House pulls together to address opioid crisis

While controversy at the U.S. southern border continued to fracture Congress this week, the House of Representatives quietly achieved a rare moment of consensus on another national crisis: the opioid epidemic.

Last month, a House committee sent 57 opioid bills to the floor. A whopping 53 of those passed by voice vote in committee—a sign of bipartisan agreement. The nearly five dozen bills address a wide variety of topics, including alternative pain medications, insurance, Medicaid, and even healthcare for people in foster care and prison. House leadership plans to roll most of the bills into one large opioid package: House Resolution 6.

One of the measures, the Commit to Opioid Medical Prescriber Accountability and Safety for Seniors (COMPASS) Act, would help identify “outlier” prescribers—doctors who may give out too many pain meds. Prescriptions given too freely have contributed to the current crisis, experts say: 80 percent of heroin users started with a legitimate prescription for pain medication.

Another bill, H.R. 5788, would help stem the flow of deadly synthetic fentanyl through the U.S. Postal Service. DuPage County, Ill., coroner Richard Jorgensen, a former surgeon, noticed an uptick in overdose deaths when he took office in 2013. He helped bring the opioid crisis to the attention of his congressman, Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill.

Jorgensen told me he showed Roskam how easy it was to Google the best ways to mail illegal drugs into the United States—not through private companies like FedEx, but through the USPS. Roskam went on to sponsor and publicly support H.R. 5788 and the COMPASS Act.

But with so many bills taking small bites out of a big problem, are lawmakers using the opportunity to pile on to a hot topic during an election year, just to tell their constituents about their efforts? For one thing, the bigger a bill gets, the more it risks losing votes. But the opioid crisis crosses so many lines—political, economic, geographic, social—the omnibus bill seems to have a good chance of sailing through the House, despite its deep divisions.

Jorgensen cited his own politically fractured state of Illinois: Despite its failure to pass a budget for the last three years, the Illinois General Assembly in 2015 wrapped several opioid initiatives into one, the bipartisan Heroin Crisis Package. The Chicago Tribune called the legislation “a model for other states.”

Jorgensen worked with that bill’s sponsor and said he was surprised such a large package still managed to pass. “Everybody worked together to get it done. It was unusual … and everybody put their two cents in, but it did not burden or hinder the accumulation of the major bill,” he said. “It changed how we handle all of these things in Illinois.”

While House lawmakers appear highly motivated to pass an opioid package, but the bill faces a tough battle in the Senate, leaving its future uncertain.

Understanding asylum

The term “zero tolerance” policy makes one important assumption about asylum-seekers: They have broken the law and previous administrations tolerated it.

But seeking asylum is not, on its face, unlawful.

The 1980 updates to the Immigration and Nationality Act laid out five criteria for seeking asylum in the United States. Asylum may be granted if the applicant has experienced persecution, or fear of persecution, “on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services explains it this way: “You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status.”

Ava Steaffens, CEO of the Christian Community Development Association and a former immigration lawyer, told me the United States is not required to grant asylum to all who seek it. The government must use discretion to decide whether an asylum-seeker has a credible fear of returning to his or her own country.

Every asylum-seeker must undergo an intense interview process, even more intense than the one for people seeking citizenship through marriage.

“It’s discovery of facts. Each case is an individual case,” said Steaffens, who has worked with immigrants from Poland, Iran, and Central America. She compared making judgments on asylum-seekers who have not yet gone through their court proceedings to presuming someone guilty until proven innocent of a crime.

“The questions and evidence put forth revolve around your particular circumstances: where you come from, where the violence is stemming from, what the reason for the violence is, how much can you prove of it, did you have any witnesses, what did you do, did you try to get the government to intervene, did the government refuse to intervene. … It’s basically a discovery of facts and evidence and weighs the credibility of the applicant and the facts presented,” Steaffens said. “It’s very intense.”

At Tuesday’s White House briefing, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said fraudulent family cases—cases of human traffickers or other smugglers trying to get children into the country, using asylum as an excuse—had skyrocketed “315 percent” over five months.

A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman later clarified those numbers to The New York Times: 45 cases in fiscal year 2017 and 191 cases in fiscal year 2018. Each number represents less than 1 percent of the total number of families apprehended at the border that year.

They also represent a tiny fraction of the total number of asylum cases overall: 26,124 individuals received asylum (affirmatively or defensively) in 2015, according to the Homeland Security. More than 1 million people obtained lawful permanent resident status that year.

Although the court process is long and arduous, asylum-seekers do want to finish it, when provided with guidance for how to do so. A government-funded study found that of those enrolled in the supervised release and assistance program, 93 percent appeared at required hearings. —L.F.

Virginia primary race exposes GOP divide

Corey Stewart’s win in Virginia’s Republican primary for U.S. senator last Tuesday fueled speculation as to how much the GOP has embraced President Donald Trump as its leader. Stewart won the right to challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine by defeating state Sen. Nick Freitas, a GOP establishment candidate. In 2016, Stewart worked as the Virginia chairman of Trump’s campaign. But his superiors fired him a month before the 2016 election after Stewart staged a protest against fellow Republicans at the party’s headquarters.

“My loyalty is not to political operatives,” Stewart said after the firing. “My loyalty is to Mr. Trump.”

The conservative billionaire Koch brothers, who donate to Republican campaigns across the country, have refused to support Stewart’s efforts in the upcoming general election. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) will also abstain from sending any money to the Stewart campaign, Politico reported.

“There are great races around the country,” NRSC chairman Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado told Politico. “We have a big map this year, and …Virginia’s not on it.”

In addition to Stewart, Trump tweeted his support for three other Republican candidates who faced primary challenges this spring. In California, Trump’s pick for governor, John Cox, easily won the GOP nomination. In two South Carolina races, Trump favorite Katie Arrington pulled off an upset victory over incumbent Rep. Mark Sanford, whom she considered to be an obstructionist to the president’s policies. In that state’s race for governor, incumbent Henry McMaster faces a runoff against businessman John Warren, who campaigned by depicting himself as more loyal to Trump.

Establishment Republicans worry Trump’s influence may have destroyed the GOP as they once knew it.

“There is no Republican Party. There’s a Trump party,” former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said last month. “The Republican Party is kinda taking a nap somewhere.” —Kyle Ziemnick

More coverage options

On Tuesday, the Trump administration finalized a rule allowing some Americans to purchase cheaper, stripped-down healthcare plans instead of what the Affordable Care Act offers.

Under the new rule, small businesses and self-employed individuals can band together to purchase healthcare as though they were a single large employer. These insurance plans would not be subject to Obamacare regulations that mandate coverage for certain benefits such as maternity and newborn care and should be far cheaper than ACA plans.

For the 56 million Americans who work for or own small businesses, the plan is a boon.

“Today is a great day for America’s franchise job creators and their employees in the fight for high quality, less expensive health coverage,” said Robert Cresanti, chief executive officer of the International Franchise Association.

But Democrats view it as healthcare sabotage.

“The Republicans’ agenda is to inflict higher costs on sick Americans just to hand tax breaks to big corporations and billionaires,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said.

Critics are concerned the plan will lure healthy young customers who don’t need extensive coverage, leaving Obamacare with high-cost patients and soaring premiums.

But Republicans said the rule would allow an estimated 4 million people to get insurance, including 400,000 who currently do not have healthcare. —Anna Johansen