[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 106 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4976-H4985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 350 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 350
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6) to accelerate the discovery, development,
and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments
specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 114-22 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
[[Page H4977]]
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such further amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the
House with such further amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 350 provides for a rule to
consider a critical bill that will help millions of Americans and their
families who are suffering from diseases for which there is no cure.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the
majority and the minority of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and
makes eight amendments from Members of both parties in order so that
the House may fully debate the merits of this legislation.
As is custom, the minority is offered a final motion to recommit the
bill prior to its passage.
I am pleased the House is considering this bipartisan legislation.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has spent 14 months working to bring
our healthcare innovation infrastructure into the 21st century.
Today, there are 10,000 known diseases or conditions, and we have got
cures for 500. There is a gap between the innovation and how we
regulate our therapies. It is not unheard of to have a company take 14
years and spend $2 billion to bring a new device or drug to market.
Members held nearly 20 roundtables and events around the country to
ensure that we involved patients, advocates, researchers, innovators,
and investors that have firsthand experience and help understand the
gaps in our current system.
H.R. 6 touches each step of the healthcare innovation process:
discovery, development and delivery. This bill attempts to close the
gap between the fast pace of innovation and our current, often
burdensome regulatory process.
The bill provides exciting new tools to uncover the next generation
of treatments and cures. H.R. 6 is, indeed, transformative--
transformative of the way that doctors and researchers study diseases,
develop treatments, and deliver care.
It encourages innovation. It fosters the use of data to further
research. It modernizes clinical trials and takes steps toward the
future of personalized medicine.
Not only does this bill take a major step forward in bringing more
cures to patients, this bill addresses our Nation's ever-increasing
healthcare spending. This bill establishes a temporary innovation fund
which is fully offset, including permanently reforming our entitlement
programs.
Beyond the budget window, these reforms in Medicare and Medicaid are
established to yield at least $7 billion in additional savings for
taxpayers; but make no mistake. The biggest cost saver--the biggest
cost saver--will be finding cures to some of America's most deadly and
costly diseases.
I am thankful to have worked on many parts of this bill. The
legislation contains five bills that I have introduced and other
provisions that I helped with the authorship. I would like to take a
minute to talk about a few of the sections where I have personally
worked on them.
While thousands of Americans are affected by multiple sclerosis,
Parkinson's, and other neurologic diseases, very little accurate
information exists to assist those who research, treat, and provide
care to those suffering from these diseases.
H.R. 6 actually includes H.R. 292, that I introduced, with Mr. Van
Hollen of Maryland, to advance research for neurologic diseases. H.R. 6
will allow for surveillance systems for tracking key neurologic
diseases, which may then be used to help us further understand these
devastating diseases and deliver their cure.
We are improving patient access to needed treatments by supporting
expedited approval for breakthrough therapies and actually making it
easier to seek approval for new indications of approved therapies.
Currently, the Food and Drug Administration approved drugs may be
only promoted for the approved indication, even if the sponsor
determines that the drug is an effective treatment for another
indication.
H.R. 6 includes another bill, H.R. 2415, which I introduced with Mr.
Engel of New York, and would formally establish a program within the
Food and Drug Administration, which would allow companies with approved
drugs or biologics to submit clinical data summaries for consideration
of a new indication.
This would reduce the time to approval and reduce resources required
to approve new indications of drugs, drugs that have a well-established
knowledge base and well-established safety information.
I introduced H.R. 293, with Representative DeFazio of Oregon, to
protect continuing medical education, which plays a vital role in our
healthcare system. This improves patient outcomes, facilitates medical
innovation, and keeps our Nation's medical professionals up-to-date.
With the inclusion of this provision in H.R. 6, we will ensure that
doctors continue to have access to these vital tools.
{time} 1415
The provision simply enforces current law, which states that
educational materials were explicitly excluded from reporting
requirements in the Affordable Care Act.
Unfortunately, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has
acted in conflict with the law, but we correct that in H.R. 6 and
ensure that physicians have access to materials and information to keep
us informed and up to date on medical innovation. With its inclusion in
H.R. 6, we will ensure that doctors continue to have access to these
vital tools.
We ensure that Americans have access to their critical health
information by identifying barriers to achieving fully interoperable
health records.
Mr. Speaker, the United States taxpayer has spent well over $30
billion to ensure that healthcare providers obtain an electronic record
system. However, the investment has not resulted in access to
information in those records and patients across the healthcare
spectrum.
While we have seen widespread adoption of electronic health records,
our Nation continues to maintain a fragmented healthcare system, making
it difficult to ensure the continuity for evidence-based care for
patients.
The 21st Century Cures Act would finally set the United States on a
path toward achieving a nationwide interoperable health information
system. This will be transformative for research and for medical
treatment.
Finally, along with Mr. McCaul and Mr. Butterfield, we aid patients
by requiring companies to clarify availability of expanded access
programs.
Further, with the inclusion of H.R. 2414, which I introduced with Mr.
Schrader of Oregon, we are requiring the Food and Drug Administration
to issue guidance on the dissemination of up-to-date, truthful,
scientific medical information about FDA-approved medications.
This legislation passed out of Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on
Health on May 19 on a voice vote, and it passed the full committee on
May 21, 51-0, the second time in 3 years that the committee has had a
51-0 vote, the previous one being on the repeal of the sustainable
growth rate formula.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and
``yes'' on
[[Page H4978]]
the underlying bill. 21st Century Cures would not only deliver hope to
the millions of American patients living with untreatable diseases, but
it will help modernize and streamline the American healthcare system.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess)
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I speak on this bill, I want to thank Leader
Pelosi for leading today's efforts to hold House Republicans
accountable for their divisive Confederate flag amendment.
You know, it is stunning to me that my Republican friends decided to
refer the minority leader's resolution to committee so we could not
have a debate.
The legislature in South Carolina could have a debate, but my
Republican friends here in the House of Representatives ensured that we
in Congress cannot have that debate.
And the fact is that Americans, I think, are ready to leave behind
the discrimination and hate symbolized by the Confederate flag, but my
friends on the other side of the aisle seem to have a different idea.
Last night House Republicans introduced an amendment to the Interior
Appropriations bill that simply has no place on this House floor.
It would undo the successful Democratic amendment adopted by voice
that would have barred the display of Confederate flags in Federal
cemeteries and barred the National Park Service from doing business
with gift shops that sell Confederate flag merchandise.
Simply put, while South Carolina voted this week to take the
Confederate flag down, Republicans in Congress were ready to put it
back up.
And even more troubling, House Republicans tried to sneak this
amendment into the bill late last night, hoping that nobody would
notice. We noticed. The American people noticed.
And I am ashamed that, in 2015, Congress would even consider a
measure that seeks to perpetuate the hate and racism that the
Confederate flag represents.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle, especially the
leadership, seem to be in a little bit of disarray.
The Speaker of the House is trying to distance himself from the
measure, notwithstanding that the Republican chairman of the House
Appropriations Interior Subcommittee who offered the amendment said
that he did so at the request of the Republican leadership.
The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and a reminder of one of
our Nation's darkest periods of division. It has no place in America's
National Parks. Congress should not promote this symbol of hate.
And now is the time to come together. I am proud to join with my
colleagues who are standing up today for all Americans united against
hate.
I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so that we can bring up the Pelosi resolution before all of us
here and have that debate and have that vote. I hope my Republican
friends will join with me.
I just want to say one final thing. The fact that the Interior
Appropriations bill was pulled from consideration on this House floor
by my Republican friends because they believed that, without this pro-
Confederate flag amendment, that they could lose up to 100 of their own
Members, is stunning to me.
It never ceases to amaze me. Just when I think that this institution
can't sink any lower, then something like this happens.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to stand with me and vote
against the previous question so we can actually have this debate, a
debate I think the American people would want us to have.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the underlying bill before us, H.R. 6, the 21st
Century Cures Act, I just want to say that this is the product of
bipartisan hearings, stakeholder meetings, drafts and redrafts.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the version of H.R. 6 that was passed
by the Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 51-0. A vote like
that doesn't happen often, especially in this Congress.
I want to commend Chairman Upton and Congresswoman DeGette for
leading this initiative and tirelessly working to get H.R. 6 to the
floor.
I think it represents the kind of investments that we should be
making to help families stay healthy and to grow our economy.
It provides $8.75 billion in mandatory funding over the next 5 years
to the National Institutes of Health to spur scientific innovation and
discovery by the country's premier medical researchers and scientists.
During the Clinton administration, Congress doubled the NIH budget
and made a real commitment to keeping America on the front lines of
scientific research. That investment led to exponential advances in
medicine.
We should continue that progress by once again giving NIH the
resources they need to make new advances in medicine. We shouldn't let
our politics limit our ambition.
As Members of Congress, we were elected to be leaders, and this is an
opportunity to ensure America continues to lead the way on new
breakthroughs in health.
Now, I would have preferred to see the original $10 billion in NIH
funding that was included in the bill that passed out of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and I hope that we can increase NIH funding back to
that level as the bill moves forward.
We know without a shadow of a doubt that basic medical research
produces results. In fact, NIH-funded research at institutions like the
University of Massachusetts Medical School in my hometown of Worcester
has been the single greatest contributor to advances in health in human
history.
Today the average American lives 6 years longer than in the 1970s
largely because of pioneering NIH investments.
All across the country, NIH-supported researchers are forging a path
toward treatment and cures for debilitating diseases that impact
patients everywhere.
But their success depends upon us. Our decision to invest in NIH is
imperative to their success in improving health for all Americans.
Just consider UMASS Medical School as one example. For years, UMASS
has been in the forefront of medical innovation because of investments
from NIH.
In 2006, Dr. Craig Mello received the Nobel Prize in medicine for his
groundbreaking discovery of RNA silencing, which, in layman's terms,
means shutting off bad cells.
UMASS has researchers working toward finding cures for AIDS, Down's
Syndrome, and Lou Gehrig's disease. All of this is possible because of
our investment in NIH.
But I hear over and over again from scientists and medical
researchers that they worry about the uncertainty of NIH funding
because of crazy things that we do, like sequestration. They worry
about our commitment to advancing basic medical research.
Fewer and fewer research grants are being funded. Countries like
China, India, and even Singapore are luring away the best and brightest
American researchers because they are committing to making meaningful
investments in medical research.
21st Century Cures helps to reverse that trend, but I worry it is not
enough. I am pleased to see that H.R. 6 takes a number of steps to
modernize clinical trials, improve how the Food and Drug Administration
approves new drugs and devices, and encourages the development of next
generation treatments through the use of precision medicine, which
President Obama highlighted in his State of the Union speech.
Just last week we saw the approval of a major new drug that will
improve the quality of life for more than 10,000 people living with
cystic fibrosis. The investments included in 21st Century Cures will
help us to make more of these kinds of groundbreaking advances a
reality.
Mr. Speaker, for all of the bipartisanship and positive aspects of
this bill, I would be remiss if I didn't point out one glaring
inconsistency.
Despite numerous hearings, round tables, and forms on this bill, a
controversial policy rider that restricts access to abortion was added
to the bill that came before the Rules Committee.
[[Page H4979]]
It is like the majority couldn't help themselves. They couldn't
resist an opportunity to add a contentious rider to an otherwise
bipartisan package to advance medical research.
I am pleased that the committee made in order an amendment offered by
my friends Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, and Yvette Clarke to strike
these controversial policy riders.
Unfortunately, the committee prohibited a number of other amendments
from coming to the floor for debate. Out of the 36 amendments submitted
for consideration, only eight will be considered on this floor during
debate on this legislation.
Many of our colleagues came to the Rules Committee last night to
testify on their amendments. They raised important issues and made
suggestions as to how we can improve this legislation.
So while I support the underlying bill, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the rule, which prohibits debate on a number of amendments
worthy of consideration.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the
committee, Fred Upton, and Diana DeGette for their great bipartisan
work. And we all put a shoulder to the wheel here to get this done.
This is really big, 21st Century Cures. All of us have known someone
afflicted by deadly diseases. Most of us have seen people in our own
families.
My mother passed away as the result of ovarian cancer. My sister-in-
law had brain cancer. I lost a son to a congenital heart defect. My
mother-in-law had rheumatoid arthritis from a very early age. My
stepmother died of a stroke. We are all affected.
Investing in cures, investing in treatments, investing in innovation
and doing it right here in America is the best step forward.
This legislation would modernize the Nation's biomedical innovation
infrastructure and streamline the process for how drugs and medical
devices are approved in order to get new treatments to patients and get
it to them faster.
To do this, we solicited input from some of the best scientists in
the world, including Dr. Brian Druker of OHSU, Oregon Health Sciences
University, Knight Cancer Research Center, a true pioneer in the fight
against cancer.
This initiative would give hope to countless Oregonians. Like my
friend Linda Sindt, a close friend in southern Oregon, she lost her
husband Duane to pancreatic cancer. She said this legislation will put
us on a path to improved survival for pancreatic cancer.
Nancy Roach, a colon cancer advocate in my hometown of Hood River,
praised the bill, saying, ``Investing in 21st century science by
boosting funding for the NIH makes sense.''
Colton and Tiffany Allen are residents of Talent, Oregon. They said
this bill will give hope, hope, to individuals like Colton, who
struggles with ALS.
We owe it to people like Linda, Nancy, Colton, Tiffany, to our
families, to all Americans and literally people around the globe to
pass this legislation, to tackle these diseases that have no treatment
or cure, to develop new innovative treatments, provide better health
technology, and ultimately bring hope and better lives for all.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day for me, as a
member of the Rules Committee. Rules, as you know, is the process
committee. I want to spend my time discussing the process that has been
going on here.
The process that rules have in the House is to really make certain
that fairness is presented to all parties.
{time} 1430
Whether you are a majority or a minority, you have your rights, but
they have been trampled on and abused with increasing regularity under
this majority, and we have two glaring examples of that just today. We
have glaring examples every day, but let me bring up these two.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is critically important to all of us, and as
everybody has spoken before makes it clear--and we all agree on the
importance of putting more money into major research in the United
States--we are falling behind other countries in finding the cures and
the innovation for which we have been known for centuries. This is an
important step that we are taking. This is a critically important bill,
but process matters.
Mr. Speaker, after the committee had voted out this bill unanimously,
major changes were made with no committee input at all. They include
reduction of the amount of money that the committee had said would be
put into the National Institutes of Health by $1.025 billion, a very
substantial sum.
They added some policy riders that literally made no sense. Why in
the world would you put an abortion rider on a thing for medical
research? As far as I know, the NIH and most medical universities doing
this research do not perform abortion procedures. It was simply a way,
again, to mollify people and make somebody think that, if they vote for
this bill, they are doing something that is impossible to do. But like
Alice in Wonderland, we are all trained here to try to believe six
impossible things before breakfast because we are confronted with them
daily.
Another one is that they changed the pay-fors, which is critically
important to everything that we do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. So, Mr. Speaker, despite the importance of this bill,
despite the fact that it came out of committee unanimously, despite the
fact that so many people have worked on it, and despite the fact that
good things were in it, the process was completely changed after it was
over by rewriting major portions of it. That doesn't appear anywhere in
the rules of the House.
Now, not only that, let's think about what happened here this
morning. Last night on the Interior bill, which is an open rule, after
the Democrat who was up, Betty McCollum of Minnesota, had yielded back
her time, after the time had been yielded on both sides and the vote
had been taken, suddenly another amendment appears at the request, as
Mr. McGovern has said, of the Republican leadership. So they suddenly
come up with this. Ms. McCollum was not informed in any way. She had
absolutely no knowledge of what was going to happen. That may not break
a specific rule of the House, but it sure does break etiquette. You do
not come out onto the floor to try to fool people who are on the other
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, what happened here this morning,
obviously, I think Mr. McGovern has stated it precisely. Without the
ability to have that amendment, without that crazy amendment, frankly,
that resolution--as far as I am concerned, once you send them back to
committee, you are sending them to interment--we will never see that
one again. But they had to have that in order to get the votes to pass
the bill. That is the kind of horse trading and all the things that go
on here. After all the process and procedure that belongs to the
Congress of the United States, and has for centuries, has been
absolutely abused, as I said earlier, and trampled on on a regular
basis, Mr. Speaker, it is time we stopped it. Nothing happened here
today except to make this place look stupid.
I was born in a border State, in Kentucky. All my life I have lived
there. I was educated there, and I was married there. I never saw a
Confederate flag in all the years of my life. These battle flags that
they are putting up appeared in the South after the civil rights
legislation. They were the products of Strom Thurmond and the
Dixiecrats. That is when they started to bloom all over. It is a symbol
of pure hate and revenge or whatever else they want to call it. It
needs to go.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10
seconds.
[[Page H4980]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. It is the equivalent to my having the German
Government flying the swastika over the Bundestag.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a valuable member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for
H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act.
The 21st Century Cures Act is one of the best things Congress has
done in a long time in my opinion. H.R. 6 is a holistic reform of how
we can get cures and treatments to patients who need them. That is what
this bill is all about, patients, our constituents, Mr. Speaker.
One provision I was particularly proud to author will establish a
drug management program which prevents at-risk beneficiaries from
abusing controlled substances. This program will help protect our
seniors. It is a fix to Medicare part D, that is a program that is
really desperately needed. This commonsense measure has been
recommended by GAO and IG, and it is also recommended by CMS.
Mr. Speaker, it is utilized by private industry, TRICARE, and State
Medicaid programs. This bill makes strides to prevent prescription drug
abuse and promote a healthier America.
I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill as well.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to consider the 21st
Century Cures Act on the floor. On the Energy and Commerce Committee,
we worked tirelessly with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
to get this bill to a place that we could all agree upon, a place where
we provide new mandatory funding for NIH to do the critical research
that is a foundation for cures, a place where we tweak FDA processes
and provide FDA with additional resources to do the new things that
will help get treatments and cures to patients faster.
As we worked together to find ways to accelerate innovation, patients
with rare diseases have been at the forefront of our conversations. It
is often more difficult to research and develop cures for rare disease
patients due to their small populations. However, finding cures for
rare diseases is not just of the utmost importance to the patients with
those rare diseases and their families, it is important to all of us.
You never know where a cure might come from, and often research and
drug development on one disease may turn out to be fruitful for
another.
Mr. Speaker, we all need to work together to advance cures and
treatments. A provision of this bill would encourage public-private
partnerships to foster better utilization of patient registries that
generate important information on the natural history of diseases,
especially rare diseases for which other types of research can be
difficult.
I also applaud the efforts in this bill to advance the President's
Precision Medicine Initiative to accelerate discoveries that are
tailored to individual patients' needs.
The telehealth language in 21st Century Cures recognizes telehealth
is the delivery of safe, effective, quality healthcare services by a
healthcare provider using technology as the mode of delivery, and the
interoperability provision makes great strides toward ensuring that our
health IT systems can communicate amongst each other and with patients.
Mr. Speaker, I don't claim that this bill is perfect. Compromises
have been made. I am disappointed that the amount of NIH funding has
been recently reduced from $10 billion to $8.7 billion. I am also
disappointed that policy riders, such as the Hyde amendment language,
have been inserted after we voted this out of committee, and I look
forward to voting for the amendment offered by my colleagues Barbara
Lee, Jan Schakowsky, and Yvette Clarke to strike the policy riders
language. With that, Mr. Speaker, I do, however, support the 21st
Century Cures legislation.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. McCaul), the chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend Dr. Burgess and Chairman Upton for
a bill that is truly visionary that will actually save lives, something
we can rarely say we do up here in this place, but I believe this will
provide cures for the next century.
Mr. Speaker, there are two provisions I am very pleased to see in the
bill. One is the Andrea Sloan CURE Act, which expands compassionate use
to those who have life-threatening diseases and gives them greater
access to lifesaving medications. Andrea is a friend of mine who, on
her deathbed, asked me to try to make sure that this didn't happen to
other people.
And finally, I am pleased to see the reauthorization of the Creating
Hope Act, which has now led to the second childhood cancer drug
approved since the 1980s and the first FDA-approved drug to treat high-
risk neuroblastoma.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that with the passage of this bill we will see
greater cures in the future, and we will not only save adults from
cancers, but also children from this dreaded disease in the future.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, coming out of committee, H.R. 6 was a bipartisan huge
leap forward in our efforts to accelerate the development of lifesaving
cures through medical research. Yet somehow, between the committee and
the floor, the majority once again has tacked on antiabortion Hyde
amendment language, which makes no sense at all.
It is like the Republicans are cheap stage magicians attracting our
attention with the promise of critically needed medical advances, all
the while stuffing the same old, flea-bitten Hyde provision rabbit into
their hat. We are tired of this tedious stage show. NIH is already
subject to the Hyde provisions in appropriation bills. This is just a
way to continue politics as usual.
If H.R. 6 passes under a mantle of bipartisanship, they will pull out
the rabbit, wave it around, and say, Look how amazing and wonderful we
are.
I, for one, am sick of the House being run like a boardwalk magic
show. Adding this type of language between open, transparent committee
consideration and open, transparent floor consideration makes a mockery
of representative government. Adding an antiabortion rider to bills in
the dead of night through sleight of hand turns the substantive
bipartisan work that is crafted in H.R. 6 into a pathetic imitation of
cooperation.
Since the 114th Congress began, the House has taken 37 actions to
restrict abortion access. While I don't agree with this paranoid focus
on women's private and legal medical decisions, it is the majority's
right to set the agenda; but I cannot stand by while these provisions
are slipped into an otherwise excellent bill through underhanded
maneuvers that run contrary to our democratic process. When similar
provisions were slipped into a human trafficking bill, we said no. Why
aren't we saying no today?
I am a cosponsor of the original version of H.R. 6, but I cannot let
the people's House become the people's House of smoke and mirrors.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the House Doctors Caucus.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today someone
who, 45 years ago, graduated from medical school. My first pediatric
rotation was at St. Jude Children's Hospital. At that time, a majority
of all those children that I saw as a young medical student died of
their disease. Today, almost 90 percent of those children live.
Back in the 1950s, we had a polio vaccine. It was developed with the
help of government funding, and today that would be scored as a cost to
the taxpayers. Does anyone think the prevention of polio was a cost to
the taxpayers? It was one of the greatest miracles of the 20th century.
Just 4 short months ago, my wife died of stage 4 colon cancer. And I
know right now that everyone in this Chamber who is listening and
everyone who is outside watching this has had a
[[Page H4981]]
close family member or a friend or a relative who has experienced
something similar.
Mr. Speaker, it is time now we as a nation got serious about curing
the major diseases, not treating the disease, but curing the major
diseases that are affecting this country and affecting us personally. I
am more passionate about this bill and excited about passing the 21st
Century Cures bill than anything I have voted on since I have been in
the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this rule
and the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman
from Massachusetts, for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and in strong support of the
21st Century Cures bill that was voted unanimously, in a bipartisan
fashion, out of my Energy and Commerce Committee.
{time} 1445
America is the world leader in medical research, and we have got to
work to keep it that way. That has been at risk lately because of
congressional budget battles. The resources that our researchers need
to find the cures and treatments of the future have been at risk. Our
commitment to medical research has eroded over the years, but this 21st
Century Cures bill would put us now on a stronger path forward.
I have advocated for more NIH research dollars for many years to
boost our patients back home suffering from the debilitating diseases.
I have offered amendments in the Budget Committee to shift money from
discretionary to mandatory because it is mandatory in America that we
respond and we research the cures of tomorrow, such as precision
medicine like they are doing at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa,
Florida.
Now that we have mapped the human genome, we can find and provide
precise cures and treatments to our neighbors and family members with
cancer.
I am disappointed that the amount of money has been eroded. I am very
disappointed that the Hyde rider was added at the last minute behind
closed doors; it was not voted on in committee, but simply stated, this
bill is too important not to pass it.
I would like to thank my colleague Chairman Upton and my good friend
Diana DeGette from Colorado for leading the charge. We are firmly with
you, and we are with the patients and the researchers in America that
will benefit from this terrific piece of legislation.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire to the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 17 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for the purpose
of the introduction of my next speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is really a great privilege to recognize the next
speaker on our side, the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce
Committee. In fact, the last reauthorization for the National
Institutes of Health occurred under Joe Barton's watch, one of the last
things we did at the waning hours of the 109th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, he did provide additional funding to the NIH; he
provided an increase of 5 percent a year for the lifetime of that
reauthorization. Unfortunately, it was never appropriated to that level
after the Democrats took charge in the 110th Congress.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the
chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for his
observations.
(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member from Texas for
that generous introduction.
Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, I went to then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor
and committee chairman Fred Upton and asked permission to create a task
force, a bipartisan task force--equal numbers of Republicans and
Democrats from the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Appropriations
Committee--to work with outside groups and experts to see if there were
not some ideas that we could put forward in legislation to improve the
ability to find and implement cures for all the various diseases that
afflict our Nation.
Mr. Upton and Mr. Cantor approved that task force. We had a task
force of 24 members. We had an outside group that included several
Nobel prize winners, leaders from Johns Hopkins and MD Anderson, former
directors of NIH and FDA. That morphed in the beginning of this
Congress to a task force that Diana DeGette and Chairman Upton led
themselves. That has led to a bipartisan bill that, as has been pointed
out, came out of committee 51-0.
That is an amazingly extraordinarily positive accomplishment to have
total unanimity in support of this type of a bill. We haven't
reauthorized NIH since 2006, and that lapsed in 2009. This bill does
that. We have taken every innovative idea in the medical community that
makes any sense at all and put it into this bill.
We are increasing the authorization for spending for NIH. We have the
innovation fund, which is a mandatory program for 5 years. It puts a
little under $2 billion a year that is offset; it is paid for; it does
go away at the end of 5 years, but for 5 years, it is specifically
going to innovation research that is a fast track to find the cures
that are most applicable to the marketplace today.
This bill is a revolutionary bill. We need to pass it, Mr. Speaker.
There are lots of problems. There are things that are not in the bill
that I wanted in the bill, but this is a huge step forward. It rarely
happens that Congress can work together to do something that is totally
for the benefit of the American people. This is one of those times.
We need to vote for the rule, and then we need to vote for the bill,
and we will move forward, united, to find the cures for the 21st
century for all Americans and, really, to some extent, for all the
world.
I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat
the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow
for consideration of Leader Pelosi's resolution, which basically says
that any State flag containing the Confederate battle flag would be
prohibited from the House wing of the Capitol.
Given what the Republicans, our leadership, tried to do on the
Interior Appropriations bill yesterday, I think this is especially
timely. As I mentioned earlier, while South Carolina voted this week to
take the Confederate flag down, Republicans in Congress appear ready to
put it back up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Oversight.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend Mr. McGovern for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you, my heart is heavy. I am saddened by
what has happened here in America. I thought that we have come much
farther--much farther--along.
Growing up in rural Alabama, attending school in Nashville,
Tennessee, now living in Georgia, I have seen the signs that said White
and Colored--White men, Colored men, White women, Colored women, White
waiting, Colored waiting.
During the sixties, during the height of the civil rights movement,
we broke those signs down. They are gone. The only place that we will
see those signs today will be in a book, in a museum, or on a video. If
a descendant of Jefferson Davis could admit the Confederate battle flag
is a symbol of hate and division, why can't we do it here? Why can't we
move to the 21st century?
Racism is a disease. We must free ourselves of the way of hate, the
way of violence, the way of division. We are not there yet. We have not
yet created a beloved community where we respect the dignity and the
worth of every human being.
We need to bring down the flag. The scars and stains of racism are
still deeply and very embedded in every corner of American society. I
don't want to see our little children--whether they are Black, White,
Latino, Asian American, or Native American--growing up
[[Page H4982]]
and seeing these signs of division, these signs of hate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. LEWIS. As a Nation and as a people, we can do better. We can lay
down this heavy burden. It is too heavy to bear. Hate is too heavy a
burden to bear. We need to not continue to plant these seeds in the
minds of our people.
When I was marching across that bridge in Selma in 1965, I saw some
of the law officers and sheriff deputies wearing on their helmet the
Confederate flag. I don't want to go back, and as a country, we cannot
go back.
We must go forward and create a community that recognizes all of us
as human beings, as citizens, for we are one people, one Nation; we all
live in the same House, the American House.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
Mr. YODER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the chorus of Americans
who are calling out for support and research and innovation to cure
diseases that affect every family and neighborhood in America.
The rule that we have before us would allow us to debate the 21st
Century Cures bill forwarded by the Energy and Commerce Committee on a
unanimous, bipartisan vote.
What this bill would do would increase, by over $8 billion, research
over the next 5 years to be conducted by the National Institutes of
Health. Each year, we spend over $700 billion on care for seniors
through Medicare; yet we spend just $30 billion a year, roughly,
annually, on curing or researching the cures for every disease that
plagues our country: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease,
diabetes.
In all those diseases combined, we spend just $30 billion a year on
research; yet we spend trillions on health care. We know, each year,
600,000 people will die of cancer. We know, each year in the United
States, 700,000 people will die of Alzheimer's. These are real people,
real families that are in anguish over these and many other diseases.
It is not just a moral issue; it is an economic issue. By 2050,
estimates are that our country will spend $1.1 trillion annually to
treat health care for people with Alzheimer's alone, over $1 trillion
annually; yet we spend just $562 million a year researching a cure for
Alzheimer's, a true definition of penny wise and pound foolish.
This 21st Century Cures bill increases our commitment to curing
disease, as I said, by over $8 billion over the next 5 years.
Each of us has a family member or a friend with a tragic story about
one of these diseases. These diseases know no party affiliation; they
don't know center of aisle versus the left or right side of the aisle.
They know no State; they have no regional boundaries. They don't know
the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending.
To cure these diseases is a moral imperative for these families, but
to cure these diseases is also an economic imperative. If we cure one
of these diseases, our investment will pay for itself a thousand times
over. The CBO can't score that; the CBO can't make any recognition of
that. This is a savings bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. YODER. I have a 20-month-old daughter, and this isn't just about
curing the disease for our generation; it is about curing the disease
for her generation and every generation to follow.
Supporting the 21st Century Cures bill bends the cost curve on
entitlements; it saves our country from going into bankruptcy, and it
helps us balance our budget. These investments are not just necessary
for our moral imperative to save lives, but they are also an economic
imperative.
All those things together means we ought to have a robust, large vote
in this House to pass this rule and to ensure that the 21st Century
Cures bill goes forward.
I strongly support it, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Southern strategy was and is
a Republican strategy of gaining political support for its political
candidates by appealing to regional and racial tensions in this country
based on the history of slavery, the history of the Civil War, racism,
and segregation. That is a history that is indefensible, and so is the
Confederate battle flag which represents those attitudes.
I call upon my fellow colleagues in the Republican Party to denounce
this Southern strategy once and for all and to do what it takes to
affirm the tide of this country, which is to do away with that symbol
of oppression and racial animist, the Confederate battle flag.
Let's remove that flag from our national cemeteries, from our Park
Service, places of purchasing memorabilia.
{time} 1500
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
We do have before us today a unique opportunity. We have an
opportunity to lay the groundwork for the future. We have the way to
lead in the 21st century in providing 21st century cures.
To be sure, we are providing additional funding to the National
Institutes of Health and we are providing additional funding to the
Food and Drug Administration, but we are also placing requirements upon
those institutions.
We all know we have to do things faster, better, cheaper, smarter and
that we have to do more with less. That is what the 21st Century Cures
bill lays before us, and that is why this rule is so crucial and
critical today and why I urge its passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the
underlying bill.
The bill provides for an increase of $1.75 billion per year in the
budget for the National Institutes of Health. I applaud all efforts to
increase funding for the NIH.
I am a survivor of ovarian cancer, and I am alive today because of
the grace of God and biomedical research. So I appreciate biomedical
research.
Unfortunately, this increase is not nearly enough to restore the
NIH's lost purchasing power. Since fiscal year 2010, the National
Institutes of Health has seen its budget erode by about $3.6 billion in
real terms, an 11 percent cut. If we are serious about funding life-
saving medical research, we must raise our level of ambition.
This bill also sets aside $500 million of the increase to be spent in
certain specified areas of research. I think that this is a wrong
approach.
The people best placed to decide which scientific avenues are worth
pursuing are scientists, not politicians. We should not substitute our
judgment for theirs.
I am also concerned that the bill will lower standards for medical
device approval at the Food and Drug Administration and create a new
pathway for antibiotic approval that, in my view, involves less
rigorous testing requirements. Again, I think that this is a wrong
approach.
It is our duty to protect the public from potentially unsafe devices
and drugs. We do not do that by reducing standards.
Finally, the majority is yet again using this bill as a vehicle for
anti-choice Hyde amendment language. Since January, the majority and
its counterpart in the other Chamber have sought to restrict access to
abortion no fewer than 37 times.
The bottom line on this issue is that we need to trust women and that
we need to trust the choices they make. We have to trust women.
Politicians have no business meddling in those decisions.
For these reasons, I believe that we should reject this bill, and I
urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I would point out that once again reauthorization of the National
Institutes of Health occurred in this Congress in the waning days of
the 109th Congress in December of 2006.
[[Page H4983]]
Mr. Barton reauthorized the NIH at a $31 million base to increase by
5 percent per year. We were told at the time that that was not enough
and, with biomedical inflation at 8.8 percent a year, that it was, in
fact, a cut.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, what happened was then, of course, the
Democrats took control of the House and the Senate the following year,
and they never appropriated the NIH to that 5 percent figure.
Now, this is not about Republicans and Democrats. This is about
finding cures for the 21st century. The gentlewoman is correct in that
we do direct some of the research dollars within the NIH.
You will recall, when the stimulus bill passed in 2009, $10 billion
went into the NIH right then to be spent that year.
We ended up filling up and filing paperwork from leftover projects,
but we got very few deliverables out of that. This directs that
research into high-risk, high-reward areas. We need the deliverables
from the NIH.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my thanks to Fred
Upton for recruiting me to help cosponsor this bill with him, and I
give my thanks to all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
working together on finding cures from the lab into the clinics for so
many diseases that we don't have any treatments for right now. This
really is an extraordinary effort that we have made, and it really is
Congress at its best.
I do want to mention that I was disappointed when, after the bill
passed in the Energy and Commerce Committee 51-0, that in the manager's
amendment the annual riders from the Labor-HHS bill were put into the
bill. I think it is unnecessary, and I think that it distracts our
attention from the important mission this bill brings.
I will be voting for the Lee amendment, but I would urge all of our
colleagues, no matter how you vote on the amendments that are made in
order in these rules, to please vote ``yes'' for the patients of
America.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
This past weekend, in an op-ed piece that was published online, Mr.
James Pinkerton wrote:
As Abraham Lincoln said a century and a half ago, the
Federal Government should only be doing things that people
can't do for themselves.
Medical cures are a great example of something people can't do for
themselves at home. That is what we are about this afternoon, providing
the rule to allow for the consideration for the cure of the 21st
century.
It is an important rule, and the underlying bill is important. I urge
all Members to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from the great State of
Massachusetts for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is an emotional time for many of us. This is an
important bill. But we have just gone through an emotional time on this
floor, again, raising up the ugliness of the rebel flag.
I stand again to try and educate both the public and our colleagues
about the damage that this flag has done to so many, for under that
flag many were killed in the name of slavery.
Interestingly, this is the 150th year of the elimination of slavery.
I think about health care, and I spoke last evening about lupus, sickle
cell anemia, and triple-negative breast cancer all falling
discriminantly on minority populations. In life, there are still issues
that face you because you are different.
I call upon this House to recognize that, although we have many
issues to debate, when you pierce the heart of someone because you
believe he is inferior or different--when you want to coddle and
protect the rebel flag--I hope we will get to the point between now and
next week, as I introduce H. Res. 342 as a privileged resolution to ban
all signs of hate, that we will rise to be unified together and stand
under the American flag.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Texas has
8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask of the gentleman from
Massachusetts if he has additional speakers?
Mr. McGOVERN. Just I.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Veasey).
Mr. BURGESS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Veasey).
Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to speak about the importance
of our acting now to do the right thing in regard to the Confederate
flag.
Many of you may not know, but this year marks 100 years of the
viewing and the premiere of the film that really sparked the re-
emergence of the Confederate flag, ``The Birth of a Nation.'' We know
that film was bigger than ``Star Wars'' and ``Jaws'' and any major
blockbuster motion picture.
That is what ``The Birth of a Nation'' was. It revived the
Confederate flag. It made the Confederate flag the symbol of hate that
it is today. It actually helped the re-emergence of the second Ku Klux
Klan in this country. We know that that is what the Confederate flag
ultimately stands for.
It doesn't have anything to do with the Civil War and with the
battle, like Mr. Clyburn had pointed out earlier, because that was a
completely different flag. It has to do with segregation and keeping us
in the past.
We need to be able to move past it, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that my
Republican colleagues do the right thing and join us in moving forward
and in letting the past be the past.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee
and the author of the Cures legislation.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we launched this bipartisan
effort about a year and a half ago, and with tomorrow's House vote, we
mark a very important milestone in our quest for 21st century cures,
one step closer to the finish line.
There have been so many individuals throughout our 18-month journey
who have helped us get to where we are today: patients across the
country, advocates, researchers, innovators, experts, academics,
regulators, some of the Nation's brightest minds, even Nobel Prize
winners. To all, we say thank you.
Thank you, too, to the hard-working staff, again, on both sides of
the aisle, who took the meetings, who did the research, who drafted the
language, and who sat at the negotiating table for countless hours to
help us develop this incredible product: Gary, Joan, Alexa, Clay, Paul,
Josh, Robert, John, Carly, Katie, Adrianna, Graham, Sean, Noelle,
Macey, Mark, Tom, Bits, Marty, Tim, Jeff, and Tiffany.
And to the Democratic staff, the staff of our Members, thank you all.
Thanks to the House legislative counsel and the CBO for your efforts
and dedication in working through many, many weekends.
Thank you to the Members of both parties, who really did bring their
best ideas, who partnered with one another to make their cases, and who
delivered so many of the policies that we welcome today because we
listened.
I also want to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and his staff. The
Appropriations Committee has been a critical partner in this effort for
the last number of months, working with us and developing the right
approach to achieve our shared goal of helping patients in a fiscally
responsible way.
I especially want to highlight my partner, Diana DeGette, in her
effort from day one. She came to my district in Michigan, and I have
traveled to Colorado. We have been on a number of road trips for Cures
across the country, and I look forward to the next journey down
Pennsylvania Avenue.
I also want to thank Chairman Pitts, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Green for
their really strong partnership. We have made great strides, but our
work continues, and we are not going to stop until the ink is dry.
[[Page H4984]]
I thank Chairman Pete Sessions, Dr. Burgess, and members of the Rules
Committee for making sure that this legislation has gotten to the floor
in a timely fashion.
I also want to give a hearty thanks to a young boy named Max, the 6-
year-old ambassador for Cures. Yes, although he is faced with the
challenges of Noonan syndrome, he has been a little warrior in that
effort.
He joined us when we had a 51-0 vote back on May 21 in the committee,
and I am delighted that Max will be by our side tomorrow on the House
floor for its final passage.
Helping Max and others like him is why we are here, and helping my
friends Brooke and Brielle, which will be part of my general debate
discussion, is why we are here.
With a resounding vote tomorrow, we will send a signal to the Senate
loud and clear that the time for Cures 2015 is now.
I look forward to working with my Senate counterparts on both sides
of the aisle to continue the momentum of getting this bill to the
President's desk. We have a chance to do something big, and this is our
time.
{time} 1515
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, the 21st Century Cures bill is a good bill. I want to
thank Mr. Upton and Ms. DeGette for working in a bipartisan way to come
up with this product. It invests in NIH. It invests in lifesaving
medical research. It makes it more possible that we will find cures to
diseases like cancers and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, diabetes, HIV,
and so many other terrible diseases that afflict so many of our fellow
citizens.
This is important stuff. Who knows, maybe we will even find a cure to
the disease that resulted in so many in this House voting for the
destructive sequestration initiative that, by the way, cut medical
research and put off the day of some of these lifesaving cures. We need
to do better than this, but this is an important start, an important
step in the right direction, and I hope that my colleagues in a
bipartisan way will support it.
Secondly, as I mentioned before, I want to urge my colleagues to vote
against the previous question.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment I would
offer in the Record if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up
again the Pelosi resolution that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle chose not to debate. The reason why this is important, the reason
why we should do this is very simple: because it is the right thing to
do. Every once in awhile we ought to come together in this Chamber and
do the right thing. The Confederate flag is a symbol of hate; it is a
symbol of division; it is a symbol of so many things that we all abhor.
The time has come to follow some of the other States in this country
and here in Congress do something the American people can be proud of.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
Vote ``no'' on the rule because it is restrictive.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, this is a momentous bill that will be before us today.
This is analogous to the time back in the 1970s when the National
Cancer Institute was authorized by Congress in the Nixon
administration. This is an opportunity to take that leap forward and
perhaps deliver some of those cures that so many of our constituents
have waited for for so long.
Mr. Speaker, we all value institutions and institutional knowledge
and institutional learning, but, Mr. Speaker, we also acknowledge that
there are times when we have got to be disruptive. There are times that
you have to forget the past and move into the future, and this is one
of those times. We are all familiar with the fact that, yeah, the
neighborhood bookstore may be gone, but we can order stuff online from
Amazon.
Disruptive technology is as important in medicine as it is anywhere
else. This bill is paid for. This bill is offset. It sunsets in 5
years' time. But, as I was reminded by my colleague, the gentleman from
Maryland, Dr. Andy Harris, a few days ago, while this bill is offset,
while we are paying as we go for the increases for the National
Institutes of Health and the FDA, what if--what if--one of those
moonshots succeeds?
In May of 2012, Glen Campbell came and played a concert at the
Library of Congress. This is him and his daughter Ashley. They were on
the stage. Glen Campbell went public with the knowledge that he has
Alzheimer's disease. He struggled at several points during that
concert. It was, in fact, amazing to watch him play his instrument. At
times he couldn't remember the words to the song, and Ashley would help
him.
This is a shot where they did ``Dueling Banjos''--very, very
accomplished and skilled instrumental work that they both did on their
instruments that they were playing. What if? What if we were to deliver
that moonshot and provide that cure that would have prevented Glen
Campbell from falling into the recesses of Alzheimer's illness? What if
that cure were within our grasp? What is worse is what if that cure is
on a shelf or in a test tube somewhere and we just haven't quite gotten
around to its evaluation? This is important stuff.
Glen Campbell narrated the soundtrack of my life as I was growing up,
from Delight, Arkansas, a gentleman of our generation who was so
important to so many of us as we were growing up, and he shared with us
there on the stage his story and his daughter's story. You can see his
daughter Ashley looking at her dad. If we could preserve her ability to
smile at her dad for a little longer, wouldn't that be worth some of
the fighting that we do here?
This bill is offset. This bill is paid for.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of this critical
bill, a bill that will transform and advance the discovery,
development, and delivery of treatments and cures.
I applaud all Members who have worked on this thoughtful piece of
legislation, along with Energy and Commerce staff on both sides of the
aisle. All members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce were asked
to bring their ideas to the table, and we worked to include as many as
we possibly could.
I want to express my sincere thanks to all the great attorneys at the
Legislative Counsel who worked around the clock to deliver us the
legislative language. I want to thank Chairman Upton, Representative
DeGette, as well as Chairman Pitts and Ranking Members Pallone and
Green for their leadership throughout.
I want to thank all of the staff who have worked so hard over the
past year; really, literally, all hands were on deck. There is not one
staffer of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce that does not have their fingerprints all over this bill. I
certainly want to thank J.P. Paluskiewicz, Danielle Steele, and Lauren
Fleming from my office, who have put in that additional effort to help
deliver this product.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation in front of us
today. We do, unfortunately, have a lot of distractions, but let us not
be distracted from providing the tools for the next generation of
doctors, a generation that will have more ability to alleviate human
suffering than any generation of doctors has ever known because of our
actions here on the floor of the House today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 350 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, it
shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H.
Res. 355) raising a question of the privileges of the House
if called up by Representative Pelosi of California or her
designee. All points of order against the resolution and
against its consideration are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble
to adoption without intervening motion except one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
the Majority Leader or his designee.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 355.
* * * * *
[[Page H4985]]
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________