[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5603-5606]
[From the U.S. 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 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,

[[Page 5604]]

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 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

[[Page 5605]]

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 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.

[[Page 5606]]

  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.

                          ____________________