Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday voted against legislation that would permanently classify both fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances (FRS) as Schedule 1 drugs that carry the toughest penalties for trafficking and possession.

Republicans say the growing fentanyl problem in America means the U.S. should permanently treat those drugs as Schedule 1 substances in the hopes of boosting penalties and stopping their spread. In 2018, the Trump administration temporarily scheduled FRS as a Schedule 1 drug in light of the growing number of fentanyl-related deaths, and Congress has extended that temporary status a few times since then.

House Republicans argue that it’s time to permanently reclassify fentanyl and FRS, and they called up a bill to do so in the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee on Wednesday to stop what several Republicans called the poisoning of tens of thousands of American citizens.

The subcommittee approved the bill in a 17-10 vote in which every Democrat voted against it except for Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn. Other Democrats rejected the bill after arguing that the change should be coupled with an end to mandatory minimum sentences for FRS charges.

Specifically, Democrats said FRS cases that don’t lead to death or serious bodily harm should not carry mandatory minimum sentences, and they broadly argued that Republicans need to treat the matter more like a health crisis and less like a criminal crisis.

‘Mandatory minimums should take into account whether the cases involve overdoses or serious bodily harm,’ said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.

Another Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, said Democrats support the Biden administration’s plan to only apply mandatory minimum sentences for FRS unless an offense results in serious harm or death, and to let people sentenced to seek lower sentences if an FRS is later classified as a less-harmful drug.

‘Republicans have refused to work with us’ on those and other provisions, Pallone said.

Groups that normally support Democrats, such as the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, argued in 2021 that maintaining tough penalties related to fentanyl would ‘exacerbate pretrial detention, mass incarceration and racial disparities in the prison system, doubling down on a fear-based, enforcement-first response to a public health challenge.’

But law enforcement groups have called for tougher penalties — in 2021, the National Fraternal Order of Police called on the government to address the ‘growing illicit fentanyl overdose epidemic that has gripped this country.’

Republicans said Wednesday that the deaths of tens of thousands of people due to fentanyl mean Congress must take swift action to ensure tough penalties against fentanyl and FRS. The government attributed 106,000 fentanyl-related deaths in 2021, and Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, one of the sponsors of the bill, said fentanyl and FRS have become ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that must be policed.

‘This should not be a political issue,’ Latta said. ‘It’s about addressing the largest poisoning of Americans in the history of our country and taking steps to end the scourge.’

Republicans also rejected the idea from Democrats that tough fentanyl penalties are creating unfair sentences. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said the growing number of fentanyl deaths of Americans is ‘murder at this point,’ and Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said that making fentanyl and FRS riskier to bring into the country will both reduce the deaths and lower the number of fentanyl sentences.

‘The point is you can’t die from ingesting something that was never created, nor can you be incarcerated for selling something that doesn’t exist,’ he said.

Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., added that because there are tens of thousands of fentanyl analogues already in existence, it makes no sense for Congress to try to analyze each one and assess which ones might pose no harm to people. He also said the GOP meets one demand being made by Democrats, which is to make it easier for researchers to access FRS in order to study these drugs.

FIRST ON FOX: The Department of Homeland Security has removed just 409 unaccompanied child migrants (UAC) encountered at the southern border since the beginning of the 2021 fiscal year despite a massive surge in encounters that has seen over 345,000 UACs at the border, according to government data obtained by a conservative legal group.

America First Legal (AFL) obtained data from the administration through a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The data show that there have been 409 unaccompanied children returned since October 2020, when FY 21 began, up until the 10th week of FY 2023.

The first three months of FY 2021 took place under the Trump administration, but the majority of the returns occurred during the Biden administration — which has been in charge amid a historic migrant crisis at the southern border.

The number of UACs encountered at the border jumped from just 33,239 in FY 2020 to 146,925 in FY 2021 and 152,057 in FY 2022. So far in FY23, there have been more than 46,000 UAC encounters.

But according to the data obtained by AFL, which has repeatedly sued over a number of administration policies, there were just 151 removals in FY 2021, 220 in FY 2022 and 38 in the first ten weeks of FY 2023.

Typically, UACs who are encountered at the border are processed and transferred into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which seeks to unite the minors with parents or sponsors already in the country. There have been a number of high-profile instances of children being handed over into the hands of smugglers, who then abandon the children at the border.

Recently, the New York Times published a story on how migrant children are being forced to work in dangerous jobs across the U.S.

AFL noted that the 345,000 total population of UACs encountered in the timeframe is roughly the size of Honolulu, Hawaii, and challenged prior claims by Biden administration officials that the border is ‘not open.’

Stephen Miller, president of AFL and a former senior Trump White House official, pointed to the decision by the Biden administration to exempt minors from expulsions under the Title 42 public health order.

The Trump administration included UACs in Title 42 expulsions but was temporarily blocked toward the end of the administration by a federal judge.

‘When President Trump initiated Title 42 for UAC the smuggling of minors hit record lows. Numbers plummeted,’ Miller said. ‘Agents couldn’t remember a time so few UAC were in custody. Biden’s decision to unilaterally and categorically exempt UAC from Title 42 triggered the largest wave of child smuggling in known world history for which he is solely responsible.’

Miller said the move was aggravated by the ending of other Trump-era border policies and prosecution initiatives by the Biden administration.

‘The UAC catastrophe is arguably Biden’s single most ignominious open borders crime in a list of open borders wrongdoing almost without end and certainly without equal,’ he said.

AFL is also behind a lawsuit currently before the courts that seeks to block a humanitarian parole program announced by the Biden administration in January which allows for up to 30,000 migrants from four countries each month to enter the U.S.

Separately, the Biden administration has recently unveiled a rule automatically making migrants ineligible for asylum if they have crossed the border illegally and failed to claim asylum at a previous country through which they traveled. The proposed rule would, however, exempt unaccompanied children.

California cannot ban the importation and sale of crocodile and alligator products, a federal judge has ruled, in a victory for the state of Louisiana, which challenged the ban along with businesses in multiple states.

Federal law controls trade in those products and preempts California from barring trade in them, Chief U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento, California, wrote in a ruling dated Tuesday.

Mueller had already blocked enforcement of the law while lawsuits challenging it played out in her court. Plaintiffs included businesses based in California, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Montana and Wyoming.

The California ban had covered products made from alligators and two species of crocodile — Nile and Saltwater. All can be sold legally under international treaty and U.S. federal law.

Mueller rejected arguments that California was only seeking to regulate activity within the state. ‘California is not regulating crocodile takings with its borders,’ she wrote. ‘Nothing in the record suggests crocodiles reside in California, migrate into California or have been introduced into California.’

According to the court record, the Nile crocodile is listed as threatened and some species of saltwater crocodile are threatened or endangered.

The American alligator is no longer threatened or endangered — there are now an estimated 2.9 million in Louisiana in the wild or on farms — but it’s treated as threatened because alligator products can be difficult to tell apart from products made from endangered crocodiles.

Louisiana argued in filing the suit that the economy surrounding alligators has played a key role in bringing back the American alligator population and is an important factor in protecting wetlands and other species besides alligators that depend on the wetlands.

Louisiana said that because most of the state’s coastal habitat is privately owned, the state does not have direct control over how it is managed. But the alligator industry provides economic incentives for landowners to take steps to protect marshlands that serve as habitat for the alligators.

Conservationists noted those similarities in arguing to keep the California ban, saying that products from threatened and non-threatened species are so nearly identical that traffickers can easily disguise illegal products.

But Mueller, nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2010, said federal law and regulations spelling out how and when skins and other products from the animals can be imported, exported and sold cannot be preempted by California.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said Mueller’s ruling helps preserve the state’s successful alligator conservation efforts.

State officials have long held that careful wildlife management, together with alligator farming, have led to a recovery of the state’s alligator population from fewer than 100,000 five decades ago. The state Department of Wildlife and Fisheries estimates the value of alligators harvested in the wild or farm-raised at $245 million annually.

‘The alligator trade has directly led to the resurgence and conservation of the American alligator as well the protection and maintenance of their natural wetland habitat,’ Landry said in a news release Wednesday. ‘California’s ban would have completely disrupted the entire supply chain – not only decimating the industry and our wetland protection programs, but also removing over $100 million from Louisiana’s annual economy.’

An attorney for California did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

The Senate voted 81-14 on Wednesday to block the Washington, D.C. city council’s dramatic overhaul of its criminal code that Republicans and many Democrats complained would ease criminal penalties in a city that is already suffering from rising crime rates.

In the final vote, only 14 Democrats voted against the resolution aimed at reversing the D.C. law, which was originally the product of the House’s new Republican majority. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and most other Democrats voted to kill the D.C. crime law.

Once the resolution is signed by the president, as is expected, it will mark the first time Congress has acted to roll back DC’s own self-imposed regulations in more than 30 years, a power Congress has under the Constitution.

Republicans said Democrats, including President Biden, were forced to accept the resolution because the reality of soaring crime in the nation’s capital can’t be ignored.

‘We’re the greatest superpower nation history. This is our capital city. But local politicians have let the streets become a danger and an embarrassment,’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said before the vote on Wednesday.

The vote followed a few weeks of frustration for Biden’s allies, as the White House sent conflicting messages on the resolution.

Last month, after Biden indicated he opposed the resolution that would gut the D.C. law, just 31 House Democrats joined the Republican majority to pass it. Reports suggested that many Democrats who voted against it felt like Biden left them high and dry when he reversed course and said he would not veto it if it came to his desk.

‘The White House put out a formal statement opposing us,’ McConnell said of the White House reversal. ‘The vast majority of House Democrats voted against us, but then President Biden had an epiphany, he reversed himself. The public pressure was so great, the president now says he wants to sign the same Republican bill that he’d previously announced he opposed.’

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., told reporters after Biden’s about-face last week that he was ‘disappointed’ in the president’s decision.

‘First of all, I hope the Senate would not pass it, but I think it’s pretty clear they will. And to me, the Congress should not substitute its judgment for the elected representatives of the people in the District of Columbia. I wouldn’t want them to do that for Baltimore, I don’t want them to do that for any of our other local jurisdictions,’ Cardin said at the time.

The proposed DC law would have lowered the maximum penalties for crimes such as carjackings and robberies, while raising them for murders. Nearly all misdemeanor cases would also include the right to a jury trial.

The Senate forged ahead with the vote even after DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said he would scrap the new law and tried to withdraw it from congressional review earlier this week. Mayor Muriel Bowser opposed the bill and vetoed it – though the council overrode her veto.

The House on Wednesday rejected a resolution from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., requiring the U.S. to remove the roughly 900 service members stationed in Syria that some say are beating back terrorists that could threaten the U.S. homeland if left unchecked, but others warn have become mired in Syria’s civil war.

The resolution failed in a 103-321 vote that split both parties. Republicans opposed it in a 47-171 vote, and Democrats rejected it 56-150.

Similar to debates in past years, critics of the decision to place a small force in Syria say that force is there without any authorization from Congress. Officially, they are justified under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was used to authorize action against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, but Gaetz and others said Congress needs a more current authority to send troops abroad than one that was passed more than 20 years ago.

They also argued more plainly that the U.S. needs to stop acting as a global police force, and that it should remove itself from a civil war in Syria regardless of warnings that Syria could play a determining role in the strength of ISIS and other terrorist groups.

‘I do not believe that what stands between a caliphate and not a caliphate are the 900 Americans who have been sent to this hellscape with no definition of victory, with no clear objective and purely existing as a vestige to the regime change failed foreign policies of multiple former presidents,’ Gaetz said.

Others argued that most Americans don’t see a military presence in Syria as a priority.

‘No one in my district ever demands, ‘Marjorie, we must go to war in Syria,’’ said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

Most other lawmakers on both sides opposed the resolution and say that while they agree Congress should update the AUMF so it can better apply to the situation in Syria, it would be a mistake to quickly require U.S. troops to leave.

‘None of us want our soldiers overseas and in harm’s way any longer than is absolutely necessary,’ said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas. ‘If we withdraw our troops from Syria now, we could see a resurgence of ISIS or another legal successor in short time.’

‘This measure forces a premature end to our mission at a critical time for our efforts,’ said Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on McCaul’s committee.

These opponents argued that the 2001 AUMF does provide a valid legal justification for the presence of troops in Syria, and that both President Trump and President Obama used that authority to put troops into operation there.

Gaetz introduced his resolution last month, shortly after U.S. Central Command confirmed that four U.S. service members were injured in Syria during a joint operation with Syrian Democratic Forces to kill ISIS leader Hamza al-Homsi.

That admission prompted Gaetz to argue that only Congress has the power to declare war and that Congress has never authorized the use of U.S. troops in Syria.

Republican Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin let loose on Teamsters president Sean O’Brien during a heated Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on Wednesday as the two clashed over O’Brien’s salary compared to that of his union members.

The minutes long confrontation began with Mullin, who owns and operates a plumbing business, declaring he was ‘not against unions,’ but also pointing to the intimidation he said he and his employees received from unions when they started being awarded jobs that typically went to union workers.

‘They would show up at my house. They’d be leaning up against my trucks. I’m not afraid of a physical confrontation, in fact sometimes I look forward to it. That’s not my problem. But when you’re doing that to my employees?’ Mullin said. 

‘For what? Because we were paying higher wages? Because we had better benefits, and [weren’t] requiring them to pay your guys’ absorbent salaries?’ he added, before asking O’Brien what he made as a salary.

O’Brien began to answer, but Mullin continued, saying he made $193,000 a year in 2019 while stating the average driver makes $35,000 a year. ‘And what do you bring to the table?’ he then asked O’Brien.

‘That’s inaccurate. State facts. That’s inaccurate,’ O’Brien responded as the two began to talk over each other.

Mullin repeated his statistic on salaries and said, ‘If you don’t know your facts, then maybe you shouldn’t be in your position.’ He then restated his earlier question to O’Brien, asking what he brought to the table for his large salary.

‘What job have you created – one job – other than sucking the paycheck out of somebody else?’ he asked.

‘You’re out of line man,’ O’Brien responded as committee Chair Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., attempted to stop the back and forth and provide space for O’Brien to respond to Mullin.

The two ignored Sanders and continued talking over each other, appearing to grow increasingly frustrated, before Mullin said, ‘Sir, you need to shut your mouth because you don’t know what you’re talking about.’

‘You’re going to tell me to shut my mouth?’ O’Brien responded, before mocking Mullin’s opening statement in which he said he wasn’t ‘afraid’ of a physical altercation.

Sanders eventually quieted the two and made Mullin provide O’Brien time to speak.

O’Brien, however, continued digging at Mullin, saying, ‘As far as my salary goes – my salary, if you follow me around – I actually looked at this building. I bet you I work more hours than you do. Twice as many hours.’

‘That’s impossible,’ Mullin responded, to which O’Brien said, ‘That’s true.’

‘Sir, you don’t even know what hard work is,’ Mullin said. 

O’Brien went on to claim ‘most’ tractor trailer drivers make over $100,000 a year before the two continued sparring over each other’s salaries and taking personal digs at each other.

After the hearing, Mullin continued to slam O’Brien in a statement to Fox News Digital, also ripping Sanders for not addressing what he called O’Brien’s ‘lack of decorum’ at the hearing.

‘The behavior we saw today was typical of how union bosses, many of whom have never created a single job, use intimidation tactics to pressure employees into joining unions which some workers may deem to be against their interests,’ Mullin said. ‘I find it unacceptable that Chairman Bernie Sanders did nothing to address the lack of decorum from the witness panel.’

‘As a business owner, I’ve seen firsthand how unions have tried to intimidate employees who receive better pay and benefits than unionized workers. Union bosses conveniently ignore the fact that defending the rights of all workers means defending those who do not want to join a union. If union bosses, like those we saw today, reject common sense measures like private ballots and right-to-work, I have a major problem with that,’ he said.

‘This should be simple: American workers and their families should have the freedom to decide what to do with their hard-earned income. As the Senator from Oklahoma, a booming right-to-work state, I will always support workers’ free ability to choose for themselves whether or not to join a union,’ he added.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Teamsters for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Watch the full video of the altercation here.

House leadership from both parties is demanding answers about the ‘significant data breach’ of DC Health Link resulting in personal information like Social Security numbers of House members and their staff being sold on the ‘dark web.’ 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote to DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority Executive Director Mila Kofman Wednesday, seeking more information on the data breach of DC Health Link, a health insurance marketplace used by hundreds of congressional offices.

‘At this moment, the cause, size and scope of the data breach affecting DC Health Link could not be determined by the FBI,’ the letter states.

‘Thousands of House Members and employees from across the United States have enrolled in health insurance through DC Health Link for themselves and their families since 2014. The size and scope of impacted House customers could be extraordinary.’ 

The letter notes that the breach of data includes personal identifiable information (PII), like Social Security numbers. 

‘The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also informed us that they were able to purchase this PII, along with other enrollee information on the ‘dark web’ breached from your systems, including names of spouses, dependent children, their Social Security numbers, and home addresses,’ the letter states. 

‘This breach significantly increases the risk that Members, staff, and their families will experience identity theft, financial crimes, and physical threats — already an ongoing concern.’ 

The letter notes that, ‘fortunately, the individuals selling the information appear unaware of the high-level sensitivity of the confidential information in their possession, and its relation to the Members of Congress.

‘This will certainly change as media reports more widely publicize the breach.’ 

The House Chief Administrative Office emailed House staffers and members Wednesday informing them of the breach ‘exposing the Personal Identifiable Information (PII) of thousands of enrollees.’ 

In the email, the CAO gives information to members and staff about how to freeze their credit. 

‘We are deeply concerned about DC Health Link’s data breach and the impact on our members and staff. We will continue to communicate any updates we receive from law enforcement to impacted members and staff,’ a CAO spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

Senate staffers also received a similar memo from their ‘Senate Operations Center’ regarding a breach.

School choice legislation passed the Republican-held Arkansas State Legislature on Tuesday afternoon and will head to Gov. Sarah Sanders’ desk for her signature.

Senate Bill 294, also known as ‘Arkansas LEARNS’, passed 26-8, marking the latest win for school choice. Arkansas is the latest of the Republican-led states to follow in the footsteps of Arizona, which became the first state to pass universal education scholarship accounts to all 1.1 million of their K-12 students in 2022. 

‘A HISTORIC WIN for parents, teachers, and students that will set the education model for the nation, I’m ready to sign it into law tomorrow and end the failed status quo,’ Sanders tweeted. ‘Every kid will soon have access to a quality education and path to a good paying job and better life, right here in Arkansas.’

The Arkansas legislation will broaden school choice and includes a plan for the state to adopt universal choice by the 2025-2026 school year. The bill will gradually provide vouchers through ‘Education Freedom Accounts,’ which equal 90% of funding allocated per student to each public school district in the previous year. 

Some groups of students are eligible to receive the voucher for the 2023-2024 school year, including those who have disabilities; are homeless; have a parent who is active-duty in the military; attended an F-rated school in the previous school year; or are entering kindergarten for the first time.

‘This isn’t an us vs. them, red vs. blue, teachers vs. the legislature,’ Republican Sen. Breanne Davis said during the Senate session. ‘This is all of us working together and rooting for the success of our children.’ 

The bill also seeks to eliminate critical race theory from classrooms, will fund 120 new literacy coaches for students, and will increase the base salary for teachers from $36,000 to $50,000 — the fourth-highest for teachers in the U.S.

Arkansas LEARNS also bans instruction on topics about sexually explicit materials, sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse, gender identity and sexual orientation in classrooms before fifth grade. The legislation also requires students to complete 75 community service hours in order to receive their diploma.

The bill now heads to the governor’s desk to be signed into law. 

To hear more about school choice, click here. 

A Missouri law banning local police from enforcing federal gun laws is unconstitutional and void, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled the 2021 law is preempted by the federal government under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

‘At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations, and at worst, is unconstitutional on its face,’ Wimes wrote.

Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey in a statement said he will appeal the ruling.

‘As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution, which includes defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms,’ Bailey said. ‘We are prepared to defend this statute to the highest court, and we anticipate a better result at the Eighth Circuit.’

The Missouri law had subjected law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforced federal gun laws without equivalent state laws to a fine of $50,000 per violating officer.

Federal laws without similar Missouri laws include statutes covering weapons registration and tracking, and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders.

Conflict over Missouri’s law wrecked a crime-fighting partnership with U.S. attorneys that Missouri’s former Republican attorney general, now-Sen. Eric Schmitt, touted for years. Under Schmitt’s Safer Streets Initiative, attorneys from his office were deputized as assistant U.S. attorneys to help prosecute violent crimes.

The Justice Department, which last year sued to overturn the Missouri law, said the Missouri state crime lab, operated by the Highway Patrol, refused to process evidence that would help federal firearms prosecutions after the law took effect.

The Missouri Information and Analysis Center, also under the Highway Patrol, stopped cooperating with federal agencies investigating federal firearms offenses. And the Highway Patrol, along with many other agencies, suspended joint efforts to enforce federal firearms laws.

Wimes said police can now work with federal partners without worrying about breaking the voided law.

‘State and local law enforcement officials in Missouri may lawfully participate in joint federal task forces, assist in the investigation and enforcement of federal firearm crimes, and fully share information with the Federal Government without fear of H.B. 85’s penalties,’ the judge wrote.

Republican lawmakers who helped pass the bill said they were motivated by the potential for new gun restrictions under Democratic President Joe Biden, who signed the most sweeping gun violence bill in decades last year.

The federal legislation toughened background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keeps firearms from more domestic violence offenders and helps states put in place red flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people adjudged to be dangerous.

Republicans in the House of Representatives are set to advance legislation that would ban biological males from competing in women’s sports for the first time.

The House Education and Workforce Committee, headed by Chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., is expected to review a set of bills that would address growing concerns over biological males choosing to compete against women, as well as protect parental rights, during a Wednesday markup.

The bills include the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023 and the Parents Bill of Rights Act, both of which have become priority pieces of legislation under the new Republican majority headed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

‘Democrats and the Left are promoting dangerous gender politics that allow biological males to compete against female athletes and deprive them of opportunities to excel,’ Foxx said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘I remember when Title IX was passed—women did not have the same opportunities to pursue athletic excellence or scholarships as men did, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recognized this as deeply unfair.’

‘Evidently, the fight for fairness is not over. H.R. 734 is an important step in defending opportunities for women across the country,’ she added.

Over a dozen states have taken up their own bills to address the issue of parental rights and men competing in women’s sports, including the highly touted ones signed into law by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Fox News’ Brian Flood contributed to this report.