[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.
____________________