Jump to content
TedderVision

Baccei

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Baccei

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Baccei

    @SenHouston

    Elizabeth Houston | @SenHouston 1) Today I introduce two different bills in the Senate. Both bills will help Maine and Mainers. 2) The first bill will help reduce the cost of prescription drugs by creating more competition. Right now Drug Companies can actually pay to keep generic and more affordable drugs off the market. This creates a monopoly and increases the cost of prescription drugs. It is wrong. 3) The second bill picks up where Senator Collins and King work left off. It ensures that the federal government cannot Maine clammers and wormers to make a living. We must ensure that we respect our environment and protect the livelihood of these hardworking Mainers.
  2. IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS Senator Houston of MAINE for herself and others (original sponsor Ms. Collins and Mr. King) submits the following, A BILL To clarify the boundary of Acadia National Park, and for other purposes. 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 “Acadia National Park Boundary Clarification Act”. SEC. 2. ACADIA NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY CLARIFICATION. Section 101 of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) is amended— (1) in the first sentence, by striking “In order to” and inserting the following: “(a) Boundaries.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c)(2), to”; (2) in the second sentence— (A) by striking “The map shall be on file” and inserting the following: “(c) Availability And Revisions Of Maps.— “(1) AVAILABILITY.—The map, together with the map described in subsection (b)(1) and any revised boundary map published under paragraph (2), if applicable, shall be— “(A) on file”; and (B) by striking “Interior, and it shall be made” and inserting the following: “Interior; and “(B) made”; (3) by inserting after subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (1)) the following: “(b) Schoodic Peninsula Addition.— “(1) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Park is confirmed to include approximately 1,441 acres of land and interests in land, as depicted on the map entitled ‘Acadia National Park, Hancock County, Maine, Schoodic Peninsula Boundary Revision’, numbered 123/129102, and dated July 10, 2015. “(2) RATIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF ACQUISITIONS OF LAND.—Congress ratifies and approves— “(A) effective as of September 26, 2013, the acquisition by the United States of the land and interests in the land described in paragraph (1); and “(B) effective as of the date on which the alteration occurred, any alteration of the land or interests in the land described in paragraph (1) that is held or claimed by the United States (including conversion of the land to fee simple interest) that occurred after the date described in subparagraph (A).”; and (4) in subsection (c) (as designated by paragraph (2)(A)), by adding at the end the following: “(2) TECHNICAL AND LIMITED REVISIONS.—Subject to section 102(k), notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this title as the ‘Secretary’), by publication in the Federal Register of a revised boundary map or other description, may make— “(A) such technical boundary revisions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to the permanent boundaries of the Park (including any property of the Park located within the Schoodic Peninsula and Isle Au Haut districts) to resolve issues resulting from causes such as survey error or changed road alignments; and “(B) such limited boundary revisions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to the permanent boundaries of the Park to take into account acquisitions or losses, by exchange, donation, or purchase from willing sellers using donated or appropriated funds, of land adjacent to or within the Park, respectively, in any case in which the total acreage of the land to be so acquired or lost is less than 10 acres, subject to the condition that— “(i) any such boundary revision shall not be a part of a more-comprehensive boundary revision; and “(ii) all such boundary revisions, considered collectively with any technical boundary revisions made pursuant to subparagraph (A), do not increase the size of the Park by more than a total of 100 acres, as compared to the size of the Park on the date of enactment of this paragraph.”. SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ACQUISITIONS OF LAND FOR ACADIA NATIONAL PARK. Section 102 of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “of the Interior (hereinafter in this title referred to as ‘the Secretary’)”; (2) in subsection (d)(1), in the first sentence, by striking “the the” and inserting “the”; (3) in subsection (k)— (A) by redesignating the subsection as paragraph (4) and indenting the paragraph appropriately; and (B) by moving the paragraph so as to appear at the end of subsection (b); and (4) by adding at the end the following: “(k) Requirements.—Before revising the boundaries of the Park pursuant to this section or section 101(c)(2)(B), the Secretary shall— “(1) certify that the proposed boundary revision will contribute to, and is necessary for, the proper preservation, protection, interpretation, or management of the Park; “(2) consult with the governing body of each county, city, town, or other jurisdiction with primary taxing authority over the land or interest in land to be acquired regarding the impacts of the proposed boundary revision; “(3) obtain from each property owner the land or interest in land of which is proposed to be acquired for, or lost from, the Park written consent for the proposed boundary revision; and “(4) submit to the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission established by section 103(a), the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, and the Maine Congressional Delegation a written notice of the proposed boundary revision. “(l) Limitation.—The Secretary may not use the authority provided by section 100506 of title 54, United States Code, to adjust the permanent boundaries of the Park pursuant to this title.”. SEC. 4. ACADIA NATIONAL PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION. (a) In General.—The Secretary shall reestablish and appoint members to the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission in accordance with section 103 of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note). (b) Conforming Amendment.—Section 103 of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) is amended by striking subsection (f). SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO ACADIA NATIONAL PARK. The following are repealed: (1) Section 3 of the Act of February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1178, chapter 45). (2) The first section of the Act of January 19, 1929 (45 Stat. 1083, chapter 77). SEC. 6. MODIFICATION OF USE RESTRICTION. The Act of August 1, 1950 (64 Stat. 383, chapter 511), is amended— (1) by striking “That the Secretary” and inserting the following: “SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN ACADIA NATIONAL PARK. “The Secretary”; and (2) by striking “for school purposes” and inserting “for public purposes, subject to the conditions that use of the land shall not degrade or adversely impact the resources or values of Acadia National Park and that the land shall remain in public ownership for recreational, educational, or similar public purposes”. SEC. 7. CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN TRADITIONAL USES. Title I of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) is amended by adding at the end the following: “SEC. 109. CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN TRADITIONAL USES. “(a) Definitions.—In this section: “(1) LAND WITHIN THE PARK.—The term ‘land within the Park’ means land owned or controlled by the United States— “(A) that is within the boundary of the Park established by section 101; or “(B) (i) that is outside the boundary of the Park; and “(ii) in which the Secretary has or acquires a property interest or conservation easement pursuant to this title. “(2) MARINE SPECIES; MARINE WORM; SHELLFISH.—The terms ‘marine species’, ‘marine worm’, and ‘shellfish’ have the meanings given those terms in section 6001 of title 12 of the Maine Revised Statutes (as in effect on the date of enactment of this section). “(3) STATE LAW.—The term ‘State law’ means the law (including regulations) of the State of Maine, including the common law. “(4) TAKING.—The term ‘taking’ means the removal or attempted removal of a marine species, marine worm, or shellfish from the natural habitat of the marine species, marine worm, or shellfish. “(b) Continuation Of Traditional Uses.—The Secretary shall allow for the traditional taking of marine species, marine worms, and shellfish, on land within the Park between the mean high watermark and the mean low watermark in accordance with State law.”. SEC. 8. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LAND IN ACADIA NATIONAL PARK TO THE TOWN OF BAR HARBOR, MAINE. (a) In General.—The Secretary shall convey to the Town of Bar Harbor all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the .29-acre parcel of land in Acadia National Park identified as lot 110–055–000 on the tax map of the Town of Bar Harbor for section 110, dated April 1, 2015, to be used for a solid waste transfer facility. (b) Reversion.—If the land conveyed under subsection (a) is used for a purpose other than the purpose described in that subsection, the land shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, revert to the United States. SEC 9. PES The bill clarifies the boundaries of the Actia National Park and ensure that the federal government will not interfere with the ability of Maine clammers and wormers to earn a living and support their families. In addition, the legislation permanently reauthorizes the Acadia National Park Commission. The legislation also includes provisions to allow for the 2015 Schoodic Woods land transfer to the NPS while making clear that the 1986 boundary law remains permanent, and ensures that traditional uses of the intertidal zone are protected and harvesters’ rights upheld.
  3. IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS Senator Houston of MAINE for herself and others (original sponsor Ms. Klobuchar) submits the following, A Bill To prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug into the market. 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 “Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act”. SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES. (a) Findings.—Congress finds the following: (1) In 1984, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 98–417) (referred to in this Act as the “1984 Act”), was enacted with the intent of facilitating the early entry of generic drugs while preserving incentives for innovation. (2) Prescription drugs make up approximately 10 percent of the national health care spending. (3) Until recently, the 1984 Act was successful in facilitating generic competition to the benefit of consumers and health care payers, although 86 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in the United States are generic drugs, they account for only 27 percent of all expenditures. (4) Generic drugs cost substantially less than brand name drugs, with discounts off the brand price averaging 80 to 85 percent. (5) Federal dollars currently account for an estimated 38.6 percent of the $271,000,000,000 spent on prescription drugs, and this share is expected to rise to 47 percent by 2023. (6) (A) In recent years, the intent of the 1984 Act has been subverted by certain settlement agreements in which brand name companies transfer value to their potential generic competitors to settle claims that the generic company is infringing the branded company’s patents. (B) These “reverse payment” settlement agreements— (i) allow a branded company to share its monopoly profits with the generic company as a way to protect the branded company’s monopoly; and (ii) have unduly delayed the marketing of low-cost generic drugs contrary to free competition, the interests of consumers, and the principles underlying antitrust law. (C) Because of the price disparity between brand name and generic drugs, such agreements are more profitable for both the brand and generic manufacturers than competition and will become increasingly common unless prohibited. (D) These agreements result in consumers losing the benefits that the 1984 Act was intended to provide. (b) Purposes.—The purposes of this Act are— (1) to enhance competition in the pharmaceutical market by stopping anticompetitive agreements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers that limit, delay, or otherwise prevent competition from generic drugs; and (2) to support the purpose and intent of antitrust law by prohibiting anticompetitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry that harm consumers. SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL COMPENSATION FOR DELAY. (a) In General.—The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 26 (15 U.S.C. 57c–2) the following: “SEC. 27. PRESERVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE GENERICS. “(a) In General.— “(1) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING.—The Commission may initiate a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this section against the parties to any agreement resolving or settling, on a final or interim basis, a patent infringement claim, in connection with the sale of a drug product. “(2) PRESUMPTION AND VIOLATION.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), in such a proceeding, an agreement shall be presumed to have anticompetitive effects and be a violation of this section if— “(i) an ANDA filer receives anything of value, including an exclusive license; and “(ii) the ANDA filer agrees to limit or forego research, development, manufacturing, marketing, or sales of the ANDA product for any period of time. “(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if the parties to such agreement demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that— “(i) the value described in subparagraph (A)(i) is compensation solely for other goods or services that the ANDA filer has promised to provide; or “(ii) the procompetitive benefits of the agreement outweigh the anticompetitive effects of the agreement. “(b) Limitations.—In determining whether the settling parties have met their burden under subsection (a)(2)(B), the fact finder shall not presume— “(1) that entry would not have occurred until the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity; or “(2) that the agreement’s provision for entry of the ANDA product prior to the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity means that the agreement is procompetitive. “(c) Exclusions.—Nothing in this section shall prohibit a resolution or settlement of a patent infringement claim in which the consideration granted by the NDA holder to the ANDA filer as part of the resolution or settlement includes only one or more of the following: “(1) The right to market the ANDA product in the United States prior to the expiration of— “(A) any patent that is the basis for the patent infringement claim; or “(B) any patent right or other statutory exclusivity that would prevent the marketing of such drug. “(2) A payment for reasonable litigation expenses not to exceed $7,500,000. “(3) A covenant not to sue on any claim that the ANDA product infringes a United States patent. “(d) Enforcement.— “(1) ENFORCEMENT.—A violation of this section shall be treated as a violation of section 5. “(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—Any party that is subject to a final order of the Commission, issued in an administrative adjudicative proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), may, within 30 days of the issuance of such order, petition for review of such order in— “(i) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; “(ii) the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the ultimate parent entity, as defined in section 801.1(a)(3) of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor thereto, of the NDA holder is incorporated as of the date that the NDA is filed with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs; or “(iii) the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the ultimate parent entity of the ANDA filer is incorporated as of the date that the ANDA is filed with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. “(B) TREATMENT OF FINDINGS.—In a proceeding for judicial review of a final order of the Commission, the findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. “(e) Antitrust Laws.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws as defined in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), and of section 5 of this Act to the extent that section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition. Nothing in this section shall modify, impair, limit, or supersede the right of an ANDA filer to assert claims or counterclaims against any person, under the antitrust laws or other laws relating to unfair competition. “(f) Penalties.— “(1) FORFEITURE.—Each party that violates or assists in the violation of this section shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty sufficient to deter violations of this section, but in no event greater than 3 times the value received by the party that is reasonably attributable to the violation of this section. If no such value has been received by the NDA holder, the penalty to the NDA holder shall be sufficient to deter violations, but in no event greater than 3 times the value given to the ANDA filer reasonably attributable to the violation of this section. Such penalty shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the Commission, in its own name by any of its attorneys designated by it for such purpose, in a district court of the United States against any party that violates this section. In such actions, the United States district courts are empowered to grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate. “(2) CEASE AND DESIST.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Commission has issued a cease and desist order with respect to a party in an administrative adjudicative proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), an action brought pursuant to paragraph (1) may be commenced against such party at any time before the expiration of 1 year after such order becomes final pursuant to section 5(g). “(B) EXCEPTION.—In an action under subparagraph (A), the findings of the Commission as to the material facts in the administrative adjudicative proceeding with respect to the violation of this section by a party shall be conclusive unless— “(i) the terms of such cease and desist order expressly provide that the Commission’s findings shall not be conclusive; or “(ii) the order became final by reason of section 5(g)(1), in which case such finding shall be conclusive if supported by evidence. “(3) CIVIL PENALTY.—In determining the amount of the civil penalty described in this section, the court shall take into account— “(A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation; “(B) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of violations, the ability to pay, any effect on the ability to continue doing business, profits earned by the NDA holder, compensation received by the ANDA filer, and the amount of commerce affected; and “(C) other matters that justice requires. “(4) REMEDIES IN ADDITION.—Remedies provided in this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedy provided by Federal law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect any authority of the Commission under any other provision of law. “(g) Definitions.—In this section: “(1) AGREEMENT.—The term ‘agreement’ means anything that would constitute an agreement under section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) or section 5 of this Act. “(2) AGREEMENT RESOLVING OR SETTLING A PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM.—The term ‘agreement resolving or settling a patent infringement claim’ includes any agreement that is entered into within 30 days of the resolution or the settlement of the claim, or any other agreement that is contingent upon, provides a contingent condition for, or is otherwise related to the resolution or settlement of the claim. “(3) ANDA.—The term ‘ANDA’ means an abbreviated new drug application filed under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) or a new drug application filed under section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2)). “(4) ANDA FILER.—The term ‘ANDA filer’ means a party that owns or controls an ANDA filed with the Commission of Food and Drugs or has the exclusive rights under such ANDA to distribute the ANDA product. “(5) ANDA PRODUCT.—The term ‘ANDA product’ means the product to be manufactured under the ANDA that is the subject of the patent infringement claim. “(6) DRUG PRODUCT.—The term ‘drug product’ has the meaning given such term in section 314.3(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation). “(7) NDA.—The term ‘NDA’ means a new drug application filed under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)). “(8) NDA HOLDER.—The term ‘NDA holder’ means— “(A) the holder of an approved NDA application for a drug product; “(B) a person owning or controlling enforcement of the patent listed in the Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the ‘FDA Orange Book’) in connection with the NDA; or “(C) the predecessors, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, and affiliates controlled by, controlling, or under common control with any of the entities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) (such control to be presumed by direct or indirect share ownership of 50 percent or greater), as well as the licensees, licensors, successors, and assigns of each of the entities. “(9) PARTY.—The term ‘party’ means any person, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity. “(10) PATENT INFRINGEMENT.—The term ‘patent infringement’ means infringement of any patent or of any filed patent application, extension, reissue, renewal, division, continuation, continuation in part, reexamination, patent term restoration, patents of addition, and extensions thereof. “(11) PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM.—The term ‘patent infringement claim’ means any allegation made to an ANDA filer, whether or not included in a complaint filed with a court of law, that its ANDA or ANDA product may infringe any patent held by, or exclusively licensed to, the NDA holder of the drug product. “(12) STATUTORY EXCLUSIVITY.—The term ‘statutory exclusivity’ means those prohibitions on the approval of drug applications under clauses (ii) through (iv) of section 505(c)(3)(E) (5- and 3-year data exclusivity), section 527 (orphan drug exclusivity), or section 505A (pediatric exclusivity) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(c)(3)(E), 360cc, 355a).”. (b) Effective Date.—Section 27 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as added by this section, shall apply to all agreements described in section 27(a)(1) of that Act entered into after June 17, 2013. Section 27(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as added by this section, shall apply to agreements entered into on or after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 4. NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS. (a) Notice Of All Agreements.—Section 1112(c)(2) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (21 U.S.C. 355 note) is amended by— (1) striking “the Commission the” and inserting the following: “the Commission— “(A) the”; (2) striking the period and inserting “; and”; and (3) inserting at the end the following: “(B) any other agreement the parties enter into within 30 days of entering into an agreement covered by subsection (a) or (b).”. (b) Certification Of Agreements.—Section 1112 of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following: “(d) Certification.—The Chief Executive Officer or the company official responsible for negotiating any agreement under subsection (a) or (b) that is required to be filed under subsection (c) shall execute and file with the Assistant Attorney General and the Commission a certification as follows: ‘I declare that the following is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge: The materials filed with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice under section 1112 of subtitle B of title XI of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, with respect to the agreement referenced in this certification— “(1) represent the complete, final, and exclusive agreement between the parties; “(2) include any ancillary agreements that are contingent upon, provide a contingent condition for, or are otherwise related to, the referenced agreement; and “(3) include written descriptions of any oral agreements, representations, commitments, or promises between the parties that are responsive to subsection (a) or (b) of such section 1112 and have not been reduced to writing.’.”. SEC. 5. FORFEITURE OF 180-DAY EXCLUSIVITY PERIOD. Section 505(j)(5)(D)(i)(V) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(V)) is amended by inserting “section 27 of the Federal Trade Commission Act or” after “that the agreement has violated”. SEC. 6. COMMISSION LITIGATION AUTHORITY. Section 16(a)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 56(a)(2)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking “or” after the semicolon; (2) in subparagraph (E), by inserting “or” after the semicolon; and (3) inserting after subparagraph (E) the following: “(F) under section 27;”. SEC. 7. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The Federal Trade Commission shall commence any enforcement proceeding described in section 27 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as added by section 3, except for an action described in section 27(f)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, not later than 6 years after the date on which the parties to the agreement file the Notice of Agreement as provided by sections 1112(c)(2) and (d) of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (21 U.S.C. 355 note). SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such Act or amendments to any person or circumstance shall not be affected. SEC. 9 PES
  4. From the Office of Senator Elizabeth Houston For Immediate Release Senator Houston Announces Support for Legislation to Combat Opioid Crisis Washington D.C. - On the floor of the Senate, Senator Elizabeth Houston of Maine announced her support for the Opioid Action Act. The bill is designed to take action against the crisis addiction and help victims of addiction. It will help build new treatment centers, expand research to fight addiction, and will start an investigation into any wrongdoing in the industry. The Senator believes this legislation is an important first step solution to combat this national crisis. Senator Houston outlined why it was imperative the Senate find a solution to this crisis during her floor speech. "The biggest impact opioids are having on our communities is the human toll. In 2016, HHS estimated more than 42,000 people died from the opioid crisis. They also estimate that millions more have been addicted to opioids causing them to out of work. According to some studies, 15,700 Mainers are out of work due to opioid addiction. This crisis is having a real impact on Maine and the nation. It touches each part of our society and it is time for action."
  5. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about this important bill and the crisis that faces our nation. In each of our states, we have seen the impact of opioids. We have each seen and heard stories about how it has destroyed lives and families. It has taken a real human toll on our nation. And while that is enough to drive us to action, there is also a serious economic concern that faces our nation with growing dependency on opioids. This dependency on opioids has led to thousands of people being out of work. The opioid crisis is destroying countless communities throughout the country. The United States Senate has an obligation to act and combat this crisis sweeping across our nation. The biggest impact opioids are having on our communities is the human toll. In 2016, HHS estimated more than 42,000 people died from the opioid crisis. They also estimate that millions more have been addicted to opioids causing them to out of work. According to some studies, 15,700 Mainers are out of work due to opioid addiction. This crisis is having a real impact on Maine and the nation. It touches each part of our society and it is time for action. It is imperative that Congress come together on legislation to combat this problem. I support the underlying bill for a few reasons. First, it provides treatment for the victims in our communities. We have to reach out to these men and women and help them to discover their potential. Second, it sends a message to those flooding our streets with the dangerous drug that we will not stand by while you harm our communities. The bill will direct the Department of Justice to investigate any wrongdoing in the industry and empowers them to go after those who did wrong our communities. Finally, the bill expands research into programs that will better help the victims of this crisis. We have to make sure we have every tool to fight this problem. I commend the author of this bill, my friend from Louisana, and the Senate for bringing this bill up on the first docket of our new session. This is a very important first step as we continue to fight opioid addiction in this country. I look forward to final passage of this bill so that we might show the American people there is a way out of this crisis. I Yield the Floor.
  6. Baccei

    @SenHouston

    Elizabeth Houston | @SenHouston The opioid crisis is a national crisis. Far too many families have been destroyed because of it. I look forward to Congress coming together to pass legislation to combat this tragedy that plagues our communities.
  7. Baccei

    @SenHouston

    Twitter for Senator Elizabeth Houston
  8. Official Press Office of Senator Elizabeth Houston of Maine
  9. Official Voting Record of Senator Elizabeth Houston Docket One Confirm Jace Kadar to Attorney General: Aye Confirm Johnathon Grant to Treasury: Aye Confirm Jack Swanner Secretary of State: Aye Confirm Dean Heller to Secretary of the Interior: Aye Confirm Jim Webb to Secretary of Defense: Aye Sponsored Legislation
  10. Character Name: Elizabeth Houston Home State: Maine Previous Job: State Senator - District 33Date of Birth: June 3, 1975Race / Ethnicity: WhiteReligion: CatholicWealth: Working ClassGender: FemaleSexuality: HeterosexualAre you married?: YesHow many children do you have?: 2
×
×
  • Create New...