PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2] · R–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1046 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1046 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1046 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1046 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would require the Bureau of Prisons to evaluate technology and develop a strategy to keep synthetic drugs and opioids out of incoming prison mail. The strategy would cover all federal correctional facilities and provide for timely digital copies, later delivery of physical mail that contains neither type of drug, and protections for confidential attorney communications. Implementation would depend on appropriations—funding provided by Congress. These are proposed requirements, not evidence of enacted law.
the Director shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a strategy to provide all Federal correctional facilities with capabilities necessary to—
(1) protect staff and inmates from exposure to synthetic drugs and opioids introduced to facilities through the mail;
(A) not later than 24 hours after a piece of mail is received at a Federal corrections facility or an appropriately contracted offsite location, each inmate receives a digital copy of any mail that is addressed to the inmate; (B) not later than 30 days after receiving a digital copy of a piece of mail under subparagraph (A), the inmate receives the original physical copy of any mail that— (i) does not contain synthetic drugs or opioids; and (ii) is addressed to the inmate;
maintains attorney client privilege as required by existing law;
subject to appropriations
2025-02-06: Introduced in House
Section 1 names the proposal the Marc Fischer Memorial Interdiction of Fentanyl in Postal Mail at Federal Prisons Act, or the Marc Fischer Memorial Act.
This Act may be cited as the Marc Fischer Memorial Interdiction of Fentanyl in Postal Mail at Federal Prisons Act or the Marc Fischer Memorial Act.
The proposed congressional findings describe inmate mail as a major route for drug smuggling and predict that moving mail processing out of federal prisons would reduce costs and staffing shortages. These are the bill's stated rationale and predictions, not independently established results.
Congress finds the following:
(2) Inmate mail is a primary entry point for smuggling drugs into correctional facilities, with tainted mail incidents also on the rise.
(10) Removing mail processing from Federal prisons and relieving Bureau of Prisons employees from mail sorting duties will result in an extensive budgetary relief to the Bureau and decrease the staffing shortages facing prisons.
The bill would use the Controlled Substances Act's referenced meaning of “opioid.” It would define “synthetic drug” through that law's category of controlled substance analogues, expressly including fentanyl analogues. The referenced definitions are not reproduced in the bundle.
(1) The term opioid has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802). (2) The term synthetic drug means a controlled substance analogue (as such term is defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), and includes any analogue of fentanyl.
Within 180 days after enactment, the Bureau's Director would have to evaluate federal prisons' acquisition and use of technology to intercept synthetic drugs, their mail-scanning services, and whether technology used by other federal agencies or state and local correctional facilities could be used by the Bureau.
(a) Evaluation Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (referred to in this Act as the Director) shall evaluate— (1) Federal correctional facilities’ acquisition and deployment of synthetic drug interdiction equipment and technology; (2) Federal correctional facilities’ use of technology services to scan mail; and (3) whether any technologies used by other Federal agencies or State and local corrections facilities to intercept and interdict contraband in the mail may be used by the Bureau of Prisons.
Within 90 days after completing the evaluation, the Director would have to submit a strategy to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. It would address protecting staff and incarcerated people from synthetic drugs and opioids in mail and achieving capacity to scan all incoming mail at all federal correctional facilities. Scanning capacity is not a guarantee of detecting every drug.
(b) Strategy Not later than 90 days after completing the evaluation under subsection (a), the Director shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a strategy to provide all Federal correctional facilities with capabilities necessary to— (1) protect staff and inmates from exposure to synthetic drugs and opioids introduced to facilities through the mail;
(4) achieve 100 percent scanning capacity of mail arriving at all Federal correction facilities.
The strategy would have to provide for each incarcerated person to receive a digital copy of addressed mail within 24 hours after it arrives at a federal correctional facility or an appropriately contracted offsite location. The original would have to arrive within 30 days after receipt of the digital copy if it contains no synthetic drugs or opioids. Both deliveries would have to be documented.
(2) ensure that— (A) not later than 24 hours after a piece of mail is received at a Federal corrections facility or an appropriately contracted offsite location, each inmate receives a digital copy of any mail that is addressed to the inmate; (B) not later than 30 days after receiving a digital copy of a piece of mail under subparagraph (A), the inmate receives the original physical copy of any mail that— (i) does not contain synthetic drugs or opioids; and (ii) is addressed to the inmate; and (C) delivery to the inmate under subparagraphs (A) and (B) is documented;
The strategy would have to include a process for legal mail that verifies the sender and preserves attorney-client privilege—the legal protection for confidential attorney-client communications—as required by existing law. This provision does not expressly exempt legal mail from scanning.
(3) ensure that a process is in place for the processing of legal mail that includes— (A) the verification of the sender; and (B) maintains attorney client privilege as required by existing law; and (4) achieve 100 percent scanning capacity of mail arriving at all Federal correction facilities.
The strategy would have to identify necessary information technology, scanning equipment, and services. Its operational assessment would address prioritizing high-security prisons and prisons with large populations, additional personnel and technology training needs, equipment maintenance, and periodic digital technology upgrades.
(c) Contents The strategy required under subsection (b) shall— (1) identify critical information technology, digital mail scanning equipment, and mail scanning services necessary to achieve the scanning capacity described in subsection (b)(4); (2) include an assessment of operational and logistical considerations, including— (A) prioritization of high security and large inmate population facilities for digital mail scanning infrastructure and security technology deployment; (B) any need for additional personnel and technology training necessary to implement the strategy; and (C) scanning equipment maintenance requirements and periodic digital technology upgrades;
The strategy would have to include an equipment and technology budget proposal for fiscal years 2025 through 2027 to support full implementation. This requirement calls for a budget proposal; it does not itself provide that funding.
(3) include an equipment and technology budgetary proposal, for fiscal years 2025 though 2027, in order to fully implement the strategy described under subsection (b).
The bill would require implementation within three years after submission of a plan, subject to appropriations. However, its deadline points to subsection (a)(2), which requires evaluating mail-scanning services rather than submitting a plan. That mismatch makes the deadline's starting event unclear.
(d) Implementation deadline Not later than 3 years after the date on which the plan is submitted under subsection (a)(2), and subject to appropriations, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall complete implementation of the submitted plan.
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (referred to in this Act as the Director) shall evaluate—
(2) Federal correctional facilities’ use of technology services to scan mail;
Starting one year after submitting the strategy, the Director would have to report annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the strategy's efficiency and the total quantity of synthetic drugs and opioids detected. The reporting requirement has no stated end date.
(e) Annual progress reports Beginning 1 year after the date on which the strategy is submitted under subsection (b), and each year thereafter, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the efficiency of the strategy and the total quantity of detected synthetic drugs and opioids.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on February 6, 2025. It does not establish what happened after those recorded actions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:35:06Z. 2025-02-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to this version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to this version; the source set cannot establish formal earmark status in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, carve-out, or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to this version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI