tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 22, 2018 2:59pm-5:00pm EDT
gentlelady for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to the bank lobbyist act which reverses the progress we have made since wall street brought our economy to the brink of collapse in 2008. this is yet another giveaway from our friends on the other side of the aisle to the wealthy donors who bankroll their campaigns. and once again working people will get screwed. congress established consumer financial protection bureau to protect the middle class from the big banks and corporate special interests. since 2010 the cfpb as returned nearly $12 billion to consumers in all 50 states. it's been a big step forward for working people. but this bill turns the clock back. republicans going to let the banks right the same risky loans that got us into the great recession in the first place. this is a bad deal for the american people. they deserve better. let's defeat this bill and put working families first. with it i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from minnesota, mr.
emmer, the author of key regulatory relief provision for small banks and credit unions in s. 2155. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. emmer: mr. speaker,ed to has a rare opportunity to help millions of americans achieve their version of the american dream. the economic growth regulatory relief and consumer protect act is the most significant pro-growth deregulation bill this chamber has considered in years. it will reduce amount of red ape that prevents it will foster economic greth, make regulation efficient, effective and tailor and perhaps most importantly, it will empower individual americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace. dozens of the provisions in
senate 2155 originated here in the house and i'm pleased to see the text of my home mortgage disclosure adjustment act and the keeping capital local for underserved communities act that i worked on closely with my colleague from wisconsin, representative gwen moore, included in the bill today. whether it's in rockford, st. cloud, or forest lake, minnesota, i consistently hear from small banks and credit yubes that want to be that next critical source of capital and support for families, businesses, and communities arn the state. this bill will allow them to be just that. i thank chairman hensarling for his tireless work on the legislation and knowing full well our work here is far from complete. i urk my colleagues to make history today. support giving more americans the opportunity to achieve their american dream and pass senate file 21556789 i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized.
ms. waters: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from maine, mr. poliquin, the author of two provisions in s. 2155, the senior safe act and supporting capital formation for small companies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. poliquin: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman for bringing this bill to the floor. the unemployment rate in our great state of maine is 2.7%. this is the lowest rate sthins 1950's. jobs, mr. speaker, are available everywhere for hard working mainers that now have bigger paychecks. this growing economy, mr. speaker, is because taxes are lower and regulations are fewer. and we must keep these reforms going. that's why, mr. speaker, i ask everyone, republicans and democrats, to vote yes on senate 2155. this bipartisan bill includes two provisions which i've been
pushing for three years. first, the small business capital formation enhancement act makes it easier for small business it is borrow money when they need to grow. and that creates more jobs and bigger paychecks and more opportunity and more freedom for our families. and mr. speaker, secondly, the senior safe act help prospect vulnerable seniors against financial scams. the legislation allows, for example, bank tellers and insurance agencies and financial advisors to warn seniors against draining their savings accounts and wiring the money to some distant location because someone is pretending to be their granddaughter in trouble. this bill, the senior safe act, makes it easier to stop financial scams before they hurt our seniors. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i would like to thank my colleague, senator susan collins of maine, for advantsing this
niche ty in the senate. together we pushed this commonsense provision in the house and senate. i ask everyone, mr. speaker, everyone, to please vote yes on this bipartisan bill, senate 2155. i thank you very much, mr. chairman, for this opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm now very pleased to yield one minute to a fellow texan, the gentleman from texas, mr. williams who is an incredibly strong advocate on our committee for small business to obtain credit for their customers. one minute. mr. williams: i rise in support economic relief act this stems from years consideration, hearings, markups in the house. the senate banking committee
delivers relief for the merp people. more than half of the provisions in s. 2155 originated in the house financial services committee and i applaud the chairman throughout his lengthy process. right now, banks cannot keep up with the oppressive regulationses foring so many to close their doors. the practice of one size fits all does not and should not apply to financial institution. in order to unleash our economic potential, congress must act to repeal unnecessary regulations. mr. speaker, s. 2155 will provide relief for our community bank biscuiting through the red tape and turn small businesses and the american consumer will have better access to credit, encourage manager economic growth and consumption. make no mistake about it this economy is roaring. i have been in business 47 years and i know what i'm talking about. i'm proud to join my colleagues in support of this bicameral legislation looking forward to president trump's signature as soon as possible. in god we trust.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. waters: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from utah, ms. love, the author of a key regulatory relief provision to provide small banks with the opportunity to grow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. love: the unemployment rate is the best it's been in 10 years. we are adding jobs, 1rks400 last month. i'm urging a yes vote on this bill because i want to keep the good news coming. america needs a financial system that's strong, resilient and innovate i. as a former mayor i know that access to credit is crucial for cities to build school, roads, for families to buy a home and for farmers to buy tractors. after the 2008 financial crisis, congress passed laws to rein in large financial institutions. but the rules went too far and they're hurting smaller banks
who can't hand they will red tape. s. 2155 would ease that burden without risk to the rest of the financial system. my bill, h.r. 4771, is included in this package to help those small banks gain access to capital they need to serb their communities. i urge a yes vote for the good of people and for the health of our economy. thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to our chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. ms. waters: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. he gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. tenney, the author of two key provisions in s. 21556789 the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. tenney: i rise in strong support of bipartisan economic growth regulatory relief and
consumer protection act this ground breaking legislation is vital to rural communities like mine where my constituents are actually struggling every day to make ends meet. this bill allows greater access to capital for consumers and small businesses that will unleash more opportunities for main street to flourish. finally. however, in order for main street to truly produce, we must ensure our community financial institutions are healthy, safe, and not overburdened to the point of closure. in my district in new york, small business credit unions are necessary. whether it's a family buying a first home or someone buying a car, new yorkers rely on financial institutions. i'm grateful to have two pieces of bipartisan legislation that promote relationship banking and regulatory relief in this package today. two of my bipartisan bills included are the small bank cycle improvement act the community institution mortgage relief act which offer small,
local community and financial institutions a little much-needed help to serve their communities. i'm proud of the hard work my colleagues have done to craft this important bipartisan legislation and thank to feel chairman hensarling for making sure this bill becomes a reality for americans. mr. speaker, s. 2155 will help families in my district achieve financial independence and i urge all of my colleagues to support this, including my co-sponsors mr. sherman and mr. chris who i hope will be joining us in support of this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady ease time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: may i inquire how many more speakers you have? mr. hensarling: we have no further speakers and i believe we have the right to close. ms. waters: and may i inquire how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has eight minutes.
ms. waters: let me again share with you what should be breaking news tonight, the fdic released its quarterly banking profile today for the first quarter of 2018 and reported that banks made more money than they ever have. $56 billion in profits in a single quarter. represents 27.5% served compared to 2017. some of these profits came from the republican tax reform bill that we have called a tax scam law. the community banks, credit unions and the economy are doing great with dodd-frank reforms in place. banking industry keeps making record profits, an average of $167 billion in annual profits the last three years. banks have increased lending to businesses by 80% since 20 10. community banks are outperforming larger banks in
increased lending and the credit unions are growing and have increased lending by more than 10% in 2014. 20% -- 10% rather in 2014. 2015, 2016, and 2017. despite all of that, you know, banks that .'s of represent so many times more than the median salary in their bank. specifically, wells fargo c.e.o. 291 $17.4 million in 2017, times the company's median salary. and this is in spite of the fact that wells far ge has a track record of consumer abuses while demonstrating that the numerous fines imposed on the bank have not been a sufficient deterrent to stop its pattern of appalling practices. let me just identify some of
those practices. opening 3.5 million fraudulent credit card and deposit accounts for which they were fined $185 million and it was so bad that cappedmer chair, yellen, the bank's size until they cleaned up their act. they were found to have illegal student loan practices, inappropriate checking account fees, unlawful mortgage lending practices such as overcharging veterans for refinance loans and charging customers for automobile insurance policies they did not need which resulted in some customers losing their vehicles and they were fined $1 billion but it really doesn't make them any different. it is just the cost of doing business. and yet we have my friends on the opposite side of the aisle who come and ask us to be lenient on the banks. to do away with the dodd frank reforms.
forget about what happened in 2008. somehow, it's all right for these greedy banks to continue not only in the practices that they have, despite, despite the fact that dodd frank reined them in. they're doing very well. 2155 again is not a community bank bill. and it certainly does not help consumers. we should not pretend that's the case. instead, considering improvements to this senate bill are advancing narrowly tailor red leaf, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are rubber stamping s. 2155 and advancing a wall street wish list that could jeopardize the sfabblet stability of our country's financial system. so instead of considering a bill to address concerns raised by community banks, one that i'm sure could easily pass both bodies with overwhelming
bipartisan support, house republicans have instead decided to take up a bill that is largely designed to fulfill the agenda of wall street's mega banks. passing this bill with broad support would send the wrong message to regulators to accelerate their deregulatory efforts for wall street. it's unfortunate that mega banks have once again piggybacked on to the substantial good will and support exists to help ease the regulatory burdens for community banks. s. 2155 is a dangerous measure that we keakens key consume brother texts and will make it harder, not easier, to combat unfair market practices. the bill takes advantage of people just trying to make ends meet for the benefit of the largest banks who are making record profits. make no mistake, i support our nation's community banks and credit unions, i support tailored regulatory relief for those institutions that is a fact that i have made clear
through my support of numerous individual measures which have advanced through this congress as well as through my community bank regulatory relief bill from last congress. but i will continue to oppose any efforts to use regulatory relief for community banks as a vehicle to ram through deregulation for bad actors and mega banks and if my words and the words of my colleagues here today are not enough of a warning, then i would urge members to listen to the pleas of hundreds of consumers, civil rights, veterans, religious and labor groups that strongly oppose 2155. and though some of my colleagues in congress may have short memory the millions of americans who lost their homes, their jobs, and their wealth during the 2008 financial crisis certainly do not. so i oppose this bill. i want the members of congress to stand up on this very important legislation and say to the greedy banks and the mega
banks, no, you're not going to get away with these kinds of actions anymore. everything that you've done to try to undermine the dodd-frank reform have resulted in more groups coming out to say congress, when are you going to stop these banks? they're making -- they're making plenty of money, increasing their profit, they c.e.o.'s are making high salary what more do you want from them? i think our consumers deserve better than any attempt to try and relieve them of those regulatory actions that would profit or better support our consumers. i ask for a resounding no vote on this bill that would only feed into the greediness of the major banks of america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized for the balance of
is time. the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: i yield myself the balance of the time. dodd-frank since was passed, the big banks have become bigger and the small banks have become fewer. free checking at banks have dod as passed, been cut in half. credit cards, 200 basis points more, 15% fewer. many creditworthy borrowers having to pay almost $00 more for their auto loans. been cut in half. the american -- $600 more for their auto loans. the mesh dream shrinking. mr. speaker 1.5 a% economic growth, stagnant paychecks, decimated savings, diminished american dream, that's the egacy of dodd-frank. mr. speaker, i wish i could believe 10% of what i heard from the other side of the aisle. i wish it did gut dodd-frank.
it didn't. you can't find something in here. it is hard. challenging to find anything in this bill that helps what the ranking member calls the so-called wall street megabanks. mr. speaker, listening very carefully to this debate, it is clear that there are some voices that appear to be driven, driven by their loathing of banks and credit unions and there are other voice that is are driven for our love and respect of our fellow citizens, hardworking taxpayers like dirk in colton, and sherry that i mentioned in my opening statement. who are trying to capitalize a small business. who is trying to buy a car that's 10 years old. who are trying to buy that home . their american dream. they are being challenged due to this law. i have heard so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, oh, i believe, i
believe in taking away bureaucracy and red tape from community financial institutions, and i believe, i believe in bipartisanship. well, they may believe in t. but they are not voting for it. the opportunity is right here in front of us with with s. 2155. a strong bipartisan bill that has come over from the united states senate. and so again they claim they believe it in theory, they just don't believe it in practice. mr. speaker, at the end of the day 3% economic growth counts. if you look at the history of our republic, 3% growth is where all the job creation takes place. it's where the paycheck increases take place. it's where the poverty reductions take place. it is the birthright of the mesh american -- of the american people. thankfully due to the
leadership of our president and this congress, we now have 3% tax policy. we need 3% regulatory policy. especially for our community banks and our credit unions who help finance the american dream for all of our citizens. we should join in unison on this historic day to pass s. 2155, the economic growth regulatory relief and consumer protection act for the help of all of our citizens. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 905, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on third reading of the bill. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: an act to promote economic growth, provide tailored regulatory leaf, and enhance consumer protections, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on pass afpblgt bill. so many as are in favor say
aye. -- passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. hensarling: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass the bill s. 292. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 229, an act to maximize discovery and accelerate availability of promising childhood cancer treatments, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the
gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and insert remarks extraneous material into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. today we're here to debate the childhood cancer survivorship treatment access and research act, also known as the childhood cancer star act. each one of us knows someone who has suffered from cancer, whether it is with a family member, a friend, a patient, or loved one. it is especially heartwrenching to watch children go through cancer, diagnosis and cancer treatment. the bill we're considering today is for our children. the future of our nation. i would like to acknowledge and thank my fellow texan, congressman michael mccaul, for leading our work to deliver
hope to america's youngest cancer patients. congress has done remarkable work to pass legislation such as the 21st century cures act, which provided americans with great hope that increased investment in biomedical research that would lead to treatment and even cures for our most devastating diseases. 21st century cures authorized over $4.5 billion in new funding for the national institute of health. including nearly $2 billion for the cancer moon shot. the childhood cancer star act builds upon the mission of 21st century cures, but focuses on empowering the national institute of health and the centers for disease control and prevention to increase the research and surveillance for cancer in children, adough less inter, and young adults. groundbreaking discoveries rely on robust and reliable investment in research. and this requires robust and reliable dollars for research.
this bill authorizes $30 million a year through fiscal year 2023 for the national childhood cancer registry, which will provide grant funding for the purpose researc surveillance for cancer in of collecting information to better understand the epidemiology of canser in children, adolescents, and young adults. the bill also authorizes the national cancer institute at the national institutes of health to make awards that will support childhood cancer biorepositories, giving position physicians and researchers tools to better understand these diseases. mr. speaker, it is vital that physicians and their teams can provide comprehensive and coordinated care for proceed at trick cancer patients. the bill -- pediatric cancer patients. the bill allows health and human services to make grants to establish pilot programs to develop, study, or evaluate model systems to improve the quality and efficiency of care for childhood cancer survivors. it also provides for greater
efficiency and coordination of care for those survivingors as they transition into adulthood and for the secretary to work with experts and identify best practices. similar, this bill gives the national institute of health director the authority to make grants to programs that conduct their support relating to pediatric cancer survivors. as i have said, this legislation is for our children. it is for the families that are building our nation's future. if we can ensure that these young patients receive treatment and cures for childhood cancers, then they may grow up to become biomedical researchers who will find the next generation of cures. they may write the next great american classic. they may became peoplea athletes or olympic
or all of the above. this legislation is for kids like sadie, she was diagnosed with a.l.l. in february of 2015. she was just 7 years old at the time. this young north texan fought through infections, blood transfusions, and rare side effects. she missed out on second grade, she missed out on third grade, and underwent weekly athletes or all of the above. this legislation is for kids chemotherapy sessions. today sadie beat the odds and survive leukemia. she received her last chemotherapy treatment may 26, 2017. now at 10, sadie is able to live the life of a normal kid. i would like to thank sadie and her family for their willingness to share their story and for their advocacy in support of this important legislation. i met sadie in my office last spring and i was inspired by her story. she started a nonprofit. the sadie keller foundation to raise mon money to help other kids facing cancer. her mission is simple. to put a smile on the faces of children fighting cancer all
over the country, and to remind them to keep fighting. so today i'm going to urge other members of congress to support this important bipartisan legislation and sending this bill to the president's desk. we will help sadie achieve her mission of putting a smile on the faces of children fighting cancer. we will provide families across this country with the hope for a better tomorrow. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of s. 292, the childhood cancer survivorship treatment access and research act. i want to particularly thank our lead democratic sponsor, mr. butterfield of north carolina, for promoting this bill. nearly 16,000 children are
diagnosed with cancer in the u.s. each year. those children are forced to bravely battle a disease and carry burdens that no one their age should. the childhood cancer star act gives those children and their families hope by encouraging improved research and surveillance, as well as survivorship programs for children with cancer. in this legislation urges the national institutes of health to find new opportunities to expand research into pediatric cancer and survivorship, such as supporting the collection of biospecimens, as well as supporting research on the causes of health disparities in pediatric cancer survivorship. the bill also allows the center for disease control to award funding to help states strengthen their infrastructure to track the epidemiology of pediatric cancer. this improves childhood cancer surveillance. helps guide public decisionmaking and research inquiry. finally this bill recognizes that expanding research that leads to treatments and cures
is only part of the equation. we must ensure quality care is available to meet their needs for the remainder of their lives. unfortunately, the battle with pete add trick cancer extendson beating the disease. as many as 2/3 of the survivors suffer from long-term effects of their disease and treatment, including secondary cancers and organ damage. that's why this bill allows the secretary of health and human services to establish a pilot program to develop, study, or evaluate model systems for monitoring and caring for childhood cancer survivors through their life span, as well as to develop best practices for long-term follow-up services for pediatric cancer survivors. i'll continue to support efforts like this to improve outcomes for cancer patients and survivors. however, unlike what this legislation, such efforts should proceed through the regular order process. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the alance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: social security it's my honor to recognize mr. walden for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i rise to offer my strong support for senate bill 292, the childhood cancer survivorship treatment access act of 018, or simply known as the childhood cancer star act. the house voferingse the important legislation was spearheaded by several including y colleague representative mccaul, i'd like to thank him for his leadership thob bipartisan initiative. being told your child has cancer is probably every parent's worst nightmare. even though childhood cancer is rare, it's still the second leading cause of death in children age 1 to 14. in the last congress we passed the 21st century cures act.
landmark legislation, modernized the nation's biomedical and innovation infrastructure, streamlined the -- how drugs were approved to get new treatments to patients fasters. we've invested heavily in the national institutes of health through the appropriations process then and now, recently increasing their budget by $3 billion in the 2018 spending bill which i supported. star act builds on these investments and expands the reach of the 21st century cures legislation by focusing critical resources to advance both research and treatments for pediatric cancer. by re-authorizing and modifying the national childhood cancer registry, supporting childhood cancer biorespiratory, improving the tracking of cancer in children, adolescents and young adults and supporting efforts to improve the pediatric cancer
survivorship care, the star act will improve both treatment of children currently battling cancer and the quality of life for the young survivors who have beaten this terrible disease. so i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. this is good work we're doing here today in a bipartisan way in the united states house of representatives. we will save lives. we will help families. and especially we will help these children who are suffering mightily. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i'd like to yield three minutes to the lead democratic sponsor, the gentleman from north carolina who is always out front on so many important health care issues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. pallone, you have been an
extraordinary leader in the public space. as well as to dr. burgess. i have been on the committee now for more than 10 years and i've watched you and mr. walden and others and mr. barton engage in debate. one thing for sure i know, all of you are seriously and totally committed to improving health jut comes in this country. i want to thank all of you for your leadership. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support s. 292, the childhood cancer survivorship treatment access and research act or commonly referred to as the star act. along with mr. mccaul and jackie speier and mike kelly, i introduced h.r. 8 20 the house companion to s. 292. over 85% of the house has co-sponsored this bill. it is therefore my great honor to serve as co-chair of the bipartisan house childhood cancer caucus. through the work of this caucus, i have had the opportunity to work closely with pediatric
patient groups and stakeholders who promote legislation that can help save and improve lives of young people. passage of the star act has long been a goal of those patients and of the childhood cancer caucus. i'm grateful that the house is poised to send this important piece of legislation now to the president's desk for a signature. 16,000 -- 16,000 children in the united states are diagnosed with cancer every year. many of those have limited treatment options. the star act, mr. speaker, is an important piece of legislation that will expand the opportunities for childhood cancer research, improve efforts to identify and track childhood cancer and enhance the quality of life of childhood cancer survivors. child had cancer remains the leading cause of death in american children. as many as 2/3 of childhood cancer survivors suffer from
late effects of their disease or treatment. including secondary cancers or organ damage. that's why passage and enactment of this legislation is so important. the bill enhances research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improves collaboration among provide source doctors are better able to care for survivors as they age and explore innovative models of care for childhood cancer survivors. when enacted, 292 will help advance pediatric cancer research and child focused cancer treatments bill also -- while also improving childhood cancer surveillance and providing enhanced resources for survivors. this bill, mr. speaker is the most comprehensive childhood cancer legislation ever slated to be passed by this congress. the star act will give young cancer patients and their families better access to life-saving treatments and the support they need even after beating cancer. i zrongly urge my colleagues to
support this legislation and i thank all of the leaders of the committee for their work and at this time, i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. at thistime i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, vice chairman of one of our subcommittees for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lance: i rise in strong support of the childhood cancer star act, one of the most comprehensive pieces of child had cancer legislation taken up by the congressful another major bipartisan accomplishment of the house energy and commerce committee. and i certainly congratulate dr. burgess. it is heartbreaking when a child is stricken with one of these life-threatening diseases. i have met with families who face these terrible circumstances and i have been touched by their stories of perseverance and hope. there's more work to be done.
we need to improve the federal services for the pediatric cancer community and research access to treatment and survivorship. federal health care and research ebtities must do all they can. the childhood cancer star act delivers more resources and reform to make sure we're winning the fight against pediatric cancer by strengthening grants for promising programs. last week i stopped by the relay for life event in new jersey. it brought together cancer patientsing, survivors, and their families. the crowd was large and enthusiastic in the fight against these terrible diseases. we yes it to those participants to ensure the federally supported research entities are doing all they can to in this area. the energy and commerce committee has made the cause of cures a centerpiece of our work this bill provides greater hope for all of the nation's youngest patients and their loved ones. i urge a yes vote and i yield
back the balance of my time. plm pallone: i yield two minutes to the vice ranking member, the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. we simply must do more for peed contract quick cancer and the children and families who are impacted by it. that's why i urge adoption of senate bill 2155. it's also house bill 820. i'd like to thank my colleagues, congressman mccaul, congresswoman speer, congressman butterfield, congressman kelly for leading the charge on this. it has broad bipartisan support. but i mostly want to thank the families and the parents across america who have helped educate
us. folks like bonnie wool worth and her husband scot and kids joe, delaney and piper, who have educated me in many policy -- and many policymakers across the tampa bay area. they lost their daughter and sister caden in 2012 to pediatric cancer and on behalf of so many families who often are held back by the pain of losing a child or dealing with childhood cancer, they channeled their energy into making things better for other families. they have educated me and others, along with mare yam with the one voice foundation in the tampa area. i'm so happy it's bying off today. after you suffer this diagnosis, it's very isolating. america doesn't do a lot of research on pediatric cancer. it's not coordinated very well.
and the resources just aren't there to help bring families together to get through these kind of varied diagnoses. the star act will hopefully make things better. we're going to ask the centers for disease control to do more to track pediatric cancer, we're going to do more research on how it's best to care for survivors. we're going to try to endeavor to do bet for the coordination of care for kids with pediatric cancer and do more on research. and also help folks in the minority community that often don't have the resources dedicated to them that they need. hopefully this will bring great relief to the families and i urge a swift adoption. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the chairman of the homeland security committee a fellow texan, principal author of the bill we have before us today, mr. mccaul.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my good friend shepherding this bill through and taking us to the point where we are today on the floor. i rise in support of this bill, the childhood cancer star act. the bill addresses four major concerns facing the pediatric cancer community. survivorship, treatment, access, and research. i was proud to introduce this bill with ms. jackie speier, g.k. butterfield and mr. mike kelly of pennsylvania. this is the most comprehensive childhood cancer bill ever considered before this house. this bill passed the house in 2016 and i encourage the support of all members today so we can finally send it to the president's desk for his signature -- signature. i'm proud to say that today is the day. i know a lot of advocates have
been waiting for day for quite some time. childhood cancer unfortunately remains the deadliest killer of our children. and at some point, we as a congress and as a nation must say, enough. -- must say, enough is enough. in short the star act elevates and prioritizes the fight against childhood cancer at the n.i.h. specifically, star places a pediatric oncologist on the board at the national cancer institute. so childhood cancer will now have a voice at the table when funding decisions are made. it also expands opportunities to childhood cancer research, allowing doctors to better understand and track how cancer develops in children. finally, we must also address he needs of the nearly 550,000 survivors of child -- of the nearly 500,000 survivors of
childhood cancer. 2/3 othey have survivors will face serious lifelong medical conditions. when i think about what this means, i think of my friend, sadie kell. she's perhaps the strongest person i know. saidie underwent over two years chemotherapy at the age of 7 before being -- after being diagnosed with leukemia. and she's been, at her young age, perhaps the most relentless advocate for this cause in this -- and this bill here on capitol hill and throughout the child had cancer community. i just want to refer to this picture of little saidie and myself when she was going through remission on the speaker's balcony, looking out over the mall with a vision toward the future. a future where children will no long ver to go through this disease. and looking at the darbling clouds, the sunlight coming
through. that is what this bill represents, sunlight for the children who have been afflicted with this terrible disease. while now her cancer is in remission, that does not mean her medical challenges are over. we must do more as a nation to care for these survivors. to that end, the star act will improve collaboration among providers so doctors are better able to care for survivors as they age. i want to close with -- in passing, i want to thank saidie but i also want to thank people like danielle leech and the alliance for childhood cancer team for their relentless advocacy on the hill and work on this bill. i want to thank nancy goodman and kids vs. cancer and the entire childhood cancer advocacy community for standing up and getting us to the point where we are today. you are the voice of these
children. you made this event possible. here today. and i want to thank you for from the bottom of my heart. i urge passing of this life altering piece of legislation. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. . mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you my good friend, mr. pallone from new jersey. i rise today in support of the childhood cancer star act. thanks to research, funded by the national institutes of health, the private sector, the philanthropic funds, we have made progress in the study and treatment of childhood cancers. however, every year 16,000 children and their families receive that terrible nightmarish news that their child's been diagnosed with cancer. my constituent, allison, was
diagnosed with stage 4 neuro blastoma when she was about 2 years old. throughout her fight she endured some of the harshest cancer treatments there are kea mow therapy p -- chemo therapy and stem cell transplants. allison's dad visited my kea mo earlier this year and shared a remarkable update. allison is beating the odds. she's currently in remission. and phase two drug trial. we must pass the star act because we need more good outcomes like allison's. this bill will expand childhood cancer research opportunities at the n.i.h., improve our understanding of cancers as a disease, and work to enhance the quality of life for all survivors. it may be a noon shot, but i believe we can find new treatments and eventually a cure for childhood cancer. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers. so i'll either reserve or close. depending on what the chairman wants to do. mr. burgess: would the gentleman yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i would now like to recognize the gentleman from tennessee for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for how long? mr. burgess: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: two minutes. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, thank you dr. burgess. mr. roe: i'm a physician and scientist of almost 40 years of experience in treating patients. far too many of them have been diagnosed with cancer. well over three years ago my beloved wife, who was a nurse, died of stage 4 colon cancer five weeks to the day after she
was operated on. pam would have liked the right to try. less than two months after best friends i will ever have in my life, phil street, a vietnam vet nan, air force veteran, died of cancer related to agent orange. phil would like to have had the right to try. best friends i will ever have in my in medical tner practice a year later, good friend, dr. billon, was diagnosed with brain cancer. bill died. he would would liked to have had the right to try. shortly after that, linda baynes, a scrub nurse that i operated with hundreds of times in my medical practice was diagnosed with brain cancer and died shortly after that. linda would have liked to have had the right to try. currently i have three friends at this moment being treated with stage four cancer. those treatments don't work, they would like to have the right to try. mr. speaker, my first pediatric rotation in medical school was at st. jude's children's hospital where at that time 80% of children died of their
disease. i can still see many of those children's faces today. that's been almost 50 years ago. those children today have an 80% chance of living. but 16,000 parents have to face that this year. i would encourage you, and i have had the misfortune of having to look patients in the eye and say your life is not in my hands anymore, it's in god's hands. and that moment i will tell you this, all these patients want and deserve is a right to try. please support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized to close debate for the minority. mr. pallone: i want to urge support for this legislation. the support is obviously bipartisan and urge all my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from texas is
recognized to close debate on this legislation. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i, too, want to express my strong support for s. 292, the childhood cancer survivorship treatment access and research act of 2018. childhood cancer star act. once again i thank my colleague from texas, representative mike mccaul, chairman mike mccaul, for spearheading this effort. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time having now expired on this bill, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 292. so many as are in favor say aye . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 905, i call up the bill s. 204 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tight of the bill. the secretary: senate 204 the an act to authorize the use of unapproved medical progress by patients diagnosed with terminal illness in accordance with state law and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule -- pursuant to house resolution 905 the bill scred. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and control by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. the gentleman from texas, mr. fwur guess -- burgess, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 30
minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and insert remarks into the material record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for int record on the such time. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, here in the people's house we reflect the will of the american people. when this bill, when the right to try is law in 40 states, it may no longer just be a grassroots movement, it's call to action for americans from many of the t, over one million americans who die from a terminal illness every year to return choice and control over treatment options to where it is most effective with the patient, with the doctor. today the house is taking the right to try for the third time. but the reason we're here again debating this issue is because
the minority leader of the senate and the senate democrats refusal to take up the revised right to try legislation that passed this house by a bipartisan vote two months ago. that revised bill, h.r. 5247 was more narrowly crafted than this version. this version the trickett wendler, frank mongiello, jordan mclinn and mat thoo bellina right to try act is before us today. it was authored by senator ron johnson of wisconsin and passed unanimous consent in the senate last august. i think it is important so let me take a moment to lay out the efforts by the energy and commerce committee since that time. first, the energy and commerce health subcommittee which i chair held a hearing last october to consider right to try bills, including this bill, s. 204, where members heard from dr. scott got leeb,
commissioner of the food and drug administration, from patients and other groups, that either support or oppose the concept of right to try. for several months our committee engaged in conversations with patients, advocates, administration, particularly the food and drug administration, and stakeholders on all sides of this complex topic. our aim was to open the door to innovative experimental drugs for terminally ill patients without necessarily compromising the vital work and the mission of the food and drug administration. the product of that aim was h.r. 5247, the revised house right to try bill. the product of sadly senate democrats said thanks, but no thanks, to the house bill. frankly i'm perplexed by their not not a single senate democrat expressed any reservation, any reservation when s. 204 passed their chamber by unanimous consent
last august. house republicans will show the american people we hear you. we will act to deliver on a promise made by the president in this house before a joint committee -- joint session of the house and senate during the state of the union address, he told us that we would pass the right to try legislation. well, today we're doing just that. this was kind of a bold statement by the president, stab up in the state of the union and say that he wanted -- stand up in the state of the union and say he wanted to sign this law. i'm proud to stand with him and the american people. we live in the greatest nation in the world an unprecedented amount of innovation and scientific breakthrough is the norm. we have innovative treatments at our fingertips because of the valuable contributions of researchers in academia and the private sector. despite these achievements, i still hear from patients with serious life threatening
conditions, including constituents from north texas, who remain frustrated with the current regulatory processes that prevent them from trying or experimenting with new therapies when everything else has failed them. as a physician, i understand that access to investigational drugs and therapies is a deeply personal priority for those seeking treatment for their loved ones with serious terminal conditions. so to my friends on the other side of the dais in the committee and here in the house, i have a simple question, why do you not want it allow these patients to exercise their right to fight for their future? mr. speaker, i'm proud to have supported h.r. 5247, the house right to try bill, it currently remains in the senate. however the right to try legislation before the house today is the senate bill, s. 204. so i am pleased that we're considering this right to try bill so that terminally ill patients have a chance, maybe a second chance at life.
these patients are our constituents. they could be someone we know. let us take this opportunity to improve access to experimental treatments for them and give them renewed hope. s. 204 establishes an alternative pathway for terminally ill patients to access certain investigational drugs that have successfully completed a phase one clinical trial and have an active application at the food and drug administration. they also must be under active development or production by the manufacturer. it is important to note that for these patients they have exhausted all f.d.a.-approved treatment options and are unable to participate in a clinical trial involving these investigational drugs. the bill we will be voting out soon is about patients. it is about having more time with their loved ones. in the words of vice president mike pence, it's about restoring hope and giving patients with life threatening
diseases a fighting chance. with hundreds and thousands of americans with a terminal illness and their families looking for us to act, i urge members of this house, the people's house, to support restoring hope and giving them a fighting chance at life. i urge a vote in support of s. 204. let us send this groundbreaking legislation to the president's desk for his signature and let it become the law of the land. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to s. 204, the federal right to try act. this is dangerous legislation that threatens f.d.a.'s authority over ensuring that medical treatments are safe and effective. this bill needlessly exposes vulnerable patients to the risks of unproven medications. we heard last night in rules committee from my republican colleagues that we must accept
and pass this legislation because the senate is unable to pass a bill that passed the house earlier this year. that house bill was bad enough, but this senate bill is much worse. and i cannot fathom why my republican colleagues are surrendering to the senate and agreeing to pass a more dangerous version of the right to try legislation. this establishes a pathway that eliminates any review from the food and drug administration and scientific and medical experts of an independent review board. this will provide fly-by night physicians and clinics the opportunity to peddle false hope and ineffective drugs to desperate patients. at a hearing before our committee, f.d.a. commissioner scott gottlieb cautioned that s. 204 risked, and i quote, exposing people to unwanted side effects from experiment altherr miss. now, supporters of this bill -- they are -- experimental therapies. now, supporters of this bill
would say this is targeted to those with terminal illnesses. that's not the case. the term life-threatening disease or condition could include chronic and often manageable diseases, such as diabetes or chronic heart failure. if all patients with diabetes and other chronic but manageble illnesses were eligible, it would greatly expand the scope of the legislation well beyond the scope of most state laws and f.d.a.'s expanded access program. this exposes an even greater number of patients to risk and undermines our clinical trial program by diverting patients from trials that could support full approval to the alternate pathway. commissioner gottlieb also cautioned congress that this legislation risks, and i quote, undermining a regulatory process that has been carefully crafted over many years to strike a very careful balance. the commissioner noted that s. 204 would not subject all participants to the alternate pathway to critical regulatory requirements.
such as labeling products, as investigational. charging limitations. and restrictions on promotion and commercialization of such treatments. s. 204 could also impede f.d.a. from taking action against manufacturers and others that violate other provisions of the federal food, drug and cosmetics act. under this bill, if a bad actor is not in compliance with good manufacturing practices, or does not protect against intentional alteration, adulteration, i'd say, or allows this -- dishonest or misleading labeling, the f.d.a. will not be able to take any enforcement action. but more importantly, mr. speaker, this federal right to try bill simply is not necessary, in my opinion. f.d.a. has an ex pabbleded access -- eaks -- expanded access program. to be clear, f.d.a.'s high approval rate is not just a rubber stamp for these applications, of the applications f.d.a. receives and approvings, it also adjusts applications for 11% of patients to improve safety
protections. this could include modifying the dosing, strengthening informed consent or improving safety monitoring. we must protect patients from bad actors. or from dangerous treatments that might make their lives worse. and without this critical review, there will not be any oversight to ensure the patients are not being given or not being taken advantage of or put in harm's way. and the main reason this bill is being pushed to chip away at f.d.a.'s authority to ensure the safety and effectiveness of our drugs. f.d.a. oversight of access to experimental treatment exists for a reason. it protects patients from potentially snake-oil salesmen or from experimental treatments that might do more harm than good. by removing the f.d.a. oversight, you are counting on physicians and manufacturers to serve as the gate keeper and protector of our patients. i simply don't buy that that's going to work. supporters of this bill want to blindly believe that there are no bad actors out there, but imagine someone like martin, promising a dying patient a
cure that could save their life. under this bill, f.d.a. would play no role in determining whether or not martin could provide that drug to that dying patient. if s. 204 is eye oned -- is signed into law, patients would be taken advantage of it and will be harmed. bad -- advantage of and will be harmed. bad actors exist and this bill gives them the opportunity to prey on desperate people who are understandably looking for any treatment that might help save their lives. now, let me also point out that the supporters of this bill claim to be helping desperate patients who are looking for hope. if this is such a patient-centered bill, why does every major patient organization overwhelmingly oppose it? where is the call from patients for this legislation? more than 100 patient organizations, including the national organizations for rare disorders, friends of cancer research, american cancer society cancer action network, sent a letter to congress just yesterday opposing this legislation. in the letter, they stated, and i'm quoting, the senate version of the legislation is less safe
than the pathway proposed in the house version and is dangerous compared to the current expanded f.d.a. access process. four form f.d.a. commissioners -- former f.d.a. commissioners from both parties also oppose this republican legislation, noting, and i quote, there is no evidence that either bill, that's the house or the senate, would meaningfully improve access for patients. but both would remove the f.d.a. from the process and create a dangerous precedent that would erode protections for vulnerable patients. so, mr. speaker, s. 204 i know is a key agenda item for the president and the vice president. but i think it's dangerous for our patients. and it's an unprecedented attempt to roll back f.d.a.'s oversight of investigational treatments. so i urge my colleagues to stand with more than 100 organizations that have come forward to oppose this misguided and, i believe, harmful legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.
mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. walden of oregon, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. today represents the third time this year the house has considered legislation to deliver hope to patients who are batting -- battling terminal diseases. twice already a bipartisan majority of members has supported increasing patient access to investigational drugs through a new pathway outside of the existing expanded access program. and the bill before us today is deserving of that same support. 39 states, 39 of our states have right to try laws, including my home state of oregon. and while the state policies vary, they have a common goal. helping vulnerable patients. president trump praised the movement during the state of the union. he said, and i quote, people who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure.
i want to give them a chance here at home. those are the president's words. since this time he's continued to feverishly advocate for this legislation. for today's debate, i believe it's important to understand that both the background of this issue -- understand the background of this issue, as well as the politics that have brought us back to this floor. today there is an existing process for patients to access unapproved drugs. the f.d.a. oversees the expanded access program commonly known as compassionate use. this program has been critical in helping patients access experimental or investigative drugs. as i previously said before in this chamber, commissioner gottlieb and the agency should be commended for their continued work to improve the expanded access program for patients. to improve the successful program, though, this legislation, this chamber -- the bill this chamber previously passed provided liability protections for manufacturers, sponsors, physician, clinical investigationers -- investigators and hospitals
that participate in the existing expanded access program. and the new alternative pathway created under the legislation. that provision removes one of the biggest hurdles patients face as identified by the government accountability office in gaining access to experiment altherrpies. manufacturer hesitancy to participate. that's the obstacle. that same bill creates a new alternative pathway for patients who do not qualify for a clinical trial. it's my view the house-passed bill strengthens patient protections with clear and informed con sent anded a vess -- consent and adverse event reporting. but when a strong bipartisan majority of this chamber of the u.s. house of representatives, mr. speaker, delivered for patients and we answered president trump's call to give americans the right to try, leaders in the senate on the other side of the aisle objected. blocking terminally ill patients from increasing access
to investigational drugs. but we will not allow them to play politics, to delay this effort any longer. that's why we are here today. because, you see, mr. speaker, across our great country, men and women and children and parents are desperately seeking a beacon of hope. and the senate bill we have before us today will provide it. i want to thank president trump and vice president pence for continuing to weigh in on this important issue. and the sponsors of past and current legislation, including senator johnson and representatives fitzpatrick and biggs, who are here with us today, you all have been tireless, believe me, tireless in your advocacy and your efforts in this worthy cause. and i'm glad to see that together we're once again going to deliver. but most importantly i'd like to acknowledge the individuals this bill is named after. trickett and frank, jordan and matthew.
jordan was here on the floor the first time we considered right to try legislation. and matthew testified at our hearing last fall. jordan's back with us today. it is through their advocacy and hope to find a treatment or a cure that we have this chance to give patients their right to try. so, mr. speaker, it's time for the house to do what the entire united states senate did, and pass this legislation. it is time to send a right to try bill to president trump's desk where he is eager to sign it, mr. speaker. and i urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i'd ask the house to be in order. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield now three minutes to the vice ranking member of our energy and commerce committee, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking member for his leadership and for yielding the time.
mr. speaker, this bill, senate bill 204, is haller. -- harmful legislation. that offers a false hope. a false hope of access to investigational therapies and it will endanger patients who have serious and life-threatening diseases. the bill establishes a dangerous and unnecessary alternative pathway that is void of any f.d.a. review or oversight. and it is opposed overwhelmingly by the patient community. in fact, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter to the speaker and minority leader from 104 patient advocacy groups. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman will suspend for a moment. the chair asks the house to be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. castor: thanks. and i'm asking unanimous consent that this letter be placed into the record. it includes such groups as the american cancer society, cancer
action network, the american lung association, the cystic fibrosis foundation, all opposed to this bill. the leukemia and lymphoma society, and about 100 more. this bill is not a bill -- this bill is a bill in search of a problem. because in fact f.d.a. has approved 99% of the expanded access requests it received. f.d.a.'s expanded access program aproves nearly all requests for investigational drugs or biologicals it receives. physicians at f.d.a. are available 24 hours a day to approve any emergency expanded access request that the agency receives. and it typically grants that emergency request immediately, over the phone. and nonemergency requests in a medium -- median time of about four days and to longer than 30 days. f.d.a. has also taken actions to streamline this entire process. the process of clinical trials
at f.d.a. is vital to the protection of the health of all of our neighbors and the folks we represent. in 11% of expanded access applications, f.d.a. has raised a red flag and said, you've got to change this. that's what we're trying to protect here. the actual patients and the patient groups across the country agree with us. now, many states have tinkered with right to try laws, but this is different. 40 states have enacted right to try laws, but there's no evidence that anyone has obtained the type of therapy via these laws that couldn't have been obtained through f.d.a.'s expanded access program. right to try laws do not compel companies to provide patient access to these treatments and therefore under these laws, patients still do not have a right to try. they only have the right to request it from the company. and sometimes those companies will say, you know what, the insurance companies aren't going to pay for it, so that will be another barrier. mr. speaker, in the end these right to try laws put patients at higher risk by prohibiting and weak being -- weakening the
f.d.a. oversight, and leaving our neighbors on the thook cover the cost of -- on the hook to cover the cost of unproven treatments. for all of these reasons i urge a no vote with the bill. join with the patient advocates across america who in this letter called this a dangerous proposal. i'd like to to renew my unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. castor: thank you very much. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to recognize another gentleman from texas, the vice chairman of the full committee, mr. barton of texas, for three minutes, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. barton: i thank the gentleman from texas and i would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: you know, mr. speaker, when i was a little boy, i used to read comic books . and one of them i read was "superman." nd the "superman quks "comic
-- "superman" copic books back in the 1960's, superman had an alter eagleo that lived on bizarro world. and there everything was a little bit off kilter. and when i listen to my sincerely good friends on the minority side, i think they're in that world. . the i know they mean well, but they're not seeing the same planet i'm seeing. i have told this story a number of times about my brother john at the age of 0 had liver cancer and given less than three months member of being a congress and being on the energy nd commerce committee, i had
access to the f.d.a. and are there any experimental programs that you could help my brother? they checked and had a clinical trial in san antonio, texas and we called them and got him into it, but they told him, this is experimental, it's helped a lot of people so far, but it doesn't help everybody and if it doesn't help you, it accelerates your disease. he and his wife prayed about it, mother, myself and his brother and sister and we all decided, why not. put john in the trial and it didn't help him. but we were at peace, because we used every available remedy we could to try to help him. this bill, which has passed the senate and if we pass it today, goes to the president and will be signed this week. gives patients, if their doctor is approved, the right to try. it has to be an investigational
drug that is in an f.d.a. clinical trial that has passed phase one which proves that it is none toxic, gives them the right to try. there is no downside to this. this could become law. it would give a statutory right to try federal level. why in the world, my friends on the minority side, have a problem with it passing the senate you nanously, which means under the current senate, 49 democrats voted for it by voice vote. here is no downside to it. f.d.a. is in control of what drugs are in this phase one clinical trial. and the doctor has to recommend it and the patient has to accept it. o i hope we will vote yes.
the bill has already passed the house once or twice -- could i have 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barton: already passed the house once or twice on a bipartisan vote. i think it passed with 261 votes the last time we sent it. we admit and the house bills is a little bit better bill than the senate but the senate bill is better than no bill. vote yes when it time comes this afternoon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcnerney: i thank the members of the house talk binge this issue. i rise in opposition the right to try act. and i don't gee with my friend from texas there is no downside and i'll go over that here in these two minutes. the house took up this issue
before and i voted against it then and this version is worse. so i'm going to oppose it. it would provide broad access to unproven treatments. the extremityal treatment protects patients from bad actors or drugs that are grossly untested. f.d.a.'s oversight protections protect parets from experimental patients that might do more harm than good. chipping away at the f.d.a.'s authority would put patients in great danger by providing liability protections for manufacturers and weaken the f.d.a.'s oversight ability. this legislation would leave patients with no recourse in the case of harmful side effects. this legislation is even more flawed as i said than the house bill that i voted against back in march. but like the earlier bill, the
senate bill contains more dangerous unnecessary pathways to experimental treatments. and it exposes a much larger number of patriots to serious risk, not just terminal patients but patients that would like to try something that is not even tested. so, in fact, it is so broad that excludes patients of all chronic conditions to rimbing treatments. more than 100 patient groups have voiced opposition. this bill is not even necessary. the f.d.a. has an expedited approval process for terminal patients. i urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter, valued member of the health subcommittee, two minutes.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of s. 204, the right to try act, because this legislation will enhance access to potentially lifesaving treatments with patients with terminal diseases or conditions. currently, patients can only receive drugs if they are undergoing f.d.a. clinical trials, through compassionate use or expanded access. atients and physicians can get treatments not through the drug sponsor. this would establish informed access that could save their lives. this bill still guards patriots from manufacturers misbranding drugs and specifies that any unapproved drug used in the new alternative pathway must have an active application, is not the subject of a clinical hold. i want to thank the speaker and
the majority leader for recognizing the importance of right to try legislation and making sure we fulfill our duty to patience looking for any chance to survive. this is a great step forward towards ensuring our patients get to take advantage of the incredible pharmaceutical therapies that are being researched and developed in the united states. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: i rise in strong opposition to the so-called right to try act. this idealogically driven legislation is trying to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist. every single member of this body allows terminally individuals to
seek access that could be potentially lifesaving. however, we have to do so in a structured way that won't undermine the role of the f.d.a. in guaranteeing that the medications we all use are safe and are effective. i believe the f.d.a.'s current expanded access program meets that test by ensuring proper informed consent and establishes the appropriate safeguards around access to experimental drugs. the legislation before us would take f.d.a. out of the process completely and would allow a black market of snake oil salesmen to emerge with unscrupulous companies selling untested drugs to a broad array of individuals including those with people having diabetes. make no mistake about it, this legislation offers false hope to seriously ill individuals and will put patients at risk.
with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: at this time, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs, for two minutes. mr. biggs: i ask unanimous statementplaining the of s. 204 into the record. i rise today in strong support of the right to try act and on behalf of the patients who are fighting to try to save their own lives. it has been a long road and i would like to take a brief moment to thank representative fitzpatrick for working with me on this cause from the moment we entered office last year and extend my appreciation to senator johnson. also thanks to chairman walden for his efforts and the leadership of president trump and vice president pence. i acknowledge and thank congressman mat salmon for his efforts to pass right to try but it is the patients themselves who deserve the most
recognition. i said this before and i will continue to say it, when the right to try act is signed into law, it will be them, not us, that will deserve the most credit. everyone here has heard me to speak about the right to try act and we are aware of the support this legislation has garnered. 40 states have passed right to try legislation with overwhelming support from republicans and democrats alike. we can't come together to support a commonsense cause such as this one, i'm not sure what effort we can unite behind. there is a shrinking minority that argues that this legislation is so unnecessary, why do i receive phone calls and letters from patients urging me to do everything in my power to get this legislation passed. have no doubt that the f.d.a. expanded access program has and the efforts are not enough.
contrary to the right to try act, it doesn't eliminate the access program. we are providing another more direct avenue for patients to acquire potentially life saving medications from pharmaceutical companies that don't require them to ask permission from a bureaucratic middle man. they say we are peddling false hope. false hope? what is that? to this tired argument -- i ask the gentleman to yield another 30 seconds. mr. burgess: yield. mr. biggs: i respond there is no such thing as false hope. you either have hope or you don't. i want those brave men and women who are fighting every day against terrible illnesses and odds to have a choice even if it's the last choice many of them will have the opportunity to make. i trust them to weigh the pros and cons and choose whether they
wish to take a risk. and make no mistake, it is a choice, not a mandate, merely an option. vote yes on this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i just want to respond briefly to the previous speaker on the republican side. you know, i don't understand how the gentleman can say the expanded access to a program will continue even under right to try. the problem is, sure, on paper, it will continue, but there wouldn't be any reason for anyone to go to the f.d.a. if the f.d.a. is now out of the picture and all you have to do is find some -- somebody who manufactures a drug or treatment and get the doctor to say ok, i'll administer it, then you don't need to go to the expanded access program. the gentleman assumes that people will go to the f.d.a. and
they'll know that the expanded access program exists. the very nature of this legislation which basically says that you don't have to go to the f.d.a. which means people won't even know that can be an option and if they can get the drug without going to the f.d.a., they'll just do it. the harm -- let me just say this. i know the gentleman referred to the f.d.a.'s bureaucracy. i guess you could say the people at the f.d.a. are bureaucrats. but the f.d.a. existed because for many years before then, in the 19th century and 20th century, snake oil and things were advertised and promoted in the papers and magazines saying this is going to cure this and that and people demanded that there be a federal oversight whether drugs or treatments actually are effective, whether they have harm, whether they are toxic. and that's why the f.d.a. was started. i guess i just don't understand
because the bottom line is, there is very little evidence there's any significant number of people who are denied treatment or drugs because of the expanded access program. but at least then they know that some agency has looked at this to see whether it is harmful, whether it has some negative impact. and the great concern that those of us on the other side of this issue have, without the f.d.a., there is no guarantee that what somebody gets as a form of treatment is actually going to be meaningful and not be harmful. so i guess, i don't want to prolong my response to the gentleman, but i do think you have to understand that those of us on this side of the aisle actually think that the f.d.a. has a purpose and actually performs an important function. and i don't think we should deny that. i think it's unfortunate that those who think that somehow the f.d.a. is not doing its job.
i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. . . mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. today is long overdue. i want to thank leader mccarthy, dr. burgess, mr. griffith, my friend and colleague, andy biggs, senator ron johnson, and all of the advocates that have had a relentless fight to see right to try debated, passed and signed into law. once and for all. and i want to thank the overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues here in the house. back of march you supported the right to try act and proved emphatically that right to try is about more than politics, it is about hope. for those patients caught in
between traditional drug delay approvals, a clinical trial process for which they do not equal firkse and limited time, right to -- qualify, and limited time, right to try allows patients to try therapies where the benefits far outweighs the risks. it gives them the option of saving their life. mr. speaker, i want to acknowledge the families who are here with us today to see history be made. although the f.d.a. has a program that allows terminal patients to apply for early access to promising treatments, the right to try is needed because the f.d.a.'s compassionate use process does not help enough people. while 99% of expanded access applications are approved, the application process is complicated, it is time consuming, and it is expensive. moreover, only about 1,200 people a year can make it through the application process . and by contrast, mr. speaker, in 2014, more than 12,000 people in france were using investigational treatments
through that government's equivalent program. how is it that a country 1/5 the size of the united states can help 900% more people? the f.d.a. program clearly is not working. mr. speaker, right to try gives people hope and let me be clear, this bill requires robust and formed consent between the patient, the doctor and the manufacturer while requiring notification be given to the f.d.a. after an unapproved drug becomes eligible to a patient and requires doctors and manufacturers to report adverse events. mr. burgess: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: when life hangs in the balance, the federal government must not stand in the way of this process. we have to get this done once and for all today. i urge my colleagues on both sides oost, appeal to the -- sides of the aisle, appeal to the better angels of your nature. all the groups they say are opposed to this bill, i'll tell who you is in favor of this bill. 80% of the american people. they're the ones who have the power in this country and they're the ones we have to
yield. to i -- we have to listen to. i yield back. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. again, i'd just like to respond to the previous republican speaker. he made three comments that disturb me. one, he said that, you know, people should be able to try things, try the drugs or the treatment, when the benefits outweigh the risks. but how are they going to know that when the f.d.a. isn't involved? when the f.d.a. goes through various phases of clinical trials, not only phase one, which determines whether something toxic, but beyond to determine whether it's effective or whether it has harmful effects, then you do know. f.d.a. basically will tell you, yes, the benefits outweigh the risks. and that's why we have an approval process in general for drugs and that's why we have the expanded access so, that the f.d.a. can look at it and say, ok, maybe you're going to
risk this but we want to make sure that you have some protection. the gentleman said that the f.d.a. process is complicated or time consuming. first of all, there's an emergency process where you can simply get on the phone or the doctor gets on the phone and within 24 hours you can be approved. but on the other hand, if it's not an emergency, the average approval time is four days. i don't know how we can say that this is time consuming. and then the last thing he said is that there's, you know, very much informed or consent. the doctors and the manufacturers have to agree. but who's going to enforce this? right now, because the f.d.a. has to go through the expanded access process, you know, the f.d.a. has the enforcement. they can say, we're going to grant this, we're not, we're going to provide some safety or other protections. but if the doctor and some fly-by night manufacturer decide that they want to give you this drug or treatment, who's going to enforce that?
how do we know that the doctor's legitimate? how do we know that the manufacturer is not selling snake oil? there's no -- once the f.d.a. is out of the picture, there's no way for the patient to know whether the doctor's unscrupulous, there's no review. there's no enforcement whatsoever. so, again, this is the problem. once you take the f.d.a. out. i understand there's some that don't like the f.d.a., dent think maybe she thub involve -- don't think maybe they should be involved. but in the absence of the fath, i don't know how you could -- f.d.a., i don't know how you could possibly know if this is going to help you, whether the benefits outweigh the risk, whether, you know, there's a bad actor involved. with the doctor or the manufacturer. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i recognize smife for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i want to read from the statement of administration policy that was put out by the executive
office of the president. last paragraph, since the late 1980's the food and drug administration has facilitated access to investigational drugs, devices and biological products for the treatment of seriously ill patients. families in these situations have sometimes found this process challenging and the food and drug administration is constantly striving to make improvements to its expanded access program. some patients and their families, however, still have challenges accessing investigational treatments. the administration believes that the treatment decisions for those facing terminal illnesses are best made by the patients, with the support and the guidance of their treating physicians. this legislation will advance those principles. that is from the statement of administration policy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i have no additional speakers. i would ask the chairman if he has additional speakers or should i close? mr. burgess: we'll be prepared to close. mr. pallone: all right.
i yield myself such time for closing remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i just want my colleagues on the other side to understand why so many of us over here have been so upset by this proposal today. as i think i said before, the house bill was bad enough. the senate bill is worse. for at least two reasons. one is, our concern on the one hand that rather than these drugs or treatment without f.d.a. approval would be handed to just terminally ill patients, that the senate bill says that it would apply to people who have life-threatening situations. the f.d.a. and the commissioner of the f.d.a. stated quite clearly that they are concerned about the expansion from terminal to life-threatening because it could be that people
who have diseases like iabetes, severe diabetes, or chronic heart disease, for example, could make the argument that their situation is life-threatening. and therefore they can go an get these experimental drugs without f.d.a. approval. so that's a huge loophole that's very disconcerting. the second thing is that the promotional -- the prohibition, if you would, on promotional activity with these investigational drugs is taken out by the senate bill. and so the worse -- worst thing of all, you know we talk about snake oil and advertising, is somebody unscrupulous, a doctor or a manufacturer, now going to promote this and say, well, if you take this, you know, this may save your life? so, i mean, that's why the senate bill is worse. but i want to go back to the whole idea. the problem that i have with
all of this is that once you take out the f.d.a. and the f.d.a.'s not involved anymore, the way this bill is set up, how do i know that -- if i'm the patient and i decide that -- hair from some doctor or through some promotion or whatever that there's something that might help me, and i'm desperate, how do i know that the doctor that i go to or the manufacturer who is promoting this drug, that this is actually not a bad acter? not somebody who is taking advantage of the situation because there's no f.d.a. approval? in other words, who's going to determine whether this person's life is threatened or whether they're terminally ill? there's no f.d.a., who is going to determine that? who is going to determine whether this drug has any effectiveness at all? well, some of my republican colleagues say, well, it has to go through phase one. but phase one clinical trials could have 20 30r people.
they're sometimes very -- 20 or 30 people. they're sometimes very small. the f.d.a. doesn't have any ability to control those clinical trials. sure, they have some oversight over clinical trials but clinical trials take place all over the country, with very few people. and sometimes the drug manufacturers who are experimenting with these trials, with these small groups, are not necessarily, you know, known manufacturers or large ones that we know will be safeguarding these drugs or treatment. so i just think the problem is, you know, when we talk about snake oil and bad actors, it's almost like -- it's almost as if the republicans assume there are no bad actors. because if you assume that there are, which i do, and there are bad actors who are going to promote something that's not going to be effective or is going to harm somebody, and there's a manufacturer who is not, you know, someone we know, who is going to determine whether or not they're a bad actor and what they're doing? you need to have some kind of enforcement.
you need to have somebody who's supervising this. otherwise it's any man for himself. decides, you know, i'll try this drug. it went through phase one. maybe not toxic. so i think that -- i really worry that this debate on the other side of the aisle is not taking into consideration that there always are going to be people that want to take advantage of the situation and sell something that's going to be -- that they're going to make a buck on, that is not necessarily going to have any real oversight in this situation. so that's my fear. that's my fundamental fear about this bill. that these situations are going to arise. nobody's going to be in charge. nobody's going to know what's going on. and then the person is going to, you know, either die earlier or have some awful impact. and then they're going to say,
oh, how come the f.d.a. didn't approve it? or maybe they're going to assume the f.d.a. approved it and there is no f.d.a. they're gone. in any case, i would urge my colleagues to oppose what i consider very harmful legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll yield myself the balance of our time. mr. speaker, on january 30 of this year, the president of the united states came to this house and addressed a joint session of the house and the senate in his state of the union address and he said right from that podium, people who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure. i want to give them a chance right here at home, it is time for congress to give these wonderful americans the right to try. mr. speaker, i couldn't say it any better than the president has already put it. the right to try is before us. it's a good bill. house needs to support it. and it will go to the president
for his signature. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 905, the previous question is order on the bill. the question is on the third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: an act to authorize the use of unapproved medical products by patients diagnosed with a terminal illness in accordance with state law and or other purposes. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois. ms. schakowsky:sy a motion to recommit at -- i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. schakowsky: i'm opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. schakowsky of illinois moves to recommit the bill, senate 204, to the committee on -- ms. schakowsky: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with.
the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. speaker. this that i'm proposing today would be the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. and this amendment would offer a more targeted approach to improve f.d.a.'s expanded access program that allows patients access to experimental drugs that can possibly save their lives. which is the goal of all of us. the f.d.a. ensures that expanded access requests are safe and it approves nearly 100% of all the requests that are made. and most in a matter of hours,
if necessary. the right to try legislation we are considering today presents a huge risk to patients and is much worse than the house bill passed in march. as our ranking member explained. this bill is so good, why are 104 patient groups, these are the groups that represent the sick and dying people, opposed? and pharma, the big pharmaceutical companies are not supportive. because this gives open license to snake oil salesmen. this bill exposes far more patients to serious risks through a dangerous and unnecessary pathway for experimental treatment. f.d.a. commissioner noted that this is not limited to patients with termal illness. quote, we are going to be exposing parets with potentially
less severe conditions to a risk, unquote. it is troubling in some states patients using an investigational drug can lose their hospice coverage and in other states, they could be denied home care. these are the very people who need this care. why should we put more patients at risk when the current process does work? f.d.a. already approves approves 1 100% of the requests through the expanded access program. if a person is denied treatment it's because the manufacturer will not provide it. it also isn't going about giving the terminally ill hope. if that were true, then why would these 104 patient groups including the american san ser society, the vietnam veterans of
america that also oppose this bill? the main reason that this bill is being pushed is to remove f.d.a. oversight of the safety and effectiveness of our drugs. it allows manufacturers to serve as the gatekeeper and protector of patients. it opens the door for bad actors to prey on people desperate to save their lives or the lives of their children. imagine if someone like martin, the infamous bad actor, promising a cure to save a child's life that the parents pay whatever price he might charge. under this bill, f.d.a. would play no role in determining if that drug was safe and effective and bad actors do exist. this republican bill gives them the opportunity to prey on desperate people who are looking for any treatment that might
help to save their lives. unlike s. 204, this motion to recommit is not based on the false premise that the f.d.a. approval is a barrier to investigational treatments. rather, it provides clarification of the liability and how f.d.a. will utilize clinical outcomes. with this motion to recommit, the f.d.a. would provide manufacturers guidance to clarify how f.d.a. will consider clinical outcomes associated with treatments under expanded access when making a decision about whether or not the drug should be granted full approval. it also provides transparency as to how many patients are making expanded access requests and how often these requests are granted or denied by the f.d.a. and manufacturers. it also offers manufacturers or sponsors with liability protection if they comply with the requirements of the expanded access program.
i believe that these legislative fixes facilitates patients' accessing of experimental treatments while ensuring that critical f.d.a. oversight to protect public health. in conclusion, patients already have the right to try. rather than creating an unnecessary pathway that puts patients at risk by allowing the sale of snake oil, i would urge my colleagues to join me over 100 patient groups, organizations that care about their neighbors and their friends and people who have these diseases in support of the expanded access program. these improvements are one way to achieve. i urge my colleagues to support my motion to recommit and oppose the dangerous republican proposal. i thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: so recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, while the motion to recommit might be well intentioned but has a practical effect of killing this bill because the senate has rejected house attempts to refine the senate bill that was passed by unanimous consent last august. so if you want to provide that right to try for patients, this is the vehicle. now, interestingly enough, the food and drug administration -- administrator this morning, put out a statement and said he is ready to implement legislation in a way that achieves congress' intent to promote access and protect patients and build on the f.d.a.'s commitment to these important goals. with that, mr. speaker, i urge people to vote against the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill.
let's give patients that expanded access. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the knows have it. ms. schakowsky: i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. l pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 on rule 20, the vote will be followed by votes on passage of s. 204 and motion to suspend the rules and passage of s. 2155. this is a 15-minute vote.