[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 74 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2227-H2234]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4641, ESTABLISHING PAIN MANAGEMENT
BEST PRACTICES INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 5046, COMPREHENSIVE OPIOID ABUSE REDUCTION ACT OF 2016
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 720 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 720
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. 4641) to provide for the establishment of an
inter-agency task force to review, modify, and update best
practices for pain management and prescribing pain
medication, 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 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. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now
printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such 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
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 amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. 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.
5046) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to
assist State and local governments in addressing the national
epidemic of opioid abuse, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be
[[Page H2228]]
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 114-52. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such 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 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
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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.
{time} 1230
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include any extraneous material on House Resolution 720, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule
forward today on behalf of the Rules Committee.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5046, the Comprehensive
Opioid Abuse Reduction Act of 2016, and H.R. 4641, a bill to establish
an interagency task force to review, modify, and update best practices
for pain management and for prescribing pain medication.
For H.R. 5046, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee.
And for H.R. 4641, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Both rules are structured rules that make in order numerous
amendments.
Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from members of the
Judiciary Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and multiple
other Members on their amendments. H.R. 5046 was marked up by the
Judiciary Committee, and H.R. 4641 was reported by the Energy and
Commerce Committee. Both bills have broad bipartisan support.
These bills are part of the House's effort to combat our Nation's
growing opioid epidemic. They reflect a commitment to address this
devastating problem in a constructive and meaningful way.
Opioid abuse hits communities all across this country, rich and poor,
rural, suburban, and urban, and it takes a major toll. In 2012, an
estimated 2.1 million in the United States were suffering from
substance abuse disorders related to prescription opioid pain
relievers. An estimated 467,000 people were addicted to heroin.
In the same year, in Georgia, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation
found that prescription drugs played a role in 592 deaths in 152 of 159
counties for which autopsies were performed.
Mr. Speaker, just the other day I was having coffee with a dear
friend of mine who I have known for 20 years. As we were talking and I
mentioned what we were doing here, he brought forth that just in the
last little bit in his own family life he has seen relatives that have
been touched by this epidemic of painkillers and substance abuse
issues. This is something that can affect anyone in any family, and
this is why we are here today.
The bills before us today take steps to combat the opioid epidemic
and drug addiction.
H.R. 5046, introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin,
establishes a comprehensive opioid abuse grant program. The program
encompasses new and existing Department of Justice programs, including
training for first responders, law enforcement, drug courts,
residential substance abuse treatment, and criminal investigations for
the unlawful distribution of opioids.
Importantly, this bill provides flexibility for the States to use the
funds where they are needed most. It does so by establishing one grant
program that has numerous allowable uses. The bill also ensures that
there isn't duplication and eliminates redundancy.
I was proud to support this bill at the Judiciary Committee.
H.R. 4641, introduced by Congresswoman Susan Brooks of Indiana,
establishes a pain management best practices interagency task force.
This task force will include representatives from Federal agencies,
state medical boards, healthcare professionals, experts from addiction
recovery communities, and others knowledgeable in the field.
The task force will be responsible for reviewing and updating best
practices for acute and chronic pain management in an evidence-based
manner. It will also be responsible for sharing the information found
with healthcare professionals. This bill recognizes that responses to
the opioid epidemic need to be coordinated and thoughtful.
Addiction is happening far too often with devastating consequences.
Further, it is shown that prescription opioid abuse often leads to
heroin abuse--and the sheriffs in my part of my State can attest to
this every day--compounding this problem.
In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 45 percent of
people who used heroin were addicted to prescription opioid
painkillers.
Heroin has frequently been thought of as an inner-city problem, but
we are starting to see it more and more outside of cities and spreading
to rural areas, too. This problem is a problem for America. This
problem has exploded.
According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, heroin deaths have
increased in Georgia by 300 percent. That is an astonishing and very
tragic statistic.
CDC statistics on opioid abuse show 18,893 overdose deaths related to
prescription pain relievers and 10,574 overdose deaths related to
heroin in 2014. Those are staggering numbers.
The opioid epidemic affects everyone, and I believe that most people
could tell you of a family member or friend who has suffered in some
way because of this problem.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it affects babies who are born addicted to opioids
and other drugs. These children, through no fault of their own, are
born with a serious and heartbreaking problem. They then go through
dangerous withdrawals and can be left with lasting health consequences.
We have to find a way to stop this.
The opioid epidemic affects veterans, whose battle scars are treated
by a VA whose answer too often is to prescribe high quantities of
opioids with little thought to the consequences.
I am a chaplain in the United States Air Force Reserve. I served in
Iraq. I saw firsthand the scars that the battlefield can leave, both
physical and mental. We need a support system for our veterans. We need
to address their pain. We need to ensure that they have an avenue to
get the help they need.
I believe that the bills that this rule provides for will take the
steps to make that happen. Our veterans deserve our very best.
Addiction issues are often related to other co-occurring disorders,
including mental health issues. Addiction claims victims, and addiction
is a disease.
[[Page H2229]]
We must not turn a blind eye to those in need. We must work to halt
the opioid epidemic, and we must act to prevent more deaths and to stop
the growth and spread of the problem. Today's bills are a step toward
doing that, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss those
in an open manner.
These bills are brought forward due to the hard work of many Members.
In particular, I thank Chairmen Goodlatte and Upton, Ranking Members
Conyers and Pallone, Congresswoman Brooks, Congressman Sensenbrenner,
and their staffs for their work in bringing these important reforms
together. These reforms are a step in the right direction.
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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins) for the customary 30 minutes.
I rise to speak on the rule for consideration of H.R. 5046, the
Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act, and H.R. 4641, a bill to
provide for the establishment of an interagency task force to review,
modify, and update best practices for pain management and prescribing
pain medication, and for other purposes.
By the end of this week, the House will have taken up a total of 17
bipartisan opiate-related bills, each a critical measure to help us
tackle the opioid crisis in a variety of ways as we work to end this
scourge hurting so many communities across our country and costing the
lives of so many all across this country.
I am pleased that the House will be considering this critical
bipartisan legislation this week. But in all honesty, I am also very
concerned that Republicans are not proposing the new funding that is
necessary to meaningfully address the opioid crisis.
So, in addition to passing the bipartisan legislation on the floor
this week, which authorizes a new grant program, we must also provide
real, new resources in the form of appropriations to ensure that the
initiatives in this legislation can be fully implemented.
If we don't do that, all the speeches that we will give this week
will amount to empty rhetoric. We need to make sure we fund these
priorities. This is an emergency.
Opiate addiction is inflicting a savage daily toll in neighborhoods
across America. According to the CDC, 78 Americans die from an opiate
overdose every day, and many of them are young people. In 2013, the
number of heroin users was 681,000, an increase of more than 250,000
users since 2002. This crisis is affecting every region across the
country and every demographic group.
I have long said that Congress must provide the meaningful resources
that are needed to make a difference and save lives. Today I am pleased
that we are coming together and taking action to attempt to do just
that. These are important first steps.
In New England, we know all too well the terrible toll of the opiate
epidemic. Having seen the damage it has done to the communities that I
represent in central and western Massachusetts, tackling the opiate
epidemic has long been a top priority for me.
Across Massachusetts, the number of opiate overdose deaths climbed by
nearly 10 percent, up from 1,228 in 2014 to 1,379 in 2015. Once all
cases are finalized by the medical officials in Massachusetts, it is
estimated that there will be an additional 63 to 85 deaths for 2014 and
118 to 179 deaths in 2015.
In Worcester County alone, home to the second largest city in New
England, opiate-related deaths jumped from 163 in 2014 to 177 in 2015.
Looking back at the last 16 years, we can see an even bigger increase.
In 2000, there were 59 opiate-related overdose deaths in Worcester
County, a small fraction of the 1,289 deaths in 2015.
Most of last year's victims were between the ages of 25 and 44, in
the prime of their lives with so much to live for. Many left behind
families heartbroken and devastated by these senseless deaths. These
families included husbands, wives, children, and so many more who loved
them and desperately wanted them to get the help that they needed and
to be able to live.
The opiate epidemic is even harder to cope with for those who have
seen young people lose their lives to addiction. In Shrewsbury,
Massachusetts, one high school principal said that, in the 11 years he
has been principal, he has known of 33 students who have been active
heroin addicts and 7 of them died. And in a recent forum, he learned
that there had been even more that he had not known about.
Part of the problem is the stigma associated with heroin use. I think
a lot of us think we know what heroin use and addiction looks like, but
the reality is it can take hold of anyone, including our neighbors, our
friends, and even our own family members.
However, instead of giving in to despair, communities in
Massachusetts and across the country are responding to the opiate
epidemic with strength and with courage. They are helping to lead
grassroots State and national coalitions to raise awareness and educate
people about the crisis and provide resources to help those ensnared by
the addiction.
The Central Massachusetts Opiate Task Force, chaired by Worcester
County District Attorney Joe Early, is a great example of this. They
are working to bring greater awareness of the problem to residents.
Members of the task force attend many of the coalition forums and also
go into schools to talk to students directly.
The opiate task force serving Franklin County and the North Quabbin
Region in Massachusetts is another example. It is co-chaired by John
Merrigan, Franklin County Register of Probate; Chris Donelan, the
Franklin County Sheriff; and David Sullivan, the Northwestern District
Attorney.
I am so thankful for these and other task forces and coalitions in
Massachusetts and across the country for coming together quickly to
address this public health crisis and for their tenacity in fighting
for individuals and families struggling with addiction.
Just this week I had the opportunity to join community leaders at
North Brookfield High School in central Massachusetts for an event with
Chris Herren, a former constituent of mine from Fall River and a former
Boston Celtics player who now travels in New England and across the
country to speak about his own recovery from addiction and the need for
young people to stay drug free.
I am also grateful to my fellow members of the Massachusetts
congressional delegation for being strong partners in this fight. Joe
Kennedy is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and has been a
leader on this issue. He is the lead Democratic sponsor of H.R. 4641. A
number of amendments sponsored by Massachusetts Members were made in
order last night, including several from Katherine Clark, as well as
amendments from Seth Moulton, Bill Keating, and Stephen Lynch.
{time} 1245
I also want to commend the leadership of the gentlewoman from New
Hampshire (Ms. Kuster). She has been out front on this issue for a
long, long time, and we appreciate her leadership.
The simple truth is that we are not going to arrest our way out of
this problem. Prevention and treatment must be at the heart of our
approach to tackling this epidemic. As part of the comprehensive
approach called for, we must equip our young people with the skills
necessary to identify constructive ways to deal with problems so that
turning to drugs is never an option.
We must make every effort to ensure that treatment is available to
those who seek it because it takes courage and strength to admit that
you need help. I am pleased that this legislation that we are
considering this week would do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the legislation this rule makes in
order, H.R. 5046. The Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act would
establish the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program. With $103
million provided annually over 5 years, this program would help provide
vital assistance to States and local agencies to fund treatment
alternatives to incarceration, opioid abuse prevention, training, and
education.
The program's grants could be used to train first responders in
carrying and administering opioid overdose reversal drugs, support
prescription drug
[[Page H2230]]
monitoring programs, strengthen collaborations between criminal justice
agencies and substance abuse systems, or for programs targeted toward
juvenile opioid abuse programs.
This legislation, I think, is a commonsense, bipartisan step that
goes a long way toward providing the critical help that Americans
across this country need to combat our opioid epidemic.
I also support H.R. 4641, a bill that would provide for the
establishment of an interagency task force to review, modify, and
update best practices for pain management and prescribing pain
medication, and for other purposes. Creating this task force is another
key step to help strengthen our national response to the opioid crisis
and increase interagency collaboration as we marshal all our resources
in this fight.
I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked
very hard to bring this additional bipartisan legislation to the floor
this week so we could begin to tackle this opioid crisis. These bills
take important steps to cut the risk of opioid addiction among veterans
managing chronic pain, take on international drug traffickers, improve
the treatment and care of babies who are born addicted to opioids, help
reduce opioid use among young people, and strengthen access to opioid
overdose reversal medication.
There are many issues that Democrats and Republicans do not see eye
to eye on, but I am pleased that both parties seem to be coming
together, at least on this first step, to tackle the opioid crisis. For
families and communities across the country who have already lost so
much and so many to this epidemic, there has never been a more
important time for us to take action.
I want to thank the leaders of both parties for helping to bring
these bipartisan bills to the House floor. I do believe that we can end
the opioid crisis once and for all.
But again, in conclusion--and I have to stress this--we need to
provide the funding to our communities that are struggling to deal with
this opioid and heroin crisis. This is an emergency. That is how you
have to classify this and look at it. This is an emergency. People are
dying. Without providing the additional resources needed, we will not
be part of the solution.
The ideas that we have compiled today that will be debated this week
are all good ideas, but they won't be real ideas unless they are
funded. I worry that this Congress might not be up to the challenge. We
have emergencies in Flint, Michigan, with the water crisis, and we have
not done what we need to do to provide emergency funding to that
community. We have a growing emergency with the Zika virus, and we
can't get an emergency appropriations bill to the floor here today. I
think that we need to understand that this crisis has risen to the
level of an emergency. We need to do what is right. We need to not only
pass these bills, but we need to commit in a bipartisan way that we are
going to provide the necessary funding. I hope we can do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 5046,
the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act, and H.R. 4641, which will
establish an interagency task force to review, modify, and update best
practices for pain management and prescription pain medication.
Overprescription of opioids is leading to addiction, shattering
lives, and creating death around our country. In my home State of New
Hampshire, deadly overdoses following the abuse of heroin and opioids
claimed the lives of over 430 people last year alone. That is about 1
in every 3,000 people from my State falling victim to an epidemic,
succumbing to a preventable problem. According to the CDC, overdose
deaths have tripled over the last 10 years.
Desperate families, too long, are crying out for help. I commend my
colleagues for rising to the occasion in this legislative response,
tackling this issue in a bipartisan way, and making the proper
commitment to fund an adequate response to help those who are in need.
These two pieces of legislation are designed to assist those battling
the epidemic on the front lines, from law enforcement officers to
underfunded recovery systems and personnel, and everyone in between. I
am moved time and time again by the painful stories of the victims and
courageous individuals coming to their aid, and I urge the House to
offer its support in this struggle.
I was pleased that just last night the Committee on Rules accepted my
amendment, allowing prevention and recovery programs to accept grant
money authorized by the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes to the House
floor tomorrow.
As the House response to the Senate-passed Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act, these bills are a joint step toward progress and
safety. I am a proud sponsor of many of these bills coming to the floor
this week, and I hope for their swift and timely passage as urgent
relief for those who are suffering around our Nation.
We must provide a thorough and wide-ranging plan to meet the enormity
of this terrible epidemic, which invades every corner of the United
States, takes lives across traditional divides, and manifests itself in
ways to which we are not accustomed.
My colleagues and I are committed to seeing the House of
Representatives answer this challenge by passing the most vigorous and
inclusive plan possible. I am confident we will do all that we can to
pass this plan this week, go to conference with the Senate, and put a
bill on the President's desk before June.
Our plan is urgently needed. Almost 130 people die every day from
opioid overdoses. Eighty percent of the opioids prescribed worldwide
are prescribed here in the United States. In my district and around the
country, I hear from families and friends who know someone coping with
substance use disorder.
We will only make a dent in this great challenge by listening to its
victims. We need to listen to fathers like Doug Griffin of Newton, New
Hampshire. His daughter Courtney fell victim to heroin abuse at 20
years old.
Doug remembers Courtney as a vivacious girl, funny, passionate, and
charming. She loved music and s'mores and told Doug she planned to
become a marine, a beautiful young woman prepared to sacrifice for her
country in one of its greatest and most honorable services. That was
Courtney.
But 3 years later, she was lost on the streets, overwhelmed by the
sorrow and confusion this epidemic instills, moving from rehab facility
to rehab facility. Prescription pills, fentanyl, and street heroin
ensnared Courtney in a fatal web of addiction, and she lost the will to
live. Courtney was a 20-year-old girl--20 years old--a neighbor, a
friend, a daughter. How can we begin to comprehend the depth of that
kind of tragedy?
Because Courtney's pain was so great and because she had so few
options for treatment, Doug says he and his family hid the truth from
the outside world. To help others, they are speaking out now; and by
speaking out and listening, we start to understand this tragedy. Doug
is courageously telling everyone he knows the warning signs of heroin
abuse and the deficiencies in our public response. Millions of
Americans share Courtney's story and Doug's anguish. It is only by
speaking out and sharing grief that we will remove the stigma
preventing far too many from seeking help.
This week, during Heroin and Opioid Abuse Awareness Week, we have an
opportunity to hear, learn, share, and fight back. We can hear the
stories of grieving and resolute families, the stories of resilient
victims. We can learn of the intensity of their experiences and glean
from them the lessons we need to fight back. We can share their lessons
and bring them to bear in our discourse and through our legislation,
and we can start to turn the tide.
As the House considers this vital legislation, I encourage my
colleagues to listen to their constituents, hear their stories, share
their struggles, and help them fight back.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I think that every Member of this House should
support the underlying legislation.
[[Page H2231]]
There will be some good amendments offered. Unfortunately, there were a
lot of good amendments that were not made in order by the Committee on
Rules last night. There will be some suspensions that will come to the
floor that I think deserve our support. And I am anxious to go to
conference with the Senate, anxious to put a bill on the President's
desk.
I don't want to spoil this bipartisan moment, but none of this means
anything if we don't fund it. These aren't appropriations bills that we
are dealing with. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
said, well, we will deal with that in the appropriations process. Well,
because of the dysfunction of this place, we are not going to deal with
the appropriations bills in any real way until after the election. I
don't think we can wait. I think we need an emergency supplemental
appropriations bill to deal right now with this crisis that has already
claimed so many lives.
Let's all come together and pass these authorizing bills, but we need
to do more than that. The President has requested $1.1 billion, I
think, to try to help provide resources to communities to deal with
this crisis. We haven't funded that. So bills that set up grant
programs that we all support, initiatives that we all think are
important, that is good; but if the money is not there to actually fund
these and implement these programs, then we are not doing our job. I
would just argue that we have waited too long. It is an emergency. We
ought to do this, and we ought to have an emergency supplemental
appropriations bill on the floor immediately and get relief to our
communities today.
Mr. Speaker, I support all these measures that the House will
consider this week; however, as I said, they can't be the final word.
We have to approve additional funding to develop a comprehensive
response to this epidemic, which is an emergency. I am going to ask my
colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation
that provides $600 million in funding to address the opioid epidemic.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), a leader on this issue, to
discuss our proposal.
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for the bipartisan
work that is happening this week.
I am proud to be a co-chair with the gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. Guinta) of the Bipartisan Taskforce to Combat the Heroin Epidemic,
Members of Congress from all across the country coming together to
address this crisis.
I rise, however, to oppose the rule and, as Mr. McGovern has said, we
intend to move the previous question. I am bringing to the House floor
a Democratic substitute opioids package to include $600 million in
critical funding to address this opioid epidemic.
We have an emergency. People are dying, as Mr. Guinta said--in my own
State, our State of New Hampshire, over 420 people in 1 year. We have a
better chance in New Hampshire of dying from an opioid epidemic death
from fentanyl, from heroin, from drugs off the street, than we do of
dying in a car accident. This is an emergency, and it is a crisis.
My substitute bill will provide vital funding for all of the bills
that we are discussing, for bills that will provide the grants the
Committee on the Judiciary has brought forth in H.R. 5046, introduced
by Mr. Sensenbrenner, for law enforcement, for drug courts.
I have just this week been to the graduation of a drug court. We can
turn lives around, but we need funding for drug courts to spread all
across our country, for the good work that my colleagues, the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), put into the Energy and Commerce bill,
H.R. 4641, to create the task force.
Mr. Guinta and I had an original bill, the STOP ABUSE Act, that
created a task force, and we are so pleased that that task force will
move forward. We need to bring together the experts to determine why
now, what is happening in our society that opioid overdoses are leading
people, leading this addiction, this substance use disorder that is a
disease, leading people to go from prescribed medication from their
physician into heroin off the streets and, in our State, is now being
laced with fentanyl, which is a lethal combination.
{time} 1300
The substitute will provide a total of $600 million in vital new
resources to address this epidemic, and my understanding is that we
have not included this funding in these underlying bills. We want to
support the underlying bills, but it is critical to have the funding.
New Hampshire has now gone from number 24 in the Nation in deaths per
population to number 3, seemingly overnight. I have traveled around my
district bringing together stakeholders, law enforcement, treatment
providers, long-term recovery, which is a critical aspect of this,
physicians, hospitals, police, everyone to the table. In Keene, in
Nashua, in Concord, in the north country of our State, we now have
mayors' committees. We have the Governor having a major summit this
week. Here is the answer: we have solutions.
I serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I was so proud to
bring to one of our congressional task force hearings Dr. Julie
Franklin from the VA in White River Junction, Vermont, who is doing
critical frontline research with people, veterans who are experiencing
chronic pain. This is lifelong pain. She has worked with them with
acupuncture, with mental health treatment, with physical therapy, with
all different kinds of wellness and yoga, and she has decreased the use
of opiate medication by 50 percent. We can do this, but we need
funding.
I urge you to vote ``no'' on the rule. I ask my colleagues to please
support the substitute package that will include a critical $600
million in funding.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Augusta, Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend and someone
who has spent a great deal of time looking into these issues. I
appreciate his willingness to come speak on it today.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding to me to speak on this important threat to our country, our
State, and our communities.
Our Founders made a promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. In America today, in every State, in too many families,
there is a palpable undercurrent of pain, loss, and suffering that is
caused by this horrendous opioid crisis.
Sadly, nearly one in five Americans knows someone who has been
addicted to opioids. Nearly every 12 minutes, someone in the U.S. dies
of a drug overdose; every 25 minutes, a baby is born suffering from
opioid withdrawal.
A recent CDC study found that, in 2009, more Americans died from
prescription drugs than motor vehicle accidents, marking the first time
drug-related deaths have outnumbered motor vehicle-related deaths since
1979, when the government started tracking drug-related deaths.
Unfortunately, my home State of Georgia is not immune to this growing
epidemic. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, in 2012,
prescription drugs played a role in 592 deaths in 152 of the 159
counties in Georgia for which it performs autopsies.
These heartbreaking numbers are far too high and tragic. We must take
action to combat this crisis so that those addicted and their loved
ones may start the road to healing. This week my colleagues and I in
the House of Representatives are bringing opioid addiction out of the
shadows to stop this devastating crisis.
I am proud of the tireless work of my colleagues in the Judiciary
Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Education and the
Workforce Committee, on which I serve, to prevent, treat, and
streamline access to care for those addicted to opioids.
My colleagues and I have worked to advance bipartisan solutions that
address this crisis, from helping newborns who are born into addiction
to creating an interagency task force to update
[[Page H2232]]
best practices for prescribing opioid painkillers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. ALLEN. This is only the start of our work in the United States
Congress on this important subject. The road to recovery will be long
and hard fought, but the American spirit is as strong as ever and will
prevail.
Together we will help our brothers and sisters in Christ become whole
again. The very soul of this country is at stake. I am pleased the
people's House is taking proactive steps to fight this epidemic.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the numerous
bills coming before the House this week.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that this is a crisis and that we
need to come up with solutions and we need to do something rather than
just talk about it.
I support--and I think I speak for the Democrats--and we all support
the bipartisan legislation that is being brought to the floor, not only
the bills that are going to be considered under this rule, but many of
the suspension bills that will be brought to the floor this week. I
expect that they will be passed nearly unanimously.
But I think what I do have a problem with is the fact that we have
funded none of these things. I have a problem with the fact that some
are content to wait until the appropriations process kind of works its
way through this House, which, as we all know, is not going to be
probably until December.
We have already been informed that we will probably deal with an
omnibus package sometime after the election. Because there is
infighting within the Republican ranks here in the House in trying to
come to an agreement before the election, it is just too difficult. I
regret that very, very much because I don't think that we can wait
until December before we actually fund some of these priorities that
are in this bill.
The reason why I hope my colleagues will support the Democratic
substitute is because it actually funds. It is an appropriation. It
funds these priorities. It puts our money where our rhetoric is. It
makes the money available now, and we know it is there and communities
will know that they can depend on it.
So I think we really want to be effective in our battle against this
scourge of opioids and heroin addiction that has touched every district
in this country.
We have all been to too many funerals. We have all seen the
heartbreak up close and personal. But if we want to do something about
it, we have to not only come up with the ideas, we have to fund these
ideas.
That is why I am urging that Members vote ``no'' on the previous
question. It is so that we can bring a funding component to this. Let's
not wait until December. This is an emergency. We should have had an
emergency supplemental bill. That is not coming.
So this is a chance to put some money behind these priorities and
actually fund all these great ideas that we all, in a bipartisan way,
say we support.
I urge my colleagues to support all the underlying bills, but to vote
``no'' on the previous question so we can bring this appropriations
bill up to actually fund them. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the previous question and to also vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, as you have heard--and we have spent the last almost 40
minutes talking about it--the opioid epidemic is out of control, but we
have the opportunity today to start addressing that problem in a
meaningful way.
The rule provides for consideration of legislation that will enact
measures to address this problem through multiple avenues to ensure
that we are taking a comprehensive approach to stopping this scourge.
It takes important steps to address the serious and growing threat of
opioid abuse. It keeps a promise that we won't sit idly by while people
continue the battle of addiction and die.
For that reason, I urge my colleague to support the rule and both
H.R. 5046 and H.R. 4641.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 720 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
5189) to address the opioid abuse crisis. 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 shall not exceed one hour
equally divided among and controlled by the respective chairs
and ranking minority members of the Committees on Energy and
Commerce and the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5189.
____
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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time,
[[Page H2233]]
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on
ordering the previous question.
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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 173, not voting 45, as follows:
[Roll No. 182]
YEAS--215
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Lance
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Ribble
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--173
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--45
Barr
Bera
Bishop (UT)
Black
Brady (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Costa
Fattah
Fincher
Gosar
Grijalva
Hastings
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Jenkins (WV)
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
LaMalfa
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Meehan
Price, Tom
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Rogers (AL)
Rokita
Roskam
Russell
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Takai
Tiberi
Vargas
Walberg
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
{time} 1328
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 182, I was at
a hearing and not able to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 182, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 182, I was unavoidably
detained at a Ways and Means Committee Hearing. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 182, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 182, I was at a Ways and
Means hearing and was not able to make it to the floor in time. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 182, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed
rollcall vote No. 182. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Stated against:
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 182, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. BERA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for one rollcall
vote Wednesday, May 11, 2016. Had I been present I would have voted
``no'' on rollcall No. 182.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today, Wednesday, May 11, 2016,
I missed the first vote in a series of votes because I was at a medical
appointment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall
vote No. 182 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 720).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255,
noes 163, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 183]
AYES--255
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
[[Page H2234]]
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruppersberger
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schiff
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--163
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Capps
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Fattah
Fincher
Grijalva
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Joyce
Latta
Pitts
Takai
Whitfield
Wittman
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1335
Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania and AL GREEN of Texas changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 183, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 183.
____________________