[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.

                          ____________________