releases: https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=7A8A63B0-09FD-45B0-9489-4610D9F9233A
Data license: MIT · Data source: dwillis/congress-press
This data as json
| url | title | date | year | month | party | chamber | state | member_name | bioguide_id | domain | scraper | source | date_source | text | has_text | collected_at | updated_at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ContentRecord_id=7A8A63B0-09FD-45B0-9489-4610D9F9233A | DEA Contradicts One-Sided Washington Post Report . . . About the DEA | 2017-12-16 | 2017 | 2017-12 | Republican | House | UT | Orrin Hatch | H000338 | www.hatch.senate.gov | legacy | This weekend the Washington Post released a follow-up to its investigation in October about legislation related to DEAs enforcement authority and the opioid crisis. In that original report, the Washington Post alleged that PhRMAthe drug manufacturing industrys lobbying armused campaign donations to press members of Congress to pass legislation that gutted DEAs ability to fight the opioid epidemic. Not only was the claim that PhRMA pushed for the bill entirely false, but as Senator Hatch, one of the bill sponsors, later made clear, the specific language in the bill that the Washington Post alleged was so problematic was written and provided to Congress by DEA and DOJ attorneys. This week the Senate held an oversight hearing on bill, known as the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act, and members had an opportunity to ask Demetra Ashley, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Diversion Control at DEA, about the bills impact. Ms. Ashley stated categorically that the legislation has not impeded DEAs ability to do its job and that the legislation has not caused a decline in DEAs enforcement efforts. After the hearing, the Washington Post reported the exact opposite of what DEA said. In a follow-up piece after the hearing, the Washington Post reported: The measure curbed the DEAs powers to use its most potent weapons against drug companies that do not report suspicious orders of prescription painkillers from pharmacies. However, in the hearing itself, Ms. Ashley said the exact opposite: Hatch: Is there any conceivable way that the Act could have caused the decline in ISOs? Ashley: Senator, this is a tool [immediate suspension orders] that DEA has historically used sparingly. Again, we move forward with where the evidence takes us. Now theyve been used sparingly, but theyve also been used for the most partpredominantly for physicians and also for pharmacies. Its a difficult challenge to connect a distributor and immediate... Hatch: Maam, I was asking for a yes or no answer. Ashley: Has it changed? Has it impacted our ability to doto issue ISOs? No, sir, it has not. Note that In addition to testifying that the legislation has not impacted DEAs ability to issue ISOs, Ms. Ashley emphasized that DEA has used ISOs sparingly. This stands in stark contrast to the Washington Posts description of ISOs as DEAs most potent tools in the war against the opioid epidemic. Ms. Ashely further clarified that ISOs are used primarily against physicians and pharmacies, not distributors, which have been a particular focus of the Washington Posts criticisms of the bill. Ms. Ashley repeated several times to other Senators at the hearing that the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act has not hamstrung or stopped DEA, and told yet another Senator that the Act has not led DEA to issue fewer ISOs: Senator Durbin:Ms. Ashley tells Senator Durbin that theActhas not hamstrung DEAs efforts https://youtu.be/n4I_BpN4wYw Senator Grassley:In an exchange with Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, Ms. Ashley testifies that theActhas not stopped DEA from doing its job.https://youtu.be/NkkNDmjWeeE Senator Klobuchar: In a discussion with Senator Klobuchar, Ms. Ashley says DEA would not have issued more ISOs had the Act not been passed. Ms. Ashley also notes the array of other enforcement tools at DEAs disposal, tools the Washington Post has largely ignored in its reporting. https://youtu.be/u14fyGJEL7I; https://youtu.be/b06sJsCfTY0 The Washington Posts story relies on disgruntled former DEA employees, some of whom are now working as consultants to trial lawyers suing the drug industry and thus have an obvious conflict of interest in pushing the Posts narrative. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Post has chosen not to highlight this fact. As Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley pointed out in his opening statement at the hearing, The DEA agent who was the centerpiece of the news article is a consultant for trial lawyers who are suing the industry. So his objectivity could be questioned. The sensational news stories failed to question this conflict of interest. Various individuals have also raised questions concerning the DEA agents conduct while at DEA. The Washington Post has portrayed the agent as a martyr who was pushed out under agency pressure. These individuals accounts suggest the story may be more complicated: Letter from VCU medical professor to the Judiciary Committee describing troubling conduct by officials acting under the DEA agents leadership . [LINK] Statement by Representative Marino, the House sponsor of the bill, describing an apparent cavalier attitude toward agency legal requirements [LINK] Letter from 31 patient advocacy groups describing an apparent lack of concern for patient needs [LINK] DEAs testimony at the hearing also made clear that DEA and DOJ both supported the final version of the legislation, a fact the Washington Post has sought to downplay (or even ignore) because it sharply undermines the Posts preferred narrative. Cruz: I just want to understand. So, the Department of Justice supported the legislation in the version that actually passed, is that correct? Ashley: Yes, sir. Cruz: And the DEA supported the legislation in the version that actually passed? Ashley: Yes, sir. Whitehouse: We reached an agreement that DEA signed off on, that was approved by the Administrator, that was approved by the Attorney General of the United States, and on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States was signed into law by the President of the United States. At the hearing, Senator Kennedy asked Ms. Ashley an obvious question that the Washington Post, which has claimed that DEA was violently opposed to the bill and agreed to it only under pressure, has never been able adequately to answer: Kennedy: If everybody was so opposed to it at DEA, why werent they raising all manner of hell? The obvious answer is that DEA wasnt opposed to the bill. To the contrary, as DEAs testimony made clear, DEA supported the final language that ultimately became law. DEA has a legal obligation to provide an analysis of the bill and what recommendations, if any, DEA has for changing the bill. It has not done so. Disgruntled former DEA employees can complain all they want about how the bill should be changed, but current DEA officials are required to submit recommendations about the bill to Congress and they have not done so. Whitehouse: The executive branch, in the form of HHS, which is to be advised by you all at DEA, is under a legal obligation to do an analysis of what changes are needed in this bill and has refused to do so, despite being required to by law. And we have the testimony now of your agency that you have no proposal, despite a recommendation that there be a change. Congress cannot make an informed decision about calls to amend or repeal the bill until DEA fulfills its legal obligation to submit recommendations to Congress. The Washington Post obviously wants to see a particular outcome here. The papers decision to downplay or ignore facts and testimony that undermine its preferred narrative make that much clear. But as Chairman Grassley said in his opening statement at the hearing, We shouldnt be repealing laws just because of the loudest person in the room, and solely based on one persons say-so. Even MORE background Senator Hatch has previously addressed flaws in the reports about this legislation on the Senate floor. [VIDEO] Numerous media outlets have likewise pointed out a number of omissions in the reporting on the bill.[LINK] Patient groups have also written in to express support for the legislation.[LINK] [LINK] In addition, a VCU medical professor has described some of the problems at DEA in the years leading up to the bill Hatch wrote an op-ed in theWashington Postcorrecting a number of errors in reports about the bill and its impact on DEAs enforcement capabilities.[LINK] Representative Marino, the House sponsor of the bill, submitted a statement at the hearing explaining the need for the bill. [LINK] | 1 | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z | 2026-03-30T12:14:52Z |