Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 76 (Friday, May 13, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 76 (Friday, May 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2346-H2354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 524, COMPREHENSIVE ADDICTION AND
RECOVERY ACT OF 2016

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 725

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 524) to
authorize the Attorney General to award grants to address the
national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin
use. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the respective texts of the bills specified in
section 2(a) of this resolution shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to commit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. (a) The bills referred to in the first section of
this resolution are as follows: H.R. 4641, H.R. 5046, H.R.
4063, H.R. 4985, H.R. 5048, H.R. 5052, H.R. 4843, H.R. 4978,
H.R. 3680, H.R. 3691, H.R. 1818, H.R. 4969, H.R. 4586, H.R.
4599, H.R. 4976, H.R. 4982, H.R. 4981, and H.R. 1725, in each
case as passed by the House.
(b) In forming the amendment in the nature of a substitute
referred to in the first section of this resolution, the
Clerk--
(1) shall assign appropriate designations to provisions
within the amendment in the nature of a substitute;
(2) shall conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the amendment in the nature of a substitute;
and
(3) is authorized to make technical corrections within the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, to include
corrections in spelling, punctuation, page and line
numbering, section numbering, and insertion of appropriate
headings.
Sec. 3. Upon passage of S. 524 the title of such bill is
amended to read as follows: ``To authorize the Attorney
General and Secretary of Health and Human Services to award
grants to address the national epidemics of prescription
opioid abuse and heroin use, and 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.''.
Sec. 4. If S. 524, as amended, is passed, then it shall be
in order for the chair of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or his designee to move that the House insist on its

[[Page H2347]]

amendments to S. 524 and request a conference with the Senate
thereon.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hardy). 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 Colorado (Mr.
Polis), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on House Resolution 725, 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 on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for
consideration of S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided among and
controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Energy and
Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee.

{time} 0915

The rule also provides for an amendment in the nature of a substitute
that consists of the 18 bills passed by the House this week to combat
the opioid epidemic. Under the rule, if S. 524 is passed, it will be in
order for the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee to request
a conference with the Senate on the House-passed package of bills.
Let me just emphasize this again for Members so they will understand
the process. What we will do under the rule, if S. 524 is passed, it
will then be made in order for the chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee to request a conference with the Senate on the House-passed
package of bills.
Each of these 18 bills included in the House package passed the House
with strong bipartisan support. The level of support for these bills is
a sign of the recognition that something must be done about the opioid
epidemic.
You have seen Members who represent urban areas, Members who
represent suburban areas, and Members like me who represent more rural
areas support these bills. This problem does not discriminate. It is a
nationwide issue, and it is taking a toll on communities all over our
country. We need to act. With the passage of these bills, we are taking
decisive action.
The Senate bill, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act,
received unanimous support in that Chamber. I want to thank Senators
Portman and Whitehouse for their leadership on that bill.
The House bills include elements of the Senate bill as well as
additional measures. It is my hope that the conference provided for by
these bills will yield the strongest possible measure. We need strong,
swift, and decisive action to address the growing crisis of the opioid
epidemic.
In the United States, more people die every year from drug overdoses
than car accidents. As the debate has taken place here on the floor
this week, I think the numbers have just been amazingly stark.
When you realize that a statistic like that, when the deaths from
drug overdoses surpass car accidents, then we are dealing with
something that begins to put it in perspective.
My home State of Georgia has 159 counties. In 2012, prescription drug
overdoses led to deaths in 152 of those 159 counties, totaling 592
deaths. The opioid bills in the House package before us today help
implement measures to prevent these tragedies.
Addiction is happening far too often with devastating consequences.
Further, it is shown that prescription opioid abuse often leads to
heroin abuse, compounding the problem. In fact, according to the
Centers for Disease Control, 45 percent of people who used heroin were
addicted to prescription opioid painkillers.
I mentioned this earlier in the week, but it is worth mentioning
again now. I have had many conversations with sheriffs in my area in
the Ninth District, which really runs on the I-85 corridor out of
Atlanta and up into the northeast, and I keep in contact with them
regularly.
My background with my father being in State Patrol, I know the law
enforcement community very well. One of the first questions I always
ask them--and in my 10 years, I was in the State House for over 6
years, and I have been up here now into my second term--I always ask:
What is the biggest thing that you are seeing? What is the epidemic or
what is the issue you most see?
Early on, it was methamphetamine. Especially in my rural area, my
mountain area, methamphetamine still is very prevalent. But due to many
of the restraints that were put in in Georgia--and I notice my friend
here from Georgia as well--we worked in the State legislature to
control the methamphetamine problem, and then the prescription opioid
problem has developed.
Now what my sheriffs will tell me and my law enforcement community
and my city police and others will tell me is that heroin is by far
their fastest growing issue that they are seeing. It is hitting not
just urban areas, it is hitting suburban areas, it is hitting very
rural areas, and it is hitting across the income gap. Those who have
been addicted to prescription opioids now find that heroin is cheaper
to purchase and is cheaper to access.
The problem is, unlike many of the prescription opioid painkillers,
the heroin issue is one in which they can take the first dose and it
would be their last. This is something we cannot continue to look away
from.
In Georgia, heroin deaths have increased 300 percent. That statistic
alone should be a call to action. Nationwide, the number of people it
affects is staggering. CDC statistics on opioid abuse show 18,893
overdose deaths related to prescription painkillers, and 10,574
overdose deaths related to heroin in 2014.
The opioid epidemic affects everyone. I believe that most people
could tell you of a family member or friend who has suffered in some
way because of this problem. And these problems aren't only affecting
adults. They are affecting college-age students, high schoolers,
children, and even the littlest among us, babies.
Every 25 minutes in our country babies are born with a dependency.
This is tragic. Babies born addicted to opioids often struggle to
survive, have dangerous health complications, and suffer from serious
withdrawals.
These innocent children don't deserve this. They deserve a life full
of promise. Instead, they face life-threatening challenges from the
moment they are born. We can do better, and should do better. In fact,
they suffer not only from the moment they are born, they are also
suffering in the womb as well. This is an epidemic we have got to
address.
Importantly, several of these bills in the House-passed package will
help address this problem. For example, Congressman Lou Barletta
introduced H.R. 4843, the Infant Plan of Safe Care Improvement Act.
This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to
distribute information to States on best practices to develop safe care
plans for infants affected by substance abuse and withdrawal symptoms.
H.R. 4978, the NAS Healthy Babies Act, introduced by Congressman Evan
Jenkins, requires a report on neonatal abstinence syndrome.
Another bill in this package deals with the problems that youth
athletes may face if they are prescribed opiates for a sports-related
injury. H.R. 4969, the John Thomas Decker Act of 2016, introduced by
Congressman Pat Meehan from Pennsylvania, requires the CDC to study
information and resources available to youth and families regarding the
dangers of opioid use and abuse.
Still other bills relate to veterans and how we can help them. For
example, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act, introduced by
Mr. Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, authorizes investments in veterans
courts.
I believe there is another conversation that is going on in Congress
right now concerning our criminal justice and criminal justice reform
and things that we need to do to make sure that not only are we not
using our jails as mental health facilities, but we are getting people
the help that they need.

[[Page H2348]]

Some of the ways that you do that is found in treatment courts. Many
of those are found in newer treatment courts, not just simply the
substance abuse, but in veterans courts as well. We are going to
continue to look at that.
In doing so, H.R. 4063, the Jason Simcakoski PROMISE Act, introduced
by Congressman Gus Bilirakis, directs the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs to jointly update the VA/DOD Clinical
Practice Guideline, Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. The
bill also requires the VA to expand opioid safety initiatives.
I am a chaplain still in the Air Force Reserve. I served in Iraq. I
saw firsthand the scars that the battlefield can leave, both physical
and mental. We need support systems for our veterans like the ones
provided for in H.R. 5046 and H.R. 4063.
We need to address their pain, and we need to ensure they have an
avenue to get the help they need. I believe the bills this rule
provides for will take steps to make that happen. Our veterans deserve
our very best.
We cannot discuss this package without mentioning the resources that
this bill provides for law enforcement. As the son of a Georgia State
Trooper, this component is critically important to me.
The bill provides for law enforcement training. These measures also
provide for the expanded use of naloxone by law enforcement. Naloxone
can effectively reverse opioid overdoses, so it is a valuable tool to
have on hand.
Through the establishment of a comprehensive grant program that will
provide resources to law enforcement, communities, and States, and
combined with other bills, we have a real chance to make a difference
here today.
Mr. Speaker, addiction issues are often related to other co-occurring
disorders, including mental health issues. Addiction claims victims,
and addiction is a disease. We must not turn a blind eye to those in
need.
We must work to halt the opioid epidemic. We must act to prevent more
deaths and to stop the growth and spread of this problem. The Senate
bill, the House-passed bill, and the motion to go to conference are
steps towards doing that.
These bills were brought forward due to the hard work of many
Members. Over the course of this week, we have seen Members from every
walk of life, representing people from every walk of life, come to the
floor to speak on the opioid epidemic.
Each and every one of these Members have made statements to show the
depth and breadth of this problem to the real people that we are sent
here to represent. Through the 18 House-passed bills and the conference
with the Senate, we have a chance to ease that problem, to actually
combat it.
These bills call for further studies to examine the response of the
opioid crisis, provide support for doctors' treatment of abusers, and
also to help law enforcement efforts to combat drug trafficking.
Neighborhoods and families are being torn apart by heroin addiction
and opioid abuse. Communities like my home in northeast Georgia need
help to address this problem.
Through these bills, we are helping to provide that. Importantly, we
are also providing enough flexibility so that States can determine what
will work best for their specific populations and communities.
Many communities, many Members, and many staffers have worked hard to
bring together these important reforms. I want to thank them for their
dedication and hard work. These reforms are a step in the right
direction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule today that provides
for consideration of S. 524.
As has been discussed on the floor this week, Mr. Speaker, our Nation
is in the midst of an epidemic. While opioid abuse is nothing new, the
numbers are getting more and more alarming. Addiction claimed over
28,000 lives in 2014 and drastically altered many more for the worst.
All week we have heard stories from both sides of the aisle speaking
to how addiction is breaking apart families and communities. Today we
are considering a package of bills that will hopefully take some
meaningful steps towards addressing this crisis.
Prescription drug addiction is a very complex issue. There is no
simple solution. It is a subject that deserves comprehensive debate and
full consideration of ideas that Democratic and Republican Members have
to be able to address: this public health crisis.
While I and many of my Democratic colleagues are supportive of the
underlying legislation, there are problems with the process that have
locked out ideas that can save lives that are being prevented from
coming to the floor under this rule.
Of the 18 bills included under this rule, all but 2 were brought to
the floor on suspension. What does that mean? It means no Members--
Democratic or Republican--were allowed to amend or improve 16 of these
18 bills.
The scope of the two bills that were brought forward in a manner that
allowed amendments was so narrow that it closed out many of the
amendments that we considered in the Rules Committee because they
weren't germane to these two particular bills. I find that very
frustrating. It limits discussion on a major public health crisis,
something that is an issue that is not at all partisan.
Many bipartisan amendments that I will talk about in a moment, many
ideas from Republicans and Democrats, were simply not even allowed to
be considered in this process. Amendments that would save lives,
amendments that families would be grateful for, and amendments that
would reduce opioid abuse in our country are not even allowed to be
considered here on the floor of the House.
These were not amendments with an ideological agenda. Sometimes we
are down here on a bill that is highly ideological and there are
amendments that are locked out that would change it drastically or gut
it. No, these are good faith efforts and ideas from the experiences
that many of us have had back in our own districts as to how we can
address this opioid abuse crisis that we are facing nationally.
Among the amendments that should have been allowed this week and why
I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule--one amendment
that was locked out was a bipartisan amendment by Representatives Ann
Kuster and Frank Guinta, my colleagues from New Hampshire, which is
really one of the ground zero areas for this crisis, offered a
bipartisan amendment to H.R. 4641 that would have allowed HHS to award
grants to recovery community organizations.
Their amendment acknowledges that recovery is a long road. For any of
us, including myself, who have known people who have been in recovery
from drug addiction, they know it is difficult. It is a real test of
internal fortitude for them. Of course, their community and family need
to rally around and support their sobriety.
We need to be supporting not only prevention and initial treatment,
but also lifetime support for the lifetime struggle to pull people out
of the vicious cycle of addiction. This amendment that was blocked
under this rule took the long view that, to address this crisis, we
need the long-term support of recovery community organizations.

{time} 0930

Now, we know how pressing this issue is for our New Hampshire
colleagues, Republican and Democratic. So why not open up this process
to allow their idea to be debated on its merits?
If Members of Congress found it lacking merit, of course, it would be
the prerogative of Members of this body to vote it down; but at least
have that debate, and I honestly think that it likely would have
passed.
Representatives Katherine Clark and Evan Jenkins offered a bipartisan
amendment to H.R. 4641--again, locked out under this rule. We are not
allowed to debate it, and we are not allowed to vote on it.
Their proposal, very simply, would have authorized grants for the
creation of comprehensive systems to provide support for prescribers
with regard to patient pain and substance abuse. According to a study
in the Journal of Opioid Management, fewer than half of primary care
providers felt sufficiently

[[Page H2349]]

trained in prescribing opioids. This would have helped address that
training gap of prescribers so that they would less often use opioids
and more frequently use alternative pain reduction prescriptions. It is
our doctors and nurse practitioners and nurses who are on the front
lines. They need to be adequately prepared to deal with patients in
pain and with patients who are in the throes of addiction.
Again, unfortunately, under this rule, Katherine Clark and Evan
Jenkins' amendment is not allowed to be considered by this body.
I, personally, offered a bipartisan amendment with Mr. Rohrabacher of
California that would have required the Pain Management Task Force,
created in H.R. 4641, to take into consideration the potential for
marijuana to serve as an alternative to opioids for pain management.
Several private studies have yielded promising results. In 2014, the
Journal of Pain found that those who suffer from chronic pain reduced
their use of opioids by a significant margin when using marijuana for
medicinal purposes. Marijuana likely won't work in every instance where
somebody has chronic pain, but, where it does, you have a far less
harmful, less addictive option with much more limited side effects than
opioids and painkillers. We shouldn't be taking an option with limited
side effects off the table when it could help free millions of
Americans from excruciating pain and crippling addiction.
Unfortunately, that amendment--simply an amendment to take into
consideration and study the issue--was also blocked under this rule.
Those are some of the many examples. As I mentioned, none of the
amendments made it out of the Rules Committee, and our colleagues will
not have the opportunity to weigh in on the House floor. A wide variety
of amendments were blocked.
From a process perspective, this is really irresponsible of this
body, when responding to an epidemic of this complexity, to not debate
and solicit ideas--bipartisan ideas, Republican ideas, and Democratic
ideas--from Members of this body and to find creative solutions that
can actually save lives and would be of great comfort to families who
are affected.
My other concern is that the majority has authorized, but has not
funded or appropriated any of the programs under these bills. In
February, the President submitted a proposal that would have provided
$1.1 billion in new funding to address this epidemic in enforcement and
treatment. Despite that, this bill has no funding for these efforts.
Combating addiction is truly a bipartisan effort. When close to 100
Americans are dying from drug overdoses every day, we have to work
together to change that. I think that, unfortunately, under this rule,
while this might be some baby steps forward, we are falling short of
the mark of really being able to put our very best thinking and very
best solutions forward.
According to the CDC, since 1999, the number of prescription opioids
sold in the United States has quadrupled despite no discernible change
in the pain that Americans are reporting. So in a 15-year period,
opioids are used four times as much. That is the precursor to this
opioid addiction problem, and we need to do more to address that
overprescription of opioids.
In my home State of Colorado, the statewide rate of drug overdose
deaths increased from 9.7 percent per 100,000 residents to 16.3 percent
per 100,000 residents. Opioids were a major component of that.
Nationally, there have been even larger increases. Since 1999, deaths
from prescription opioids, like oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone,
have quadrupled. So it is no surprise the number of prescription
opioids sold in the United States have quadrupled and deaths have
quadrupled. It is no coincidence that those numbers are similar.
In 2014, almost 2 million Americans had some level of dependence on
prescription pain relievers. This trend has especially dire
consequences during pregnancy, which one of our bills addresses. In the
last decade alone, over 130,000 infants were born with newborn drug
withdrawal symptoms.
Given the extremity of circumstances surrounding opioid abuse in this
country, I am glad that this body is devoting some effort towards
casting a critical eye on what we can do; and I am saddened that this
body didn't have a more open process to include many of the ideas,
which I mentioned earlier, from bipartisan Members of this body and
others that are simply locked out under this rule.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported out 12 bills. The
Committee on Foreign Affairs considered a bill to allow the Treasury
Department to block international drug traffickers from using the U.S.
financial system. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs passed out a bill.
I was also pleased that the committee that I serve on, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, took up a bill that I coauthored along
with Representatives Barletta and Clark and Chairman Kline and Ranking
Member Scott and Representative Walberg--the Infant Plan of Safe Care
Improvement Act--which directs child protective service agencies to
develop a safe care plan to closely monitor the health outcomes for
infants who are born with this syndrome.
The scourge of opioid addiction has touched families in my district
and across the country. No State has managed to avoid it. I stand in
opposition to this rule because, truly, we need to do everything we can
to address this emergency, including debating good ideas, creative
ideas from both sides of the aisle, and letting the Members decide,
based on their own experiences, their own creative solutions as to what
we can do to help combat this scourge that has affected our country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), our only pharmacist
in Congress, who, I think, has a very good insight into this.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his long-time support of these types of issues, both as a
member of the Georgia State legislature and as a Member of this august
body. Representative Collins has consistently and very diligently
worked on these issues. As the son of a law enforcement officer, he
understands all too well the importance of making sure that our
communities are safe, and I thank him for his support of this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the House
amendment to S. 524. This week, the House has worked hard to pass 18
bills that address almost every facet of the opioid abuse epidemic.
We called for the creation of a task force to develop best practices
for pain management and prescribing pain medication. We have authorized
grants for local and State agencies to better fight this epidemic
through better resources. We have expanded care for newborn infants who
are affected by illegal substance abuse. We have improved comprehensive
opioid abuse treatment to pregnant and postpartum women. We have also
created safety measures for the use of opioids when treating veterans
who have chronic pain.
I am proud of the measures this body has passed that make up the
House amendment to S. 524.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is facing an opioid epidemic, and no
community is safe. It affects all communities across the Nation whether
they be urban, suburban, or rural.
Serving more than 30 years as a community pharmacist, I have
witnessed and participated in some of the greatest advances in the
history of medicine. I have seen diseases that once required
hospitalization become illnesses that are treated from home with
medication. I have seen an antibiotic regimen that once required four
tablets each day for 10 days replaced with six tablets over 5 days. I
have seen a deadly disease, like hepatitis C, cured by medication in
just 90 days. The advances that I have witnessed in medicine can truly
be called nothing more than miraculous, and that is important.
We need to recognize that this fight against the opioid epidemic is
going to have to be a team effort. We are going to have to have
everyone--all healthcare professionals--involved in this. Whether they
be doctors, nurses, pharmacists, PAs, APRNs--whoever--they have to be
involved. Families

[[Page H2350]]

have to be involved. Our communities have to be involved. Our
legislature has to be involved. This week, our Congress has taken the
lead. I am very proud of that. I am very proud of the work that it has
done.
It is also going to take tools like the Prescription Drug Monitoring
Programs. While a member of the Georgia State legislature, I had the
honor of sponsoring the legislation that led to the creation of the
Georgia Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. That program has been a
great tool in our toolbox to fight the opioid epidemic. Since that
time, we have tweaked that program and have made it even better, and it
continues to get better. It continues to help us in our fight against
the opioids.
I mentioned the advances that I have witnessed in medicine. I am a
big fan of the pharmaceutical industry--a big fan, perhaps its biggest
fan. What I have witnessed, again, has been miraculous. I call on the
pharmaceutical companies because right now there exists a gap, a gap in
treating pain. Right now we have available to us medication such as
ibuprofen and acetaminophen, and then we go to the opioids. There are
very few alternatives in between there in that gap--in that void, if
you will. Very few. Once you get past tramadol and a couple of others,
there is nothing else for us to use, there is nothing else for us to
prescribe. I have confidence in the pharmaceutical manufacturers, and I
call on them to fill in that gap, to fill in that void. We need more
alternatives, more choices.
Whether it is true or untrue, I can tell you that many patients don't
believe that ibuprofen or acetaminophen, which you can buy without a
prescription, will work as well as something that you can buy with a
prescription. That is something we have to overcome, but there is
definitely a void there that needs to be filled. Again, I am very, very
confident that the drug manufacturers and that the pharmaceutical
companies can help us fill this void, and I call on them to do just
that.
Mr. Speaker, as a lifelong pharmacist, I have seen the struggles
firsthand that Americans face with opioid addiction. I have witnessed
my colleagues in the pharmacy profession, some who just could not
overcome that weakness and who succumbed to prescription drug abuse. I
have witnessed that. I have witnessed it with patients. I have
witnessed it with customers who have ruined their careers, who have
ruined their families, and who have ruined their lives because of
opioid abuse. This is an epidemic. Certainly it is something that has
to be addressed in our country.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this measure so we can
improve our efforts to raise awareness while working towards solutions
to solve this health crisis. I encourage my colleagues to support this
bill, and I applaud my colleagues.
This has been a very, very proud week for me to be a Member of the
United States Congress. To see what my colleagues in this House have
done this week--as a pharmacist, as a healthcare professional--has made
me very, very proud. We did good this week, and I am very proud to be a
Member of this House.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Ms. BONAMICI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the critical legislative efforts on
the House floor this week to begin fighting the opioid crisis--an
addiction crisis that has swept our country. There is much more work to
be done to combat this epidemic. This is an encouraging start, but we
must do more.
Too many communities in Oregon and across the Nation have seen the
destruction that is caused by addiction, and too many have experienced
the heartbreak of losing a child, a neighbor, a friend, or other loved
one to overdose. Last year, just in Portland, Oregon, there were an
average of two opioid deaths per week.
I think about Kerri, who is a mom from Knappa, in northwest Oregon.
She lost her son, Jordan, after a 7-year struggle. Jordan's addiction
began when he had a football injury in high school, and his doctor
prescribed Vicodin. My own family has not been immune to this
devastation. My brilliant and talented sister-in-law, Valerie,
struggled with chronic pain and struggled in her life with the many,
many opioids that were way too available. She relied on them to dull
that pain until she lost her life a few years ago.
Countless families and doctors and nurses and public safety officers
have all pleaded with us here in Congress to please act, to please save
families from this loss and heartbreak.
I am glad we have come together today to answer this call, but these
are only the first steps. Healthcare and treatment providers must have
the resources they need to effectively curtail opioid abuse and
addiction, and that means robust funding and better research and better
education. We have all stood on this floor today and called this an
epidemic. Let's treat it as such. Let's continue building on this
progress.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership.

{time} 0945

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, some of the things also we have
talked about today are education and prevention. It is also looking at
things that we can be a part of and do.
As I have said earlier today, the things that have stuck out to me
are some of the statistics that have jumped out. I mentioned the one
earlier that more are dying from prescription overdoses than in car
wrecks.
Also, there are other practical ways that we can be a part. If you
are suffering out there--and, Mr. Speaker, if there is someone who is
going through this with either prescription opioid abuse or through
heroin abuse and addiction--there are toolkits available.
In fact, we have posted on our social media a place where people can
go. It is from the Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin Epidemic.
There are places where they can go to find a parent toolkit, where they
can help their young children, also the young adults in their house,
from middle school up through their 20s, on how we can best address
some of these real issues.
It was very disturbing to me recently in a magazine article that I
read that someone who was addicted, not only to heroin but was going
through it, made the statement--and this just shows you the concern
that is here--made the general statement that they were--there was this
adrenaline rush when they were getting ready to shoot the heroin--is
that this may be the last time I shoot up. That was almost driving them
to do that.
To think about how that plays out, think about a young person who is
so addicted and who is so wrapped to a drug that they really, when they
go to put it in their body, knowing full well it could be the very last
time they do anything, and yet that was part of the reason that they
were doing it, that is just disturbing as we look at this.
There are also many other things that have come out. I think, as we
go through this--we had a constituent who, knowing what we are doing
here today, had looked to the pharmaceutical industry and who found
ideas that are out there, such as this one from a pharmaceutical
company that is looking at abuse-resistant opioids that don't have the
same problems as we see in some of the others, such as OxyContin and
some of the others that we have out there.
I think this is about proper management. I appreciate what Mr. Carter
from Georgia said on dealing with this and finding that balance. I
think when we have the study, especially on how doctors prescribe how
pain medication is used, these are all the kinds of things that get us
to a point in which we limit the good uses that they may have, but also
of preventing the addiction and the preventative steps that are putting
us in the situation that we currently have.
So there are a lot of issues out here, and I think this is why this
rule is effective. This rule is a good first step. It is something we
move forward on. In doing so, I think we make a statement to the
American people that we are looking to the problems that they are
experiencing. We are addressing those needs, and we are going to
continue to do so.
If there is any indication that this was the last step, I think that
is a misperception that is out there. This is

[[Page H2351]]

a first step toward continuing this process. It will continue into the
appropriations, I am sure, process as well. But these are the tools
that we need to get into the toolbox right now and to be a part of
that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, this package before us cannot be the final
word. Congress needs to approve funding to develop a comprehensive
response to this epidemic and save lives.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that, in addition to
including all of the opioid bills passed this week, which I do support,
will also provide $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 Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) to discuss our proposal.
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for
yielding, and I also thank the Representative from Georgia (Mr.
Collins) for his words.
In New Hampshire, right now, we have a four-times-greater chance of
dying from a heroin or opiate overdose than a car accident, as you have
pointed out in national statistics.
This morning, I rise to say that I am proud of what the House has
been able to accomplish this week in a bipartisan way by working to
address this critical challenge of substance use disorder that is
devastating communities in my home State of New Hampshire and all
across the country.
Last year, I had the honor to cofound with my colleague from New
Hampshire (Mr. Guinta) the Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin
Epidemic to address the critical problems that heroin and opioid
addiction are bringing to every corner of my district and most parts of
the country. The membership of the task force now includes 83 members,
about half Republicans and Democrats, who are dedicated to fighting
this problem.
Last month, we unveiled a legislative package of 15 bills to fight
this epidemic, and we are pleased that many of these bills and
provisions have been included in the package this week.
To mark the start of opioid week, we held a Special Order on Tuesday
evening, when over 20 Members from both sides of the aisle came to the
floor to share personal stories of friends and family who had been
affected by the heroin epidemic.
As part of the Special Order, I told the story of Carl, the son of a
constituent and friend of mine, Sue Messinger. Carl, at 24 years old,
was working hard in college. He wanted to become a dentist. He was a
recent graduate. He earned good grades, and he had his eye set on
applying to dental school.
But it turned out, unbeknownst to his family, Carl had been using
heroin. His was another face of addiction.
When he finally spoke to his parents, they began the long journey
with him to recovery. They were able to secure a place in a detox
program, and they then moved toward his recovery. He was passing every
drug test. He remained resolutely committed to avoid drugs and alcohol,
and his family was overjoyed to see him get better.
But when Carl came down with an upper respiratory infection shortly
thereafter, a fatal error occurred. Unaware of Carl's history of
addiction and his recent completion of detox, the doctor who he saw for
the upper respiratory infection prescribed a narcotic cough
suppressant.
Triggered by the codeine in the cough syrup, Carl's addiction to
heroin was instantly reawakened, and he could not resist the craving.
He injected heroin and died that day of pure fentanyl, 50 times more
powerful than heroin, in his own home.

There were no labels on the bottle that indicated that the cough
medicine could trigger drug-seeking behavior. There was no way for Carl
or his mother or his parents to know that the cough medicine could pose
a fatal danger.
Since his death, his mother, Sue, has spoken out about the need to
reform labeling requirements. And I am pleased to be a sponsor of
Representative Walberg's bipartisan bill seeking to ensure that medical
professionals have full knowledge of a patient's previous opioid
addiction.
Sadly, that bill is not in the package of bills this week, and it is
one among many that we will need to address at a later date. So I am
hopeful that I can continue to work with the chair of this committee
and so many others on the other side of the aisle to bring forward
bills such as this that will make a difference in people's lives.
Earlier this week, I introduced the Drug Abuse Crisis Act that will
provide $600 million in critical funding to finally address this heroin
epidemic.
I want to close my remarks by talking about hope. So many of the
bills that we have passed will finally bring hope for recovery, for
treatment, for long-term recovery to the families, to the users, and to
our communities. This legislation will build and expand upon the work
that we have done this week by dramatically increasing resources for
medication-assisted treatments, funding competitive programs for law
enforcement and for those hardest hit by this drug crisis.
I am opposing this rule before us today and the previous question so
that we can move to consider my Drug Abuse Crisis Act.
Let's bring hope to our families and communities, and please oppose
the previous question.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I went through in my opening statement, I mentioned a
good many of the bills that were part of the House package this week. I
want to go back through just a few more that we went through just to
let people know the breadth and scope of what we have been doing.
H.R. 4982, Examining Opioid Treatment Infrastructure Act, is a bill
that requires the Comptroller General to report to Congress on the
inpatient and outpatient treatment capacity, availability, and needs in
the United States. And that was by Mr. Foster of Illinois.
We also have H.R. 4599, Reducing Unused Medications Act of 2016, from
Representative Clark of Massachusetts.
We also have H.R. 4586, Lali's Law, sponsored by Representative Dold
of Illinois.
H.R. 3691, Improving Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women Act
of 2016, sponsored by Representative Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico.
H.R. 3680, Co-Prescribing to Reduce Overdoses Act of 2016, sponsored
by Representative Sarbanes of Maryland.
We also have H.R. 1818, Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support
Act of 2016, sponsored by Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois.
Again, as you see the breadth of what we are doing here and why I
believe moving forward on this rule is important and going through,
many times what we have said is: look, these issues all address
specific needs. They all are encompassing of our body, as a whole, all
435 of us, because, as I read here, these were a mix of both Republican
and Democrat bills that have been passed on this floor this week.
So, as we look ahead, we look to the serious nature of what we are
doing, it also really looks at the breadth and the scope of what we are
dealing with here. This is why this needs to move forward today, why
this package needs to be approved and also go to conference so we can
continue to move forward with these ideals and with the things that
have been put before us this week.
We can do that by making a positive step and acknowledging the good
work that has gone on here. I appreciate all of the speakers today on
both sides of the aisle who have come forward to talk about this issue
and talk about the real problems that we see that are occurring, really
unfortunately, in kitchens and living rooms all across our country
every day. So this is something that so many people can relate to.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I rise today to honor a constituent of mine, Mr. Timothy J. Gagen of
Breckenridge, Colorado. Tim is retiring from 40 years of civil service
in municipal government. He has served towns

[[Page H2352]]

and cities across Colorado, Illinois, and Indiana and recently received
the Colorado City and County Management Association's Lifetime
Achievement Award.
During his tenure in Colorado, Tim was instrumental in working with
various entities, including the EPA, U.S. Army, Colorado State Health
Board, and the U.S. Attorney General on two Superfund sites.
Tim was influential in the formation and success of our Highway 70
Coalition, an organization of governments that works with the Colorado
Department of Transportation to improve safety and reduce congestion
along our important Highway 70, the main artery to our mountain
communities.
He spearheaded a crucial land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service
that provided for much-needed workforce housing, and we were able to
get a bill passed here and signed into law to get it done.
Tim's steadfast focus on the most important elements to our
community--the people who live and work in the area--resulted in the
Breckenridge Vision, developed by citizens. Tim's accomplishments are
highlighted by two early learning centers, a scholarship program to
assist parents from the county, and nearly 1,000 workforce affordable
housing units in the town with a population of 4,500.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Mr.
Timothy J. Gagen on behalf of the residents of the Second Congressional
District. His contributions to the town of Breckenridge will remain his
legacy for many years to come.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the Chair how much
time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado
is prepared to close, I am prepared to close as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, there have been harrowing tales told here on the floor
of the House, and there is no doubt opioid addiction is a segment of
that. It is a public health crisis in this country that is hurting
communities, hurting families, killing people.
In 2012, enough prescriptions were written for opioids to give every
single adult in this country their own bottle. Prescriptions for
opioids have increased four times in the last 15 years. That is four
times as many prescriptions.

{time} 1000

We need to do something. It is a start today. It is not enough. It is
not enough.
Unfortunately, these rules block out and prevent many creative and
effective ideas from both sides of the aisle from coming to the floor.
We also have missed the opportunity to provide funding to address
treatment and enforcement.
The fact that both parties in both Chambers have come together to
tackle opioid addiction is a testament to how far the reach of this
epidemic is. Every district has been affected; every Member of this
body has taken note. I and many of us know families and individuals
whose lives have been devastated or ended prematurely from the opioid
crisis.
It is crucial that we approach the problem from every possible angle:
support for providers, training for law enforcement, well-funded
treatment centers, thoughtful policies for addicted parents, education
for our youth, innovative dispensing technologies, alternative pain
management therapies. There are so many ideas to consider.
This rule packages 18 bills that address part of the problem
together. Unfortunately, 16 of them don't allow amendments, and the 2
that do, many amendments were ruled out for lack of being germane.
Given the rate of deaths from prescription opioid abuse, we should
allow a full debate of amendments and ideas on the floor of the House
to address this issue.
Yes, we are taking a first step today, but there is a lot more work
to do to save lives and help families across our country. We need to
fund these programs so they are not just words on a page.
This is a very real issue with real implications for American
families, and we owe it to American families across the country to have
a more open and thorough process to do more to combat the opioid
scourge.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we
can bring forward Ms. Kuster's amendment, ``no'' on the underlying
rule, and ``yes'' on the underlying bills.
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, just the other day I had an opportunity to speak to a
longtime friend, and there was a general discussion about what was
going on up here and the steps that were being taken.
During this time, my friend began to list and talk about folks close
to him that either had addiction to prescription pain medications or
were dealing with the aftereffects of that problem. This came, frankly,
out of nowhere and even to my friend, who basically said, ``I had no
idea.'' And yet, within just the matter of a few weeks, he had found
out within just his own sphere of influence that there were a number of
people in his family and in his friendship connection who were dealing
with this abuse.
That tells you that this is something that a lot of times is hidden
just below the surface, unfortunately dealt with in very private, very
concerning ways, because so many times they are trapped in a cycle of
addiction in which the addiction is found and then treated and it comes
back again and it reexpresses itself in many different ways.
As a pastor and as a chaplain, I have dealt with these issues before,
and there is nothing more heartbreaking than to see someone who wants
to break free from an addiction and break free from the abuse that they
are perpetrating basically on their own body and to see progress made
and then get a call or not see them for a week or two and then find out
that they fell back into their old pattern or they unfortunately found
a new addiction that has taken over.
But when we come to the floor of the House--and we have spoken this
week on 18 bills and the promise of the Senate bill and the promise of
a conference committee going forward--it is saying that we have heard
these sometimes silent screams, these sometimes silent tears of those
who may not know how to deal with it but yet they are looking for ways.
We have heard the anguish of law enforcement officers and first
responders who come to scenes, and if they have the proper medication,
if they have the proper treatments, then they can reverse some of these
disastrous effects. Now we are making sure that we can get that to
them, we can look for better ways of helping them do their job that
they so heroically do every day.
We are looking at ways of looking at a task force so that we can look
at how we prescribe and how we treat pain and those things in people's
lives that are chronic and ongoing, how do we treat them better so that
we don't have to deal maybe with this addiction side and we don't have
to deal with possible aftereffects of that.
We have to also look at our ways on how we deal with folks who are
addicted and how we deal with them in treatment, not only from the
veterans' perspective, from the son or daughter perspective, from the
mom or dad perspective, the aunt or uncle, even the grandparent
perspective. How do we do that? How do we do it effectively?
How do we make sure that when we get to our spending and we get to
our appropriations and we make sure that these appropriations are going
out that they are done so in appropriate ways? That is the function, I
believe, of the Republican majority.
That is why we are bringing this forward today as we are, is to make
a difference in the lives of people but do so in a way that is
constructive and ongoing. As we have heard today and over the course of
the week, the opioid epidemic is out of control, but we have an
opportunity to start addressing the problem.
Again, 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

[[Page H2353]]

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 to battle addiction and die.
For that reason, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule, the
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, and the motion to go to
conference on the House-passed amendment in the nature of a substitute.
This is something we can do. This is a very positive step in a week
in which, for the most part, we have come to the floor to hear
bipartisan unity in saying, ``We will act.''
Do not let this day go by because we may not have gotten everything
that everybody wanted. It is the time to vote ``yes'' on the previous
question, it is the time to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and it is the
time to vote ``yes'' to move forward so that we can conference with the
Senate and put together a product that can make not only this body
proud but make the American people know that we have heard their voice.
We agonize with them, many of us who have felt it firsthand. And in
doing so, we are doing the people's business.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 725 Offered by Mr. Polis

On page 2, line 2, strike ``the respective text of the
bills specified in section 2(a) of this resolution'' and
insert ``the text of H.R. 5189, as introduced,''.
Strike section 2 and redesignate subsequent sections
accordingly.
____

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, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 172, not voting 29, as follows:

[Roll No. 190]

YEAS--232

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
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
Costa
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
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
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
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
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
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--172

[[Page H2354]]

Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--29

Adams
Bishop (UT)
Bridenstine
Cardenas
Fattah
Fincher
Forbes
Garamendi
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Johnson (GA)
Kennedy
Kirkpatrick
Knight
Latta
Pascrell
Payne
Pitts
Richmond
Roskam
Rush
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Speier
Stutzman
Titus
Whitfield

{time} 1029

Messrs. CICILLINE and DeFAZIO changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. POE of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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. POLIS. 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 240,
noes 165, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 191]

AYES--240

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
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
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Dold
Donovan
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
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
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
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 (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
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
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--165

Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--28

Adams
Bridenstine
Cardenas
Diaz-Balart
Fattah
Fincher
Forbes
Garamendi
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Kennedy
Kirkpatrick
Knight
Latta
Olson
Pascrell
Payne
Pitts
Richmond
Rush
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Speier
Stutzman
Titus
Whitfield

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren)(during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining.

{time} 1037

Mr. CARTWRIGHT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. DUCKWORTH changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.

____________________