Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I was going to raise that point. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. May I say, the proposal before us today has no force of law. There is a lot of heated rhetoric, yes. There is a lot of fire and brimstone, yes. There are even words that probably could have been taken down. But the resolution before us is nothing more than a partisan political press release. So for all of the comments, you could legislate, but you are not. You could actually have the force of law. Now, let's get to the underlying issue. All these attacks on the President say the President is doing this, the President is doing this, that, and the other thing, when, in fact, that is not what is happening here. The President is giving States the opportunity to do a better job of providing healthcare to their citizens. Nothing in this waiver process that exists today in statute or exists tomorrow under this proposal that the administration has put forward is allowed to adversely affect people on disabilities or pregnant women or children. This goes to the expanded adult population, where they can then innovate. Our State, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is seeking a waiver to be able to expand substance abuse disorder treatment. That would be allowed under this. States like California could come to the administration under this authority and say we would like to expand our Medicaid program to include more services for people who need mental health, so mental health and substance abuse disorders. Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate, my colleague from Washington State talked about the backlog for people on disabilities who can't get access to Medicaid. So what is wrong with a State saying: We can do it better; we can do it more efficiently; we can save money; and we can plow the savings back into expanded coverage? By the way, Mr. Speaker, Oregon has been a leader in this sort of effort with our CCOs, our Coordinated Care Organizations, where they have done precisely this. They do wraparound services. They take the most vulnerable and people in need in our communities and say: Let's all get together and take care of this patient. In doing so, the savings, in large measure, go back into expanded services. So, for all the doomsday talk I hear on the floor, Mr. Speaker, let's get to the facts of the matter. The facts of the matter are nobody is being forced to do a block grant; nobody is being forced to do cap and a gap. What we are saying is: States, let's be thoughtful about this. Come to Washington. Here are some things we know work elsewhere, and you can do it in your State and save money and probably provide more benefits and maybe save a little for the taxpayers and improve the quality of the healthcare for the people you are overseeing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Michigan doesn't have to apply for another waiver. Nobody is going to force anything like we just heard on Michigan. That is not the proposal from the administration, and nothing in this resolution stops anything anyway. In fact, I would argue, Michigan probably came to an administration to get exactly an 1115 waiver to do everything my friend and colleague just said they are doing in Michigan, just like Oregon had to come back and get waivers to do what we are doing. All this administration is doing is saying: Let's make that waiver process a little easier, but you have to make sure you are continuing to provide the best care possible to the people you serve. And once again, despite what we have heard on the floor today, nothing in their proposal would apply to the categories we have been discussing: the mandatory, the legacy population. That is not what is there. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it would have been so much better to have a real hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee where we could have had a real discussion with real experts there to get us all on the same basis of fact. It is unfortunate we don't have that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, my friend from North Carolina, I would just say, through the Chair, that Oregon is an expansion State. So you are right. We have seen the benefits of this in my State. We have seen the benefit of flexibility. We have sought waivers and gotten them to do exactly the sorts of things you are saying. And, ironically, under the proposal of the administration, North Carolina could use this authority to expand its Medicaid population. That is allowed under the proposal from the administration out to the States. They can actually use these tools and do exactly what the gentleman is saying: expand the population in North Carolina. So there are good thing things in here. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into the legal debate. I am not a lawyer. I am not burdened with a law degree. But I would argue that, if we had this discussion in our committee we love so much, maybe we would have a better outcome here. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time each side has.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we have any more, but I still have 8 minutes, so I am going to share a few comments. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a couple of things. When I chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee, we did try to do some reforms on healthcare, certainly, and there was a big disagreement, but we also extended funding for community health centers, the biggest increase they had ever gotten, 2 years fully funded. The chairman and I both are supportive of a 5-year extension of fully funding community health centers going forward. In my State, I think we had 63 different places people got healthcare in my district, and 122-- well, a lot of people in Oregon go through community health centers. As chairman, I led the effort in this Congress the last session to fully fund a 10-year expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program. That is the biggest expansion, I think, in modern legislative history, probably. Many Democrats voted against it when I tried to get it extended for 4 years, and then a lot of Democrats voted against it when it was 6, and then eventually we got to 10--unprecedented. We got that into law. We eventually came together and we got that into law. We have done a lot of work on special diabetes program funding and a special program for those with diabetes in our Native American community. One thing after another, in the last Congress, we accomplished in a bipartisan way. The work we did on opioids together as a Congress, you were a very important part of that, Mr. Chairman, on a proposal that we passed in the House. Unfortunately, we fell a little short in the Senate to get better communication among providers. We put real money behind that, billions of dollars into our States and communities; and that help is starting to show up with expanded access--I think it is a 38 percent increase in access--to the kind of services, health services, people dealing with addiction need. And, as a result of our work, I would say, in public education and other work, we saw, finally, a topping off in the overdose deaths. Now, there is more work to do there. This proposal, the underlying proposal the administration has put forward, I would argue, builds on the notion of local, State, Federal partnership to serve the same people. We would give States more authority to manage their Medicaid programs more efficiently and effectively. Savings would be put back into the Medicaid program in large measure. Now, my friend from New Jersey, not the chairman, but the predecessor speaker here, talked about ripping away healthcare. Ironically, it is the socialist left that wants to take away all Americans' healthcare and have the Federal Government run it. That would be Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, veterans' healthcare in there, Medicare for all proposals that would, I think, bankrupt the Federal Government. But it would rip away all the health insurance products out there and make them illegal. So if you liked your health insurance, you could say good-bye to it. And some of these same people that can't count votes in Iowa want to run your insurance in America, and I don't think that is really a good thing. So we stand here today opposing this resolution. We stand here today saying, the resolution does nothing anyway, other than make a statement. Do you want to legislate? We can be partners, as we were on community health centers, as we were on opioids, as we were on children's health insurance, as we were on a lot of things; but let's go back to work where it belongs, in the committee. Mr. Speaker, I would just ask my colleagues, vote against this resolution. Then let's get back to work on the real policy in the place where policy is done best. And with all due respect to those on the Ways and Means Committee, that would be the Energy and Commerce Committee. That is one thing we agree on in a bipartisan way. We can do our work there. We can get this right. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3201, the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act. This is a commonsense, bipartisan extension of DEA's temporary scheduling of fentanyl-related substances. Mr. Speaker, fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin. Fentanyl is 100 times more potent than morphine. There are also countless types of fentanyl analogues which are similar in chemical structure to fentanyl but can be even more potent. In just a 1-year period, synthetic opioids like fentanyl claimed more than 32,000 American lives. I am reminded of the story of Amanda Gray, a beautiful young lady who was going to college, ended up being given 100 percent fentanyl, and died. These are evil things going on in our society and our culture, and this legislation will help put a stop to it. To fight this epidemic, the Drug Enforcement Administration was able to put in place this powerful but temporary tool. Previously, drug traffickers could create these new variations of fentanyl by changing as little as a molecule--just one. Then these new variations, or analogues, as they are known, were not any longer on the schedule of controlled drugs. So what does that mean? They were outside of the control of law enforcement. They were legal. Analogues allow drug traffickers in clandestine labs to use the legal system and their chemistry knowledge to their advantage. By simply tweaking the drug and calling it something else then, they can avoid prosecution. The creation of analogues has outpaced the DEA's ability to schedule them, so the DEA used emergency authorities that we have given them to temporarily place all previously unscheduled fentanyl analogues in schedule I so the administration could combat all fentanyl-related substances instead of just going after one substance at a time. Since the instatement of the scheduling order, the DEA has encountered over 20 fentanyl-related substances that would have been perfectly legal but for this law. Because of the number of possible variations to the fentanyl molecule, there is the potential for these bad actors--these killers-- to create 3,000 analogues. There is no way the DEA could keep up one by one. Many of these substances will be legal again if no action is taken. The DEA's ability to schedule all fentanyl substances expires next week. That is why Congress must act, and it must act now. This is what we were fighting about yesterday, as Republicans, to get this bill on the floor. It shouldn't have come to the last minute, but I am glad it is here. The Senate has passed this bill, unanimously, some time ago, and S. 3201 is before us today. Last Congress, we were able to put partisanship aside to pass the SUPPORT Act, landmark legislation to combat the opioid crisis. Synthetic opioids like fentanyl and its analogues continue to ravage our communities and take lives, and I am pleased that, again, we put partisanship aside today to extend this critical emergency scheduling order. This way, law enforcement does not lose its important capability to combat trafficking of fentanyl-related substances. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support of this important legislation and to preserve this tool for law enforcement and those on the front lines of our communities fighting this opioid crisis that is so deadly. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a very important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, we have several more people who would like to speak on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the lone pharmacist in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker who is making her way here, and so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from New Hampshire for her leadership on this and her deep caring about it. It is something we all share. We all have our stories, both personal and throughout our districts, that we have heard over the years about the tragedy of addiction. When we worked on the opioid legislation the last Congress when I chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard from so many Members who came and made their case when we had Member Day from then- Democratic Leader Pelosi to everybody--right, left, center--and we took all of those ideas and did what this body does best: We converted them into legislation. We had over 50 bills and it became one in the SUPPORT Act which is now law. We also continued our investigation through the end of 2018 looking at how this abuse got out of control from the prescribers, from the distributors, from the illegal traffickers, every bit of that, and I hope before this Congress is over, we go back, look at the recommendations from that report, and see what else we need to do. There were Member ideas that did not make it all the way through the process last time that we should be focused on. Obviously, there is certainly interest in criminal justice reform, and I dare say--and I will be careful how I say this--but perhaps the Judiciary Committee could have used some of its time differently earlier in this Congress to address these pressing issues as opposed to some of the matters it decided to focus on. We have more work to do in this space to get treatment, to get justice, and to stop these purveyors of death. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), a very important member of our Energy and Commerce Committee

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, how much time does each side have remaining?

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those rare moments of bipartisanship on the floor. This is a killer issue in every respect. I am pleased we are finally getting this signed through this process and down to the President to be signed after the vote today, which I assume will go well. There is much more work to be done in this space to help those who suffer from substance use disorder and help those in our communities who are confronted with mental health disease and no place to get assistance or the proper assistance. It is true that our jails and our prisons are often where we house people with mental health disorders because we have no other place, and that is not the right course for treatment. Today, we take a big and important step to try and stop these illegal and deadly analogues of fentanyl. We have all heard how potent they are and how deadly they are. It gets mixed in with the heroin and people take it, and that is why we see the circles of death in our communities when it is too strong for the human body to take. Today, is an important day, Mr. Speaker. I wish it had been done much sooner so there wasn't this sort of craziness in the end: Are we going to get this done? Is it going to expire? It doesn't have to be that way, and obviously, there are more issues to be taken up. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support. S. 3201, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we would amend this rule, which then would make in order the Cole-McCarthy amendment. Now, that amendment would ensure the President can protect the United States and our ally, Israel. I don't think that is asking too much.

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend on the Rules Committee for yielding me the time. Our proposal to defeat the previous question and offer this amendment would do no underlying violence to the two bills--it has nothing to do with them--but it would save lives of all kinds of people in America. You see, fentanyl is a synthetic, manmade opioid. It is 50 times more potent than heroin. It is 100 times more potent than morphine. It is a scheduled drug under the Controlled Substances Act. However, Madam Speaker, drug traffickers are able to make small changes to fentanyl and its chemical structure, and that creates a new variation of the substance. Now, these so-called analogues are not on the schedule of controlled drugs. They are outside of the control of law enforcement, and they are incredibly dangerous--may I say, deadly. For example, one of these analogues, carfentanil, is 100 times as potent as the same amount of fentanyl, 5,000 times more potent than a unit of heroin, and 10,000 times as potent as a unit of morphine. Now, the creation of analogues outpaced the Drug Enforcement Administration's ability to schedule them, so the DEA used emergency authorities to place all of the analogues in schedule I. The Controlled Substances Act, the CSA, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA for 2 years if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. In 2018, the Trump administration's DEA used this authority to place fentanyl analogues and fentanyl-like substances on that schedule I. So here is the issue: The emergency scheduling order expires next Thursday, February 6, and Congress has yet to extend it. The Senate passed an extension, Madam Speaker, I believe, unanimously; but, so far, Democrats in the House have not acted. There is no excuse for this. There is no reason for this. Lives will be lost. We have seen a series of delay tactics, and that is leading to an expiration of this incredibly important authority. With the United States Senate dealing with impeachment, there is no time for the House to generate a new product, a different bill, before this expires. So the House needs to pass the Senate extension this week so law enforcement does not lose or have a lapse on this important capability to fight fentanyl, which is deadly, which is added to heroin, which causes deaths all across America. We are using this limited tool we have asking for a defeat of the previous question so that we can offer this should-be-unanimous amendment to get it on a vehicle so it can become law.

Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman's passionate statements are all accurate and true. It was not that long ago we came together as a Congress, the last Congress, under my leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and passed nearly 60 pieces of legislation into one, the SUPPORT Act, that deals with the opioid crisis, the substance use disorder crisis in America, and one of the key points of that was dealing with this illegal fentanyl that is coming in. If we let this authority expire, the real practical consequence is these evil actors, these chemists in their labs, will simply alter the chemical makeup, which they do all the time, create an even more deadly or powerful fentanyl that can go into heroin and other drugs and kill our citizens, and they can do that lawfully because that new substance will not be covered. Now, we would hope the majority would move the Senate bill. But we have seen no text; we have heard no schedule. This authority expires next week on February 6, and we only have a legislative day or two left. Madam Speaker, lives hang in the balance. This, we should adopt.

Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, we agree on the fentanyl issue, I think. My understanding is that the leader posted this, Madam Speaker, at 11:50 this morning, about a half an hour after we posted our previous question proposal to bring this to the floor. We are just curious what text, when it is scheduled. We need to resolve this issue, we would agree.