Question:
The North American fur trade was the industry and activities related to the acquisition, trade, exchange, and sale of animal furs in North America. Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Native Americans in the United States of different regions traded among themselves in the Pre-Columbian Era, but Europeans participated in the trade beginning from the time of their arrival in the New World and extended its reach to Europe. The French started trading in the 16th century, the English established trading posts on Hudson Bay in present-day Canada in the 17th century, and the Dutch had trade by the same time in New Netherland. The 19th-century North American fur trade, when the industry was at its peak of economic importance, involved the development of elaborate trade networks.
Deerskin trade was at its most profitable in the mid-18th century. The Creeks rose up as the largest deerskin supplier, and the increase in supply only intensified European demand for deerskins. Native Americans continued to negotiate the most lucrative trade deals by forcing England, France, and Spain to compete for their supply of deerskins. In the 1750s and 1760s, the Seven Years' War disrupted France's ability to provide manufactures goods to its allies, the Choctaws and Chickasaw. The French and Indian War further disrupted trade, as the British blockaded French goods. The Cherokees allied themselves with France, who were driven out from the southeast in accordance with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The British were now the dominant trading power in the southeast.  While both the Cherokee and the Creek were the main trading partners of the British, their relationships with the British were different. The Creeks adapted to the new economic trade system, and managed to hold onto their old social structures. Originally Cherokee land was divided into five districts; however, the number soon grew to thirteen districts with 200 hunters assigned per district due to deerskin demand.  Charleston and Savannah were the main trading ports for the export of deerskins. Deerskins became the most popular export, and monetarily supported the colonies with the revenue produced by taxes on deerskins. Charleston's trade was regulated by the Indian Trade Commission, composed of traders who monopolized the market and profited off the sale of deerskins. From the beginning of the 18th century to mid-century, the deerskin exports of Charleston more than doubled in exports. Charleston received tobacco and sugar from the West Indies and rum from the North in exchange for deerskins. In return for deerskins, Great Britain sent woolens, guns, ammunition, iron tools, clothing, and other manufactured goods that were traded to the Native Americans.
Answer this question using a quote from the text above:

What was happening in the fur trade during this time?

Answer:
Deerskin trade was at its most profitable in the mid-18th century.


Question:
Orrin Grant Hatch (born March 22, 1934) is an American attorney and politician serving as the senior United States Senator for Utah who has been the President pro tempore of the United States Senate since 2015. Having been a senator since 1977, Hatch is the longest-serving Republican Senator in U.S. history. Hatch served as either the chair or ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1993 to 2005. He previously served as chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions from 1981 to 1987 and currently serves as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee as well as serving on the board of directors for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Hatch introduced the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act, narrowing the broad authority of the DEA to suspend drug "manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers". Hatch stated the bill was also written to protect patients from disruptions in the production and delivery of their prescription drugs: "The fact that prescription drugs can be abused should not prevent patients from receiving the medications they need. This bill takes a balanced approach to the problem of prescription drug abuse by clarifying penalties for manufacturing or dispensing outside approved procedures while helping to ensure that supply chains to legitimate users remain intact". The bill passed the Senate unanimously and Tom Marino passed a version of the bill in the House and was signed by President Barack Obama.  Critics of the bill claim the new law fuels the opioid crisis by limiting the DEA's ability to halt production and distribution by predatory drug companies. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney II wrote in the Marquette Law Review: "At a time when, by all accounts, opioid abuse, addiction and deaths were increasing markedly, this new law imposed a dramatic diminution of the agency's authority. It is now all but logically impossible for the DEA to suspend a drug company's operations for failing to comply with federal law." Donald Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the law "dubious" and joined 44 state attorneys general calling for "repeal or amendment of the law to restore some of the DEA's authority." Jim Geldhof, a former DEA program manager whom spent 43 years with the DEA called the bill "outrageous. It basically takes any kind of action DEA was going to do with a distributor or manufacturer as far as an immediate suspension off the table. And then the other part of that really infuriates me is that corrective action plan." Mulrooney compared the corrective action plan to one that would "allow bank robbers to round up and return inkstained money and agree not to rob any more banks -- all before any of those wrongdoers actually admit fault and without any consequence that might deter such behavior in the future."  Hatch responded to a Washington Post and 60 Minutes investigation into the bill by writing a Washington Post opinion article calling the investigation "misleading" and asking to "leave conspiracy theories to Netflix". Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a co-sponsor of the senate bill, also defended the bill: "This bill was drafted in consultation with the DEA to offer better guidance for companies working to safely and responsibly supply prescription drugs to pharmacies, and to promote better communication and certainty between companies and regulators."  Republican Pat Toomey Pat Toomey expressed doubts that a conspiracy existed, but still suggested amending the bill: "I'm a little surprised that it passed unanimously in both houses, was signed by President Obama and got no opposition from the DEA at the time. That's not the way controversial legislation usually ends up, but hey, if there's problems, then we ought to revisit them."  Hatch received $177,000 in donations from the drug industry while pushing the bill through and has received $2,178,863 from the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products industry from 1989-2014 according to required filings by the Federal Election Commission.
Answer this question using a quote from the text above:

Was the Act voted into law?

Answer:
The bill passed the Senate unanimously and Tom Marino passed a version of the bill in the House and was signed by President Barack Obama.