Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act of 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be on the floor today regarding a bill that we have been negotiating for many months and that deals with an incredibly important topic: the opioid epidemic that is having a devastating impact across the country.

Despite current efforts, this opioid epidemic continues to ravage our communities. Every day in this country, 115 Americans lose their lives to opioids--painkillers. In 2016, my home State of New Jersey alone experienced 2,056 lives lost to this epidemic. The New Jersey Attorney General predicts that it will be 3,000 this year.

This legislation addresses one aspect of the crisis: synthetic opioids making their way into homes across the country through the mail. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, China is the primary source of the fentanyl that enters this country. Fentanyl is often sold online and then shipped to the United States in small quantities, making it very difficult to detect.

I saw firsthand the way that the U.S. Postal Service and Customs is working together to stop the flow of synthetic opioids coming in through international mail. I visited a mail facility in Secaucus, New Jersey, with representatives from these agencies and the Food and Drug Administration. I know that the Postal Service receives an overwhelming volume of mail and they are working hard with limited resources to screen shipments. But we have some clear strategies that we can employ to create an effective system for targeting shipments that have a risk of containing these opioids, namely collecting advance electronic data, AED, on all packages that enter the United States.

The information contained in the AED typically includes the name and address of the shipper and recipient, as well as the contents of the package. CBP, Customs and Border Protection, uses this information to identify packages that may pose a risk. Customs can then place a hold on the shipment and notify carriers that a package must be presented for examination.

Private carriers have been required to collect this information since 2002, but we made the Postal Service exempt from this requirement. As a result, it has become the preferred method for shipping illicit materials, including opioids, into the United States.

The version of the STOP Act that we are considering today is an amended version of the original act, which was introduced back in 2017. We had 271 sponsors on that legislation.

The old STOP Act would have required the United States Postal Service to collect 100 percent of that information within 1 year or face penalties of up to $5,000 for every package for which it failed to do so. A number of stakeholders raised concerns with this approach, so we worked with them, including the Postal Service and their unions, to try to arrive at a workable solution.

As a result of these discussions and consultations, we have been able to make a number of important changes. The legislation on the floor today makes a number of significant changes that address the concerns raised by stakeholders.

First, this bill allows more time for the United States Postal Service to come into compliance. The United States Postal Service will have until the end of 2020 to transmit the AED on all international mail delivered to the United States.

This legislation includes a waiver that excludes countries that lack capacity to collect that information and pose a low risk of violating U.S. laws from the 100 percent requirement. As a result, the United States Postal Service will not be penalized for issues that are outside its control and should be able to comply with its international commitments.

Second, the amended legislation removes the requirement that the United States Postal Service hire a broker for every package that enters into the United States, saving costs and ensuring they can receive inbound mail under its current practices.

Finally, the legislation provides for a more nuanced approach to United States Postal Service penalties. Customs is required to reduce or eliminate penalties if the Postal Service does one of three things: it cooperates with Customs, it has a high compliance rate, or it takes remedial measures.

These changes were proposed by the United States Postal Service to address its concerns regarding the penalties provision. So as a practical matter, these changes mean that, if the Postal Service continues its current work, penalties will likely never be imposed. Further, the legislation does not allow penalties to be considered until 2021.

I would also like to highlight language in the bill directing the Customs and Border Protection to provide an annual report on the individuals and the companies that are not providing this information and the manner in which it imposes penalties. Requiring the CBP to report this useful information on violators and violator penalty assessments I believe will enhance the interdiction of prohibited items from entering the United States through express consignment operators.

This revised bill has support from a variety of public safety and public health groups, as well as the National Conference of State Legislatures. Just before we started today, the Fraternal Order of Police sent a supporting letter in support of this. This is good news for both sides of the aisle.

This revised bill has support from a variety of public safety and public health groups. Despite the significant changes, I understand that some of the stakeholders remain opposed, and we should understand that. We tried to work with those who have opposed. I respect the continued concerns that these stakeholders have articulated and look forward to working with them going forward.

However, with the changes that we have been able to incorporate into this legislation on a bipartisan basis, I believe that the current legislation provides an aggressive but workable approach to the United States Postal Service. I strongly support the legislation, Mr. Speaker, on the floor today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers on my side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I plead with you and my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle. I think we are making a big step today in this piece of legislation. I know there are other pieces.

I would recommend, Mr. Speaker, that we approach this deadly epidemic--and it is deadly--in the same way that we approached the epidemic at the end of the eighties and the early nineties, and that was the epidemic of the HIV virus. No one wanted to talk about it, Mr. Speaker, so people died when they could have been saved if we had had knowledge of prevention, if we had had knowledge of how we take care of those folks.

It took us until the beginning of the nineties, until we opened up local clinics, until people felt less involved in a stigma. Then they had to come out from the shadows to protect the rest of the population, including themselves. Then we came together, and the Federal Government passed the Ryan White legislation, which has been a big help on the HIV virus. Then we came together.

Unfortunately, maladies bring Americans together. Well, that is good that we do come together, though.

I ask and plead that we have the same vigor in approaching opiates and approaching fentanyl, which is coming in from other countries. If we do that, we will not only survive; we will help those--and we will prevent many from falling into the trap. You have heard some people talk about that trap today, starting with painkillers and moving on to even more dangerous drugs.

We are going to get through this. We are going to get through this. Yesterday we passed by voice vote legislation to change the protocol on how we approach the patients, not only in the emergency rooms of America, but in many departments and hospitals across the United States. We need to find alternatives to the very opiates that are making fools of us. Those alternatives shall be part of the solution, part of the solution to getting to the promised land, as the gentleman says.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Bishop. I want to thank Mr. Brady. I want to thank my good friend from Massachusetts, Richie Neal, and all of those who worked on this legislation: David Reichert and many more. I congratulate our persistence in getting through a lot of hurdles.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source