[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 73 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2181-H2184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OPIOID PROGRAM EVALUATION ACT
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5052) to direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to evaluate the effectiveness of grant
programs that provide grants for the primary purpose of providing
assistance in addressing problems pertaining to opioid abuse, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5052
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Opioid Program Evaluation
Act'' or the ``OPEN Act''.
SEC. 2. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PROGRAM.
(a) Evaluation of Justice Department Comprehensive Opioid
Abuse Grant Program.--Not later than 5 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall complete
an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Comprehensive
Opioid Abuse Grant Program under part LL of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 administered by the
Department of Justice based upon the information reported
under subsection (d) of this section.
(b) Interim Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
complete an interim evaluation assessing the nature and
extent of the incidence of opioid abuse and illegal opioid
distribution in the United States.
(c) Metrics and Outcomes for Evaluation.--Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General shall identify outcomes that are to be
achieved by activities funded by the Comprehensive Opioid
Grant Abuse Program and the metrics by which the achievement
of such outcomes shall be determined.
(d) Metrics Data Collection.--The Attorney General shall
require grantees under the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant
Program (and those receiving subawards under section 3021(b)
of part LL of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968) to collect and annually report to the Department of
Justice data based upon the metrics identified under
subsection (c).
(e) Publication of Data and Findings.--
(1) Publication of outcomes and metrics.--The Attorney
General shall, not later than 30 days after completion of the
requirement under subsection (c), publish the outcomes and
metrics identified under that subsection.
(2) Publication of evaluation.--In the case of the interim
evaluation under subsection (b), and the final evaluation
under subsection (a), the National Academy of Sciences shall,
not later than 90 days after such an evaluation is completed,
publish the results of such evaluation and issue a report on
such evaluation to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate. Such report shall also be published along with
the data used to make such evaluation.
(f) Arrangement With the National Academy of Sciences.--For
purposes of subsections (a), (b), and (c), the Attorney
General shall enter into an arrangement with the National
Academy of Sciences.
SEC. 3. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM.
(a) Evaluation of Department of Health and Human Services
Programs.--Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment
of this Act, except as otherwise provided in this section,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall complete an
evaluation of any program administered by the Secretary that
provides grants for the primary purpose of providing
assistance in addressing problems pertaining to opioid abuse
based upon the information reported under subsection (d) of
this section.
(b) Interim Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete
an interim evaluation assessing the nature and extent of the
incidence of opioid abuse and illegal opioid distribution in
the United States.
(c) Metrics and Outcomes for Evaluation.--Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall identify outcomes that are to be achieved by
activities funded by the programs described
[[Page H2182]]
in subsection (a) and the metrics by which the achievement of
such outcomes shall be determined.
(d) Metrics Data Collection.--The Secretary shall require
grantees under the programs described in subsection (a) to
collect and annually report to the Department of Health and
Human Services data based upon the metrics identified under
subsection (c).
(e) Publication of Data and Findings.--
(1) Publication of outcomes and metrics.--The Secretary
shall, not later than 30 days after completion of the
requirement under subsection (c), publish the outcomes and
metrics identified under that subsection.
(2) Publication of evaluation.--In the case of the interim
evaluation under subsection (b), and each final evaluation
under subsection (a), the National Academy of Sciences shall,
not later than 90 days after such an evaluation is completed,
publish the results of such evaluation and issue a report on
such evaluation to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate. Such report
shall also be published along with the data used to make such
evaluation.
(f) Arrangement With the National Academy of Sciences.--For
purposes of subsections (a), (b), and (c), the Secretary
shall--
(1) enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of
Sciences; or
(2) enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with an
entity that is not an agency of the Federal Government.
(g) Exception.--If a program described under subsection (a)
is subject to an evaluation substantially similar to the
evaluation under subsection (a) pursuant to another provision
of law, the Secretary may opt not to conduct an evaluation
under subsection (a) of such program.
SEC. 4. DEFINITION.
In this Act, the term ``opioid'' has the meaning given the
term ``opiate'' in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.
No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act.
SEC. 6. MATTERS REGARDING CERTAIN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
ASSISTANCE.
Section 609Y of the Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (42
U.S.C. 10513) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``There is'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (c), there is'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) For fiscal year 2022, there is authorized to be
appropriated $16,000,000, to provide under this chapter
Federal law enforcement assistance in the form of funds.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5052, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 5052, the Opioid Program Evaluation Act, or OPEN Act, is a bill
that would require an evaluation of the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse
Reduction Grant Program that will be authorized by H.R. 5046, and other
opioid-related grant programs administered by the Department of Health
and Human Services.
This bipartisan bill, sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy), the majority leader, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the minority whip, requires the Attorney General, through an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences and the Secretary of
HHS, through an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences, or
other entity, to:
Identify outcomes that are to be achieved by the activities funded by
Congress to address opioid abuse;
Develop the metrics by which each program's performance will be
evaluated;
Complete an interim evaluation assessing the nature and extent of
opioid abuse and illegal opioid distribution in the United States;
And carry out an evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs.
Additionally, to increase transparency and facilitate the evaluation
of the performance of the programs, the bill requires grantees to
collect and annually report data on the activities conducted pursuant
to these programs.
Evaluations such as these can be Congress' best measure of how well a
Federal program or agency is operating. At their conclusion, we hope to
learn, for example, whether a substantial number of criminal justice
agency personnel have received training on substance abuse disorders
and co-occurring mental illness and adapted their procedures
accordingly.
We also hope to learn the extent to which offenders offered a
treatment alternative to incarceration have benefited from a response
that integrates substance abuse services into the traditional criminal
justice system.
I agree with the bill's sponsors that Congress must demand greater
achievement and increased transparency and accountability with respect
to our Federal grant programs. Therefore, I thank the bill's sponsors
for the contribution this bill makes to the effort to address opioid
abuse, as well as to our congressional oversight efforts.
I urge support of this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing to notify you that
the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action on
H.R. 5052, a bill to direct the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to evaluate the
effectiveness of grant programs that provide grants for the
primary purpose of providing assistance in addressing
problems pertaining to opioid abuse, and for other purposes,
so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for
consideration.
This is done with the understanding that the Committee on
Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interests over this and
similar legislation are in no way altered. In addition, the
Committee reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 5052
and requests your support when such a request is made.
I would appreciate your response confirming this
understanding and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters
on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the bill on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 4, 2016.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 5052, a bill to direct the Attorney General and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to evaluate the
effectiveness of grant programs that provide grants for the
primary purpose of providing assistance in addressing
problems pertaining to opioid abuse, and for other purposes,
which the Judiciary Committee ordered reported favorably to
the House on April 27, 2016.
I am most appreciative of your decision to forego formal
consideration of H.R. 5052 so that it may proceed to the
House floor. I acknowledge that although you are waiving
formal consideration of the bill, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the
subject matter contained in those provisions of the bill that
fall within your Rule X jurisdiction. In addition, I would
support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees on any House-Senate conference involving
this legislation.
Finally, I am pleased to include this letter and your
letter in the Congressional Record during floor consideration
of H.R. 5052.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
{time} 1715
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 5052, the Opioid Program Evaluation Act,
otherwise known as the OPEN Act. The OPEN Act is part of a
comprehensive, bipartisan series of proposals being considered by
Congress to combat the opioid abuse epidemic that is afflicting
millions of Americans. For example, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse
Reduction Act will provide critical funding assistance to States so
that they can create and implement a wide variety of strategies,
including alternatives to incarceration, that are designed to reduce
opioid abuse.
These grant programs have tremendous promise, as they will enable
criminal justice agencies to focus on what is likely to be the most
effective
[[Page H2183]]
solutions based on their specific, individual needs. Jurisdictions, for
example, may choose to implement the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion
approach established with success in Seattle and which is beginning to
be used in other cities.
The Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act would also assist with
the provision of medication-assisted treatment and help first
responders prevent deaths by allowing them to obtain and administer
drugs that revive overdose victims. Strategies like these are worthy of
our continued support.
At the same time, it is important that we track the actual results of
these programs so that we can objectively determine the most successful
strategies for combating opioid abuse and adjust our efforts and
resource allocation accordingly.
The OPEN Act is a commonsense measure that will provide a meaningful
way to assist the effectiveness of these grants. Under this act, the
Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services will identify
outcomes achieved by activities funded under these grant programs. The
OPEN Act requires these agencies to develop the metrics by which the
achievement of such outcomes can be objectively analyzed. Those
outcomes and metrics will, in turn, be studied by the National Academy
of Sciences or other independent evaluators and reported on to
Congress. Armed with this information, Congress will then be able to
assess the success of the programs funded by these grants.
I, therefore, support H.R. 5052 and commend it without reservation to
my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the
majority leader, who is also the chief sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to thank the chairman for his work in dealing with opioid abuse
throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, where I come from in Kern County, California, over 160
people are sent to the emergency room for opioid overdoses every single
year. Every single one of those stories is tragic.
Addiction tears families apart, it uproots communities, and it
deprives people of the basic freedom to live the lives they want.
Opioid addiction is only getting worse in this country. The most recent
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show that 78 Americans
die every single day from overdose--78 Americans.
We need to do something about it. Ultimately, it is individuals,
families, and the communities that are on the front line in the fight
against addiction. But Congress can do something, too. The Federal
Government can and should support community efforts to stop opioid
abuse and help those in recovery.
So we have over one dozen bills we will pass this week that target at
the center of the opioid addiction: the drug trade, prescription abuse,
health care, prevention, you name it.
But it is not enough to pass laws and start new programs. After all,
a lot of government programs sound good, but they don't mean as much if
they don't work. Most programs, if not every government program, are
created with the very best of intentions; but good intentions don't
make good government.
When Congress decided to set up a program using money and resources
from the American people, we had better be sure that what we are doing
is making a difference and actually helping those in need as best we
can. That is why Congressman Steny Hoyer and I drafted the Opioid
Program Evaluation Act, better known as the OPEN Act, because we need
to actually help stop the abuse, not just create programs to talk about
it. We need to prevent addiction from happening. We need to help those
addicted to recover, and we can't afford to waste time and money
accomplishing these goals.
Ultimately, we need to use the power of data to determine if these
programs actually work. It is that simple. We live in the age of data,
and innovators around the country and around the world are using data
to do everything from providing better service to customers, to
preventing disease and to preventing crimes across this country.
We can learn from that. We need to bring data and innovation into
government. When we do that, we can ensure government programs work as
intended and that it is in the most effective way possible. That is
what this bill will do. It gives healthcare officials, researchers, and
engaged citizens the opportunity to see exactly what their government
is doing and then to use the information to make the best possible
treatment for those who are addicted to opioids.
For months now, I have been working with other Members on the
Innovation Initiative with this exact goal: to modernize government.
This is just the latest bill shaping our policies and reforming the way
Washington works.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to join and support this bill.
I want to thank the minority whip for his work, his thoughtfulness,
and his research in making this happen.
Today is a vote for accountability. Vote for more than just words.
Vote to effectively fight the opioid epidemic.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished
minority whip of the Congress and the coauthor of this measure.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member and
former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and, if I could say, in a
bipartisan bill, maybe the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
with all due respect to my friend Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman
very much for bringing this bill to the floor.
I thank the majority leader for his comments, and I rise in support,
obviously, of this legislation, which I am proud to cosponsor with my
friend, the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, from California.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, as he said, will help ensure that future
investments in the fight against opioid addiction are allocated in the
most effective way possible. We owe that to the American people, and we
owe it to the effectiveness of our efforts against this scourge on our
country.
Our bill requires the Departments of Justice and Health and Human
Services to develop, as you have heard, metrics by which opioid-related
grant programs will be evaluated: Do they work? Are they worth the
investment? It will facilitate data collection and analysis in order to
determine best practices--what works and what doesn't--so policymakers
can best target resources.
The opioid epidemic is a major public health challenge that requires
and demands bipartisan cooperation and leadership across the branches
and offices of our government at the Federal, State, and local levels.
This crisis has already quadrupled--quadrupled--the rate of overdose
deaths between 2000 and 2013 and continues to plague communities across
the country.
Between 2007 and 2014, 237 people in southern Maryland died as a
result of prescription opioid overdoses, and 287 more died from using
heroin, a drug to which those addicted to opioid painkillers often turn
when they can no longer access prescription medications. This is a
critical problem affecting lives and families across the Nation, which
is why the Congress must take action and is doing so on a bipartisan
basis.
In addition to the OPEN Act, the House is considering a number of
bipartisan bills this week that will likely be adopted as part of an
amendment to the legislation passed in the Senate, the Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA.
Democratic Members have been instrumental in writing these bills in
such a way that the policies and programs they create have the greatest
chance of saving lives and preventing addiction. The good news is they
have worked with their Republican colleagues, and their Republican
colleagues have worked with them. These bills reflect the seriousness
with which Democrats and Republicans have been leading on this issue
and the bipartisan nature of efforts in Congress to address the
challenge.
But it isn't enough to enact these bills and the ones put forward by
my Republican colleagues. We need to ensure that our efforts to combat
opioid addiction receive the funding necessary
[[Page H2184]]
to succeed. That funding is not in this bill, nor is it in some of the
other bills that will be considered. It is nice to say that we ought to
get something done, but if we do not apply the resources to accomplish
the objective, it is empty rhetoric and political posturing.
President Obama has requested $1.1 billion to fight opioid addiction,
but the majority has not yet committed to acting on that request, nor
has it committed to funding the bipartisan legislation that we expect
to pass this week. The legislation is good, but if we don't give it the
resources to be implemented, it will not bring the relief that is
needed.
So as we work together to take these important steps to prevent
opioid abuse and promote recovery, Congress needs to work together to
ensure that these efforts are not left unfunded. I am certain that
there is a way we can work together to pay for them and help our
communities fight this epidemic that has destroyed so many lives and
devastated communities and families across this country.
Again, I want to thank the Republican leader, Mr. McCarthy. He and I
have found opportunities to work together, and we believe those have
had positive results. He has partnered with me on this OPEN Act, and I
hope we can keep working together to fund these initiatives and help
end the scourge, the cancer, of opioid abuse and addiction in our
country. If we do so, Americans will thank us, and they will think we
have done a better job, frankly, than they think we are doing.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to say to my colleagues I deeply appreciate the observations
and perceptions on both sides of the aisle in dealing with this
subject.
The approaches to dealing with opioid abuse should be based on
evidence of their effectiveness and ability to save lives. The OPEN Act
will provide the information necessary to properly make that
evaluation. Accordingly, I sincerely urge my colleagues to support H.R.
5052.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this good
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5052, the
``Opioid Program Evaluation Act of 2016,'' otherwise known as the
``OPEN'' Act.
This is an important bill intended to provide a mechanism to evaluate
the effectiveness of the grant programs being considered by Congress to
address the serious and growing problem of opioid abuse.
The current surge in the use of heroin and other opioid drugs such as
hydrocodone and oxycodone requires a strong, national response.
Opioid abuse leads to physical and functional changes to parts of the
brain affecting, impulse, reward, and motivation.
In recent years, it is estimated that the number of heroin users in
the United States has grown to over 680,000 people.
Similarly, the use of other opioids, such as hydrocodone and
oxycodone has grown by 100 percent and 500 percent respectively.
To fight this crisis involving illegal opioids and the abuse of
prescription opioids, we must employ a multi-faceted approach that
actually achieves results.
This bill would evaluate the effectiveness of H.R. 5046, the
``Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act,'' a bill reported by the
Judiciary Committee.
That bill was written with the goal of assisting States in the
implementation of a variety of strategies, including:
Providing treatment alternatives to incarceration; training criminal
justice agency personnel on substance use and co-occurring mental
illness; increasing collaboration between State criminal justice
agencies and State substance abuse systems; purchasing opioid reversal
drugs and devices for first responders and providing training to carry
and administer opioid reversal drugs and devices; and implementing
medication-assisted treatment programs used or operated by criminal
justice agencies.
As opioid abuse grant programs move forward, it is important we find
a way to evaluate the success of these strategies and the effectiveness
of the programs in implementing them.
This is why I support the requirements of the OPEN Act.
Specifically, the OPEN Act will:
Instruct the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to
identify outcomes to be achieved and develop metrics for evaluating
success in achieving those outcomes; enlist the National Academy of
Sciences to evaluate and report to Congress on the outcomes and metrics
of the grant programs; require grantees to report annually on the
progress made through the grants; and instruct the Departments of
Justice and Health and Human Services to complete an evaluation of the
effectiveness of their grant programs after five years.
I am confident that the comprehensive approach we are taking to
address opioid abuse will help address the Nation's growing epidemic.
For these reasons, I support the OPEN Act and the goal of ensuring
the best possible response to treat and prevent opioid abuse in
America, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). The question
is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5052, as
amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________