THRIVE Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 949 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 949 provides for the consideration of three important bills aimed at curbing the deadly opioid epidemic plaguing this country and providing Americans with the tools to overcome their addictions: H.R. 6, the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act, or the SUPPORT Act; H.R. 5797, the Individuals in Medicaid Deserve Care that is Appropriate and Responsible in its Execution Act; and H.R. 6082, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act.

The three bills included in today's rule all seek to accomplish one goal: assist Americans struggling with opioid addiction in controlling their addictions and moving forward in achieving productive and healthy lives.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on H.R. 6, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule makes in order eight amendments offered by both Republicans and Democrats. Further, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The resolution also provides for a structured rule for H.R. 5797, allowing 1 hour of debate to be divided and controlled between the chair and ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The rule also provides for debate on an amendment by Mrs. Mimi Walters of California, an active member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Finally, the rule provides the minority with the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The final bill included in today's resolution, H.R. 6082, will also receive 1 hour of debate on the House floor, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. As the Committee on Rules received no germane amendments to H.R. 6082, no amendments were made in order in today's rule. The minority does receive the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The statistics that many of us have heard on numerous occasions--at our district townhalls, in opioid roundtables with stakeholders, constituent meetings in our offices, and in our committee hearings--are truly heartbreaking stories, with more than 115 people dying in the United States every day from an opioid overdose. That is five people per hour.

According to national reports, emergency room visits and opioid overdose deaths have more than quadrupled in the last 15 years, and a preliminary analysis indicates those numbers are to rise. The misuse of and addiction to opioids--including prescription pain medications, heroin, and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl--is, indeed, an urgent national crisis that continues to threaten our public health, social fabric, and economic welfare. Both community hospitals and local paramedics are frequently coming across people overdosing on an opioid drug or a drug laced with fentanyl.

The opioid epidemic has affected families not only in my district in north Texas, but in communities large and small from Maine to California. It has also impacted American employers and businesses due to lost productivity and difficulty finding qualified candidates for employment. President Trump is right to call this epidemic the ``crisis next door.''

The efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and the 21st Century Cures Act in the previous Congress were a good start, delivering critical funding and resources to communities hit most hard by the opioid epidemic. But there was much more we still could do.

To start this process, the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, which I chair, held a Member Day last October, where more than 50 bipartisan Members of this body, both on and off the committee, shared their personal stories from their districts and offered their solutions. This was followed by a series of three legislative hearings with markups where nearly 60 bills were considered and advanced to the full Energy and Commerce Committee that acted on these bills shortly thereafter.

The culmination of the work from the Energy and Commerce Committee and other House committees has brought us to consider many of these policies over the course of the last 2 weeks on the House floor. It required an all-hands-on-deck approach, and I believe the American people will see that, by this week's end, we did, indeed, come together in a bipartisan fashion and worked to address this crisis.

Today's rule provides for consideration of three important bills that will expand treatment options, deliver lifesaving services, and make necessary public health reforms, including Medicare and Medicaid, to bolster prevention and recovery efforts.

First, H.R. 5797, the Individuals in Medicaid Deserve Care that is Appropriate and Responsible in its Execution Act, the IMD CARE Act, allows State Medicaid programs to remove the institutions for mental diseases exclusion for beneficiaries aged 21 to 64 with an opioid use disorder for 5 years' time. The bill provides the continuum of care

by removing a barrier of care under current law, so Medicaid can cover up to a total of 30 days of care in an institute for mental disease during a 12-month period, and eligible enrollees can get the care that they actually need.

The IMD exclusion is one of the treatment barriers consistently identified by State Medicaid directors, health policy experts, and many provider groups. Currently, this exclusion under Medicaid significantly limits the circumstances under which Federal Medicaid matching funds are available for inpatient services or for outpatient treatments.

Unfortunately, this policy has barred individuals with an opioid use disorder and mental illness from accessing short-term, acute care in psychiatric hospitals, or receiving treatment in residential substance use disorder treatment facilities. A 2017 Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission report stated that the Medicaid IMD exclusion is one of the few examples in the Medicaid program where Federal financial participation cannot be used for medically necessary and otherwise covered services for a specific Medicaid population receiving treatment in a specific setting.

In the midst of the opioid crisis, States must leverage all available tools to combat this epidemic. Section 1115 demonstration waivers are an important tool, but, so far, less than half of the States have sought or received an appropriate waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to help patients with substance use disorder.

The IMD CARE Act also allows States the option to use the State plan amendment process, which is generally faster than using waivers. Under this process, once a State plan amendment is submitted, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has 90 days to decide or the proposed change will automatically go into effect.

H.R. 5797 amends an outdated law that has been in effect since the enactment of the Medicaid program in 1965. Since that time, there have been advances in behavioral health, and there have been advances in addiction treatment services where more, improved treatment options now exist.

It is long overdue to revisit this policy so that State Medicaid programs can better meet patients' needs and physicians can determine the most appropriate setting for care based on an individual's treatment plan.

Next, H.R. 6082, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act, makes timely reforms to a privacy law that affects patient access to healthcare and creates barriers to treatment. Specifically, the bill updates the Public Health Service Act to permit substance use disorder records to be shared among covered entities and 42 CFR part 2 programs by aligning part 2 with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 for the purposes of treatment, payment, and healthcare operations.

As a physician, I believe it is vital that when making clinical decisions, I have all of the appropriate information to make the correct determination in the treatment of a particular patient. Those suffering from substance use disorder should receive the same level of treatment and care as other individuals.

Patients afflicted with substance use disorder deserve to be treated by physicians who are armed with all of the necessary information to provide the best possible care.

I certainly do understand and respect that patient privacy protection is paramount and should be held in the highest regard.

The Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act maintains the original intent of the 1970s statute behind 42 CFR part 2 by protecting patients and improving care coordination. In fact, this bill increases protections for those seeking treatment by more severely penalizing those who share patient data to noncovered entities and non-part 2 programs than under the current statute, with certain exceptions.

Lastly, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to, among other things, issue regulations prohibiting discrimination based on disclosed health data and requiring covered entities to provide written notice of privacy practices.

The issue of the stigma associated with substance use disorder has been a constant in many of the discussions members of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the stakeholders have had in both our offices and in our hearings.

This carefully crafted legislation seeks to help break the stigma and help individuals with this complex disease gain access to healthcare and support services critical to getting them on the road to recovery.

We should not continue to silo the substance use disorder treatment information of a select group of patients if we want to ensure that these patients are indeed receiving quality care. This information should be integrated into our medical records and comprehensive care models to prevent situations where physicians, not knowing a patient's substance use disorder, may prescribe medications that have significant drug interactions, or worse, may prescribe a controlled substance that makes their patient's substance use disorder worse.

As it currently stands, 42 CFR part 2 is actively prohibiting physicians from ensuring proper treatment and patient safety and, paradoxically, it is perpetuating that stigma.

Providing high quality healthcare is a team effort, but physicians leading the team must have the necessary information to adequately coordinate care. We must align payment, operations, and treatment to allow coordination of both behavioral and physical health services for individuals with substance use disorder.

There is a reason why the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and most of the health stakeholder community are asking for this change. Clearly, there is an issue here that must be addressed. H.R. 6082 achieves the goal and contributes to Congress' effort in trying to stem the current crisis.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6, the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act, is a package of bills that reform Medicare, Medicaid, and other health provisions to further combat this crisis by advancing many critical initiatives.

As we all know, this opioid epidemic is in our hospitals, but it is also in our living rooms and on our streets. Our partners at Federal agencies must rise to the challenge and deliver vital resources for States and communities most devastated by the crisis. The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act will provide our Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Food and Drug Administration, with the necessary tools to address this crisis.

Title I of H.R. 6 addresses the ways in which Medicaid can be used to increase access to quality care and management for individuals suffering from substance use disorders. Some of these changes in Medicaid reflect the success of our State Medicaid programs by implementing State successes at the Federal level.

Section 101 under title I will expand protection for at-risk youth by requiring State Medicaid programs to restore Medicaid coverage of a juvenile following their release from incarceration. The next section also allows former foster youth to maintain their Medicaid coverage across State lines until they turn 26 years of age. These are vulnerable populations of individuals that will greatly benefit from increased access to treatment.

Section 105 builds on the current State Medicaid drug utilization review, which saves money and promotes patient safety. This section will require State Medicaid programs to have safety edits in place for opioid refills, monitor concurrent prescribing of opioids and certain other drugs, and monitor antipsychotic prescribing for children.

Care for mothers suffering from substance use disorder and their babies who are born with neonatal abstinence syndrome is a growing problem in the face of this epidemic. Section 106 requires HHS to improve care for these infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome and their mothers. It also requires that the General Accountability Office study the gaps in Medicaid coverage for pregnant and postpartum women with substance use disorders.

Section 107 of the bill provides additional incentives for Medicaid health homes for patients with substance use disorder.

Mr. Speaker, these health homes will allow States to create a comprehensive person-centered system of care coordination for primary care, acute and behavioral healthcare, including mental health and substance use. As our healthcare system moves towards caring for the whole person, it is important that we enable our physicians and our payers to provide that comprehensive care.

The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act also enables better pain management for our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries, ranging from increased access to substance use disorder treatment, including through the use of telehealth, to modification of physician payment for certain nonopioid treatments in Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

Title II of the bill contains Medicare provisions that encourage the use of nonopioid analgesics where appropriate and also aims to decrease fraud and abuse regarding prescriptions by requiring e-prescribing for the coverage of Medicare Part D controlled substances.

H.R. 6 strives to provide support for at-risk beneficiaries who might fall victim to substance use disorder. Section 206 of the bill accelerates the development and the use of drug management programs for at-risk beneficiaries. While this program is currently voluntary, by plan year 2021, it will become a mandatory program.

Lastly, the bill expands Medicare coverage to include opioid treatment programs for the purpose of providing medication-assisted treatment. Opioid treatment programs are not currently Medicare providers, which forces Medicare beneficiaries who need medication- assisted treatment to pay out-of-pocket costs for those services. These efforts should provide improved access to treatment for Medicare beneficiaries who have substance use disorders while also incentivizing the use of opioid alternatives, which hopefully will prevent the development of substance use disorders.

Even though an estimated 46,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses from October 2016 to October 2017, there is a lack of innovation and a lack of investment in the development of nonaddictive pain and addiction treatment.

A bill that I introduced, H.R. 5806, the 21st Century Tools for Pain and Addiction Treatments, is included in section 301 on H.R. 6 and requires the Food and Drug Administration to hold at least one public meeting to address the challenges and the barriers of developing nonaddictive medical products intended to treat pain or addiction.

The Food and Drug Administration is also required to issue or update existing guidance documents to help address challenges to developing nonaddictive medical products to treat pain or addiction.

Mr. Speaker, I did work closely with the Food and Drug Administration to get the policy in this section correct and to ensure that it will clarify those pathways for products that, in fact, are so desperately needed by America's patients.

I have remaining concerns about the language in section 303 that will allow nonphysician providers to prescribe buprenorphine. While I understand and greatly appreciate the intent to increase access to medication-assisted treatment, as a physician, I also respect how complicated the treatment of patients suffering from substance use disorder may be.

The Hippocratic Oath, we all know, is to first, do no harm. Patient safety should be our highest priority.

This is a complex patient population, Mr. Speaker. On average, people with substance use disorder die 20 years sooner than other Americans.

Additionally, buprenorphine is a schedule III drug that can be misused and could exacerbate the underlying problem. I am unsure about expanding these authorities to additional nonphysician providers at the risk of making the problem worse. I have worked to strengthen the reporting requirements of this section of H.R. 6 and look forward to reviewing that report on this particular policy.

Taken together, H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, will improve access to care for individuals suffering from substance use disorder, provide our healthcare system with tools and resources that it needs to care for patients, and to help prevent future misuse of opioids.

Before I close, I would like to share a quote from President Trump. He said: ``Together, we will face this challenge as a national family with conviction, with unity, and with a commitment to love and support our neighbors in times of dire need. Working together, we will defeat this opioid epidemic.''

The number of bills and policies advanced on the House floor in the last 2 weeks illustrates our shared commitment, and I am confident that we will make significant progress in defeating this epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the three underlying bills that are critical to our Nation's effort to stem the opioid crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello), a fellow member on the Committee of Energy and Commerce.

I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do want to remind everyone that 18 months ago, in the previous Congress, with the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act and the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act, CARA, $1 billion was made available for treating people with substance use disorder. That was then supplemented with the passage of the more recent appropriations bill last month--2 months ago, with $4 billion.

Unprecedented amounts of money have been made available in the last 18 months to combat this crisis.

And then, finally, it is very, very difficult to integrate care if you don't reform the 42 CFR part 2, which is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that all forms of medication-assisted treatment are required for 5 years under H.R. 6. So I look forward to the gentleman's support when we get to the vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't need to remind anyone that the lie of the year for 2012 was: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor--words that will ring through this body probably for the rest of time.

I want to read from the Statement of Administration Policy, back to the business at hand, the rule on the three bills that we are considering today. This is the Statement of Administration Policy: ``Addressing the opioid crisis has been a top priority of the President since day one, and the administration welcomes legislation that complements its efforts to end the opioid crisis. The administration strongly supports House passage of bipartisan bills to protect patients enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, create targeted programs for at-risk populations, expand access to medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders, and provide resources for States and communities struggling to deal with the scale of the opioid crisis.''

The statement goes on, and it concludes: ``These initiatives represent bold, evidence-based steps to prevent and treat opioid abuse, and will help save the lives of countless Americans. The administration commends the House on taking up these important bills. . . . The administration supports House passage of H.R. 5797, H.R. 6082, and H.R. 6. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of these three important pieces of legislation aimed at

addressing the opioid crisis affecting so many of our fellow Americans.

H.R. 6, the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act; H.R. 5797, the Individuals in Medicaid Deserve Care that is Appropriate and Responsible in its Execution Act; and H.R. 6082, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act, will all play a critical role in treating patients and providing Americans the tools to put the pieces of their lives back together again.

I commend Chairman Walden for his efforts on bringing so many Members of this body into the discussion and taking the many ideas offered by Members, incorporating them into the legislative products. The result of those efforts is a legislative trio that this entire body can be proud of, and this entire body can support.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the three underlying pieces of legislation.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 949 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

4501) to increase funding for the State response to the

opioid misuse crisis and to provide funding for research on

addiction and pain related to the substance misuse crisis.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and

Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered

for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 4501.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as I sat here and I listened to Congressman Hensarling, the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where I serve as ranking member, I thought to myself he was absolutely correct on many of the issues that he surfaced when he held the letter up in the air and he said that there are many Members of Congress who could tell similar stories or maybe have gotten similar letters. He is absolutely correct.

Even more than that, there are many of us who have watched the devastation of communities that we represent because of drug addiction over the years for a long time. Unfortunately, many of these stories ended in tragedy, and I am pleased that we are focusing time and attention on opioid addiction and abuse.

I am so absolutely thrilled that we are paying attention, and we are recognizing that this is literally a disease and that we can help people, that we can do rehabilitation, that we can provide resources to keep people from dying and being imprisoned and treated in ways that will not help deal with the problem in any real ways. I am pleased about all of that, and I think the intentions of many of our Members are very good, that they really want to do something because many of them are seeing this for the first time.

But let me tell you how many years I have been seeing this. Let me tell you about how many deaths I know about. Let me tell you about the imprisonment of those who were both addicted and dealing drugs. Let me tell you about those who have died not only from heroin, that you are seeing now, but crack cocaine and other kinds of drugs and the mixtures that we don't even know about that have caused so many deaths, so much devastation.

So I want to do everything that I can to share my knowledge with you, to share my experiences with you, to help in every way that I possibly can move to credible, reasonable, sensible, rehabilitation and support and assistance for those who are addicted.

We are trying, as I can see in many of the bills that are being produced, to do what we think is best, but much of it needs more consideration. It needs better understanding.

Today, we hear talking about a piece of legislation that I think the author of the legislation is absolutely sincere in what he would like to do. He is seeing drug addicted persons who have abused not only prescription drugs but all the way to heroin on the streets without jobs, laying in the alleys without support, without housing, no place to go, and that is what he is attempting to do. He is attempting to do everything that he possibly can to get them safe and secure places to live with the other resources that must go along with it, supportive resources in order to help them become the persons that they can be.

But you cannot do this on the cheap. You cannot do this without understanding that rehabilitation costs money.

So, while I absolutely applaud the attempt, I want to share with you that taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been waiting in line for years--I am talking about single-family parents with their children who simply are praying and hoping that they can get a voucher so that they can get a decent place to live.

I am not talking about drug addicted people, necessarily. I am talking about people, some of whom work every day on minimum wages who cannot afford the first and last month's rent to get into a place. I am talking about those who, even if they could find a place, they would be paying more than 30 percent of their income to have a safe and decent place. I am talking about those who have been living in rental units that really need more than just rehabilitation. They are dangerous places that people are living.

They are places that still are not protected from wind and rain and all of those things that people should not have to experience trying to live in a decent place to live. I am talking about people who are living in apartments that the ceilings are falling in who are looking for a decent place. I am talking about people who call every day to check to see if in fact they are going to be the next person who is going to be allowed a voucher. I am talking about people who have been waiting 2 and 3 years and on and on and on.

So I support the idea that the new population of opioid abusers can have a decent place to live and resources, but let's not deny the people who have been standing in line, who have been praying, who have been hoping for a decent place. Let's not take 10,000 vouchers in a so- called demonstration project.

Really, we don't need a demonstration project. I can tell you, many folks in this House can tell you what they know and what they have experienced so that we can put together good, credible, sensible legislation. But it will cost some money.

It is not about taking from one and giving to the other. The old people call

that robbing Peter to pay Paul. We don't want to do that. We don't want to say to Ms. Jones with 3 kids out there waiting in line for 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, what have you: Sorry, we have a new population that we are going to serve. No, we are not going to vote for more money, for more resources. We are going to take from your opportunity. Sorry you have been standing in line all this long.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to be helpful to all of the folks who need our help. I understand the shock that many are going through who are experiencing this for the first time, but I want you to know about the many nights that I have gone to bed when I have heard about another death of someone who is addicted, who has not had a place to live, who has been on somebody's doorstep, who has been in an alley. I want you to know what I know and what I understand about that mother who has begged me to help find a bed in a unit, a rehabilitative unit that could be used.

So this is not the way to do it, and this is not about creating new nonprofits with no experience, no background, to be able to implement this program. This is about understanding all the people who have struggled with these nonprofits, who begged for money, who begged for resources to deal with the populations who are basically dying from this addiction.

So whether it is about the fact that there is not enough money here, or we should not be developing new nonprofits to do this because we have experience with our public housing entities that know how to do this, this is about us saying: Yes, we have a problem, and we are going to spend the money. We are going to put the time in on it to develop the good, credible legislation. We are going to be serious about it. We don't want to just look like we are trying to do something. We are going to be positive. We are going to be committed. We are going to do what it takes in order to help these people who are waiting and looking for just another chance in life.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a little clarity in what is being presented by my colleague about whether or not vouchers will be taken away from anybody. The fact of the matter is nobody thinks that vouchers will be taken away from anybody. They will never get the voucher.

They are standing in line waiting for years to get Section 8 vouchers to be able to have a decent place to live. That means that you take 10,000 vouchers away from the people, and the families, and the children, who have been waiting in line all of this time and you give it to a new population of people. That is what this is all about. That cannot be denied, and that is a fact.

I am sure that my colleague who is proposing this legislation will agree with me, the fact of the matter is, that person who has been waiting for so long will have to continue to wait, because the voucher that he or she could have gotten is going to go to someone else.

Let me just talk a little bit about Mr. Barr's letter that he sent to the appropriators. First of all, I want to thank him for offering to send the letter. And I want to thank him for coming to me and asking me if I would sign on to the letter. What Mr. Barr is doing is--if I may correctly describe this--is having second thoughts about the fact that you need some money, you need some resources in this program. So the gentleman from Kentucky's letter to the appropriators is basically meaningless, because his own bill directly contradicts it.

And I pointed this out to him as we had this discussion. The plain text of H.R. 5735 states, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act

and the amendments made by this act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.''

Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways. You can't support language that specifically prohibits appropriators from funding your demonstration and then turn around and ask the appropriators to provide funding. This just doesn't make good sense. That is why I had to say that I could not sign on with him on that letter, knowing what the language was in the legislation.

So, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants funding for this demonstration, he needs to be consistent in his advocacy for that funding, and that includes petitioning his own leadership for a waiver of their rules preventing bills that cost money from being considered.

I would be happy to join the gentleman from Kentucky in requesting funding for additional vouchers to support people with substance use disorders. But I cannot support this unworkable demonstration. And I cannot lend credibility to his efforts to distract us from the fact that his bill would take vouchers away from families in need, who have been standing in line begging, waiting, and praying for a decent, safe and secure place for them and their families to live.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, yes, Mr. Duffy is absolutely correct, I care about this issue very deeply, and I want to do the right thing. I want him to know that while he was talking about the 2.8 million vouchers, does he know that there are 5 million people who are in need of these vouchers?

You cannot make the argument that there is more than enough to go around with all of these people standing in line. When they opened up the waiting list recently, just in Los Angeles alone, 600,000 people attempted to get access to these vouchers.

This is about whether or not you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. Either you are willing to pay for your demonstration project, or you want to take away the opportunities of those who have been standing in line, and we are talking about families with children. You don't tell me what is going to happen to them because you won't increase the number of vouchers, and you don't want to put any money into it, so you have to show how you care.

It is one thing for us to get up on this floor and talk and debate and explain what we would like to see happen, but it is another thing when we say that we are willing to put the resources that are needed to deal with the problem.

I will just say that of the 2.8 million people waiting, 5 million people are in need, and the average waiting time is almost 2 years. So what are you going to do? You don't need a demonstration. We have enough information, we have enough research, and we have enough stories about what has happened for so many years and how so many people have died because they have not had resources available to them to deal with the problem.

And, again, I am willing to spend as many hours as it takes to help you know and understand the history of this problem. It didn't just start with opioid abuse. It didn't just start with communities who never experienced this before. This has been going on for years and years and years.

I join with Members in wanting to do something about it. But I say to Mr. Barr, it is going to cost some money, and we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. We should not take from those in need. We should not tell the people standing in line, Too bad, stand in line a little bit longer because we have a new episode that we have to deal with.

Let's take care of everybody who wants to change their lives, everybody who wants to put behind them this addiction, everybody who is begging for just a second chance.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I am so pleased that Members on the opposite side of the aisle are just being introduced to this crisis. I am so pleased that they are just learning about addiction. I am so pleased that they are willing to talk about it. But I am not so pleased that they are not willing to spend any resources on it. I don't know if they understand that the average cost of a voucher annually is $9,500.

Why can't they support that amount of money to deal with credible, decent housing for the very individuals that they say they are trying to give some support to. I don't know how much they know about addiction. And I don't know how much they know about the history of the war on drugs.

Have any of them ever visited a drug rehabilitation project? Let me commend them to one that they need to know about. It is right here in Washington, D.C. It is known as N Street Village. Please go. I want them to learn about what they do, or what the costs are, and how they struggle for more and more resources to help more and more people. They cannot legislate. They cannot come up with programs without having an understanding of, and an appreciation of, what has happened in this country and the many people who have died, and the families who have suffered.

It didn't just start now. The gentleman who just spoke talked about it is now a crisis. No, it has been a crisis for a long time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, it is interesting that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle can come into this Chamber and talk about homelessness and talk about rehabilitation and talk about the need for housing.

I am the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee with every wish and every hope to be able to have this committee take up a bill on homelessness. I have not been able to get that done. We have taken up over 100 bills on the Financial Services Committee, but not once have we dealt with the issue of homelessness.

The gentleman from Minnesota who talked about homelessness and the fact that veterans are homeless is absolutely correct, but what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to come to the floor to try and convince the Members of this House that somehow a demonstration project where you take 10,000 vouchers from the existing vouchers that people are standing in line for is going to make a dent in this problem? I don't think so.

This problem has been around for a long time, and I really do want the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to understand what has not been done to help those people who have needed a lot of assistance and a lot of help.

I can recall, God bless her soul, when Nancy Reagan said to drug abusers, ``Just Say No.'' This is another piece of legislation that falls in that category: 10,000 vouchers in a demonstration project.

You have been hearing how huge this problem is. We don't need a demonstration project for a few people taking 10,000 vouchers from those who have been standing in line. We need to appropriate the dollars that are necessary, number one, to help fund those organizations that have been working on this problem for years that need more money, that need more beds, that need more resources.

We need more money not only to deal with the housing issue that is attempting to be addressed in this demonstration project, but whether it is helping to equip police departments with the necessary equipment to save lives of the people on the street who are overdosed that they encounter in their daily work. Some communities have that, a few communities have that, but every community experiencing this problem needs to have that.

In addition to that, we need more beds for rehabilitation. You can't get to supportive housing until you deal with the addiction so that when people are ready to go into transitional housing, they get the support that goes along with that. That is not just a bed and a roof, but it is the social services that go along with it.

It will cost money, and unless you are willing to put up the dollars, unless you are willing to work with our appropriators to do what is necessary to honestly and forcefully deal with this issue, we are just talking about it. We are just pontificating. We are just saying things that we don't even understand.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I have this opportunity, I will refer to my bill on homelessness again. My bill is a bill that will end homelessness. It costs $13 billion, and I would dare say that we could have funded this effort when we were thinking about the tax cuts.

Some of those tax cuts benefit the richest people in this country. While we were reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, we could have easily spent $13 billion to deal with ending homelessness.

That tax cut was worth $1.8 trillion. $13 billion from that $1.8 trillion, what would that have done for homelessness in America? We could have been on the road to ending homelessness.

So the bill number is H.R. 2076. I am hopeful that the Members of the House and the Members of the Senate will take a look at this legislation so that they know that we have something that has been given a lot of attention, that has a lot of research, that understands what it takes to get rid of homelessness. So my bill, H.R. 2076, is a bill that I would ask my colleagues to immediately support.

Mr. Chairman, we have many Members of this Congress who want to do something about providing housing opportunities for those who are the victims of opioid abuse and drugs. I join with them, and I, too, am very concerned, and I know that we can do something substantive about this issue of providing housing opportunities.

But again, I will say over and over again, it should not be done in such a way that we have a little demonstration project that will take away 10,000 vouchers from the neediest of people who have been standing in line, in order to say or think or have anyone believe that we are doing something about this crisis in America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of Mr. Hensarling how many more speakers he has.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this week, we are seeing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle advance legislation focused on individuals with opioid use disorders. We are really talking about drug addiction. These are the people they used to call drug addicts, and I don't want us to hide behind any new language. We are talking about a serious problem of addiction here.

But something very important is missing from these bills and that is new resources and funding necessary to actually make a difference for those individuals.

H.R. 5735 is a clear example of this problematic approach. Rather than providing funding for housing assistance vouchers for individuals with disorders, individuals who are addicted, this bill takes away 10,000 existing vouchers that would otherwise go to people in need, many of whom have been waiting and waiting for years.

There are millions of people on waiting lists across the country, including families with children, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, persons experiencing homelessness, and others in need. Redistributing these vouchers away from others who need housing is simply not a fair or reasonable step.

What we need is bold action to commit real dollars to tackling this public health crisis, and also to address the shortage of affordable housing in this country. Unfortunately, this bill falls short and commits no new funding for additional vouchers.

While H.R. 5735 has an important goal, the way it tries to get there is ultimately harmful and counterproductive.

For these reasons, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this bill. This will not begin to make a dent in the crisis. We

don't need a demonstration project. We need to move forward with a committed project with the funding that is necessary in order to deal with drug addiction.

We have drug addicts who are in the alleys and on the streets in communities who never saw this before, who never experienced this before.

Listen to someone who has seen it, who knows about it, who understands how many lives have been lost because of it, and let's do the right thing. It is not about a demonstration project. It is not about just a few vouchers. This is about real action.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this manager's amendment is simply a last-ditch attempt to address significant administrative concerns and questions about the correct interpretation of the underlying legislation.

The fact that this amendment had to be revised three times before a final version was submitted past the deadline for consideration by the Rules Committee, is indicative of the hasty and haphazard nature in which this bill has been cobbled together.

For example, in response to a Congressional Budget Office score that interpreted the bill to create up to 50,000 new vouchers, resulting in a cost of $1.2 billion, this amendment would clarify that the intent of the gentleman from Kentucky was not to provide new funding, but, instead, to take vouchers away from people waiting in line for housing assistance.

And while this amendment resolves a few technical issues, it also creates new problems. In particular, this amendment would add broad authority for the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to waive requirements that would otherwise apply under the Section 8 program. This includes being able to waive basic tenant protections as well as the requirement that rents are affordable to residents at 30 percent of their adjusted income, which is known as the Brooke amendment.

In sum, this amendment does nothing to address the fundamental issues with this bill, including the fact that it prohibits new funding.

Mr. Chairman, I really do need to point out that perhaps it was not clear in Mr. Barr's presentation about this amendment that this amendment additionally reinforces his point that no additional funds would be authorized.

As a matter of fact, if you look at section 5 of the amendment where it says, ``No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the requirements of this act and the amendments made by this act. Such requirement shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated,'' which simply means taking 10,000 vouchers from people who are waiting in line, who are desperate for the need for safe and secure housing, and it makes sure that you understand that he does not want any more funds appropriated. Except, there is some kind of contradiction that can be confusing.

When he first introduced the bill--and I talked about the fact that he had not only asked me to sign on to a letter to the appropriators asking for more money, and I decided not to do that because of the fact that he still had this amendment that would say that there should be no additional funds spent on this.

What is my friend doing? What is he talking about? How can he send a letter to the appropriators asking for more money when, not only does he have in the bill, but in the amendment to the bill, very clear language that says there should be no additional funds appropriated.

Well, of course, that is confusing. And I am not so sure why the contradiction is there. But I do know this: I believe that the intent of my colleague is a good intent; that he really would like to do something about opioid addiction. I believe that most of the Members who have gotten involved in this issue and who are learning about it for the first time, and understanding that there is a crisis for the first time, want to do something about this issue.

But what they have not done is, they have not taken the time to construct legislation to truly deal with the issue, and spend the money, ask for the money, ask for the resources that are necessary to deal with what they say is a crisis.

They come here and they talk about homelessness, and they talk about the opioid abusers who are on the streets who need housing. Yes, they do. Just as all of those people who have been standing in line waiting for Section 8 housing need housing.

They talk about veterans who are homeless. They are absolutely correct. Some of those veterans have drug problems. Others don't have drug problems. They have come back from their service to their country without jobs, without a place to live, and here we are, talking about robbing the folks who have been standing in line and who are in need-- including the veterans on the street--robbing them of their opportunities because we want to take away 10,000 housing vouchers from them.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think the amendment really does what the gentleman would like to have it do, but I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are rushing to congratulate themselves for finally addressing opioid addiction. But, Mr. Speaker, what took them so long? This is an epidemic that fueled more drug overdoses in America in 2016 than died in the Vietnam war. In fact, opioids now kill more people every year than breast cancer. 115 Americans are dying from them every single day.

These statistics aren't new. They have been staring the Republicans in the face for months. The public has been pushing this Congress to act. Democrats have been pushing measure after measure after measure to address opioid addiction, but the majority has used their restrictive amendment process to block them from even getting a vote on the House floor.

More than a dozen amendments dealing with opioids have been blocked by the majority from even getting a debate. One of these amendments had bipartisan support, but it was blocked all the same.

This from a Republican majority that has already turned this Congress into the most closed Congress in history. Let me say that again. These guys, my Republican colleagues, have presided over the most closed Congress in history. There have already been 86 completely closed rules during the 115th Congress, and it is only June.

That number is expected to grow later this week as the majority considers their partisan immigration bills under a closed process.

Mr. Speaker, as well-intentioned as these bills may be, we aren't considering them in a vacuum. And here is the deal: We are taking them up at a time when Republicans are continuing their crusade against the Affordable Care Act, a law that has helped millions of Americans suffering from substance use disorders.

The Trump administration is refusing to defend the ACA. And get this: its Justice Department recently asked in a legal filing for the courts to invalidate this law's protections for preexisting conditions.

Mr. Speaker, does the majority realize that substance use disorders are a preexisting condition?

If Republicans are successful, they will make the opioid crisis even worse. And it doesn't stop there. Some conservative groups are pushing the majority to try repealing the ACA completely again before the summer is out.

This, after Republicans came within a few votes of taking healthcare from 23 million Americans last year, including those suffering from opioid addiction.

These rightwing groups released their latest repeal plan yesterday, so the words from my Republican friends today ring particularly hollow.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the best answer to an epidemic is to get as many people as possible into treatment and to provide them and their families the support that they need. And one of the most effective ways to accomplish

this is to expand Medicaid and expand treatment options for substance abuse through the ACA.

Last October, the Republicans made clear what they think of the hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering from opioid addiction and alcohol and drug abuse. They passed a budget that makes $1.3 trillion in cuts to healthcare, including a 30 percent cut to Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans can't bemoan the opioid epidemic on one hand and vote time and time again to cut the very healthcare systems required to treat addiction.

Nor can you set up a biased, tiered system that grants access to treatment for opioid addiction at the expense of providing treatment for addiction and abuse of other substances, like key provisions in H.R. 5797. Not only is that inhumane and immoral, but it is also ineffective. It undermines the entire health system of treating substance abuse.

Mr. Speaker, many Democrats have joined the majority in supporting one of these bills, H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. It is a good bill. It would help Medicare and Medicaid better respond to substance use disorders. We are working with the majority here.

So, Mr. Speaker, why won't they work with us to defend the ACA, preserve protections for preexisting conditions, and expand Medicaid.

Now, I know asking Congressional Republicans to show some empathy right now is a tall order. This is the group that has furthered President Trump's spin on family separations at the border, a policy he can change unilaterally, right now if he wanted to. I mean, children are being ripped out of their parents' arms in tears and kept in cages, warehouses, and tent cities. It is appalling and it is un-American.

You don't have to take my word for it. Republicans, like First Lady Laura Bush and Senator John McCain, have spoken out against it. And a U.S. attorney in Texas made clear it was President Trump's policy choice alone. And get this: This is a U.S. attorney who the President himself appointed.

But change is possible. Congressional Republicans can see the error of their ways. They can reject these calls for repeal. They can stop sitting idly by as President Trump attacks the Affordable Care Act. And they can start standing up for the 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions. That includes those suffering from addiction.

They could stop giving the President cover when he falsely claims that Democrats caused the chaos at the border that he clearly caused.

Stop playing with people's lives. We are talking about their healthcare. We are talking about getting treatment for addiction. For God's sake, we are talking about taking children out of the arms of their mothers. This isn't a handful of cases, it is thousands of cases. It is outrageous.

It is time for the adults in Congress, men and women of conscience, to stand up for what is right, not only on the opioid crisis, but on so many other important issues facing this country. I hope the majority comes to its senses before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just let me remind my colleagues again, because I think it is worth emphasizing, that no matter what we do in the next couple of days with these bills that are going to be before the House, they are rendered meaningless if the Republicans continue in their effort to cut Medicaid and to take away protections for people with preexisting conditions.

Substance use disorder is a preexisting condition and Republicans, working with the White House, are trying to eliminate that protection for people. I don't get it. It doesn't make sense. But we ought to make sure that we keep this debate in context and people know what is going on out there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, none of what we are doing here today is going to matter if the Republicans and the Trump administration are successful in cutting Medicaid and in basically removing the guarantee that people who have preexisting conditions cannot be denied insurance.

I mean, if the Trump administration is successful, individuals with preexisting conditions all across the country, including individuals suffering from opioid use disorders, both in the individual and in the employer market, could face a denial of coverage or skyrocketing premiums beyond anything anybody could afford.

I don't get it. I don't understand the hypocrisy here. I know that the efforts here today are well intentioned and people are trying to do the right thing, but then you ruin it all when you gut the funding sources that help people deal with the treatment they need.

This has to stop.

I know some of my friends have ideological blinders on when it comes to anything that was passed during the Obama administration, but we have got to put the American people first, and this is a crisis that affects every single community in this country. If this administration is successful in what they are trying to do to undercut the ACA, then countless people will not have access to healthcare and will not have access to the treatment they need.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the midst of a devastating opioid crisis that is spiraling out of control. Every day, more than 115 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also found that opioids are responsible for 6 out of 10 overdose deaths in the United States.

The American people are in desperate need of strong action by Congress to stem the tide of the opioid scourge. We need serious public investment to quell this exploding crisis, not just legislation on the peripherals. We must direct resources to the States and local communities on the front lines of this devastating public health crisis where assistance is needed the most.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to bring up Representative Loebsack's legislation, H.R. 4501, the Combating the Opioid Epidemic Act. This bill would provide badly needed funding for State grants for the prevention, detection, surveillance, and treatment of opioid abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are on the floor discussing the opioid crisis. This is an epidemic that is plaguing every community in the country, and it is killing 115 people every single day. It is heartbreaking, and, quite frankly, I am ashamed it is taking Congress so long to act.

I would again point out that anything we do in the next few days and anything we have done gets erased if the Republicans succeed in cutting Medicaid and if the President succeeds in basically eliminating protections for people with preexisting conditions.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important that people know there is a lot of stuff going on this week, and we are also awaiting word from the House Republicans when the Rules Committee will have an emergency meeting, I guess today, on two immigration bills that were posted after 9 p.m. last night.

These bills were drafted without any Democratic input, and from what we can tell, they are dangerous and they are certainly not a comprehensive solution to immigration reform. They harm children, and they leave many Dreamers behind.

This is not what our constituents want us to do. They want the President to do what he could easily do and stop separating children from their parents.

The President says that he wants Democrats to come to the table, but we never get invited to anything. I tried to go and see the President yesterday when the Republicans were meeting with him, but I was not allowed to go into the room.

I tried to shout at the President as he was walking by, but he was quickly escorted by. I wanted to show him the pictures on the border of these young children who are being taken away from their parents.

The President continues to spread mistruths about immigration and practically every other issue that is before this Congress and before this Nation, and it seems just to be getting worse.

There are such things as facts. There are such things as truth.

Yesterday, The Washington Post published an article, entitled: ``President Trump Seems to be Saying More and More Things That Aren't True.'' Well, I would like to take a few minutes to read this article, because these aren't my words, Mr. Speaker. They are the words of The Washington Post, specifically, Ashley Parker, who wrote the piece.

If the President is watching, I think it is helpful for me to read because I know he doesn't read, so maybe he can hear this.

``He's done it on Twitter. He's done it in the White House driveway. And he's done it in a speech to a business group.

``President Trump, a man already known for trafficking in mistruths and even outright lies--has been outdoing himself with falsehoods in recent days, repeating and amplifying bogus claims on several of the most pressing controversies facing his Presidency.

``Since Saturday, Trump has tweeted false or misleading information at least seven times on the topic of immigration and at least six times on a Justice Department inspector general report into the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. That is more than a

dozen obfuscations on just two central topics--a figure that does not include falsehoods on other issues, whether in tweets or public remarks.

``The false claims come as the President--emboldened by fewer disciplinarians inside the West Wing--indulges in frequent Twitter screeds. A Washington Post analysis found that in June, Trump has been tweeting at the fastest rate of his Presidency so far, an average of 11.3 messages per day.

``Inside the White House, aides and advisers say they believe the media is unwilling to give Trump a fair shot and is knee-jerk ready to accuse him of lying, even in cases where the facts support his point.

``The President often seeks to paint a self-serving and self- affirming alternate reality for himself and his supporters. Disparaging the `fake news' media, Trump offers his own filter through which to view the world--offering a competing reality on issues including relationships forged (or broken) at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, the success of the Singapore summit with the North Koreans, and his administration's `zero tolerance' policy on illegal immigration.

`` `It's extraordinary how he is completely indifferent to the truth. There's just no relationship between his statements--anything he utters--and the actual truth of the matter,' said Thomas Murray, president emeritus of the Hastings Center, the founding institution in the field of bioethics. `As far as I can tell, the best way to understand anything he says is what will best serve his interests in the moment. It's irrespective to any version of the truth.'

``According to an analysis by The Post's Fact Checker through the end of May, Trump has made 3,251 false or misleading claims in 497 days, an average of 6.5 such claims per day of his Presidency.''

``And within the past week, Trump seems to have ramped up both the volume and the intensity of his false statements on two of the most prominent topics currently facing his administration: the hardline immigration policy that has led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents--which Trump erroneously blames on others-- and the 500-page inspector general report that he claims, incorrectly, exonerates him in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

``Bella DePaulo, a psychology researcher at the University of California Santa Barbara, said Trump's use of repetition is a particularly effective technique for convincing his supporters of the veracity of his false claims, in part because most people have a `truth bias' or an initial inclination to accept what others say as true.

`` `When liars repeat the same lie over and over again, they can get even more of an advantage, at least among those who want to believe them or are not all that motivated either way,' DePaulo said in an email. `So when people hear the same lies over and over again-- especially when they want to believe those lies--a kind of new reality can be created. What they've heard starts to seem like it is just obvious, and not something that needs to be questioned.'

``On immigration, Trump and many top administration officials have said that existing U.S. laws and court rulings have given them no choice but to separate families trying to cross illegally into the United States. But it is the administration's decision, announced in April, to prosecute all southern border crossings that has led to the separation of families.

``That hasn't stopped the President from blaming Democrats for his administration's decisions. `Democrats are the problem,' Trump wrote in one tweet. In another, he was even more blunt: `The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at the border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda. . . .' ''

Mr. Speaker, let me divert a little bit here. The truth is that the President caused this crisis, and it is not just me saying it and The Washington Post saying it. Listen to what some of the Republicans have said, Lindsey Graham said: ``President Trump could stop this policy with a phone call. I'll go tell him: If you don't like families being separated, you can tell DHS, `Stop doing it.' ''

Senator John McCain: ``The administration's current family separation policy is an affront to the decency of the American people, and contrary to principles and values upon which our Nation was founded. The administration has the power to rescind this policy. It should do so now.''

Senator Susan Collins, former First Lady Laura Bush--and I can go on and on and on--a whole bunch of Republicans now are all agreeing with us that the President is not telling us the truth.

So let me go back to the article: ``While Congress could pass a legislative fix, Republicans control both the House and the Senate-- making it disingenuous at best to finger the opposing party, as the President has repeatedly done.

``Speaking to the National Federation of Independent Business on Tuesday, Trump again falsely painted the humanitarian crisis as a binary choice. `We can either release all illegal immigrant families and minors who show up at the border from Central America, or we can arrest the adults for the Federal crime of illegal entry,' he said. `Those are the only two options.'

``On Twitter, the President twice in the past 4 days has singled out Germany as facing an increase in crime. `Crime in Germany is up 10 percent-plus (officials do not want to report these crimes) since migrants were accepted,' Trump wrote. `Others countries are even worse. Be smart, America.' ''

That is his tweet.

``In fact, the opposite is true. Reported crime in Germany was actually down by 10 percent last year and, according to German Interior Minister . . . the country's reported crime rate last year was actually at its lowest point in three decades.

``The President has also falsely claimed that the inspector general report `exonerated' him from Mueller's probe, when the report did not delve into the Russia investigation. When he made this argument Friday during an impromptu press gaggle in the White House driveway, a reporter pressed him on the falsehood.

`` `Sir, that has nothing to do with collusion,' the reporter said. `Why are you lying about it, sir?' ''

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is, we have a President who has a problem with the truth, and Congress needs to stand up and do the right thing. We need to speak the truth; we need to embrace the truth; and we need to solve some of the issues that are before the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the information he has given us, and I certainly thank him for his comments at the close of his initial statement on the colloquy.

We are all ecstatic, as I am sure the gentleman can understand, that after 44 years--and I might say I was an initial season ticket holder to the Washington Capitals, who started their career at the Capital Center in Prince George's County under the ownership and tutelage of Abe Pollin, an extraordinary member of our community who died, and then now under Ted Leonsis' leadership, and, of course, Alex Ovechkin's extraordinary accomplishments of his own, being named the most valuable player.

And I might say, as I know the gentleman would join me in saying, the Las Vegas team had an extraordinary accomplishment themselves, being the first expansion team ever to make it to the finals in the National Championship.

So, it was a wonderful night for those of us who live in the Washington National Capital area, and we thank the gentleman for his observation.

Let me say as well, that we share the gentleman's happiness that the economy is doing well. It is doing well. What he did not observe, but we are happy about, is that President Obama, under his leadership, took this economy from the worst economy that the gentleman and I have experienced in our lifetimes to one of the best.

Now, it was not the best, because the best economy was under Bill Clinton in the late 1990s in terms of almost every indication. But it is certainly positive information, as the gentleman has pointed out, of where the economy is now.

So we all welcome that. We are hopeful, of course, that we will build on that.

The gentleman mentions there are over 6 million jobs available. One of the challenges, as the gentleman knows, is that we don't have the skill sets matching the jobs, and that is why they are vacant. That is why they are unable to fill them. We need to, I think, focus on that. We need to focus on investing in our infrastructure.

But as was mentioned on the floor yesterday in terms of a couple of the bills Tim Ryan, in particular, mentioned, there are still 4 in 10 adults who can't pay a $400 bill if it came present. So we have work to do, and hopefully we can do that together.

But it certainly is good news that unemployment is down and the economy is moving along, continuing in the path that, from our perspective, was set by President Obama, and that President Trump, unlike President Obama, inherited a thriving, robust, growing economy. So I am pleased that we have gone to that place.

Now, I know the gentleman indicated that a number of opioid-related bills will be on the floor next week. I talked to the chairman of the committee yesterday, the gentleman from Oregon, and most of those are bipartisan bills. I hope all of them will end up, as they come to the floor, as bipartisan bills.

The addiction crisis, of course, requires that we invest in a comprehensive, long-term approach to expanding access to substance abuse treatment. I hope we can tackle this issue in a meaningful and bipartisan way. But I do want to address a number of other upcoming items for this work period, starting with the farm bill.

As the gentleman knows, last month, the farm bill failed on the House floor, and we have until June 22 to reconsider. My question is: Does the gentleman expect that we will see a farm bill on the floor by June 22?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observation.

He talks about work. We are requiring those to work to work in order to get government benefits. What is controversial about that?

Democrats support work. We want to see people working. We oppose, however, your SNAP proposal because it is antiwork. You are taking a work requirement that is working and replacing it with one that won't work.

This is not about putting people to work. It is about pretending that you care about work as cover for taking assistance away from struggling families.

As a result of this bill, there will be fewer working--I know the majority leader wants to hear this particular piece of information.

As a result of this bill as it is currently written, there will be fewer working SNAP beneficiaries, not more, and millions more people going hungry. That is the working poor who are getting nutritional assistance for themselves and their families. There will be less of them under your bill.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is ecstatic about recent statistics. I think that he has, of course, warrant to be.

Let me read to the gentleman statistics over a 68-year period where Democrats have had the Presidency and Republicans have had the Presidency on and off. The gentleman's words are almost exactly the same words I heard in 2001 and 2003 when we were told and the country was told, if we adopted those tax bills that the gentleman is so very proud of--which is plunging our country $1.8 trillion into additional debt, which he and his party wrung their hands about so repeatedly--and that the CBO says is a result of what I believe to be the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in which I have served.

Let me repeat that. I have served in 18 Congresses. I believe this past Congress to be, this Congress that we are in, the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in which I have served.

Yes, we have a philosophical difference. You gave 83 percent of your tax revenues to the richest people in America. CBO says that; I don't say that. And 17 percent to all the rest; i.e., some 300 million-plus Americans.

Yes, we have a philosophical difference. We would have suggested that the mix be a little fairer to those in the middle and the bottom of the economic growth. But, no, you chose to give your benefits to the wealthiest in America. Not surprising. It is trickle-down economics one more time.

In 2001 and 2003, what happened? You did the tax cuts.

And what happened 6 years later? The country was plunged into the deepest recession you, Mr. Majority Leader, or me have ever experienced in our life. As a matter of fact, you have to be over 90 years of age to have experienced a deeper recession than was brought on by the Bush economic policies in the last decade, a depth of recession which the Obama policies brought us out of faster than any other nation in the world.

Those are the statistics. Faster than any other nation. The stock market--we are all about the stock market. The stock market went up almost 300 percent under Barack Obama. Now, when you get to 300 percent, we will about how well you have done. We will see what your trade policies that the President is imposing on the country do to employers and to employees and to consumers. We will see.

But let me tell you what has happened over the last 68 years under Democratic Presidents and under Republican Presidents. The gentleman wants to know about history. Under Republican Presidents over the 36 years that your party enjoyed control of the Presidency, the GDP grew by an average of 2.5 percent. Under Democrats for 32 years, by 4.1 percent.

Now, what did that 1.6 percent difference mean?

What it meant was, under Republican Presidents over the last 68 years, 35 million jobs were created. The gentleman talks about jobs. Under Democratic Presidents--4 less years, 32 years--there were 64.960 million jobs created.

Now, I hope, unlike your past performance, that the job growth continues, that the stock market increase continues, but that has not been the history. We will see.

So I hope that when you deal with the farm bill, notwithstanding your statistics, that you bring a bipartisan bill. Very frankly, the farm bill has historically been a farm bill. But what you did was passed a tax bill giving the rich 83 percent of its benefits. And in the farm bill you were taking nutritional assistance away from families and children. That is why you couldn't pass it, among other reasons. It was not bipartisan, as it was two Congresses ago when we reauthorized this. You tried to cut the SNAP program by $40 billion.

The gentleman well knows the Senate is not pursuing your policies either

on the Republican side or the Democratic side.

You are missing a lot of good information.

The fact of the matter is, you know your farm bill is not going to pass the Senate.

Mr. Leader, on the farm bill I would urge you to come together with us. I don't know that there is a more bipartisan member of this Congress than Collin Peterson, the ranking Democratic on the Agriculture Committee. Very frankly, the chairman was not interested in a bipartisan bill. I don't know whether it was by direction or his own view.

But let us come to a bipartisan agreement on this farm bill and pass it over to the Senate so that you can do something, not just talk about how you are reducing nutritional assistance to people that rely on it for their food every day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the words of the majority leader. He and his party, without exception, opposed President Obama's programs. Without exception.

We became the majority in 2007, and we worked with President Bush on a number of things, including a very substantiation environmental bill signed by President Bush, and other bills as well.

He mentions about the rescission package. Mr. Speaker, if you will recall, when we had this debate some weeks ago, he said everything in this rescission bill is what we don't need.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Ebola money was rescinded in that bill some weeks ago, but not in this bill. He changed it because, very frankly, Mr. Speaker, they found out, oops, we need the Ebola money. So they took it out of this bill.

We think you need the CHIP money. We think we need the CHIP money to make sure that if there is a happening or an occurrence that occurs, the CHIP money is needed either directly or indirectly to make sure that children, in fact, are taken care of.

Who has said that? Mr. Tom Cole has said that. We have used that money effectively and appropriately.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that if the Ebola money--which I was assured was not needed--that cut was restored by our Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, because they found out, yes, it is needed.

Now, in terms of wasting time, 65 votes over the last Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act--65--with a full and unquestioned knowledge that none of those votes would result in something happening for our country in the United States Senate. They weren't going to vote for that. They knew that. So we spent a lot of time on that.

Let me also say: The gentleman says let's get about our business. Let me ask the gentleman: Does he expect a bill on the DACA protectees, the Dreamers, to come on the floor next week?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would only say, I appreciate his comments. But, Mr. Speaker, I have heard them a long time, many, many times: We are going to solve this issue.

Mr. Ryan came to the floor and said: We are going to solve this issue. You vote for this caps bill, and we will get an immigration bill on the floor that will solve this issue.

That was some 2\1/2\ months ago. It is not solved yet, Mr. Speaker. I hope the

leader does, in fact, bring a bill to the floor quickly.

In fact, the suggestion that had been made by many Members of his party and mine to bring four options to the floor seems absolutely consistent with the Speaker's pledge to take the tough issues head-on; and that is, bring the Democratic bill that is cosponsored by one of the senior Republicans, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, to the floor; bring the Goodlatte bill, which has been reported out of the Republican Judiciary Committee, to the floor; bring a bill cosponsored by Mr. Hurd and Mr. Aguilar to the floor.

Then what we provide, Mr. Leader, is that the Speaker can bring a bill to the floor of his choosing. What could be fairer than that to let the people's House speak on this critically important issue? So I would hope the gentleman would facilitate that coming to the floor.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is the most closed Congress in history. He talks about coming to his office, and I have. We have worked constructively and positively together, and I have great respect for the majority leader. I know he is very close to President Trump, and he has talked about his working with President Trump to move forward.

Let us hope that the talks with Korea bear fruit. We have had a lot of talks with the Koreans. They have made a lot of pledges, and they haven't followed them. We will see what happens. We are hoping for the best.

In coming to your office, we have had some discussions. We have had discussions about DACA. But, very frankly, when we come to this floor, this is the most closed Congress, Mr. Leader, in recent history, if not history. We have had 85 closed rules. Zero, not a single open rule have we considered.

Over 2,000 germane amendments have been blocked by the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, that is amendments that are in order, and they have been blocked. In fact, 194 Republicans--Republicans--have been refused the opportunity to move forward on their amendments.

Now, I know that the leader's schedule is such that we can conclude this debate. I have other things to say. But I am hopeful that, frankly, whatever we bring to the floor, bring it on a rule that provides for full consideration, bring it that reflects facing the tough issues, bring it so the House can work its will on these bills, including the farm bill, including an immigration bill that protects the Dreamers, and including other legislation so critical to this country. Let the House work its will through the amendatory process.

Mr. Speaker, unless the gentleman wants to say something, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2851, H.R. 5735, and H.R. 5788. We could have done so much better. I am going to get into some of the great ideas that we talked about and amendments were submitted but didn't make it through.

This week is supposed to be about bringing bills to the floor that actually do something about the opioid crisis that is having devastating consequences on families and entire communities, including in my home State of Colorado.

Legislation to address opioid abuse and save lives is long overdue. But I am sad to say that the bills that are being brought forth make, at the most, incremental changes and will not substantially affect the plague that is affecting our country of opioid addiction, abuse, and death.

As you know, this is a crisis that cuts across State lines. It affects every congressional district in our country. I certainly know people directly affected in my constituents. I am sure every Member of Congress does.

In Colorado the rate of drug overdoses since 2000 has more than doubled. This is not a partisan issue, and I

wish we could come together around a more significant response that actually did something to combat opioid abuse.

If Republicans were serious about dealing with opioids, they would drop their assault on Medicaid. Medicaid is a critical service to help individuals battling opioid addiction, including supporting inpatient treatment centers and case managers to help get people the help they need.

Frankly, we should have a discussion about how to achieve universal healthcare. There are people today who are unable to get coverage or support to recover from the substance abuse that holds them hostage. While Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act have dramatically improved and expanded access to health coverage, including drug treatment, there are too many Americans today--in fact, over millions--who do not have health insurance.

There is no single solution to the opioid crisis. Instead, policymakers should use a multipronged approach, universal healthcare, substance abuse, and mental health treatment being one. Another prong is identifying alternative treatments, instead of highly addictive opioid compounds for pain management. That is one of the things that I am so disappointed is not being advanced to the floor.

Many States have medical marijuana available to patients with a variety of health issues, including chronic pain. Doctors across the country have prescribed medical marijuana as a legitimate treatment option for pain management. In cases where it works, it provides a less harmful alternative, a less harmful and less addictive alternative to opioids.

Opioids have a role in pain management. But if a first-line therapy like medical marijuana, acupuncture, or acupressure can work, you can prevent people from developing a dependency, because almost three- quarters of opioid abuse starts with prescription drug treatment for pain management. In some cases, those first-line treatments like medical marijuana, acupuncture, and acupressure won't work, and prescriptions to opioids have their role. But let's at least prevent some people from having to go on prescription opioids when a less harmful, less addictive, and less damaging therapy can work effectively for their pain management. I have heard from so many Coloradans for whom medical marijuana works instead of having to resort to opioids.

Unfortunately, medical marijuana is still illegal at the Federal level. There are limited research opportunities about the safety and efficacy of marijuana, and that is holding us back from really understanding how medical marijuana can be used for pain management.

I offered a very simple and commonsense amendment at the Rules Committee last night that authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to study medical marijuana as an alternative treatment option to prescription opioids, just very simply. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA alone has treated about 70,000 veterans for opioid addiction last year alone, but my amendment was, unfortunately, blocked from getting a vote.

The issue is personal for me, Mr. Speaker. I was able to present a Purple Heart to a veteran who lives in my district in Colorado, a young man who put his life on the line for our country. He told me that he uses medical marijuana for his pain issues and has successfully been able to take himself off of the opioids that the VA had prescribed for those pain issues.

I also offered an amendment with Representatives Pocan and Gosar last night that, unfortunately, was not even allowed to be debated here on the floor that would prevent a natural botanic substance like kratom from being scheduled under the new scheduling authority created by SITSA. Unfortunately, it was blocked.

Kratom, which is a cousin of the coffee plant, is used by many as an alternative to addictive opioids and a way of escaping addiction. I have heard from so many constituents for whom legal access to kratom is critical to their sobriety and their battle against opioid addiction.

We can very simply ensure that that legal access could be retained had this amendment been allowed. If it is cut off, as the FDA and others have been threatening, there is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be any doubt in anybody's mind, that people will resort back to deadly opioids, rather than managing through harm reduction using other compounds that are less dangerous and less deadly, be it medical marijuana or kratom.

We are debating these bills today because we know we need to take action to address the opioid epidemic that we all have felt the human face of in our communities. But instead of trying to ban substances and put more Big Government bans on top of things that people are using to recover from opioids, we should be exploring and embracing alternative treatment options to opioids.

Simply put, we need to improve access to alternative pain relief options beyond opioids like kratom and like medical marijuana, because 75 percent of opioid abuse starts with prescription drugs usually for pain management. We need to embrace that part of the solution. Increase freedom. Let Americans choose less harmful compounds that work for pain management and free people up to never become the victim of a terrible cycle of opioid addiction. Unfortunately, both of those amendments were blocked.

H.R. 2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, is a bill that would create a new schedule of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act giving even more authority to the Department of Justice to wage a failed drug war and determine which substances are illegal, sidestepping the current process for scheduling drugs, sidestepping Congress, and often sidestepping common sense. When you put Government bureaucrats in charge, they only take more power every time.

This bill creates lengthy sentencing and penalties, indulging in the over criminalization. It could harm hundreds of thousands of people battling opioid abuse by relying on incarceration and penalization, rather than treatment and helping people recover from opioid abuse.

This is a public health issue. It is not that there is not a criminal dimension; there, of course, is for cartels and smugglers. But when it comes to your niece or nephew, Mr. Speaker, your cousin or your neighbor's kid, we want to help them get better, recover their lives, and free themselves from the vicious cycle of opioid addiction. This bill does not do that.

While it is well-intended, it has serious flaws that need to be addressed. If we want to have an impact on fighting epidemics, the answer is not to give even more authority to government bureaucrats in Washington. It is to empower the American people themselves to take control of our own destiny.

The rule also provides for consideration of the THRIVE Act, that is H.R. 5735. It is a different topic, but it is related. It is designed to create housing opportunities for people suffering from substance abuse disorders.

The problem with this bill is it sets arbitrary time limits on those who seek stable housing while receiving treatment for substance use disorders, and it doesn't actually increase the supply of affordable housing.

When we are dealing with homelessness and transitory housing, we need to take meaningful action to actually increase the supply of beds for people who are in recovery. We have to walk the walk. Without funding for beds and for treatment, we are just talking around the edges and we are not really solving this problem.

The final bill under this rule is H.R. 5788, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, which is another bill that creates more paperwork for the Postal Service. Frankly, it just adds, again, another level of bureaucracy.

I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, that people smuggling opioids into this country don't put opioids on the Customs form. They don't say: ``We are illegally bringing opioids into the country.'' Yes, we need to do more against smuggling, but creating more forms to fill out by government bureaucrats is not the answer.

This bill is being considered under a closed rule. This is the 86th closed rule of this Congress. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that not a single Member, Democrat or Republican, was able to

offer an amendment to this bill, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act. There were good ideas from both sides that aren't even allowed to be advanced.

The Republicans continue to bring bills to floor this way that limit the opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to actually do something to stop opioid abuse. It is frustrating.

As a legislator who has a lot of ideas about what we can do to actually save lives, increase freedom, and reduce opioid abuse, which would pass--I think a lot of my ideas would get 300, 350 votes here in the House--we are not even allowed to bring them forward. It is just so frustrating when we all know the human face of people who are suffering from being caught in the vicious cycle of opioid addiction. We have seen it affect so many families, including so many of our friends and even family.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the midst of a devastating opioid crisis that is spiraling out of control. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, opioids are responsible for 6 out of 10 overdose deaths in the country. More than 115 Americans die each day from opioid overdose.

The house is on fire; yet, with these bills today, unfortunately, the Republicans are not addressing this problem in a meaningful way. The American people need strong action from Congress to stem the tide of the opioid scourge and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lujan's legislation, H.R. 3495, the Opioid and Heroin Abuse Crisis Investment Act, which would make a difference by extending badly needed funding to combat the growing public health crisis of opioid-related addiction and deaths.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, a year and a half into this session of Congress, and finally the Republicans are bringing something to the floor around the opioid epidemic, but it is too little, too late. They prioritized, unfortunately, corporate tax giveaways over families that are struggling and communities which are affected by the path of destruction caused by opioid drug abuse.

As we address opioid addiction, we need to remember that many communities were suffering from substance use disorders long before Congress began to wake up to this issue. Opioid abuse affects both rural and urban communities and has a human face and a tragedy in every congressional district.

We should support efforts to address this through treatment instead of incarceration or punishment, through alternatives instead of giving Washington, D.C., bureaucrats more power.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.