Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the vice chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), another valuable member of the Committee On Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), one of the primary drivers on this legislation.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I will be closing.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the rule debate on this bill, I outlined a case where the previous Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, provided the right to try for a patient, a Democratic donor, back in my home State of Texas. So, really, all we are asking today is that we give regular Americans, the forgotten men and women of this country, the same rights that the Speaker of the House provided to a Democratic donor back in October of 2008. Yesterday I quoted from an article from the Dallas Morning News. I have a different but similar article today talking about the same case, talking about the individual who had a diagnosis of multiple myeloma. There was a drug that perhaps would provide some hope. The individual was clearly terminal. This monoclonal antibody that was primarily used to treat multiple sclerosis might show some efficacy in treating the advanced form of multiple myeloma that this patient had. The drug had been through phase 1 clinical trials. The patient did not have time for the drug to go through phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. The article says: Enter Nancy Pelosi. Through means to which we have never been privy, Ms. Pelosi got the FDA to give the manufacturer the all-clear to give the drug to the patient. The patient got the drug, the patient took the drug, but, unfortunately, the patient died anyway, but his family remains grateful to the Speaker for interceding on his behalf. I don't doubt that they are. Yesterday, I quoted the Dallas Morning News article where the patient's spouse said, somehow, Nancy Pelosi got it done. Well, do you know what, Mr. Speaker? You shouldn't have to depend on the Speaker of the House to intercede on your behalf to get the FDA to get the manufacturer to make a drug available. If you are really up against a bad situation, wouldn't it be better if we provided everyone that same pathway? That is what this bill does today. That is why the right-to-try legislation was advocated by the President of the United States. In fact, I think it was the only legislative priority that the President laid out during his State of the Union Address where he wanted to see Congress act. So today, we are going to do that. Today, we are going to act. It is an important bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, while well-intentioned, this motion to recommit falls short of providing vulnerable patients full access to experimental treatments. Providing clarity on how negative side effects will be accounted for during drug approvals is helpful. Giving manufacturers, sponsors, physicians, hospitals, and clinical investigators certainty on liability protections is meaningful. Taken together, these improvements to the existing expanded access program could lead to enhanced manufacturer and sponsor participation and increased patient access. But this would not provide an alternative pathway for patients who cannot get into a clinical trial and have been rejected from participation in the existing compassionate use program. This bill before us today does provide an alternative pathway, one that strengthens patient protections with clearer informed consent and real-time adverse event reporting. This bill--the underlying bill--also makes certain that the FDA is notified when a patient receives an unapproved drug through the new alternative pathway to ensure proper oversight. These are significant patient protections. With this motion to recommit, we have a choice. The underlying bill is the only choice that gives those patients in the greatest need of help access to investigational drugs, with their consent, even after they were rejected from participating in a clinical trial or expanded access. Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. We need to vote to expand patient access. We need to vote down the motion to recommit. We need to vote for the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 787 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 787 provides for the consideration of two important bills whose focus is to empower the people of this Nation by removing governmental obstacles standing in the way of life and prosperity in this country. The first bill, H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, is a bipartisan effort from the Committee on Financial Services under Chairman Jeb Hensarling, authored by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin). The second piece of legislation in today's rule, H.R. 5247, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2018, authorizes the use of certain drugs to eligible patients who have been diagnosed with a stage of a disease or a condition for which there is a reasonable likelihood that death will occur in a matter of months. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, equally divided between the Chair and the ranking members of the Committee on Financial Services. The rule makes one amendment in order, authored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member. Further, the rule provides for the consideration of one motion to recommit with or without instructions. For H.R. 5247, the Right to Try Act of 2018, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the Chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Although no amendments to the bill were made in order, the rule does provide for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, before I speak about the substance of the two bills under consideration in the rule before us today, I do want to take a minute to honor our colleague and the Rules Committee's ranking member, Louise Slaughter, who passed away unexpectedly last week. I have known Ranking Member Slaughter since I first joined Congress in 2003. We spent countless hours debating every issue one can imagine in the Rules Committee upstairs, often long into the night. When I joined the Rules Committee in 2013, Ranking Member Slaughter was then the ranking member, but it was under her chairmanship where she ushered through the Affordable Care Act, where my largest memories reside. During the debate for the Affordable Care Act, I went up to H- 313, the Rules Committee hearing room, with 18 amendments under my arm, a small selection of the many ways I felt the law needed to be changed. Certain that I would only be able to get through a small portion of those amendments before I was cut off, I began my testimony. To the chairwoman's credit, she let me go on and on and on, and despite my being convinced that she was going to gavel me down at any second, she allowed me to finish speaking on all 18 amendments. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't until I actually became a member of the Rules Committee several years later that I discovered there is, in fact, no time limit for Members and witnesses to speak, much to the chagrin of many Members when we debate the National Defense Authorization Act. Ranking Member Slaughter was always proud of her background as a microbiologist, and it served her well during her tenure in Congress, because, after all, we deal with, sometimes, almost miniscule, microscopic issues, so time as a microbiologist would be good preparation. One moment where I was glad to be able to work with Ranking Member Slaughter was in 2007. This was right after the Democrats took control of the House. Ms. Slaughter had been pushing for years for legislation that would prohibit the discrimination of employees based on genetic information. The legislation was forward leaning, long before companies offered DNA testing kits in every pharmacy of the country. And, in fact, it was former Speaker Newt Gingrich himself who brought this bill to my attention, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which I was proud to support as it moved through the Energy and Commerce Committee and was eventually signed into law by President Bush. I would also like to mention Don Sisson, the staff director for the minority on the Rules Committee. Don has been with the committee for years--even at one point working under Chairman Drier--and has been with the ranking member of the Rules Committee through many events in the past years, including the death of her own husband, who, in fact, often sat in the audience of the Rules Committee and joined Ms. Slaughter during our late-night Rules hearings. Don is, indeed, a loyal staffer, himself hailing from Rochester, New York, and is a great example of how Ms. Slaughter's life and passing is affecting so many people. I do want to thank Don for his written remarks that were read into the record of the Rules Committee last night from the staff perspective on the passing of Ranking Member Slaughter. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to hold off making further comments on the legislation before us to allow others to speak. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it was indeed incredibly disappointing last week when our Democratic colleagues did not join us in supporting what was very carefully crafted right-to-try legislation. The President came and talked to us at the beginning of February, and right to try was one of the issues that he highlighted there from the podium. So it should be to no one's great surprise that this House would indeed take up and work on that issue that the President himself highlighted. Right to try was the one piece of legislation that President Trump specifically promised to the American people in the State of the Union address. Today, I want it to be known that I stand with the President. I stand with the thousands of Americans with terminal diseases and their families and their friends in getting this important bill passed. Since 2014, 37 States, including my home State of Texas, have passed a version of a right-to-try law, and through a strong grassroots movement, they have accomplished that. Today, the House is considering H.R. 5247, the Right to Try Act of 2018, which would improve access to experimental treatments for terminally ill patients and offer them a chance--a second chance, a third chance--at life. Over the course of the last decade, our Nation has achieved unprecedented innovation and scientific breakthroughs. Thanks to researchers in our academic institutions and those working in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, American patients have access to innovative treatments. Regardless of these achievements, I hear from patients with serious life-threatening conditions, including my constituents from north Texas, who are frustrated with what they see as regulatory barriers from trying and experimenting with new therapies when every other avenue has failed. It does seem we are at a crossroads when lifesaving treatments, while not yet approved, both exist and remain unavailable to patients. As a physician, I understand that access to investigational drugs and therapies is a deeply personal priority for those seeking treatment for themselves or loved ones with a serious and life-threatening condition. It is crucial to mention the multistakeholder efforts that have gone into improving the original right-to-try bill. Chairman Walden of the Energy and Commerce Committee led negotiations with the Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, and with other stakeholders to ensure that this legislation opens the door to innovative experimental drugs for these patients without necessarily compromising the vital work and the mission of the Food and Drug Administration. The product of those negotiations is a bill that strikes the proper balance between ensuring patient safety and granting access to these treatments. I also want to mention that the Subcommittee on Health did have a hearing in this regard October 3. We heard from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration during that hearing. We heard from a number of patient groups and stakeholders who felt that it was, in fact, in their best interest for us to advance legislation. Currently, the Food and Drug Administration conducts an expanded access program aimed at helping patients who do not qualify for clinical trials to gain access to therapies that the agency has yet to approve. While this program makes a good faith effort to help those patients, right to try would create an alternative pathway for those individuals, allowing them to access eligible investigational drugs. The fact is that individuals may not qualify for a clinical trial if they do not meet very specific patient inclusion criteria, which may include factors such as age, gender, type and stage of disease, previous treatment history, and other medical conditions. There are also many patients for whom participation in a clinical trial is not feasible, especially those who live in rural areas far from where those academic clinical trial sites exist. Most, if not all, of the patients with a terminal medical condition fall into one of these categories. This legislation allows those patients to participate in the alternative pathway so long as they are certified by a physician who is in good standing and abides by the rules laid out in the bill. Again, we worked closely with the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that the new alternative pathway does not hinder or conflict with the critically important oversight that that agency conducts. While some people may have reservations about the safety of a new pathway, this bill protects patients from manufacturers mislabeling or misbranding drugs, requires sponsors and manufacturers to report adverse events to the Food and Drug Administration, and provides certain liability protections for parties participating in the new pathway. This alternative pathway would also be limited to individuals who have exhausted all FDA-approved treatment options. Additionally, only certain investigational drugs are considered eligible under this legislation. In order to qualify, the drug must have completed a phase one clinical trial, must have an active application, must be under active development or production by the manufacturer, and must not be the subject of a clinical hold. Eligible patients include those suffering from a stage of a disease or condition for which there is reasonable likelihood that death will occur in a matter of months or that would result in significant irreversible morbidity that is likely to lead to premature death. This revised right-to-try bill also provides certainty to manufacturers in the drug approval process. It is essential that we do not create additional hurdles in that process. The legislation clearly states that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ``may not use a clinical outcome associated with the use of an eligible investigational drug . . . to delay or adversely affect the review or approval of such drug.'' Since the Health Subcommittee first considered the right-to-try legislation, the bill has passed in the Senate, and we have had many conversations with patients, advocates, the administration, and stakeholders on all sides of this complex topic. That collaborative effort was necessary, and I am certainly grateful to all who participated in those discussions. Madam Speaker, this represents months of hard work and thoughtful discussions and decisions. I believe this legislation is a positive step forward in our shared goal of improving care for American patients. Again, this was the one aspect of the President's State of the Union Address where he asked us specifically to act on this legislation. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Dallas Morning News from 2010. The title of the article--and I am not going to read the whole thing--is: ``Pelosi Pulled Strings to Let Dying Dallas Lawyer Try Experimental Cancer Drug.'' [From the Dallas Morning News, 2010] Pelosi Pulled Strings To Let Dying Dallas Lawyer Baron Try Experimental Cancer Drug (By Todd J. Gilman) Washington.--Dallas' top Democratic donors will cut big checks to share dinner later this month with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Most will be motivated by a desire to protect the party's congressional majority. Lisa Blue will have an extra reason: to say thanks for Pelosi's efforts when her husband, Fred Baron, was dying of bone marrow cancer. His only option was an experimental drug whose manufacturer refused to give permission to use it for Baron's condition. ``He was a big fan of hers, and now I am as well,'' Blue said. Baron, the ``King of Toxic Torts,'' built a fortune suing on behalf of asbestos victims. He died the week before Election Day 2008 at age 61. A prolific Democratic fundraiser, he served as finance chief that year for his friend John Edwards, who also made his fortune in court. Baron later acknowledged funneling large sums to Edwards' mistress--a scandal that gave ammunition to those who already despised trial lawyers. But to Blue, first and foremost, Baron was a husband. The tale she tells of his final weeks is not so different than any widow might tell, except, of course, that the couple had friends in especially high places--friends like Pelosi, who will headline the Aug. 24 dinner to raise cash for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In 2002, Baron was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By October 2008, his doctors at the Mayo Clinic were telling him he had just days to live. They also offered a glimmer of hope. Over the years, the couple had donated about $1 million to Mayo. The staff was especially diligent, Blue said. They tested an arsenal of drugs and finally discovered that Baron's cancer responded surprisingly well, in the lab, to a drug called Tysabri. Mayo had an ample supply, but the drug was--and still is-- approved only for treatment of multiple sclerosis and Crohn's disease. The manufacturer, Biogen Idec, refused to give permission, even under special ``compassionate use'' rules that protect a drug-maker from a black mark in case of an adverse outcome. Biogen said it didn't want to jeopardize the drug's availability to other patients. (The company did not respond to a request for comment last week.) ``I told Mayo, `I'll sign anything, I'll release anything. Just give him the drug,' '' Blue said. Blue, also a top lawyer, began making calls. She started with Lance Armstrong, the bicyclist and cancer survivor, whom she had represented. ``I started going through Fred's Rolodex,'' she said. ``I called every politician, every celebrity that I knew and just begged them to help. . . . I must have made 200 calls.'' She called clinics in Canada, trying in vain to find doctors willing to administer the drug without Biogen's OK. She hired a lawyer and prepared to sue Mayo to force it to dispense the drug. She even bought some Tysabri online from Australia, intending to send stepson Andrew Baron to smuggle it back, she said. The younger Baron posted an open plea online to Biogen, noting that Bill Clinton, Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and even the head of the Food and Drug Administration had urged the company to reconsider. ``You talk about mental anguish,'' Blue recounted. ``Fred, every day, would wake up and he said, `Am I going to get the drug?' '' Others were supportive, she said, but Pelosi ``put her heart and soul'' into the cause, as did Harkin. Somehow--Blue still isn't sure how--Pelosi cajoled the FDA to find a legal justification that let Mayo administer the drug, even without Biogen's consent. ``Nancy figured out a way,'' she said. The drug beat back the cancer for a few days, but not enough. Blue has no illusion that a typical family could pull such strings. ``There are so many cases like Fred's,'' she said. ``One thing he taught me was politics matters. What a personal experience for me to understand how politics matters.'' And no, she added, ``It's not fair that other people can't pick up the phone and make the government give them a drug. . . . It was just such an awakening about how the drug companies have so much power.'' That's what she'll tell Pelosi over dinner.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this article references events that occurred in 2008. In 2002, this individual was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By October of 2008, his doctors were telling him that he had just days to live. They also offered a glimmer of hope. There was perhaps one chance of therapy. It was an unproven therapy that might, in fact, be helpful to him. The family made inquiries, made entreaties, but they were not successful until they invoked the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who actually helped this lawyer get access to this medication. Unfortunately, it was not successful. His disease spread to a point where the therapy was not helpful. But the family observed, ``Nancy figured out a way.'' How about that. The Speaker of the House figured out a way to get this medication to an individual who was dying of a disease, who obviously was very important--a large Democratic donor, and I get that. But the Speaker of the House intervened because the clinic where he was being treated felt that they did not have the authority to give him the medication. The company that was manufacturing the medication did not feel that it was in anyone's best interest to give him the medication. But Nancy found a way. Well, Mr. Speaker, today, we are going to find a way. The President asked us, and we are going to find a way for those millions of Americans who are asking for that same chance. So today's rule provides for consideration of two important consumer- driven pieces of legislation: H.R. 4566, by Mr. Poliquin, will help alleviate some of the regulations that were put in place under the Dodd-Frank Act. H.R. 5247, the right-to-try bill which garnered a majority of bipartisan support last week, will give patients who have nowhere else to turn another option to fight the potentially fatal health conditions with which they have been diagnosed. I do want to thank President Trump and Vice President Pence for their leadership on this issue and helping us understand here in this body how important it is to move forward with this patient-centered legislation. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, just a little over a month ago, President Trump stood here at this podium behind me and told us: ``People who are terminally ill should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure.'' Along with President Trump, I want to give patients a chance right here at home. A little over a year ago, this House passed the 21st Century Cures Act, made unprecedented acceleration of discoveries. Thanks to our researchers and our academic institutions, and those working in the pharmaceutical and medical device companies, Americans have access to more and more innovative treatments. However, I continue to hear from patients with serious life-threatening conditions, including my constituents in north Texas, who are frustrated with what they see as regulatory barriers from trying and experimenting with new therapies when everything else has failed. When potentially lifesaving treatments exist but remain unavailable to patients, we have an opportunity to move past what has long been a dilemma towards delivering a hopeful message. Since 2014, 38 States, including Texas, have passed a version of right-to-try laws. I am pleased that the House of Representatives is considering right- to-try legislation that gives patients a chance at life by improving access to experimental treatments. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people deserve thanks for getting this bill to us today, but, in particular, I want to thank the President of the United States, President Trump, and Vice President Pence for their leadership in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to support this bill.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rodney Mitchell, associate dean of students at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas. He tragically passed away February 26, following almost 30 years of affiliation to UNT first as a student and then as a cherished staff member. Rodney was a UNT alumnus who earned his BA in Applied Arts and Sciences in 1996 and his MPA in 1999. A proud member of the Mean Green family, he was a life member of the UNT Alumni Association, a Mean Green football season ticket holder, and supporter of various student programs with his gifts to the university. The Residence Hall Association created the ``Rodney T. Mitchell Advocate of the Year'' award in honor of his service and leadership as the College Inn Hall Director and Residence Hall Association President. After working for the City of Denton as the Assistant to the City Manager, he returned to UNT as a member of staff in 2001. He served as assistant director for academic development--Upward Bound program and as director of TRIO Upward Bound and student support services before becoming associate dean of students in 2013. Throughout his time at UNT, it was clear that Rodney had an enormous heart for students. He assisted students through the SOS (Seeking Options and Solutions) Program, opened and grew the UNT Food Pantry, and oversaw various intervention programs to support student success. He made a significant impact as a part of the University and community he loved, touching thousands of lives as a generous, caring servant. It was at UNT that Rodney met his wife Melanie. Together they served for many years at the Denton Church of Christ at Welch Street on the UNT campus and at the Singing Oaks Church of Christ. Rodney was a kind and generous man, and the world is a lesser place with his departure. His servant heart is a shining example as we seek to treat others as we want to be treated. He is survived by Melanie, a current UNT employee, and his 13-year-old son, Hayden. On behalf of the 26th Congressional District, I wish to extend condolences to Melanie, Hayden, Rodney's mother Joyce Mitchell, his father Marvel Mitchell, his brother Zachary Mackey and many other family members, as well as the entire UNT and Denton communities. Rodney will be remembered and loved forever by his family and a multitude of friends. I am grateful for the legacy he has left for the UNT and our North Texas community.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Tom McCoy, Ph.D., Vice President of Research and Innovation, as he retires from his position at the University of North Texas. Dr. McCoy joined UNT from his role as Vice President for Research, Creativity and Technology Transfer at Montana State University in July 2013 where he had previously helped MSU reach Carnegie Tier One research status. In assuming the role at UNT, Dr. McCoy was charged with similar expansion of the university's growth, breadth and impact in research toward the Tier One status here in Texas. Ultimately, UNT was announced as reaching the classification in February 2016. Additionally, Dr. McCoy ably led UNT's path forward with the development of the 2017-2022 Strategic Plan for Research which was approved by the President and submitted to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. This was accomplished, along with continued efforts on organization and funding related to the four Institutes of Research Excellence; pursuit of partnerships involving the Army Research Lab and also Denton Municipal Electric; recruitment of targeted research faculty; review of grant management processes; and review and allocation of research facilities and related processes. I have personally appreciated Dr. McCoy's direct involvement and assistance with the Annual Energy Efficiency Summit held each July at UNT's Discovery Park and the educational opportunity it affords the Constituents of the 26th Congressional District and the showcase it provides of UNT's facilities and research efforts. I wish both he and his wife Shari much happiness in their retirement plans. I have been honored to represent them during their time as residents in Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 767) to establish the Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Training pilot program to address human trafficking in the health care system, as amended.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on the bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 767, the Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Act of 2018, introduced by our colleague, Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee. This bill will help in the fight against human trafficking. Worldwide, nearly 21 million people are victims of human trafficking, forced labor, or exploitation. This bipartisan initiative expands and further codifies the Department of Health and Human Services' Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond program, which enhances the healthcare system's response to human trafficking by requiring the program to provide grants to healthcare sites, to work with stakeholders to develop flexible training modules, and to provide technical assistance to health education programs. This legislation will teach health professionals to identify and to respond to victims of human trafficking. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.