[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4602-S4606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SAFETY AND INNOVATION ACT--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending
business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 3187, an Act
to amend the Federal Food and Drug and Cosmetic Act to revise
and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and
medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic
drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
bill.
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
bill, with Reid amendment No. 2461, to change the enactment
date.
Reid amendment No. 2462 (to amendment No. 2461), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
with instructions.
Reid amendment No. 2463, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2464 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 2463), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2465 (to amendment No. 2464), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
following hour will be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first
half and the majority controlling the final half.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Putting America to Work
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we have had a lot of news in Washington,
DC, and across the country over the last few days. There was a decision
from the Supreme Court regarding immigration laws in Arizona. We are
expecting and anticipating a decision by the Supreme Court later this
week regarding the Affordable Care Act. Front and center are issues
that are important to the country.
We were successful last week in approving on the Senate floor a so-
called farm bill, an agricultural bill that, again, has an impact upon
many in our Nation. I want to make certain we don't lose sight of what
remains and, in my view, what should be front and center.
All the things people ask government to do and all the things they
want to accomplish in their own lives can only occur if there is a good
and growing economy in the United States. So while I certainly would
not call any of the other issues we are addressing here a distraction--
they are all important--I want to make certain my colleagues understand
we have to come together to make certain that Americans, individuals
across our country, can access a job, can feel secure in the job they
already have, and can have a sense that they have a future where they
are employed or that if there is a need for a change in job, that
opportunity exists. Job creation is something the Federal Government
cannot do in and of itself, but the decisions we make here affect very
much whether the private sector can have a level of confidence in the
general economy, a regulatory environment, and a Tax Code that is
conducive toward the private sector, creating jobs in the United States
economy.
This matters, certainly from my point of view as a Member of the
Senate, in that with job growth, with a growing economy, we are better
able to pay down our national debt. In my view, if we are going to get
what I consider the most serious circumstance our country faces today--
the deficit and the debt--under control, I don't foresee how that
happens without a good growing economy, putting Americans to work.
Of course, from an individual's point of view, it is important as a
component of our lives--something that is important to us, which is
that we figure out how to earn a living, put food on the table, save
for our kids' education, and save for retirement.
The issues being addressed in the Senate, across the country, and
across the street at the U.S. Supreme Court matter so much. We must not
and cannot lose sight of the fact that we have to create an environment
where jobs are front and center. We know the economic statistics--the
unemployment rate is 8.2 percent and has been above 8 percent now for a
long time. The Presiding Officer in the Senate this morning and I have
introduced legislation the primary function of which is to create an
entrepreneurial environment where startup companies can grow and
prosper, and, in the process, they can put people to work. It is growth
that we need to continue to focus on. I appreciate the opportunity of
working in that manner with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, and
others, to see that we do that.
The topic I want to specifically address this morning is this. I was
reading the Wall Street Journal last week, and this article caught my
attention. I am of the view that for economic growth to occur--and
especially in communities across Kansas, the State I represent--we are
going to have to have strong and viable community banks. There is a
regulatory environment that makes that much more difficult. The
headline of the article the Wall Street Journal included that I want to
speak about--at least briefly--this morning is this: ``Small Banks Put
Up `For Sale' Sign.''
The content of the article is very much about how small banks are now
selling to other banks. The primary focus of this article is the reason
that is happening--``a growing number of tiny community banks are
deciding it's time to put out the `for sale' sign . . . many executives
of these small lenders are frustrated by costly new regulations.''
It talks about banks in Iowa, in Ohio, in Texas, and it talks about a
number of banks in which the bank or the individuals who own the bank
never had an intention of selling. This was their livelihood and what
they expected to pass on to the next generation, the next set of
stockholders. Because of the regulatory environment, the article quotes
them talking about how it is no longer any fun. A 66-year-old CEO is
quoted as saying:
I don't run a bank anymore. I run around trying to react to
regulation and, frankly, that's no fun. This is certainly
important for the people who own and run a bank, but it
matters in communities in my State that there is access to a
local lender, a relatively small financial institution that
knows its customers, and that the farmer, rancher, and small
business person have the opportunity
[[Page S4603]]
to develop a personal relationship with the individuals from
whom they are borrowing money.
I know from my own circumstances of growing up and living in rural
Kansas the likelihood of being able to get a loan from the community
bank, the banker you know, who knows you, your ability, your
creditworthiness, and your trustworthiness, is a pretty special
relationship we have to be very careful we don't lose. If you are
trying to borrow money from somebody you don't know, it is a different
circumstance.
I want to highlight again this regulatory environment not just for
banks but for all businesses in which the decisions are being made that
they are not expanding--in this case, they are selling. The reality is
that has consequences to every American and every American family. Job
creation is going to be improved whenever we have a regulatory
environment that encourages economic growth, not discourages it, and a
regulatory environment that is certain. So much, particularly in the
financial services industry, with banks and other financial lenders,
the uncertainty exists in large part because of the passage of Dodd-
Frank, and now its implementation, the uncertainty of whether more
regulations are coming and what they are going to say and do, and they
certainly can drive up the costs.
We certainly want to protect consumers, and we operate, in many
instances, in a regulated environment. But these regulations need
common sense and need to take into account the specific circumstances
particularly of a small bank. My small banks in Kansas had virtually
nothing to do with the financial debacle of 2008. Yet they are burdened
with the responsibility of complying with a huge new set of regulations
that resulted from the efforts to address the financial crisis of 2008.
In fact, this article, again, points this out regarding the board
meeting at this small bank:
The binder of information delivered to the bank's board
before the last monthly meeting included 419 pages of
information to be reviewed.
Banks more and more are having to put people on the payroll--
compliance officers--as compared to those kinds of circumstances in
which the bank is making loans. The cost of doing business and the cost
of credit increases, and access to credit has diminished, and that is
diminishing the chance for job creation.
One of the items under Dodd-Frank was the creation of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. This hit me while I was visiting one of my
banks in Kansas. They told me the CFPB called and said they were
sending 12 examiners and lawyers to come spend more than a month in
this small bank, examining the bank. Again, these are banks that had
little to do with the financial collapse of 2008. Almost without
exception our community banks--certainly in Kansas--didn't make loans
to people who were unlikely to repay the loans, and they didn't make
loans to people who had no ability to repay the loans or without
getting proper documentation and seeking the necessary creditworthiness
of that borrower before making that decision. Yet the burden of these
regulations falls directly upon them.
And while I guess I am speaking in support of trying to change this
for the benefit of the bankers, who this is going to benefit, if we
were to change the regulatory environment, is the person who wants to
borrow money, who wants a buy an automobile or buy a home or who wants
to buy a piece of commercial property. Yet they go to the banks in
communities across Kansas and are told that because of the new
regulatory environment, this is a loan we cannot make.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has 12 examiners and
2 lawyers, is soon to visit a small bank in Kansas and intends to be
there for more than a month. The regulations the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau--well, they haven't created their regulations yet.
They are auditing a bank before their regulations are in place. My
reaction, when the banker told me that, was I need to go back to
Washington and see if I can do something, perhaps through the
appropriations process. I am the ranking Republican member on the
Appropriations subcommittee for financial institutions and financial
services. I thought we need to rein in the CFPB through the
appropriations process to get them kind of within their sphere of where
they belong, in a much more commonsense, less intrusive way.
It occurred to me that I don't have that ability. I can be a member
of the Appropriations Committee and a Member of the Senate, and I can
be the lead Republican on the subcommittee responsible for financial
services, but because of the way the CFPB was created, its money is an
automatic draft from the Federal Reserve. We, as Members of the Senate
and Congress in general, have no input into the level of funding of an
agency that will have a dramatic effect upon the financial institutions
of this country and, therefore, the individuals, the consumers those
financial institutions serve.
In addition to that, there is only one person who administrates the
program, who is the administrator of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. Unlike the CFTC and the SEC, where there is a commission and a
board in which there is a collective decision made, there is only an
administrator. I have introduced legislation and we have had this
conversation on the floor before. I encourage my colleagues to look at
this legislation that would reformulate the way the CFPB is managed and
directed and would once again give Congress the opportunity to have
input into how the CFPB functions.
I would never try to explain to Americans or to Kansans how great
Congress does its job, but I do know the fact we are subject to
election--the will of the people of America--every 6 years gives us the
opportunity to have the input of the people into the administration and
into the regulatory process that is so burdensome now upon so many
businesses, including our financial institutions.
So my effort today is to highlight once again what we do in
Washington, DC, and in this case particularly what the administration
does today--what the Obama administration does today and what
administrations have done in the past in regard to regulations--very
much has a consequence upon whether Americans are going to live in a
country with a growing economy in which there is a sense of security
and people know what to expect or whether they are going to live in a
country in which a business owner--a small business man or woman in
Kansas or across the country--is holding back from hiring employees
because they do not know what next is going to come from their own
government in regard to regulations which are costly, drive up the cost
of being in business, and reduce the chances of expansion in our
economy, which reduce the chances that Americans can have good, solid
employment opportunities.
I have two daughters graduating from college--one a couple of years
ago and one this year--and the job market certainly is important to me
as a parent and the ability for a young American to find a job and to
pursue that job so they are able to pay back the cost of their
education. That is something we need to seriously take into account.
While I assume we are going to have a conversation again in the Senate
this week on the cost of borrowing money for students and student loan
interest rates, we ought not forget the most important thing we can do
to help our students once they graduate, which is to make sure the
economy is such that employment opportunities are available. It doesn't
matter what the interest rate is if they can't find a job.
So we need to make certain we fulfill our responsibilities to the
American people to see that the economy and job creation is front and
center for the benefit of every American and for the benefit of our
country's deficit. It is so important we create a growing economy.
I, again, would highlight how important it is for us to get the
regulations under control and particularly criticize the circumstance
in which legislation that does not pass Congress somehow takes effect
because the executive branch concludes they can do by Executive order
or by rule or regulation what we refuse to do. It is time for Congress
to reassert its role, and it is time to make certain that in pursuing
that role we create an environment in which jobs are front and center
and the
[[Page S4604]]
American people can all pursue the American dream.
Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate
today, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Immigration
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I didn't hear all the remarks of my colleague
from Kansas, but I think what I have to say will follow on directly.
I saw a prominent news magazine, the cover of which had a likeness of
President Obama, and the title was ``The Imperial Presidency'' or ``The
Imperial President,'' and the theme of it was this President seems to
believe that by Executive order or Executive action he can simply do
what he wants to do irrespective of whether the Congress has passed a
law authorizing it or has in some other way directed the President to
carry out a particular policy.
When the President takes his oath of office to see that the laws of
the country are faithfully executed, that is a requirement of his job.
Our three-branch government has the legislative branch and the
President jointly deciding what the law is to be, when Congress passes
the law and the President signs it into law. It then has the President
required to execute those laws.
Now, he doesn't do it personally, of course. He does it with the
Department of Justice. If it is something related to our national
parks, then it would be the Department of the Interior, and so on. But
the Department of Justice has a big role to play in this, as does the
Department of Homeland Security in respect to immigration laws because
the Department of Homeland Security has now taken over all of the
immigration functions, and that relates to customs, to issuing visas
and, of course, enforcing the laws against illegal immigration as well.
So it is not up to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security or the Attorney General or the President to decide whether to
enforce a law of the country. That is their responsibility. Then the
Supreme Court resolves differences about the meanings of the statutes,
their application, and whether they are constitutional.
Earlier this week--yesterday--the Supreme Court determined the
constitutionality of a law the State of Arizona had passed to deal with
the problem of illegal immigration in my State of Arizona. It is a
serious problem there. About half of all the people who cross the
border do so in the Tucson sector, and the results of that on Arizona
have been devastating over the years: the damage to the environment,
creating forest fires; the problem of the people who try to cross the
border in the summer and end up dying in the desert because of its very
harsh environment; the people who are brought across the border by
unscrupulous coyotes, they are called--the smugglers--who then badly
mistreat them, hold them hostage from their families, perhaps in Mexico
or Central America and brutally mistreat them in many cases; the
problems of crime that law enforcement has to deal with, the
hospitalization and medical treatment they are required to receive
under the law. All of these things have had a dramatic negative impact
on my State.
As a result, the State legislature said: To the extent the Federal
Government is not enforcing the law in our State, we will try to help
fill that gap in cooperation and coordination with the Federal
Government. So they passed S.B. 1070. A key feature of that, which was
the cooperation between law enforcement, was upheld by the Supreme
Court. But what has been the Obama administration's reaction to that?
The Obama administration has reacted by saying: Well, we don't like
your ruling and, therefore, we are simply not going to cooperate with
the State of Arizona as we have been in the past or any other State
that has laws like Arizona, even if you, the Supreme Court, say it is
constitutional.
The petulance and the arrogance of this are something the American
people have to judge, but from a law enforcement perspective, to me,
this suggests the administration is creating some very serious
problems. It was one thing for the administration to say, as they did
last week, as to the 800,000 or 900,000 students primarily who came
here because their parents brought them here illegally, we are going to
find a way, in effect, to suspend their deportation so they can go to
school or work here; we are just not going to apply the law to them.
But it is quite another for it to say: By the way, we are going to
treat all the other illegal immigrants here the same way--the 10
million to 12 million people who have been in the United States for a
while, those who crossed the border some time ago.
In effect, that is what the administration has said. Even if local
law enforcement, such as the Phoenix Police Department, has the right
to stop someone they see weaving down the road in the manner of a drunk
driver, and they stop that individual and determine they are driving
while intoxicated and then ask to see their driver's license; and if
the individual cannot produce an Arizona driver's license--which is
already a violation of Arizona law today--but if, for example, the
individual says: Here is my Matricula card from the Mexican Embassy,
that may be reason for the officer to believe that individual is not
here legally.
So in addition to driving while intoxicated and not having a valid
Arizona driver's license, the police officer, who now has reason to
believe that individual may not be an American citizen, ordinarily then
would take that individual's name, call it in to a Federal database--I
think it is up in Vermont or New Hampshire--and there is verification
that either the individual is or is not in the United States legally.
If the person is not here legally and hasn't been convicted or accused
of a major crime, they are turned over to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, ICE, which is the part of Homeland Security that is
supposed to take these illegal immigrants and decide what to do with
them. In most cases, they are simply removed from the United States or
deported.
But now the administration is saying we are not going to do that
anymore. We don't even want to know whether the individual is an
illegal immigrant. We are not going to check, and we are not going to
allow you access to the database to check. Up to now, the Phoenix
Police Department or the Maricopa County or Cochise County Sheriff
could call up the database and say: We have the name of an individual;
is this person legal.
The administration is now saying it is not even going to allow
Arizona to check. So, Mr. President, this is a condition which cannot
be allowed to stand. Where the administration is not enforcing the
laws, the Congress is going to have to take what action we need to take
to ensure the President enforces the laws, as he is sworn to do.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Answering Allegations
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to answer allegations made by
the Washington Post in a front-page story in yesterday's edition. Here
is the story: ``High-level Talks, then Changes to Holdings.''
First, I want to say I have great respect for the Washington Post. In
many ways, the Post is a national treasure. But even great newspapers
make mistakes, and in yesterday's story they made assumptions that are
simply wrong.
The story said my wife and I shifted savings in her retirement
accounts from mutual funds to lower risk money market accounts on
August 14, 2007. That is true. They showed we made those changes a day
after a call from Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to me. That is also
true. But their suggestion the two are related is absolutely false.
They have made the same error in logic we studied in college. The
case and faulty logic involved an observer who noted people were
fainting and street pavement was melting. That led the observer to
conclude that melting pavement caused people to faint. Of course, that
was wrong. It was 106 degrees outside. The proper conclusion was that
heat was causing the pavement to melt and people to faint. That error
in logic was about causality, and that is precisely the error the
Washington Post made in their story with respect to me.
What the Washington Post missed in their graphic--and to be fair to
them, they largely had the correct context in the story. If you read
the whole story, it was fairly balanced. What was not
[[Page S4605]]
balanced was the graphics that accompanied that story.
Let me show the graphic. This is from the Washington Post of
yesterday.
Here is a picture of me. Quite a nice picture. I appreciate that. It
says:
Senator Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
was in contact with Paulson about the Nation's economy during
the crisis.
That is true. They then show a timeline with only two points on the
timeline. They show that on August 13 Secretary Paulson called me at
4:30, and they show the next day, August 14, that my wife and I shifted
from her retirement accounts money from mutual funds to lower risk
money market funds. That is true.
What they have not shown on the timeline is what was happening in the
previous days. So let's go back to the Friday before. Here is what
happened on the Friday before.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 200 points within minutes of
the opening bell and closed the day down nearly 400 points. That is not
on the timeline of the Washington Post. If they were going to be fair--
and I don't begrudge them writing the story. I think if I were the
editor I would certainly have written the story too. It certainly has
appeal. Here are Members of Congress talking to people in influential
positions and then changing their holdings. But to be fair, they have
to provide the context within which those decisions were made.
The context within which my wife and I made our decisions were pretty
clear. The Friday before, the market dropped nearly 400 points.
What the Washington Post also didn't put in their timeline is their
headline on that Friday. ``Credit Crunch in U.S. Upends Global
Markets.'' In that story the Friday before, they showed in the weeks
leading up to our decision to diversify our investments in my wife's
retirement account the market had dropped in 2 days more than 500
points, leading up then to the Friday where the markets dropped almost
400 points.
The Washington Post in their story also didn't put on the timeline
what the headlines were in their own paper on the weekend leading up to
our decision to make these changes.
This is just one of the headlines: ``Looking for Footing on Shaky
Ground,'' talking about the turmoil we saw globally. The truth is that
what made my wife and me decide over the weekend to shift some of her
retirement accounts from mutual funds to less risky money market
accounts was what was happening in the markets themselves. That is what
led us to make these decisions.
The Paulson call was not about markets. Notes from my staff indicate
Secretary Paulson was calling a number of members about the importance
of raising the debt ceiling. The Secretary of Treasury was not calling
me to give me stock market tips. He wasn't talking to me about the
stock market. He was talking to me about the need for a debt limit
increase.
I wish to say clearly and unequivocally, to my friends at the
Washington Post and anybody who read the story, the call from Secretary
Paulson had nothing--nothing--do with my wife's and my decision over
the weekend to shift some of her assets into less risky money market
accounts. Those decisions had everything to do with what was happening
in the marketplace itself, which was widely reported, even on the pages
of the Washington Post. What was happening in the markets was readily
available to every investor. We were not shifting my wife's retirement
accounts based on some secret inside information.
The Washington Post headline: ``Credit Crunch in U.S. Upends Global
Markets.'' The stock market in 2 days, and the weeks leading up,
dropped 500 points. On the Friday before the decisions we made over the
weekend, the market dropped almost 400 points in 1 day. The Washington
Post had a big story showing the Dow Jones industrial average dropped
200 points within minutes of opening and dropped almost 400 points for
the day. Why didn't they put that in the timeline if they wanted to be
fair? I didn't ask them not to run the story. I asked them to put in
the context within which the decisions were made. Be fair.
The fact is there is nothing Mr. Paulson could have said to me about
market risk that would have been more persuasive than the drop of
almost 400 points in the market the previous Friday. That, along with
the 500-point drop that had occurred several weeks before, provided all
the motivation my wife and I needed to make a decision to move some of
her retirement assets to lower risked investments.
To the Washington Post: I respect you. I have had a very good
relationship with you for a long period of time. But your story was
unfair to my family, it was unfair to me, and fundamentally it was
unfair to your readers because the graphics you supplied with the story
failed to provide a full or fair timeline and the full context that led
to our decision. In fairness, if you read the whole story, much of the
context is there. But the graphics--which, of course, is what most
people are drawn to--have none of the context and don't have a timeline
that in any way is fair.
Finally, I just wish to say, I am retiring. This is not going to
affect me for the future. But the notion that Members of Congress
should just stick with whatever investment decisions they made when
they began investing or be accused of trading on insider information
is, to me, absurd. Our trades should be public knowledge, and they are.
How did the Washington Post know about these trades? Because my wife
and I reported each and every one of them in our financial disclosure.
So trades of Members should be public--absolutely--and they are. The
Washington Post and others should monitor for evidence of insider
trading, and they do. But they should also provide context to their
readers so they can fairly judge if any of us have taken action with
our investments that are dishonorable. I have not, and that is the
truth.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
Prescription Drug Epidemic
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, since we first began consideration of the
FDA bill, I have stood on this floor again and again to highlight the
importance of an amendment I offered to this legislation that is very
significant to my fellow West Virginians and all Americans.
This amendment would put tighter control on drugs containing a
substance known as hydrocodone, a highly addictive prescription
painkiller that is destroying communities across this country and
leaving families devastated by abuse and addiction.
It was a proud moment for me when the Senate came together across
party lines on May 23 and unanimously adopted my amendment to
reclassify hydrocodone as a schedule II substance from a schedule III.
In practical terms, this means those who are using hydrocodone for
illegitimate reasons would have a harder time getting their hands on
it.
I cannot tell you how much this amendment means to the people of West
Virginia and to every law enforcement group fighting the war on drugs
across this Nation who believe very strongly that access to hydrocodone
would give them a powerful tool in combating prescription drug abuse.
So it pains me to stand here following last night's vote to move
forward with the passage of the FDA bill, which did not contain this
important amendment. That is because the influence of special interest
groups suppressed the voices of the people--not just in the State of
West Virginia but in Delaware and all across the country--who are
begging us to do something about the prescription drug abuse epidemic.
According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy,
prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug problem in the
United States, and it is claiming the lives of thousands of Americans
every year. Prescription drugs are responsible for about 75 percent of
all drug-related deaths in the United States and 90 percent in West
Virginia. These narcotic painkillers claim the lives of more Americans
than heroin and cocaine combined.
But the groups opposed to my amendment have a huge financial stake in
keeping these pills as accessible as possible, and I understand that.
That is why my amendment was stripped from the FDA bill we advanced
last night.
High-powered and well-funded lobbyists may have gotten their victory
this time around, but I can assure you I will
[[Page S4606]]
not give up this fight. On a daily basis, I am hearing from my
constituents in West Virginia and all around this country who are
counting on us to do something about the prescription drug epidemic
ravaging their communities.
Since I offered this amendment, I have heard from so many West
Virginians who have seen a ray of hope because we might be able to do
something about this problem. I will not pretend it will solve it
completely, but it is sure a good step in the right direction. So I am
coming to the floor to share the stories of the people of West
Virginia, in the hopes of bringing people together around a solution to
this terrible problem.
This is from Sheila from Charleston, who sent me this letter in
support of my amendment after losing a close family member:
Please continue to fight the drug companies and pharmacies
regarding this issue. Our family in the last two months lost
a beloved family member to prescription drug overdose. He was
a promising young man that lost his life because of addiction
to pain medication.
Our family continues to be devastated, wondering how did
this happen. He came from a highly-educated family that was
involved in his treatment and cared deeply for him. His
family spent $100,000+ in his recovery, but it was all too
easy for him to obtain legal prescriptions.
What truly makes it more painful is he was showing signs of
overcoming his five-year battle.
We are not blaming anyone but the system. We know we are
each responsible for our own actions. I have thought for
years that our health care system is far behind in technology
and record keeping for doctor shopping and prescription
dispensing. Please understand I am very much opposed to more
government in our personal lives, however this is much needed
in the medical arena.
Please continue to fight this enormous battle for us.
That letter could have come from our constituents or any
Congressman's home district from anywhere in this great country. The
fact is I don't know of a person--whether it be in the Senate, our
colleagues in Congress or anywhere in America--who hasn't been affected
by the abuse of legal prescription drugs used in the wrong way. It
touches everyone's life. It is of epidemic proportion.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. I understand that
limiting access to illegitimate uses of hydrocodone pills doesn't
necessarily fit into the model of selling more product, but there are
times when even the best business plan can be altered while staying
successful. Certainly, one of those times is when the health of our
country and the public good is at stake.
In fact, the Huntington Herald Dispatch, the second largest newspaper
in my State, located right on the border between West Virginia and
Ohio, describes why this amendment is so important.
Congress is missing out on an opportunity to close the
spigot at least partway on the large volumes of commonly
abused prescription drugs that flood the country and harm so
many Americans.
In 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, a study
showed there were 28,310 recorded instances of toxic exposures from
hydrocodone. The same study showed that 24 million individuals have
admitted to abusing hydrocodone drugs for nonmedical purposes--
unbelievable.
A different study, put out by the Centers for Disease Control in
November, showed that more than 40 people die every day from overdoses
involving narcotic pain relievers such as hydrocodone. Isn't it worth
doing something to get the pills out of the wrong hands?
My amendment may not have gone into this bill yesterday, but it is
not going to go away--I think we all know that--and I am determined to
see this through to the end.
While the people of West Virginia, Delaware, and elsewhere are
disappointed in the outcome of the hydrocodone amendment, I do wish to
highlight one measure that was included in the legislation that we are
proud of and is important to me and everybody in this body. It would
make the sale and distribution of synthetic marijuana and other
synthetic substances, known as bath salts, illegal by placing them on
the list of schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled
Substances Act. These drugs are also taking a terrible toll on all our
States, and I was proud to cosponsor this provision with my friend
Senator Schumer. I want to thank Senator Schumer for his leadership in
getting this passed.
Finally, I wish to close with one more story from my home State of
West Virginia as a way to remind everyone what I am fighting for and
why. This letter comes from Rebecca, a woman who started a group called
Mothers Against Prescription Drug Abuse as a way to deal with the
terrible realities that have accompanied her son's 5-year battle with
prescription drug abuse:
Jamie was a great kid growing up. He played basketball,
football, and baseball. When he was 14 years old his team won
the state tournament and went all the way to Wisconsin to
play in Regionals. Jamie was always helping others and had
such a kind heart. . .
When Jamie got out of school he married his high school
sweetheart and was employed in the mines.
After that he just went downhill. He began abusing
prescription drugs. For two years I tried everything to get
help for him and tried to get him to stop. Things only got
worse. He lost his wife, his home, his truck and then his
freedom.
My story is typical to so many families out there who are
struggling with loved ones that are addicted. They just want
someone to listen. They need to be able to reach out to
someone who understands the nightmare that they go through
daily, and know that they are not alone. The addict is not
the only one who suffers. The family members carry around
guilt, sadness, shame, anger, hopelessness, fear, anxiety,
etc. . . . I could go on and on about how bad this experience
has been for me and how it has not stopped.
I will continue to fight prescription drug abuse for as
long as I have a breath in my body. I will not give up on my
son or anyone else who is addicted. Things need to change
within our system. We cannot continue to allow just anyone to
have access to prescription pain medicine. Parents need to be
educated while their children are still at home. Communities
need to be aware of crimes (drug dealers) and report them.
Doctors need to stop prescribing pain pills to people on the
street, and they need to be held accountable.
What happened to our medical ethics when people who need
pain medicine for a while are given strong addictive pain
medicine, only to have to keep coming back to the doctor over
and over again for refills? Is it greed that is behind the
beginning of this growing epidemic? Doctors definitely profit
from the addict's return visits, as well as the
pharmaceutical companies that make the medicine. We know
there is a problem but what are people going to do about it?
I am doing what I can, but is it enough? Will you help?
For Rebecca and all the other mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers
out there who are pleading for help, we owe it to them to get this
amendment agreed to.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of FLORIDA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________