[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 13, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5107-H5115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2851, STOP THE IMPORTATION AND 
     TRAFFICKING OF SYNTHETIC ANALOGUES ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5735, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR RECOVERY IN VIABLE 
ENVIRONMENTS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
 OF H.R. 5788, SECURING THE INTERNATIONAL MAIL AGAINST OPIOIDS ACT OF 
                                  2018

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 934 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 934

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2851) to amend the Controlled Substances Act 
     to clarify how controlled substance analogues are to be 
     regulated, 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 Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, it 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 115-74. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5735) to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to 
     establish a demonstration program to set aside section 8 
     housing vouchers for supportive and transitional housing for 
     individuals recovering from opioid use disorders or other 
     substance use disorders, 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 Financial Services. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-73. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5788) to 
     provide for the processing by U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection of certain international mail shipments and to 
     require the provision of advance electronic information on 
     international mail shipments of mail, and for other purposes. 
     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 Ways and Means now 
     printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part C of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part D of that report, 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 Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUCK. 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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation. This rule provides for consideration of three 
bills intended to give our country more necessary tools to tackle the 
opioid crisis.
  The three bills this rule makes in order today were all reported 
favorably by their committees. H.R. 5735, the Transitional Housing for 
Recovery in Viable Environments Demonstration Program Act, was the 
subject of a hearing by the Committee on Financial Services on April 17 
and was reported favorably on May 22 with a bipartisan vote of 34 
``yes'' votes.
  H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic 
Analogues Act, was the subject of hearing by the Committee on the 
Judiciary in June of 2017, and was reported favorably in July of 2017 
by a unanimous voice vote.
  The final bill made in order by this bill is H.R. 5788, the Securing 
the International Mail Against Opioids Act, which was reported 
favorably in May with a unanimous voice vote.
  Together, these three bills provide the foundation of the House's 
legislative response this week to the opioid crisis which is wrecking 
lives and communities across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the eastern plains of Colorado has been my home for many 
decades. I often refer to the area as God's country. It is full of 
goodhearted, hardworking people who care for their families and 
neighbors. Many of these people work the land and provide services to 
those who do. They farm, they ranch, they produce energy resources, 
they transport livestock.
  And when hardship and disaster strikes, neighbors move heaven and 
Earth to help each other. They grieve over loss and bear each other's 
burdens. However, it is not an unfamiliar refrain to hear that in the 
heart of this God's country is a disease plaguing our people.
  All across this land, in rural towns, suburban developments, and 
urban neighborhoods, abuse of opioids is wrecking people's lives. 
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
approximately 64,000 Americans died of a drug overdose in 2016. Of that 
number, 65 percent, or 42,000 of those deaths, were directly related to 
the opioid epidemic. That means that every day 115 people die due to 
opioids.

[[Page H5108]]

  While those are astounding numbers, it helps to compare with past 
figures. In 2000, 8,400 people died due to opioid abuse. These recent 
numbers indicate a nearly 500 percent increase. That is shocking and 
sad.
  Colorado has not been spared from the opioid crisis. In fact, the CDC 
reports that in 2015 alone, Colorado saw 159 heroin overdose deaths in 
addition to the 259 prescription drug overdoses. This is particularly 
harmful to my district, with 8 of the 17 counties in Colorado 
exhibiting the highest overdose death rates being in eastern Colorado.
  As some of these figures indicate, our opioid crisis is not just 
prescription drug abuse. While many who are caught in the cycle of 
abuse began with prescriptions, the availability and accessibility of 
heroin has perpetuated and intensified the crisis.
  Most of the heroin on our Nation's streets comes into the United 
States through Mexico. It is distributed via cities like Denver in a 
ruthlessly efficient manner. An entire delivery system is established 
in which orders can be placed through a central operator, essentially a 
franchisee of the cartels, who dispatches a delivery driver to the 
purchaser.

                              {time}  1230

  In February of this year, Detective Nick Rogers of the Denver Police 
Department testified before the Judiciary Committee how criminal 
operations flow north through Mexico and from other places such as 
Honduras and Nicaragua. Heroin dealers enter our country illegally with 
fake identification from Mexico and establish these distribution 
networks in neighborhoods.
  In the past, our law enforcement officers were able to apprehend 
these criminals and have them deported. Recently, however, local 
government policies have been having a negative impact on these police 
operations. Places like Denver have instituted so-called sanctuary 
policies that prohibit local law enforcement from working with Federal 
immigration authorities. The effect has been that law enforcement 
officers, such as Detective Rogers, apprehend the same drug dealers 
over and over and over again. They are prohibited from contacting 
Federal immigration officers to help control this scourge. This is 
confounding to many of us. We should be facing this crisis using every 
tool at our disposal.
  We could continue discussing at length how sanctuary policies--while 
well-intentioned and sounding humanitarian--are having a profoundly 
negative impact in relation to opioid abuse. But there is other work 
that needs to be done to stand in the gap against this onslaught of bad 
actors.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2016 Congress passed and the President signed into 
law the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. CARA was the 
most comprehensive addiction treatment legislation passed by the 
Federal Government in several decades. It coordinated Federal response 
with State and local efforts to prevent, treat, help recover, and 
provide justice to those who are suffering under the impacts of opioid 
abuse.
  While that bill was a good step, the bills before us today continue 
to organize Federal efforts to meet this public health and legal 
crisis.
  The first two bills deal with a gap in Federal law that has been 
exposed by this crisis and exploited by international crime 
organizations. That gap is synthetic drugs. According to the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, there are more than 300 known designer synthetic 
drugs, and this number grows with each passing year.
  The gap in Federal law occurs because the Controlled Substances Act 
was not designed to deal with the ever-changing compounds that have 
resulted in more than 300 synthetic drugs. It currently takes us about 
3 years to complete the process of placing a substance on the banned 
substance list. If we attempted to ban each drug as it was discovered, 
in the time it would take for our government to complete its action, 
criminal gangs would simply change the molecular structure just enough 
to avoid our laws, and we would be forced to start the process over 
again.
  Because of this scenario, H.R. 2851 sets up a streamlined process for 
temporarily placing a synthetic drug on the illegal list. This will 
empower the Attorney General to respond quickly to criminal drug 
manufacturers in China and Mexico who work continuously to stay ahead 
of our drug laws.
  Not only do we work to streamline the process of banning a substance 
in the United States, we also are working to prevent substances from 
reaching our shores in the first place.
  H.R. 5788 requires the Postal Service to obtain advance electronic 
data on international mail shipments and transmit this data to U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection, or CBP. Under current law, private 
shippers, including express delivery carriers, are required to collect 
and submit this same information to CBP. Because current law does not 
require this information of the United States Postal Service, we have a 
significant vulnerability that allows criminal operations to ship 
synthetics and other contraband directly to the United States with 
relative ease.
  This legislation simply closes a loophole by extending the 
requirement to the United States Postal Service. The data collected 
will allow CBP to target high-risk shipments, particularly shipments 
containing synthetics, for inspection and possible seizure.
  The first two bills deal with bad actors overseas. The final bill 
attempts to help those afflicted by opioid abuse transition back to 
normal life. H.R. 5735 creates a pilot program in which a portion of 
existing housing vouchers are set aside for transitional housing for 
those who are undergoing opioid use disorder or other substance abuse 
disorder recovery.
  In March of 2017, President Trump established a commission to 
strategize on how to combat drug addiction and opioid abuse. The final 
report of that commission said: ``There is a critical shortage of 
recovery housing for Americans in or pursuing recovery. Recovery 
residences are alcohol and drug-free living environments for 
individuals seeking the skills and social support to remain free of 
alcohol or other drugs and live a life of recovery in the community.''
  Mr. Speaker, oftentimes individuals who complete recovery programs 
reenter life having lost everything. They are in danger of falling 
right back into the rhythms of their previous life which could lead 
them back into addiction. This bill ensures that they have a supportive 
housing situation to help them become reestablished in their community.
  Over the course of the next week, we are going to pass nearly 30 
bills dealing with aspects of the Federal response to the opioid 
crisis. These three bills today take major steps toward keeping the 
flow of drugs out of our country and helping those who are caught in 
the cycle of dependency become successful members of society again.
  I know I speak for my community when I say that we need to be active 
in combating the scourge of opioid abuse. The flow of opioids and 
synthetics into our country from overseas must end. The lives of many 
of our loved ones depend on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I support passage of these bills, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2851, H.R. 5735, and H.R. 5788. We could have 
done so much better. I am going to get into some of the great ideas 
that we talked about and amendments were submitted but didn't make it 
through.
  This week is supposed to be about bringing bills to the floor that 
actually do something about the opioid crisis that is having 
devastating consequences on families and entire communities, including 
in my home State of Colorado.
  Legislation to address opioid abuse and save lives is long overdue. 
But I am sad to say that the bills that are being brought forth make, 
at the most, incremental changes and will not substantially affect the 
plague that is affecting our country of opioid addiction, abuse, and 
death.
  As you know, this is a crisis that cuts across State lines. It 
affects every congressional district in our country. I certainly know 
people directly affected in my constituents. I am sure every Member of 
Congress does.
  In Colorado the rate of drug overdoses since 2000 has more than 
doubled. This is not a partisan issue, and I

[[Page H5109]]

wish we could come together around a more significant response that 
actually did something to combat opioid abuse.
  If Republicans were serious about dealing with opioids, they would 
drop their assault on Medicaid. Medicaid is a critical service to help 
individuals battling opioid addiction, including supporting inpatient 
treatment centers and case managers to help get people the help they 
need.
  Frankly, we should have a discussion about how to achieve universal 
healthcare. There are people today who are unable to get coverage or 
support to recover from the substance abuse that holds them hostage. 
While Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act have dramatically improved 
and expanded access to health coverage, including drug treatment, there 
are too many Americans today--in fact, over millions--who do not have 
health insurance.
  There is no single solution to the opioid crisis. Instead, 
policymakers should use a multipronged approach, universal healthcare, 
substance abuse, and mental health treatment being one. Another prong 
is identifying alternative treatments, instead of highly addictive 
opioid compounds for pain management. That is one of the things that I 
am so disappointed is not being advanced to the floor.
  Many States have medical marijuana available to patients with a 
variety of health issues, including chronic pain. Doctors across the 
country have prescribed medical marijuana as a legitimate treatment 
option for pain management. In cases where it works, it provides a less 
harmful alternative, a less harmful and less addictive alternative to 
opioids.
  Opioids have a role in pain management. But if a first-line therapy 
like medical marijuana, acupuncture, or acupressure can work, you can 
prevent people from developing a dependency, because almost three-
quarters of opioid abuse starts with prescription drug treatment for 
pain management. In some cases, those first-line treatments like 
medical marijuana, acupuncture, and acupressure won't work, and 
prescriptions to opioids have their role. But let's at least prevent 
some people from having to go on prescription opioids when a less 
harmful, less addictive, and less damaging therapy can work effectively 
for their pain management. I have heard from so many Coloradans for 
whom medical marijuana works instead of having to resort to opioids.
  Unfortunately, medical marijuana is still illegal at the Federal 
level. There are limited research opportunities about the safety and 
efficacy of marijuana, and that is holding us back from really 
understanding how medical marijuana can be used for pain management.
  I offered a very simple and commonsense amendment at the Rules 
Committee last night that authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
to study medical marijuana as an alternative treatment option to 
prescription opioids, just very simply. According to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, the VA alone has treated about 70,000 veterans for 
opioid addiction last year alone, but my amendment was, unfortunately, 
blocked from getting a vote.
  The issue is personal for me, Mr. Speaker. I was able to present a 
Purple Heart to a veteran who lives in my district in Colorado, a young 
man who put his life on the line for our country. He told me that he 
uses medical marijuana for his pain issues and has successfully been 
able to take himself off of the opioids that the VA had prescribed for 
those pain issues.
  I also offered an amendment with Representatives Pocan and Gosar last 
night that, unfortunately, was not even allowed to be debated here on 
the floor that would prevent a natural botanic substance like kratom 
from being scheduled under the new scheduling authority created by 
SITSA. Unfortunately, it was blocked.
  Kratom, which is a cousin of the coffee plant, is used by many as an 
alternative to addictive opioids and a way of escaping addiction. I 
have heard from so many constituents for whom legal access to kratom is 
critical to their sobriety and their battle against opioid addiction.
  We can very simply ensure that that legal access could be retained 
had this amendment been allowed. If it is cut off, as the FDA and 
others have been threatening, there is no doubt in my mind, nor should 
there be any doubt in anybody's mind, that people will resort back to 
deadly opioids, rather than managing through harm reduction using other 
compounds that are less dangerous and less deadly, be it medical 
marijuana or kratom.
  We are debating these bills today because we know we need to take 
action to address the opioid epidemic that we all have felt the human 
face of in our communities. But instead of trying to ban substances and 
put more Big Government bans on top of things that people are using to 
recover from opioids, we should be exploring and embracing alternative 
treatment options to opioids.
  Simply put, we need to improve access to alternative pain relief 
options beyond opioids like kratom and like medical marijuana, because 
75 percent of opioid abuse starts with prescription drugs usually for 
pain management. We need to embrace that part of the solution. Increase 
freedom. Let Americans choose less harmful compounds that work for pain 
management and free people up to never become the victim of a terrible 
cycle of opioid addiction. Unfortunately, both of those amendments were 
blocked.

  H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic 
Analogues Act, is a bill that would create a new schedule of drugs 
under the Controlled Substances Act giving even more authority to the 
Department of Justice to wage a failed drug war and determine which 
substances are illegal, sidestepping the current process for scheduling 
drugs, sidestepping Congress, and often sidestepping common sense. When 
you put Government bureaucrats in charge, they only take more power 
every time.
  This bill creates lengthy sentencing and penalties, indulging in the 
over criminalization. It could harm hundreds of thousands of people 
battling opioid abuse by relying on incarceration and penalization, 
rather than treatment and helping people recover from opioid abuse.
  This is a public health issue. It is not that there is not a criminal 
dimension; there, of course, is for cartels and smugglers. But when it 
comes to your niece or nephew, Mr. Speaker, your cousin or your 
neighbor's kid, we want to help them get better, recover their lives, 
and free themselves from the vicious cycle of opioid addiction. This 
bill does not do that.
  While it is well-intended, it has serious flaws that need to be 
addressed. If we want to have an impact on fighting epidemics, the 
answer is not to give even more authority to government bureaucrats in 
Washington. It is to empower the American people themselves to take 
control of our own destiny.
  The rule also provides for consideration of the THRIVE Act, that is 
H.R. 5735. It is a different topic, but it is related. It is designed 
to create housing opportunities for people suffering from substance 
abuse disorders.

                              {time}  1245

  The problem with this bill is it sets arbitrary time limits on those 
who seek stable housing while receiving treatment for substance use 
disorders, and it doesn't actually increase the supply of affordable 
housing.
  When we are dealing with homelessness and transitory housing, we need 
to take meaningful action to actually increase the supply of beds for 
people who are in recovery. We have to walk the walk. Without funding 
for beds and for treatment, we are just talking around the edges and we 
are not really solving this problem.
  The final bill under this rule is H.R. 5788, the Securing the 
International Mail Against Opioids Act, which is another bill that 
creates more paperwork for the Postal Service. Frankly, it just adds, 
again, another level of bureaucracy.
  I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, that people smuggling opioids into 
this country don't put opioids on the Customs form. They don't say: 
``We are illegally bringing opioids into the country.'' Yes, we need to 
do more against smuggling, but creating more forms to fill out by 
government bureaucrats is not the answer.
  This bill is being considered under a closed rule. This is the 86th 
closed rule of this Congress. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that not 
a single Member, Democrat or Republican, was able to

[[Page H5110]]

offer an amendment to this bill, the Securing the International Mail 
Against Opioids Act. There were good ideas from both sides that aren't 
even allowed to be advanced.
  The Republicans continue to bring bills to floor this way that limit 
the opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to actually do something 
to stop opioid abuse. It is frustrating.
  As a legislator who has a lot of ideas about what we can do to 
actually save lives, increase freedom, and reduce opioid abuse, which 
would pass--I think a lot of my ideas would get 300, 350 votes here in 
the House--we are not even allowed to bring them forward. It is just so 
frustrating when we all know the human face of people who are suffering 
from being caught in the vicious cycle of opioid addiction. We have 
seen it affect so many families, including so many of our friends and 
even family.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Ross), my friend and the vice chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Housing and Insurance.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 5735, the THRIVE Act, which would 
implement an innovative new approach to millions of men and women 
recovering from substance abuse by creating a demonstration program 
that provides transitional housing assistance using Section 8 housing 
choice vouchers.
  Mr. Speaker, substance abuse is one of the most ubiquitous illnesses 
that faces our society today. Each and every one of us, in one way or 
another, has been affected by the destructive force of addiction. We 
have heard stories and witnessed firsthand the pain and anguish 
substance abuse causes our loved ones and our communities.
  I am proud of the work the people's House is doing to address the 
nationwide epidemic of opioid abuse, and I am grateful to Congressman 
Barr for his contribution to this important mission.
  While many of the bills we are considering this week are geared 
toward the specific issue of opioid abuse, it is important to note that 
H.R. 5735 would establish a demonstration program to serve individuals 
afflicted by all types and forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
  The demonstration program will provide participants with a drug- and 
alcohol-free supportive and structured living environment. This allows 
recipients to address their addiction, mental health, homelessness, or 
other issues in a compassionate living space that includes vital 
services like recovery classes, life skills education classes, 
mandatory savings plans, and full-time or part-time employment 
programs.
  This legislation recognizes that safe, clean, and stable housing is a 
necessary asset for those seeking a future free of substance abuse. At 
the same time, this bill reserves vouchers for low and extremely low-
income individuals who have demonstrated a willingness to make this 
difficult choice to get better.
  With these safeguards, we ensure that taxpayer dollars are only going 
to individuals who are willing to seek help and who have taken the 
first steps down the path to recovery.
  Substance abuse is a deeply personal struggle. There is no government 
program and no amount of money that can rescue someone who doesn't want 
to be saved. While we cannot force people to turn away from the harmful 
and destruction siren song of opioids and other substances, we can help 
the people who are endeavoring to do so.
  By aiding these courageous men, women, and families, I also believe 
we can send a message to those still shackled in the dark by their 
addiction. There is a pathway back, and if you are willing to commit to 
it, our communities and this entire Nation will support you. That is 
the message we are sending with this legislation and many of the other 
important bills being considered this week.
  I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will vote in 
favor of the rule and the underlying legislation to provide our 
citizens struggling with substance abuse a new tool for breaking free.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the midst of a devastating opioid 
crisis that is spiraling out of control. According to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, opioids are responsible for 6 out of 10 
overdose deaths in the country. More than 115 Americans die each day 
from opioid overdose.
  The house is on fire; yet, with these bills today, unfortunately, the 
Republicans are not addressing this problem in a meaningful way. The 
American people need strong action from Congress to stem the tide of 
the opioid scourge and save lives.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lujan's legislation, 
H.R. 3495, the Opioid and Heroin Abuse Crisis Investment Act, which 
would make a difference by extending badly needed funding to combat the 
growing public health crisis of opioid-related addiction and deaths.
  Mr. 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 (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, every community in 
America has suffered from the opioid epidemic. These are our moms and 
dads, our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters. All across 
America, families are suffering.
  This is not a new problem. Earlier this year, The New York Times 
wrote about how one of the most distressing truths of America's opioid 
epidemic is that it has been with us for 150 years. For more than a 
century, this crisis has been breaking communities.
  This certainly isn't a new problem in New Mexico. Since 2000, New 
Mexico has had one of the highest rates of drug overdose deaths in the 
United States. This cycle must be broken because, if there is no 
action, America is doomed to see these tragedies repeat for another 150 
years.
  This week, we are working on passing a package of bipartisan bills to 
address this crisis, and that is good. However, if you listen to our 
friends on the other side of the aisle, you might think that 
congressional Republicans think this problem has been solved.
  We need to do more and be more aggressive. As The New York Times 
wrote, serious legislation needs to be considered, such as proposals 
modeled on the Ryan White CARE Act that would appropriate $100 billion 
over 10 years for research, treatment, and support. One of the packages 
we have today is a bipartisan approach around the Ryan White CARE Act. 
The funding is not sufficient. We can do more.
  Last year in Congress, we came together in a bipartisan fashion to 
provide a billion dollars to States to address the opioid crisis in the 
21st Century Cures Act. We all knew that the billion dollars included 
in Cures would only be a first step. That is what people said.
  I am going to say today what I said last Congress when we were 
debating these bills: While the House is taking a step toward 
addressing the opioid epidemic, this is a missed opportunity.
  There are good policies in this package of bills, but I am deeply 
disappointed in the lack of investment on such an urgent crisis facing 
America. Congress can and must do more.
  On behalf of 129 people who will die today from a drug overdose, 
Congress must do more to address this crisis in a deeply meaningful 
way. And to do that, real investment must be made, large dollar 
investments that save lives across America.
  My bill extends the bipartisan block grant funding passed in Cures 
for an additional 5 years. These grants would continue to support 
States in their efforts to enhance access to treatment, bolster 
substance abuse prevention programs, and expand evidence-based 
initiatives that will help address this deadly epidemic.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an editorial written by The New 
York Times, titled, ``An Opioid Crisis Foretold,'' from April 21, 2018.

[[Page H5111]]

  


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 21, 2018]

                       An Opioid Crisis Foretold

                        (By The Editorial Board)

       One of the more distressing truths of America's opioid 
     epidemic, which now kills tens of thousands of people every 
     year, is that it isn't the first such crisis. Across the 19th 
     and 20th centuries, the United States, China and other 
     countries saw drug abuse surge as opium and morphine were 
     used widely as recreational drugs and medicine. In the West, 
     doctors administered morphine liberally to their patients, 
     while families used laudanum, an opium tincture, as a cure-
     all, including for pacifying colicky children. In China, many 
     millions of people were hooked on smoking opium. In the mid-
     1800s, the British went into battle twice--bombing forts and 
     killing thousands of civilians and soldiers alike--to keep 
     the Chinese market open to drug imports in what would become 
     known as the Opium Wars.
       That history has either been forgotten or willfully ignored 
     by many in the medical and political establishments.
       Today's opioid crisis is already the deadliest drug 
     epidemic in American history. Opioid overdoses killed more 
     than 45,000 people in the 12 months that ended in September, 
     according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
     The epidemic is now responsible for nearly as many American 
     deaths per year as AIDS was at the peak of that crisis.
       Experts say that the death toll from opioids could climb 
     for years to come. Millions of people are dependent on or 
     addicted to these drugs, and many of them are increasingly 
     turning to more potent, illicit supplies of heroin and 
     fentanyl, which are cheap and readily available on the street 
     and online. Yet only about 10 percent of Americans who suffer 
     from substance abuse receive specialized addiction treatment, 
     according to a report by the surgeon general.


                        WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE

       As many as 313,000 people were addicted to injected 
     morphine and smoked opium in the United States in the late 
     19th century, according to David Courtwright, a history 
     professor at the University of North Florida who has written 
     extensively about drugs. Another scholar, R. K. Newman, 
     estimated that as many as 16.2 million Chinese were dependent 
     on opium and smoked the drug daily.
       In the United States today, about 2.6 million people suffer 
     from opioid use disorder. But some experts say that data, 
     which is based on a government survey, underestimates the 
     number of pain patients who are addicted to their 
     prescription pills because of how surveyors ask people about 
     drug use; the actual number might exceed five million.
       In the 19th century, like today, the medical community was 
     largely responsible for the epidemic. Doctors did not fully 
     appreciate the risks these drugs posed. In the 1800s, many 
     doctors viewed morphine as a wonder drug for pain, diarrhea, 
     nerves and alcoholism. In addition to getting homemakers, 
     Civil War veterans and others addicted, many doctors became 
     addicts themselves. The drug was overused in large part 
     because there were few alternatives; aspirin, for example, 
     didn't become available until the late 1890s.
       In his 2001 book, ``Dark Paradise: A History of Opiate 
     Addiction in America,'' Mr. Courtwright notes that the use of 
     morphine began declining as younger doctors who had been 
     better trained started practicing medicine and as non-
     addictive pain treatments became available. He also notes 
     that many local governments across the country set up clinics 
     that sought to help addicts--a forerunner of contemporary 
     methadone clinics--but a hostile federal government forced 
     virtually all of them to shut down by 1923. It did so under 
     the misguided idea that it was wrong to keep supplying drugs 
     to people who had become dependent on them--a view that is, 
     regrettably, still widespread today.
       Today's opioid crisis has its roots in the 1990s, when 
     prescriptions for painkillers like OxyContin and Vicodin 
     started to become common. Companies like Purdue Pharma, which 
     makes OxyContin, aggressively peddled the idea that these 
     drugs were not addictive with the help of dubious or 
     misinterpreted research. One short 1980 letter to The New 
     England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Hershel Jick and Jane 
     Porter said the risk of addiction was less than one percent, 
     based on an analysis of nearly 12,000 hospital patients who 
     were given opioid painkillers. That letter was widely--and 
     incorrectly--cited as evidence that opioids were safe.
       Federal regulators, doctors and others were swayed by 
     pharmaceutical companies that argued for greater use of 
     opioids; there was increasing awareness that doctors had 
     become too unresponsive to patients who were in pain. Patient 
     advocates and pain specialists demanded that the medical 
     establishment recognize pain as the ``fifth vital sign.''
       Mr. Courtwright says that this was not a simple case of 
     historical amnesia. In the earlier epidemic, doctors ``made 
     mistakes, but it was a bad situation to begin with,'' he 
     said. ``There was no equivalent of Purdue Pharma flying you 
     off to the Bahamas for the weekend to tell you about the 
     wonders of these new drugs.''


                         WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

       The AIDS crisis might provide public officials some lessons 
     for how to move forward. Like with opioids, the federal 
     government responded to that epidemic by doing next to 
     nothing for many years. But an organized movement led in part 
     by people with H.I.V. and gay activists eventually forced 
     Congress to create and fund new programs. For example, in 
     1990 Congress approved the Ryan White Care Act, a bipartisan 
     bill that poured billions of dollars into providing treatment 
     and support to people with H.I.V. By 1995, the federal 
     government was spending $3.3 billion a year (about $5.4 
     billion today after adjusting for inflation) on AIDS efforts, 
     not including billions spent through mandatory programs like 
     Medicaid and Medicare, according to the Kaiser Family 
     Foundation. That was up from just $116 million in 1985.
       Though slow to act, Congress eventually treated AIDS as a 
     complex, multidimensional problem and tackled it by funding 
     prevention, treatment, support services and research. 
     Lawmakers provided money to make expensive antiretroviral 
     drugs accessible to more people and allocated money to help 
     house people infected with H.I.V., recognizing that they 
     needed more than just access to drugs.
       Lawmakers so far have fallen far short of such a vigorous 
     effort when it comes to opioid addiction. Congress has taken 
     what can be considered only baby steps by appropriating a 
     total of a few billion dollars of discretionary opioid 
     funding in recent years. This funding amounts to a pittance 
     relative to what is needed: substantial long-term funding for 
     prevention, addiction treatment, social services and 
     research. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of opioid policy 
     research at Brandeis University, says at least $6 billion a 
     year is needed for 10 years to set up a nationwide network of 
     clinics and doctors to provide treatment with medicines like 
     buprenorphine and methadone. Those drugs have a proven track 
     record at reducing overdoses and giving people struggling 
     with addiction a shot at a stable life. Today, large parts of 
     the country have few or no clinics that offer medication-
     assisted treatment, according to an analysis by amfAR, a 
     foundation that funds AIDS research.
       Next, lawmakers need to remove regulations restricting 
     access to buprenorphine, an opioid that can be used to get 
     people off stronger drugs like heroin; its use is unlikely to 
     end in an overdose. Doctors who want to prescribe the drug 
     have to go through eight hours of training, and the 
     government limits the number of patients they can treat. 
     These limits have made the drug harder to obtain and created 
     a situation in which it is easier to get the kinds of opioids 
     that caused this crisis than to get medicine that can help 
     addicts. France reduced heroin overdoses by nearly 80 percent 
     by making buprenorphine easily available starting in 1995. 
     Yet many American lawmakers and government officials have 
     resisted removing restrictions on buprenorphine, arguing it 
     replaces one addiction with another. Some of the same people 
     have also stood in the way of wider availability of naloxone, 
     which can help reverse overdoses, and opposed harm-reduction 
     approaches like supervised drug consumption sites, where 
     users can get clean needles and use drugs under the watch of 
     staff who are trained to reverse overdoses.
       To stem the number of new opioid users, lawmakers and 
     regulators need to stop pharmaceutical companies from 
     marketing drugs like OxyContin and establish stronger 
     guidelines about how and when doctors can prescribe them. 
     These drugs are often the last resort for people with cancer 
     and other terminal conditions who experience excruciating 
     pain. But they pose a great risk when used to treat the kinds 
     of pain for which there are numerous nonaddictive therapies 
     available. Doctors have been writing fewer opioid 
     prescriptions in recent years, but even the new level is too 
     high.
       Some lawmakers have begun to take this epidemic seriously. 
     Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Elijah Cummings, 
     both Democrats, recently proposed legislation modeled on the 
     Ryan White Act that would appropriate $100 billion over 10 
     years for research, treatment and support. While that might 
     seem like a lot, President Trump's Council of Economic 
     Advisers said in November that the epidemic cost the economy 
     $504 billion in 2015 alone.
       Leaders in both parties are responsible for this crisis. 
     Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and members of 
     Congress did too little to stop it in its earlier stages. 
     While Mr. Trump talks a lot about the problem, he seems to 
     have few good ideas for what to do about it. As we've learned 
     the hard way, without stronger leadership, the opioid 
     epidemic will continue to wreak havoc across the country.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question so we can take a 
meaningful step toward defeating this crisis.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary 
Policy and Trade.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
934, the combined rule for my legislation, H.R. 5735, the Transitional 
Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments, or THRIVE, Act.

[[Page H5112]]

  I want to thank Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Duffy, and my 
colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee for their support 
and feedback on this legislation, as well as Chairman Sessions and 
Ranking Member McGovern on the House Committee on Rules for their 
consideration of my manager's amendment to make improvements to this 
bill.
  This week the House is considering several important pieces of 
legislation to address the opioid epidemic that takes the lives of 116 
Americans every day. My home State of Kentucky has the third highest 
overdose mortality rate in the country.
  In order to achieve meaningful progress in the fight against opioid 
addiction in our Nation, Congress can no longer simply focus on 
prevention, enforcement, and treatment. We must also begin to implement 
policies that focus on long-term recovery. Our Federal housing programs 
are an underutilized resource in these efforts.
  The THRIVE Act would make supportive housing more accessible to those 
in need by allocating a limited number of Section 8 housing choice 
vouchers to nonprofits that provide housing, workforce development, job 
placement, financial literacy, and continued addiction recovery support 
for individuals who are transitioning out of rehab and back into the 
workforce.
  Rather than allocating the vouchers through public housing 
authorities, this demonstration would give vouchers directly to housing 
nonprofits that meet evidence-based metrics of success on a competitive 
basis. The vouchers would also be distributed with a focus on regions 
of the country with the highest rates of opioid-related deaths.
  This legislation would only allocate either 10,000 or 0.5 percent of 
total housing vouchers, whichever is less, to people who are literally 
dying every day of opioid addiction and other substance abuse 
disorders. The demonstration is limited to 5 years.
  No one would have a voucher taken away from them to create this 
demonstration program. This is an important point that I would like to 
emphasize to my friend from Colorado, who is concerned that there might 
be a cannibalizing effect of existing vouchers.
  An estimated 198,000 Section 8 vouchers are turned over each year and 
returned to HUD. It is from this amount that the demonstration would 
set aside only 10,000 to address a deadly national public health 
crisis.
  The goal of this demonstration is not to take away vouchers from 
those who need them but, rather, to open up other housing options to 
people coming out of rehab who would otherwise be forced to use Section 
8 vouchers to live in a housing situation where they would be 
surrounded by individuals who are still in active addiction.
  If our goal is to help people coming out of rehab or medication-
assisted treatment to stay off of opioids and gain job skills and find 
employment, our government programs should give people the option to 
live in transitional housing with housing choice vouchers.
  Additionally, and I would also invite my friend from Colorado to 
consider this: I have made a commitment to working with my Democratic 
colleagues in requesting additional funds from the Appropriations 
Committee for the purpose of supporting this demonstration. I would 
invite my friend from Colorado to sign this letter requesting those 
additional funds, perhaps to earn his support and the support of the 
ranking member.
  I would like to thank my Democratic colleague, Ms. Sinema, as well as 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development for their suggested 
changes that have been incorporated in the manager's amendment I offer 
today. I also thank Mr. Rohrabacher for his amendment that further 
ensures eligible entities have been effectively vetted to support 
recovery in local communities.
  This legislation has received endorsements from over 140 housing, 
addiction support, and recovery organizations across the country, 
including Addiction Policy Forum, American Academy of Addiction 
Psychiatry, National Association of Social Workers, Faces and Voices of 
Recovery, and over 100 others on the front lines of addiction recovery.
  Secretary Carson from HUD also visited my district in Kentucky 
earlier this year and witnessed firsthand the success of nonprofits in 
helping individuals rise above addiction.
  I urge support for this rule so we can continue to work together in a 
bipartisan manner to improve housing options for individuals recovering 
from opioid addiction and other substance abuse disorders.
  It is time for us to allow for innovation, allow for us to focus on 
what happens after treatment, and allow people to access transitional 
housing addiction recovery services that focus on work, self-esteem, 
financial literacy, and stable housing in order to ultimately move into 
a life of permanent recovery, hope, and nonsubsidized housing 
scenarios.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, yes, America does have a wildfire when it 
comes to the opioid crisis; and what we are getting this week and next, 
instead of experienced, professional firefighters with a plan to put 
out that wildfire, we are being offered a collection of garden hoses. 
It won't get the job done.
  If words, if speeches, if the President's tweets could resolve this 
problem, we could be here today celebrating a victory. Instead, we have 
a piecemeal program around the edges of the crisis.
  You only have to look at the President's tweets and his near-
meaningless declaration of a healthcare emergency, and how he is 
handling the problem, to know how serious these Republicans are about 
it. I think the President views this as just another one in the series 
of political reality television shows that he is producing daily. 
Because instead of turning to a physician, a firefighter, a scientist, 
a drug policy expert, he has turned over the leadership of his entire 
opioid crisis effort to a political consultant and double-talk expert, 
Kellyanne Conway.
  We haven't seen much other than talk over there, and with these 30 
bills that are being considered today making modest changes around the 
edges of the problem, we are not going to advance very far.
  Of course, there is a reason for this in this Congress. We can only 
consider legislation that a majority of the Republicans say we can 
consider, and they applied a test to get these 30 bills to exclude 
other ones. The test was twofold: If it cost much of anything, the bill 
couldn't be considered here. Second, if Big Pharma opposed it, it 
certainly couldn't be considered here.
  So, like Trump, the Republican Congress offers more words, a few 
bills that may help a few people, but does not address the central 
issue in the crisis. What we need are substantial additional resources 
for treatment.
  Instead of going in that direction, the Republicans turned about-
face, and they are trying to drag us backward so we will have even 
fewer treatment options than today.
  The President's latest assault on all Americans who have a 
preexisting condition, to deny them access to healthcare, and his 
assault to cut billions out of Medicaid, will deny the very places that 
so many people can now turn to for opioid treatment. So they won't add 
resources, they won't permit us to add resources, and they want to take 
away the resources that exist today.
  Of course, much of the treatment that is out there is necessary 
because of the wrongs committed by pharmaceutical manufacturers in 
promoting these opioids in the first place. Here again, the test is not 
approved for bringing legislation on the floor because Big Pharma 
opposes it.
  I believe we should be following the lead of 41 State attorneys 
general across America who are saying: Let's look at what Big Pharma 
did to cause this problem. Why make the taxpayer pay for everything 
when Big Pharma played such a role?
  We ought to have accountability for those who helped to create the 
opioid crisis, yet the Federal Government--though, again, Trump talked 
about it, but he didn't do anything.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas.

[[Page H5113]]

  

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, after talking about it, the Justice 
Department and the Trump administration have done nothing.
  In one single year, Medicaid paid out $9.3 billion associated with 
this opioid crisis, billions and billions of dollars. Yet, when I tried 
in the Ways and Means Committee to get involved in terms of getting 
back the money Medicare has paid out, other billions of dollars, it was 
rejected on a party-line vote.
  At the very time that we are being told our police and first 
responders across America and, indeed, individual citizens should be 
carrying naloxone, a drug that can reverse the effects of overdoses and 
prevent a death, we have seen an incredible spike from Big Pharma in 
the cost of that. I see headlines.
  How does a $575 lifesaving drug jump to $4,500? Because these 
pharmaceutical manufacturers think they can hijack America and, 
particularly, our law enforcement sources.
  We need more than a photo-op version of these measures. If every one 
of the bills being considered, all 30 of them, are approved, few of 
those who really need treatment are going to get it as a result of 
this, and none of those responsible for this crisis will be held 
accountable.
  This crisis is a true hurricane. It is being treated like a dust 
devil. Approve these modest proposals that do no harm, but then let's 
move forward with a Congress that really wants to solve the problem.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further witnesses. I reserve the 
balance of my time to close.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This week the House is considering 
dozens of bills to combat the opioid epidemic. These are small 
bipartisan bills that we all support, but they are simply not enough.
  Our country is in the midst of the greatest public health emergency 
in decades. We have all heard the grim statistics, so I won't repeat 
them, yet none of the bills that we are considering this week provide 
the dedicated and sustained resources we need to combat this crisis.
  President Trump's own Council of Economic Advisers found that the 
opioid crisis likely cost our Nation more than $500 billion in just 1 
year. We cannot just nibble around the edges. We cannot just rearrange 
the deck chairs on the Titanic. We must treat the opioid epidemic like 
the true public health emergency that it is.
  I offered an amendment that could have changed this, but the House is 
not being allowed to consider it. Earlier this year, I introduced the 
CARE Act, with Senator Elizabeth Warren, modeled directly on the highly 
successful Ryan White Act, which the Congress passed with bipartisan 
support in 1990 to address the AIDS crisis.
  My amendment would invest in comprehensive, evidence-based treatment 
for opioid and substance use disorders by authorizing up to $100 
billion over 10 years to help States, localities, nonprofits, the CDC, 
the NIH, and other public health entities working on the front lines of 
this epidemic to save so many lives.
  The CARE Act has been endorsed by more than 30 organizations, 
including provider groups, local government associations, and public 
health organizations. My Republican colleagues blocked it from being 
considered.
  They argue that we do not have the money to pay for it. My amendment 
would have been fully paid for by rolling back just a fraction of the 
tax giveaways that my Republican colleagues and President Trump handed 
out to drug companies and other wealthy corporations.
  Mr. Speaker, do you know what the drug companies did with their 
massive tax cuts? They pocketed the money. Then they announced that 
they would spend tens of billions of dollars buying back their own 
stock to benefit their shareholders. So far, they have announced stock 
buybacks totaling $50 billion, and Pfizer and AbbVie, both companies 
that sell and market opioids, each announced buybacks of $10 billion.
  Do we really believe it is more important to give drug companies tens 
of billions of dollars in tax breaks than it is to address the most 
deadly health crisis in three decades? Is that really where our 
priorities lie? I say we are better than that.
  This crisis does not discriminate based on politics. People are dying 
in red States, blue States, and purple States. Our priorities should be 
saving the lives of our fellow Americans. They are counting on us to 
lead.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Finally, I could not leave this podium without noting 
the staggering hypocrisy of those who claim that they want to help 
Americans struggling with substance use disorder while at the same time 
sabotaging the Affordable Care Act.
  Right now, the Trump administration is threatening the health 
coverage of millions of Americans with preexisting health conditions, 
which include substance use disorders.
  About 2.6 million people in my State of Maryland have preexisting 
conditions. We cannot go back to the bad old days when our family, 
friends, and neighbors were discriminated against because they got 
sick.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this rule.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are, a year and a half into this session of 
Congress, and finally the Republicans are bringing something to the 
floor around the opioid epidemic, but it is too little, too late. They 
prioritized, unfortunately, corporate tax giveaways over families that 
are struggling and communities which are affected by the path of 
destruction caused by opioid drug abuse.
  As we address opioid addiction, we need to remember that many 
communities were suffering from substance use disorders long before 
Congress began to wake up to this issue. Opioid abuse affects both 
rural and urban communities and has a human face and a tragedy in every 
congressional district.
  We should support efforts to address this through treatment instead 
of incarceration or punishment, through alternatives instead of giving 
Washington, D.C., bureaucrats more power.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year due 
to opioid abuse. What started as an epidemic of prescription drug abuse 
has led into a resurgence in heroin addiction and synthetic drug abuse. 
The easy availability of these drugs has led to widespread abuse and 
death.
  My home of eastern Colorado has been particularly hard-hit by this 
affliction. In the most recent statistics available, more than 400 
Coloradoans have died of opioid and synthetic overdose. This number is 
devastating enough on its own, but it does not include the many other 
lives that are wrecked and torn apart from this curse.

  We know many of the bad actors. We know China and Mexico, in 
particular, are deadly merchants in this sickening trade. Anything that 
we can do to block these goods from entering our country we should do. 
Our neighbors, our children, our loved ones deserve a fighting chance. 
These bills today form yet another defense against the opioid crisis in 
America.
  I want to thank Chairman Sessions, Chairman Brady, Chairman 
Hensarling, and Chairman Goodlatte for bringing these bills forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule, 
supporting the underlying bills, and standing in the gap in defense of 
our communities that are ravaged by this crisis.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 934 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House

[[Page H5114]]

     resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
     of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3495) to 
     amend the 21st Century Cures Act to appropriate funds for the 
     Account for the State Response to the Opioid Abuse Crisis 
     through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3495.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 183, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               YEAS--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Gene
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)

[[Page H5115]]


     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Babin
     Beatty
     Bilirakis
     Chu, Judy
     Crowley
     Ellison
     Espaillat
     Gomez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Gutierrez
     Shuster
     Walz

                              {time}  1343

  Mr. RICHMOND and Miss RICE of New York changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
  Stated for:
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 261.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 261.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 175, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Gene
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Beatty
     Bilirakis
     Chu, Judy
     Crowley
     Ellison
     Espaillat
     Gomez
     Gosar
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Huffman
     Jayapal
     Lewis (GA)
     Poliquin
     Rohrabacher
     Schakowsky
     Shuster
     Walz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1350

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 262.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 262.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 13, 2018, I 
missed the following votes:
  1. Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2851, H.R. 5735, and H.R. 5788. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on this motion.
  2. H. Res. 934, Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2851, Stop 
Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017, H.R. 
5735, Transitional Housing for Recovery in Viable Environments 
Demonstration Program Act, and H.R. 5788, Securing the International 
Mail Against Opioids Act of 2018. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on this bill.

                          ____________________