[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 12, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5071-H5074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THAT NECESSITATE NEW AND ENHANCED CONNECTIONS
THAT IMPROVE OPIOID NAVIGATION STRATEGIES ACT OF 2018
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5812) to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to carry
out certain activities to prevent controlled substances overdoses, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5812
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 ``Creating Opportunities that
Necessitate New and Enhanced Connections That Improve Opioid
Navigation Strategies Act of 2018'' or the ``CONNECTIONS
Act''.
SEC. 2. PREVENTING OVERDOSES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 399V-7. PREVENTING OVERDOSES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
``(a) Evidence-Based Prevention Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention may--
``(A) to the extent practicable, carry out any evidence-
based prevention activity described in paragraph (2);
``(B) provide training and technical assistance to States,
localities, and Indian tribes for purposes of carrying out
any such activity; and
``(C) award grants to States, localities, and Indian tribes
for purposes of carrying out any such activity.
``(2) Evidence-based prevention activities.--An evidence-
based prevention activity described in this paragraph is any
of the following activities:
``(A) With respect to a State, improving the efficiency and
use of the State prescription drug monitoring program by--
``(i) encouraging all authorized users (as specified by the
State) to register with and use the program and making the
program easier to use;
``(ii) enabling such users to access any updates to
information collected by the program in as close to real-time
as possible;
``(iii) providing for a mechanism for the program to
automatically flag any potential misuse or abuse of
controlled substances and any detection of inappropriate
prescribing practices relating to such substances;
``(iv) enhancing interoperability between the program and
any electronic health records system, including by
integrating the use of electronic health records into the
program for purposes of improving clinical decisionmaking;
``(v) continually updating program capabilities to respond
to technological innovation for purposes of appropriately
addressing a controlled substance overdose epidemic as such
epidemic may occur and evolve;
``(vi) facilitating data sharing between the program and
the prescription drug monitoring programs of neighboring
States; and
``(vii) meeting the purpose of the program established
under section 399O, as described in section 399O(a).
``(B) Achieving community or health system interventions
through activities such as--
``(i) establishing or improving controlled substances
prescribing interventions for insurers and health systems;
``(ii) enhancing the use of evidence-based controlled
substances prescribing guidelines across sectors and health
care settings; and
``(iii) implementing strategies to align the prescription
of controlled substances with the guidelines described in
clause (ii).
``(C) Evaluating interventions to better understand what
works to prevent overdoses, including those involving
prescription and illicit controlled substances.
``(D) Implementing projects to advance an innovative
prevention approach with respect to new and emerging public
health crises and opportunities to address such crises, such
as enhancing public education and awareness on the risks
associated with opioids.
``(b) Enhanced Surveillance of Controlled Substance
Overdose Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention may--
``(A) to the extent practicable, carry out any controlled
substance overdose surveillance activity described in
paragraph (2);
``(B) provide training and technical assistance to States
for purposes of carrying out any such activity;
``(C) award grants to States for purposes of carrying out
any such activity; and
``(D) coordinate with the Assistant Secretary for Mental
Health and Substance Use to collect data pursuant to section
505(d)(1)(A) (relating to the number of individuals admitted
to the emergency rooms of hospitals as a result of the abuse
of alcohol or other drugs).
``(2) Controlled substance overdose surveillance
activities.--A controlled substance overdose surveillance
activity described in this paragraph is any of the following
activities:
``(A) Enhancing the timeliness of reporting data to the
public, including data on fatal and nonfatal overdoses of
controlled substances.
``(B) Enhancing comprehensiveness of data on controlled
substances overdoses by collecting information on such
overdoses from appropriate sources such as toxicology
reports, autopsy reports, death scene investigations, and
other risk factors.
``(C) Using data to help identify risk factors associated
with controlled substances overdoses.
``(D) With respect to a State, supporting entities involved
in providing information to inform efforts within the State,
such as by coroners and medical examiners, to improve
accurate testing and reporting of causes and contributing
factors to controlled substances overdoses.
``(E) Working to enable information sharing regarding
controlled substances overdoses among data sources.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Controlled substance.--The term `controlled
substance' has the meaning given that term in section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act.
``(2) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the
meaning given that term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For purposes of
carrying out this section and section 399O, there is
authorized to be appropriated $486,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2019 through 2023.''.
SEC. 3. PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING PROGRAM.
Section 399O of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
280g-3) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 399O. PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING PROGRAM.
``(a) Program.--
``(1) In general.--Each fiscal year, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Director of National Drug Control
Policy, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Assistant Secretary for
Mental Health and Substance Use, and the National Coordinator
for Health Information Technology, shall support States for
the purpose of improving the efficiency and use of PDMPs,
including--
``(A) establishment and implementation of a PDMP;
``(B) maintenance of a PDMP;
``(C) improvements to a PDMP by--
``(i) enhancing functional components to work toward--
``(I) universal use of PDMPs among providers and their
delegates, to the extent that State laws allow, within a
State;
``(II) more timely inclusion of data within a PDMP;
``(III) active management of the PDMP, in part by sending
proactive or unsolicited reports to providers to inform
prescribing; and
``(IV) ensuring the highest level of ease in use and access
of PDMPs by providers and their delegates, to the extent that
State laws allow;
``(ii) improving the intrastate interoperability of PDMPs
by--
``(I) making PDMPs more actionable by integrating PDMPs
within electronic health records and health information
technology infrastructure; and
``(II) linking PDMP data to other data systems within the
State, including--
``(aa) the data of pharmacy benefit managers, medical
examiners and coroners, and the State's Medicaid program;
``(bb) worker's compensation data; and
``(cc) prescribing data of providers of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service within the
State;
[[Page H5072]]
``(iii) improving the interstate interoperability of PDMPs
through--
``(I) sharing of dispensing data in near-real time across
State lines; and
``(II) integration of automated queries for multistate PDMP
data and analytics into clinical workflow to improve the use
of such data and analytics by practitioners and dispensers;
or
``(iv) improving the ability to include treatment
availability resources and referral capabilities within the
PDMP.
``(2) State legislation.--As a condition on the receipt of
support under this section, the Secretary shall require a
State to demonstrate that the State has enacted legislation
or regulations--
``(A) to provide for the implementation of the PDMP; and
``(B) to permit the imposition of appropriate penalties for
the unauthorized use and disclosure of information maintained
by the PDMP.
``(b) PDMP Strategies.--The Secretary shall encourage a
State, in establishing, improving, or maintaining a PDMP, to
implement strategies that improve--
``(1) the reporting of dispensing in the State of a
controlled substance to an ultimate user so the reporting
occurs not later than 24 hours after the dispensing event;
``(2) the consultation of the PDMP by each prescribing
practitioner, or their designee, in the State before
initiating treatment with a controlled substance, or any
substance as required by the State to be reported to the
PDMP, and over the course of ongoing treatment for each
prescribing event;
``(3) the consultation of the PDMP before dispensing a
controlled substance, or any substance as required by the
State to be reported to the PDMP;
``(4) the proactive notification to a practitioner when
patterns indicative of controlled substance misuse by a
patient, including opioid misuse, are detected;
``(5) the availability of data in the PDMP to other States,
as allowable under State law; and
``(6) the availability of nonidentifiable information to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for
surveillance, epidemiology, statistical research, or
educational purposes.
``(c) Drug Misuse and Abuse.--In consultation with
practitioners, dispensers, and other relevant and interested
stakeholders, a State receiving support under this section--
``(1) shall establish a program to notify practitioners and
dispensers of information that will help to identify and
prevent the unlawful diversion or misuse of controlled
substances; and
``(2) may, to the extent permitted under State law, notify
the appropriate authorities responsible for carrying out drug
diversion investigations if the State determines that
information in the PDMP maintained by the State indicates an
unlawful diversion or abuse of a controlled substance.
``(d) Evaluation and Reporting.--As a condition on receipt
of support under this section, the State shall report on
interoperability with PDMPs of other States and Federal
agencies, where appropriate, intrastate interoperability with
health information technology systems such as electronic
health records, health information exchanges, and e-
prescribing, where appropriate, and whether or not the State
provides automatic, up-to-date, or daily information about a
patient when a practitioner (or the designee of a
practitioner, where permitted) requests information about
such patient.
``(e) Evaluation and Reporting.--A State receiving support
under this section shall provide the Secretary with aggregate
nonidentifiable information, as permitted by State law, to
enable the Secretary--
``(1) to evaluate the success of the State's program in
achieving the purpose described in subsection (a); or
``(2) to prepare and submit to the Congress the report
required by subsection (i)(2).
``(f) Education and Access to the Monitoring System.--A
State receiving support under this section shall take steps
to--
``(1) facilitate prescribers and dispensers, and their
delegates, as permitted by State law, to use the PDMP, to the
extent practicable; and
``(2) educate prescribers and dispensers, and their
delegates on the benefits of the use of PDMPs.
``(g) Electronic Format.--The Secretary may issue
guidelines specifying a uniform electronic format for the
reporting, sharing, and disclosure of information pursuant to
PDMPs.
``(h) Rules of Construction.--
``(1) Functions otherwise authorized by law.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to restrict the ability of
any authority, including any local, State, or Federal law
enforcement, narcotics control, licensure, disciplinary, or
program authority, to perform functions otherwise authorized
by law.
``(2) Additional privacy protections.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as preempting any State from
imposing any additional privacy protections.
``(3) Federal privacy requirements.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to supersede any Federal privacy
or confidentiality requirement, including the regulations
promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
191; 110 Stat. 2033) and section 543 of this Act.
``(4) No federal private cause of action.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to create a Federal private cause
of action.
``(i) Progress Report.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of the CONNECTIONS Act, the Secretary
shall--
``(1) complete a study that--
``(A) determines the progress of States in establishing and
implementing PDMPs consistent with this section;
``(B) provides an analysis of the extent to which the
operation of PDMPs has--
``(i) reduced inappropriate use, abuse, diversion of, and
overdose with, controlled substances;
``(ii) established or strengthened initiatives to ensure
linkages to substance use disorder treatment services; or
``(iii) affected patient access to appropriate care in
States operating PDMPs;
``(C) determine the progress of States in achieving
interstate interoperability and intrastate interoperability
of PDMPs, including an assessment of technical, legal, and
financial barriers to such progress and recommendations for
addressing these barriers;
``(D) determines the progress of States in implementing
near real-time electronic PDMPs;
``(E) provides an analysis of the privacy protections in
place for the information reported to the PDMP in each State
receiving support under this section and any recommendations
of the Secretary for additional Federal or State requirements
for protection of this information;
``(F) determines the progress of States in implementing
technological alternatives to centralized data storage, such
as peer-to-peer file sharing or data pointer systems, in
PDMPs and the potential for such alternatives to enhance the
privacy and security of individually identifiable data; and
``(G) evaluates the penalties that States have enacted for
the unauthorized use and disclosure of information maintained
in PDMPs, and the criteria used by the Secretary to determine
whether such penalties qualify as appropriate for purposes of
subsection (a)(2); and
``(2) submit a report to the Congress on the results of the
study.
``(j) Advisory Council.--
``(1) Establishment.--A State may establish an advisory
council to assist in the establishment, improvement, or
maintenance of a PDMP consistent with this section.
``(2) Limitation.--A State may not use Federal funds for
the operations of an advisory council to assist in the
establishment, improvement, or maintenance of a PDMP.
``(3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that, in establishing an advisory council to assist in the
establishment, improvement, or maintenance of a PDMP, a State
should consult with appropriate professional boards and other
interested parties.
``(k) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) The term `controlled substance' means a controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act) in schedule II, III, or IV of section 202 of
such Act.
``(2) The term `dispense' means to deliver a controlled
substance to an ultimate user by, or pursuant to the lawful
order of, a practitioner, irrespective of whether the
dispenser uses the internet or other means to effect such
delivery.
``(3) The term `dispenser' means a physician, pharmacist,
or other person that dispenses a controlled substance to an
ultimate user.
``(4) The term `interstate interoperability' with respect
to a PDMP means the ability of the PDMP to electronically
share reported information with another State if the
information concerns either the dispensing of a controlled
substance to an ultimate user who resides in such other
State, or the dispensing of a controlled substance prescribed
by a practitioner whose principal place of business is
located in such other State.
``(5) The term `intrastate interoperability' with respect
to a PDMP means the integration of PDMP data within
electronic health records and health information technology
infrastructure or linking of a PDMP to other data systems
within the State, including the State's Medicaid program,
workers' compensation programs, and medical examiners or
coroners.
``(6) The term `nonidentifiable information' means
information that does not identify a practitioner, dispenser,
or an ultimate user and with respect to which there is no
reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used
to identify a practitioner, dispenser, or an ultimate user.
``(7) The term `PDMP' means a prescription drug monitoring
program that is State-controlled.
``(8) The term `practitioner' means a physician, dentist,
veterinarian, scientific investigator, pharmacy, hospital, or
other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by
the United States or the jurisdiction in which the individual
practices or does research, to distribute, dispense, conduct
research with respect to, administer, or use in teaching or
chemical analysis, a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice or research.
``(9) The term `State' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and any commonwealth or territory of
the United States.
``(10) The term `ultimate user' means a person who has
obtained from a dispenser, and who possesses, a controlled
substance for the
[[Page H5073]]
person's own use, for the use of a member of the person's
household, or for the use of an animal owned by the person or
by a member of the person's household.
``(11) The term `clinical workflow' means the integration
of automated queries for prescription drug monitoring
programs data and analytics into health information
technologies such as electronic health record systems, health
information exchanges, and/or pharmacy dispensing software
systems, thus streamlining provider access through automated
queries.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
General Leave
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is our last bill of the day on opioids. This is the
25th piece of legislation that we have worked through, not only our
committee, but also now the House floor.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 5812, the CONNECTIONS Act. Now, this
legislation enhances and improves state-run prescription drug
monitoring programs. These are really, really important. Prescription
drug monitoring programs or, as they are known, PDMPs, are useful tools
in helping identify and deter drug misuse and diversion. They allow
health prescribers to identify patients exhibiting risky behaviors and
assist those individuals in getting help.
By strengthening the current efforts of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, in coordination with the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, and the Office of the National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology, the CONNECTIONS Act will
help make state-run PDMPs more easily accessible, more user-friendly,
more accurate, and better integrated across the country.
So I want to thank my colleague from Virginia, Representative Morgan
Griffith, a terrific member of our committee, Vice Chair of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, who has done a lot of work
investigating pill dumping and patient brokering and the kind of abuses
we have seen that have helped to inform our legislation they have done
over on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. He will speak in
just a minute.
I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey, Representative Frank
Pallone as well, and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick from
Pennsylvania. They have all worked together on this really, really
important improvement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and Ranking Member
Pallone for his help on this bill.
The CONNECTIONS Act, as the chairman has stated, deals with state-run
prescription drug monitoring programs which are widely recognized as an
important tool in fighting the opioid epidemic. These programs enable
providers to better identify patients who may be at risk for abuse of
opioid prescriptions. This is a critical first step in preventing abuse
by those who may be vulnerable.
The bill will improve Federal support for state-run prescription drug
monitoring programs to empower those States to successfully implement
improvements and build off of their existing programs.
Now, the legislation facilitates more widespread use by the
providers. So what we are trying to do is, right now we have 49 of 50
States that have PDMPs or prescription drug monitoring programs. They
all are trying to talk to each other.
And particularly, when you have a district like mine, which kind of
forms a sort of a triangle in the southwest corner of Virginia, you can
get to West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee all
within a single day, without any problem. And if you are a physician in
those areas, you need to know if your patient may have driven a few
miles across the line in an attempt to get more prescription drugs than
maybe they ought to be taking.
So what the PDMPs are supposed to do is to let the physician know
what is going on. But if our State prescription drug monitoring
programs don't have the ability to talk to one another or interact
efficiently, that creates a delay or a dilemma for the physician who is
trying to do the right thing and monitor what is going on and see about
those who may be vulnerable or about to step into an arena that they
really don't want to get into, but they are suffering pain and they
think this is the way to go. We want to stop that. We want to help the
physicians.
What this bill does is it allows the physicians and allows the PDMPs
run by the States to have more interactivity between the two or between
the three or four or five, as the case may be, as it would be in my
district.
So the PDMPs are especially valuable for districts like mine, as we
have discussed; and the pharmacies and doctors in other States who are
just a stone's throw away who can come back in and check to see what is
going on. This legislation will give these States that ability. It is a
good, bipartisan bill, and I do appreciate Ranking Member Pallone for
working on this with me in a bipartisan fashion.
I also appreciate greatly the leadership of our chairman, Chairman
Walden, for making this a major issue and allowing us to put forward so
many bills, both this week and next, that deal with this very serious
concern; and this is one step in the right direction to making sure
that we try to ensure that folks don't go down the path of abuse.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume;
and I rise in support of H.R. 5812, the CONNECTIONS Act.
I was pleased to work with Representative Griffith on this bipartisan
legislation. This bill authorizes funding to enhance and improve State
prescription drug monitoring programs, among other prevention efforts.
This legislation codifies CDC's Prevention for States program, which
includes funding to improve State prescription drug monitoring
programs, or PDMPs.
As part of that program, the CDC will implement the activities
described in the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic
Reporting, or NASPER Act, which I was pleased to see receive funding
this year. As the original Democratic sponsor of NASPER, I have been a
longtime champion of PDMPs as public health tools that can prevent and
respond to opioid abuse.
The role of PDMPs in the current opioid epidemic has proven why our
longtime interests and push for investments in this space is so
critical.
As the technology has matured, we have moved from working toward the
goal of ensuring the interstate sharing of PDMP data, to now aiming to
make PDMPs more interconnected real-time, and usable for public health
surveillance and clinical decisionmaking.
Continuing to strengthen PDMPs will improve our ability to prevent
addiction from occurring in the first place and help identify
individuals who could benefit from treatment for opioid use disorder.
I wanted to urge my colleagues, obviously, to support this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I know we have been here, I guess, for about 4 hours
now, and we are done with these suspension bills that are part of this
opioid package, and I don't mean to negate in any way this package, I
do think it is important. But I still want to say, as we conclude
today, I want to express my concern that collectively these bills that
we are considering do not go far enough in providing the resources
necessary for an epidemic of this magnitude. There are 115 Americans
dying every day, and we have to ensure that people have access to
treatment. The bills the House is debating and will pass this afternoon
and over the next 2 weeks do not do enough to expand treatment for
millions suffering from this crisis.
I would also be remiss, again, if I did not also mention the
Republicans' ongoing efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and gut
Medicaid and take away critical protections for people with preexisting
conditions.
The Justice Department just announced, under President Trump and
[[Page H5074]]
Attorney General Sessions, that they are not going to defend a lawsuit
that is being brought by Republican attorneys general in many States
that would basically say that the Affordable Care Act does not have to
protect people anymore from preexisting conditions.
When discussing the opioid crisis on the floor this week and next, I
urge my colleagues to remember that protecting and expanding access to
care is the most critical piece of the puzzle, and any efforts to roll
back the Affordable Care Act, such as another Republican-led attempt to
repeal the ACA or gut Medicaid, will hurt those people who need it
most.
I am pleased to support this bill in this package and the other bills
that we considered on suspension today, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter), our resident pharmacist, to speak on the
legislation.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr. Griffith, for all his
work on this very important legislation. I would also like to thank him
for including language that requires a report on the impact of PDMPs on
patient access to appropriate care. This is critical for epilepsy
patients that can face barriers to accessing their Schedule V non-
narcotic drugs necessary to control their seizures.
Several epilepsy medications are classified as Schedule V and,
therefore, fall under monitoring requirements, despite the fact that
they are non-opioid, non-narcotic, and there is no evidence to indicate
that these medications are being abused by people with epilepsy. This
has led to unnecessary delays in access to their prescribed therapy.
A handful of States have passed legislation that removes non-narcotic
drugs from reporting requirements. As we work through legislation
intended to combat the opioid crisis, we need to ensure that we do not
limit access to legitimate care, especially to non-narcotic drugs.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who is a co-author of
this very important piece of legislation.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, the opioid epidemic is devastating
communities within my district and across the country. In the last year
alone, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, has lost 232 individuals in drug-
related deaths; a staggering 26 percent increase from 2016.
As vice-chair of the Bipartisan Heroin Task Force, I am proud to rise
today in strong support of H.R. 5812, the CONNECTIONS Act.
While my district is just one area in the Nation that is struggling
to cope with the opioid crisis, I believe the CONNECTIONS Act will
provide officials on the ground the necessary training techniques and
resources they need to turn the tide on this epidemic.
As a longtime proponent of States fully utilizing prescription drug
monitoring programs to track controlled substance purchases, I am proud
of the PDMP enhancements in this bipartisan bill.
Our Nation's drug epidemic is a complicated issue, Mr. Speaker, and
our response must be multifaceted. This means a reduction in the
unnecessary dispensing of prescriptions, which could be accomplished by
tracking and reporting information that allows physicians, pharmacists,
and other health professionals to make informed clinical decisions and
to identify troubling trends.
I would like to thank my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for
his leadership on this important piece of legislation, and I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of the
CONNECTIONS Act.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In conclusion, I just want to thank my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle for their incredible tenacity, their hard work, bringing from
their districts and from the people they represent these ideas to
formulate solutions that we are now going to enact into law and move
over to the Senate. We will pass them here and move them over to the
Senate and eventually into law.
I would also point out that, starting in 2016, 2017, Republicans in
this Congress passed CARA, and the 21st Century Cures Act, putting over
$1.2 billion into the efforts to combat the opioid epidemic. And then
we doubled down, literally and figuratively, and even more than that, I
think we have got $4 billion in the latest spending bill directed
specifically at opioids, and another couple of billion at mental health
services. Both of these are big needs for our communities and for our
citizens, both led by Republicans and the Trump administration in terms
of this most latest investment in the fight on opioids.
And I know President Trump and the administration do a lot of work on
their own through using their executive powers, their administrative
powers to address the problems of the opioid epidemic through the
various agencies of the Federal Government. Not only are they leading
on that, but they are also partnering with our States and our local
communities.
We have got to make sure the money that we appropriate gets all the
way to the ground, gets into these community organizations that are on
the front lines of helping people get into treatment, helping them get
the services that they need.
{time} 1815
It has record funding going in. It helps when we change these laws to
modernize them so that people can get access to the care they need and
they deserve, and together, we are going to solve this problem.
It is a big step forward, 25 bills today. We will have more later in
this week and another 25 or 30 next week. We know that this is an
ongoing challenge for our country. It will be an ongoing effort for our
committee.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this particular piece of legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5812.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________