Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Chairman Calvert for their efforts on this legislation and, in fact, the entire committee. My amendment is simple. It re-prioritizes taxpayer money by moving a small amount of funds from the Bureau of Land Management land acquisition account and redirecting them to the National Park Service maintenance backlog account. Over the years, Congress has sent billions of dollars into these accounts, allowing the Federal Government to acquire roughly 640 million acres. Today the Federal Government owns about 28 percent of all the lands in the United States, including about 40 percent of the land in my home State of Arizona. This ownership and the subsequent management of the 640 million acres comes at a great expense to the American taxpayer and poses overwhelming challenges for land managing agencies. The deferred maintenance backlog for the National Park Service--and I have here a list of those--totals nearly $12 billion. The National Mall alone is almost $800 million in deferred maintenance, and the Grand Canyon National Park is $350 million in deferred maintenance. The list goes on and on. Given these challenges, it defies logic that we would continue to spend millions of dollars to acquire more land that we can't pay to maintain. So I instead incur just $1.4 million of the net yield on this with my amendment to start this process of paying for the backlog. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding time to me. You know, an old Arizona farmer told me that when you put up a fence, the cow almost always goes over and leans on the fence to see how strong that fence is, because the cow wants to get to the other side. If the fence is strong, then it moves away, and you don't have that problem. But if your fence is a little bit loose in the wiring, it is going to go over, and that cow is going to get on out. And that is what has happened here. What has happened here is we have had a loose fence. We have failed to demand the requirements be met as we have requested. It is not bullying. It is not bullying to request documents. It is not bullying to subpoena and use the right that we have to subpoena. That is not bullying anybody. But I will tell you what the problem is--this resolution gets at the heart of it. It says that we are going to give you an extra 2 weeks. That is rebuilding the fence a little bit. That is rebuilding that fence a little bit and saying: We have oversight authority. You need to comply with that oversight authority. So we are going to rebuild the fence. And I fully support this resolution, Mr. Speaker. But I will tell you what, I would enthusiastically support a resolution for contempt, because there has not been compliance, nor has there been adequate reason given for noncompliance. So, I support this resolution 100 percent. I am going to be voting for it. I have cosponsored it. But I will tell you what, we need to be holding a resolution of contempt, because this body and its authority have been held in contempt.

Mr. BIGGS

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

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I commend Chairman Hensarling and the gentleman from Kentucky for their thoughtful efforts on this bill to put together a pilot program that is designed to help people who suffer this opioid addiction. I am grateful to them for their thoughtful efforts. My amendment simply narrows the reporting requirements that are imposed on the Secretary. This does not proscribe or necessarily limit the parameters of the report, but it prevents unnecessary prognostication on the part of the Secretary, which I believe will allow for an accurate and valuable assessment at the conclusion of the pilot program's testing period. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my Arizona colleagues, to honor the life and sacrifice of U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Alexander W. Conrad from Chandler, Arizona, who was recently killed by indirect enemy fire while in support of Operation Octave Shield in Somalia. Sergeant Conrad served as a human intelligence, noncommissioned officer and was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group. Sergeant Conrad's decorated service included two tours in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and Meritorious Service Medal. Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Conrad was one of Arizona's finest. He fought to free the oppressed and to ensure that all Americans live out their days in liberty. Please keep his family, friends, and comrades in your prayers. Mr. Speaker, I now ask that Members please join me and my Arizona colleagues for a moment of silence to remember U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Alexander W. Conrad.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate my friend, Humberto Lopez, for receiving the Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association's Hotelier of the Year Award this past May. Humberto Lopez rose from humble roots and is the true definition of the American Dream. He provided for his family as a young boy after his father passed away, worked diligently in college at the University of Arizona, and became a CPA. In 1975, he founded HSL Properties, Inc. and Arizona's tourism industry owes him its thanks for bringing excellence in hospitality and service to the outstanding hotels he manages. More importantly though, Humberto Lopez created the H.S. Lopez Family Foundation, which works to improve the quality of life for communities and families across southern Arizona through education, health, and welfare. Humberto Lopez's work to provide for Arizona and those in need is a testament to the success of the American Dream and the character we need in our citizens.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. We have blown it off the rails. When people are economically free and they have growth. They feel freer. They feel happier. Why is that? Because the wolf is not always at the door. They have moved beyond kind of that bare subsistence. That is really what I am finding as I go meet with my constituents. I talk to them. I am in a machine shop: What is going on here? Well, we have 18 workers. We think we could bring three more on. I said: Well, what is your problem? We have to find the workers, and we have to train them. We are going to invest in them and train them. That is what people are doing. That is what businesses, small and large, are doing. They are investing in people now. That is what you see when you have a good economy, because they want to bring people in. They need to bring people in.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, let's think about this for a second. When Arizona entered the recession era of 2008, the State tax revenue declined by about 40 percent in an 8-month period. Imagine trying to deal with that. What is happening now is the converse. We had to change our attitude. We had to create the type of business-friendly situation that lured and brought business back and provide those enticements. They are there. So what we have now is this situation localized of a business- friendly Tax Code, a business-friendly regulatory and then an overall attitude of: We want you to be here. We welcome new businesses. So, for instance, I toured Apple world data center in my district a little over a week ago. It kind of imploded, so there was no one there. What happened is, they now have 200 employees and they will expand. They will have 500 employees in high-paying, good jobs. Every one of those employees they spend money. They buy houses. They go out to eat. They go to movies. This ripples through the economy. And that is just one of the many businesses. Like I said, we have Deloitte coming in, with 2,500. We have got State Farm, I think, in or near the gentleman's district. When they are in, they are going to have 8,000 to 10,000 people. I was just at their facility.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I used to be the Senate president in the State of Arizona for 4 years and had an opportunity to work there.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, let me tell you, Maricopa County is the fastest growing county in the country; again, by a long shot. That is reflected because of the economy that is going on there. In the town that I live in, the town of Gilbert, they just announced 2,500 new jobs coming in with Deloitte. That is fantastic. When I moved to Gilbert many years ago, there were 12,000 people and cotton fields everywhere. Today, it is 250,000 people and it is just gigantic. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has measured the reported job growth in Arizona since the tax cuts and tax reform bill came forward. We have 125,000 workers who have seen increases in salaries or bonuses. That totals $215 million. Remember, that is just the reported benefits and bonuses and raises. The direct financial benefit as a result of tax reform for Arizona is over $1 billion. We anticipate a positive impact of over $1 billion in 2018. That is fantastic. In my district, the average family of four is going to receive tax relief in excess of $2,635. That is the projection. I can talk about the many events that we go to, the people we talk to. I was at an event recently. I was getting ready to leave and a gentleman came up to me and said: Are you Congressman Biggs? I said: Yes, I am. He said: Thank you. I said: Why is that? He said: The tax reform. I am a bartender. I will keep $5,000 more this year. I will have a net impact of a positive $5,000. I said: Well, do you care if I tell your story? He said: Yes, tell my story. We want to see this happen again and again. So I have a whole list I brought tonight. I can list Philip from Mesa who said that his wife's take-home pay has affected their household for the better. This is something they wanted specifically to mention. They don't consider the extra income to be ``crumbs.'' It is meaningful to people, whether you are living paycheck to paycheck or whatever. This is meaningful to them. Matt from Gilbert said that his increased tax refund for his business was appreciated and that he and his family will save literally thousands of dollars this year because of the tax cut laws. Rusty is a veteran from Mesa. He told us that the tax plan has done wonders for him and his small business. He is passing this on to his employees and they will be making more money per month and he has extra revenue in the business because other people generate this economic activity. This ripples through--it isn't like it is a one-off--it ripples through the entire economy. So they have hired a new employee. For a small business, that is a monumental decision: Do we have enough business? Do we have enough revenue to bring in a new employee? They hired someone. The tax cuts helped. So I want to take just a quick second and tell you that I go out when I am in the district to various businesses and small business owners, anywhere from 5, 15, maybe 20, 25 people in their business. Every one of them that I have met with in the last year, probably, is looking to expand. They have the problem of finding qualified employees. I have talked to the Governor in Arizona. We have literally hundreds of thousands of jobs where people are trying to hire folks and we can't get them in. This is a great thing to have, it is a great problem to have. I think we should be celebrating what is happening around this country. Particularly as a life-long Arizonan, I can tell you I am thrilled to see this happening in Arizona. We have bounced back from the 2008 recession. I am so grateful for the effort that the gentleman from Arizona has put in to get this bill through, for his leadership. I am grateful to have him for a friend and serve with him in Congress. I thank him for doing this Special Order tonight. This message has got to get out to the American people.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is right. That is how you communicate the story, because the story, Madam Speaker and Representative Schweikert, is that we can have a vital economy. It wasn't too many years ago when we were told 1.8 percent GDP growth would be it.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We want to keep it going. We follow this idea of a business cycle, but there are ways to smooth out and flatten out that business cycle. I also agree with what the gentleman said where we start talking about individuals, because too often our narrative is just: How do we flatten out the business cycle? That type of thing. I have Allan in Mesa who said: My standard of living has gone up. I have Dottie in Mesa who said that the tax cuts are a good thing, that they see more money in their pockets because of these tax cuts. These are the people and the individuals that I see on a regular basis. I know the gentleman sees them.

Mr. BIGGS. If you analyze it, that is a twofer, right? We are all concerned about the rehabilitation and reentry of people who have been in prison back into society. This is one way to do it. Give them an opportunity to get that skill and get job-placed. The second thing is--and it speaks specifically to what we are talking about here today--we should be overjoyed in this country to see the economic vibrancy that is going on, the reshaping, and, if I can say it, the renewal, the economic renewal, that we have needed.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, he did a good job tonight. He talked about his Starbucks experience. He talked about the young man, and I have met him, who is reentering from the prison.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, these are powerful stories.

Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I think he is. He may be, yes. We have talked about 8 to 10 stories, brief stories, that I brought up tonight of individuals, and, if I can humbly suggest, those are the things that, Madam Speaker, Congressman Schweikert, myself, and every one of our colleagues need to be continually reiterating, because these stories, these aren't one-off stories. These are going to be a lifetime of stories for these individuals, and we will find many, many more, as I do every time I go out.

Mr. BIGGS. Yes. Madam Speaker and Congressman Schweikert, that is what I am talking about. When I go into the machine shops, they are doing very technical, very high-quality machining. They are bringing kids out of high school, and they are training them. They are saying: This is the job you are going to get. These kids are walking out without any university debt. They are also walking into a job that is going to pay them a lot of money and can be a great career, where they can make money and have an adequate career to sustain and support themselves, their family, for a life. This is really one of the beautiful things that happens when you have this choice that the gentleman talked about, this mobility. That happens when you have a strong and solid economy. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman and I would agree: The economic foundation that allows these types of individuals and families and small businesses and big businesses to grow and provide interesting and creative developments in our society, it starts with us not having a confiscatory tax policy. It also continues by having a regulatory environment that, instead of disincentivizing or having perverse incentives, provides incentives for people to expand and be creative in the economy.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, last September, America's national debt topped $20 trillion for the first time in history. Almost 3 months ago, the debt exceeded $21 trillion, and we have an annual structural deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, the United States faces no greater menace than our inability to eliminate our debt and balance our budget. Our grandchildren will pay the price for our dereliction of duty and our seniors will soon see Social Security and Medicare funds depleted. This internal, bipartisan recklessness endangers all Americans. It is past time for us to become serious about balancing our budget and making significant cuts to Federal spending. If we do not change our course, we will one day see the crash of the American economy and the demise of a super power. Mr. Speaker, let's change our course before our debt reaches $22 trillion. The time for conversation is over. The time to act is now.

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, before giving my remarks, I include in the Record a statement by Senator Johnson explaining the intent of S. 204. Statement of Legislative Intent (By Sen. Ron Johnson on S. 204 (as considered by the House of Representatives)) In a recent article about pending right to try legislation, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was quoted as saying: ``In terms of making sure that it balances [access to experimental drugs] against appropriate patient protections . . . with [S. 204], we'd have to do a little bit more . . . in guidance and perhaps in regulation to achieve some of those goals, and I think those are the goals that Congress wants us to achieve.'' The article went on to quote Commissioner Gottlieb as saying: ``We felt that there were certain aspects of [S. 204] that could be modified to build in additional patient protections, but if you weren't able to do that legislatively, that there [was] a pathway by which you do that administratively and still remain consistent with the letter and the spirit of this law.'' In response to this article, Commissioner Gottlieb tweeted the ``FDA . . . stands ready to implement [right to try] in a way consistent with the intent of Congress.'' As S. 204's primary author and lead sponsor, I want to make this legislation's intent absolutely clear and remove any ambiguity that the FDA could use to implement right to try in a way contrary to its aim. S. 204, as originally introduced, applied to patients ``with a terminal illness,'' as defined by State law. In discussion with the FDA, the agency suggested it would prefer a uniform federal definition, especially one that already existed in federal statute or regulation, because an existing federal definition would facilitate implementation of the law. The FDA suggested defining terminal illness as an ``immediately life-threatening disease or condition.'' The FDA disclosed that its suggested definition would exclude, for example, patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy--an illness explicitly intended to be covered by the legislation. To be clear, I rejected this proposed definition because I believed it would inappropriately exclude patients with certain diseases from accessing treatments. By contrast, the legislation instead defines terminal illness as ``life- threatening disease or condition'' (which exists in current federal regulation), which the FDA confirmed would include patients diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Contrary to the preference of FDA official Dr. Janet Woodcock, who expressed the FDA's desire to draft the legislation ``to make sure we don't include patients we (the FDA) doesn't intend to include,'' I replied and rejected that notion by stating my intent was completely opposite hers: ``I wanted to make sure we didn't exclude any one we didn't intend to exclude.'' My aim from the beginning was to be as inclusive as possible such that as many patients as possible who are facing no available alternatives could potentially qualify. S. 204 is fundamentally about empowering terminally-ill patients and their doctors who, together with the cooperation of the developers of potentially life-saving therapies, should be in charge of making a determination about their own course of treatment. The bill is not intended to further empower any federal agency, including the FDA, to limit in any way the ability of an individual facing a life- threatening disease or condition from accessing treatment. S. 204 is about preserving a right to hope and about expanding individual freedom. It is not meant to empower the FDA to limit the right to hope by regulation or guidance. S. 204 includes a provision ensuring the Secretary may not use a clinical outcome associated with the use of an eligible investigational drug to delay or adversely affect review or approval of the drugs, unless use of such clinical outcome is critical to determining safety. This language is in no way intended to enable the FDA to expand the scope of existing safety determinations regarding investigational drugs. S. 204 requires, in certain circumstances, that an eligible investigational drug be under investigation in a clinical trial that is intended to form the primary basis of a claim of effectiveness in support of approval or licensure. According to the FDA, this language simply incorporates the standard definition of a clinical trial. This language is not in any way intended to enable the FDA to exclude any clinical trial as a basis for precluding access to treatments under right to try.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, to this tired argument, I respond that there is no such thing as false hope. You either have hope or you don't. I, for one, want those brave men and women who are fighting every day against terrible illnesses and almost insurmountable odds to have a choice, even if it is the last choice many of them will ever have the opportunity to make. I trust them to weigh the pros and cons and choose for themselves whether they wish to take a risk to try to save their own lives. Make no mistake: it is a choice. We are not offering a mandate, merely an option. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Right to Try Act and on behalf of the patients who are fighting each and every day to try to save their own lives. It has been a long ride, but we are in sight of our destination. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Fitzpatrick, for working with me on this cause from the moment we both entered office last year, and to extend my appreciation to Senator Johnson, whose efforts on behalf of right to try have been extraordinary. Mr. Speaker, I also thank Chairman Walden for his efforts and the leadership of President Trump and Vice President Pence. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge and thank my predecessor, Congressman Matt Salmon, for his tireless efforts to pass right to try. But it is the patients themselves and their tireless advocates who deserve the most recognition. I have said this before and I will continue to say it: when the Right to Try Act passes this Chamber and is signed into law by the President, it will be them, not us, who deserve the most credit for this remarkable victory. Everyone here has heard me speak about the Right to Try Act more than a few times already and everyone here is aware of the widespread support that this legislation has garnered. Forty States have already passed right-to-try legislation, often with unanimous or overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats alike. If we can't come together to support a commonsense cause such as this one, I am not sure what effort we can unite behind. Those on the other side of this debate--and they are a shrinking minority--argue that this legislation is unnecessary. Well, if it is so unnecessary, why do I receive phone calls and letters from patients each week urging me to do everything in my power to get this legislation passed? I have no doubt the FDA's expanded access program helps patients, but I also know that the agency's personnel, including Director Gottlieb himself, want to help as many patients as possible, but their efforts simply are not enough. The Right to Try Act doesn't eliminate the expanded access program. Far from it. We are merely providing another, more direct avenue for patients to acquire potentially lifesaving medications from pharmaceutical companies that don't require them to ask permission from a bureaucratic middleman. Another argument I hear from the naysayers, one that makes me angry, is that we are peddling false hope. False hope? What is that?

Mr. BIGGS

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's position, and I regrettably must disagree with that position and continue to urge passage of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I respect my colleague's reasoned opposition, although I disagree with him. I appreciate his passion on the issue, and I have no doubt that he and I will work together on many future projects. But with this, Mr. Chairman, I continue to hold my position and would urge the passage of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.