Providing for Consideration of H.R. Establishing Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 720 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 720

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. 4641) to provide for the establishment of an inter-agency task force to review, modify, and update best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication, and for other purposes. 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. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five- minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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. 5046) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to assist State and local governments in addressing the national epidemic of opioid abuse, 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. 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 114-52. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule forward today on behalf of the Rules Committee.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5046, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Reduction Act of 2016, and H.R. 4641, a bill to establish an interagency task force to review, modify, and update best practices for pain management and for prescribing pain medication.

For H.R. 5046, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

And for H.R. 4641, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Both rules are structured rules that make in order numerous amendments.

Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from members of the Judiciary Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and multiple other Members on their amendments. H.R. 5046 was marked up by the Judiciary Committee, and H.R. 4641 was reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee. Both bills have broad bipartisan support.

These bills are part of the House's effort to combat our Nation's growing opioid epidemic. They reflect a commitment to address this devastating problem in a constructive and meaningful way.

Opioid abuse hits communities all across this country, rich and poor, rural, suburban, and urban, and it takes a major toll. In 2012, an estimated 2.1 million in the United States were suffering from substance abuse disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers. An estimated 467,000 people were addicted to heroin.

In the same year, in Georgia, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation found that prescription drugs played a role in 592 deaths in 152 of 159 counties for which autopsies were performed.

Mr. Speaker, just the other day I was having coffee with a dear friend of mine who I have known for 20 years. As we were talking and I mentioned what we were doing here, he brought forth that just in the last little bit in his own family life he has seen relatives that have been touched by this epidemic of painkillers and substance abuse issues. This is something that can affect anyone in any family, and this is why we are here today.

The bills before us today take steps to combat the opioid epidemic and drug addiction.

H.R. 5046, introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, establishes a comprehensive opioid abuse grant program. The program encompasses new and existing Department of Justice programs, including training for first responders, law enforcement, drug courts, residential substance abuse treatment, and criminal investigations for the unlawful distribution of opioids.

Importantly, this bill provides flexibility for the States to use the funds where they are needed most. It does so by establishing one grant program that has numerous allowable uses. The bill also ensures that there isn't duplication and eliminates redundancy.

I was proud to support this bill at the Judiciary Committee.

H.R. 4641, introduced by Congresswoman Susan Brooks of Indiana, establishes a pain management best practices interagency task force. This task force will include representatives from Federal agencies, state medical boards, healthcare professionals, experts from addiction recovery communities, and others knowledgeable in the field.

The task force will be responsible for reviewing and updating best practices for acute and chronic pain management in an evidence-based manner. It will also be responsible for sharing the information found with healthcare professionals. This bill recognizes that responses to the opioid epidemic need to be coordinated and thoughtful.

Addiction is happening far too often with devastating consequences. Further, it is shown that prescription opioid abuse often leads to heroin abuse--and the sheriffs in my part of my State can attest to this every day--compounding this problem.

In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 45 percent of people who used heroin were addicted to prescription opioid painkillers.

Heroin has frequently been thought of as an inner-city problem, but we are starting to see it more and more outside of cities and spreading to rural areas, too. This problem is a problem for America. This problem has exploded.

According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, heroin deaths have increased in Georgia by 300 percent. That is an astonishing and very tragic statistic.

CDC statistics on opioid abuse show 18,893 overdose deaths related to prescription pain relievers and 10,574 overdose deaths related to heroin in 2014. Those are staggering numbers.

The opioid epidemic affects everyone, and I believe that most people could tell you of a family member or friend who has suffered in some way because of this problem.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it affects babies who are born addicted to opioids and other drugs. These children, through no fault of their own, are born with a serious and heartbreaking problem. They then go through dangerous withdrawals and can be left with lasting health consequences. We have to find a way to stop this.

The opioid epidemic affects veterans, whose battle scars are treated by a VA whose answer too often is to prescribe high quantities of opioids with little thought to the consequences.

I am a chaplain in the United States Air Force Reserve. I served in Iraq. I saw firsthand the scars that the battlefield can leave, both physical and mental. We need a support system for our veterans. We need to address their pain. We need to ensure that they have an avenue to get the help they need.

I believe that the bills that this rule provides for will take the steps to make that happen. Our veterans deserve our very best.

Addiction issues are often related to other co-occurring disorders, including mental health issues. Addiction claims victims, and addiction is a disease.

We must not turn a blind eye to those in need. We must work to halt the opioid epidemic, and we must act to prevent more deaths and to stop the growth and spread of the problem. Today's bills are a step toward doing that, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss those in an open manner.

These bills are brought forward due to the hard work of many Members. In particular, I thank Chairmen Goodlatte and Upton, Ranking Members Conyers and Pallone, Congresswoman Brooks, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and their staffs for their work in bringing these important reforms together. These reforms are a step in the right direction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate his willingness to come speak on it today.

Mr. Speaker, as you have heard--and we have spent the last almost 40 minutes talking about it--the opioid epidemic is out of control, but we have the opportunity today to start addressing that problem in a meaningful way.

The rule provides for consideration of legislation that will enact measures to address this problem through multiple avenues to ensure that we are taking a comprehensive approach to stopping this scourge.

It takes important steps to address the serious and growing threat of opioid abuse. It keeps a promise that we won't sit idly by while people continue the battle of addiction and die.

For that reason, I urge my colleague to support the rule and both H.R. 5046 and H.R. 4641.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 720 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5189) to address the opioid abuse crisis. 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 among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5189. ____ 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. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source