you don't by mistake get someone
innocently doing research or otherwise dealing with this particular
drug that we are talking about that can be deadly.
There are scientists, there are responsible medical professionals,
and then there are the devastatingly drastic evil people who try to use
this to kill our children. We cannot adhere to that.
H.R. 3570 looks at it comprehensively. Working with the Judiciary
Committee, working with Energy and Commerce, and all our Members, it is
important to put forward legislation that can embrace us all. I believe
that we have the responsibility to do the right thing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. The underlying bill could stand some work from all
of us, and I ask us to save our children. Let's save our children and
stop this deadly drug from coming into the United States, and let's
find a way to reach our children.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from New Mexico has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong
support of H.R. 467 to make class-wide scheduling of fentanyl-related
substances permanent.
This hits close to home for me. I represent the men and women of
eastern Ohio, a region of the country that has been hit particularly
hard by this deadly drug. If the current order is allowed to expire,
law enforcement will lose their ability to seize some of these
fentanyl-related drugs. They will effectively be street legal.
Here are two staggering truths: Fentanyl poisonings are now the
number one cause of death in the country of adults between 18 and 49.
Over three-quarters of teen overdose deaths in 2021 were caused by
fentanyl. That is 75 percent. In many of these instances, those taking
the fentanyl had no idea they were doing so. That is what makes this
lethal and heavily addictive drug so dangerous.
Sadly, it is very clear that the Biden administration is not serious
about
[[Page H2521]]
solving this epidemic. If they were, they wouldn't be allowing our
southern border to be overrun by the cartels and their drug mules. Who
is paying the price for these policies and lack of border enforcement?
It is the families of those that have become addicted. It is those that
have overdosed and died from fentanyl. We have even had law enforcement
officials in eastern Ohio that have been exposed to fentanyl and almost
died during the conduct of their work busting up drug rings.
We should not be relaxing the penalties for that. We should be
stiffening the penalties for fentanyl. Just 19 grams of fentanyl, what
would fill a saltshaker in a restaurant, could kill 10,000 people.
Here is the bottom line: This legislation is necessary to make the
temporary class-wide scheduling order for fentanyl-related substances
permanent. If this body doesn't act, we should all be ashamed.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Mr. Latta and Mr. Griffith for
their leadership here, and I urge quick and overwhelming passage of
this lifesaving bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think what we heard on the House
floor today was agreement, agreement on the need to address the scourge
of fentanyl and what it is doing to our communities. I think we heard
individuals talk about the individual pain they feel, whether it be in
Texas, in New York, in New Mexico.
I think we want to hold that sense of agreement on this topic
together because we don't always agree on things, but I think in this
instance, we agree that we need to put our families first. We need to
put the people who unwittingly end up dying from fentanyl with no idea
that they were even taking that drug, and we need to remember that pain
and that fear that those families must have.
{time} 1315
As we talk about this issue, we must also remember that we have to do
more. Making sure that fentanyl is classified and is not available with
the fentanyl substances is important. We don't disagree on that. The
issue that we are raising is the need to do more, and especially given
the moment we are living in today.
This week, we are days away from a potential default because
Republicans have refused to raise the debt limit. We are in a crisis,
and it is a crisis that the Republicans have manufactured. We need to
remember what that crisis does. That crisis actually hinders our
ability to do the work that is so urgent to combat fentanyl.
Fentanyl comes in through our ports of entry. The Cato Institute,
which is not a liberal or progressive institute, notes that 90 percent
of fentanyl enters into the country through our ports of entry,
smuggled in by, what I would call, despicable Americans who profit off
addiction and death.
But let's go back and say what would happen if their default that
they have engineered would actually come to be. The Department of
Homeland Security has said that if the default in America act goes into
effect, it would lead to 2,400 fewer frontline CBP law enforcement
officers. That is 2,400 fewer Border Patrol officers. That means that
there are going to be fewer officers to help prevent illegal drugs from
entering into our country. That would lead to over 150,000 pounds of
cocaine and over 350,000 grams of fentanyl avoiding seizure.
The cuts that they have proposed would lead to more fentanyl coming
in because there would be fewer officers on the ground to combat it.
That is shameful that they would raise and talk about this bill in the
angry and loud ways that they have done without acknowledging that the
work that they did several weeks ago would actually make this crisis
worse.
In New Mexico, as I noted, we know the pain of addiction and overdose
all too well. We have lost too many beautiful lives to addiction and
fentanyl.
We need to think about what those solutions are that we would want to
do. We would want to increase the funding for substance abuse
prevention and treatment block grants. That was one of the amendments
that was suggested to this rule by Representative Balint.
We want to use Representative Blunt Rochester's amendment, which
would have increased education, so stakeholders would know about
research and treatment and how to make sure that we make the public
aware of these issues.
These are things that Republicans have refused to address in the
bills we are looking at today.
I urge my colleagues, I urge those on the other side of the aisle, to
really look at what we are doing today. We are doing something that we
all agree on, which is addressing a teeny-tiny piece of the fentanyl
problem, but we aren't doing what needs to be done in terms of
increasing law enforcement, in terms of increasing funding at our
borders and for those who are actually doing the work of seizing
fentanyl as it comes in, of the law enforcement that must be done. We
need to increase that funding, not cut it.
With regard to truck emissions, we cannot tie the EPA's hands. We
must keep our air clean. The number of deaths from asthma in children
who would survive and not be hurt if this rule goes into effect, would
be horrible. I need to tell you that each child who would not be able
to breathe because of polluted air is the child that I will think about
when I vote on this bill later today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out, first off, that the
Republican House has voted on and passed an increase to the Nation's
debt limit. This happened 2 weeks ago. Further action is awaiting in
the Senate. Further action is awaiting down at the White House. This
House, under the leadership of Speaker McCarthy, has acted and acted
appropriately.
Furthermore, I would like to point out, in October of 2018, President
Trump signed the SUPPORT Act. The SUPPORT Act was the first meaningful
step toward countering what was at the time a crisis in this country
because of diversion of prescription drugs, the so-called opioid
crisis.
Mr. Speaker, it has changed since then. Since 2018, we are now faced
with a different disease in fentanyl poisoning brought to us because of
an open southern border, because the President has refused to secure
the southern border and because the border czar has refused to secure
the southern border. As a consequence, we have an unprecedented amount
of fentanyl flowing into our country.
Yes, it is quite right, apps on social media have made it easier for
kids to get access to this than ever before.
There is some good news. The Food and Drug Administration has allowed
for the over-the-counter sale of Narcan that is to begin this summer.
That is a good thing. However, that in no way counteracts the increase
in illicit fentanyl that is coming across the southern border because
of the refusal of this administration to secure our sovereign border.
Back in 2018 when the SUPPORT Act passed, it was largely through
bipartisan efforts on the Committee on Energy and Commerce that brought
that bill to its signing. Once again, I thank members of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce and members of the Senate for bringing before us
these important pieces of legislation to roll back the damage that
President Biden has done in the fentanyl crisis.
Republicans remain united in pursuing a legislative agenda that puts
the welfare of Americans above the special interests of a few.
Mr. Speaker, I urge fellow Members to support the rule and support
the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 429 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Mexico
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of
Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social
Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or
their respective designees.
[[Page H2522]]
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 178.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________