{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-dea-must-explain-objections-bill-it-helped-write-fight-against-opioid", "Grassley: DEA Must Explain Objections to Bill it Helped Write in Fight against Opioid Abuse", "2017-12-12", "2017", "2017-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "www.grassley.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee \u201cOversight of the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act\u201d  December 12, 2017 \u00a0 This hearing is on oversight of the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act.\u00a0 I\u2019ll refer to it as \u201cthe Law\u201d or \u201cthe Bill.\u201d\u00a0 I\u2019m eager to hear from all the witnesses.\u00a0 \u00a0 Some would like to see this law repealed.\u00a0 Others insist it should remain in place.\u00a0 I haven\u2019t made my own mind up.\u00a0 So I\u2019m interested in hearing both sides of the argument.\u00a0 This discussion is particularly important given the continuing opioid epidemic that has ravaged this country through the past several years. \u00a0 I do have concerns with how we got here. \u00a0 When Congress took this bill up in 2015 and 2016, there was little to no fanfare about the proposal.\u00a0 The basic goal of the bill seemed modest: provide a definition for the term \u201cimminent danger.\u201d\u00a0 Distributors and other providers would have more clear guidance for what was required of them before DEA could issue an immediate suspension order, or \u201cISO.\u201d\u00a0 In this industry, an ISO is a death sentence.\u00a0 From their standpoint, the clarification seemed not only fair but a necessary step in helping figure out how to comply with the law. \u00a0 There was another practical concern: ordinary patients with legitimate needs could lose access to essential prescriptions if legitimate distributors were shut down. \u00a0 DEA, understandably, had some concerns about curbing their enforcement powers.\u00a0 But the unlimited, undefined enforcement authority needed some refinement.\u00a0 DEA also had litigation risk with such undefined authority.\u00a0 So DEA, too, had an interest in working towards amending the language to reduce their own risk. \u00a0 My understanding was that DEA provided technical assistance to both House and Senate staff for other members who were responsible for drafting the bill.\u00a0 In fact, DEA admitted as much in testimony before the House in October. \u00a0 When the bill came to the Senate, it was referred to Judiciary.\u00a0 I took up the bill based in part on assurances from DEA and DOJ that they agreed to the language in the final bill.\u00a0 We discharged the bill from committee by a unanimous vote.\u00a0 The bill then passed the Senate by unanimous consent; it also passed the House by unanimous consent. \u00a0 President Obama signed the bill into law in April 2016.\u00a0 DEA testified that they advised President Obama to do just that. \u00a0 Let me be clear \u2013 if DEA or DOJ didn\u2019t want this bill, I wouldn\u2019t have taken it up.\u00a0 Period. \u00a0 Then the Washington Post and 60 Minutes ran pieces criticizing the bill.\u00a0 Both stories highlighted former DEA employees and quoted a law review article from the acting Chief Administrative Law Judge from the DEA.\u00a0 \u00a0 The reports suggest that Congress was in the back pocket of the opioid industry \u2013 and that this bill was a giveaway to the prescription drug industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.\u00a0 I\u2019ve worked hard my entire career trying to combat illegal drug trafficking, and providing more effective ways for law enforcement to do their jobs in the drug enforcement area. \u00a0 I\u2019m especially frustrated by the DEA itself \u2013 which gave Congress the go-ahead to enact this legislation.\u00a0 We wouldn\u2019t be here today if the DEA told us that they objected. \u00a0 The news reports also suggest that the law effectively stripped DEA of its enforcement power.\u00a0 The data appears to show otherwise.\u00a0 \u00a0 Prior to the passage of the bill \u2013 between 2011 and 2015 \u2013 the amount of immediate suspension orders dramatically decreased. Since the law was passed, the amount of immediate suspension orders has increased.\u00a0 Moreover, the number of opiates distributed overall decreased between 2016 and 2017 after passage of the bill.\u00a0 \u00a0 DEA has said that the law \u201cdid not stop DEA from doing its job in the diversion space.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0 Even though this bill was vetted by Congress once, I\u2019m open to re-examining the criticisms of this law.\u00a0 I\u2019m looking forward to hearing what those are.\u00a0 That\u2019s why we\u2019re having this hearing. \u00a0 But we shouldn\u2019t be repealing laws just because of the loudest person in the room, and solely based on one person\u2019s say-so.\u00a0 The DEA agent who was the centerpiece of the news articles is a consultant for trial lawyers who are suing the industry.\u00a0 So, his objectivity is under question.\u00a0 The sensational news reports failed to question this conflict of interest.\u00a0 \u00a0 I look forward to hearing the testimony from the witnesses, and finding new ways to strengthen our law enforcement efforts without preventing legitimate access to medications that real patients with legal prescriptions need.\u00a0 Opioids continue to be a huge problem in this country.\u00a0 It is vital that our federal laws keep up with the best way to combat illegal opioid use. \u00a0 -30-", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-dea-must-explain-objections-bill-it-helped-write-fight-against-opioid"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.5567790251225233, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}