[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.
____________________