[Pages H469-H478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 27, HALT ALL LETHAL TRAFFICKING OF
FENTANYL ACT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 93 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 93

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 27) to amend
the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the scheduling
of fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. 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: (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; (2) the further amendment printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by
the Member designated in the report, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to
recommit.

[[Page H470]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I further ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and
reported out a rule for one measure, H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act,
under a structured rule.
The rule provides for 1 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 provides for one motion to
recommit.
As most Members know, unfortunately, we all know somebody who has
been affected by the drug overdose epidemic plaguing our country.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2023,
there were more than 107,000 overdose deaths that occurred in the
United States. These staggering numbers are due in large part to the
increased presence of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues or fentanyl-
related substances, which are approximately 100 times more potent than
morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. The lethal dose of
fentanyl is just 2 milligrams, or about 4 grains of sand.
A loophole the cartels use and have tried to use to traffic illicit
fentanyl into our country is by changing just one component of
fentanyl's chemical structure in order to create a fentanyl analogue or
a fentanyl-related substance. The cartels did this in an attempt to
evade our criminal laws.
Right now, fentanyl analogues are considered schedule I substances
but only because of a series of temporary scheduling orders, which is
now set to expire on March 31, 2025.
Along with my colleague, Mr. Latta from Ohio, we decided to introduce
H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act.
The bill aims to curb overdose deaths by permanently scheduling
fentanyl analogues or fentanyl-related substances as schedule I
substances. This will strengthen law enforcement's ability to prosecute
fentanyl traffickers and act as a deterrent.
The HALT Fentanyl Act also promotes research by improving the
registration process to eligible individuals so that they can conduct
studies on schedule I substances with appropriate safeguards.
In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have heard testimony that
there may be as many as 4,800 individual analogues or fentanyl-related
substances. Our experts at the NIH, the FDA, and others have studied
roughly 30 to 40 of those 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related
substances.
By encouraging research of schedule I substances like fentanyl
analogues, we can better understand how these substances work and how
we can prevent potentially harmful impacts in the future or even find a
better use or a better opportunity than the current fentanyl that we
use.
Because fentanyl has a proven medical use, it is considered a
schedule II narcotic, as the Speaker knows, having practiced medicine
for many years.
Illicit derivatives of fentanyl, also called fentanyl analogues,
currently have not demonstrated a medical value.
Let me be clear. This bill will have no impact whatsoever on
physicians' ability to administer fentanyl in medical settings.
The HALT Fentanyl Act deals specifically with fentanyl analogues or
fentanyl-related substances, not medicinal fentanyl.
The Biden administration even released a statement when this bill
passed through the House last Congress stating that they supported
permanent scheduling and streamlined research for fentanyl and
fentanyl-related substances.
We must address this bipartisan issue immediately and not allow this
temporary extension to expire.
Once fentanyl analogues are permanently scheduled in schedule I,
Congress will continue to build off this work to continue to address
the illicit fentanyl crisis.
According to a 2021 GAO report, there was a 90 percent decrease in
these fentanyl analogues coming into our country the year they were
first placed into schedule I.
This bill is a critical step in combating the opioid crisis in our
country because China and Mexico are heavily involved in this business.
China is sending the precursors of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues to
the cartels in Mexico, who are then bringing it across our border.
By making these analogs permanently schedule I, it removes the
incentive for the cartels to traffic these analogues or fentanyl-
related substance drugs into our country. China even realized the risk
of fentanyl analogues and permanently scheduled those analogues on
their strictest schedule. Other countries have followed suit and done
the same.
Last Congress, this bill cleared through the Energy and Commerce
Committee on a bipartisan basis and then passed on the House floor with
74 Democrats voting in favor.
The bill has the support of many law enforcement agencies and other
entities calling for the need to pass the bill as it is.
We must act quickly to make the scheduling order permanent before it
expires again at the end of March.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the legislation at hand, the so-called
HALT Fentanyl Act, all I can say is folks on the other side must be
living on another freaking planet.

{time} 1230

Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to come down here and lecture people
about fentanyl. Let's talk about fentanyl.
President Donald J. Trump, during his very first week in office,
pardoned a drug dealer who helped fentanyl pour into our country. Let
me repeat that nice and slowly so it sinks in.
As one of his first acts in office, Donald J. Trump pardoned a drug
dealer who was sentenced to life in Federal prison who let fentanyl
into America.
I just have a simple question for my friends on the other side: Why?
Why? Why isn't this guy still in jail?
Why would Donald Trump let out a drug dealer like this?
The guy is sentenced to life in Federal prison. I wish I had an
answer. Maybe they can explain it to us. They like to talk so much
about pardons, but they are silent on this one. We hear crickets from
the other side. It makes you wonder, Mr. Speaker, what is going on
here.
Let me read the ICE press release for when this guy was arrested.
Are you ready for this, Mr. Speaker?
ICE says that the guy Donald Trump pardoned helped ``thousands of
drug dealers and other unlawful vendors distribute hundreds of
kilograms of illegal drugs and other unlawful goods and services to
more than 100,000 buyers and to launder hundreds of millions of dollars
deriving from these unlawful transactions.''
It goes on to explain how he distributed narcotics that were linked
to overdose deaths across the country.
People died as a result of this criminality.
This is a guy who made the cartels rich, who made it easier for China
to mail fentanyl into our country. This is a guy who let the drugs pour
into our communities, tearing families apart, getting people sick,
exposing people to danger, and causing numerous deaths.
He was pardoned. He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
It takes a lot of nerve, Mr. Speaker, to let out the fentanyl guy and
then come down here with a straight face and tell people that we are
all about stopping drugs coming into America.
Let's not get started about the funding freeze that Trump is trying
to put into place. Trump wants to block hundreds of billions of dollars
in bipartisan

[[Page H471]]

funding for law enforcement, including blocking money going after
fentanyl. He wants to block State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance,
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. Republicans are in court
right now fighting to gut it all.
Why are they doing this?
The answer is very simple, actually. They are stealing. They are
stealing taxpayer dollars. Republicans want to steal from you, the
American people, to give Elon and Trump more tax breaks and more tax
write-offs for their private jets, their mansions, islands, and yachts.
It is corruption: good, old-fashioned, plain and simple corruption.
Then they will come down here to the floor and pretend to care about
fentanyl while they pardon the drug dealers who profit off of people's
pain and gut the programs that keep drugs off our streets.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Let's talk about those tariffs, yes,
the tariffs that Trump kept bragging about that he promised he was
going to slap on our allies Canada and Mexico. If he was successful,
they would have sent domestic costs on food, gas, and household goods
spiraling out of control. Then, when people started paying attention,
when we stood up for the workers and when the public fought back, Trump
folded. He lost. He rescinded his funding freeze. He walked back his
tariffs, and he got nothing in exchange.
Trump wants to give us this impression that he has power and
strength. He really has none. He backed down on his funding freeze. He
backed down on his tariffs. The courts are rejecting his executive
orders because guess what, Mr. Speaker? He is not king, and we are
fighting back.
I can promise you this, Mr. Speaker: We are going to fight back with
every single ounce of strength we have to prevent this President and
his billionaire sidekick from undermining the rule of law and stealing
from the people we were elected to protect.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I understand there are all kinds of
concerns on the other side of the aisle, but we are talking about the
HALT Fentanyl Act.
I could stand here and talk about Burma. We heard today that the
President has extended the emergency situation with Burma, that
undemocratic country where they overthrew the democratically elected
government and how Burma, also known as Myanmar, is the largest
cultivator of opium products and the producer of heroin globally,
second only to Afghanistan. That doesn't have anything to do with the
HALT Fentanyl Act. The HALT Fentanyl Act is a good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from New York
(Mr. Langworthy), who will talk about the bill some more.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of the rule which
provides consideration of the HALT Fentanyl Act. For 4 long years, the
American people suffered from an administration that time and again
refused to take seriously the flood of deadly fentanyl-related
substances and analogues flooding into our communities.
Fentanyl-related overdose has remained the leading cause of death for
Americans aged 18 to 49 for much of the last several years. Millions of
families have been torn apart, and our towns and our cities have
suffered from the blight of crime and homelessness that has grown from
this epidemic. Not one corner of our country has been left untouched by
the fentanyl crisis. Urban, suburban, rural, rich, poor, old, and young
lives have been torn apart, and families have been torn apart.
The previous administration could have addressed this tragedy head-on
by securing our borders and protecting our communities, but time and
again, they refused, and Democrats here in the House of Representatives
supported that decision.

The HALT Fentanyl Act before us today permanently schedules fentanyl-
related substances on schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a
crucial step that will ensure that law enforcement and our communities
are empowered to address this deadly scourge head-on.
To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who spent years
cheering an administration that allowed the flood of these substances
to pour in from our southern border unchecked: Now is your time to
support one important step in combating the epidemic that has taken too
many lives and destroyed too many homes and communities.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation under this rule
today, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the HALT
Fentanyl Act.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there has been no response from either of the gentlemen
about why it was okay for Trump to pardon the guy who let the fentanyl
into this country and who made hundreds of millions of dollars off of
fentanyl. He was sentenced to life in prison, and he let him out.
You are okay with that, yet you are coming down here saying that you
really care about fighting fentanyl in our country. There has been not
a peep from the other side justifying what Trump did.
One of his first acts as President was to pardon this guy who
received life in prison for his crime. He received life in prison.
Mr. Speaker, I urge we defeat the previous question. If we do, then I
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4531, the SUPPORT
for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, the SUPPORT Act reauthorization would permanently place
xylazine in schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. However,
unlike the bill before us today, it doesn't stop at scheduling.
The bill reauthorizes resources for residential substance use
disorder treatment for pregnant and postpartum women. It provides
resources for training and education related to fentanyl and other
illicit substances for first responders, and it ensures that Medicaid
beneficiaries have access to medication-assisted treatment.
Here is the best part, Mr. Speaker. This bill already passed last
Congress with 386 votes. One hundred ninety Republicans voted for it,
and it was included in the end-of-year spending package.
Guess what happened, Mr. Speaker?
Elon Musk tanked that deal for reasons that no one seems to be able
to explain to me, and this good bill was never signed into law.
Mr. Speaker, passing this bill would mean, to quote the chairman of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce who helped lead this bill in the
last Congress, that this bill could help save lives by preventing
overdoses and providing access to immediate and long-term care recovery
services.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into 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
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Tonko) to introduce that proposal.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for yielding
time.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, Democrats plan to
offer a vote on the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities
Reauthorization Act.
The SUPPORT Act, which House Republicans unceremoniously abandoned
after billionaire-in-chief Elon Musk tanked the end-of-year bipartisan
package, would have reauthorized a wide range of prevention, treatment,
and recovery programs that included a 2-year extension of scheduling
for fentanyl-related substances.
This bipartisan approach, which focused not only on disrupting the
drug supply but also investing in the full spectrum of prevention,
treatment, and recovery, passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of
386-37, as was made mention by Representative McGovern, in the 118th
Congress.
Passing this vital legislation would have helped continue our
progress against the overdose epidemic which finally saw overdose
deaths start to decline during the Biden administration

[[Page H472]]

after skyrocketing during the first Trump administration.
It is indeed clear that Republicans just aren't serious about
addressing this crisis. They are using cheap sound bites and photo ops
to exploit parents' pain and to distract Americans while President
Trump, Elon Musk, and their cronies rob us blind and dismantle the very
programs that individuals rely on to get treatment and live a life of
recovery for their situations.
With last week's Federal funding freeze, Trump and Musk immediately
halted over some $8 billion in programs working to combat the opioid
crisis, including: $6.5 billion for SAMHSA that would support naloxone
distribution in our communities, drug-free community programs to keep
kids off drugs, and medication-assisted treatment programs. It also
authorized $1.5 billion for addiction research at the National
Institutes of Health to help deliver the next generation of lifesaving
treatments.
Unfortunately, that is not all.
As we speak, Republicans are cooking up plans to steal over $2.5
trillion from Medicaid, jeopardizing healthcare for 72 million people
and decimating the single biggest payer for substance use care, just so
that they can give more tax breaks to Elon Musk and his billionaire
buddies.
Cutting lifesaving prevention and treatment services to the bone
while trying to restart a failed 1980s war on drugs?

America should just say no.
In closing, I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to defeat the previous
question so that we can vote on a real plan to tackle this epidemic
that continues to ravage our communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I keep thinking I am here to talk about the HALT
Fentanyl Act, but they keep talking about all kinds of other things.
My colleagues have acknowledged that the HALT Fentanyl Act passed in
the last Congress with a large majority, yet here we are using this as
a vehicle to talk about everything else they think is going wrong in
the world.
Mr. Speaker, I have a little bill here. It does some good. We ought
to pass it. If my colleagues want to talk about lots of other stuff,
they are entitled to. That is their right. However, I don't want the
focus taken off the HALT Fentanyl Act. It is a good bill. It helps law
enforcement. It helps slow down the flood across the southern border.
That is what we are here about today.
I know if the motion on the previous question fails, then they are
going to introduce a different bill. However, my understanding is their
bill completely eliminates and doesn't have anything in their language
about halting fentanyl.
This is something a large majority of Congress wants to get done.
Let's get it done. Let's stop all the rhetoric. Let's stop trying to
point fingers at us and everybody else for other things. Let's just do
our job. I think that is what the American people want us to do.
In fact, I hear a lot of times from my constituents back home that
they are tired of seeing these gigantic bills. It sounds like what my
colleagues on the other side want is some more gigantic bills that
people vote on. It is kind of like what the former Speaker said: We
have to vote for it so we can find out what is in it.
I would rather vote on bills that I know what is in it. That is why I
read all the bills if I plan to vote for it.
I helped write this bill. I am the lead sponsor of this bill. It is
an easy bill to read. It is pretty straightforward in what it does,
what it is supposed to do, and what we are trying to do. President
Biden thought it was okay. He issued a statement in favor of it last
term. This term President Trump says that he is in favor of it.
This is a bipartisan approach to solve a problem.
Does it solve all the world's problems, Mr. Speaker?
Of course it does not, but it solves a problem that our law
enforcement has that helps the bad guys, the people making the
precursors in China, the people in the cartels in Mexico flooding
across our southern border with these harmful fentanyl-related
substances and analogues. It makes it easier for our law enforcement
people to focus on illegal fentanyl.

{time} 1245

Mr. Speaker, fentanyl is legal for medicinal purposes, and it will be
even after this bill.
There is something else that Democrats haven't mentioned. I mentioned
it briefly, but I will talk about it a little bit further, Mr. Speaker.
That is the component in this bill that allows for research on the
4,800 other related substances or analogues that we believe are out
there. It is a rough number. Nobody knows until they get in and start
experimenting, but we heard that testimony in the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
There might be some benefit to some other analogue. There might be
some benefit, but we don't want it out there on our streets or being
used for medicinal reasons until we know for sure that it does
something positive for society.
Right now, all the analogues that we have seen are either inert or
just as bad as the illegal use of fentanyl, so this bill needs to be
passed.
I understand the minority doesn't want to talk about this. My
Democratic colleagues want to talk about everything else, but that is
not why we are here today.
When I came to Congress, I pledged to read the bills. I pledged to
talk about what it is we are talking about today and not talk about
everything else in the world that I think we might be able to fix
someday or that we might ought to do someday. There is a process for
that.
As my friend Terry Kilgore used to tell me all the time, somebody
would come up with an idea, and then they would want to put on some
kind of an amendment or change the bill around when we had a nice,
little, simple bill. Mr. Kilgore is a member of the Virginia House of
Delegates, and he was my seatmate. He came up with a famous phrase when
people wanted to rearrange the bill in a way that he didn't think was
proper or put an amendment on it that would completely change the bill
or, in this case, defeat the motion of the previous question in order
to defeat the HALT Fentanyl Act and put forward some other bill. He
would say: Well, you might have some points to make. I would say to the
gentleman: Get your own bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what would help end the illegal fentanyl problem here
would be Donald Trump not pardoning a drug kingpin, essentially, who
brought illegal fentanyl into our country and who was sentenced to life
in prison in a Federal court. What would have been a strong signal
would have been not to pardon somebody like that.
Mr. Speaker, I get why my friends don't want to talk about that.
Republicans don't want to get on the bad side of the President because
then Republican Members may get a primary or then Elon might send all
kinds of money into their primary. I get all of that.
If we are serious here about dealing with fentanyl, we should at
least all be able to say what the President did was wrong.
Maybe the gentleman wasn't listening to the debate on the previous
question, but the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) talked for 3
minutes about an alternative bill that would help deal with this
problem.
This was a bill that got 386 votes in this House in the last
Congress. The bill received 386 votes. It was in the final package that
we were all going to vote on, by the way, that Republican leadership
agreed with and our leadership agreed with and the Republicans and
Democrats in the Senate agreed with. It was in that bill, but then Elon
Musk sabotaged that bill.
Mr. Speaker, I get it. I have been here for a while. Before I was a
Member, I worked here as a staffer for George McGovern, no relation,
and for Congressman Joe Moakley. Let me tell you, Republicans today do
not hold the same values as Republicans from back then.
Republicans used to be for backing the blue. Trump pardoned people
who beat police officers. Right now, he is gutting the FBI, which the
Republicans

[[Page H473]]

used to believe was the citadel of law and order.
Republicans used to stand for cutting the deficit. Now, the majority
is spending night and day planning to jam through a tax cut for the
ultrarich without pay-fors, which will blow up the deficit by trillions
of dollars. It is what my Republican colleagues did in 2017 for their
billionaire tax cuts.
Republicans spent decades claiming my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle were the champions of free trade. Just this past week, Trump
and the Republican Party started a trade war with our neighbors, not to
mention the majority spoke nonstop about inflation for the past 2 years
but seem to be fine with slapping this tariff tax on their constituents
that is going to make prices across the board in this country go sky
high.
Is there any principle today's version of the Republican Party won't
abandon? Is there anything Trump could do that Republicans wouldn't
support or would even question?
It would be almost comical to see how much my Republican colleagues
are willing to bend down and kiss the ring if we didn't currently find
ourselves in multiple constitutional crises at the hands of Trump and
his cronies.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we can't even get Republicans to say that
it was wrong for the President of the United States to pardon this
individual who was serving life in prison for bringing fentanyl into
our communities and killing our constituents, the fact that the
majority can't even raise the question of whether it was the wrong
thing to do, tells you everything you need to know.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting. I keep thinking we are
talking about the HALT Fentanyl Act, and then I hear all this other
stuff.
Earlier, one of my colleagues said that we were cooking up some kind
of a plan to cut--I forget what the number was now--$2.5 trillion or
$2.7 trillion out of Medicaid. I haven't heard of any such plan being
cooked up. I think that is just hyperbole, but that is my opinion.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman keeps asking about a pardon or about
somebody who was pardoned. Well, I don't know if he has noticed or not,
but I am not the President of the United States. I don't have the power
to pardon. I don't get the information put on my desk about various
individual pardons.
I didn't make any comments about pardons by the previous President
when many people were pardoned or were sitting on death row and had
sentences commuted. That is not what we are here about today.
We can get down into that trap if we want to, but I am just telling
you that we are here today to talk about a rule for a simple bill that
the majority of this House supports. I believe it is an overwhelming
majority. I don't know if my colleagues admitted it was exactly 74, but
they admitted it was a big vote last year. My colleagues on the other
side of the aisle admitted it was a part of a package that the minority
wanted to see pass on the floor at the end of last year.
I thought we were here to talk about this. I recognize that it is a
free-for-all on the floor, but I just hate to get into all those kinds
of things and start talking about this or that and, whether crossing
the line or not, somehow casting aspersions that Members over here
don't have independent wills. We certainly do, and I think my
colleagues might recognize that from some of the things I said last
night when I was being questioned.
Do I support the President? Well, of course, I do. Do I agree with
everything he does? No.
As the old saying goes, I don't agree with my wife all the time. She
certainly doesn't agree with me most of the time.
The bottom line is that I think the President is moving us in the
right direction. One of those right directions would be to pass the
HALT Fentanyl Act. Another is closing down the border, shutting that
border down.
If Democrats want to talk about drugs coming across our southern
border and want to point to an individual who is thought to be
primarily responsible for some of that, how about the hundreds and
thousands of people who were used by the cartels to bring illicit
substances, whether it be at ports of entry or other places, across our
southern border?
The President is cracking down on that, too, but that is not what
this bill is about. This bill is about making sure that when our law
enforcement officers arrest somebody and their preliminary examination
indicates that what they have is significant, or even a small amount
but generally significant amounts of a fentanyl-related substance, that
when they go to court, they don't have somebody arguing in court that,
wait a minute, this is not the fentanyl on schedule II, that this is a
fentanyl-related substance but it is a left-handed molecule instead of
a right-handed molecule or a right-handed molecule instead of a left-
handed molecule.
I can say that, as a former defense attorney, I loved those kinds of
arguments. As a Congressman, it is our job to shut those arguments
down. The HALT Fentanyl Act stops those arguments from being made in
court, which are basically spurious attempts to help drug dealers.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are not trying to help drug
dealers. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just here to
try to make some other points today. Let's talk about this bill and the
good that this bill can do.
My Democratic colleagues brought up substituting this bill with the
SUPPORT Act. I am a cosponsor of the SUPPORT Act, which is carried by
the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Brett Guthrie. That
bill has a very good chance of passing this body, so let's let that
bill go through its process, and let's let this bill, the HALT Fentanyl
Act, finish out this process, get across to the Senate, get signed into
law by the President, and start doing good work.
The Speaker might be asking why we have to do this at this moment.
The answer is that we have had a rolling series of temporary bills on
making the fentanyl-related substances schedule I because we all
recognize the danger that these present to the American public.
Let's make it permanent and give our scientists an opportunity to
look at some of those other 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related
substances to see if there is anything there that might be beneficial
to mankind, that might be a reversal of an overdose, that might be a
better and less-addictive pain reliever. Let's let them do that
research.
They can't do that research without the HALT Fentanyl Act, and the
efforts of the defense attorneys for the cartels can't be crippled by
constantly passing temporary bills because any day that it is not in
effect is a day that lawyers will take advantage of.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the gentleman is new to the Rules
Committee, and I think this may be his first time on the floor handling
a rule.
I will remind the gentleman that this is the rule debate. We are not
having general debate on the underlying bill. The rule debates are
about the majority's agenda, what Republicans are bringing to the floor
and what Republicans are not bringing to the floor.
The majority could have brought to the floor the bill that we want to
bring to the floor, that we talked about in the previous question
debate, that passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan vote in the last
Congress, and that my Republican friends allowed to get blown up at the
last minute.
Basically, I am going to take my time during the rule debate to talk
about the Republicans' unpopular, crummy agenda for the American
people: raising prices on consumers and ignoring all the concerns that
everyday people have.
We are also going to talk about the fact that, when it comes to
fentanyl, one of Donald Trump's first acts was to pardon a criminal who
brought fentanyl into this country and who was sentenced to life in
Federal prison.
Mr. Speaker, I get it that the gentleman doesn't want to have an
opinion

[[Page H474]]

on that or voice an opinion on that, but, really, is it that hard? I
don't know what is so difficult to condemn there.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of the agenda, I am looking at The New York
Times: ``Trump Proposing Takeover of Gaza as U.S. Territory.'' Do
Republicans' constituents want to have their sons or daughters sent to
Gaza to be in the middle of that violence?
This is the guy who also now wants to invade Greenland. He wants to
take over Panama. He wants to annex Canada. He wants to now occupy
Gaza.
Mr. Speaker, we have 42 million people in this country who are
hungry. Whatever happened to America First? Whatever happened to
helping people in this country? Whatever happened to lowering prices?
Instead, we get this. This is like a warmonger here. I mean, come on.
Again, we had an agreement on a bipartisan bill that would address
the underlying concerns that the gentleman raises here, yet it was
blown up at the last minute.
Mr. Speaker, the rule debate is about the Republican agenda. It is
about the crappy agenda of this majority in the House of
Representatives, which is not fighting for regular people and not
fighting for the people who I represent but instead is doing the
bidding for billionaires like Elon Musk and others.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), the distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

{time} 1300

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we are in a moment of
constitutional crisis. These days will define what we stand for. They
will define who we stand with.
Yet in this time of crisis, Republicans are rearranging deck chairs
on the Titanic. Republicans are using the precious floor time we are
given to put forth watered-down fentanyl bills like the one in this
rule. Let's remember that all of these bills require a Federal agency
to enforce it.
Let me remind my Republican colleagues that their President granted
Elon Musk the authority to dismantle our Federal agencies. Musk and his
DOGE--I like to call it dodgy because they seem to dodge any kind of
authority and accountability--are intent on destroying our Federal
Government and the essential services it provides.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues to remember their power and
remember their constitutional duty.
Musk didn't take an oath to protect the Constitution. We did. Voters
sent us here to protect their interests. Congress alone has the power
to fund our agencies. A billionaire who was not elected and has not
probably even passed a security clearance cannot destroy our Federal
agencies. We will not stand for it, and I hope you stand with us to
protect our Federal agencies, including the FBI who would be the ones
who would enforce and investigate and go after fentanyl trafficking.
My phones are ringing off the hook from constituents who are
frightened and terrified and angry about what Musk is doing. They don't
want billionaire tech titans to dismantle Federal agencies or gain
access to their most private data.
We definitely can't address the fentanyl crisis, like the bill in
today's rule claims to do, if Trump and Republicans get their way on
the Federal funding freeze, if they get their way on a hiring freeze.
Now remember, this intention that we have seen from this
administration, that we are not hearing them stand up against, would
actually destroy the FBI. It would take away funds from addiction
treatment, which would be essential to save lives. It would take away
funds from interdiction technology, which is what we need to stop
fentanyl from flowing in and killing our neighbors and my friends and
my constituents. My constituents want us to fund effective border
safety measures, not engage in the chaos and demonization we have seen
from this administration.
I have also heard loud and clear from my communities in New Mexico
about the chaos that Trump's orders have created. Trump is about chaos
and Trump is about corruption.
Yesterday, I went to the Treasury Department to demand answers about
Musk's power grab and information heist. They didn't let Members of
Congress in that building, which belongs to the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. They didn't let us in that building because they
don't want Americans to know what they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all my Republican colleagues: Would you
let Elon Musk and his interns rummage through your savings account,
your tax return, your children's personal data?
I just don't understand the point of putting bills like this on the
floor if we are not going to have the courage to stand up to Elon Musk
and his rip off of Congress' power.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, darn, I wish I had known 40 minutes ago we could talk
about anything we wanted to, that this time was not really to talk
about the rule present before us today or the underlying bill, but was
to talk about whatever we wanted to, whatever is on our agenda, their
agenda.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is why the American people don't
have confidence in Congress, because they can't follow the bouncing
ball. We are here to talk about the HALT Fentanyl Act, and we are
talking about everything including the kitchen sink.
If I had only known that 40 minutes ago, I could have brought over
all my CRAs that I am interested in getting passed, all my bills that I
think are fascinating and interesting that I can't seem to get out of
committee, at least not in the past. I could have talked about all
kinds of things.
I understand that may not be the practice of the Rules Committee. I
am new. The gentleman is absolutely right to remind me of that. I have
no problem with that. I just didn't know that we could talk about
whatever we wanted to when the subject of the day is: Are we going to
pass a rule that ultimately we hope will be put in place for the debate
and passage of the HALT Fentanyl Act.
Then I heard, amongst a number of things today that I thought were
just kind of odd, that my bill, the HALT Fentanyl Act, had been watered
down.
Well, that is news to me because the bill, with the exception of
changing a couple of paragraph numbers, the lettering on the paragraphs
to make sure we were alphabetically correct, is exactly the way I
introduced it. I don't think that is a watering down. A watering down
is when you take a bill that is 20 or 30 pages long and you make it
into a 2-page bill and you have it do half of what it was supposed to.
What this bill was supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this
bill does. It takes and makes a permanent schedule I classification for
all of the roughly 4,800 fentanyl-related substances or analogues. It
provides for research on those fentanyl-related substances or analogues
at our research institutions with certain safeguards to make sure we
can continue to do research so that maybe we can find a better path
forward, something that may help with our drug addiction issues,
something that may be a better, less addictive pain reliever.

We want that research done, but until we have the evidence that one
of those 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related substances actually does
good, we need to make them schedule I. They need to be on there so that
the cartels can't use this as some trick in the courtroom to get out of
trouble, to get a proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card.
My colleagues want to talk about everything else coming down the
road, including an individual--and I haven't reviewed his file--who
they claim was involved in the drug trade and who was pardoned.
I haven't heard them talk about Lairon Graham of Buffalo, convicted
of heading a drug conspiracy and selling fentanyl, crack cocaine, and
heroin, who was pardoned by the previous President, Mr. Biden.
I haven't heard them talk about Valentino Shine, convicted of
narcotic sales, along with sex trafficking and

[[Page H475]]

distribution of crack cocaine, who was pardoned by the previous
President.
Now, I personally don't think any of that is relevant to today's
discussion, and I recognize that that is apparently the practice of the
Rules Committee. I find it surprising. I think it is a sloppy practice,
but if that is the practice, then next time I will be sure to bring my
wish list with me and we can talk about everything except the bill we
are supposed to be talking about.
It does make you wonder and think that everybody at home watching
this, both of them, are confused because we are not talking about the
bill that we are supposed to be talking about. I hope Congress some day
gets around to talking about the bill that it is supposed to talk
about, whether it is my bill or somebody else's bill.
Today, I will try to make my remarks as much as I can about passage
of the rule for the HALT Fentanyl Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman really think that people dislike
Congress because we are debating issues, because we are debating what
is on their mind? No. I think people dislike Congress because
politicians say one thing and do another.
They are on the floor today talking about the need to combat fentanyl
and then are silent when the President of the United States pardons a
criminal sentenced to life in prison for flooding our streets with
fentanyl.
That is what people get frustrated with. People are frustrated that
we had a deal on a bill at the end of last Congress that everybody
signed off on. It was fine. At the last minute, Elon Musk comes in and
blows it up, and now we can't bring the bill up again. That is what
people are frustrated with.
My Republican friends like to talk about America First. Look at the
front page of The New York Times today: ``Trump Proposing Takeover of
Gaza as U.S. Territory.''
I have to tell you, people voted for lower egg prices, not for a
Middle East Mar-a-Lago. People did not vote to send their sons and
daughters into the tunnels of Gaza so that Jared Kushner and Donald
Trump can build Trump Tower Gaza. That is not what they voted for.
People want to talk about issues. They want us to deal with issues
that will impact everyday life and lower the cost of living. In the
first weeks, we have seen nothing from this President or the Republican
majority here to deal with that.
Don't tell me that people don't like Congress because we debate
issues. I am sorry. We are debating your agenda, even though it is
unpopular.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article from the Associated Press titled: ``Elon Musk's DOGE commission
gains access to sensitive Treasury payment systems.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[From AP News, Feb. 1, 2025]

Elon Musk's DOGE Commission Gains Access to Sensitive Treasury Payment
Systems: AP Sources

(By Fatima Hussein)

The Department of Government Efficiency, run by President
Donald Trump's billionaire adviser and Tesla CEO Elon Musk,
has gained access to sensitive Treasury data including Social
Security and Medicare customer payment systems, according to
two people familiar with the situation.
The move by DOGE, a Trump administration task force
assigned to find ways to fire federal workers, cut programs
and slash federal regulations, means it could have wide
leeway to access important taxpayer data, among other things.
The New York Times first reported the news of the group's
access of the massive federal payment system. The two people
who spoke to The Associated Press spoke on condition of
anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
The highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance
Committee, Ron Wyden of Oregon, on Friday sent a letter to
Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressing concern
that ``officials associated with Musk may have intended to
access these payment systems to illegally withhold payments
to any number of programs.''
``To put it bluntly, these payment systems simply cannot
fail, and any politically motivated meddling in them risks
severe damage to our country and the economy,'' Wyden said.
The news also comes after Treasury's acting Deputy
Secretary David Lebryk resigned from his position at Treasury
after more than 30 years of service. The Washington Post on
Friday reported that Lebryk resigned his position after Musk
and his DOGE organization requested access to sensitive
Treasury data.
``The Fiscal Service performs some of the most vital
functions in government,'' Lebryk said in a letter to
Treasury employees sent out Friday. ``Our work may be unknown
to most of the public, but that doesn't mean it isn't
exceptionally important. I am grateful for having been able
to work alongside some of the nation's best and most talented
operations staff.''
The letter did not mention a DOGE request to access
Treasury payments.
Musk on Saturday responded to a post on his social media
platform X about the departure of Lebryk: ``the @DOGE team
discovered, among other things, that payment approval
officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve
payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups. They
literally never denied a payment in their entire career. Not
even once.''
He did not provide proof of this claim.
DOGE was originally headed by Musk and former Republican
presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who jointly vowed to
cut billions from the federal budget and usher in ``mass
headcount reductions across the federal bureaucracy.''
Ramaswamy has since left DOGE as he mulls a run for
governor of Ohio.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the
Record an article from The New Republic titled: ``25-year-old Elon Musk
Crony Has Total Control Over Treasury Payments.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[From the New Republic, Feb. 4, 2025]

25-Year-Old Elon Musk Crony Has Total Control Over Treasury Payments

(By Hafiz Rashid)

One of Elon Musk's handpicked operatives for his fake
``Department of Government Efficiency'' has been given
complete access to critical payment systems at the Department
of the Treasury, despite being only 25 years old.
Marko Elez, whose total work experience consists of working
for Musk's companies SpaceX and X (formerly Twitter), has
administrator privileges on systems that are responsible for
95 percent of payments made by the U.S. government including
Social Security checks, tax refunds, and virtually all
contract payments, Wired reports. This contradicts earlier
reports that Musk's henchmen only had ``read-only'' access to
Treasury data.
Wired, citing two unnamed sources, reports that Elez has
the ability to write code on the Payment Automation Manager
and Secure Payment System at the Bureau of the Fiscal
Service, which control government payments that amount to
more than a fifth of the U.S. economy. Elez's level of access
could allow him to bypass security measures and possibly
cause irreversible damage to these systems. Talking Points
Memo further reports that Elez has already used his power to
significantly rewrite code for the payment systems.
``You could do anything with these privileges,'' one source
with knowledge of the systems told Wired, adding that they
couldn't see a reason that such access was necessary for
hunting down fraud or assessing how payments are disbursed,
as DOGE claims it is doing.
``Technically I don't see why this couldn't happen,'' a
federal IT worker told the magazine Monday regarding whether
a DOGE worker would get such a level of government access.
``If you would have asked me a week ago, I'd have told you
that this kind of thing would never in a million years
happen. But now, who the f*** knows.''
Musk and his cronies have already taken control of federal
workers' private data by installing an illegal commercial
server at the Office of Personnel Management, giving them
access to databases containing federal employees' Social
Security numbers, home addresses, medical histories, and
other sensitive personal information. Senior government
officials at OPM have even been locked out of employee
databases.
Many, if not most, of Musk's associates that he's used in
his government takeover are young and inexperienced young men
between the ages of 19 and 26, like Elez. Whether the tech
mogul or the people doing his bidding even have proper
security clearances is not known, which would definitely make
their efforts illegal, if they weren't already. But with
Donald Trump taking over federal law enforcement and
prosecutors threatening critics of DOGE, who, if anyone, will
take action?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the
Record an article from Wired titled: ``Federal Workers Sue to
Disconnect DOGE Server.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[[Page H476]]

[From Wired, Feb. 4, 2025]

Federal Workers Sue to Disconnect DOGE Server

(By Dell Cameron)

Federal employees are seeking a temporary restraining order
as part of a class action lawsuit accusing a group of Elon
Musk's associates of allegedly operating an illegally
connected server from the fifth floor of the US Office of
Personnel Management's (OPM) headquarters in Washington, DC.
An attorney representing two federal workers--Jane Does 1
and 2--filed a motion this morning arguing that the server's
continued operation not only violates federal law but is
potentially exposing vast quantities of government staffers'
personal information to hostile foreign adversaries through
unencrypted email.
A copy of the motion, filed in the DC District Court by
National Security Counselors, a Washington-area public-
interest law firm, was obtained by WIRED exclusively in
advance. WIRED previously reported that Musk had installed
several lackeys in OPM's top offices, including individuals
with ties to xAI, Neuralink, and other companies he owns.
The initial lawsuit, filed on January 27, cites reports
that Musk's associates illegally connected a server to a
government network for the purposes of harvesting
information, including the names and email accounts of
federal employees. The server was installed on the agency's
premises, the complaint alleges, without OPM--the
government's human resources department--conducting a
mandatory privacy impact assessment required under federal
law.
Under the 2002 E-Government Act, agencies are required to
perform privacy assessments prior to making ``substantial
changes to existing information technology'' when handling
information ``in identifiable form.'' Notably, prior to the
installation of the server, OPM did not have the technical
capability to email the entire federal workforce from a
single email account.
``[A]t some point after 20 January 2025, OPM allowed
unknown individuals to simply bypass its existing systems and
security protocols,'' Tuesday's motion claims, ``for the
stated purpose of being able to communicate directly with
those individuals without involving other agencies. In short,
the sole purpose of these new systems was expediency.''
OPM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
If the motion is granted, OPM would be forced to disconnect
the server until the assessment is done. As a consequence,
the Trump administration's plans to drastically reduce the
size of the federal workforce would likely face delays. The
email account linked to the server--HR@opm.gov--is currently
being used to gather information from federal workers
accepting buyouts under the admin's ``deferred resignation
program,'' which is set to expire on February 6.
``Under the law, a temporary restraining order is an
extraordinary remedy,'' notes National Security Counselors'
executive director, Kel McClanahan. ``But this is an
extraordinary situation.''
Before issuing a restraining order, courts apply what's
known as the ``balance of equities'' doctrine, weighing the
burdens and costs on both parties. In this case, however,
McClanahan argues that the injunction would inflict ``no
hardship'' on the government whatsoever. February 6 is an
``arbitrary deadline,'' he says, and the administration could
simply continue to implement the resignation program
``through preexisting channels.''
``We can't wait for the normal course of litigation when
all that information is just sitting there in some system
nobody knows about with who knows what protections,''
McClanahan says. ``In a normal case, we might be able to at
least count on the inspector general to do something, but
Trump fired her, so all bets are off.''
The motion further questions whether OPM violated the
Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits federal
agencies from taking actions ``not in accordance with the
law.'' Under the APA, courts may ``compel agency action''--
such as a private assessment--when it is ``unlawfully
withheld.''
Employees at various agencies were reportedly notified last
month to be on the lookout for messages originating from the
HR@opm.gov account. McClanahan's complaint points to a
January 23 email from acting Homeland Security secretary
Benjamine Huffman instructing DHS employees that the
HR@opm.gov account ``can be considered trusted.'' in the
following days, emails were blasted out twice across the
executive branch instructing federal workers to reply ``Yes''
in both cases.
The same account was later used to transmit the ``Fork in
the Road'' missive promoting the Trump administration's
legally dubious ``deferred resignation program,'' which
claims to offer federal workers the opportunity to quit but
continue receiving paychecks through September. Workers who
wished to participate in the program were instructed to reply
to the email with ``Resign.''
As WIRED has reported, even the new HR chief of DOGE,
Musk's task force, was unable to answer basic questions about
the offer.
The legal authority underlying the program is unclear, and
federal employee union leaders are warning workers not to
blindly assume they will actually get paid. In a floor speech
last week, Senator Tim Kaine advised workers not to be
fooled: ``There's no budget line item to pay people who are
not showing up for work.'' Patty Murray, ranking Democrat on
the Senate Appropriations Committee, similarly warned Monday:
``There is no funding allocated to agencies to pay staff for
this offer.''
McClanahan's lawsuit highlights the government's response
to the OPM hack of 2015, which compromised personnel records
on more than 22 million people, including some who'd
undergone background checks to obtain security clearances. A
congressional report authored by House Republicans following
the breach pinned the incident on a ``breakdown in
communications'' between OPM's chief information officer and
its inspector general: ``The future effectiveness of the
agency's information technology and security efforts,'' it
says, ``will depend on a strong relationship between these
two entities moving forward.''
OPM's inspector general, Krista Boyd, was fired by
President Donald Trump in the midst of the ``Friday night
purge'' on January 24--one day after the first HR@opm.gov
email was sent.
``We are witnessing an unprecedented exfiltration and
seizure of the most sensitive kinds of information by
unelected, unvetted people with no experience,
responsibility, or right to it,'' says Sean Vitka, policy
director at the Demand Progress Education Fund, which is
supporting the action. ``Millions of Americans and the
collective interests of the United States desperately need
emergency intervention from the courts. The constitutional
crisis is already here.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the
Record an opinion article from The Washington Post titled: ``Elon Musk
has your Social Security number. It's as scary as it sounds.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2025]

[Opinion] Elon Musk Has Your Social Security Number. It's as Scary as
it Sounds

(By Natasha Sarin)

David A. Lebryk had a volatile end to his 36 years serving
the public at the Treasury Department last week. On Monday,
he was the acting treasury secretary. By the end of the week,
he had unexpectedly retired.
I worked with Lebryk when I was on President Joe Biden's
Treasury team, so I am not an unbiased observer. But leaders
on both sides of the aisle have positive things to say about
him. President Donald Trump's nominee to be deputy treasury
secretary, Michael Faulkender, recalled working with Lebryk
during the first Trump administration and finding him
``relaxed and under control'' and not a political actor.
It was those traits that made him a natural fit to serve as
Treasury's fiscal assistant secretary and oversee what is
essentially the federal government's accounts payable
department. It is an immensely important job: The Bureau of
the Fiscal Service cuts the checks that go to households and
businesses and, in recent years, has been at the front of the
various debt showdowns, because only they can ascertain the
``X'' date when the government will, absent congressional
action, hit the debt limit.
But it's not a political job. It's mechanical, keeping
track of the money coming in and going out. This means the
bureau has access to incredibly sensitive information about
everyone in the country--all of our Social Security numbers
and bank account information--because they need it to get
people their tax refunds and Social Security checks.
Late last week, Lebryk left the agency after a rift with
members of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency,
who demanded access to Treasury's payments system. Secretary
Scott Bessent then gave them that access, ostensibly because
the team, which lacks the experience or background to handle
such sensitive information, would be able to sift through
government payments to cut fraudulent, wasteful spending.
Let's get some facts straight. It is totally reasonable to
be concerned about fraudulent or mistaken payments made by
the federal government. The Government Accountability Office
recently estimated that somewhere between 3 and 7 percent of
what the government pays out each year is fraud. That's
nowhere near Elon Musk's pledge to cut $2 trillion from the
federal budget, but it is certainly not couch change.
Having access to Treasury's payments system isn't where
Musk would go if he truly wants to make progress on waste,
fraud and abuse. Here's why:
First, legally, it isn't the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's
mandate to decide who is eligible for tax credits or which
Social Security beneficiaries are worthy recipients of
payments. The bureau does conduct a systemwide check against
a ``do not pay'' list, to make sure it is not paying out to
people who are perhaps deceased or members of known terrorist
organizations.
But it is not their role to probe, for example, rampant
fraud in the covid-19-era employee retention tax credit, and
then decide which businesses look to be worthy recipients of
the credit. That is a job for the Internal Revenue Service,
which administers the program. The Bureau of the Fiscal
Service just cuts the checks.
That's how it should be. The bureau has no way of
identifying fraud across every program in the federal
government. That's more

[[Page H477]]

than $5 trillion of payments each year, and more than 1
billion individual payments.
Being able to tell a fraudulent payment from a valid one
requires information about the programs and the households
and businesses getting the funds, and all of that information
sits in the agencies, not in the payments system. That's part
of why I am disheartened to see the Trump administration and
Musk push to ``delete'' the IRS or dismantle the Education
Department. These changes will lead to more government fraud,
not less.
There are likely many ways the systems at the Bureau of the
Fiscal Service could be run more efficiently. I spent two
years with colleagues at the IRS, in part, working on
upgrading its IT infrastructure, which dates in meaningful
ways to the 1950s. I learned that government IT is a
labyrinth of complexity and often out of date relative to
private sector advances. My ardent hope was that Musk would
be able to bring his substantial private-sector expertise and
recruit skilled professionals who can help make government
work better.
In recent days, Bessent has tried to make the case to
lawmakers that is what Musk and DOGE teams' access to the
payments system will accomplish. He says they have been given
something called ``read-only'' access to make recommendations
about improving government operations without the ability to
actually stop or redirect particular payments, though some
reporting has questioned that claim.
Be wary. Just a week ago, it would have been unimaginable
for DOGE--or any Trump political appointees--to have access
to this sensitive data and fragile payments infrastructure.
It is natural to worry about the potential threats to data
privacy, cybersecurity and the stability of the federal
government that are ahead. There is no legitimate reason for
them to have this access.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is being reported that Elon Musk has
sent his creepy minions to illegally install a private server that is
stealing people's information. They are using it to skirt laws about
sensitive and possibly even classified information, giving them access
to people's Social Security numbers, home addresses, and more.
What is happening is a crime, plain and simple. It is a crime. It
violates the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
Elon says it is a crime to expose who he has put in charge of the
Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I say to Elon that it is a crime to hide that from the
American people. I, for one, am not going to stand by while he gets his
grubby little billionaire hands all over our parents' and grandparents'
Social Security checks. He better believe that he is going to be held
accountable for all of this.
The truth is coming out. He is stealing from the American people, and
we are not going to let him do it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I offer the
gentleman from Massachusetts an opportunity for whatever comments he
has remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman brought up some pardons. A few minutes
ago, I talked about how Trump pardoned a drug trafficker who let
fentanyl pour into our country. Let's not forget he also pardoned over
1,000 people who beat cops and tried to kill them on January 6.
The last time I was on the floor, I went through some of the worst
offenders he pardoned. Since then, we have learned even more about
these convicted felons, these violent criminals, who are now roaming
free in our communities thanks to Donald Trump and the Republicans.
Matthew Huttle is a man with 12 prior criminal convictions, including
a shocking case where he pled guilty to brutally hitting his 3-year-old
son, leaving bruises all over the child's backside and neck. After he
was pardoned by Trump, Huttle went back to Indiana where he was killed
during a violent confrontation with law enforcement. Huttle was a child
abuser with a history of violence who put law enforcement in danger
again after he was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Theodore Middendorf, accused of sexually assaulting a 7-year-old
child, pled guilty to this horrific crime in 2024 and was sentenced to
19 years in prison, but that wasn't all. He also pled guilty to
destroying government property using a flagpole as a weapon during the
Capitol riot, and for that he was pardoned by Donald Trump.

{time} 1315

Peter Schwartz is a man with 30 prior criminal convictions, including
assaulting his wife, biting her and repeatedly punching her. The same
man attacked police officers on January 6 with pepper spray. He is a
repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.
Andrew Taake was arrested in 2016 for soliciting a minor online for
sex, but his criminal history didn't stop there. He assaulted police
officers with bear spray and a metal whip on January 6. He is another
repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.
Kasey Hopkins has a criminal history so disturbing, it is hard to
stomach. In 2002, he was convicted of forcible rape, where he choked
his victim to the point of impairing her vision. This is the same man
who has prior convictions for assaulting law enforcement and possessing
controlled substances. He was here on January 6, and he was pardoned by
Donald Trump.
David Daniel is facing charges for producing and possessing child
pornography, disturbingly involving two young girls in his own family.
Police officers found evidence of child sexual abuse while they
searched his home in connection with his arrest for assaulting police
officers on January 6. He may have his sexual charges thrown out thanks
to the fact that he was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Because of Donald Trump and the Republicans, we have child sex
predators, domestic abusers, and violent criminals unleashed back onto
our streets. I have to ask, how many American parents are sleeping
easier tonight knowing these criminals are out there walking free
thanks to Donald Trump? This is stomach churning.
It doesn't even stop there. We also have January 6 perpetrators who
have been rearrested--yes, rearrested--on new charges even after being
pardoned.
Daniel Ball, a convicted felon because of his involvement in the
Capitol insurrection, was pardoned by Donald Trump on January 20 only
to be rearrested 2 days later on gun charges.
Now, Trump is going after the law enforcement officers who helped put
these criminals away.
America, your President is purging the police of anyone not loyal to
him. Think about that. Let that sink in because these are the actions
of a fascist.
More than half a dozen senior FBI executives have been ordered to
retire or be fired by Monday. The Acting Director of the FBI said that
the list of names of those involved in the Capitol riot investigations
could number in the thousands.
How many police officers will Trump fire? How does any of this make
any of us more safe?
My colleagues need to wake up. I mean, purging the police of anyone
who goes after criminals, we know how this ends. We know what the
message this sends is. Trump is telling America that violence is fine
as long as his people do it.
Republicans are releasing violent child predators, domestic abusers,
and sexual offenders back into our communities and, at the same time,
investigating and firing the real law enforcement officers, the heroes
who are actually upholding the rule of law.
Guess what. I won't be complicit. They are about to run into a
massive wall of resistance, and that wall is us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and also to refrain from engaging in personalities toward
the President.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I have so much more I want to say, but this all really
boils down to one question: Whose side are you on, Mr. Speaker? Whose
side are you on?
Are you on the side of the American people or the billionaires who
are stealing from them?

[[Page H478]]

Are you on the side of law enforcement or the guy who pardoned the
drug dealer who let in all the fentanyl?
Are you on the side of workers or the robber barons who want to
fleece people out of their paychecks and rob them of their hard-earned
benefits?
Are you on the side of the American taxpayers or Elon Musk, a nepo
baby who sucks up government subsidies and uses tax money to enrich
himself while spreading hate and lies on his broken website?
Democrats know what side we are on. We are on the side of the people.
We are going to continue to show up, and we are going to continue to
fight back.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that I am appalled. I understand they
get the right to say whatever they want to during this time of debate
on the rule for the HALT Fentanyl Act. I understand that, but they say
you have to choose what side you are on, then bring up Elon Musk, and
then say vote ``no.'' This bill has nothing to do with Elon Musk. This
bill is about fentanyl-related substances and fentanyl analogues. It
perplexes me, other than it is an attempt to confuse everybody on what
this bill is about.
If they want to make all those statements, they can, but I would
think they would be in favor of getting this bill done. If you are
going to choose to say whose side you are on with this bill, you are
making a choice. You are making a choice. We have an opportunity today,
right here and now, to pass a rule and then tomorrow to pass a bill
that will make a step forward in stopping the cartels, the Chinese
precursors, and the folks who are doing the bad things in our country
and in other countries from bringing their substances into this country
and trying to use a gimmick, a chemical technique, saying that it is
not really fentanyl, that it is a fentanyl analogue, and get around our
laws.
That is what this bill is about. Every Member ought to be in favor of
that. Why you wouldn't be in favor of at least bringing that bill to
the floor and having a vote on it is beyond me. If we are choosing
sides, I am going to choose to take a step forward. I am going to take
a step forward to try to stop this scourge of fentanyl poisoning,
fentanyl analogue poisoning, and fentanyl-related substances coming
into our country. That is the side I am going to choose.

I understand they want to talk about all kinds of other things. I
think it is a pretty darn good bill, and I think we should pass it.
Now, let me get to my script. I would like to reiterate the
importance of the bill to permanently schedule fentanyl analogues as
schedule I while still allowing for research into these substances.
This is one small step in fighting the opioid crisis our country
faces. If we allow this temporary extension to expire in March--as it
will if we take no action, if we choose the wrong side today and
tomorrow--it will bring back the incentives for traffickers to bring
these fentanyl analogues and fentanyl-related substances into our
country.
I truly don't believe my colleagues on the other side want that. I
understand they get fired up on the floor sometimes and say things that
maybe later, in retrospect, they think maybe they shouldn't have gone
that far.
If we are going to choose sides, I urge everybody to pass the rule
and choose the side of stopping the fentanyl scourge in our country,
the fentanyl analogue scourge in our country, and urge the passage of
this rule and for final passage of the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 93 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill consisting of the text of H.R. 4531 of the 118th
Congress, as passed by the House, to reauthorize certain
programs that provide for opioid use disorder prevention,
recovery, and treatment, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill 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 recommit.
Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4531.
Mr. GRIFFITH. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 will be postponed.

____________________