[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1704-H1710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4566, ALLEVIATING STRESS TEST 
  BURDENS TO HELP INVESTORS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
  5247, TRICKETT WENDLER, FRANK MONGIELLO, JORDAN McLINN, AND MATTHEW 
        BELLINA RIGHT TO TRY ACT OF 2018; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 787 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 787

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4566) to 
     amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act to provide relief to nonbanks from certain 
     stress test requirements under such Act. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-65 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, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member 
     designated in the report, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in 
     the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
     division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5247) to 
     authorize the use of eligible investigational drugs by 
     eligible patients who have been diagnosed with a stage of a 
     disease or condition in which there is reasonable likelihood 
     that death will occur within a matter of months, or with 
     another eligible illness, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of March 23, 2018.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of March 22, 2018, or March 23, 2018, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.
       Sec. 5.  Section 3(a) of House Resolution 5 is amended by 
     striking ``the first session of''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 787 provides for the 
consideration of two important bills whose focus is to empower the 
people of this Nation by removing governmental obstacles standing in 
the way of life and prosperity in this country.
  The first bill, H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to 
Help Investors Act, is a bipartisan effort from the Committee on 
Financial Services under Chairman Jeb Hensarling, authored by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
  The second piece of legislation in today's rule, H.R. 5247, the 
Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina 
Right to Try Act of 2018, authorizes the use of certain drugs to 
eligible patients who have been diagnosed with a stage of a disease or 
a condition for which there is a reasonable likelihood that death will 
occur in a matter of months.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for H.R. 4566, the Alleviating 
Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, equally divided between the 
Chair and the ranking members of the Committee on Financial Services.
  The rule makes one amendment in order, authored by the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member. Further, the 
rule provides for the consideration of one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  For H.R. 5247, the Right to Try Act of 2018, the rule provides for 1 
hour of debate equally divided between the Chair

[[Page H1705]]

and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
Although no amendments to the bill were made in order, the rule does 
provide for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, before I speak about the substance of the two bills 
under consideration in the rule before us today, I do want to take a 
minute to honor our colleague and the Rules Committee's ranking member, 
Louise Slaughter, who passed away unexpectedly last week.
  I have known Ranking Member Slaughter since I first joined Congress 
in 2003. We spent countless hours debating every issue one can imagine 
in the Rules Committee upstairs, often long into the night.
  When I joined the Rules Committee in 2013, Ranking Member Slaughter 
was then the ranking member, but it was under her chairmanship where 
she ushered through the Affordable Care Act, where my largest memories 
reside. During the debate for the Affordable Care Act, I went up to H-
313, the Rules Committee hearing room, with 18 amendments under my arm, 
a small selection of the many ways I felt the law needed to be changed.
  Certain that I would only be able to get through a small portion of 
those amendments before I was cut off, I began my testimony. To the 
chairwoman's credit, she let me go on and on and on, and despite my 
being convinced that she was going to gavel me down at any second, she 
allowed me to finish speaking on all 18 amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, it wasn't until I actually became a member of the Rules 
Committee several years later that I discovered there is, in fact, no 
time limit for Members and witnesses to speak, much to the chagrin of 
many Members when we debate the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Ranking Member Slaughter was always proud of her background as a 
microbiologist, and it served her well during her tenure in Congress, 
because, after all, we deal with, sometimes, almost miniscule, 
microscopic issues, so time as a microbiologist would be good 
preparation.
  One moment where I was glad to be able to work with Ranking Member 
Slaughter was in 2007. This was right after the Democrats took control 
of the House. Ms. Slaughter had been pushing for years for legislation 
that would prohibit the discrimination of employees based on genetic 
information.
  The legislation was forward leaning, long before companies offered 
DNA testing kits in every pharmacy of the country. And, in fact, it was 
former Speaker Newt Gingrich himself who brought this bill to my 
attention, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which I was 
proud to support as it moved through the Energy and Commerce Committee 
and was eventually signed into law by President Bush.
  I would also like to mention Don Sisson, the staff director for the 
minority on the Rules Committee. Don has been with the committee for 
years--even at one point working under Chairman Drier--and has been 
with the ranking member of the Rules Committee through many events in 
the past years, including the death of her own husband, who, in fact, 
often sat in the audience of the Rules Committee and joined Ms. 
Slaughter during our late-night Rules hearings.
  Don is, indeed, a loyal staffer, himself hailing from Rochester, New 
York, and is a great example of how Ms. Slaughter's life and passing is 
affecting so many people. I do want to thank Don for his written 
remarks that were read into the record of the Rules Committee last 
night from the staff perspective on the passing of Ranking Member 
Slaughter.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to hold off making further 
comments on the legislation before us to allow others to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my 
friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

  Mr. Speaker, like my friend from Texas, I was overcome with sadness 
by the tragic news of Louise's passing, who was not only the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee, but the first and only woman to have 
chaired the committee.
  For 30 years, Louise poured every ounce of energy she had into 
serving her constituents in upstate New York. She never hesitated to 
speak her mind, and she never wavered in espousing her beliefs. I will 
always be truly grateful for the time that I had to serve alongside 
her.
  Louise was one of my dearest friends in Congress, having not only 
served with her on the Rules Committee but also on the Commission on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission.
  Her legacy speaks for itself. She was not just a champion of women's 
rights. She was a champion of working families everywhere. This Nation 
has lost one of our fiercest public servants, and her absence will 
leave an unfillable void.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer my deepest condolences to Louise's daughters: 
Megan Secatore, Amy Slaughter, and Emily Minerva; her seven 
grandchildren and one great-grandson; as well as to her friends, 
constituents, and congressional staff during this extremely difficult 
time. Her spirit and loving memory will forever live in the Halls of 
Congress. She will be dearly missed.
  Mr. Speaker, turning to today's rules, this rule brings the number of 
closed rules for the 115th Congress to 74. In other words, more than 50 
percent of the legislation coming to the Rules Committee has been 
closed off from an open and honest debate by my Republican friends.
  At the beginning of this Congress, we were told by my Republican 
colleagues that they would run the government in an open manner. They 
even championed regular order. Well, that spirit has clearly been 
jettisoned in favor of an overly partisan approach to governing.
  By way of example, one of today's bills, H.R. 5247, was introduced 
last Tuesday, brought to the House floor for a vote on the same day 
without the committee of jurisdiction holding one single hearing on the 
bill or Members having the opportunity to offer their amendments.

                              {time}  1230

  Not surprisingly, the measure failed to pass under suspension of the 
rules.
  What was the response of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
when the vote failed? Did my Republican colleagues insist that the 
Energy and Commerce Committee hold hearings on the measure? Did my 
Republican colleagues on the committee of jurisdiction invite experts 
to speak on what the consequences would be if this bill were to become 
law? Did my Republican colleagues work with Democrats to come up with a 
bipartisan solution? No.
  Madam Speaker, let me tell you what did happen. The Republican 
leadership ignored the problems with the measure and brought it to the 
Rules Committee last night for it to be considered on the House floor 
today.
  Now, this flies in the face of regular order, to ask the entire 
membership of the people's House to vote on something for which no one 
can honestly say they know what the unintended consequences would be if 
this bill were to become law.
  Bad process makes bad bills, and the process we have witnessed with 
this bill can't get much worse. Yet it did get worse when the 
Republican majority blocked the ranking member's, Mr. Pallone's, 
substitute amendment, an amendment which was both germane and had 
bipartisan support.
  Madam Speaker, the Republican majority took it a step further when 
they extended the Holman rule for the remainder of the 115th Congress. 
My friends on the other side of the aisle are yet again seeking to 
scapegoat Federal employees, make cuts to the Federal workforce, and 
politicize the civil service system that was established to 
professionalize agencies and offices, all while ignoring the waste and 
abuses in the reality show of the Trump administration.
  Madam Speaker, challenged by the American people to bring up 
comprehensive gun reform, House leadership instead brings up one bill 
that hasn't gone through anything resembling regular order and another 
bill that weakens and undermines a valuable tool that gives financial 
companies and regulators an opportunity to identify and correct 
problems before they could lead to another financial crisis.

[[Page H1706]]

  Every year, roughly 35,000 people are killed by guns. Moreover, 2,700 
children and teens are shot and killed, and over 14,000 more are shot 
and injured every year. That is an average of 47 American children and 
teens shot every day.
  And the effects of gun violence extend far beyond those struck by a 
bullet. Gun violence shapes the lives of the millions of children who 
witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next 
shooting. We have witnessed the effects over the last month with the 
students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
  This weekend, hundreds of thousands of students and their supporters 
will descend on Washington, D.C., to demand that the Federal Government 
take action to stop the epidemic of mass shootings, which have become 
all too familiar.
  No less than this morning when I turned on the television, less than 
an hour and a half away from here, in yet another school, yet another 
shooting. Fortunately, it appears that the resource officer there 
engaged the shooter early on and may have caused there to be less 
damage, although some people were injured, and one or two critically.
  We can no longer ignore what gun violence really is in this country. 
It is an epidemic.
  But do not just take my word for it or the students who witnessed 14 
friends' and 3 teachers' lives brutally cut short. The American Medical 
Association, following the tragedy at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, 
declared gun violence in this country ``a very public health crisis,'' 
a crisis which the Republican majority's only answer is to offer 
thoughts and prayers and further block any Democratic measures to 
address this crisis and to continue to block the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention from even researching gun violence.
  Instead of finally making permanent the status of Dreamers in this 
country as full citizens, the Republican majority ignores their calls 
and the calls of the vast majority of Americans and, instead, brings up 
one bill that undermines a valuable early warning system of our 
Nation's economy and another bill that has gone through a completely 
closed process.
  Enough is enough. President Donald John Trump says he wants to fix 
this problem. The Speaker says he wants to fix this problem. We on this 
side of the aisle clearly want to fix this problem. So let's do it 
already.
  Madam Speaker, last week, when I was managing yet another useless 
financial regulation, I commented and I asked the American public to 
respond:
  Would you rather us stop banks from having stress tests or would you 
prefer that we deal with the deferred action for children in this 
country, 800,000 of whom are Dreamers, 120 of whom lose their status 
every day?
  Would you prefer that we deal with the measure that is on the floor 
today or that we deal seriously with a variety of issues having to do 
with gun violence in our society, which I have described as an 
epidemic?
  Would you prefer as a priority, America, that we deal with these 
trivial matters that are going nowhere fast or that we center ourselves 
and focus on those measures that are vital to the survival, security, 
and safety of all Americans?
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, it was indeed incredibly disappointing last week when 
our Democratic colleagues did not join us in supporting what was very 
carefully crafted right-to-try legislation.
  The President came and talked to us at the beginning of February, and 
right to try was one of the issues that he highlighted there from the 
podium. So it should be to no one's great surprise that this House 
would indeed take up and work on that issue that the President himself 
highlighted. Right to try was the one piece of legislation that 
President Trump specifically promised to the American people in the 
State of the Union address.

  Today, I want it to be known that I stand with the President. I stand 
with the thousands of Americans with terminal diseases and their 
families and their friends in getting this important bill passed.
  Since 2014, 37 States, including my home State of Texas, have passed 
a version of a right-to-try law, and through a strong grassroots 
movement, they have accomplished that.
  Today, the House is considering H.R. 5247, the Right to Try Act of 
2018, which would improve access to experimental treatments for 
terminally ill patients and offer them a chance--a second chance, a 
third chance--at life.
  Over the course of the last decade, our Nation has achieved 
unprecedented innovation and scientific breakthroughs. Thanks to 
researchers in our academic institutions and those working in the 
pharmaceutical and medical device industries, American patients have 
access to innovative treatments.
  Regardless of these achievements, I hear from patients with serious 
life-threatening conditions, including my constituents from north 
Texas, who are frustrated with what they see as regulatory barriers 
from trying and experimenting with new therapies when every other 
avenue has failed.
  It does seem we are at a crossroads when lifesaving treatments, while 
not yet approved, both exist and remain unavailable to patients.
  As a physician, I understand that access to investigational drugs and 
therapies is a deeply personal priority for those seeking treatment for 
themselves or loved ones with a serious and life-threatening condition.
  It is crucial to mention the multistakeholder efforts that have gone 
into improving the original right-to-try bill. Chairman Walden of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee led negotiations with the Commissioner of 
the United States Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, and 
with other stakeholders to ensure that this legislation opens the door 
to innovative experimental drugs for these patients without necessarily 
compromising the vital work and the mission of the Food and Drug 
Administration. The product of those negotiations is a bill that 
strikes the proper balance between ensuring patient safety and granting 
access to these treatments.
  I also want to mention that the Subcommittee on Health did have a 
hearing in this regard October 3. We heard from the Commissioner of the 
Food and Drug Administration during that hearing. We heard from a 
number of patient groups and stakeholders who felt that it was, in 
fact, in their best interest for us to advance legislation.
  Currently, the Food and Drug Administration conducts an expanded 
access program aimed at helping patients who do not qualify for 
clinical trials to gain access to therapies that the agency has yet to 
approve. While this program makes a good faith effort to help those 
patients, right to try would create an alternative pathway for those 
individuals, allowing them to access eligible investigational drugs.
  The fact is that individuals may not qualify for a clinical trial if 
they do not meet very specific patient inclusion criteria, which may 
include factors such as age, gender, type and stage of disease, 
previous treatment history, and other medical conditions. There are 
also many patients for whom participation in a clinical trial is not 
feasible, especially those who live in rural areas far from where those 
academic clinical trial sites exist.
  Most, if not all, of the patients with a terminal medical condition 
fall into one of these categories. This legislation allows those 
patients to participate in the alternative pathway so long as they are 
certified by a physician who is in good standing and abides by the 
rules laid out in the bill.
  Again, we worked closely with the Food and Drug Administration to 
ensure that the new alternative pathway does not hinder or conflict 
with the critically important oversight that that agency conducts. 
While some people may have reservations about the safety of a new 
pathway, this bill protects patients from manufacturers mislabeling or 
misbranding drugs, requires sponsors and manufacturers to report 
adverse events to the Food and Drug Administration, and provides 
certain liability protections for parties participating in the new 
pathway. This alternative pathway would also be limited to individuals 
who have exhausted all FDA-approved treatment options.
  Additionally, only certain investigational drugs are considered 
eligible under this legislation. In order to qualify, the drug must 
have completed a

[[Page H1707]]

phase one clinical trial, must have an active application, must be 
under active development or production by the manufacturer, and must 
not be the subject of a clinical hold.
  Eligible patients include those suffering from a stage of a disease 
or condition for which there is reasonable likelihood that death will 
occur in a matter of months or that would result in significant 
irreversible morbidity that is likely to lead to premature death.
  This revised right-to-try bill also provides certainty to 
manufacturers in the drug approval process. It is essential that we do 
not create additional hurdles in that process. The legislation clearly 
states that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
Services ``may not use a clinical outcome associated with the use of an 
eligible investigational drug . . . to delay or adversely affect the 
review or approval of such drug.''

                              {time}  1245

  Since the Health Subcommittee first considered the right-to-try 
legislation, the bill has passed in the Senate, and we have had many 
conversations with patients, advocates, the administration, and 
stakeholders on all sides of this complex topic. That collaborative 
effort was necessary, and I am certainly grateful to all who 
participated in those discussions.
  Madam Speaker, this represents months of hard work and thoughtful 
discussions and decisions. I believe this legislation is a positive 
step forward in our shared goal of improving care for American 
patients. Again, this was the one aspect of the President's State of 
the Union Address where he asked us specifically to act on this 
legislation.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, I had dialogue with 
the author of this legislation and also the ranking member, Mr. 
Pallone. I indicated to them that I have very strong sympathies 
regarding persons who are in the apparent throes of death and seeking 
some hope, and medication can have its advantages, and experimental 
medication can have its advantages.
  My quarrel with the legislation is that it didn't go through regular 
order. I don't understand why, with all of the experts. I introduced 
into the Record in the Rules Committee last night a substantial number 
of organizations and individuals who have come forward. They all agree 
that something along the lines of what is being sought ought be 
undertaken, but it would allow for those persons to have added input 
into what ultimately may be significant legislation. But my friends on 
the other side plow right ahead on this matter that I reiterate was 
brought on suspension last week that failed, and then brought here last 
night for purposes of a rule along with financial stress legislation.
  So it is not that many of us are not sympathetic to the underlying 
principle that is being offered. It is that it is rank process and that 
we should not allow legislation to continue to come to the floor of the 
House of Representatives that blocks out a significant number of 
persons who may have input that would make the measure be much more 
salient to a more significant number of people.
  It is for that reason that I continue to ask the questions: What are 
our priorities here? What is the rush with reference to this matter 
while we are ignoring a significant number of other matters that we 
could be undertaking?
  In addition to that, we were supposed to go to the Rules Committee 
this afternoon on the omnibus bill; and now, evidently, there is 
wrangling going on between the parties and bicameral between the Senate 
and the House, and that measure isn't ready to come to the floor.
  Yet we are dealing with something that isn't the highest priority of 
the moment. I commented last night, anything that will help a person 
who is facing death is the kind of thing that we would want that person 
to have that opportunity to deal with. But we have children who have 
been killed and we have children who are facing the potential for that 
kind of horror, yet we are doing nothing.
  So, Madam Speaker, once again, I rise to appeal to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle: Please, listen to the American people and do 
more to help end the epidemic of gun violence that has plagued our 
Nation and that the American people are demanding Congress to do more.
  For example, in a recent Gallup Poll, nearly two-thirds of adults 
wanted stricter laws on the sale of firearms. According to a recent 
NPR/Ipsos poll, 75 percent of respondents said they think gun laws 
should be stricter.
  As I indicated earlier, just this morning there were reports of 
another school shooting just an hour and a half from Washington, D.C., 
in Great Mills, Maryland. The American people are begging this body to 
do something to end this epidemic, so I offer the majority this 
opportunity:
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up four commonsense gun safety 
bills: H.R. 4240, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights 
Protection Act; H.R. 3464, the Background Check Completion Act; H.R. 
2598, the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act; and H.R. 1478, the Gun 
Violence Research Act.
  These bills would close the dangerous gun show and internet sale 
background check loopholes, prevent the sale of guns without a 
completed background check, ensure that people who are a danger to 
themselves or others can be prevented from possessing a gun, and lift 
the prohibition on government-sponsored scientific research on the 
causes of gun violence.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so that we can finally do something to address gun 
violence.
  Through you, Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend from Texas that 
I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close when he is 
prepared to close.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is a fellow member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Burgess), as well as the good gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), because I want to take just a minute.
  I think it is appropriate at this time during this debate on a rule 
to remember Ms. Louise Slaughter, our ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, a historical position. She was the very first woman to be 
the chairman of the Rules Committee. She gave three decades of service 
to our Nation through the U.S. Congress. As importantly--or, to me, 
more importantly--she was someone whom I consider a personal friend.

  Louise was an individual who I said yesterday could really transcend 
between politics and personal relationships. We had some very heated 
debates--a good example is today--and very strong differences of 
opinions, but we can do that. That is our job to do that. But Louise 
also taught us that we could do that without being negative to each 
other in a personal way. She was great at that. She embodied and 
personified the ability to have an objection without being 
objectionable, and I admired that greatly about her.
  She was a senior Member and I was a very junior Member. She didn't 
have to do this, but in many ways she took me under her wing when I 
became a Member of Congress. We served on the Rules Committee together, 
and I very much relished that relationship that we had.
  Another thing that we had in common was we joined a very exclusive 
club, one that several other Members of this body belong to, and that 
is those people who have lost their spouses. When I was going through 
that very personally difficult time, Louise

[[Page H1708]]

had the similar experience. She was very gracious to me to be able to 
help me through that very difficult time. We exchanged books. Many 
Members of Congress have read books by C.S. Lewis. Louise and I had 
many discussions about some of the things in some of his writings. In 
kind of a funny way, as she would do in manipulating me into thinking I 
was helping her, she was actually having me help myself through that 
very challenging time. I will always be forever grateful to her for 
doing that.
  She stood strong, and she was a formidable opponent. When she was 
managing the rule for the Democrats on the other side of the floor, it 
was always a challenging task, and you had to be on your game when you 
were on this side making the debate with her.
  I count myself very fortunate to have been able to know her and to 
have been able to work with her. I join together with all of my 
colleagues and her family to be able to remember her and honor her 
memory; and I will continue to do so, as she has truly left a large 
mark on this institution.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would say to my friend from Washington what I said last night: We 
would do a great service to Louise's memory if we were to make more 
open rules here on the House floor; and I will argue for her in that 
regard.
  Madam Speaker, before I close, I want to again reiterate the 
tremendous loss felt in this Chamber with the passing of our longtime 
colleague, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter. She was a champion 
of all the issues she cared about and a giant here in the House of 
Representatives. Her wisdom will be missed every day.
  Madam Speaker, the people's House should be approaching our work in a 
manner that is fair to all Americans, in a manner where the appropriate 
committee of jurisdiction holds hearings and markups, in a manner where 
experts in the field are consulted, and in a manner where Members of 
both parties have the opportunity to offer amendments and debate the 
contents of the bill.
  The process we are witnessing here today is truly a slap in the face 
to regular order. A bill that has zero input from members on the Energy 
and Commerce Committee or that has been the subject of any thoughtful 
discussion is suddenly on the House floor for a vote.
  Now, I respect my friend from Texas' view that last year in the 
Senate, and even perhaps since that time, and throughout the country, 
right-to-try measures have passed in several States to some degree. But 
this particular bill that is on the floor that we are making a rule for 
has not gone through regular order; and that, then, disallows a 
significant number of persons who would have an opportunity to have 
input to what could be legislation that all sides could agree upon. Our 
failure to undertake to do that is a disservice, in my view, to the 
institution and to the measure that is being sought to be passed here 
today.
  This is not just an affront to normal House procedure; it is 
downright undemocratic and emblematic of the Republican majority's 
inability to govern. I think it will redound to their discredit that 
they are not allowing this House to proceed under regular order.
  As I indicated earlier, more than 50 percent of all of the measures 
that have come to the Rules Committee and have ultimately come to the 
floor of the House of Representatives have been under closed rules, 
which means that Members who represent millions of people in America do 
not have opportunities to offer amendments that might make the measure 
better or, at the very least, have their views heard with reference to 
substantive legislation that is moving through this body.

                              {time}  1300

  If we continue down this path for the remainder of this session, we 
will probably break the 100th barrier on closed rules. We have already 
had more closed rules than in the history of legislating in this 
country.
  That is not fair. That is basically all we are arguing. Open up the 
process. Let every Member have an opportunity for input on behalf of 
his or her constituents. It is the right thing to do. What has been 
happening is the dead wrong thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Dallas 
Morning News from 2010. The title of the article--and I am not going to 
read the whole thing--is: ``Pelosi Pulled Strings to Let Dying Dallas 
Lawyer Try Experimental Cancer Drug.''

                  [From the Dallas Morning News, 2010]

Pelosi Pulled Strings To Let Dying Dallas Lawyer Baron Try Experimental 
                              Cancer Drug

                          (By Todd J. Gilman)

       Washington.--Dallas' top Democratic donors will cut big 
     checks to share dinner later this month with House Speaker 
     Nancy Pelosi. Most will be motivated by a desire to protect 
     the party's congressional majority.
       Lisa Blue will have an extra reason: to say thanks for 
     Pelosi's efforts when her husband, Fred Baron, was dying of 
     bone marrow cancer. His only option was an experimental drug 
     whose manufacturer refused to give permission to use it for 
     Baron's condition.
       ``He was a big fan of hers, and now I am as well,'' Blue 
     said.
       Baron, the ``King of Toxic Torts,'' built a fortune suing 
     on behalf of asbestos victims. He died the week before 
     Election Day 2008 at age 61.
       A prolific Democratic fundraiser, he served as finance 
     chief that year for his friend John Edwards, who also made 
     his fortune in court. Baron later acknowledged funneling 
     large sums to Edwards' mistress--a scandal that gave 
     ammunition to those who already despised trial lawyers.
       But to Blue, first and foremost, Baron was a husband.
       The tale she tells of his final weeks is not so different 
     than any widow might tell, except, of course, that the couple 
     had friends in especially high places--friends like Pelosi, 
     who will headline the Aug. 24 dinner to raise cash for the 
     Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
       In 2002, Baron was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By 
     October 2008, his doctors at the Mayo Clinic were telling him 
     he had just days to live.
       They also offered a glimmer of hope. Over the years, the 
     couple had donated about $1 million to Mayo. The staff was 
     especially diligent, Blue said. They tested an arsenal of 
     drugs and finally discovered that Baron's cancer responded 
     surprisingly well, in the lab, to a drug called Tysabri.
       Mayo had an ample supply, but the drug was--and still is--
     approved only for treatment of multiple sclerosis and Crohn's 
     disease. The manufacturer, Biogen Idec, refused to give 
     permission, even under special ``compassionate use'' rules 
     that protect a drug-maker from a black mark in case of an 
     adverse outcome.
       Biogen said it didn't want to jeopardize the drug's 
     availability to other patients. (The company did not respond 
     to a request for comment last week.)
       ``I told Mayo, `I'll sign anything, I'll release anything. 
     Just give him the drug,' '' Blue said.
       Blue, also a top lawyer, began making calls. She started 
     with Lance Armstrong, the bicyclist and cancer survivor, whom 
     she had represented.
       ``I started going through Fred's Rolodex,'' she said. ``I 
     called every politician, every celebrity that I knew and just 
     begged them to help. . . . I must have made 200 calls.''
       She called clinics in Canada, trying in vain to find 
     doctors willing to administer the drug without Biogen's OK. 
     She hired a lawyer and prepared to sue Mayo to force it to 
     dispense the drug. She even bought some Tysabri online from 
     Australia, intending to send stepson Andrew Baron to smuggle 
     it back, she said.
       The younger Baron posted an open plea online to Biogen, 
     noting that Bill Clinton, Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy 
     of Massachusetts, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and even the head 
     of the Food and Drug Administration had urged the company to 
     reconsider.
       ``You talk about mental anguish,'' Blue recounted. ``Fred, 
     every day, would wake up and he said, `Am I going to get the 
     drug?' ''
       Others were supportive, she said, but Pelosi ``put her 
     heart and soul'' into the cause, as did Harkin.
       Somehow--Blue still isn't sure how--Pelosi cajoled the FDA 
     to find a legal justification that let Mayo administer the 
     drug, even without Biogen's consent.
       ``Nancy figured out a way,'' she said.
       The drug beat back the cancer for a few days, but not 
     enough.
       Blue has no illusion that a typical family could pull such 
     strings.
       ``There are so many cases like Fred's,'' she said. ``One 
     thing he taught me was politics matters. What a personal 
     experience for me to understand how politics matters.''
       And no, she added, ``It's not fair that other people can't 
     pick up the phone and make the government give them a drug. . 
     . . It was just such an awakening about how the drug 
     companies have so much power.''
       That's what she'll tell Pelosi over dinner.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this article references events that 
occurred in 2008.
  In 2002, this individual was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By 
October of 2008, his doctors were telling him that

[[Page H1709]]

he had just days to live. They also offered a glimmer of hope. There 
was perhaps one chance of therapy. It was an unproven therapy that 
might, in fact, be helpful to him.
  The family made inquiries, made entreaties, but they were not 
successful until they invoked the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy 
Pelosi, who actually helped this lawyer get access to this medication. 
Unfortunately, it was not successful. His disease spread to a point 
where the therapy was not helpful. But the family observed, ``Nancy 
figured out a way.''
  How about that. The Speaker of the House figured out a way to get 
this medication to an individual who was dying of a disease, who 
obviously was very important--a large Democratic donor, and I get that.
  But the Speaker of the House intervened because the clinic where he 
was being treated felt that they did not have the authority to give him 
the medication. The company that was manufacturing the medication did 
not feel that it was in anyone's best interest to give him the 
medication. But Nancy found a way.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, today, we are going to find a way. The President 
asked us, and we are going to find a way for those millions of 
Americans who are asking for that same chance.
  So today's rule provides for consideration of two important consumer-
driven pieces of legislation:
  H.R. 4566, by Mr. Poliquin, will help alleviate some of the 
regulations that were put in place under the Dodd-Frank Act.
  H.R. 5247, the right-to-try bill which garnered a majority of 
bipartisan support last week, will give patients who have nowhere else 
to turn another option to fight the potentially fatal health conditions 
with which they have been diagnosed.
  I do want to thank President Trump and Vice President Pence for their 
leadership on this issue and helping us understand here in this body 
how important it is to move forward with this patient-centered 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying 
pieces of legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An amendment to H. Res. 787 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. That 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. 4240) to protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that 
     all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a 
     firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal 
     Background Check System, and provide a responsible and 
     consistent background check process. 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 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. 7. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 4240 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. 
     3464) to prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm 
     prior to the completion of a background check. 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 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. 8. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3464 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. 
     2598) to provide family members of an individual who they 
     fear is a danger to himself, herself, or others new tools to 
     prevent gun violence. 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 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. 9. Immediately after the disposition of H.R. 2598, 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. 
     1478) To repeal the provision that in practice prohibits the 
     Department of Health and Human Services from sponsoring 
     research on gun violence in fiscal year 2017, 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 the 
     Energy and Commerce. 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. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4240, H.R. 3464, H.R. 2598, or H.R. 
     1478.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H1710]]

     how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in 
     their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to 
     amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the 
     time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, 
     the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous 
     question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous 
     question is defeated, control of the time passes to the 
     Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous 
     question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may 
     offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bacon). 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________